Wednesday, September 30, 2026

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 684, H.R. 9340.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The clerk will report.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (273 characters)

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 684, H.R. 9340, a bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes.

Measures Placed on the Calendar En Bloc

Pages S5189–S5190 · Official text

Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The leader is correct.

The clerk will read the bills by title for the second time en bloc. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (278 characters)

A bill (S. 5602) to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the planning and construction of any structure or monument at Memorial Circle at Columbia Island/Lady Bird Johnson Park in the District of Columbia. A bill (S. 5603) to prohibit the demolition of Presidential memorials.

Mr. President, in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding en bloc.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV.

Waiving Quorum Calls

Page S5190 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions for H.R. 7008, H.R. 9340, and the Sonderling nomination.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Business Before the Senate

Page S5190 · Official text

Mr. President, the theme of the Senate this week is common sense. Today, we will be voting on two eminently commonsense pieces of legislation: the Stop Insider Trading Act and the Ratepayer Protection Act. The Stop Insider Trading Act actually pairs two commonsense measures: a stock purchase ban for Members of Congress and a voter ID measure. Neither requires much explanation. To ensure that Members of Congress and their families are not benefiting financially from insider knowledge of the market, the stock purchase ban would prohibit Members of Congress, their spouses, or their dependent children from purchasing stocks issued by public companies while the Member is in office. It would also ensure transparency when it comes to stock sales by requiring Members of Congress and their immediate family to provide advance, public notice of any stock sale. And these rules are enforced with real penalties. It is a pretty simple measure but an important way to ensure that Members of Congress are held to the standards that Americans should be able to expect of their representatives. The other half of the Stop Insider Trading Act is also pretty simple. It would do nothing more than require that Americans present a photo ID when they go to vote. That is it. Very simple and something that has the overwhelming--overwhelming--support of the American people. And when I say "the American people," I mean the American people--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, everyone. While this vote should be a no-brainer, I do have some concerns, because while the American people overwhelmingly support a photo ID requirement, for some bizarre reason, congressional Democrats have decided that photo ID for voting is a step too far. I say "bizarre" because I haven't seen Democrats crusading against showing ID in any of the other situations where Americans are required to present their photo identification. My Democrat colleagues don't seem to have a problem with showing photo ID to board an airplane, to rent a car, to start a new job. They don't seem to have a problem with showing photo ID at the doctor's office or when buying alcohol or when opening a bank account. They don't seem to have a problem--if the Presiding Officer can believe this, they don't seem to have a problem with having a requirement to show a photo ID at their own political events. Think about that. It is only when it comes to voting that congressional Democrats suddenly, inexplicably see photo ID as a terrible problem, even though not only the majority of Americans but the majority of Democrats support photo identification. It is pretty hard to explain the Democrats' position, but I suspect one of two things is going on here. Either Democrats are just reflexively opposing this proposal because it came from Republicans or Democrats believe that there are, in fact, people out there voting illegally and that it is benefiting Democrats and they would like to keep that going. I will say that 13 House Democrats found voter ID and the stock purchase ban to be so common sense that they broke with their party and supported the Stop Insider Trading Act when it moved through the House. I would love to see Senate Democrats follow their example. I guess we will see soon enough. In addition to the Stop Insider Trading Act, the Senate will be voting on the Ratepayer Protection Act this week as well. I know I have used the words "common sense" a lot lately, but as I said, it is the theme of this week's legislation. And the Ratepayer Protection Act is as common sense as it gets. It would simply promote the adoption of a standard that would require data centers to shoulder the electricity costs associated with their operation and construction. That is it--a simple piece of legislation designed to protect hard-working Americans from the increased energy costs associated with data centers. The Ratepayer Protection Act passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, with almost every Democrat--almost every Democrat--as well as Republicans supporting it. So you would think it would have had a pretty easy passage through this Chamber as well, but when we brought this legislation up here in the Senate a couple of weeks ago, Democrats objected. For what reason, I don't know--presumably a political one. Given the overwhelming support for this measure in the House, it is difficult to conclude that Democrats blocked this bill for any reason other than the desire to deny Republicans another win in an election year, which is a pretty poor reason for opposing a measure to protect Americans from higher energy costs. But they have another chance this week, and I guess we will see. Will Democrats support commonsense measures like a stock purchase ban, photo ID to vote, and protection from higher energy costs? Or will they continue to play politics? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Page S5190 · Official text

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The Democratic leader is recognized.

Trump Administration

Page S5190 · Official text

Mr. President, well, for 2 years, Democrats fought fiercely to protect the interests of the American people while Senate Republicans fought tooth and nail to shield Donald Trump. We all knew how disastrous this President would be. We set out to expose how Trump and his party were hurting the American people, and we would do everything we could to stop them. We fought to lower the skyrocketing costs of Trump's economy: the cost of food, the cost of housing, the cost of energy, the cost of groceries, the cost of gasoline. Republicans pushed policies to drive those costs up. We exposed Trump for his unprecedented corruption; Republicans aided and abetted his grifts every step of the way. We worked relentlessly to control Trump's chaos that we see every day; Republicans encouraged him as he spiraled out of control. Later today, I will talk more about how Senate Democrats have worked together to block the worst Trump's GOP had to throw at the American people. Now, of course, there is still a lot of work remaining to see America through the storm this administration has unleashed. But Senate Democrats are well positioned to stand up for the American people with the same devotion, cooperation, and discipline we showed these past 2 years.

Ratepayer Protection Act

Pages S5190–S5191 · Official text

Mr. President, now on the weak data center bill, the only thing that came out of Trump's big AI summit yesterday was a photo op; no Federal guardrails to protect against catastrophic risk, no signal from Trump that he plans to act. All Trump had to say was "there should be tremendous self-regulation." Relying on self-regulation is how we got into this mess. Americans are calling for real solutions, real guardrails, real solutions on AI. Republicans' toothless data center bill completely misses the mark. Senate Republicans would do nothing to require data center companies to pay for their rising costs in the surrounding communities; Senate Democrats want to make it mandatory for data centers to cover their own costs by law, not by suggestion or hope or whim. This bill doesn't do anything to mandate safety standards for AI. Democrats would require safety standards to protect the American people. A guardrail without teeth isn't a guardrail. The Republicans' legislation doesn't even apply to all data centers. This shoddy bill couldn't get any flimsier. That is because the Republicans really don't want to do it; they don't want to oppose some of the big interests that don't want any regulation. To put it simply: Republicans' data center bill follows Trump's lead in ignoring Americans' pressing concerns about AI while our legislation would actually address them with guardrails that have real teeth. Americans don't want another hollow messaging bill. They don't want to watch Senate Republicans give themselves a pat on their back when they have accomplished nothing. Americans want to see this Republican majority put the country first once and for all. Senate Republicans think even listening to the American people ought to be optional too. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking real action on AI. I urge Republicans to put aside their feeble bill and put Americans over party.

Stop Insider Trading Act

Page S5191 · Official text

Mr. President, on stock trading, only Senate Republicans would dare call a bill that permits Members of Congress to continue to own, sell, and in some instances buy stocks a stock trading ban. They can't be serious. The Republican bill is a permission slip for corruption, not a stock trading ban. There has been a real bipartisan effort to ban Members of Congress from trading stocks and profiting off their insider information. I have supported those efforts for years. Last year, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs advanced a strong bipartisan bill that would actually ban stocks, not pretend to do so. Senate Republicans didn't want it. The Senate GOP let their counterparts in the House take out all of the ban's teeth and fill it with poison pills so it could never pass. This bill has no reform, no accountability, no substance. Republicans want to explicitly allow Members to continue trading stocks in privately held companies, including in companies the Members oversee; a formula for disaster and corruption. That is as clear a conflict of interest as one can imagine. Under the Republican bill, Members would still get to own and sell stocks, and most importantly, this bill doesn't do anything--anything--to stop Donald Trump from trading stocks. I guess Republicans forgot that Trump has made nearly 30,000 stock trades in the past year and raked in billions--more than all of Congress combined. Democrats have offered multiple bills that would close all these loopholes. Republicans have done nothing to stop corruption; not in the White House, not in Congress, nowhere. The Republican toothless stock trading bill is as ineffective as a screen door on a submarine. Let's be clear: They don't even want it to pass. They designed the bill to fail. They loaded their legislation with poison pills that they knew would make this bill dead on arrival. They are even afraid of this wet noodle, weak milquetoast bill. The voting restrictions in this bill and the voting restrictions that they added as a poison pill are more extreme than any law in any State. It would make voting more difficult in every State than it is now. They are some of the most twisted, radical schemes Trump has ever dreamed up to rig our election. Republicans know no one wants these provisions, so they included them to kill their own bill. This hollow bill isn't a stock trading ban; it is Republicans' last-ditch effort to save face. If Republicans' closing pitch is a bill that would let them continue to profit off their office and allow Trump to rig the election, that is their problem. Americans don't buy it.

Tribute to Cietta Kiandoli

Pages S5191–S5192 · Official text

Mr. President, and finally, on a much happier note. Nearly a decade ago, I made one of the greatest decisions anyone in this line of work can make: I hired a top-notch, first-rate person who was so talented in every way. I hired Cietta Kiandoli. That was a time with a lot of change. Our party was still finding its footing after a stinging election loss. I had just become Democratic leader. My staff was expanding. We were determined to rally our coalition and make it bigger and stronger than ever before. Everyone my team and I talked to, we said we needed someone to create that coalition, help glue it together--mentioned the same person. They said: Hire Cietta. Cietta joined my leadership staff as director of external affairs, but the title doesn't adequately capture all that Cietta has done and does for this country. I am not sure any title could. Cietta has always had the same star to connect people, policy, and politics, and to do it in such an exquisite and effective way. That is what she did before joining my team, that is what she did for the past decade on my team, and that is what she will continue to do as she starts her next chapter. Name any group in our big tent--any labor union, advocacy organization, caucus--the chances are they have not only met Cietta but have known her for years, and they most likely adore her. Cietta's job isn't easy. She gets a lot of telephone calls from various members of our coalition. Sometimes, they call her about a hard vote. Sometimes they call her about a fire that needs to be put out. Sometimes--actually, many times--they call her begging for her to get me to switch up the jokes that I repeat at the events, year after year after year. She has had moderate, marginal success in that regard. If they only knew how many times she has heard my jokes. And I see her eyes roll when I laugh at my own joke that I have told for the hundredth time. I am sure she will miss hearing me talk about the can of peas, the barber bookie, and all of my other greatest hits. On a more serious note, there are plenty of people who know how to command respect, but there are fewer who can match Cietta's ability to command the trust of any room she walks into. She is a truth-teller, and she tells the truth all the time. So they know, when she says something, it is the real deal. I have seen that hundreds--hundreds--of times to the benefit of all of us, myself, and the coalitions that we bring together. It doesn't matter who she is meeting. They can tell from the jump that her heart is in the right place. They can see how much she cares about serving New Yorkers and Americans from one end of the country to the other. So just as others have come to trust Cietta, so have I. She is among the people I trust most. She is a truth-teller. My staff knows that I move a mile a minute. When I get riled up, Cietta knows how to get me to slow down, to think about the bigger picture. Just having her in the room during a meeting or on the line during an important call helps put me at ease. I imagine Cietta won't miss the long days and late-night calls from yours truly, but I hope she knows how much we are going to miss her, her good humor, her calm, her willingness to share her wisdom with whoever happens to need it. Cietta, I look forward to seeing what you will do next, but I know what it will be. It will keep bringing people together for the good of the country. You will continue making everyone around you better--and she will always fight. You will always fight to connect people, policy, and politics. Cietta, thank you for your friendship. Thank you for your dedication. Thank you for your loyalty. Thank you for caring so much about this country and the people you have fought so hard for. You will always be a member of the Schumer family, and we wish you Godspeed. I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The Senator from California.

Stop Insider Trading Act

Page S5192 · Official text

Mr. President, here we are, 34 days before election day--or as I like to suggest, 34 days before the final day to vote, because we are encouraging people to cast their ballot early, if they can, or vote by mail, if and where they can. But instead of talking about the issues that are most on the minds of American families, Republicans are here again trying to distract from those issues and to, frankly, create confusion amongst voters in order to protect the President and the party from their failed policies. Now, Senate Democrats agree that something real needs to happen to rein in the ability of elected officials, especially Members of Congress, from making decisions that impact the companies that are in their stock portfolios. That is true. The American people deserve to have confidence that their elected representatives are making decisions in the best interests of the American people and not in your bank account or your stock investments. But that is not what this bill will do. This bill does not ban Members of Congress from holding stocks or trading stocks, and it exempts the most powerful elected official of all--the President of the United States--from a stock trading ban. Now, let's be clear, colleagues, because we have seen this time and again. When the President makes announcements or posts on Truth Social, he has the potential to move markets, shift the economy. That is truly an awesome power, one that nobody should be able to exploit for their own profit. But that is exactly what Donald Trump has done and has done over and over again. That is why, since returning to office last year, his net worth has grown some $4 to $5 billion--billion with a "b." Now, ABC News service said, just last year, that he made over 21,000 stock trades across 8 accounts in a matter of--the average was about 85 trades per day--85 trades per day. Does that sound like something that is singularly focused on improving the quality of life of the American people? I don't think so. Bloomberg News found that President Trump has traded stocks more than every Member of Congress combined. Think about that for a minute. One person, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, the "Trader in Chief," made more stock trades in 1 year than all 535 Members of Congress. Now, NBC News found that 327 of these trades were made exactly 1 day before he rolled back his "Liberation Day" tariffs. Was that a coincidence? I think not. How much grift from his own decision making? The American people deserve to know. But the President's corruption goes even further. His social media company is literally selling access to hedge funds and Wall Street brokers--early access--to his major market-shaping announcements. Let that sink in for a moment. Trump has been making more stock trades than all of Congress combined while backing a ban that excludes him. That is what the bill before us does. Is anyone surprised the President would support a bill that does nothing to rein him in? How can we possibly go home and tell the American people with a straight face that we are stopping the corruption in Washington when the biggest exploiter is the President and he is immune from this bill? The author of this bill refused to put any guardrails on the biggest, most corrupt stock trader of them all. Now, don't take that to mean that Democrats don't want to do anything in this space. We do. In fact, the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, last year, put out a bipartisan bill that would actually address this issue. But folks watching at home should recognize that that bipartisan bill with teeth is not what Republicans have chosen to put on the floor today, 34 days before election. Instead, it is a sham bill that doesn't have the teeth and doesn't rein in the "Trader in Chief." I have tried to bring up that bill, by the way, repeatedly in the Senate, and Senate Republicans have blocked it on multiple occasions. So today is not a serious attempt to address the kind of corruption here in Washington that the American people may care about. And to add further proof to that point, this isn't just a sham attempt to ban Members of Congress who trade in stocks, because it includes a voter ID poison pill in it. This so-called voter ID bill would impose a far stricter and more burdensome Federal standard in all 50 States. Now, some States have voter ID; some States don't. Those that do have laws, at the State level, that require an ID allow Tribal IDs or student IDs issued by the State government or State entity to count. But the Federal provisions in this bill do not. And it goes even worse for the one-third of American voters that prefer to vote by mail, if they have that option in their State--and 80 percent of Californians, by the way. This requirement that you have to have a copy of your ID in the envelope with your ballot for it to count eviscerates the secret ballot that we value so much. Here is what the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Utah had to say--and in Utah the Lieutenant Governor is also the State election official--when it was included in the SAVE Act. And now it is in the measure before us.

Text printed in the Record (135 characters)

The SAVE America Act requires a vote[r] to include a photocopy of their ID . . . violating our Constitutional right to a secret ballot.

So don't just take my word for it. This is the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Utah. And she is not the only Republican opposed to this kind of legislation. The Republican Governor of Ohio, with a similar State bill, said:

Text printed in the Record (158 characters)

[The measure] would not discourage fraud, would not add any real security, and would create an additional and significant burden for Ohioans who vote by mail.

All for what? In pursuit of the Big Lie that the President has been claiming for, what, a decade now about massive voter fraud? While every expert and every study have found the same thing. Despite the conspiracy theories, voter fraud is already illegal. Let's establish that. It is already on the books as illegal. But it is also extremely, extremely rare. So what is this bill truly about anyway? It is not about cracking down on corruption, as Republicans claim it is. It is not going to, you know, address the massive voter fraud that does not exist. Again, it is misdirection. It is a distraction, and it threatens to suppress the vote 34 days before the election. And all Senate Republicans realize that the only thing they have to show for their control of government for the last 2 years--right?--you are the majority in the Senate. You are the majority in the House. Your party occupies the White House. When families are struggling with rising inflation, the rising cost of healthcare and housing, groceries, mortgages, gas prices, an unauthorized war in Iran, instead of actually addressing those issues with real proposals, they are seeking to distract and confuse. The American people deserve better than this, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on this cynical measure. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy)

The Senator from Ohio.

Ratepayer Protection Act

Pages S5192–S5193 · Official text

Jon Husted (R-OH)

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about making life more affordable by lowering electricity prices through my bill, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Americans are increasingly realigned on the computing power of data centers in nearly every part of their daily lives--from medicine and manufacturing to agriculture, education, national defense, and the delivery of basic services. As our reliance on this technology grows, so does the demand for data centers across the country. But more computing power requires more electricity, and when larger data centers come online, the cost of providing that power cannot be pushed onto everyone else. We have got to protect the American ratepayer, the American customer. We have to make sure that the growth of these data centers does not mean higher electric bills for working families, for senior citizens, or for small businesses. The companies driving this growth should be held responsible for the power they need to operate, not the American ratepayer. That is what we are talking about today: making the data centers accountable, not the American ratepayer. We need to win the global race for artificial intelligence--I don't think that anyone is disputing that fact--and we should not do it, though, by forcing American families and businesses to subsidize Big Tech. That is why I have introduced the Ratepayer Protection Act. My bill ensures that large data centers pay their fair share of electricity costs, infrastructure costs that they require, requiring them to own the responsibility for those costs, rather than shifting them to other ratepayers. I have been focused on this issue for a long time, since my work in State government, where I pushed Big Tech companies to enter into fair agreements with communities where they were building. In March, I went to the White House to watch the President sign the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. This summer, I took it a step further by introducing S. 5028, which we are talking about today, to turn that commitment into law. We can support American innovation. America is an innovative country. We must remain an innovative country and lead the world in superintelligence and build the infrastructure we need for the future without asking families, seniors, and small businesses to pick up the tab. So, today, we are considering the House-passed version of my bill before this Chamber. It passed the House 417 to 3. That is why we are here--to focus on this bill--because no other bill exists, other than this one, that can allow us to get this job done today. The Ratepayer Protection Act outlines a standard for data centers to pay their own way for electricity and the grid and the infrastructure, and it requires State utility regulators to consider this standard to ensure that large-load customers pay the full incremental costs of the infrastructure needed to serve them--pay for it all. The States can't avoid this. They are going to have to confront the issue. Our bill will require them to do that. Those standards could also require financial assurances so that families, communities, and small businesses are not left paying for stranded infrastructure costs from a project that they say they are going to build, but it gets delayed or abandoned. A lot of times, they pass that cost along to everyone else. No, this legislation would help make sure that that doesn't happen. Last week, I brought the Ratepayer Protection Act to this very Senate floor and asked for unanimous passage. Why? Because it passed the House 417 to 3. Why delay? Why not get this done immediately? Well, I can't answer that. You will have to ask those who blocked it because it is ready to go. It could be law today if we just decide that we are going to look out for the American ratepayer, and we are going to take action to do so. As I mentioned, it passed the House 417 to 3. That is almost unprecedented in this era of politics and governing here in Congress. That means that over 99 percent of the Representatives agreed my bill was worth passing. Let that sink in. Ninety-nine percent of the House of Representatives cast a vote in favor of the Ratepayer Protection Act becoming law. Among those who voted yes on the Democratic side were Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and every single Member of the House Democratic leadership. They all supported the bill in the House. This bill had unanimous support from House Republicans, from Speaker Johnson to the Freedom Caucus. All of them supported my bill. You can't get any broader support than that, folks, in Washington, DC, in this day and age. The Ratepayer Protection Act is such a no-brainer that the most conservative and the most liberal Representatives all agreed it was good policy. They all agreed. The House of Representatives passed it. It is here. It is ready to go. All we have to do is take yes for an answer, and we will begin today at lowering electricity rates for American ratepayers. The American people have spoken loud and clear about this issue. They want the data centers to be held accountable. We have a chance to do that, to lower their electric rates. Let's take advantage of this wonderful opportunity we have to build bipartisan support around this bill. It is clear that Big Tech should be paying their own way, not passing the cost onto local communities and States. This bill does that. It does that. In a few moments, my colleagues and I will vote on the Ratepayer Protection Act. Together, we can send this bill to the President's desk for his signature today and prove to the American people we heard them; that we are doing something to actually help lower their prices--the prices that they pay for electricity. The Ratepayer Protection Act represents the most meaningful bipartisan step Congress can take to protect the American people from paying higher prices for electricity. It demonstrates that in Washington, it is still possible to work in a bipartisan way to address the problems most pressing to the American people. And I am proud to have led this effort in the Senate. Let's rise above the politics that often drag this place down and deliver for the American people and do our jobs. But I want to be clear about something, this bill--this bill--is the only path that we can take today that will lower electricity prices. No other options remain. This is it. This is the bill that can get it done. It is ready to go. All we have to do in this Chamber is say yes and it will be on the President's desk and we can prove to the American people we actually care about what they are asking us to do to lower their electricity prices. Any obstruction to that is to say no to them, that you don't want to do it. I listened to the Democratic leader talk about this bill a few moments ago, and I implore him: Stop blocking this bill. Stop blocking this bill. Let it go. Give us a chance, on a bipartisan basis, to prove that we care about what the American people are asking us to do: lowering their prices; making life more affordable; in this case, lowering their electricity prices. Give the American people what they want: lower energy prices and holding data centers accountable. I will conclude with this because I would like to get this done on a bipartisan basis, and I would like to be able for everybody in this Chamber to take credit for lowering electricity prices and holding data centers accountable. But if Democrats block this bill, they will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they do not care about affordability and that they will not do anything to take action to help. That is what blocking this bill will prove to the American people. Let's listen. Let's get this done. Let's lower electricity prices. Let's hold data centers accountable. And let's stop blocking a path to affordability. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Tennessee.

Ratepayer Protection Act

Pages S5193–S5194 · Official text

Bill Hagerty (R-TN)

Mr. President, I rise in support of my esteemed colleague from Ohio, and I want to join him and applaud his leadership on this critical legislation. Why? Because America is undergoing technological advancement at unprecedented speed. As we push new frontiers in this new era of superintelligence, innovation can have a tremendously positive impact on our society and on our Nation's competitiveness. At the same time, we find ourselves neck and neck with adversaries racing to harness this technology for their own purposes. It is crucial that we keep up the pace, particularly regarding the development of large language models and computing power heretofore at levels unseen. Our objective is clear: The United States must remain at the leading edge. To do so, we need more energy. Conversations are taking place across the United States right now about how we will meet this increased energy demand in order to power superintelligence. The overarching concern is that we do so responsibly and with local community needs in mind. Companies at the frontier of this emerging technology have the resources to pay for the infrastructure and the costs associated to run these facilities. Importantly, these costs should not be borne by American families nor by American businesses. My colleague from Ohio has worked incredibly hard to get this bill across the finish line and deliver basic protections for the American people. The public is overwhelmingly in favor of the protections it would provide. Many States have already embraced it, including my home State of Tennessee. Tennessee adopted President Trump's Ratepayer Protection Pledge while preserving the ability of local communities to make decisions about data center development. The communities that have chosen to welcome innovation have seen incredibly positive impacts: more jobs, new investment, and an increase in their tax base that can allow for a full range of options from lower property taxes to greater investment in local public resources. Importantly, we are doing so while ensuring that the cost for addressing the energy demands of data centers aren't passed along to Tennessee families nor Tennessee businesses. What is the only thing standing in the way of enacting these protections? What is standing in the way? It is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In the House, the Ratepayer Protection Pledge passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis with a vote of 417 to 3. You almost never see that level of consensus in Washington, and yet, last week, Senate Democrats blocked it from passing right here on the Senate floor. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Instead of comprehensive measures that put the decision-making power in the hands of State and local communities, my colleagues across the aisle want Washington to decide, making sweeping decisions for our Nation without input from the towns and the cities it would directly impact. I can't stress this enough: Removing local choice and imposing blanket data center moratoriums are not the answer to responsible innovation. In fact, it is precisely what will kill innovation and put America underwater in the technological race against our adversaries. When it comes to investing in this new future, communities should be in the driver's seat. Localities should be able to decide when, where, and whether they should permit these facilities, especially when they have so much to gain from the investment. Sadly, we have seen a massive amount of misinformation circulating about data centers: their costs, their energy consumption, their wastewater usage, their noise levels. The truth is, we can find solutions to the concerns of Tennesseans and Americans, while putting the United States in the best possible position to succeed. We need to speak out against these false claims, put a stop to the fearmongering that is jeopardizing America's opportunity to lead in this critical area for our economy and for our national security, and we must clearly communicate the advantages that communities can have when they embrace American energy and American technological ingenuity--all the while protecting, and even bettering, the lives of Americans. It is time to pass the Ratepayer Protection Act. But here we are in an election season. Fearmongering is taking precedence over responsible and thoughtful action. False claims abound while America's technology leadership hangs in the balance. We should move responsibly, protect American communities, and support our Nation's economic and national security. The House of Representatives has seized this opportunity. It is time for the Senate to set partisan politics aside and pass the Ratepayer Protection Act. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Nebraska.

Stop Insider Trading Act

Page S5194 · Official text

Pete Ricketts (R-NE)

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for the Stop Insider Trading Act that will be voted on a little bit later today. Eighty percent of Americans believe that we do a poor job of separating the inside information that we get from our financial situation, and Congress' approval rating is only 15 percent. Why do Americans have such a lack of faith in our institutions? Well, in part, because of what has happened with trading in Congress. A former Democrat Speaker of the House was publishing her trades and people were using that as a trading strategy and they were making money off of it. Just the appearance of impropriety leads people to a lack of faith in our institutions. My Stop Insider Trading Act would help address that. It would prevent anybody who comes into the House or Senate from owning any stock--or rather from buying any stock. You would not be allowed to buy any stock once you come into the House or the Senate. And for the stock you already own, if you are going to sell it, you have to give 7 to 14 days' notice so the market would know that ahead of time and be able to take action, if they thought that that Member had inside information. This bill also has penalties to make it stick: a minimum of a $2,000 fine, but 10 percent of the proceeds--or 10 percent of the transaction. So, for example, say somebody sold a million dollars' worth of stock without giving the proper notice, that would be a $100,000 fine. On top of that, they would have to give up all of the profits. We need to restore the faith of the American people in the House and in the Senate. My Stop Insider Trading Act will help to be able to do this, by letting Americans know that their elected representatives are not using this position for profit but for public service. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have blocked this in the past. Let's work together to restore Americans' faith, which is to vote for the Stop Insider Trading Act. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from North Carolina.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Page S5194 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: Budd and Markey for up to 10 minutes total; Sullivan and Heinrich for up to 20 minutes total.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.r. 4238

Pages S5194–S5195 · Official text

Mr. President, the most basic responsibility of Congress is to identify problems and deliver policy solutions that better serve the American people. That means cutting unnecessary redtape, eliminating confusion, and fixing gaps in the Federal Government that prevent it from doing its job effectively. And that responsibility is often put to the test when disaster strikes. In Western North Carolina, Hurricane Helene did more than devastate our communities--it exposed weaknesses in our Federal disaster response that we, here in Congress, have a responsibility to fix. Any Senator who has served their State in the wake of a natural disaster knows that bureaucratic failures are not just problems on paper--they have real consequences for real people. Every unnecessary delay, outdated process, or a gap in our response can stand between a devastated community and the Federal assistance that it needs to recover and to rebuild. I understand that reality all too well, having walked the road to recovery with the people of Western North Carolina who lost everything in a once-in-a-century--hopefully, more than a century--storm. In this rural part of our State, small businesses drive local economies, and many were destroyed and shuttered after Helene. For many, their only hope of getting back on their feet was by accessing disaster loan assistance through the SBA, or the Small Business Administration. But in 2024, when these small businesses were trying to secure a fighting chance, the Biden administration--they dropped the ball by gravely mismanaging the SBA's Disaster Loan Program. By issuing irresponsible rules, drastically increasing the costs of making and administering these disaster loans, and failing to notify Congress that funding to administer these loans was running low, the Biden administration allowed for a 66-day shortfall that impacted 97 percent of North Carolina residents. We can't allow this to happen again. So I am bringing a commonsense solution to the table that has received bipartisan support in the Small Business Committee. My Disaster Loan Accountability and Reform Act will create more safeguards against a future shortfall by requiring annual appropriations to the SBA's Disaster Loan Program and informing Congress when these funds are running low. The bill has one clear goal, and that is to make sure our Nation's small businesses are never left without the disaster assistance that they were promised. The next major disaster should not expose the same failures as the last. It is our responsibility to mend broken systems and to coordinate the Federal Government and its agencies so that we are ready to manage the aftermath of the next major disaster. So I ask my colleagues to join me in taking a necessary step forward in improving our Federal disaster response by voting to pass this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 448, H.R. 4238; further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Massachusetts.

Edward J. Markey (D-MA)

Let me just begin by saying I agree with Senator Budd about the importance of transparency and of accountability in our disaster programs. But I cannot support this legislation while the Trump administration politicizes and withholds aid from disaster victims in blue States, including my own home State of Massachusetts. Recent reporting revealed that Trump overrode the recommendation of his own Agency and prevented four Democratic States--including Massachusetts--from receiving disaster assistance related to blizzards earlier this year. So parts of my own home State got nearly 41 inches of snow in 24 hours, costing our State over $45 million in blizzard-related expenses. And according to this report, the States easily met FEMA's internal qualifications for disaster aid. But for Trump, the only qualification is blind loyalty. And this is not an isolated incident. While red States' FEMA disaster applications have been approved 89 percent of the time, those from blue States receive signoff from the Trump administration only 23 percent of the time. But don't think you are safe just because you are in a State that voted for the President. Earlier this month, at a rally in North Carolina for Michael Whatley--Trump's hand-picked MAGA Senate candidate--President Trump told a community devastated by Hurricane Helene--here's what the President said this month in North Carolina: You know you're waiting for some additional funding. Now, if Michael loses, I'm not sending it to North Carolina. What? The people of North Carolina should get the help. It shouldn't depend upon whether the Senator is a Democrat or Republican, whether it is blue or red. It is about Americans who have suffered a disaster. And the numbers are incredible. This is the history, since Ronald Reagan, of disaster relief in the United States. And you can see that it tracks pretty much red and blue the whole way--Reagan, George Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, Trump 1--stayed the same. Money went out in equal amounts to red and blue States, Democrat and Republican States. But then Trump won again, and you can see what is happening. In the blue States, it looks like the 1929 stock market crash. We go from being equal with Republican States to falling off the table, and you can't really treat disasters that way. They are Americans. It could be a flood; it could be a hurricane, a tornado. It doesn't make any difference. They are all our American neighbors. They deserve the Federal assistance. The President, again as recently as this month, is saying in North Carolina: If you elect a Democratic Senator, you won't get the help. That is just not right, and we all know that is not right. So that has to get rectified because that is really not cooperation; that is just corruption, right? That is just saying: We're going to take this Federal program and turn it into something where he gets arbitrarily to determine whether or not he dishes out the money. And it doesn't really make any difference to me if it is Oklahoma or North Carolina or Massachusetts or California; everyone who suffers a disaster should get the Federal help they need. The President just cannot be allowed to use essential disaster aid as a tool for political extortion. Yet there he is, he is making it plain as day that if you don't vote for a Republican Senator, you don't get any money in your State for a disaster which has devastated your people. We just have to make sure that we stand up and, if we are serious about transparency and accountability in the disaster recovery process, we should hold hearings, demand answers from this administration about why blue States are denied help at such a disproportionate rate. And if the Trump administration insists on putting MAGA before the many, Congress must force the administration to treat disaster victims fairly, regardless of the State where they live or who they voted for. I want to work with the Senator from North Carolina to address the administration's unacceptable treatment of disaster victims in Massachusetts and other blue States. We just have to get it back to the historic norm. The Senator has identified a problem, and I have worked with him in the committee to help to move that legislation. But this is in many ways an even bigger problem. We cannot have this disparate treatment to continue any longer. So because of that, but with my request that I work with the gentleman as we head into the lameduck session, that we can work to talk to the Trump administration about rectifying this historic injustice. So, at this time, as a result, I must object to the Senator's request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I understand my colleague is having an issue with disaster relief reaching his State. On that, I can certainly relate. And by the way, this is a colleague who has worked to pass this unanimously, I believe, out of committee--so much appreciated there--but now seeks to block the bill. But I worked with the Trump administration to cut through the bureaucratic hurdles that had slowed down aid. I held a number of the administration's nominees to put a stop to them, put a pause on them, to ensure that my message was heard. But what I did not do was hold my fellow Senator's legislation from potential passage or hinder efforts to make our disaster program run more smoothly. I hope my colleague can now see how this bill would positively impact both my State and his State and do what is right for the American people by passing this bill in which he voted for, again, out of committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Alaska.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5438

Pages S5195–S5198 · Official text

Dan Sullivan (R-AK)

Mr. President, today, I urge my colleagues to vote for Alaska's Right to Produce Act 2.0, which would provide greater certainty for responsible resource development on the North Slope of Alaska. It would benefit Alaskans, and it would benefit our great working Alaskans, but it would benefit America. As a little bit of background here--and you have heard me talk about this--for years, Alaska, as a resource development powerhouse for America, has been recognized by Congress to be so important for our country because of our extraordinary abundance of natural resources that we have legislated many times about our State's getting resources to market for Alaskans, for Americans. And it is strongly in our national interest and certainly good for my State and the people I am honored to represent, particularly hard-working union members and others, who develop these resources not just for Alaska but for America. However, time and time again, when my Democratic colleagues get control of the Senate, of the House, of the White House, they have a core principle. One of their core principles is to come up to the great State of Alaska and try to shut it down. They kill thousands of jobs and try to turn this great State--my State--into a national park, with no ability to develop our economy and resources. This is just the latest example of what I call the Last Frontier lockup. During the Biden 4 years and the Senator Schumer 4 years, when he was the majority leader, the far-left Democrats--heck, all of the Democrats--came after Alaska in a huge way: the Last Frontier lockup. In every part of the State--southeast Alaska, the North Slope of Alaska--everywhere--on resource development, they came after us. How did they do that? What was the Last Frontier lockup? It is pretty hard to imagine. It was 70 Executive orders and Executive actions--70--exclusively and singularly focused on crushing Alaska--seven, zero. As a matter of fact, on day one of the Biden administration, they issued 12. They were ready to go. The Senate Democrats got power, and the Democrats got power in the executive branch, and they were, like: Let's go. Let's do what we always do. Let's crush Alaska. Let's kill thousands of jobs in Alaska. When this was at, like, 50, I actually met with President Biden and his team. I said: Mr. President, what are you doing? What are you doing? You are sanctioning my State more than you sanction Iran's and Venezuela's oil and gas sectors. We are Americans, and they are terrorists, and you are putting thousands of hard-working Alaskans out of jobs. Why are you doing this, sir? Three years ago, I did that with President Biden. Don't even get me going on his answer, but he was clueless. As we all know, he was clueless on a lot of stuff, but he was clueless on that--70. The White House--the executive branch--I don't think, in the history of America, has ever used its power to so forcefully single out one State to try to damage it and crush it. That is what we went through with the senior Senator from New York as the majority leader, who was all in on it, by the way. We are going to see one of the top guys who is always against Alaska here in a minute, because I know he is going to object to my bill. So it is pretty crazy that they would do that. Imagine any other State--New Mexico--if the Federal Government said: Well, we are just going to go crush New Mexico. But they did it to Alaska. And it wasn't just the 70 Executive orders. There is LNG. Remember John Kerry, the climate czar guy and former Senator? He went over to Asia--Korea, Japan--and told them: Don't buy Alaskan LNG. Don't buy American LNG. I mean, this is almost treasonous, but that is what they did. For 4 years, with Schumer and Biden, that is what my State got. But we have taken action. When Republicans gained control of the Senate and gained control of the House and gained control of the White House, we said: We are going to put Alaska back on top. So what did we do? We attacked the Democrats' attacks on my State, which, again, hurt workers and hurt Alaska but hurt America in a couple of different ways. First, last year, in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, we got mandatory lease sales for the next 10 years for NPR-A, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska; for ANWR; for Cook Inlet. These are all Federal oil and gas basins. We said--Congress said--hey, regardless of who is President in the coming 10 years, they have to do lease sales in Alaska. It is good for the country. It is good for Alaska. It is good for our workers. It is good for our families. It is good in terms of reducing energy costs, for goodness sakes. So we got that in the bill. That is in the law. If you have a President like Biden, who is anti-Alaska, and they come into office 2 years from now, they are not going to be able to lock it up like Joe Biden did. Secondly, we passed Congressional Review Act resolutions. I led the effort on some of them. The Biden NPR-A rule locked down this entire area, the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress--for what?--for oil and gas development. That is why it is the National Petroleum Reserve. We ripped that Biden rule out by the roots with a CRA here in the Senate, and we did the same with the Biden lockup of ANWR, and those got passed into law. So it is a two-pronged strategy to prevent, unfortunately, my colleagues, which they always do--my Democrat colleagues in the Senate, in the House, and in the White House, if they gain power, which they will eventually--from coming back and trying to shut my State down, which they always do. Today, the Alaska's Right to Produce Act 2.0 is the third prong of this strategy. First, we got mandatory lease sales from the Working Families Tax Cut Act. Then we got these Congressional Review Act resolutions passed and signed into law to prevent more lockups of Alaska. This is the third prong. Now, this bill has some history. In 2024, the House passed the Alaska's Right to Produce Act 1.0. The bill was sponsored by my good friend from Minnesota in the House, Representative Stauber, who has done so much to help my State. Five Democrat House Members voted for it, despite the original cosponsor of that bill--who represented Alaska at the time--changing her mind and urging her Democratic colleagues to vote against her own bill to help Alaska. Wow, you can't make that up. But this is nothing new, as I have said, for Democrats in DC. A lot of Democrats in Alaska don't agree with shutting down Alaska, but it is here in the Senate where they have written over 16 letters to administration officials--Democrats and Republicans--opposing ANWR development and NPR-A development. They wrote six separate letters to insurers and financial institutions--believe it or not--using the power of the Senate to write the CEOs of banks and insurance companies: Don't invest in Alaska. It is an abusive use of power. My colleague from New Mexico usually leads those efforts, by the way. They have tried to shut down our State not just legislatively but by pressuring the private sector to not invest in Alaska. Still, five House Democratic colleagues understood how important Alaska was, and they voted for the Alaska's Right to Produce Act and bucked the pressure from far-left Democrats in the House, including from the original cosponsor of the bill. To them, I say thank you. Alaska says thank you. Our workers say thank you, and the country applauds your bravery. So what does this bill do? It is simple. For the coastal plain of ANWR, it protects oil and gas development in the nonwilderness portion of the coastal plain from being shut down or being reversed by a future administration. In the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, it similarly protects oil and gas development in NPR-A from a shutdown by a future administration. The bill is designed to give companies greater certainty in terms of the leases that they already have in these areas in that they can't be canceled. The bottom line is that this is the third prong of our ability to get Alaska to be developed again, and it does something pretty simple: It protects Alaska's existing oil and gas development opportunities from being shut down by a future administration. Now, it is a little ironic and maybe fitting that the Senator from New Mexico is going to object to my bill. I am pretty sure he is not here to support it. He has been a leader in shutting down Alaska. He has led these efforts. He has led these letters. Can you imagine if every U.S. Senator said, "I am going to go after New Mexico. I am going to go after their workers. I am going to go try and hurt the Native people of their State. I am going to write all of the insurance companies and the banks and say, `Don't invest in New Mexico' "? Can you imagine what a disaster this place would be? I wouldn't do that, but he does it. He does it all the time. And there is a little irony here. When the Biden administration and Senator Schumer were locking up my State for 4 years, it was "drill, baby, drill" in New Mexico. They were shutting down my State, led by the Senator from New Mexico, and New Mexico, on Federal lands, went from 1 million barrels of oil a day to 2 million barrels a day. If that is not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. But that is what we are up against. By the way, if the Senate changes hands and the Senator from New Mexico is going to be chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--holy cow--my State will be crushed because that is what he does. So I am pretty sure he is going to object to this. But, you know, I get a little hot about this issue because I think it is unfair. And I think, when people treat their State way differently than my State--imagine what they were doing: Hey, Joe Biden, shut down Alaska, but, by the way, make sure you approve all of these Federal leases in New Mexico so we can "drill, baby, drill." That is exactly what the Senator from New Mexico did. But here is why I get really hot about this. It goes beyond resource development. It goes beyond jobs. It goes to this chart. I have brought this chart out many times. This is a chart that depicts the life expectancy in America from 1980 to 2014 and the parts of America where people live longer. Now, you will see here that it is a little complicated of a chart. The blue and the purple are where people are living longer. In the green here, that is 13 years over a 25-year period. Red is where we have actually lost life expectancy really, really bad. But look at this map from 1980 to 2014. Unfortunately, we had a couple of places in America where people weren't living very long or were losing life expectancy. That was kind of the opioid epidemic and other things. But the place where people lived longer for that 25-year period in more than any other State was in Alaska--Alaska. Right here in the North Slope, in the Aleutian Islands chain, in the southeast, and in the Northwest Arctic Borough, people were living 13 years longer. I have asked my colleagues many times to give me a policy indicator more important of success than that of the people you are representing living longer. I don't think there is one. So there is huge success up here in my State. Now, why did that happen? Why are the people of Alaska living longer? Well, in part, a sad story is that a lot of Native Alaskans, primarily the Inupiat people--great people, by the way, incredible patriots--have a very low life expectancy, some of the lowest life expectancy in the country by far. But when we started developing our resources--oil and gas on the North Slope--people got jobs; people got hospitals; people got flush toilets; people got health clinics and hospitals--things that the rest of the country assumes that you have but we didn't have here. So this issue, for me, is about the life and death of my constituents.

So when I have colleagues come and they block all this stuff, and yet they do it for their own State, which is really problematic, it riles me up because I am talking about life and death of my constituents. By the way, the greater Inupiat people here, during the Biden administration, the head of the Tribe, the head of the Alaska Native Corporation, the head of the borough--all the leaders, all Native Alaskans--came down to Washington, DC, eight times to try to meet with the Secretary of the Interior to say: Don't lock up our land. You will hurt us. Do you know how many times she met with them? Zero. Zero. And then they locked up their land anyway, canceling Native voices. So I am really hopeful, because of life expectancy, because of jobs, because of lowering healthcare costs, because of lowering costs of energy, because of our national security, that my colleagues will do the right thing and pass my legislation, the Alaska's Right to Produce Act 2.0, right now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 678, S. 5438; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, nestled in the far northeast corner of Alaska is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--not ANWR, which sounds like some country in the Middle East, but the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the wildest and most untouched places in all of America. It is our land. It belongs to every single American. It is public land set aside by President Eisenhower to protect our amazing native wildlife. I have been blessed to see this refuge with my own eyes. I have seen the critical habitat on the coastal plain where caribou drop their calves. I have met with Alaskans whose way of life is sustained by those same caribou. The Arctic Refuge is also home to hundreds of iconic wildlife species, including 200 species of birds that have called this landscape home since long before humans even stepped on the continent. But that is only part of the story. It is also deeply connected to the traditions and daily life of people who have depended on that wildlife for thousands of years. Now, that said, the Arctic Refuge's future is increasingly at risk. In the past year, we have seen relentless attacks on the Arctic Refuge from both the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues here in the Congress. Today, the Senator from Alaska is trying to force through another bill that would once again prioritize oil and gas over literally everything else, and he is doing so by using a procedural tactic to bypass the legislative process. Now, let me be clear. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has not held a single hearing on this legislation despite being chaired by the Republicans; nor have we reported it out of the committee. But here is what I can tell you already. This bill is deeply unpopular. Even the oil and gas majors themselves don't want to drill in the Arctic Refuge. And that is because development in the refuge is complicated, it is expensive, and it carries enormous reputational risk for these corporations. So to incentivize drilling there, this bill waives revenue requirements, meaning that the oil and gas industry pays less and the taxpayer gets less. I have been around long enough to remember a time when this same Republican Party promised the American people that they would get $1 billion--billion with a "b"--from these lease sales in the Arctic Refuge. Right now, those lease sales have secured $9 million. They seem to be missing a few zeroes--especially when it is sacrificing priceless public lands. I came to the Senate floor back in December when Republicans first overturned the management plan for the Arctic Refuge to warn that in order for drilling in the Arctic to be economical, oil prices would have to be at least $75 a barrel, just to break even on oil from the refuge. Well, with full control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, my colleagues have managed to make that math finally work. Thanks to the war in Iran, today, oil prices are hovering near $100 a barrel. We all feel that at the pump. I guess the President finally got his energy emergency, and it is one of his own creation. The reality is that oil from the Arctic Refuge won't solve the global instability that was caused by waging an illegal war in Iran. What it will cause is devastating impacts on that landscape, forever changing this landscape and the wildlife that depend on it, which is why his bill also waives all the environmental laws and deems environmental studies complete. So there won't be an accounting of the impacts this development would have on the caribou, whose 1,500-mile migration ends there, or the hundreds of species that live there, like the polar bear and musk ox, or the people who rely on the area for subsistence, which is why this bill also prohibits future litigation on oil and gas authorization. The bill does not stop with the Arctic Refuge. It would also ensure that subsistence rights and conservation on some of the most unique and special public lands in the western Arctic could never be evaluated again. It paves the way for a management framework where automatic approvals of hundreds of fossil fuel projects are not only possible, they are guaranteed. We could be discussing ways to lower electricity costs, how to bring down the price of diesel, but, instead, here we are again trying to drill in a national wildlife refuge. I know there are some corners of the universe that believe this is part of a secret plan to promote New Mexico energy at the expense of Alaska energy. I want to be clear. I support oil and gas development in the right places. As the Senator from Alaska has stated many times, New Mexico does its part. But I don't support drilling everywhere. I asked the Biden administration to set aside Chaco Canyon for that very reason, and I especially do not support drilling in the crown jewel of America's National Wildlife System. Therefore, I do object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Alaska.

Dan Sullivan (R-AK)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to respond.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I would ask for 2 additional minutes as well.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Dan Sullivan (R-AK)

Mr. President, there has been no place that has been studied more than the ANWR 1002 plain in terms of environmental laws and environmental impacts, probably in the entire United States. This is something strongly supported by the people I represent, including the people that actually live there, which is something the Senator from New Mexico constantly forgets. The people I represent actually support this and the other opportunities to develop our resources. One of the reasons there was very little lease activity when we passed the ANWR bill recently is because the Biden administration didn't execute on it. They canceled the leases. A Federal judge held that against the law, so it was lawless action once we passed the bill. But, again, one of the things my colleague never talks about is that during the 4 years of the Biden administration and the 4 years of the majority being led by Senator Schumer, the attacks on Alaska were constant from all of them. The Last Frontier lockup: 70 Executive orders--a lot led by the Senator from New Mexico. But it was "drill, baby, drill" in New Mexico. Over 50 percent of all Federal leases on all Federal lands during the Biden administration were to drill for oil and gas in New Mexico, and the Senator from New Mexico was fine with that. They go from 1 million barrels to 2 million barrels a day. But he comes and wants to shut down my State. If that is not the definition of a hypocrisy, I don't know what is. So I am disappointed, but I am not surprised. We will continue to do what Alaskans want but what Americans want, and that is responsibly develop the resources of my great State to help the people of the North Slope who want it. When the Senator from New Mexico talks about--

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator's time has expired. Mr. SULLIVAN.--what the Alaska Native people want, I think he should stay in his own lane because he has no idea what he is talking about. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from New Mexico.

Ratepayer Protection Act

Page S5198 · Official text

Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to proceed to H.R. 9340. Electricity demand, as we all know, is growing, driven in large part by hyperscalers and data centers. Tech companies have promised to pay their fair share and not make American households pay the extra costs, but it is not enough to take their word for it, and it is not enough to merely tell States to consider--consider--making utilities charge data centers for all of the costs associated with the generation, additional transmission, and distribution upgrades necessary to serve them. States are already taking action. According to the Smart Electric Power Alliance, more than 30 States have adopted specific retail rate structures for large loads like data centers. H.R. 9340 simply does not protect Americans from high utility bills. Let me be clear. This bill has no--zero--requirement that data centers actually pay for their own grid upgrades. H.R. 9340 might make some Members of the Senate feel good about voting on a bill that sounds like it does something about data centers. Let me be clear. This is nothing more than a messaging bill on the eve of an election. Rather than voluntary pledges or vague suggestions to States, Congress needs to pass a law with real teeth. If voluntary pledges and suggestions worked, families and small businesses wouldn't already be staring down rate hikes right now. So let's require data centers to pay for their incremental costs and prohibit by law passing those costs on to consumers. I would urge my colleagues to vote no.

Stop Insider Trading Act

Page S5198 · Official text

Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Mr. President, I want to be clear: We should ban congressional stock trading. But H.R. 7008, the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act, is a political scam. It is a disingenuous attempt to use figleaf new ethics rules to pass a sweeping, unrelated voter suppression law, while not even adequately addressing congressional stock trading. Americans are rightly concerned that lawmakers' stock portfolios can create conflicts of interest and opportunities to cash in on inside information. But instead of resolving those issues, this bill creates superficial changes to ethics standards while undermining the right to vote. Americans will not be fooled by this charade. It is long past time that we gave Americans confidence that lawmakers are not profiting from positions of public trust. That is why we should impose a real and effective ban on congressional stock trading. This bill, however, fails to clean up these ethics issues. For example, it would allow Members of Congress to sell stock during their term in office, transactions that could appear to be based on nonpublic information, like a heads up that a company would face regulatory action. It also would permit members to own stock in industries they oversee through their committee assignments. Loopholes like these create too many opportunities for corruption and self-dealing. And under the pretext of cleaning up Congress, this legislation would enact photo voter ID requirements like those in the so-called SAVE America Act, making it harder for Americans to exercise their right to vote. Specifically, the bill would require voters to present one form of ID from an overly restrictive list of identification documents in order to vote, excluding other reliable forms of ID such as a student ID, which would disproportionately harm eligible young voters and communities of color. It also imposes onerous new requirements on vote by mail. Congress should not be creating more unnecessary barriers for eligible voters to exercise their foundational right to have their voices heard and votes counted in our elections. The Senate should be passing a genuine ban on stock trading by lawmakers. But I cannot support this bill, which is clearly just another attempt by Republicans in Congress to pick their voters--which have repeatedly failed--under the guise of ethics reform. I remain committed to working with my colleagues on real legislation to clean up these ethics concerns.

Ratepayer Protection Act

Pages S5198–S5199 · Official text

Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Mr. President, I cannot vote for a bill that promises protection but lacks the enforcement mechanisms needed to deliver on lowering Americans' electric bills. To add insult to injury, Republicans pushed for a vote on this without even taking the opportunity to consider real solutions, like my Power for the People Act. The Ratepayer Protection Act relies solely on a process that would ask States to consider implementing data center-specific rate classes, without any guarantee that these rate classes would be implemented and without any of the additional measures needed to ensure that consumers are protected from rising electric bills caused by skyrocketing energy demand from data centers. Americans are facing an affordability crisis from the grocery store to the gas pump, and they deserve real solutions, which is why I filed my bill, the Power for the People Act, as an amendment to this bill. The Power for the People Act includes meaningful reforms that would actually hold data centers accountable for driving up energy prices, something that the Ratepayer Protection Act purports to do but cannot achieve on its own. Unfortunately, Republicans have provided no guarantees that we would consider amendments to the Ratepayer Protection Act. This body has repeatedly failed to address the real concerns of Americans struggling to make ends meet, with Republicans prioritizing tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations and Trump's golden age for billionaires. Now the majority is claiming to address a real problem with the bill before us, with a solution that falls far short. The energy demand of data centers is unlike anything we have dealt with in recent history and our solutions need to meet the moment. My Power for the People Act protects consumers, creates good-paying jobs, and mitigates harm to the environment, but we have no assurance that it could be considered. Without the opportunity to provide amendments, the bill before us today is an empty gesture, leaving Americans shouldering Big Tech's costs with no relief.

Cloture Motion

Page S5199 · Official text

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (637 characters)

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 548, H.R. 7008, a bill to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes. John Thune, Tim Sheehy, Rick Scott of Florida, Ted Cruz, Ashley B. Moody, Steve Daines, Cynthia M. Lummis, John R. Curtis, Pete Ricketts, Bernie Moreno, John Barrasso, Eric Schmitt, Jon A. Husted, Mike Crapo, David McCormick, Katie Boyd Britt, John Cornyn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 548, H.R. 7008, a bill to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (1,063 characters)

Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). On this vote, the yeas are 53, and the nays are 47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The motion was rejected.

Cloture Motion

Page S5199 · Official text

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (692 characters)

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 684, H.R. 9340, a bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes. John Thune, Jon A. Husted, Kevin Cramer, Bernie Moreno, Tom Cotton, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Cynthia M. Lummis, Susan M. Collins, Roger F. Wicker, John Cornyn, Pete Ricketts, Katie Boyd Britt, Mike Rounds, Todd Young, John Boozman, John Hoeven, Ron Johnson.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 684, H.R. 9340, a bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll. The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (1,046 characters)

Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hassan Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Klobuchar Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Ossoff Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Warnock Wicker Young Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The motion was rejected.

Cloture Motion

Pages S5199–S5200 · Official text

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (511 characters)

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 912, Keith Sonderling, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor. John Thune, Roger Marshall, Jim Banks, John Boozman, Ted Budd, Tom Cotton, Mike Crapo, Katie Boyd Britt, Tommy Tuberville, Tim Sheehy, Mike Rounds, Kevin Cramer, Shelley Moore Capito, John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, Alan Armstrong, Bill Hagerty.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Keith Sonderling, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (998 characters)

Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden (Mr. BANKS assumed the Chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 47. The motion is agreed to. The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)

Page S5200 · Official text

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the nomination.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Keith Sonderling, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Connecticut.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5435 (Executive Session)

Pages S5200–S5201 · Official text

Mr. President, there is a great divide right now--a pretty significant divide right now--between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of the way that ICE is enforcing our immigration laws in the interior. Democrats believe that what is happening today is both illegal and immoral, and that is why, right now, these operations are being funded through reconciliation--because we believe that it is our constitutional obligation to refuse to fund an Agency that is out of control and not in compliance with the law. Republicans broadly have supported the actions of this administration as they target both immigrants without documentation and legal immigrants for arrest and detention. I am going to offer a request to pass a bill by unanimous consent that does not seek to repair that divide. Instead, it seeks to try to bring us together on a very narrow question, a question that arises from a set of incidents that have happened in my State of Connecticut over the course of the last month and a half. On the morning of August 26, the second day of school for most school districts in Connecticut, in Danbury, CT, busdrivers began reporting to the school district that they had noticed the presence of ICE agents in and around schoolbus stops. At one of them, a constituent of mine, a father, was waiting at the schoolbus stop with his 6-year-old son and, just moments after saying goodbye to his son for the second day of school and even before the schoolbus had fully driven away, ICE arrested and detained him. This practice was reported all around the State: ICE gathering at schoolbus stops, waiting until a young child had boarded the schoolbus, and then detaining and arresting the parent. For parents in this body, you know how anxious that first day of school is, how kids are just brimming with nervous anxiety about that first day, and you know what that feels like to watch your kid walk onto that schoolbus. Well, what do you think it does to those kids on that first and second day of school to see ICE officers at the schoolbus stop? Imagine that 6-year-old who boarded the schoolbus, when he got back from school that day, got off, and his parent wasn't there--a 6-year-old, feeling like he had been abandoned. In this case, he may or may not have seen the arrest because it happened almost immediately after he got on. To me, it is pretty obvious that the intent here with this new practice of ICE showing up at schoolbus stops is to traumatize the children. But you don't have to agree with me that the intent is to traumatize the children to just come to the conclusion that ICE does not need to be at schoolbus stops in order to enforce the law. There are a myriad of other settings in which ICE can operate to carry out arrests while staying clear of schoolbus stops, where the intent or at least the result of those operations is to leave little kids in trauma. Now, I have introduced three pieces of simple legislation to say that ICE should not operate at daycare centers, they shouldn't operate at children's playgrounds, and that they shouldn't operate at schoolbus stops. I am asking unanimous consent today for only one of those pieces of legislation that I think is the most urgent. And while I don't expect the result to be agreement, I had hoped that we could find agreement on this narrow question: that ICE should just stay away from schoolbus stops; ICE shouldn't be traumatizing children at schoolbus stops, taking parents in the middle of the schoolday--because there are so many other ways that ICE could operate so as to detain the people that they feel that they need to detain without it being done in this deeply traumatic way. In fact, we came close to getting an agreement on a similar proposal before negotiations broke down over DHS funding. Senator Blumenthal, my colleague, has a piece of legislation that is even broader than the three bills I am proposing. The idea is that there should just be a ban on the operation of ICE at sensitive locations, which would include places where children gather but also would include other sensitive locations like churches. And I know my Republican colleagues were close to agreeing to that before these negotiations broke down. And so, today, I am taking a small slice of that broader proposal and just asking my colleagues: Can we come to an agreement that schoolbus stops should be off limits? Can we decide to have compassion for that 6-year-old child who got on the bus for a second day of school and, when he got back off the bus, was abandoned? The last point I will make is this: While that practice is bad enough, it is important to note that ICE tried to cover up the practice. When they were presented with these stories from Danbury, DHS doubled down and said: Any claim that ICE targeted parents at a schoolbus stop is false. But then, just days afterward, we had the video evidence. This often happens: ICE says something didn't happen, and then we have the video proving that it did. In Danbury's case, we have two separate videos taken from the schoolbus showing ICE operating at the schoolbus stop and detaining this parent. So my hope is that we can come together and just make a decision that, while we have big differences over the broader issue of ICE enforcement, ICE should stop preying upon our kids at sensitive locations; in particular, schoolbus stops. Mr. President, and so, my motion is this: notwithstanding rule XXII, and as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5435; I further ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Indiana.

Jim Banks (R-IN)

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is just another attempt after many other attempts by Democrats to stop ICE from doing their job and enforcing our immigration laws. As you are seeing today, Democrats will do anything that they can to stop ICE, our men and women who are in Federal law enforcement, from securing our Nation and keeping families safe. In my State of Indiana just over this last weekend, an illegal with an ICE detainer, drunk and behind the wheel of a vehicle, killed an innocent 33-year-old woman, Tamara Thomas, who was walking near a gas station in downtown Indianapolis. Tamara, unfortunately, is not the first Hoosier who lost her life because of an illegal immigration crisis in this country. In February, an illegal ran a red light and killed 64-year-old Terry Schultz in Avon, IN, and in the same month, an illegal semitruck driver who entered our country using Joe Biden's CBP One app swerved into oncoming traffic and killed four Amish men near my hometown in Jay County in Northern Indiana. A couple of months ago, Indianapolis police arrested an illegal from Mexico who now faces 30 separate charges, including rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping; and this illegal came into our country under the Biden administration. Last year, a 35-year-old illegal who was living in Indianapolis was sentenced to 35 years in prison after he sexually exploited and abused a 15-year-old girl. Hoosiers are going to keep getting killed and harmed by illegals unless we let ICE officers do their job. The madness has to end, and it needs to end right now. We need to support our ICE officers. ICE needs to be allowed to do their job without Democrats getting in their way. I have been in the Senate for 2 years, and over and over again, the Democrats have tried to obstruct ICE from doing their job. This bill that I am about to object to today will prohibit ICE from operating near schoolbus stops, but we know that illegal aliens are often at or near bus stops. So here is the deal, in Virginia last year, ICE arrested a 36-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, a convicted pedophile who exposed himself to a child at a schoolbus stop. How can anyone hear a story like that and think that the answer is to block ICE officers from doing their job at a schoolbus stop? If we prohibit ICE from operating at schoolbus stops, you know what will happen; we will just create sanctuary schoolbus stops. All the illegals, the criminals, the pedophiles will end up at schoolbus stops because they know they will be protected there. All those illegals in this country--they will hide out at bus stops. And knowing that ICE won't be allowed to touch them, you will see more stories like what you saw happened in Virginia last year. It is just crazy to me to think that we would prevent ICE officers from going wherever they need to go to do their job, even if that means at a bus stop, in those rare--very rare--circumstances and occasions. ICE needs to be allowed to operate wherever the job takes them, especially at places where illegal aliens can harm our children. Look, ICE is not the enemy. Democrats are trying to make our ICE officers out to be the enemy, and they are not. Just a couple of weeks ago, ICE conducted a 5-day operation in my home State, which resulted in the arrest of 426 illegals. These criminals included people who were charged with robberies, drug trafficking, sex crimes, and more. ICE also arrested an illegal from Guatemala who illegally voted in national elections in Indiana. The Democrats all say that never happens, but they arrested an illegal just a few weeks ago in Indiana who did that. So here we go again with another attempt by Democrats to obstruct our Federal law enforcement. Instead of giving ICE more resources to do the job that they need to do--not less--instead of doing anything that we can to deport illegals from our country, Democrats are here asking for unanimous consent to tie ICE's hands behind their backs and prevent them from doing their job. I won't let that happen. That is why I came to the floor today. ICE needs to be allowed to enforce the law and do their job, and for that reason, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Connecticut.

Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Mr. President, just three final points. I think Senator Banks articulates the Republican position, which is that immigrants are by definition a safety threat to the United States of America, and that is just not true. I don't draw an issue with the fact that there are immigrants who commit crimes, but there are natural-born citizens that commit crimes at higher rates than immigrants do. The fact of the matter is that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than people who were born here in the United States. We should just keep people safe in this country no matter the country of origin or birth of the perpetrator. Second, I think you can make the decision that ICE should be able to operate in the interior while keeping certain sites off limits. In fact, this was the Trump administration policy in the first term. So Republican administrations in the past have come to the decision that certain sites should be off limits for ICE. In fact, when I talk to Trump supporters in Connecticut, who broadly do support the President's immigration policy, they also believe that they went too far in Connecticut. There were a lot of Republicans who showed up at our big rally the day after this incident happened. So it is not true that you can only support robust enforcement operations in the interior if you support ICE being even at schoolbus stops. And then finally, I will be honest with you, I did not anticipate that one of the arguments against this bill would be that it would lead to the development of sanctuary bus stops. What do we imagine here? People are going to live at bus stops? We are going to have encampments around bus stops of people who are here without documentation? I just think it is an example of how this whole debate has gone way off the rails. It is just fundamentally detached from the reality. You want to support Trump's immigration policy--you can do that while still saying that we shouldn't have ICE officers patrolling schoolbus stops with the purpose of traumatizing little children. That could be a consensus position, and we could choose to still disagree over the broader Trump immigration policy. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks)

The Senator from Idaho.

National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act

Pages S5201–S5207 · Official text

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 638, S. 2498, the National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act; and Calendar No. 641, S. 2754, the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bills by title en bloc. The senior legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (163 characters)

A bill (S. 2498) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend certain leases within units of the National Park System without opening the lease to bidding.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Text printed in the Record (5,555 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act". SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND CERTAIN LEASES. (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Director of the National Park Service) (referred to in this Act as the "Secretary") may extend a lease entered into under part 18 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 3, 2025), without complying with the requirements of section 18.7, 18.8, or 18.10 of that part, if-- (1) the lessee-- (A) entered into the lease not less than 5 years before the date on which the extension takes effect; and (B) is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease; and (2) the Secretary determines that extending the lease is in the best interests of the administration of the applicable unit of the National Park System. (b) Requirement.--Before extending a lease under subsection (a), the Secretary shall-- (1) publish a notice, for a period of not less than 60 days, inviting letters of interest from other qualified entities to operate the lease on expiration; (2) evaluate any competing letter of interest received under paragraph (1) as compared to the terms offered, planned capital investment, and quality of visitor services provided by the incumbent lessee; and (3) if the Secretary determines that a competing letter of interest would provide better terms than the continued operation of the incumbent lease-- (A) decline to extend the lease under subsection (a); and (B) in lieu of such an extension, offer the lease for competitive bidding in accordance with sections 18.7 and 18.8 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations). (c) Congressional Notification Required for Certain Lease Extensions.--In the case of a proposed lease extension under subsection (a) for a duration of more than 10 years, the Secretary may not grant the proposed lease extension until the date that is not less than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives the proposed lease extension. (d) Mid-term Compliance Review.-- (1) In general.--Not later than the date that is the midpoint of the term of a lease extended under subsection (a), the Director of the National Park Service shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of the Interior a report evaluating the compliance by the lessee with the terms and conditions of the extended lease, including with respect to rent, maintenance, insurance, and permitted-use requirements under the lease and part 18 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations). (2) Review and determination.--Not later than 60 days after receiving a report under paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Interior shall-- (A) review the report; and (B) based on the findings included in the report, determine whether the lessee that is the subject of the report remains in compliance with the terms and conditions of the applicable extended lease. (3) Termination for noncompliance.--If the Secretary of the Interior determines under paragraph (2) that a lessee is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an extended lease under this section, the Secretary of the Interior may-- (A) terminate the lease extension in accordance with the termination-for-cause or default provisions required under section 18.12(a) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation); and (B) after such termination, make the applicable property available for lease through a request for bids or a request for proposals under section 18.7 or 18.8, respectively, of that title (or successor regulations). (4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection limits any other right of the Secretary of the Interior to terminate a lease for cause or default in accordance with the terms of the lease or applicable law. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO LONG-TERM LEASES. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of section 18.10 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 3, 2025), the Secretary may enter into a lease under part 18 of that title with a lease term of not more than 99 years for the redevelopment of National Park Service property, the redevelopment costs of which are expected to exceed $100,000,000, if the Secretary has determined that entering into the lease is in the best financial needs and interests of the administration of the applicable unit of the National Park System. (b) Congressional Notification Required for Certain Leases.--In the case of a proposed lease under subsection (a) for a duration of more than 60 years, the Secretary may not enter into the proposed lease until the date that is not less than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives the proposed lease. SEC. 4. CONFORMING REGULATIONS. Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 18 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, to reflect the authority granted under sections 2 and 3. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 2754) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the City of Ouray, Colorado, certain land managed by the Forest Service, together with a reservoir.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Text printed in the Record (8,671 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act". SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF FEDERAL LAND TO OURAY, COLORADO. (a) Definitions.--In this section: (1) City.--The term "City" means the City of Ouray, Colorado. (2) Federal land.--The term "Federal land" means-- (A) the site known as "Crystal Reservoir" in Ouray County, Colorado, including-- (i) the lake associated with that reservoir; (ii) Full Moon Dam and associated facilities, including the spillway and outlet; (iii) Full Moon Ditch and Reservoir Number 10; and (iv) all infrastructure associated with the reservoir; and (B) the parcel comprising approximately 45 acres of land underlying and surrounding Crystal Reservoir, as depicted on the Map, managed by the Forest Service as necessary for access for repair, operation, and maintenance of Crystal Reservoir and the features described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A). (3) Map.--The term "Map" means the map prepared by the Forest Service entitled "Crystal Reservoir Conveyance" and dated June 23, 2025. (4) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service. (b) Conveyance.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the City-- (1) except as otherwise provided in this Act, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land; and (2) all right, title and interest of the United States in and to any water rights held for use on, appurtenant to, or otherwise associated with the Federal land, including the Full Moon Ditch and Reservoir Number 10 water rights described in the decree of the State of Colorado in Civil Action No. 1959, dated May 11, 1942. (c) Requirements.--The conveyance under subsection (b) shall-- (1) convey fee simple title to the Federal land; (2) be subject to-- (A) valid existing rights; (B) the reservation to the United States, in the deed conveying the Federal land, of easements for each road, trail, and trailhead in existence on the date of the conveyance, together with such additional rights as are reasonably necessary for access, administration, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of those improvements; and (C) the reversionary interest described in subsection (e)(4); and (3) except as provided in subsection (d)(2), be completed at no cost to the City. (d) Costs.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall pay all costs associated with the conveyance under subsection (b). (2) Survey.--The City shall pay all costs associated with any surveys conducted for the purpose of accomplishing the conveyance under subsection (b). (e) Terms and Conditions.-- (1) In general.--As a condition of the conveyance of the Federal land under subsection (b), the City shall agree-- (A) effective beginning on the date of the conveyance, to assume responsibility for the costs of all repairs, operations, maintenance, replacement, rehabilitation, and regulatory compliance for dam safety relating to Full Moon Dam and related infrastructure, including Full Moon Ditch and Reservoir Number 10; (B) to maintain the Federal land in perpetuity as open space, to be held open-- (i) for public access for recreational activities, including fishing, except as reasonably necessary for public safety, resource protection, emergency response, or the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of Full Moon Dam, Crystal Reservoir, or related infrastructure; and (ii) not subject to any fee for recreational access; (C) not to conduct on the Federal land any development, commercial operations, or construction, other than for improved public access for recreational activities or as needed for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, public safety, and regulatory compliance for dam safety of Full Moon Dam, Crystal Reservoir, and related infrastructure, including Full Moon Ditch and Reservoir Number 10; and (D) not to expand the surface footprint of Crystal Reservoir at normal operating levels (as depicted on the Map) in a manner that would flood, impair, or harm any wetlands located upstream of the Federal land, subject to the condition that deepening Crystal Reservoir in a manner consistent with the water rights of the City shall otherwise be allowed. (2) Necessary action agreement.--The conveyance under subsection (b) shall be made subject to terms agreed to by the Secretary and the City that authorize the City to take such action on the easements described in subsection (c)(2)(B) as the City determines is reasonable and necessary for-- (A) public safety; (B) emergency response; or (C) the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the City of Full Moon Dam, Crystal Reservoir, or related infrastructure. (3) Other terms and conditions.--Consistent with this Act, the conveyance under subsection (b) shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. (4) Reversionary interest.-- (A) Written notice.--If the Federal land conveyed under subsection (b) ceases to be used in accordance with the terms and conditions under this subsection the Secretary shall submit to the City written notice with respect to such use. (B) Reversion.--After the 90-day period beginning on the date written notice is submitted to the City under subparagraph (A), if the Federal land conveyed under subsection (b) continues to be used in a manner not in accordance with the terms and conditions under this subsection during such period, the Federal land shall revert to the United States, at the discretion of the Secretary, if the Secretary determines that reversion is in the best interest of the United States. (f) Easement.-- (1) In general.--After the conveyance under subsection (b), the Secretary-- (A) shall recognize a perpetual easement for the Red Mountain Ditch for use by the City-- (i) for the purposes relating to the Ditch specified in the decrees entitled "Case No. 1751-B" and "Case No. 2013CW3040" for the State of Colorado, including the diversion and delivery of water (not to exceed 6 cubic feet per second) for storage in Crystal Reservoir and subsequent beneficial use; and (ii) to access, operate, maintain, repair, replace, or improve the Ditch and its appurtenances for such purposes; and (B) may require temporary special use authorizations for non-routine maintenance and repairs of Red Mountain Ditch or for the replacement or improvement of the Ditch. (2) Red mountain ditch defined.--In this subsection, the term "Red Mountain Ditch" means the Ditch known as Red Mountain Ditch constructed in or about 1945 located, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, on lands administered by the San Juan National Forest and the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest, in Section 14, Township 42 North, Range 8 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian. (g) Water Rights.--After the conveyance under subsection (b), the City may use water in Crystal Reservoir for any beneficial use consistent with applicable water right decrees or temporary administrative approvals obtained by or for the City, subject to applicable water laws of the State of Colorado. (h) Map and Legal Description.-- (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall finalize the Map and a legal description of the Federal land to be conveyed under subsection (b). (2) Corrections.--The Secretary and the City, by mutual agreement, may correct any clerical or typographical errors in the Map or legal description under paragraph (1). (3) Map on file.--The Map and legal description under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for public inspection in each appropriate office of the Forest Service. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendments be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee-reported amendments, in the nature of a substitute, were agreed to en bloc. The bill (S. 2498), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. The bill (S. 2754), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Jacky Rosen (D-NV)

Mr. President, today I rise to speak up about Donald Trump's reckless trade war against Canada and the impact it is having on my State of Nevada. Because of Trump's childish fight with our neighbors, tourism is down, prices are up, and Canada is suddenly rethinking its relationship with our country. Let me tell you why this matters to my State. Canada is the No. 1 source of international visitors to Las Vegas. In 2024, nearly 1.5 million Canadians visited Nevada. It helped boost our tourism economy and the small businesses that depend on it. And Canada is also one of Nevada's top trading partners. In fact, Nevada exports approximately $1.6 billion worth of goods to Canada. So think about this: $1.6 billion of revenue coming to businesses in my State of Nevada to further contribute to our economy. And this is exactly why a good, healthy relationship between Canada and the United States is important for Nevada and Nevada's economy, Nevada's families. Donald Trump is doing everything in his power to harm our relationship with Canada. He is hurting Nevada families. He is hurting Nevada businesses along the way. And one of the first actions that Trump took since returning to the White House was beginning a reckless and erratic trade war that has resulted in higher prices for American businesses, American families, for all of us, every single one of us. And to date, he has imposed tariffs on many items we buy from Canada with higher rates on products like building materials, brand-name prescription drugs, alcohol, and paper products. I have heard from restaurant owners paying more for paper towels and home builders paying more for materials. These costs not only make it impossible for our business owners to plan ahead, but then they get passed on to families. Most recently, Trump utilized a never--never-before-used trade authority. I want to emphasize this: never-before-used trade authority to target Canada, applying 50-percent tariffs on a wide array of Canadian goods. In retaliation, Canada recently imposed their own tariffs on goods they import from the United States, including from my State of Nevada. Remember the $1.6 billion in Nevada goods that we export to Canada? Well, that number is going to be reduced because of these retaliatory tariffs. Just yesterday, Trump's ban on the import of many Canadian goods has gone into effect, restricting Americans' freedom--restricting our freedom--to buy what we want to buy and making all of our prices go up. The back-and-forth tariffs, they are a disaster, but they only tell one side of the story of Trump's hostilities toward Canada. Trump's childish attacks on Canada included threats to annex it as the United States' 51 State; its references to the Canadian Prime Minister as "Governor"; Trump has tried to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America." Trump even canceled trade negotiations because a Canadian television ad hurt his feelings. After a year and a half of this nonsense, where has Trump gotten us? Well, I can tell you where, because last year, Canadian tourism to Las Vegas declined by 17 percent--you got that right, 17 percent. This contributed to an overall decline in tourism that made 2025 the worst nonpandemic drop in visitation for Las Vegas since we began tracking data. When we see a decline like this, it isn't just a data point for us. Hospitality employs nearly a third of all workers in Nevada. So this means fewer guests in our hotel rooms, which leads to fewer shifts for housekeepers. It means fewer visits to our restaurants and less tip money for our servers and bartenders. It trickles down to less money for all of the hospitality workers and when they go home to the neighborhoods they live in, less money they can spend there. It is not only Nevada that is feeling this. According to the Canadian Government's own data, total spending by Canadians in the United States declined by over $3 billion. Canadians themselves are pointing to Trump's hostility as a reason for this decline. They are still traveling and spending money--Canadians are; they are just not coming to the United States. And this situation was 100 percent avoidable. None of this had to happen. So no one can argue with the facts. Tourism is down because of Trump's trade war with Canada. Less money is being invested in our economy, and our small businesses are struggling to navigate expensive and constantly--constantly--changing conditions. That is why I am here today to pass a simple resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Trump's trade war against Canada must end. It must end to get our economy and the relationship with our northern neighbor back on track. I hope my colleagues look at the facts and agree. So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 898 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, this is not the first time, nor do I believe it will be the last. There have been multiple--and I mean multiple--efforts by my colleagues on the Democrat side to bypass regular order in the Senate and pass legislation without it being vetted as it properly should. It is true that we have some disagreements with Canada, although Canada is one of our best trading partners and one of our best allies, and I, for one, have worked very hard during my career to make sure we have strong relations with Canada. But Canada is engaged in tariff and nontariff trade barriers against the United States that President Trump is trying to resolve. Think lumber. Think timber. If we can simply get fair trade with Canada on these issues, we can resolve them. But the key point here is that doing so by asking to bypass the entire Senate process of developing legislation is not the approach. As chairman of the Finance Committee, which is the appropriate forum in which this debate on our trade policy should be held, I object to this unanimous consent request. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno)

The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, while hard-working Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, there is one class of people who have never had it better: fraudsters. Scammers are stealing more than $1.4 billion from taxpayers every day. Yesterday, I released a list of con artists who each fraudulently billed government programs for $1 billion or more. These billionaire bandits looted programs for the elderly, poor, disabled, and veterans to lavish themselves with million-dollar mansions, Rolex watches, expensive jewelry, and luxury cars. One fraudster brags:

Text printed in the Record (58 characters)

I had everything. I had houses, I had cars, I had watches.

He ripped off Medicare for over a decade before getting turned in and said:

Text printed in the Record (37 characters)

It's just so easy. It's unbelievable.

Based upon the numbers, he isn't lying. If grift were a government Agency, the "Department of Fraud" would be the fifth largest. The $521 billion going to fraud every year exceeds the individual annual budgets of the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Transportation, Homeland Security, State, and Justice. That is right, folks--fraudsters are being better taken care of than our veterans and farmers. Fraud is not a victimless crime, either. In fact, it has far-reaching consequences. We have learned that taxpayer dollars stolen from the U.S. Small Business Administration financed the assassination--yes, you heard it right--the assassination of Haiti's President in 2021. A team of Colombian mercenaries and their pistols, rifles, and tactical gear were all paid for with the support of $840,000 fraudulently obtained from the Small Business Administration. The political instability resulting from the assassination forced hundreds of thousands of Haitians to flee their nation, taking refuge in the United States. The Biden administration provided many of these migrants with food stamps and medical care--also paid for by American taxpayers. The inability to safeguard small business assistance resulted in taxpayers footing the bills for both the crime and its consequences. Many of these scams also involve identity theft that upends the lives of the unsuspecting Americans who then must suffer the consequences. For example, the Medicare number of a woman in California was stolen by scammers who used it to fraudulently bill for hospice care. When she sought physical therapy for an injury, Medicare denied her coverage because she was listed as dying in hospice. Think about that. The same government Agency that wouldn't provide her with the healthcare she was promised approved and paid for bogus medical bills submitted by scammers using her information. Medicare exists to ensure folks like her receive medically necessary care, not to make billionaires out of fraudsters. Yet the identities and personal information of more than 1 million Americans have been stolen by Medicare mobsters to file phony healthcare claims. One illegal alien submitted at least $1.3 billion in fraudulent claims to Medicare and other health insurers, over just 6 months, using stolen identities. He laundered millions of the stolen tax dollars overseas to the Russian mob before some of his victims alerted Medicare that they were receiving notices for care and items they did not receive prescribed by doctors they had not visited. Another con artist orchestrated a billion-dollar fraud machine that used foreign call centers to submit bogus bills. He treated programs meant to care for the elderly, veterans, and servicemembers like his own personal cash register. From fake daycare centers to phony small businesses, the examples are absolutely endless, but the public's patience is not. According to the latest Gallup poll, 9 out of 10 Americans say government corruption is widespread. That is a record high number. I challenge you to find any other issue where Democrats, Republicans, and Independents agree with each other more strongly. We owe it to all Americans to stop the government grift. My Protecting American Taxpayers Act would do just that by stopping government Agencies from handing out quick cash with no questions asked, triggering automatic investigations when there are sudden and suspicious spikes in payment claims, banning convicted fraudsters from receiving taxpayer dollars, taking back the money that was already stolen, and sending those darn scammers to the slammer. If enacted, this bill could save $240 billion. That is billion with a "b," folks. The choice is quite simple. Give the money to the fraudsters or return it to the taxpayers. What would really be criminal is if the Senate left town today without passing this meaningful legislation to eliminate fraud. As if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 452, S. 4952. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, every bit--every bit--of real fraud needs to be rooted out. Unfortunately, the Trump fraud policy is not about that. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have begun to make a habit out of calling any Federal policy they don't like "undeserving fraud": Medicaid, fraudulent; Affordable Care Act coverage, fraudulent; SNAP, fraudulent; childcare, fraudulent; Social Security, fraudulent; kids with disabilities who need Medicaid for home care, fraudsters; small business owners with ACA plans, fraudsters; families who need help paying for groceries, fraudsters; working parents who need childcare, fraudsters; seniors living paycheck to paycheck, fraudsters. Americans are struggling to afford necessities--food and electricity and medical care. The Republican solution to these challenges is to create more hoops, more redtape, more cuts. The result is more pain and suffering for Americans in need and higher costs for families. When it comes to fighting fraud, there are proven approaches that we can use right now. Earlier this summer, I introduced bipartisan legislation with Chairman Crapo, the senior Senator from Iowa, and Senator Cortez Masto that provides a sustainable funding boost to the cops on the beat at the Office of Inspector General at HHS. This organization is so good at what it does that it recovers up to $12 in fraud for every $1 spent on resources. My view is that is a no-brainer. Senator Ernst's bill is chock-full of automatic triggers, privacy violations, and power grabs for Trump's false-flag schemes on fraud. It is nothing more than a veiled attempt to make life harder for the working families that I was just talking about, who need help with the rising costs of healthcare, childcare, and more. For example, an automatic HHS investigation is triggered if a childcare provider's payments increase by 10 percent or more in a 6-month period. That increase could be triggered for reasonable situations: The provider is simply serving more kids, serving kids with disabilities, or creating more slots for infants. The prospect of a Federal investigation, if they increase their enrollment or care for more infants, would deter many providers from expanding their services, making it even more difficult for families to afford good healthcare and childcare. The bottom line is this government overreach wouldn't fight actual fraud. It would make it harder and more expensive for families to get the care and support they need. In addition to funding the cops on the street, I am also squarely focused on going after the greatest source of fraud: sophisticated corporations and the ultrarich using well-heeled lawyers and accountants to flout the Federal laws to avoid paying what they owe or bilking billions from taxpayers. In my view, that ought to be the focus of Congress' efforts to fight fraud. For those reasons, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I am sorely disappointed today that we were not able to pass this commonsense legislation. And we have seen, time and time again, actual examples being put forth in this body to demonstrate the grift of these scammers. And, unfortunately, we are not able to pass what is bipartisan legislation--a package of bills that has passed through many of the various committees here in the U.S. Senate--again, a bipartisan package that stops the grift and the scamming of the Federal Government. We held a committee hearing, not too long ago, where I had in front of me, in the Small Business Committee, a woman that came from Minnesota. She started off her testimony by saying: I am a Democrat, but I can't stand by idly and watch as money is flowing out the door to the grifters. She gave very powerful testimony. She worked for the State government, and she saw the rampant fraud that was happening in Minnesota. She raised it to her supervisor. She raised the issue to those in charge, and she was told to be quiet and not question what was going on. It eventually led to her firing. But the problem was--and she brought it forward. She said: Every dollar that was being scammed that I identified, it was important to me that it get to the families that need it. Why? Because at one time, I had been part of one of those families. She grew up in a family that was poverty-stricken and filled with abuse. Their family relied on those dollars for their support and yet, as a grown adult, she saw scammers taking advantage of those programs that are meant for the elderly, for the veterans, for those that are struggling to break free from poverty. And what happened to her? She was fired. So this is commonsense legislation, checks and balances put on those programs. For everyone enrolling in those programs, we should check to make sure that they do qualify and meet Federal law and regulations. So, again, I am very disappointed that the Democrats have rejected this, again, a bipartisan package of bills meant to save our taxpayer dollars for people that are truly vulnerable. I am sorely disappointed. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to seek unanimous consent to pass Senator Coons' and my bipartisan legislation, the NO FAKES Act. The NO FAKES Act provides landmark Federal protection for the voice and visual likeness of creators and all Americans. It would protect them from the proliferation of harmful, AI-generated deepfakes that are created without their consent. From artists and songwriters to students and everyday citizens, our Nation deserves meaningful protections against these harmful deepfakes. Our bill would establish clear guardrails that protect our creators in Tennessee and across the entire country. In addition to establishing a Federal intellectual property right in every American's voice and visual likeness, we also provide for a clear notice-and-takedown framework, as well as safe harbor provisions for companies that comply. These provisions ensure that when a platform receives proper notice of a deepfake, that platform must promptly remove or disable access to the harmful content. If they promptly remove the content, they won't face liability under the bill. Importantly, we have included explicit First Amendment protections in this bill. For example, we have excluded commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody content from being removed, as well as news and sports broadcast material. This legislation would protect artists while safeguarding creative uses for AI, which is why it has received endorsements from a wide range of stakeholders, including record labels, streaming platforms, AI companies, musical artists, and organizations involved in protecting our children and protecting dignity. At this point, I yield to my colleague for his comments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from the State of Tennessee. This has been a tremendous experience in working together to find a way to protect creators and, frankly, all Americans. We live in an age of AI anxiety, AI optimism, and AI experimentation in a way never previously thought possible. In the next 5 minutes, I could generate a brief film in which a colleague, say, from the State of Texas is the hero of a major football game or a colleague from the State of Tennessee is performing what is otherwise known as one of Elvis Presley's landmark pieces of music. We each do have a right in what makes us "us" in our voices, in our images, and in the property rights that attach to our likenesses. This bipartisan compromise is the result of years of negotiation with the creative community, with platforms, with studios, and with a lot of different interest groups, including First Amendment and civil rights advocates. This bill, the NO FAKES Act, creates a new intellectual property right to allow not just celebrities and famous Americans but all Americans to control their digital revenue. As my colleague just said, it creates a takedown system to allow you to promptly enforce those rights if you believe that a platform has wrongfully put it up and a prompt counter-notice process to allow you to have it taken down if the rights holder or the platform decides that it violates some fundamental right like the First Amendment. There are key and explicit protections for free speech, for parody, for satire, for documentaries, for newscasts, and for bio-pics. The work that went into this, over years, was substantive and serious. I want to thank my chief counsel, James Barton, and I want to thank my colleague and her staff for their tireless work to first secure the support of the movie and music industries--the actors, singers, songwriters, performers--to secure the commitment and engagement of online platforms, like YouTube and TikTok; to get AI companies, like OpenAI and IBM, on board; and to get organized labor and child safety groups on board. Ultimately, our bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a voice vote, and it has 14 bipartisan cosponsors. It is my hope that we will be able to pass this today in recognition of the hard work of my colleague from Tennessee and our cosponsors, Senator Tillis and Senator Klobuchar. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Tennessee.

I thank my colleague for his consistent work on this. He is so right. This has been something that we have worked on for years, and it is the result of so much bipartisan work and negotiation in explicitly putting in protections for free speech. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII and as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 446, S. 4591. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Texas.

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to start by commending my colleagues and friends, Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons. They both are sincere and passionate about this bill, and they both worked hard. They worked a long time to protect artists and to protect creators, and I support that endeavor wholeheartedly. I want to see this bill pass. Indeed, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted for this bill and expressed, at the time, that I wanted to see the bill pass. But I also said in the Senate Judiciary Committee that I was concerned that there were not sufficient free speech protections in the draft of the bill, as written, and that free speech parody and political parody needed to be more fully protected. There is a difference between stealing a country music star's voice and using it for commercial purposes and engaging in political parody. For example, Spencer Pratt, when he ran for mayor of Los Angeles, had fantastic ads--made using AI--that parodied his political opponents. They were funny; they were effective. I don't think anyone watching thought Karen Bass was actually a Batman villain from the "Lego" movies, but people laughed, and they shared them, and they were effective communication. Likewise, President Trump has used AI for political communication. I don't think anyone really believes that there was a flock of Canadian geese marching with machineguns. But, again, it was a powerful communication tool. So, at the markup, I expressed that I and my team were happy to work with both Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons to enhance the free speech protections so you are protecting legitimate free speech while going after the theft of someone's right of publicity. One of my concerns about how this bill is drafted right now is that it would apply to satirical websites like the Babylon Bee or The Onion, and it leaves the decision as to whether someone's use of a likeness falls within the exception--it creates an exception for what it calls bona fide parody, but it leaves it to Big Tech to make the decision as to whether it falls in that exception or not. And the use of a deepfake law to silence and punish political speech is not idle speculation. In fact, California lawmakers have already suggested that Pratt's viral campaign ads could violate State deepfake rules. That, I think, is a real problem. So I will reiterate, and I will say also that I have no hesitation against strong legislation that stops deepfakes. Indeed, I am the author, along with Senator Klobuchar, of the only legislation Congress has passed regulating AI and prohibiting deepfakes, the TAKE IT DOWN law. I think that illustrates the sort of approach we should have in targeting a specific problem--in that instance, publishing explicit, nonconsensual, intimate images, either real or deepfakes. That is now a Federal felony, and there is now an obligation on tech platforms to remove that content. So I will repeat to my friends the commitment I made at markup: I am happy to work with you. I want this bill to pass, and I will suggest: Let's take the next few weeks to have our staff work together to strengthen the free speech protections. Then we can come back here and pass this into law while fully protecting free speech. At least as of now, though, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, it has been disappointing that the Senator's staff chose not to accept the very language that he was wanting to see. We accepted that into the bill. May I read to you:

Text printed in the Record (106 characters)

[It]is . . . consistent with the public interest in bona fide commentary (including political commentary).

So, if he thinks that he wants a candidate to be able to use certain images in political commentary in a nonharmful way, that is in there:

Text printed in the Record (184 characters)

(. . . political commentary), criticism, scholarship, satire, or parody; or . . . is used in a manner that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That is language that is there. So, if he is wanting to do that, that language has been offered. He can solve this right now by putting his John Henry right there on that language. I would also remind my colleagues that there are laws against impersonation. If it is the physical world, you are not allowed to impersonate somebody to defraud them; with the intent to defraud or defame; with the intent to deceive people; with the intent to create a false identity. It is a felony. It is a felony. The problem is that it is not applied to the virtual space. There is a difference there. But you try to protect people in the virtual space and, all of a sudden, people want to say "free speech." So I would ask my colleagues: Are you opposed to any of the State laws that make it a felony offense to impersonate a person? Go to the bank. Drain their account. Show up at a place of employment, impersonating them. Try to grab their retirement account. Oh, there are laws for that. But, no, you can scam somebody all day long online and get by with it. You can actually show people, as my colleague from Delaware said, in different situations, doing different things, and they have no right--no right--to protect their name, their image, their voice in the virtual space. I will contend that I disagree with my colleague from Texas. We have tried to work with his staff. We have tried to work with him. The NO FAKES Act does not chill First Amendment protected speech. We have worked with First Amendment legal experts in drafting the bill, and we are confident that it is First Amendment compliant. We have even doubled down on this language. Now there are States, including Tennessee, that already provide statutory protection against the misappropriation of a person's name, voice, or likeness, and those statutes have been upheld. In addition, the stated goal of our bill is for courts--the courts--to make decisions regarding First Amendment jurisprudence, not platforms. The platforms, thus, are not the arbiters for making First Amendment decisions. This is really helpful in preventing censorship of conservative speech online. This bill contains the necessary, broad exceptions for entire categories of speech--including news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, documentaries, biopics, commentary, including political commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody. This protects more than the First Amendment and much more than the only Supreme Court case on this subject, Zacchini v. Scripps. If someone believes their content that was removed from this bill was protected speech, they can submit a counternotice triggering judicial review within 14 days if the victim wants the material to stay down; otherwise, the content can go right back up. This ensures that any protected speech that is removed based on a notice stays down for a very short time while preventing platforms from engaging in censorship. As my colleague said, we have worked with groups for years to get this right. We have gotten it right. The protections that my colleague from Texas wanted to see included in the bill are there. This is legislation that should pass and make its way to the President's desk to make certain that every American knows their name, their image, their likeness, their voice cannot be used in the virtual space for deception, for fraud, for personal harm. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, if I might just briefly conclude my comments on the same matter. I look forward to working closely with my colleague from Texas and my colleague from Tennessee to find compromise that allows us to move this bill forward. It is one of the most ready-for-enactment, defined, complete bills in the AI space that creates a new intellectual property right for all Americans. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Of course I respect First Amendment concerns, and, of course, I want to make sure that the notice and takedown process is set in terms of its incentives such that it leans towards protecting political satire and other forms of free speech, and I very much look forward to working in the coming weeks to try and resolve this such that Senator Blackburn and I can see this bill enacted. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Texas.

Safe Access to Cash Act of 2026

Page S5207 · Official text

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Mr. President, I want to share the story of a young man named Juan Lopez. Juan was a hard-working family man who lived in Georgia. On Black Friday in 2021 he was murdered while on the phone with his sister withdrawing cash from a stand-alone ATM. Juan's story is not an isolated tragedy, and, sadly, many of these crimes are never reported. Back in 1934, Congress enacted the Federal Bank Robbery Act in response to a plethora of bank robberies that plagued the early 20th century. This legislation did one simple thing: make bank robberies a Federal offense. And as a result, bank robberies fell dramatically. Now, as we are seeing robberies happening at ATMs found at grocery stores, outside of banks, and on back-country roads, it is clear that action is needed to protect millions of Americans who rely on ATMs for cash--cash that buys groceries, that pays for public transportation, and that makes rent. There are now more than 530,000 ATMs in the United States handling more than 10 billion transactions each and every year. As bank branches decline with roughly 20 percent fewer today than a decade ago, thefts at ATMs are rising, increasing 21 percent year over year. In some cases, robbers can walk away with $15,000 in 5 minutes. And under current law, Federal prosecutors often lack the authority to pursue them. That is why, together with Senator Ruben Gallego, ranking member on the Digital Assets Subcommittee in the Banking Committee, I introduced the Safe Access to Cash Act bringing the Federal Bank Robbery Act into the 21st century. The Safe Access to Cash Act closes that gap in the law allowing Federal law enforcement to investigate and bring justice for crimes like this. This legislation has support from our Nation's leading law enforcement organizations, from organizations that represent stores and retailers, and from groups that bear the financial cost of repeat ATM robberies. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin for their leadership in passing this legislation through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 350, S. 3798.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (247 characters)

A bill (S. 3798) to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish criminal offenses with respect to violations involving ATMs, regardless of whether the ATM is located on the physical premises of a financial institution, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Text printed in the Record (5,690 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Safe Access to Cash Act of 2026". SEC. 2. OFFENSES RELATED TO ATM ROBBERY AND INCIDENTAL CRIMES. (a) In General.--Chapter 103 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2113 the following: "Sec. 2113A. ATM robbery and incidental crimes "(a) Offenses Against ATM Users and Servicers.--Whoever, by force or violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, any property or money or any other thing of value from any person using or servicing, or attempting to use or service, an ATM, or who extorts or attempts to obtain by extortion, any property or money or any other thing of value from any such person, where the offense is committed in direct and immediate connection with such use or service, or from any owner or operator of any ATM, while knowing that such person is engaged in transporting or delivering property to be loaded into such ATM, or from any person, knowing such person to be engaged in the transport or delivery of property to be loaded into such ATM, pursuant to a contract with, or employment by, such owner or operator, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. "(b) Offenses Against Property.-- "(1) Offenses exceeding $1,000.--Whoever breaks into, tampers with, damages, removes, or steals any ATM without authorization of the owner or operator of any such ATM, and removes, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money from any such ATM exceeding $1,000, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. "(2) Offenses not exceeding $1,000.--Whoever breaks into, tampers with, damages, removes, or steals any ATM without authorization of the owner or operator of any such ATM, and removes, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money from any such ATM not exceeding $1,000, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. "(c) Receipt, Possession, Concealment, Storage, Barter, Sale, or Disposal of Property Acquired Unlawfully Under This Section.--Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of, any property or money or other thing of value that has been taken in violation of subsection (b), knowing the same to be property that has been unlawfully taken, shall be subject to the punishment provided in subsection (b), as applicable, for the taker. "(d) Assault in Connection With Offenses.--Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsection (a) or (b), forcibly assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both. "(e) Killing or Forced Accompaniment in Connection With Offenses.--Whoever, in committing any offense defined in this section, or in avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for the commission of such offense, or in freeing himself or attempting to free himself from arrest or confinement for such offense, kills any person, or forces any person to accompany the offender without the consent of such person, shall be imprisoned not more than 30 years, or, if death results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or life. "(f) Definitions.--In this section: "(1) ATM.--The term `ATM'-- "(A) means any network-connected automated teller machine terminal that is connected to 1 or more of the global, national, or regional electronic financial networks that allow a depositor of any bank, credit union, or savings and loan association, by use at such automated teller machine of a card or other access device, as defined in section 1029(e)(1), issued or authorized by such depository institution, to access the account of the depositor for the purpose of making withdrawals from or deposits to such account, or making inquiry as to the balance in such account; and "(B) includes any automated teller machine owned, operated, or sponsored by a bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, regardless of whether-- "(i) the automated teller machine is located on the physical premises of such an institution; or "(ii) the automated teller machine is owned or operated by such an institution. "(2) Bank; credit union; savings and loan association.-- The terms `bank', `credit union', and `savings and loan association' have the meanings given those terms in section 2113.". (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 103 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2113 the following: "2113A. ATM robbery and incidental crimes.". Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time. Mr. CRUZ. I know of no further debate on the bill as amended. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the bill? Hearing none, the bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass? The bill (S. 3798), as amended, was passed. Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CRUZ. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act

Pages S5207–S5226 · Official text

Mr. President, I rise to express the strongest possible support for the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act. Senate Democrats began working on this more than a decade ago when I first became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. This bipartisan legislation contains more than 60 tax reforms to improve tax policy for the American people. It cracks down, in particular, on shady tax prep services that scam low-income Americans to make a quick buck. For too long, taxpayers have been victimized by these shady tax preparers. They file returns that overclaim refunds; they pocket excessive fees from their customers; and then they leave the taxpayers struggling to repay the IRS for the erroneous tax returns the scammer filed on their behalf. These updates will help ensure refunds get out the door on time. It will improve customer service at the IRS, and it will make it easier for taxpayers to get the help they need during filing season. The bill contains provisions championed by Members--and I want to emphasize this--on both sides of the aisle. I could stand here all day describing how these provisions are going to improve service for taxpayers, but I am going to name just a few in the interest of time. The bill includes provisions championed by Senators Warnock and Warner that will digitize tax returns, expand online services, and make it easier for taxpayers to know when they will be getting their refunds. A provision championed by Senator Bennet protects access to the Earned Income Tax Credit. A provision authored by Senator Welch would expand access to critical low-income taxpayer clinic services for taxpayers who have a dispute with the IRS. It includes an important provision by Senator Coons which reduces unnecessary tax burdens on Americans held hostage abroad, and a bill that I worked on with Senator Hassan that helps ensure that whistleblowers will receive the recognition they deserve for blowing the whistle on wealthy tax cheats. So there has been an extraordinary amount of hard work that goes into this. I wish to yield now to my Northwest partner, and as we say in Oregon: This bill is no small potatoes. I yield to my friend.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, Senator Wyden, thank you. You are right, this bill is no small potatoes; it is a legacy piece of legislation that will be of massive support and strengthening to American citizens. I thank my colleague Senator Wyden from Oregon for working in a bipartisan fashion with us to draft this legislation. In fact, all of the colleagues in the Finance Committee have worked with us on this, and all of them have a piece of this legislation, as Senator Wyden has indicated, and I thank them as well. Every year millions of Americans work diligently to comply with our tax law. When they do, they deserve a tax system that is competent and responsive. Too often, however, taxpayers encounter a system that falls short of those baseline requirements. The Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act, or TAS Act, is a bipartisan response to this taxpayer frustration. It reflects what the Finance Committee has collectively learned through years of casework and oversight and proposals from both sides of the aisle. It is designed to provide taxpayers with top-quality service and ensure taxpayers' rights are protected. For example, a taxpayer who files a return should be able to go online and know where he or she stands with the IRS. A taxpayer who calls the Agency should reach a representative promptly. A taxpayer who submits a document electronically should not lose legal rights because the Agency processes it late. These are basic expectations of tax administration. The TAS Act modernizes the IRS so that it can better meet these and other similar expectations. It expands electronic processing of returns and correspondence so filers receive their refunds faster. It also improves online accounts and callback technology and requires the IRS to provide clearer information about backlogs, wait times, refunds, and suspended returns. It also improves online accounts and callback technology and requires the IRS to provide clearer information about backlogs, wait times, refunds, and suspended returns. But modernization alone is not enough. A modernized bureaucracy can still be burdensome. To better protect taxpayer rights, the TAS Act increases access to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and the Taxpayer Advocate Service. It modernizes U.S. Tax Court procedures. It improves review in innocent spouse cases and other disputes. It unlocks funding for low-income taxpayer clinics. And it increases accountability for unauthorized disclosures of taxpayer information. These are just a few of the examples of the 65 taxpayer-focused improvements in the TAS Act, which the Finance Committee approved by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 26 to 1. That resounding bipartisan agreement is bolstered by support from the nonpartisan National Taxpayer Advocate and many leading tax practitioners, who agree that this bill will help the IRS administer the law more predictably and more promptly. Once again, I thank Ranking Member Wyden and the other Members of the Finance Committee for their partnership in shaping and advancing this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act.

Mr. President, at this time, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5349 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt)

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (173 characters)

A bill (H.R. 5349) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service by providing greater judicial review.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Crapo-Wyden substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; that the title amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the title, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment (No. 6847), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under "Text of Amendments.") The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time. The bill (H.R. 5349), as amended, was passed. The amendment (No. 6848) was agreed to, as follows: Amend the title so as to read: "To improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service.". The title, as amended, was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, in 1972, there were just 300,000 female athletes in high school and collegiate sports. Today, there are over 3 million young women who are competing in high school and collegiate sports. This is something that every American should celebrate, and it is all thanks to what has happened with the law we commonly call title IX. By requiring equal resources for facilities, training, recruitment, and scholarships for female athletic programs, title IX opened opportunities for women that would have been impossible in the past. Today, female athletes are competing at the highest level of professional sports. From the Olympics to the World Cup, they are inspiring millions of young girls to pick up sports that improve their health, boost their self-confidence, and teach them leadership skills to succeed on and off the field. It goes without saying that this incredible development, over the last five decades, would have been impossible if men were allowed to compete in women's sports and steal opportunities from girls. This is just plain old common sense. But when it comes to protecting opportunity and fairness for young women in sports, we have seen a serious lack of common sense from our friends on the other side of the aisle. In Executive order after Executive order, the Biden administration pretended as if there are no biological differences between men and women. And they used the full weight of the Federal Government to force schools to allow biological males to play on female teams--endangering young girls and destroying fair play. Parents were forced to look on as biological men took titles, medals, and trophies that belonged to their daughters. Many young women dedicated their entire lives to their sports, only to miss out on scholarships, career opportunities, and hard-earned records that they deserved. The American people rejected this appalling agenda, and they returned President Donald Trump to the Oval Office with a mandate to restore common sense and protect our female athletes. And that is exactly what he has done. On Inauguration Day, the President issued an Executive order that affirms the Federal Government's position that there are only two sexes: male and female. This ensures government policies are grounded in biological reality, not gender ideology. A month later, I had the honor of joining President Trump in the Oval Office as he signed an Executive order that bans biological males from competing in women's sports. As President Trump works to protect female athletes, it is imperative that we celebrate the accomplishments of the young women who practice, train, and compete every day to achieve excellence in athletics. That is why I am calling for unanimous consent for my resolution to establish October 10--10th month, 10th day, or XX, which is like the female chromosome--as American Girls in Sports Day. In addition to celebrating and honoring and cheering these female athletes, this resolution calls on sports governing bodies across the country to protect women and girls in sports. That is it--very simple. It doesn't ask the Senate to create a sweeping new Federal program, and it doesn't ask that we amend any law. It simply asks the Senate to say that women's sports ought to be protected. Yet every single time I have introduced this resolution since 2024, Democrats have come down to the floor, and they have objected. We will see if they are going to do that again this year. If they object to celebrating our wonderful women, our girls, who are competing in sports, they are going to reveal that, once again, they have become the anti-woman party. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 934, submitted earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Massachusetts.

Edward J. Markey (D-MA)

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Blackburn's resolution. Make no mistake, the Senator's resolution is not about celebrating the impact of women and girls in sports. This resolution is yet another salvo in the relentless, escalating attacks on Americans' freedom that MAGA Republicans are waging at every level of government. While families are facing the affordability crisis, the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues care more about limiting Americans' access to vaccines and healthcare, dictating school curriculum and banning books, overruling the judgment of experts when the facts do not align with their extremist agenda, and even policing what sports kids can play. You know, we should be having a big debate out here right now on the fact that healthcare costs are skyrocketing, gasoline prices are skyrocketing, diesel prices are skyrocketing, food prices are skyrocketing--everything is skyrocketing--and it is all cascading down onto the kitchen tables of families trying to pay their bills. And it is all because of this war in Iran. And the price of fuel is going through everything in our society. The price of diesel is skyrocketing. That is what farmers use to do their farming. That is what farmers use once they finish their farming to put it in trucks and travel it across the country to put it on people's kitchen tables. The prices are going up and up and up. We are not having a hearing on that. Yesterday, the President met with all of the trillionaires and the billionaires in the White House who are the AI giants. And, of course, people are scared in our country. They are wondering: Is the government going to do anything to control AI and these billionaires and millionaires? So Trump met with them, and when it was all finished, Trump said: You don't have to worry about it--he just took care of it, Trump--because all of these trillionaires and billionaires are all agreeing that they are going to voluntarily agree to a morally binding standard. What? Are we really going to trust these people--by the way, they are all guys--these guys to really protect our people from AI? Donald Trump is talking about something that is morally binding. We should be having hearings on this. We should be having debates on this out here. But we are not because, in a Republican-controlled Senate, they put all these people in a witness protection program. They don't appear before Congress. We don't debate the issues that are really impacting people, their families, and their kitchen table--the things that they really want to have the Senate do something about. And that is because MAGA Republicans are obsessed with demonizing a small group of people to distract from the President's disastrous policy agenda. And Senator Blackburn's resolution is just the latest distraction. This effort is senseless. It is cruel. It is hateful. Politicians in Washington, they don't get to decide who belongs in society and who does not. I lead the Trans Bill of Rights because it is our moral obligation to defend the rights of trans people. Trans people deserve the right to healthcare, to receive proper identity documents, to safe schools and workplaces, to serve their Nation, to celebrate the same unassailable rights to education and to jobs and to housing as every other American--simply put, to experience the freedom, the joy, the opportunity afforded to every other American. Earlier this year, I met with Abbott, a constituent of mine from Massachusetts. He is 13 years old, a three-time Little League all-star baseball catcher. Abbott is a successful and beloved student. And with the freedom and dignity to get the healthcare he needs, Abbott is thriving. Every child deserves that freedom, that safety, that opportunity. Abbott understands this. He came into my office to demand that his rights and the rights of other children like him be protected. And I fully support him. Today, I stand in opposition to this resolution, and I stand in defense of all children. Here in America, we know that freedom must be fought for. It is fought for by people who say "no more" in the face of discrimination; "no more" in the face of invasive laws that seek to limit what healthcare you can get; "no more" to restrictions on whom you can love, what books you can read, what fields you can play on. Every transgender and nonbinary person deserves to live freely and without fear of discrimination. This resolution is not about freedom; this resolution is about fear. And I will stand to object as many times as necessary to stop such fear, such hatred. Mr. President, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Objection is heard. The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, my colleague from Massachusetts really doesn't have to look very far to see how girls are being impacted by biological males that are playing in women's sports. Indeed, I have pulled some stats, and if you want to look at stolen gold medals, medals that have been taken from young girls and have gone to males, Massachusetts has had 70--70--70 girls--70 girls that were not able to receive the medal they actually would have won if they were competing against girls. In Massachusetts this year, a transgender athlete competed in a girls 55-meter dash and took one of the eight spots in the final. A female athlete finished ninth and didn't advance. So when my colleague tells us this is hypothetical, it is not. We have a list--a list--of what has happened in different States: Arizona, 101 medals; California, 803 medals. You have Ohio, 123 medals. You have Illinois, 120 medals. This is something that is happening out there; it is not hypothetical. My resolution is very simple. The whole thing is 2\1/2\ pages top to bottom. And it shouldn't be surprising that my colleague is objecting to a simple resolution honoring girls and women in sports because, as he mentioned, he had introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights, which would call on the Federal Government to allow individuals to participate in sports on teams and in programs that best align with their gender identity. In other words, it would allow biological males on girls teams and in their private spaces, like school facilities, bathrooms--places that align with their gender identity. This is a very simple resolution, very simple. It celebrates the impact that American women and girls have had on sports culture throughout our history. We have all cheered as we have watched women compete and succeed. This resolution celebrates that. It recognizes the importance of title IX, which seems to be controversial to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I yield the floor, and I submit for the Record the American Girls in Sports Day resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues Senator Curtis and Senator Armstrong.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I have the privilege--I have been in the Senate for 12 years, and I have never led a codel, but I decided one last trip that I wanted to take before I left the Senate was to get back over to Ukraine to really understand what is going on, on the ground and maybe what message we should convey to our colleagues here in the Senate and to our--to the administration and to the American people. This is the second time I went to Ukraine. We also had a very, very productive visit with the government leaders in Poland before we traveled over to Kyiv and then to Kharkiv. We were actually the first delegation since the war began that has been able to get out to Kharkiv where the fighting is only about 10 or so miles away from the city's center. But as we were going on the trip--well, first, when you are in Kyiv, which we spent the first 24 hours, it is an amazing sight to see a country that was illegally invaded that is being bombed on a daily basis still trying to have some semblance of normalcy--and this is in Kyiv. But then when you go to Kharkiv and you see, as you are riding out there, civilian targets: gas stations, convenience stores, schools, and buildings that have all been bombed by the indiscriminate bombing of Russia, it gives you a real sense of the devastation, the heartbreak, and all that is wrong with the decision that Vladimir Putin made to invade a sovereign nation. And I, for one, think that the war--I agree with the people of Ukraine. That invasion started in 2014. As a matter of fact, I remember vividly when I was campaigning in 2014 how critical I was of the Obama administration; in the face of an illegal invasion, the idea was to send them blankets, not to send them the support that they needed to repel a foreign invader. Now fast forward, they are invaded again, and they are doing the same things in the outer reaches of Ukraine that they have been doing in Crimea. They are trying to--they tell kids in Crimea in school that the leaders of Ukraine are Nazis; that they are there for the denazification of Ukraine. I find that rich since the President of Ukraine is Jewish, but that is what Vladimir Putin is telling his folks to tell these kids in school; that they are subhuman; that the people of Ukraine are. You can't think of them as human beings; you think of them as life forms that they need to eliminate. But later on in the colloquy, I want to talk about what we need to do. But I also want to go back to a trip that I took a couple of years ago, my first time into Kyiv, and the devastation and the stories that I witnessed in an area called Bucha. I did a floor speech after that visit, and I really want the American people to understand what happened there in about the first month of the war shortly after they invaded that February 2022. Vladimir Putin directly allowed mercenaries and military officers to authorize their folks on the ground to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians. There are numerous reports of rape of a daughter, rape of a wife in the presence of the husband, then to have the husband murdered. This is not fake; this is well documented. As a matter of fact, I went to a memorial where I saw those victims' names on a wall. That is what we are dealing with in Ukraine. That was 4 years ago, and they are continuing that systematic terror of this population. That is what we are dealing with here. We are not dealing with two adversaries or two countries that we have good relationships with and that we are trying to calm a dispute between the two. We are literally talking about, in my opinion--I will let my colleagues speak for themselves--a fight between good and evil, between communism and Western democracy, between freedom and totalitarianism. That is what we are confronted with in Ukraine. I could go on with a number of other examples, but rather than do that now, I would like to defer to my colleague from Utah, Senator Curtis. It was his first time in Ukraine, but some insights and takeaways from you, Senator Curtis, and then we will go to Senator Armstrong

Thank you, Senator Tillis, Senator Armstrong. It was a delight to travel with you. I think it is appropriate to point out how much work goes into a trip like this. To our team and our staff that put this together and to the Ukrainians that were our hosts, a big thank-you for the things we were able to see and do.

I am so glad you mentioned that. I agree. Thank you.

As you mentioned, this was a unique codel--the first, as I understand it, since the war began to actually go just a few miles away from the front. We were told about stories where they would actually put a black bag over people's heads as they took them into these underground bunkers so they wouldn't be able to identify where they were later on for the Russians. They spared us that indignity and actually put us in vans with curtains that were 360 degrees as we drove into these facilities. We were then shown firsthand how this war is being fought and why this is a different war than most people expected and why the Ukrainians actually are having significant progress. In reality, we saw drone pilots fly these drones into Russia, strike their targets, and have a pretty large impact. As a matter of fact, more Russians are being lost per month than they are able to replace. My staff pointed out that had you put a snail on the Russian-Ukraine border the day the war started, it would actually make more progress than Russia has made. And I think that is an important story for us to come back and tell because the American people need to know this is not the war they thought it was 4 years ago. Ukraine, we learned, is not the adversary we thought it was 4 years ago. It appeared, when this began, to be a very weak friend--a friend that was totally dependent on the United States for its support. In reality, what we found while we were there is that Ukraine is not only not weak and not dependent on the United States, they are actually now a partner with the United States in providing us things and help that will help us in the future. The benefits to the United States far exceed, in my opinion, what we have actually put into this. I think we will see that at a greater rate in the future. Clearly, these drones have changed the way battles are fought. What Ukrainians are learning, the data they are collecting--imagine the data from thousands and tens of thousands and millions of drone strikes. That data is all being collected, and that is just one of the small parts they have to bring forward to us. I would also like to mention that one of the aspects that doesn't get talked a lot about is how much humanitarian aid is going to Ukraine that is nongovernmental. While I was there, I had a chance to peel off from our group and go see a village called Hansen Village. A constituent in Utah, a friend, started Hansen Village. Obviously, it is Mr. Hansen. The amount of effort and work he has put into this so that some of these Ukrainians can start over and have hope and have a chance is overwhelming and touching. I had a chance to talk to a couple of people in this village and hear their stories of imprisonment and torture by Russia. One gentleman had seen his son tortured to death. The stories will break your heart. But I am so grateful not just for the U.S. support but for the humanitarian support. It just may be in Utah that we have more people who speak Ukrainian as a second language than anywhere else in the United States, and certainly it touches a lot of the hearts of Utahans. There is a lot I would like to cover, but I don't want to dominate. Perhaps we can come back in just a minute. But I would like to turn the time over to my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Armstrong.

Alan Armstrong (R-OK)

Thank you, Senator Curtis, and it was truly a joy to travel with you. This was not luxurious travel. We were getting tired of each other's odor by the time we got done with this trip. And we were pretty confined to the same van for a long period of time. But it was very impressive on us, I think, the images that we took away. I think, you know, a lot of times, we think about things and everything here, and I think the questions we have here in the United States about, man, we have our own issues, we have our own budgetary issues, and we have our own fiscal issues that we need to deal with here--and all of those are very true, and all of those are very valid questions for Americans to be asking, including myself. But when you realize what is actually going on there on the ground; you realize the spirit of these people that did nothing wrong, that were minding their own business and had their own country attacked, had a democracy that they valued, that they cherished and had that attempted to be run over the top of; and you realize what is the difference--the reason they have been able to surprise everybody on the field is the spirit that they have and the belief that people like ourselves, people that believe in democracies, are going to be there to help and support them. Well, I tell you what, they have surprised us all because of their passion, their belief in democracy, and what they know to be true versus what they are being told by Russians. So it is impossible--that is the second time I have gotten to go to Ukraine--it is impossible to miss the spirit of these people and how badly they want to defend their own democracy and not be told somebody else's version of the world but their own open, free perspective of the world. But despite that issue, there are also some very important things that we as the United States should be taking from this, and we have a great opportunity to do so. This war is different than any war that has been before us. This is modern warfare with AI involved in it, with very low-cost weaponry involved in it, and I think a display that we had better pay attention to of very--in the business world that I come from, we would call this continuous improvement on steroids. This is every day a feedback loop right back into their drone development systems every day about how to get better, how to improve their communication with their drones, and they have done a remarkable job. If you think about the static approach that we have today to war and defense and how long it takes us to develop and to acquire our acquisition systems, that is no match for a group of people that have the spirit that they do and for a continuous improvement process that is being developed. They are giving us the opportunity to experience that without having to put our lives on the line, and we better take advantage and we better be listening and learning from their experience. We better take seriously an opportunity that we have to help our allies to defend democracy in a place that desperately wants it. This isn't a matter of us not knowing what things will be like after we leave; this is an area that has a democracy, a stable democracy, and we need to be there to support it and show how much we care. I have about 10 pounds of potatoes here for a 5-pound bag, but I am going to turn it back to Senator Tillis as well. So a lot of great observations we had.

Thank you, Senator Armstrong and Senator Curtis. I think what we all left with is an unambiguous view that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim. We all need to understand that when Russia was lying to us and saying they were just doing a training exercise and then turned it into a special military operation, our best intelligence estimates indicated to us--not publicly but in a private setting at the time--that Russia would likely have air superiority within about 3 or 4 days and total control of the ground within a week or two. Putin has failed. He never achieved anything resembling that. He has sent tens of thousands of Russians into a meat grinder. It is so bad now that he is talking about conscription beyond the forced conscription he has now. And get this--he is forcing young Ukrainians to kill Ukrainians because they are brainwashing these young people into thinking they are subhuman. He is not conscripting Russians yet. He is likely going to. But what he is doing is letting people out of prison and giving them U.S. dollars--$40,000 and $60,000 bonuses--to go on the battlefield. One of them was a prisoner of war. He was a sexual predator right out of prison. His family was given $60,000 to go fight. Now he has been captured, and he is going to be used to possibly trade to get a prisoner of war back to Ukraine. Right now, 30,000 Russians are dying every month. They are being plowed down, and they are making no ground. You heard Senator Curtis talk about a snail moving more quickly. That is mathematically true. If the snail started to get to where they are on the frontline right now, they would have beaten the Russians.

So the last 10 minutes we have here before we have a UC coming up, I think, at 5:05 is to talk about what is next. What I think is next is asking the President, encouraging the President to use to the maximum extent possible the sanctions capabilities that Congress sent to him over the past couple of weeks to put the pressure on Russia, to not be the first President who equivocates against a Russian dictator, to continue the tradition of getting an opportunity. When you can win against communism, when you can win against totalitarianism, you do everything you can to win. And guess what. It will not require a single drop of American blood on the battlefield. All the Ukrainians want is support. All they want is intelligence. All they want is to make sure that the European nations continue to do what they are doing and the United States maybe do a little bit more, and that has as much to do with sanctions as it has to do with materiel support. I, for one, hope we can do both. If I have time remaining, I do want to talk about what I think is a dreadful trend in the last year and a half in terms of materiel support, but I would like to hear from Senator Curtis and Senator Armstrong about what we think we need to do to help Ukrainians before they go into the winter, which is when they are most vulnerable, because I firmly believe that if they make it through this winter, Putin's days are numbered and rightly so. Senator Curtis.

I will be brief because I want you to have the last word, but I came home convinced that we should continue finding ways to do four simple things: 1, help Ukraine to defend itself; 2, affirm NATO's resolve to use force against any threats or attacks on our members; 3, impose costs on Russia and those sustaining its war machine; and 4, one of the things we learned over there is that signals from the United States matter. We need to send a signal and make it clear that, from Moscow to Beijing, invading your neighbors is not a successful strategy and we will push back. I yield to Oklahoma.

Alan Armstrong (R-OK)

Well, we certainly learned that on the very frontline, Ukrainians are doing a great job of actually way outperforming the Russians on the frontline. But the thing they are not capable today of defending themselves from are the ballistic missiles and the jet-powered drones that they don't--the Ukrainians don't have the capabilities of building interceptors for that. So you sit there on the frontlines with a lot of death going on and destruction among soldiers, but meanwhile, you have, every night while we were there, air raid sirens continuously. And so you think about the impact on the people there. So they are really sitting there somewhat defenseless with drones in the air every night and ballistic missiles. And so what I think we can do is they do need air defense interceptors; they need spare parts and ammunition that assist in the defense of their lands and their citizens, and they need them consistently. And so that is one reason that I support the bipartisan Fast Tracking European Investment in Ukraine's Defense Act. That is S. 5175. This legislation would make it easier for NATO allies and other designated partners to purchase and transfer certain defensive munitions to Ukraine while maintaining congressional notification safeguards against unauthorized retransfer. So this cannot be an American effort alone. Our European allies have an enormous stake, and they understand that and they should continue to carry more of the burden. But S. 5175 is actually designed to help them do that, and it welcomes greater allied investment in the American defense base and creates a more predictable pathway for our allies and partners to provide Ukraine with specified American-made munitions. And so I would just say that that is, you know, we do--the Europeans are stepping up. I would say that is one thing that has come very positive out of that--they understand that--but we need to be taking the actions if we expect them to be aligned with us on the weaponry. And the weaponry they use, we need to make sure we are adequately providing it to them so they can help support Ukraine as well. So that is one of the particular actions I think we need to take as well.

Mr. President, thanks again to my colleagues from Utah and Oklahoma. This graphic--by the way, the gentleman putting this graphic up is my staff--my MLA--Mike Leeman. It is his birthday today. I don't know if that is allowed, to say that. I won't sing "Happy Birthday," though, for the Parliamentarian's sake. But Mike Leeman is one of the ones who coordinated the trip. You did a great job, Mike. Mike also prepared these stats for me because I want to give you an idea of what the winter is going to look like and what the Ukrainians are up against if last year is any indication. Between October 2525 and March of 2026, the U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission documented at least 423 attacks on electricity generation, transmission, and distribution facilities; 74 strikes on combined heat and powerplants. Vladimir Putin is trying to freeze the Ukrainians to death. This is not targeting military facilities. It is targeting homes like people in the Gallery have here, hopefully, safely. It is targeting schools. It is targeting hospitals. In Kyiv, the attacks resulted in nearly 6,000 multistory buildings not having heat. That is what happened last year. Does anybody believe that Putin is going to do anything less this year? I could go through a long list of civilian targets, healthcare facilities, schools. Kids are meeting in subways now because they can't safely go to school. That is the environment the Ukrainian people are living in year-round, but they have the unique threat of a harsh winter. And literally Putin's strategy of terrorism is to freeze them to death in their homes. That is what we are up against. That is what he did last year. Many people died. What I am worried about--and what we need to do getting ready for this winter--is to change this trend. Our spending has dropped to almost nothing. Now, we are providing support and other forms beyond just the cash appropriations, but we need to do all of the above, ladies and gentlemen. With the proper execution of the sanctions that we have authorized the President to move forward with, with the proper resourcing--and they are not asking for a lot. This speech alone gives the Ukrainian people hope. They are a pro-American country, and the Ukrainian people need to know that the Americans are behind them, that Congress is behind them. And we need this administration to take a few steps to make it very clear that they are behind them too. And it starts with fast-tracking some of the funding that is available. I know it is complicated, but we have got to move quickly. And it also continues with the proper imposition of sanctions capabilities enabled in the bill that we passed in honor of Senator Lindsey Graham. So over the next 93 days that I have left in Congress, I am going to do everything I can to use every lever we can to convince the administration that we have got to make it a priority. We have to move quickly. The Ukrainian people are patient and still silently pro-American. I didn't go anywhere without having people in bombed-out facilities thanking America for what we have done there. Well, I think in this winter America can do a little bit more and, if we do, Putin's days are numbered. That is good for democracy, and that is great for the Western World. And that is our future--not a reemergence of the Russian Empire, not an opportunity to get success in Ukraine, move to Moldova, and try to Russify all of the free countries that the United States and the European nations liberated. That is the end goal, folks. It doesn't stop with the occupied territory in Ukraine, unless America steps up, Europe continues to do its job, and we stop them in their tracks. And that, by the way, is not only good for Europe, but it is good for the Russian people who are suffering under his leadership. I am going to offer to my colleagues--we are going to be mindful of time. But if you would like to make a few closing comments, I want to thank you. I see at least one of the staff up in the audience. It was a trek. We were on planes, trains, and automobiles, but I can't think of a more rewarding trip. I had the pleasure of traveling with you all and your staff, and I thank you. Senator Curtis, do you want to wind up, then Senator Armstrong?

Mr. President, my closing remarks are just simply this: When you make trips like this, you find out firsthand who your friends are and who they are not. And I will clearly say that Ukrainians are allies and friends, and Putin is not. I yield the floor.

Alan Armstrong (R-OK)

Mr. President, I would just add--and Senator Tillis mentioned this--the Ukrainians are worn out. They have been fighting this war. Those on the frontline have been fighting this war for a long time, and you realize how much it means to them that we are there. I think the sanctions bill that was passed is a huge signal that the United States is still behind them, but they desperately need that. They need to show that we care. I don't know how many times I told somebody: Listen, if you drove through a neighborhood where I am from some, you will see plenty of blue and yellow flags supporting you. So don't misunderstand that America wants to see you be successful, and we are working hard to make sure that we help you and we provide the resources for you. They are counting on us to be behind them, and we need to follow through on that support.

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Mr. President, we appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion amongst my colleagues. Again, I thank you all for joining us and the staff that have put it together and support us, and I hope everybody will say a prayer for Ukraine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno)

The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about the Kids Online Safety Act and receive unanimous consent for its passage, but I cannot begin this conversation without remarking on the colloquy that we just heard because I so strongly welcome the powerful statements made by Senator Tillis. I hope he reflects a growing consensus on his side of the aisle in favor of action by the United States to help prepare Ukraine for the long, hard, cruel, potentially devastating winter ahead. I came back from my 11th trip to Ukraine just several weeks ago more convinced than ever that the United States must stand behind Ukraine, not just with words on the floor of the Senate and not just with the Russia sanctions bill--as profoundly and important as it is--but the kind of materiel, self-defense, and other military aid and economic support that will help Ukraine weather the cruel, hard winter ahead. And there were three requests that President Zelenskyy made to me when I sat face-to-face with him at the National Prayer Breakfast: the Russia sanctions bill, air defense, and Starlink. They are all potentially within the control of the United States of America. And time is not on our side or their side, and they are fighting our fight. Our national security interests are at stake. In North Carolina and Oklahoma and Utah--all across the country--our sons and daughters will be in harm's way if we allow Ukraine to fall to Putin's slaughterous, murderous aggression. So I am hoping we can have a conversation in the next 30 days so that when we come back and we do the NDAA, we can make use of this consensus to take that next step. We are not done with the Russia sanctions bill, significant as it was. And I thank my colleagues for joining in that effort in the memory of Senator Graham and the response to the pleas from Ukrainians for our throttling flow of revenue to Putin's war machine. To bring him to the table and to seek peace, that is the goal--peace in Ukraine, security for the people of Ukraine who are so bravely fighting now. I thank my colleagues for their support for Ukraine and for the United States standing up and standing strong for the people of Ukraine, and I welcome this colloquy. I hope the next time we are on the floor, talking about it, we can make it a bipartisan colloquy because support for Ukraine should be and has been bipartisan. Mr. President, I want to share my appreciation--speaking of bipartisanship--for my partner in drafting and advocating the Kids Online Safety Act, Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Unfortunately, she had to make a flight and so is not with us physically. I think she is here in spirit. I don't claim to speak for her, but we have worked together tirelessly on this bill through public hearings--the kinds of advocacy that it has taken to get us this far with whistleblowers, documents showing that Meta and others knew that their products were harming children. This bill is the result of years of painstaking negotiations with our colleagues, with advocates, with tech companies. And because of those negotiations, and all the work that was done, we were able to pass this legislation through the Senate by a 91-to-3 vote. We have hundreds of endorsements from across the tech industry itself. But the major reason we have reached this point is very simply the parents and young people who came forward and spoke to colleagues, gained the consensus that we needed to go forward. This bill is a tribute to parents and kids who have been the most effective advocates. And let me begin by making absolutely clear, the talking points about censorship or privacy are simply a red herring. This bill is about product design, not blocking content. It is about making product design safe, not about censoring. Those talking points about censorship or privacy are simply misleading and false. None of it exists in this legislation. The Kids Online Safety Act simply imposes the same standards of accountability that every other industry faces. It requires tech companies to be responsible for their own products. It requires transparency. It gives kids and parents the tools to protect themselves. Now, just very bluntly, the reason this measure hasn't passed is the tech industry's power, its money, its sway, its lobbyists and lawyers--armies of them. And there is a human cost to delay. The human cost is lives. One of the most heartbreaking experiences of this fight is meeting parents who have lost their children--some of them who lost children after the Kids Online Safety Act was introduced. If the Kids Online Safety Act had been law, maybe their kids would be alive today. I meet parents whose children were taken from them in 2023, 2024, 2025. Holding back this legislation has cost lives. The excuse was engineered in Silicon Valley and K Street not to adopt our legislation. Those excuses and lobbying have cost several lives. And, frankly, if delayed today--if it occurs--that is potential damage as well. More children will suffer because the tech industry seems to have a powerful veto over the U.S. Congress. I want to speak directly to all the parents, everybody watching at home, especially parents who have lost children. There are moms and dads who are anxious that social media is doing harm to their children, and young people themselves who know that they are losing control over their lives because of the addictive content, purposefully made addictive and driven to them by algorithms beyond their control and beyond their knowledge--secret algorithms. We will overcome Big Tech's obstruction. We will overcome Meta and Mark Zuckerberg. We will overcome the Big Tech obstruction that has so far prevented KOSA from becoming law. Our coalition has grown, and it is growing. We have more cosponsors and more support than last session. We will not go away. We will not surrender. We will not give up. That is a promise. Senator Blackburn and I will fight as long and hard as necessary to pass this bill. We will pass it again through the Senate. It was approved unanimously by the Commerce Committee. And we will send KOSA to the President's desk after it is passed. But we need your help. We need your help to contact, literally, Members of Congress over the next 30 days to ask them--as they ask you for your vote: Where do you stand on the Kids Online Safety Act? Will you vote for it? Put KOSA on the ballot and demand that Congress pass a strong internet safety bill to protect children. So I want to thank all the cosponsors, all of my colleagues who have supported us, all the parents and children, all of the advocates, and hope that we can actually pass it by unanimous consent today. And if not then, as soon as we return. And I ask, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 1748 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Kentucky.

Reserving right to object, if good intentions created laws--or created good laws--there would be no need for congressional debate. I have no doubt that the authors of this bill genuinely want to protect children, but the bill they have written promises to be a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. KOSA would impose an unprecedented duty of care on internet platform to mitigate certain harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. While proponents can claim that the bill is not designed to regulate content, imposing a duty of care will inevitably lead to one outcome: the stifling of First Amendment protected speech. Although many organizations have expressed concerns relating to KOSA's effective censorship mandate, I want to discuss one group in particular. During the 2024 effort to pass KOSA, a pro-life organization, Students for Life Action, stated:

Text printed in the Record (265 characters)

Once again a piece of Federal legislation with broad powers and vague definitions threatens pro-life speech . . . those targeted by a weaponized federal government will almost always include pro-life Americans defending mothers and their children--born and preborn.

Students for Life Action concluded its statement by stating:

Text printed in the Record (268 characters)

Already the pro-life generation faces discrimination, deplatforming, and short- and long-term bans on social media on the whims of others. Students for Life Action calls for a No vote on KOSA to prevent viewpoint discrimination from becoming Federal policy at the FTC.

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

If KOSA can silence pro-life speech because online messages encouraging adoption and discouraging abortion might cause a teen mom anxiety, then KOSA is the kind of censorship all those who believe in the sanctity of life should oppose. KOSA should not pass the Senate. But it certainly should not pass the Senate today, the 50th anniversary of the Hyde amendment, which bans Federal taxpayer funds from being used for abortion. No matter how many times the bill text is altered, no matter how many times KOSA's authors try to disguise its censorship, the reality remains that this legislation will silence constitutionally protected speech. Government mandates and censorship will not protect children online. The internet may pose new problems. But there is an age-old solution to this issue. Free minds and parental guidance are the best means to protect our children online. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Connecticut.

I want to respond very briefly because everything that has just been said in objection to this bill is totally irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it is based on the misunderstanding that this bill somehow imposes censorship or content evaluation. In fact, it is not a free speech issue. The bill explicitly focuses on design features. Section 102(a) says a platform must exercise reasonable care in the "creation and implementation of any design feature" when that design feature foreseeably contributes to one of the enumerated harms. The bill even defines "design feature" in section 101(4) as a platform feature or component that encourages or increases "the frequency, time spent, or activity of minors on the . . . platform"--"the frequency, time spent, or activity of minors on the . . . platform." It couldn't be clearer that we are talking here about the kind of design feature that is involved when a manufacturer makes a defective toaster or a car that goes off the road, or some other harm-causing feature that could be foreseeably corrected. And, finally, the bill specifically protects a child who goes looking for content. Section 102(b)(1) says the duty of care cannot be construed to require a platform to prevent a minor from "deliberately and independently searching for, or specifically requesting, content." In short, the duty of care has nothing to do with censorship. It says nothing about allowing government enforcement based on the viewpoint of users expressed through speech. And it preserves the First Amendment and everything that is involved in it. I know my colleagues understand that America is in the midst of a mental health crisis. And one in four children ages 9 to 17 reports sexually explicit interaction with someone they believe was an adult online. And 59 percent of U.S. teens report having experienced cyber bullying. This problem will not go away in the next 30 days. It will only become more egregious and urgent. And so I regret that Senator Paul is objecting today, but I am hoping that we will act quickly when we return.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

Just last week, it was reported that the Trump administration intends to develop public land in several States, including Oregon, to build new data centers. Since he took office, Donald Trump and his allies have taken every opportunity--every opportunity--to chip away at what belongs to the American people, all in an effort to boost profits for corporations and secure bigger campaign support for themselves. Public lands are owned and paid for by the American people--our taxpayers. The people get to decide what to do with their public lands, not the big corporations and especially not Donald Trump. By now, it is well proven that all too often these facilities place massive demands on local utility grids and scarce water supply. In Western States like mine, this is especially troubling as we are facing very serious drought conditions. My legislation gives Congress a chance to stop these corporate land grabs before they do more damage. This is an opportunity to reject the effective privatization of America's beloved public lands and protect them for future generations of hunters and anglers and hikers and campers. Congress must not let the Trump administration establish a dangerous precedent, a precedent that our public lands are a fire-sale inventory for development by the highest bidder. I urge any Member of this body that cares about preserving our public lands and putting a stop to Trump's taxpayer rip-offs to support my bill. So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5658, submitted earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Kentucky.

Reserving the right to object, local communities have a right to determine whether a data center makes sense for them; some want them, some don't. This bill would obstruct that right in places where Federal land is so abundant, you can't drive 5 miles without running into it. Washington should preserve local flexibility rather than declare an entire category of land off-limits. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard.

Mr. President, I will just be very brief. The fact is, that can't happen because the reality is, these lands are already being developed in my home State and across the West right now. This is an immediate threat to public lands that we have the opportunity and a requirement to address today in order to protect them. You can't wait to set something up--the way that my colleague from Kentucky is talking about--while Trump runs roughshod over America's public lands. I am going to be back in this body again and again until we get a balanced approach to protection with respect to these issues, which we are not getting today because of my colleague's objection. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, the Federal Government has become a gold mine for fraudsters. Just last week, we saw that one health insurance marketplace had over 700,000 fraudsters and over $2 billion in fraud. In the 6 months since President Trump tapped Vice President Vance to lead the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, Federal investigators have uncovered more than $200 billion in fraud against the American taxpayer. Think about that--hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from hard-working Americans every single year. The fraud is egregious, and it is systemic. Consider New York City. The Vice President's task force discovered that there is more than $2 million in unemployment insurance fraud every day--$2 million in fraud every day--in one program in one city alone. That is more than $700 million annually, all stolen from the American taxpayer. It is money that was earned through blood and sweat, through sacrifice and service. It is money that was supposed to care for the sick, to assist those with disabilities, to feed hungry kids, to help struggling families, to support our veterans. Instead, it has been stolen by lowlifes, degenerates, con artists, and organized crime. For years, as government spending boomed, this theft from the American people was treated as a cost of doing business. Career bureaucrats shrugged, and politicians--many purposefully--looked the other way, all while fraudsters kept stealing and looting from our country. In that environment, it isn't too surprising to learn that there was not a Division at the Department of Justice focused on investigating and prosecuting fraud against the government. President Trump saw that. Vice President Vance saw that. Attorney General Blanche saw that. And they took action. They created the National Fraud Enforcement Division within the Department of Justice to root out this fraud and hold the fraudsters responsible. We saw this problem here in Congress as well. I launched the Senate Anti-Fraud Task Force with my colleagues to help build durable solutions to prosecute this fraud and prevent it from happening in the future. That is why I rise here today--to take the first step in ending the rampant fraud against the American taxpayer and to enshrine the National Fraud Enforcement Division as a permanent Division within the Department of Justice. Fraud against our country has become not only a multistate problem but a transnational criminal enterprise. To address this problem, we need a permanent National Fraud Enforcement Division that brings together prosecutors, investigators, Federal Agencies, and State and local law enforcement to attack fraud on the frontlines. The mission is simple but very, very important: Protect the American taxpayer and government against fraudsters. That mission should transcend red jersey-blue jersey party politics. Find the people stealing taxpayer dollars, and bring them to justice. Today, right here, we can make that Division permanent. Regardless of party affiliation, every Member of this body should want taxpayer dollars to go where they are supposed to go, not into the pockets of fraudsters. It is that simple, truly. So often, we squabble over commissioning studies or we analyze a problem or host briefings to research root causes of an issue or hem and haw toward issuing a white paper, but today, on this Senate floor, we can permanently establish an enforcement Division that does three things: finds fraud, prosecutes fraud, and stops fraud. The House passed this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. Why? Because stopping the theft from the American taxpayer is just as important as deciding how to spend those dollars. When I am back home in St. Louis, I often hear from the great people of the Show-Me State with similar complaints. They are sick and tired of watching criminals steal millions--billions--of dollars while their friends and families struggle to achieve and receive basic services. They are sick and tired of a government that can track down a single Venmo payment, but somebody can't find the organized fraud rings walking out the front door with an obscene amount of taxpayer dollars. These are not signs of serious governance, and at a certain point, indifference to fraud becomes complicity in it. As chairman of the Senate Anti-Fraud Task Force, I have seen how deep the rot goes. Fraudsters exploit virtually every government program ever created. They create fake businesses. They bill for services never provided. They manufacture beneficiaries who do not exist. They exploit vulnerable people as names on the screen while diverting money into their own pockets to fund obscene purchases and lifestyles. These people, they are sick and twisted people. They are cold and calculated. These fraudsters are running an entire criminal enterprise into empires to steal from the American people. The purpose of government assistance is to help Americans who genuinely need it. Government assistance should not help subsidize lavish lifestyles for criminals who have learned how to manipulate a lackadaisical legislature. We need prosecutions with real authority, with serious resources, so that our government can follow the money wherever it leads and consequences--real consequences--for those who defraud our country. If we are a serious Senate, we must be able to say with clear eyes: If you steal from the American people, we will find you, and we will prosecute you. You may hear shortly that this division already exists. And thanks to President Trump and Vice President Vance, that is currently true. But without this bill codifying it, fraudsters will know that their paydays will soon return because a future administration could disband the division, be distracted elsewhere. There should be no reason that the U.S. Senate should object to creating a permanent division within the Department of Justice to find and investigate and prosecute fraud. I would also like to thank Senator Moody for her work on this. Senator Moody has been fighting fraud since day one, and she has been a great partner. We served together as attorneys general, and she had a reputation for that even then. I want to yield the floor at this point to Senator Moody.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Florida.

Ashley Moody (R-FL)

Mr. President, thank you to my good friend and colleague Senator Schmitt. The grift is real, and the grift is great. I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass this vital legislation to stop the rampant fraud that we are seeing around this country. Through my previous work as Florida's attorney general, certainly my colleague and his work as attorney general, we know how important it is to safeguard our citizens and the American taxpayer. I was a founding member of the new Senate Anti-fraud Task Force, and I know every time we uncover another case of fraudsters benefiting off our public tax dollars, it is a slap in the face to hard-working Americans. We are so grateful to this administration and Vice President Vance for stepping up and taking the lead. We know that fraud being uncovered across the Nation sets up a challenge to Congress to address our laws to make sure it is not easy to accomplish; that the criminals don't have their work laid out for them; that they don't keep getting away with this. Congress should be embarrassed if we don't take action. I was as shocked as everyone here when reports came out that criminals in Minnesota stole an estimated $9 billion in taxpayer funds. In addition, the administration has uncovered more than $260 billion in fraud nationwide. Americans should be hopping mad. That is why, when the House of Representatives recently voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion to advance commonsense policies holding fraudsters accountable, I worked directly with the House sponsors to file the Senate companion the very next day. That is why my colleague and I are standing here on the floor today to try to get something done immediately. We have to stop the bleeding. The National Fraud Enforcement Division Act of 2026 would institute a permanent force for taxpayers within the Department of Justice. To Senator Schmitt, to the House sponsors, and every other Member of this noble institution that has vowed to clean up this mess and actually do something, thank you. It couldn't come at a more important time. However, while I stand here and talk about the importance of this issue, the common sense of this issue, and the support of the American people for this issue, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle block every effort we have made to address rampant fraud in this country. We were sent here to be stewards of taxpayer dollars, to ensure we are spending the finite resources of this country responsibly. And yet every significant attempt taken by this body, by the government, by me, by a colleague, by Senator Schmitt, by anyone on the Republican side of the aisle to do something, it gets blocked or stalled. Dismantling the fraud economy and going after those who defraud the American taxpayer should be a 100-to-0 issue. When Senator Ernst tried to pass her antifraud legislative package--with many of the provisions being bipartisan--earlier today, Senate Democrats blocked the bill. Just last week, I tried to pass a No Aid For Ghost Students Act in committee, making sure we weren't outlaying money for students that didn't even exist, and that got stalled by the Democrats. Every new idea or proposal that we put forth is panned or outright rejected, even if the idea saves taxpayer dollars for more crucial needs or would lead to refunds to the American taxpayer. It is irresponsible to not do something. We should be embarrassed. And think about what is happening. I am talking about the Dems not allowing us to push forward legislation to fix laws that are allowing this to happen. Right now, we are just trying to put forward a permanent division to enforce existing laws, and we can't seem to get that through, even though it passed the House bipartisan. When we are told actions speak louder than words, I can only draw one conclusion; that certain Members or parts of this institution prioritize fraud recipients and grifting the apparatus over the fiscal health of the country or our fiscal stewardship responsibilities. I hope I am wrong. I hope that we, as the Senate, as the legislators we are, will come together to support this cause and permanently enact and set up a Fraud Enforcement Division. There could be nothing simpler. And if we pass the National Fraud Enforcement Division Act today, we guarantee that more fraudsters and bad actors are held accountable for stealing taxpayer dollars. I say: Let's get this done. I yield back to my colleague from Missouri.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Missouri.

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Mr. President, the American people have paid the bill for fraud for too long. Now is the time for the fraudsters to pay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9576, which was received from the House; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have to start by noting that President Trump and his cronies are using the White House to commit political fraud and corruption on an epic scale. This is unprecedented levels of corruption. The rot runs deep. And to allow for that massive Trump corruption, the administration dismantled the ordinary mechanisms of government that deter, investigate, and punish that kind of activity. We should be embarrassed at an administration that has deliberately destroyed the mechanisms of government that investigate and police corruption. The DOJ historically had all sorts of different components that worked to investigate and prosecute fraud: the Public Integrity Section; the Consumer Protection Branch; the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team; the Tax Division; the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, known OCDETF. All have been gutted or side-lined under this corrupt administration. If there is something we should be embarrassed about, it is the destruction of those mechanisms. Along with that, in his first month, the President dismissed 19 inspectors general, the actual people whose job it is to root out fraud and corruption in government. It is clear that fighting fraud is not this administration's priority. What is, is weaponizing the Justice Department to use as a tool to go after President Trump's political enemies, and this new component is the perfect vehicle for more of that. The Division's current head, just to give you an idea, is the former cochair of the so-called Weaponization Working Group, which is the semicovert array of Trump operatives put into government across various different organizations to go after and punish his political enemies and to propagate the lie that somehow he actually won the election against Joe Biden. We have asked, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, questions about what this Division--how is this going to work? What is its structure? What is its operation? No answer. So this whole thing is clouded in mystery, tainted by the Weaponization Working Group, and completely at odds with destruction of all the organizations within the Department of Justice, the components that actually did this work and whose destruction our Republican friends had absolutely no complaint about as they were being torn apart. Now, there is one that I will focus on: the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. When I was a U.S. attorney, I had an OCDETF group, and we worked in a very important way. OCDETF was who had brought Federal, State, and local law enforcement together to focus on organized crime, drug trafficking, and major fraud operations. It targeted major players. It had a financial crime component. Fraud was a piece of it, and the cartels and other big crime networks were its target. President Reagan established OCDETF. What is not to like about it? It is very successful. It had a winning track record. Well, OCDETF got eliminated entirely by the Trump administration. So I have a bill that would actually do something more meaningful about fraud, that would take a proven mechanism that worked for 40 years targeting cartels, big organized criminal investigations, huge fraudsters, RICO characters, and simply restore it to the way it was. It was working perfectly well. Mr. President, so I, therefore, ask that the distinguished Senator's consent be modified and, instead, the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 4004 and the Senate proceed its immediate consideration; and I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection to the modification? The Senator from Missouri.

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. My bill is simple. It should be a really uncontroversial purpose codifying the National Fraud Enforcement Group. It has done remarkable work protecting American taxpayer dollars. And by the way, this wouldn't survive. This isn't just for this administration--beyond it. It would be great if a Democrat President somewhere down the road was focused on this with an existing National Fraud Enforcement Division. But the proposed amendment deals with a completely different topic. Regardless of how you feel about the amendment, it seeks to undo the administration's new model for combating transnational organized crime, a new model that has been incredibly successful. During the prior administration, fentanyl and other dangerous drugs poured across Joe Biden's open borders. Those drugs poisoned our communities, destroyed families, and stole the lives of Americans who should still be here with us today. Cartel members poured across the open border as well and victimized the American people with violent crime, human trafficking, and dangerous drugs. In Missouri, the consequences of that open border were all too real. There are empty chairs at kitchen tables, parents who buried their children, grandparents raising their grandkids. President Trump ran on closing the border and stopping the flow of these dangerous drugs. He understood that it is our obligation to protect the homefront, protect those families, and use the resources at our disposal wisely. To accomplish these goals, he reoriented how the Federal Government counteracts transnational organized crime, focusing on using Homeland Security task forces. That model incorporates FBI and DHS agents alongside the more than 20 Federal Agencies and over 400 State, local, and international law enforcement agencies for coordinated operations. The reorganization sought to go upstream and get to the source of the true problem, securing the border and stopping the cartels and other transnational criminal organizations. By focusing on the actual root of the problem through the Homeland Security Task Force model, we have seen investigators, prosecutors, intelligence analysts, and immigration enforcement working together to disrupt the cartels and the criminal networks threatening our country. That is how we should fight crime that operates across borders, by taking the fight to them. And there is an important downstream effect of this approach: The trafficker moving fentanyl often also traffics people, launders money, and arms violent gangs. By updating our law enforcement model to meet the reality on the ground and the realities of modern transnational criminal threats, the new Homeland Security Task Force model has achieved remarkable success. Our intelligence Agencies have reported that fentanyl crossing the border fell 55 percent after President Trump took office. In some year-over-year statistics, drug flows have been cut by 98 percent--98 percent. And the new Homeland Security task forces have arrested thousands of criminals, including more than a thousand cartel members, hundreds of MS-13 gang members, and hundreds of Tren de Aragua members. They have seized tons of illegal drugs, including more than 300,000 fentanyl pills, and they have taken thousands of illegal guns off the streets as well from hardened gang members and cartel members. Law enforcement agents have worked tirelessly over the past few decades to try to stem the tide of transnational organized crime and criminal gangs. The Trump administration inherited the status quo with dedicated law enforcement agents but an organizational and operational model that wasn't working.

So the administration got to work and reorganized the operations, and the results have been promising. This proposed amendment--an amendment to a bill that seeks to codify protection for American taxpayer dollars--would disrupt this new model approach, and it tries to codify the old approach of combating transnational organized crime. That would be a return to the approach that just wasn't working. We should instead allow the administration to continue its good work of reorienting enforcement through the Homeland Security Task Force model. Too often, people in DC confuse the survival of a program or an enforcement model with the success of its mission. President Trump's reorganization efforts broke that mold, and it proved to be one of the most important steps we have ever taken against the cartels. This amendment is an attempt to revert to a prior model that wasn't working, and it is a distraction from our effort to codify the administration's important efforts to protect Americans' hard-earned taxpayer dollars against fraudsters. And for those reasons, I do object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. Is there objection to the original request?

Yes, there is, Mr. President. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Objection is heard. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Margaret Wood Hassan (D-NH)

Mr. President, 2 years ago, the American people elected a new Congress and a new President. The American people did so based on a promise that the President and his allies in Congress would work to bring down high costs. So now it is worth asking a simple question, one that the American people will ask their elected representatives when they return home in a few days: Did the President and his allies in Congress make good on their pledge to bring down costs for American families? The answer is clear: No. Not only has the President failed to make good on his pledge to bring down costs, not only is it evident that he never even bothered to try, but it is clear that on virtually every metric, it costs more to be an American than it did 2 years ago when this President was sworn in and the 119th Congress began. It is worth taking a moment to go line by line, cost by cost, broken promise by broken promise, to examine the ways in which the President's policies--including his tariffs and his war--have driven costs higher and higher. Before the President took office, he promised that he would bring gas prices down from $3 a gallon to less than $2. But under this President and his majorities in Congress, gas prices haven't just failed to go down, they have instead shot up to around $4.50 a gallon, meaning gas costs 50 percent more now than when Donald Trump entered office. Since the President began his reckless war with Iran without a plan to win, the American people have paid an additional $93 billion on gas in less than a year, and, on average, each American family has had to spend $790 more on gas since this war began. And the President failed even more catastrophically to bring down diesel prices. Diesel now costs around $3 more a gallon than it did when the President took office. Farmers and truckers are weathering the highest prices for diesel in American history, with costs at the pump exceeding $6.50 a gallon last week. Now, it is one thing to fail on a promise to lower the price of something; it is quite another to be responsible for the highest price of that good ever recorded in our country's history. The President also promised to make healthcare "affordable again." Of course, this is not at all what happened. Instead, the President gutted Medicaid to take away healthcare for millions of Americans in order to pay for tax giveaways to billionaires like himself. He also allowed health insurance premiums to surge, meaning more families now pay more for insurance every single month, even if they don't get sick. Just before the President took office, the average monthly cost for health insurance was $468 a month. The President did not reduce those premiums by a dime. Instead, families now pay $611 a month. That is almost $150 more monthly, almost $2,000 more per year--$2,000--dollars that could otherwise be spent on the mortgage, the rent, repairs for the car, let alone parents just using it to do something nice for their kids. And what about the cost of groceries? The President promised repeatedly that he would bring down grocery costs. Well, let's look at the numbers. Since the President took office, ground beef has risen to $7 a pound, and coffee has risen from about $7 a pound to more than $9. Now, I don't know if the President is right when he says that "groceries" is an "old-fashioned word," as he often claims, but I do know that old-fashioned math tells us that $9 is more expensive than $7. And let's say we take everything all together--all the goods and services that we pay for every day--and add it all up. How much, if at all, did the President and his allies in Congress reduce costs? They failed to reduce costs at all. The American people have had to pay an additional $4,200 on goods and services since the President took office. The President had nearly 2 years to try to lower costs, and instead, families had $4,200 more taken out of their pockets. This isn't a partisan point. This isn't spin. This is just basic mathematical facts--facts that make evident that the President both completely failed to lower costs and honestly didn't even try. So if the President failed to bring down costs, what has he been working on these last 2 years? Well, the President's been clear about his priorities. He is not interested in lowering costs for families. He is interested in raising monuments to honor himself. He hosted military parades in his honor. He destroyed the East Wing to build himself a golden ballroom. He has been trying to put his name on other monuments. He is running taxpayer-funded ad campaigns praising himself. And, according to a new report from the Joint Economic Committee Minority, while the American people are paying more to keep up with high costs, the President wants to spend $1.8 billion on projects to flatter his own vanity. Now, we throw lots of numbers around in Washington, but it is worth remembering what the American people know full well: This is real money we are talking about. It is the American people's money. We owe it to them to ask: How could that same $1.8 billion help them? What can $1.8 billion buy when it is not being diverted by an apprentice dictator, who, rightly fearing that no one will ever honor his Presidency after he is gone, rushes to build gilded tributes to himself? Mr. President, $1.8 billion, it can buy a lot of things: It can pay for the electric bills for 12 million families for a month; it can fill up more than 35 million tanks of gas, even at the President's new high prices; it can buy 600 million school lunches, fully paid for, so our children can have a good, healthy meal at school; $1.8 billion could hire around 30,000 new firefighters to keep our communities safe; and it can pay all the medical expenses--every medical bill--for more than 88,000 American veterans for an entire year. If the President insists on spending the people's money on himself, he owes them an explanation. So if I have one request today, it is this: I want the President to explain why a monument to honor himself is a better use of taxpayer dollars than paying for healthcare for veterans. Is a ballroom to make one man feel like a King more important than healthcare for a year for the heroes who fought to keep our country free? What more did America's heroes--people who have given everything to this country--what more do they need to do to deserve the $1.8 billion that the President would rather spend to honor himself? And when in America did honoring service become less important than honoring one man's ego? I know that a majority of Americans, including many of my Republican colleagues, also find the President's vanity projects distasteful, but I think we are all doing a bit of play-acting if we forget that the President's determination to shower himself in honors is not simply excessive or distractions but is wrong and is distinctly un-American. Consider our other Presidents. George Washington didn't order the construction of the Washington Monument. Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson didn't pick out sculptors to build their memorials. John F. Kennedy didn't name the Kennedy Center. And none of them tried to put themselves on our currency. They received these honors from grateful citizens after their time in office. The current President is the only exception to this rule. George Washington was a rich man as well, but he used his wealth to support the Continental Army. He didn't use his office to enrich himself, nor did he have any interest in being King. The reason why this matters is because the President's desire to appease his own vanity and his failure to bring down costs are linked because it is deeply telling that the President will go to such extravagant lengths to honor himself. He will break with American values and precedent when they stand in the way of his whims; he will use a wrecking ball to tear down buildings; he will spend great time and effort planning every detail; he will file court appeals while defying court orders; he will pilfer taxpayer funds and even ignore the law and the Constitution--all just in his mission to leave a gilded tribute to himself. But he can't be bothered to lift a finger to bring down costs despite his promise to do so. What does this all reveal? It reveals that the President is uninterested in listening to what the American people want. The American people don't want the President to build a golden ballroom; they want him to build homes that they can afford. They are not asking for parades and car races on the National Mall; they want to pay less at the pump on their way to work. They don't want his face on our currency; they want to keep more money in their pockets. So, in closing, what does the final accounting of this President's broken promises tell us? Since the President took office, Americans have had to pay $4,200 more to keep up with rising costs while the President spends $1.8 billion to keep up with his own ego. In short, it tells us that the President seeks to rule but that he is unable to lead. He seeks to honor himself, but he is unable to honor his word. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. GRAHAM)

The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, we have a challenge--a problem--and that is the President is exercising a line-item veto, and line-item vetoes are unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of the United States. Laws are not suggestions. The Constitution is not optional. A President is not a King. That was the Founders' vision for our democratic Republic. But on Friday, President Trump swung a wrecking ball at the Founders' vision, at the Constitution. He and Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, proceeded to--in the dark of night--notify that they were canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law. Well, let's be clear. Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself, and unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President. This has been tested a few times. In 1996, Congress tried to give the President a line-item veto, and the Supreme Court struck it down. It struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's separation of powers. Yesterday, the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that this strategy by Trump, called a pocket rescission--a fancy name for a line-item veto--is illegal. Here is what they said. I will quote it at some length.

Text printed in the Record (653 characters)

GAO has previously concluded that the Impoundment Control Act does not permit the withholding of funds past their date of expiration. The plain language of the ICA provides that amounts proposed for rescission must be made available for obligation unless Congress completes action on a bill rescinding them. The legislative history of the ICA, Supreme Court precedent, and the overarching constitutional framework . . . compel this conclusion. Therefore, the rescission proposals contained in the President's September 25, 2026, special message to Congress do not permit the President to withhold the appropriations beyond the end of fiscal year 2026.

And that fiscal year--we are hours away from it ending. So, in other words, more simply put, it is Congress' job to design, authorize, and fund programs. It is the Executive's job--the President and his team's job--to implement those programs. The assignment of responsibilities is designed to ensure that we have a government that serves the people. In a democratic republic, the people's representatives in Congress--from every part of the country, from every walk of life--debate and negotiate and legislate so that you will have programs and spending decisions that reflect the needs of every part of the Nation. We don't just deliver programs for red States when Republicans have the majority; we don't just deliver programs for blue States when Democrats have the majority--no. All of us, working together, produce spending bills to serve people throughout this country--urban and rural, north and south, east and west, plains and coast. However you want to divide up the country, we serve everyone. So a President taking those bipartisan agreements to serve everyone and canceling out individual programs is both illegal and unconstitutional. But in an authoritarian, strongman state it is all different. The President alone decides what gets funded and can use that power to reward allies and punish opponents. In those states, there is no separation of powers; there is one authority. Call it a King. Call it a czar. Call it an emperor or a dictator or a tyrant. Whatever you call it, it doesn't fit in a democratic republic. We do not have a tyrant or a dictator. We do not have a King. We have a President with responsibilities under the Constitution to implement the programs that we design, authorize, and fund here in Congress. That is how you get government by and for the people rather than by and for a billionaire or by and for an elite class or by and for a King himself. But last year, Trump did exercise his strategy of operating as a King in a, if you will, line-item veto through this fancy term "pocket rescission," canceling nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by law. That tool, called a rescission, was created under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, and it allows the President to propose canceling a program, but it also says that cancellation does not take effect unless Congress votes to cancel the programs, and we haven't voted to cancel these programs. So, therefore, that is why it is illegal to cancel them. Well, it is pretty straightforward. The law says that no rescission or cancellation goes into effect without Congress authorizing the cancellation by law. Madam President, I have here what I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a statement from the chair of Appropriations, Senator Susan Collins.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (1,114 characters)

@SenatorCollins Without warning or consultation, Congress just received an $810 million package of pocket rescissions from the Administration. This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse. This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law. Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers. OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding. The independent Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act. Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law. I will work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions. Mr. MERKLEY. She wrote very succinctly and to the point here.

She notes:

Text printed in the Record (245 characters)

Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers. OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.

Then she goes on to cite the independent Government Accountability Office. So on both sides of the aisle, those of us who are defending the Constitution are coming together and saying: We have to fix this, and we have to put an end to this end run of canceling programs with days to go and then claiming the clock has expired. This is essentially the situation. Imagine Cinderella and she is in her carriage. The carriage turns into a pumpkin at midnight. So in comes the President, and the President says: We are going to pause these programs--or Cinderella's travel--and so we are going to hold her hostage for a few minutes until midnight so her carriage will turn into a pumpkin. And then, the equivalent of that, of course, is that the program's legal window to be implemented has expired. That is what is going on here, and it is an ugly, ugly version of "too clever by half," as we say back home, to do a line-item veto. And my colleagues across the aisle, we will all be affected by this. The programs the President tried to cancel--his process of canceling--may be programs that are favored by one side or the other, but imagine a different President with a different set of priorities. We have to defend the institution. We have to defend the Senate and make sure that no President of any party, at any time, gets a line-item veto that corrupts us from being a democratic republic into being an authoritarian state. So as Democrats and Republicans all sworn to the same defense of the same Constitution, let's come together and set this right. And we have tried to set it right before. In the Appropriations Committee, I and others offered amendments to say: Hey, make sure this is immune from being undone by a rescission within 90 days. Colleagues, you know, wanting to not embarrass a President, said, well, they are not going to support that; the Republican majority said they wouldn't support that. But we heard assurances that they agreed with us, with the principle, that they weren't going to let it happen, but here it is. Five days before the end of the fiscal year, it just happened, and the chair of the Appropriations Committee is crying out and crying foul that this is not acceptable under the law or the Constitution. So let's all listen to her. Let's all listen to the Constitution. So this situation must be remedied, and a number of my colleagues are here tonight to speak to it. And I just want to pass this conversation on to the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee to emphasize how important it is that we address this and we address this tonight.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Washington.

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for setting out what is going on here because, as he said, on Friday night, President Trump announced that he was stealing more money from the American people. Trump and his Budget Director, Russ Vought, call it a pocket rescission. Well, whatever you call it, it is illegal. Trump is taking the bipartisan funding that we passed, funding that Democrats and Republicans agreed on, that he signed into law, and he is now ripping out the pages he doesn't like. Forget about ideas like Congress and the law. Look, this is theft from the American people, plain and simple. In this case, Trump is tearing away funding to help Americans buy a home. He is cutting off funds for healthcare research which would prevent things like hospital infections that are dangerous or saving taxpayers literally billions of dollars. But you know what, Trump could not care less. While he blows your tax dollars on an illegal war, Trump is illegally cutting off funding for health research, housing, and more. I guess that is no surprise given how this President is constantly out of touch with American families--saying "tariffs" is his favorite word or saying that he loves inflation or saying he wants housing costs to go up. He said that. But where are my Republican colleagues who passed these funds that Trump is now stealing? Because this did not come out of left field. No one can pretend to be surprised by what is happening now. When Russ Vought was nominated as Trump's budget chief, he was pretty darn transparent about the fact that he planned to break the law, he planned to tear up our bills, and he dared us to stop him. That didn't stop every Republican Senator from voting for him. When his Deputy was nominated and told us this summer that pocket rescissions were very much still on the table, what happened? Once again, every Senate Republican voted to confirm him too. Anyone watching could see this coming from a mile away. Trump used this scheme to unlawfully impound $5 billion last summer, for heaven's sake. That is why Democrats have fought again and again and again to prevent the President from being able to use this illegal tactic, including in recent negotiations over the CR that is now law. But Republicans have refused to work with us to prevent Trump and Russ Vought from stealing from the American people. Time after time after time, they have shot down our attempts to stop this administration from defying Congress and robbing our constituents. Let's talk more about this pocket rescission scheme for a minute and what is at stake. President Trump and Russ Vought are saying: Hey, we can ignore the law. We can ignore bipartisan deals and just make our own decisions as long as we do it last-minute. Everyone knows that is ridiculous and illegal. Congress would never have created a system that gave any President the ability to decide to just ignore or bypass a law. It makes no sense. In fact, GAO has looked at what this President has done and has said it is clearly illegal twice. My Republican colleagues know this. Some of them have even said so. But whenever they have had the chance, they have not joined us to put an end to this. Democrats have language that Republicans could have let us put in the last CR or the CR before. We have taken vote after vote on versions of this language on the floor and in committee. And, of course, we had the vote where Republicans confirmed the unabashed architect of Trump's illegal scheme as budget director. Well, now, tonight, they are getting one more chance. Senator Merkley and I and others have a bill to help Congress reassert its authority--our authority--and head off Trump's completely illegal pocket rescission scheme. And we should be clear. Trump isn't just illegally robbing our constituents through this pocket rescission; there are a whole lot of other funds that he is refusing to get out the door--more healthcare research funding, grants to prevent teen pregnancy, funding to protect Americans from global health threats, and even a quarter of a billion dollars to help families in rural areas get the financing they need to finally achieve their dream of owning a home. Hundreds of families in rural America will be denied the shot to buy a home as Trump lights this money on fire tonight. So it is not just the pocket rescission; it is all the rest of the money this administration is holding up or misspending. The Republicans have been pretty quiet about it. Russ Vought has always made his message to Congress painfully clear. He thinks the votes we all take here don't count. He thinks the laws we pass are optional. Now is the time for our Republican colleagues who said they would never let this happen to help us now pass a bill that makes our message to Russ Vought equally clear: Stop stealing from our constituents. Start following our laws. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Virginia.

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Madam President, I rise with my colleagues. I appreciate the Senator from Oregon and the UC he will seek in a few minutes about a very important bill to reclaim congressional authority over appropriations. I think both Senators Merkley and Murray have done a good job of laying out the law that appropriations are an article I power for Congress and the Impoundment Control Act requires that, once appropriated in a budget that the President signs, the dollars have to be spent. And so they have done a great job with the law, and the President with these pocket rescissions is violating the law. Since they have talked about the law, I want to talk about priorities. I want to talk about priorities and what this move of the President shows about his priorities. When the news was announced that he was going to cancel $800 million of appropriated funding in a budget that he had signed, he and some others said they are trying to shrink government or make government more efficient. Folks, that is a joke. That is a laugh line. You heard my colleague from New Hampshire talking about spending money on ballrooms, on arches, on trying to put his name on buildings. He is not trying to shrink anything. You see news in the last couple of days about President Trump stealing money from the Department of Homeland Security to run "Love Me" ads on television because he is so insecure about his low popularity. Can I take money that is supposed to be going to protecting America's border and turn it into "Love Me," "Love Me," "Love Me" ads on television? He is not trying to shrink anything. In fact, the White House is here trying to get us to agree to a 40-percent increase in the Pentagon's budget in the middle of an illegal war so he can continue to, as he says, restart bombing after the midterms. Can I just ask this question: Has any President ever publicly put "midterms" and "bombing" in the same sentence? I am likely to restart bombing after the midterms. Who has that thought much less says it publicly? So the President who is cutting the $800 million is seeking more money for an illegal war, is running ads about himself on television, is trying to build ballrooms and arches and put his name on buildings--this is about priorities. Can I tell you about just one of these items that the President is proposing to cut in the $800 million? It has been alluded to by my colleagues. The $800 million in funding includes, in the midst of a housing crisis, when all of our constituents are talking to us about housing affordability--the Trump administration wants to cut $56 million to the HUD Housing Counseling Program, which aims to expand and preserve home ownership opportunities in every ZIP Code in America. Now, this funding in Virginia enables nonprofit organizations in my Commonwealth and around the country to offer essential financial and support services for families looking to access the American dream of home ownership. One of my providers in Virginia reports they have helped--using these funds--they have helped over 1,000 families in the past 2 years achieve the American dream of owning a home, and a large factor that has contributed to their success has been these funds that President Trump wants to cut. With the funding, they have helped families build basic financial knowledge and the skills they need to become successful homeowners. In other cases, they work with families for a year or more to help them repair their credit and pay down their debt and save for downpayments, which helps them afford to buy a home. The long-term support has helped bridge the gap for families to find a home and ensure they are able to become successful and sustainable homeowners.

So the Trump administration's decision to cancel that funding when they are seeking money for ads or ballrooms or arches or names on buildings or illegal wars is directly affecting our constituents in their effort to have a piece of the American dream. Everything my colleagues have said about the law is correct. This violates article I of the Constitution. It violates the Impoundment Control Act. It goes against the promise that the President made when he signed the budget, that he would implement it. But the thing that makes me the maddest and the reason I am so excited to be here to support my colleague is, to cut programs that help Americans afford homes to fund ads and ballrooms and illegal wars shows that this administration's priorities are completely out of touch with what our citizens expect of us. And I hope my colleagues--if they are not willing to stand up for their own prerogative as Members of the Senate to write a budget, at least stand up for your constituents who are crying out for housing relief and not let that money be taken away to be put into ballrooms and illegal wars. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from New Hampshire.

Madam President, I join my colleagues this evening to express my deep concerns. And I share your outrage, Senator Kaine, about the Trump administration's decision to recklessly take away funding for critical programs that hard-working Americans rely on to get ahead. The President promised the American people when he was campaigning that he would lower costs, and instead he is putting services that millions of people count on at risk, including in my home State of New Hampshire. Last Friday, the administration sent its request to cancel over $800 million in Federal funding. And because today marks the end of the fiscal year, there is not enough time for Congress to stop these funds from being eliminated. This deliberate move, as my colleagues have said, is a pocket rescission, and it is illegal. Let me say that again. It is illegal, plain and simple. Over the past week, I have heard from countless constituents in New Hampshire about the importance of the programs that are being cut by this pocket rescission. This funding provides housing counseling support as Senator Murray and Senator Kaine have said. That is vital to people in New Hampshire who are trying to afford housing. It provides vital healthcare research that saves lives and education programs. It is abundantly clear that these cuts won't bring down costs. They won't keep our neighborhoods safe, and they certainly won't make our country any stronger. Now, it is not up to the President and unelected bureaucrats at the Office of Management and Budget to decide where the Federal funding goes. They can't cancel a program simply because they don't like it. That is what they are trying to do, but it is illegal because our Constitution grants Congress--not the executive branch--the power of the purse; Congress writes the checks and the administration is not supposed to just tear them up. Even the GAO, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has concluded that this move is illegal, not to mention that several of our Republican colleagues have also acknowledged that it is illegal. When I talk with Granite Staters, one thing I consistently hear is that the cost of housing is a pain point for families already struggling with high prices. The average price of a house in New Hampshire now is over $550,000. Too many young families can't afford that, and with housing prices hitting those highs, too many people are being priced out of this critical part of achieving the American dream. That is why Federal programs like the Housing Counseling Program are just so important. Housing Counseling helps families buy homes, avoid foreclosures, and secure affordable rents. Since the program began in 2009, it has helped over 4.2 million households across the country avoid foreclosure. In New Hampshire, thousands of families have used Housing Counseling to lower their home purchase price, to reduce their debt, and to secure safe and stable housing. For example, Jake and Lisa are a young married couple who lived in an apartment in Grafton County, which is in the northwest part of our State. Their landlord decided to sell their apartment, and Jake and Lisa needed to relocate. But because of high housing costs, they struggled to find a home that was in their price range. They couldn't afford to use a buyer's agent, so they turned to a HUD-certified housing counselor. In one instance, their housing counselor helped them obtain a home inspection that revealed major heating and electrical issues, and without this help, they might have closed on a home that would have cost them in the long term. Their housing counselor also helped them create a plan that allowed them to pay their debts while maximizing their savings. And just a few months ago in a happy ending, Jake and Lisa officially became homeowners. But without their housing counselor, who knows when, or even if, Jake and Lisa would have been able to achieve this milestone? Sadly, they are not alone. Too many families are still looking for a safe and affordable place to call home. And Housing Counseling isn't the only program in jeopardy. This administration has left $230 million in Federal rural housing funds unspent. Now, Russ Vought may not think that is a lot of money, but in New Hampshire, we think that is a lot of money. And we should be doing everything possible to help families put a roof over their head, especially in the most rural parts of our country where affordable housing options are too often few and far between. By letting this funding expire, the administration is sending a clear message to Americans: Addressing sky-high housing prices isn't one of the priorities of the Trump administration. Now, in addition to cutting programs that help Americans find housing they can afford, the administration has cut funds that allow students to master foreign languages and become more well-rounded scholars and to do business around the world. I mean, the President says he wants to do business around the world. He wants the United States to be a global business hub. How can we do that if we have people who can't communicate in foreign languages? And the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program has made it possible for students from New Hampshire to attend universities that specialize in foreign languages and international relations. These fellowships provide the skills for Americans to be the bridge to other countries and to understand cultures around the world and to do business around the world. Eliminating 1,900 fellowships denies young Americans, including Granite State youth, from developing the skills to serve our country, to improve international relations, and to strengthen our national and economic security. The administration has also eliminated $28 million in funding appropriated to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This includes cutting a grant program at Dartmouth College--Dartmouth College where we have the only medical school in New Hampshire. The grant program is designed to improve healthcare quality and access for rural populations living in Northern New England. The program focused on improving care for kids with complex medical needs and for better coordinating that care for cancer patients. This doesn't seem wasteful to me, but that is what the Trump administration said when they rescinded these funds. Now, it is not just healthcare funding that was gutted as we know. OMB also canceled funding for a program that has helped Americans build safer communities since the 1960s. The Department of Justice Community Relations Service was established in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with a mission to help States and communities address and heal from incidents of discrimination. The idea behind this program is pretty simple. If we get people talking to each other--something that might be helpful in the Senate--we can constructively deal with incidents like swastikas painted on synagogues or racial slurs that are used in schools, and we can foster understanding and help avoid outbreaks of violence. I have seen very directly how this program can help. In 2022 at a middle school and high school in Dover, NH, which is next to the community where I live, tensions amongst students reached a boiling point after some students decided to write racially biased and anti-Semitic posts on social media. The leadership of the schools reached out to CRS for help in defusing the situation, and CRS offered a program it had developed called the School-Student Problem Identification and Resolution of Issues Together, or School-SPIRIT--an appropriate name. In this instance, the schools in Dover used School-SPIRIT to convene key school administrators, students, and community stakeholders to identify the biases and prejudices that were driving tensions and to formulate a plan to help diffuse those tensions through communicating. All in all, this was a success story for the school and for the entire community. And yet, despite the many positive outcomes all over the country, Russ Vought all by himself decided that CRS needed to be shut down. All of this is to say that these abrupt cuts to programs Americans rely on have only created uncertainty and frustration at a time when people are already feeling immense financial burdens. They are feeling uncertainty and anxiety about what is happening in this country. These programs matter to people in New Hampshire. They make a difference in their lives. But the President and his cronies and this administration couldn't seem to care less. It is part of a disturbing but all-too-common pattern from this administration--bypassing Congress, skirting legal authority, and leaving families to pay the price. And what is the administration prioritizing instead? Well, they are driving up prices. They are driving up the cost of gasoline, they are driving up the cost of groceries, they are driving up the cost of home heating oil that people in New Hampshire are going to depend on because the weather is starting to get cold, and they are doing it because of a needless and costly war in Iran. The President is also spending Federal resources, as we have heard, for ads to promote himself and his administration. He is spending Federal resources to put his name on as many things as possible, to build a ballroom, to change the color of the Reflecting Pool, to build an arch that is going to obstruct the view of Arlington Cemetery. Americans don't see those as priorities. They are concerned about how they are going to pay for their groceries, how they are going to pay for their gasoline, how they are going to pay for childcare, and this administration is doing nothing--zero, nada, nothing--to help the American people. So let me close with this. As a former Governor, I know how important it is to ensure that tax dollars are being spent efficiently and responsibly. But let me be clear. Taking a sledgehammer to programs Americans rely on every day isn't responsible governing. Congressional Republicans and Democrats can stop this from happening again, and I look forward to working with my colleagues so that no administration, Republican or Democrat, tries to cut congressionally mandated investments again. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Wisconsin.

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Madam President, I rise today because for the second year in a row, the President is trying to illegally steal money from the people I work for. Eight months ago, Congress overwhelmingly passed bipartisan appropriations bills, and the President signed them into law. Democrats negotiated those bills in good faith. With this pocket rescission, the Trump administration is saying those laws and the agreements we made when negotiating them don't matter, and he is saying the investments we made into the American people don't matter. That is going to make negotiating future appropriations bills significantly harder. How can one side make concessions if they know that the other side will tear them up along with the deal months later? But I want to spend some time talking about the specific funding in this rescissions package that the President considers wasteful. Now, mind you, Donald Trump is spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on prime-time commercials promoting Donald Trump. He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a gold-encrusted ballroom and an arch--a monument to himself--over the objections of veterans and their families due to its proximity to Arlington National Cemetery. He is spending tens of billions of dollars on a war in Iran which is raising gas prices and home heating costs for American families. But none of that is what Trump or Office of Management and Budget Director Vought consider wasteful. No, no, no. They consider that a priority. What Trump and Russell Vought consider wasteful is $28 million for research to reduce healthcare costs and improve Americans' health. What they consider wasteful is $70 million in education funding that supports national security priorities and helps ensure we remain competitive globally. First, let me talk about the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality--what we often refer to as AHRQ. The Agency is "critically important, it helps us understand what we're doing well and where we have opportunities to improve." Now, that is not me saying that about AHRQ; that is what HHS's Deputy Secretary nominee told me at a hearing just 2 weeks ago. Ten days later, the Trump administration said it was going to illegally impound funding for this "critically important" work. AHRQ has funded advancements in telehealth to help doctors better treat patients in rural areas and help lung cancer survivors monitor for recurrence. AHRQ has supported work to reduce the rate of hospital-acquired infections and to make sure that kids waiting for a heart transplant can get one. It has funded work to improve healthcare for older Americans coming home from the hospital. This little but mighty Agency has saved literally billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, but President Trump has decided that this research is wasteful and that his personal vanity projects are more important. Let me turn to the Department of Education. There, the President is illegally cutting funding that supports important national security interests. It funds training in less commonly taught languages that the U.S. Government determines are a national priority. It helps educate students that go on to serve in national security and U.S. intelligence roles. These are just a few examples of what President Trump considers wasteful. It is not tens of billions of dollars lit on fire for an illegal war in Iran or taxpayer-funded commercials to promote himself; no, it is funding for Americans' healthcare and education he deems wasteful. This pocket rescission is illegal. It is also throwing away opportunities to improve Americans' health and make our country safer. These are small but important investments that we should be making. There is plenty we don't agree on, but I wish all my colleagues would stand up for the laws we pass and the agreements we make as part of them and stop this President and any President, Democrat or Republican, from so blatantly breaking those laws. That is what Senate Democrats have been fighting for, and that is why we didn't vote to confirm Director Russell Vought, who said this was exactly what he would do if confirmed. It is why we have tried to enact laws to prevent this nonsense idea of a pocket rescission so we don't get to this point. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side have refused to do that again and again. But I am not going to stop fighting to uphold the law and for these programs that benefit the people of my State and the United States of America. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, we have heard tonight from the independent Government Accounting Office that what the President did in proposing and putting forward this line-item veto is illegal. We have heard in the words of the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee that this is illegal. We have heard colleagues speak tonight from different directions about why it is illegal--because the Constitution makes it so. The Constitution says the power of the purse rests with Congress. There have been undoubtedly a number of Presidents who wish they had a line-item veto. Nixon tried. He cut funds that had been passed into law, and the Supreme Court said: Nope, you can't do that. Have you read the Constitution, President Nixon? That is not just illegal; that is unconstitutional. Then in 1996, Congress tried to actually shed its responsibility and give the President a line-item veto and say: Hey, Mr. President, we passed these bipartisan spending bills, but strike out anything you want. The Supreme Court responded and said: No, Congress, you actually have this responsibility. You can't assign it to the Supreme Court. You can't assign it to the President. No, the Constitution places it squarely on Congress. There is a reason for that, and that is, Congress represents the power of the people from every corner of the land coming together to craft programs and to decide how to fund them that serves this Nation. To delineate or to assign that important function representing people throughout the Nation and say "None of that matters; the President can just kill any program he wants" is to believe in a King. I have news for my colleagues: There is no King in the Constitution. That is why we are here tonight. There is also a very practical consideration. If you craft bipartisan spending bills that serve every part of the country, but then a partisan President can strike down the ones that, well, maybe are more likely represented by Senators from the other party or House Members from the other party, well, then you have undermined the whole concept of us working together to serve the whole Nation, and therefore you make it very difficult to do bipartisan bills in the future. So that is why so many people have come to speak to this. That is why the chair of the Appropriations Committee put out such a powerful statement on it. That is certainly why I am here tonight. And that is why we have come to the floor with a bill, S. 5670, to fix this--because the President, in exercising this line-item veto, said: I am going to do something clever. I am simply going to hold on to the funds that I am supposed to spend under the law until there is no time left in the fiscal year, in the financial year--a year that expires a couple hours from now. So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5670, introduced earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Wisconsin.

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to make two points. First of all, the law that is at stake here that we are discussing is the Impoundment Control Act--surprisingly, very poorly written. The good Senator from Oregon said that the Government Accountability Office--the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office--believes that pocket rescissions are illegal. Well, the fact is that is a reversal of their previous position. Every President since President Ford believed he had--or she had--that ability to do a pocket rescission. So, again, it shouldn't surprise anybody that Congress wrote an awful law that is hard to interpret. It will probably all have to be sorted out by the Supreme Court. The modification that the Senator from Oregon is proposing certainly wouldn't fix it. It certainly wouldn't clarify it. If anything, it would probably even make it more murky. So that is one reason to object to this unanimous consent request. The other reason--this is probably the more important one--is this is a pretty small pocket rescission. Personally, I wish it was a lot larger. This storied Chamber--"Chambers" includes the House--has allowed this country to accumulate $40 trillion in debt with no end in sight. Over the course of the next 10 years, the total estimate of additional deficits and added debt is $26 trillion. So I personally am glad--I don't care who the President is, out of what party. I will generally support that President reducing spending, and I would applaud it. So I am happy to allow the President to do pocket rescissions, other types of rescissions--whatever it takes--because Congress is certainly not fiscally responsible. But, in particular, this $810 million--that is what we are talking about, $810 million. That is not even pocket change in our budget. Seventy percent of it is for funding in HHS's Refugee and Entrant Assistance Program. Now, the reason we can rescind that money is because President Trump secured the border. Under the Biden administration, they threw the border wide open, creating a clear and present danger to this Nation and also a clear and present danger to unaccompanied children. The Biden administration lost track of hundreds of thousands of children who were probably sold into involuntary servitude, sex slavery. That is what the Biden administration did with the help and abetting of the Democrat Members of Congress. So 70 percent of the $810 million--$567 million--is simply money we don't have to spend to try and handle unaccompanied children that the Biden administration lost track of and probably got sold into horrific situations. That money doesn't have to be spent, and it shouldn't be spent. And I am glad that President Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought have recognized that and will do a pocket rescission so we don't spend it. We can't afford it. So those are the reasons that I am happy to object to this unanimous consent request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, the Constitution matters. And what does the Constitution say?

Text printed in the Record (92 characters)

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.

That is pretty straightforward, and yet my colleague from Wisconsin just wanted to shred the Constitution. He says: It doesn't matter. We want a President to cancel programs. He said he wouldn't even care if it was a different President. Imagine a different President canceling programs in his home State. Maybe that Senator would be singing a somewhat different tune. And then we saw that debt chart. Wow, well, let's understand where that debt comes from: the war in Afghanistan, from a Republican President; the war in Iraq, from a Republican President; the Bush tax cuts--1 and 2--for the billionaires and megamillionaires, from a Republican President; the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires under Trump 1 and 2. Those are the sources of that debt. And so it would be a nice thing if someone would come to the floor about debt--from the other side of the aisle--and would actually own that they are the problem, that they have been pissing away our national wealth on foreign wars and giveaways to the richest and most powerful Americans, running up last year a bill that added $30 trillion to the debt over the next 30 years. I didn't hear that in the commentary from my colleague from Wisconsin nor did I hear from him that he knows that if the interest rate is 1 percent higher than the Congressional Budget Office estimated, that $30 trillion debt that he voted for last year will be $50 trillion over the next 30 years. And do you know what else? The estimate used for that debt was 4 percent, and right now we are paying 5 percent. So we are already 1 percent higher. It just would be nice that those who preach fiscal responsibility would not continue to be the ones who are spending this Nation into bankruptcy. That would be nice because then we would have funds to invest in families, healthcare, and housing and education and good-paying jobs. This century is going to belong to the nations that invest in education and infrastructure, not to the ones that give away the national Treasury to the richest Americans and say: The hell with families across this great land.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, congressional stock trading is profoundly corrupt. We in this Chamber were elected to serve the public, not our portfolio. But what do the American people see? They see Senators and Representatives who are thinking about their portfolios when they are voting on different measures, including a whole lot of tax credits and tax deductions. They are both different elements. If someone in this Chamber is sitting on a significant holding--let's say renewable energy stocks--they might be thinking about: I want to promote those stocks, rather than ask the question: Is this the right move for America? What if they are sitting on fossil fuel stocks or oil stocks or maybe Wall Street stocks and they are thinking, "I want to give a big break to the banking community on Wall Street to inflate my personal wealth"? That is just absolutely wrong. It is a massive conflict of interest. About now, 14 years ago, Senator Sherrod Brown and I introduced the idea that we should end this stock trading, and that means buying, that means selling, and that means holding. It has been a while to build the momentum on this, but even the President of the United States, in his last State of the Union, said we should attack this problem. And the American people see that, while Members here are thinking about their portfolios--trying to make themselves richer, corrupting their votes on the issues before us--they are suffering. Instead of thinking about your stock portfolio, maybe you should be thinking about the price of gas at the pump, maybe thinking about the cost of diesel and fertilizer for our farmers, maybe thinking about a war of choice--an unconstitutional war of choice--that is spending more than $1 billion a day. Maybe we should be thinking about the fact that we have the most expensive healthcare system that delivers the least effective healthcare for a person in the developed world, and maybe we need to improve it. Maybe we need to think about the fact that the career technical programs in other developed programs--other developed countries--are pretty good and maybe ours should be better. Maybe we should think about the fact that college debt is a millstone around the neck of our children, when children in other countries are able to go to college debt free. Maybe we should care about families instead of thinking about our portfolios. The American people see Congress--the House and Senate Members--and the President of the United States cashing in on stock trades. The President of the United States actually invested in stocks before announcing big agreements for major companies--buying Dell stock before a major announcement, buying Nvidia stock before a major announcement. Come on. This is massively corrupt, and we should be ending it. So let's end it. Entry-level employees and executive branch Agencies are required to recuse themselves from conflicts of interest, but Senators and Representatives think it is just fine to get rich on conflicts of interest and corrupt their representation of the public. That is why we need the ETHICS Act, which would ban Members of Congress and their spouses, their dependents, and the President and the Vice President and their dependents from owning, trading, or holding individual stocks. If they want to invest in America, invest in a broad-based mutual fund that has establishment in all of these industries at once, like the S&P 500 fund. Members of Congress should be banned from making new trades, and Members of Congress will have to divest their holdings or move them to mutual funds. There is so much corruption that we need to tackle--banning crypto corruption; banning funding for Trump's gold-plated, billion-dollar boondoggle; stopping insider trading on prediction markets; implementing a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court; outlawing the taxpayer-funded "cash for cronies" slush funds, like the President arranged with his $1.8 billion fund when he sued himself to award himself $1.8 billion of money; banning Members of Congress to have a longer period before they serve as lobbyists; and more. But Congress can lead by example. Right now, let's pass the ETHICS Act. Now, some may say: Well, wait. Isn't there this bill coming from the House? That House bill leaves people holding the very portfolios that we have to get rid of. It preserves the conflicts of interest. That is pretty damn weak tea--keeping the corruption and legitimizing it--and, meanwhile, throwing in an extra measure on the bill that proceeds to engage in the effort to rig the November election. Wow, well, that is certainly not a serious effort to address this corruption. But the ETHICS Act, it is that serious effort. Let's pass it. Let's ban Members of Congress from trading stocks. Let's make it clear to every American that we are here to serve the people, not our portfolios Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk, the ETHICS Act; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, reserving the right to object--I would like to reserve the right to object on this. My friend came with a proposal to try to ban the sale and ownership of stocks by Members of Congress. I am pretty confident of why this came up today, because earlier today, we had a vote in this body to ban Members of Congress from owning stock--or, I am sorry, buying and selling stock on it. But it also included what the vast majority of Americans also want and that is voter ID. It is pretty simple and straightforward. It is a very short bill. It just mandated voter ID, and it also banned Members of Congress from buying and selling stock: short bill, straightforward, easy to read, uncomplicated language. Now, every one of my Democrat colleagues voted against that bill, and their complaint was: It is because it is going to rig elections if you require voter ID. Well, I would like to remind this body, the Chair, that 36 of our 50 states already have voter ID; exactly what we voted on. There is only 14 States that don't, which means 72 Senators in this body already serve in a State that has voter ID. This is not a complicated, highly politicized, red versus blue issue. This is Americans that just say: Hey, we show ID to do everything. Why don't we show an ID to vote? In fact, the vast majority of countries around the world are completely confused by Americans, that we don't show ID to be able to vote, when most countries around the world do. It is not diminishing people's right to vote. This is acknowledging the reality of where 36 States already are--red and blue--that we show voter ID. It shouldn't be an issue. But this particular bill that is being brought today, and the response that Democrats voting against the bill earlier today, it is different. This is not just a "can't buy and sell stocks"--which I, by the way, totally agree with. That is why I wholeheartedly voted for the bill earlier today. This one has some additional features in it that have not been discussed here on the floor that I think we should actually put out onto the floor. This bill itself also includes requirements for the Ethics Committee--which I happen to chair--which is a bipartisan, equally represented group here in the Senate that has to evaluate all this. So I am pretty attentive to bills that actually deal with this to know: How are we going to implement this? So this includes a requirement for small businesses and family farms and all those, that the Ethics Committee has to come and evaluate every single one of those from every Member to determine if there is going to be a conflict of interest from them owning a family farm. So let me give you an example. If you own a family farm, you can't be on the Agriculture Committee because that becomes a conflict of interest. So the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. Senate suddenly becomes a group of people that don't know anything about ag because this bill would force them to divest from their family farm or it becomes a conflict of interest in the Senate. I, personally, don't want everybody on the Ag Committee to not be farmers. I would like to have some farmers on the Ag Committee and some people that know something about this. If you own a family-owned business that is not a family farm, that is just an LLC--which it is typical for most family businesses to be incorporated as an LLC--this puts an additional requirement on them on any kind of securities ownership, which is pretty common in an LLC that anyone who serves in this body that has a family business, multigenerational business, may have to divest from that to be able to come into the U.S. Senate. That would mean Senators can't come from a small, family-owned business. That puts out a lot of Americans that suddenly wouldn't be eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. This bill also prohibits what is called a qualified blind trust. It is one of the most misunderstood aspects of this. A QBT--a qualified blind trust--any Senator that is here that has a stock portfolio that is larger has the ability to be able to take all of those assets, put it into a qualified blind trust, and they are prohibited by law from talking to that person that is actually doing all the investments. They can't know what is in it; they can't get updates on it; they can't have any interaction. And it is called a qualified blind trust because we actually have to qualify that. In fact, the Ethics Committee actually engages with everyone who has a qualified blind trust and the person that is there to actually get all communications. So we literally monitor that to be able to make sure there is no interaction on that. Well, this bill would actually prohibit this. This bill would also prohibit digital assets. Well, I understand that for investment in cryptocurrency and Bitcoin and everything else, but there is also a digital asset called stablecoins, and this body actually passed that. Stablecoins aren't an investment piece; stablecoins are just a dollar in digital form. That is all that it is. This bill would prohibit Members of the Senate from actually having a digital dollar because it would be now considered a new investment asset, when it is not an investment asset at all. I wish this bill would have gone through committee. There is a lot we could have discussed in committee to be able to work this through. But this bill skipped all the committees and has had no hearing in committees to actually talk through it because there is even a section in this bill where it talks about one section where the Secretary of the Senate does the reporting, or another aspect where the Ethics Committee is doing the reporting. Some of those little pieces could be worked out in committee. That is not controversial at all; it could be worked out. But it hasn't actually gone through committee to actually have any kind of oversight to try to figure out how to be able to perfect some of these areas. Listen, this is not a bill that is just about ownership of stocks and buying and selling stocks. It is much larger. It gets into family farms. It gets into small businesses. It gets into stablecoin. It gets into all those different aspects on this. This is the reason that, when we brought a stock bill earlier today, it is a short couple-of-pages bill to be able to make it very clear what it is and what it is not. It was not this 31-page very complicated bill that is actually being brought to the floor today. So my challenge to all of my colleagues are: We should not be trading stocks. And if you have got stocks, those need to either be divested or put into some blind trust so that Americans have full trust that Members of this body are not looking at their portfolio all the time; they are actually looking at the people that live in their State and what they can do best to be able to serve them. That is where my colleague and I adamantly agree. Where we disagree is on this text and what it does that is far beyond what is actually being advertised that it does. So I would be very willing to be able to work with my colleague to be able to figure out how we can get this right because I think it is an incredibly important issue, but this needs more work back in the kitchen. So with that, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Objection is heard. The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, I wish my colleague had actually got a bunch of things right, but he got a bunch of things wrong. I don't know what propaganda he was reading, from what source that wants to continue the corruption. But he said that the bill that came earlier today said you could not hold stocks. It actually allows you to hold those individual stocks. It allows the corruption to continue. And yet, he is saying: Oh, I voted for this great bill because it bans holding of stocks. But he is wrong. There is a reason this was done. It was to allow a vote in the House, a vote in the House that pretended to address the issue, rather than addressing the issue. And we have had a bill virtually parallel to this bill come through committee. It has been worked on in committee. Many of these elements and nuances--great. Fine. Let's continue that conversation. But don't come to this floor and misrepresent the bill that you voted on earlier tonight as having banned the holding of stocks because it allows it. And second, blind trusts. They are called bogus blind trusts. As one Member of this body said to me: I meet every quarter with the guy who runs my blind trust. You want another example? Who runs a blind trust for the President of the United States? His family runs it. His son is involved in running his blind trust. Are you kidding me? Everyone understands blind trusts are not blind. So bring a bill that doesn't have bogus blind trusts. It has an extensive exemption for small businesses, and yet we heard a lot of conversation about small businesses. And then voter ID. Can't we be honest about the voter ID strategy? It was written to disenfranchise--fancy word for block citizens from voting that Republicans don't want to vote. The President put forward an Executive order that said: You have to submit your voter roll to the President's team, they will decide who votes, and send the list back to you. And then they went and got an ethics act--not an ethics act--SAVE Act--the SAVE Act. What did the SAVE Act say? The same thing. The President gets to decide who votes. That didn't pass here. And it didn't even have a majority support here, let alone supermajority support. So, the President did another Executive order. And under this order, the President would strike down--his team would strike down people that look suspect to them. What are we talking about? We are talking about 64 million American women whose last names do not match their birth certificate. Your name doesn't match your birth certificate, you can't vote. And the President could strike this down right before the election, making it impossible for people to proceed to get reauthorized to vote. And they couldn't even get reauthorized to vote, reregistered to vote, using their birth certificate. Wow. And they didn't want Native Americans to vote, so they put in a provision that said any ID that doesn't have an expiration date is excluded. Well, you know, you are not a Tribal member year by year or month by month, my friends. You are a Tribal member for life. They don't have expiration dates. They knew that, and they put it in to stop Native Americans from voting. Why? Why do you want to stop women from voting? Because they vote more on the blue side of the aisle. Why do they write those ID requirements to stop Tribal members from voting? Because they vote more on the "D" side of the aisle. People have called this Jim Crow 2.0. What are they talking about? After the Civil War, we had a national consensus, we were going to protect people's right to vote. And in the South, you had a lot of States that had a majority of Black citizens. To this very Chamber, 2 U.S. Senators were elected from Mississippi; 14 Members of the House were elected from the South that were Black Americans. And then reconstruction ended in a horrific deal that was struck and the result was almost a century of blocking Black Americans from voting. And that is what the President wants to do. Not specifically Black Americans, not the same way, but any group that votes predominantly on the blue side of the aisle. Now, we actually had a bill, and it was called the Freedom to Vote Act. It had ID in it, but it wasn't ID designed in a partisan fashion. So I say to my good colleagues: How about you actually come forward with a version of ID that isn't designed for partisan advantage? That would honor the vision of the Constitution. That was what was in the Freedom to Vote Act. And the President wants to attack vote-by-mail. And why is that? Vote-by-mail is the highest integrity system in the land, bar none. Why is that? Because on election day, it is easy to manipulate the election. Here is what you do: You change the location of the precinct voting from the previous year so people go to the wrong place; you proceed to put out false information about the location; you put out the wrong date for voting; you put out text messages--and this has been done--saying "sorry you missed the election last week, hope you will vote next year" when the election is actually coming up the next Tuesday; you put in machines that don't work; you put in staff members that don't work; you perceive to create 8-hour lines like they created in the urban areas of Georgia--recent history. That manipulation can't be done in vote-by-mail. That is why the President hates vote-by-mail, because it stops the rigging of American elections on election day. And it has this very powerful form of voter ID called a signature. The same thing we use to verify checks and so many other transactions in life. Same signature we use on our marriage certificates. Same signature we use on financial transactions. And if the signature doesn't match, it gets challenged, and a voter has a chance to cure it. My point here is that the bill that came before this Chamber earlier today was designed to rig the November election--my colleagues know that--and it allowed the corruption in stockholding to continue. That is why we are creating and putting forward a real bill with real ethics tonight.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I appreciate the conversation from my colleague. I look forward to getting a chance to be able to work on the bill that is actually complete. He asked where I got my information from that I actually listed out on this. I got it from a "secret source," the 31 pages of the text of his bill. There was no outside group. I appreciate the conspiracy theory that some secret group must have manipulated it somehow and given me the information. I just read the text. There are issues with the text. Again, we are back to--we can't have farmers on the Ag Committee and small business owners who may have to get rid of their family businesses to be able to run in the Senate. That is a problem. As far as the accusation of the qualified blind trust and that there is someone who has said to my colleague that they talk to their qualified blind trust person every quarter, I would encourage my colleague to submit that to the Ethics Committee because that is a violation of current statute, if that is actually occurring, and it is already a violation. So, if my colleague knows of someone who is interacting with their broker and they have a qualified blind trust and they are interacting, as he claims, every month or every quarter, please let us know because that is something the bipartisan Ethics Committee would address immediately because that is already against Federal law to be able to do that. My simple statement for today is: Listen, there is a right way to be able to do this. Let's do it. Let's go through the process. Let's actually figure out how to be able to get this done and get it done right, but this is not it. The way this bill is written has so many problems within the bill that I have to come down as the chairman of Ethics to say I would have to be the one charged to actually enforce this, and there will be major problems with this. As far as the voting issues, I was listening with wonder on all of the issues about problems with voter ID. Apparently, my colleague believes that, if you have voter ID, you are Jim Crow 2.0; you are a racist State. Well, I am confident the folks in Rhode Island would be shocked to hear that.

Madam President.

I do not relent the floor. I do not relent the floor. I do not have to yield. I do not yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.

Madam President, I do not relent the floor. This is an issue when we start talking about voter ID, and it is an accusation that comes at Republicans that all we want to do is be able to block people from voting. Rhode Island has voter ID. Delaware has voter ID. Connecticut has voter ID. Wisconsin has voter ID. Colorado has voter ID. New Hampshire has voter ID. Michigan has voter ID. I could go on and on and on. This is not a red State or a blue State issue. These are States that have said: If we are going to make sure we have secure elections, we are going to have voter ID. Now, I happen to live in a State with a very high Tribal membership--7.5 percent of my State are Tribal members. We also have voter ID in my State. And do you know what? We welcome Tribal members to vote like every other Oklahoman. We have voter ID in my State, and as shocking as this may seem, married women still vote in my State. This sudden accusation that married women will not be able to figure out how to do voter ID and get an ID I find offensive as a dad of two very smart daughters and one brilliant wife. The issue today is not all this. Obviously, we voted on that earlier today. The issue is about this particular bill. This particular bill has problems that are solvable if we will actually get to committee and be able to work through the process, but as it is currently written, there are problems in the bill. So I object to the bill, and I hope that we can work this out in a nonpartisan way in the days ahead to be able to resolve it. With that, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Utah.

Chiricahua National Park Act

Page S5226 · Official text

Madam President, as if in legislative session and not withstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6380 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (143 characters)

A bill (H.R. 6380) to redesignate the Chiricahua National Monument in the State of Arizona as Chiricahua National Park, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 6380) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

House Bills

Page S5226 · Official text

Madam President, as in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 660, H.R. 837, and Calendar No. 665, H.R. 7831.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.

I further ask that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bills considered and passed en bloc are as follows:

Requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to Convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona

Page S5226 · Official text

REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONVEY THE PLEASANT VALLEY RANGER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE SITE TO GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA The bill (H.R. 837) to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona, was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

License to Drill Act

Pages S5226–S5231 · Official text

The bill (H.R. 7831) to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to extend the period of time during which the Secretary of the Interior is required to collect a fee for each new application for a permit to drill, and for other purposes, was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Madam President, earlier today, I joined Senators Capito, Heinrich, and Whitehouse in introducing comprehensive, bipartisan permitting reform. That agreement is the product of many, many months of negotiations and years of work to address a problem Congress has talked about for far too long: It takes too much time and too much money to build things in this country, and that problem is becoming more urgent by the day. America's energy needs are growing rapidly. We need more energy, and we need it now. That means producing more energy. It means building more infrastructure, and it means making sure that Federal Agencies responsible for reviewing permits actually have the resources to process those permits in a timely manner. Madam President, that brings me to the first bill that I just asked the Senate to consider today and that we just passed through the Senate today, the License to Drill Act. The Bureau of Land Management currently charges a processing fee for each new application for a permit to drill on Federal lands. Those fees help fund the people and resources that process those permits, but that authority expires tonight at 12 midnight. The License to Drill Act extends it through fiscal year 2037 and directs those fees to the Bureau of Land Management Permit Processing Improvement Fund. The idea is straightforward: The money collected from permit applications should help process permit applications. That is, after all, how we keep things moving. That is how we get a lot of these things done. So if we expect American energy producers to navigate the Federal permitting process, as they must and as we must expect them to do, the Federal Government should have the capacity to give them that answer. The bill we just passed advances the ball in precisely that direction. Look, permits should not simply disappear into some bureaucratic black hole. As we confront rapidly growing energy demand--the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time and the stakes for which are unbelievably high--unnecessary delays in bringing new American energy production online carry real consequences. This bill, also, did not appear on the floor out of nowhere. It went through the committee process. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the Senate, which I chair, examined it and advanced it unanimously. The same is true of the two other measures that I just brought before the Senate and passed this evening. H.R. 6380, the Chiricahua National Park Act, would redesignate Arizona's Chiricahua National Monument as Chiricahua National Park. The legislation has already passed the House. It was considered by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and it was favorably advanced by the committee. With this, this bill is on its way to the President's desk for signature. H.R. 837 conveys the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site in Arizona to Gila County. That legislation has also passed the House and gone through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In its having now passed the Senate, it will be on its way to the President's desk for signature. These measures all have certain things in common. They have been examined, they have gone through the committee process, and they are prepared now for the Senate to act, which the Senate has now done, for which I am very grateful. That work has been done here. In a moment, when we are working on a much larger task--on the large and intimidating but also incredibly important task of comprehensively reforming America's permitting system--this is a commonsense set of proposals deserving to pass today. I am so grateful that they have passed. I am grateful to my colleagues on the committee and to my Senate colleagues for helping to make that happen. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Colorado.

Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)

Madam President, first, I would like to say that my colleague from Utah was out here a minute ago. We often disagree on many things, but every now and then, we agree on something. I just want to say how grateful I am that the Senate, today, passed by unanimous consent a bill that we have been working on for years and years and years, with the community around Crystal Reservoir, to make sure that that can be transferred from the Forest Service to the people of Ouray, who desperately, desperately need it. I am grateful that we were able to get this done, and we will continue to work on this together to make sure we get it passed in the House of Representatives. So it is a bright light in an otherwise not so bright day legislatively around here in the U.S. Senate. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor because today may be the end of the opportunity to talk on the Senate floor for this session of the Senate before we recess for the coming elections. I wish that there was a lot of stuff that we had addressed together. The American people are struggling with costs and this economy in a way that they have never struggled before, and that is not an exaggeration. It is true in rural Colorado and in urban Colorado. It is true in Republican parts of the State and in Democratic parts of the State. It doesn't matter. People--no matter how hard they work--feel like they can't get ahead and their kids can't live better lives than the lives that they are leading; that no matter how hard they work, it is becoming harder and harder and, in some ways, impossible--impossible--to live a middle class life anymore. For the kids who are graduating from high school right now in America and for the kids who are graduating from college in America, it feels like the American dream is further and further and further out of reach because it is. It is. I see the pages who are sitting here on this floor today. They are the first generation of Americans since forever--I don't want to depress you tonight, but I guess I can tell you the truth so you can help fix it. They are the first generation of Americans who are likely to earn less than their parents earned if we don't change it. We are living in a world where people who are 30--a lot older than the pages who are here today--on average, are going to earn less than their parents earned. We are living in a time when 1 percent of the American people own 50 percent of the value of the stock market, and the bottom 50 percent of the American people own 1 percent of the value of the stock market. If you have not been somebody in the United States who owns assets--who owns real estate, who owns stocks and bonds--it has been a tough 15 years or 20 years. It has actually been tough going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, to be honest, when these trickle-down policies started. Ronald Reagan was certainly a purveyor of these. You know, he put in place a lot of the tax cuts and other things that were kind of the beginning of trickle-down economics. I don't think even he could have foreseen what the Trump administration would have done to pursue the kind of trickle-down economics that they have pursued. It has been like a raging forest fire that has gone across the United States of America at a time when our inequality is growing; at a time when Reagan could never have imagined, I don't think, the wealth inequality that we now have in this country, the lack of economic mobility we have in what I still refer to as the "land of opportunity" because, in the end, I am relentlessly hopeful about where this country is headed. But the reality is--the reality is--unless you are at the very top of this economy for decades, you have not done well and your kids have done worse. That is the opposite of the American dream. I am sorry to say this to the pages that are here, but there was a time in American history--when I was your age, for example--when we took it as a given that each generation was going to benefit from the work of the previous generation, and the greatest gift we could give the next generation was more prosperity than our generation had. My daughters are now in their midtwenties--actually, to be honest, the youngest is in her early twenties--but my daughters are now in their midtwenties, and they are really serious about the question, which I am not going to repeat on this floor because I would be thrown out for using "W-T." That is their view, though. That is their view because they know a lot about history. They know what the transition was from one generation to the next. They know what the solemn responsibility of every American generation was. And now they find themselves and their whole generation finds themselves completely ignored by this Congress, completely ignored by the President of the United States. He could care less about their future. I used to be a superintendent of schools in Denver before I came here. I was in business before that. I have had kind of a checkered career on the way to the U.S. Senate. And I can tell you, I can assure you that President Trump does not see the families of the kids I used to work for in the Denver public schools, who are working two and three jobs just to feed their children, who are working two and three jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, just to pay the rent in this economy, this savage economy they are facing. I am sorry to say this to the pages as well. The Trump administration is breaking new records every week. Gas prices are up 42 percent from the year before. Diesel is the highest it has ever been in American history at $6.50 a gallon. It has never been higher. There are farmers and ranchers all over Colorado who have had to put thousands and thousands and thousands of incremental dollars, of extra dollars they don't have, dollars they need to invest in their own kids' future, dollars they need to invest in their own businesses--they are having to burn it in their tractors because Donald Trump decided to go to war in Iran--against the advice of all of his advisers, by the way, who told him that if you drop bombs on the mullahs, they are not going to abdicate; who told him that if you drop bombs on the mullahs, there won't be a regime change, and, in fact, the people that come will be more radical than the ones you are attacking; who told him that they would close the Strait of Hormuz; who told him that you better watch out, Mr. President, because you might be facing--and since you don't probably drive a tractor, you may not care as much, but the farmers and ranchers all over America are going to be facing diesel prices that are $6.50; that it will be the difference between their ability to afford healthcare or invest in their business or pay for their kid to go to higher education, to learn a trade. That is all going away because of these insane prices--gas prices up 42 percent and diesel at $6.50. Now, something that is hard to understand for some people around here is the effect of these interest rates, which are hitting some of the highest levels we have seen in decades. The 10-year yield is the highest level since 2007--20 years ago, two decades ago. You have to go back 20 years to get to an interest rate like this. The 30-year reached its highest level since June 2002. That is a catastrophe for anybody in this economy who is trying to borrow money. This is a catastrophe for anybody in this economy who is trying to pay a mortgage on a house. Mortgage rates are now over 7 percent in the United States of America because of Donald Trump's policies, because he invaded Iran, because--I have to say both parties are somewhat responsible for this. My friend that I respect so much from Oklahoma is here. By the way, my oldest daughter is living happily--happily--in Tulsa, OK, because she can pay I think 28 percent of her income in housing. She is very, very happy to be there at a time when, in lots of other places, no one, you know, who is her contemporary, who went to college with her, can afford to pay to live anywhere. So she is delighted to have a chance to be there, to be working in Tulsa. But for people that are trying to buy a house in America, for her generation, rates are now at 7 percent, and none of them can afford to buy a house. By the way, they got--I can't use those words. They got totally--you know the word I want to use--when interest rates were at zero, when the Federal Reserve was trying to keep interest rates at zero because the first Trump administration would say: Keep them at zero. Keep them at zero. Keep them at zero. And what did that do? Yes, the loans went to zero as well--they were low--but the price of housing went through the roof; the stock market went through the roof. Anybody who had assets, anybody who was rich, anybody who had a fancy house anywhere in America benefited hugely. We are in that moment again. We are in that moment again, the moment we have been in for almost 50 years in America. When the economy grows, the wealthiest people do incredibly well, and for everyone else, it is like a recession. In fact, it is a recession. It is a recession. When there are recessions in America today, those are real recessions for working people and for poor people. For wealthy people, that is a period of economic growth. Our Nation has detached the wealthiest people. It is like they are in a capsule floating above all of us. They are in a capsule floating above all of us, and when the economy does well, they do great; when the economy does poorly, they do poorly. I wish everybody well, everyone in this economy, but the reality for everybody else--in fact, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that for 95 percent of Americans, for decades, the periods of economic growth have basically acted as recessions, and recessions have been devastating. For the next generation of Americans, for my kids' generation, they can't even get a glimmer of economic prosperity, where their share of the American dream is going to come from, their opportunity to be able to participate meaningfully in this democracy and in this economy. And they are all smart. They are all--my daughter will get mad at me, but she is teaching a history class at a community college in Tulsa. And they know the history of this Nation. They know we have been a nation that stood for freedom and for opportunity for all these years. But something is broken in the way this works, and it doesn't work for them. If you wonder, by the way, why we are facing all this division and chaos in our politics, if you wonder why we seem to be living in a moment when no one in this Chamber can work together and where the American people are--at least the ones that are on their social media--are relentlessly at war with each other on that social media, there might be a lot of reasons, but I am telling you the real reason is because we have lost the sense of economic opportunity in the Nation because we don't really have it anymore for the people that are coming after us, and our gaps in wealth are just getting larger and larger and larger and larger. The chance for people to get ahead is getting harder and harder and harder. That always breeds politics of division; that always breeds the politics of chaos. I wish Donald Trump were interested in any of this, except for the division and the chaos. His politics has been a politics of sowing division, of sowing chaos, of preying on the divisions we have, and we have, unfortunately, fallen into that trap at a time when America actually needs us to be solving the problems they are facing, and I think a lot of folks feel like we have just given up on it. Our kids are reading--our literacy levels in America are worse than they were 30 years ago, and they were low 30 years ago.

We spend twice as much as any other industrialized country on healthcare, and we get much worse results. When Ronald Reagan--I mentioned him earlier--when he was President, we had the same life expectancy of everybody in the world. Now we are 6 or 7 years behind the industrialized world here in the United States. If you are African American in this country, whether you live in Oklahoma or Colorado, your life expectancy is even shorter than that. The good news is that there is no shortage of challenges we could confront. I will give you another one that I know my colleague cares about and I care about. We now have $40 trillion of debt on the balance sheet of this country--$40 trillion. That is one of the reasons why interest rates are going up the way they are. From my daughters Caroline, Halina, and Anne's perspective, their generation's perspective, they look at that and say: What did we get for that? You guys went out and borrowed $40 trillion. Like you put the biggest mortgage that you could ever pull out of a bank on the United States of America. Imagine if our country were a big house, and you went out there and took a $40 trillion mortgage on it, and then you built yourself a swimming pool, and you built yourself a bunch of statues. I suppose, in the case of Donald Trump, you bought yourself a bunch of gilded stuff that you hung in the Oval Office or tried to knock Jack Kennedy's name off the Kennedy Center by putting your name up there, which doesn't deserve to be up there. It shouldn't be up there. You spent your time building statues and layering them in gold leaf. The next generation of Americans might rightly say: You borrowed $40 trillion for this? The reality is that all of that pales in comparison to the tax cuts these guys have given to the wealthiest people in this country without paying for it. All of that pales--and I just want to be honest and admit that it pales in comparison to the $8 trillion we essentially lit on fire in the Middle East to pay for two forever wars there that, by the way, President Trump said he would never repeat. He got elected--actually, Barack Obama got elected by first saying: I am not against all wars, but I am against dumb wars. He found a way to jump a whole generation of politicians to become President on the strength of that argument. Donald Trump made a very similar argument, which is: No more long wars. No more forever wars. Now he has created one. This war of choice in Iran is going to be a war that ends when the mullahs decide. That is a long war. That is a long war. I have a long memory. I can remember. I can remember. This is long before you guys were born. I remember when our folks--our diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran. These are the people we are dealing with. By the way, I am the first person to say the mullahs and Iran should never have nuclear weapons. They should never have nuclear weapons. That is what makes this even more irresponsible. He has no strategy. He has no game plan. He has no budget for what he is doing.

(Mr. HUSTED assumed the chair.)

Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)

He is consuming, by the way, missile after missile after missile that is really important to our deterrence of China and in the Pacific theater. And he hasn't paid for a single dollar of that--not a dollar, not a dollar. By the way, I think all of us should be voting against his defense budgets. I am. I am, partly because they are not paid for but also because he has no strategy. That is the best way for us to end this war. That has happened before. We are not powerless. The U.S. Senate is not powerless. People on this floor, in both parties, they brought the Vietnam war to an end by saying: We are going to cut it off if you don't stop. And we are in that position today. I would be shocked if there is anybody over there who really supports what the President has done in Iran. I certainly can't find anybody in Colorado who is a Republican, a Democrat or unaffiliated--almost anybody, almost anybody--a handful who believe this was a good idea, especially the next generation. And certainly not our farmers and ranchers, who are facing higher input, as I said, and now higher borrowing costs because of this President's policies and weakening commodity prices, because we have a completely incoherent trade policy. Xi Jinping was just over here. Donald Trump did nothing to get him to buy our soybeans. And, by the way, having said that he was going to do something about it, he has now allowed Brazil to come and steal our business, which they are doing. Exports are incredibly important to our farmers, incredibly important to our ranchers, and Donald Trump has cut them off for his ridiculous trade wars. And I have said for years on this floor: We have to take China on. We have to take China on. But we have to do it in a smart way, not in a stupid way, not in an incoherent way, not in a way that gives Brazil the opportunity to knock our farmers out of the picture. And I will say that everything that I said earlier about the difficulties of the next generation of Americans, the difficulties of the generation of kids that I used to work for in the Denver Public Schools--all of it is magnified if you live in rural America, if you live in rural Colorado, because it is just harder when you have fewer people. Healthcare is more expensive. Childcare is more expensive. Groceries are more expensive. Gas is more expensive. Everything is harder, and you have to travel long distances to get places. And now, everyone in America is spending more. Families are forced to pay more for everything. They are paying more on gas. Bags of groceries are a month's rent now or more. People are having to make choices between buying their kids clothes for school and buying groceries. There are hundreds of more dollars that people are having to spend on electricity and on housing itself and rent. I haven't heard President Trump talk about any of this because the next generation is entirely invisible to him. He has no concern about it. He is not worried about it. That is not of his concern. Every day he parades what his real interests are across the front pages of what is left of the newspapers of America and the television and his social media feed. And he is proud of it, by the way. He is proud of it. So I know, when I talk about this, if he hears about it, he will say: Oh, I got his goat. Well, that is what I wanted to do. And he is. He is proud of his corruption. He is proud. He wears it on his sleeve. The latest of this was that he has now spent millions of taxpayer dollars on political advertisements--millions of taxpayer dollars on political advertisements. I would be surprised if there is anybody here who supports that. We have 330 million Americans. Of that, all but three think that it is a bad idea to use their money--to use taxpayer money--when we have $40 trillion of debt, when we have 7 percent interest rates, when diesel is $6.50 a gallon, and that the President is using our money to pay for ads for his reelection and the election of people in his party in this midterm. He is hanging his photograph, his picture, on the outside of the Federal Agencies here in Washington, DC. That is not the worst thing that he has done, but it does make me feel, every time I drive through it, like we are living in an occupied state, like we are living in North Korea or Beijing or some other place where the great leader is respected because he tells everybody in the country how they are supposed to think about everything. I know he thinks he is the greatest President in American history. I know he does. He has even said that. I think he thinks he is greater than George Washington. None of those people put their pictures on the outside of these buildings. None of these people tried to hang their name next to Jack Kennedy's name or put their photo on the Department of Justice or the Department of Labor. But part of his renovation of this town has been a billion dollars in White House renovations, including his ballroom and his helipad--a billion dollars that he has spent on the ballroom and the helipad. And he has cheerfully basically admitted that he has made $1.4 billion in crypto profits while being President of the United States, and his family has made untoward amounts. And he has relationships, the President, all over the world that are helping him pursue those economic interests while he is in the White House. I know we are living at a really unusual time in American history. I know we are living in a time when there is enormous frustration, when there is enormous anger, when there is a lot of division and distrust. I know we are. But I think it is fair to say that most Americans don't want their Presidents to get rich when they come to office. I think that most Americans know that no President has ever gotten rich the way Donald Trump has, when they can't even afford to pay the rent, when they can't even afford to buy shoes for their kids and give them school uniforms. They know no President has put their own face on the outside of these buildings, like this is some cult of personality instead of what it is, which is the American democracy. I think that most people in America are going to say that they don't really want to live in a country where Federal law enforcement wearing masks can show up in your neighborhood and bang on your door and drag you out of your house, which Donald Trump has also done. I know that no American would agree--no American would agree--that any President should weaponize the Federal Government for his own political purposes. This is not a country where, you know, if one party loses and the other one wins, that the one that wins uses its office to weaponize the power of the Federal Government against States that didn't vote for them or disagree with them. And I am telling you, folks, that if we fall into that trap of treating that as the new normal, we are going to be here for a really long time because this is how democracies and republics die. This is how they spin out of control, when we jeopardize our values and our beliefs for a set of behaviors that are just totally out of the mainstream of American history--in this case, the weaponization of politics. Colorado has witnessed a form of this firsthand. The administration canceled $109 million of transportation grants. The President denied disaster declarations for the Elk and Lee Fires in Rio Blanco County, and for flooding in Western Colorado. They tried to block 100,000 families from receiving SNAP benefits. They have tried to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. And most shamefully--I mean, that is a long list. But most shamefully, they stole the promise of clean drinking water from 50,000 Coloradans in the southeastern part of my State who have been waiting for decades for the Federal Government to finally finish a project that was promised by Jack Kennedy when he went out to Pueblo in 1960 and promised it to the farmers and ranchers there. We have passed it unanimously in the Senate. We have passed it unanimously in the House. And yet President Trump has taken it away. So not only is he focused on the things that won't make our economy better, not only is he not focused on the next generation of Americans, not only is he not saying to himself, "What do I do every day to try to deal with the costs that people are facing and the affordability crisis?"--it is a crisis that they are facing--he is making matters worse. It is like he is going out of his way to make everybody's life harder and worse. I would be shocked if there are people here who actually support what he is doing in Iran. I know the American people don't. And it is not just because it is crushing them economically because of what the mullahs are doing with energy prices and what they are doing with--not them but what the war is doing with interest rates. It is not just because of that. It is because they can see how ridiculous this is--the lack of strategy, the lack of focus. They know that he snatched Maduro in the middle of the night and that somehow he decided that dropping the bombs on Iran was going to get the same result, even when all the intelligence said: That is not what is going to happen. You are not going to replace the regime. You are not going to be able to take away their nuclear weapons from the air. They are going to constrict oil from the Middle East. There isn't anyone in the Middle East that doesn't think they are not going to be paying tolls from now until eternity to the Iranians, to the mullahs, because of what Donald Trump has done. It is ridiculous. It is not just a war of choice. It is a war that has created catastrophe for the American people. We have lost the lives of soldiers in this country. They have bombed our military bases and the bases of our neighbors--which, by the way, our intelligence Agencies said they would--and now they are in a better negotiating position than they were before the war was started. And now they have people in charge that are actually more attached, if you can believe it, more attached to the prospect of getting nuclear weapons than the people that they replaced. As I said earlier, he has put us in a worse position with China. Xi Jinping shows up here, and the President goes and meets him at the airport and drives him back to the White House and genuflects over and over and over to him. And I can guarantee you, Xi Jinping was happy to be feted this way by the President of the United States because he knows how much advantage he is taking of the President. The Iran war has been a huge boon to China--and to Russia, by the way. It has put them in a much better position than they were in before he started. The Ukrainians, with no help basically from the President, finally had Putin on his heels. And they are doing an unbelievable job. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude. And then President Trump gives Putin the gift of invading Iran, the gift of driving these people into each other's corner. I mentioned his incoherent trade war with the entire world. We are basically tariffing the entire world, and that is haunting our farmers and ranchers. It is crushing our small business owners all over Colorado--and consumers as well. Consumer sentiment is at the second lowest point in 70 years. Please stop, Mr. President. Stop. We cannot afford your policies anymore. We are trying to raise our kids, build our small businesses, turn something over to the next generation that we are proud of. People are stuck in the jobs that they are in because there is nowhere for them to move. The hire rates in America are at record lows. No one can buy a house because of interest rates. And, by the way, seniors who would like to maybe downsize and move out of their house so that my kids' generation can move in, they can't do anything. They can't go anywhere.

And in many ways those folks, our seniors on fixed incomes, they are in as rough a position as anybody because of his policies. But let me tell the Presiding Officer this. Here is what is happening in Donald Trump's economy right now: Forty-two percent of the recent college graduates in America--42 percent--are underemployed, and their peers are in even worse shape in this country. That is a hard way to start your life. If you are a young man in America today in your twenties, you are making 40 percent less in real dollars than you were in 1976--40 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than you were in 1976. There is no way--no wonder people are getting stuck in their parents' basement. By the way, nothing would fill me with greater joy than having my own daughters move back into my basement, but I get the idea that kids don't want to do that. They want to start their lives. They want to start their businesses. They want to be able to afford higher education, which they can't. And now, even if they get it, 42 percent of them are underemployed. I will just finish. I know that I have colleagues who want to talk. But let me just say one other thing that has been in the news lately that the President has been happily making news about, which is this whole issue of AI, which is part of the economic anxiety that especially the next generation is feeling--and for good reason. They are worried about what this is going to mean for their jobs and the economy. That is not irrational. That is why I put out language last week to create a new Federal Agency to actually negotiate with these guys. No one in America has had a negotiation with Mark Zuckerberg over anything. We haven't had a negotiation about our privacy, our data, our kids' mental health, our economic interests. This Congress 15 years ago should have put this in place to deal with, if nothing else, the mental health issues that have been afflicting our kids because of these social media platforms. But now, with AI, it is clear we have to have--Congress is never going to be able to figure it out. States can't regulate it. We have Anthropic, one of the leading American companies, says that its technology poses an "existential risk to humanity." That is what they wrote. That is what they wrote. I think about the lawyers that are drafting this stuff for the AI companies that are having to put in it that the technology is potentially an existential risk to humanity. And I wonder, if the worst happens, who they think is going to be there to sue them if they don't put that language in. But that is where we are. That is what the industry is saying itself. The President has responded with his "morally binding" agreement with the AI companies and themselves, calling fears over AI a "hoax"--a "hoax." We could fix that here. We could create a new Agency in America to have that negotiation with Zuckerberg and the rest of these guys, just like Teddy Roosevelt did, Franklin Roosevelt did. There is a reason we don't have planes dropping out of the sky. There is a reason why we know our drugs are safe. There is a reason why we have been able to proceed with our nuclear weapons and nuclear technology without destroying ourselves. It is because we came together to work together in a way that was rational, created a synergy between the new inventions that were coming on and public safety, preserving innovation in America and public safety. We have to do that again. Well, we haven't been working on that because the President says his agreement is "morally binding" with these guys that are themselves saying that their own technology creates an existential risk to humanity. We could have spent the time fixing our broken healthcare system, which is just becoming more and more and more expensive, in part, because of the President's policies. We could be dealing with our broken immigration system, reintroduce ourselves to the idea that we live in a nation of laws and we live in a nation of immigrants. We do, and we have been both at the greatest moments in this country's history. I am sorry to say we haven't done any of that. I mentioned education earlier. I mentioned our literacy rates in this Nation that are the lowest they have been for 30 years. So now we are going into this recess. We have all come out here this afternoon to do our procedural motions on this floor about various things that we didn't get done. But what we didn't get done is anything to make the American people's lives a little bit better, to deal with the burdens of cost and expense that our farmers and ranchers in Colorado are facing and every small business owner in Colorado is facing, that the next generation all over America is so worried about that they don't even know whether they are going to have a future of opportunity in this country, in the land of opportunity. They don't know whether we have abandoned permanently the obligation that each generation of Americans has to create more opportunity, not less, for the people coming after it. They don't know. In fact, they doubt it. They doubt it because what they see is the economic catastrophe of the way the economy is working--not just under President Trump but for decades and now much worse under President Trump--and the political chaos that we are leaving behind. That is part of our legacy as well, unless we are going to figure out a way to come together on these fundamental issues and make some hard decisions here and focus attention on the next generation. I have said many times that I don't blame Donald Trump for being elected President. I am sorry that he was, but I don't blame him for being elected. He won. But the rest of us that don't want to go down this road anymore on the American people's behalf have to find a different path. We have got to find a way to give each other hope in this country that we can make progress; that we can build an economy that, when it grows, it grows for everybody, not just the people at the very top; that we can have a Tax Code that actually supports work instead of passive investment, instead of just the assets that go up every time we pass a bill around here that wastes more trillions of dollars of the American people's tax money. I am optimistic about that. I am not optimistic in this moment because we are leaving the Senate floor without having done it. I am not optimistic at this moment because Donald Trump is more focused on putting gild stuff on the walls of the Oval Office; putting his name on the Kennedy Center; building a ballroom; building a new triumphal arch in Washington, DC; breaking the Reflecting Pool; his own crypto. He is more focused on that than he is on the issues that we need to focus on. But there is nobody here who is surprised about that. He is not doing anything he didn't say he would do. We need to find a way to create confidence in the American people so we can build a politics that is not just about chaos and division, that is not just about fanning the flames but is actually about embracing the next generation and our responsibility to them, our obligation to them--and I would say to this country--to fulfill and to live up to the example that our parents and grandparents set for us and to make sure we get this right before we move on. That is what we need to do, and I believe we will. I appreciate the indulgence of the Presiding Officer. I am sorry to have gone on so long tonight. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time, and I thank my colleagues for giving me the chance to speak on the floor. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to be able to slip in and do a quick history moment on the floor of the Senate. It is an interesting day, the 30th of September 2026. Fifty years ago today, there was the passage of an appropriations bill that was just another appropriations bill, except this one was a little harder because it was actually a veto override. Let me set the context for you. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on something called Roe v. Wade. For the previous 200 years as a country, every State made a decision about abortion. That was the way it worked. In 1973, the Supreme Court stepped in and said: Nope, every State has to allow abortion across their State, and changed what we had been as a nation for 200 years to a nation that required an abortion in every single State. Well, that was in 1973. In 1976, Congress--both House and Senate--had a serious conversation about are we going to fund abortion with Federal dollars. At the time, just to give you some history context on this, Carl Albert was the Speaker of the House. A Democrat from Oklahoma was actually the Speaker of the House. The majority leader of the Senate was also a Democrat. This was a Democrat-led House and Senate. They debated it, and out of the House came an amendment called the Hyde amendment. It was named after Henry Hyde, who worked across the aisle and said: We may disagree on this issue of abortion that just came from the Supreme Court 3 years ago, but we should agree that we shouldn't allow Federal funding for abortion. So a Democrat-led House of Representatives passed an amendment in the appropriations bill in 1976 which we still call the Hyde amendment today. It is interesting to be able to think about, at that time, in Congress, of the 535 Members of Congress, there were 100 pro-life Democrat Members of Congress. Now, 50 years later, there is one pro-life Democrat Member of Congress. A lot has changed in that time period. But this simple agreement that we should not use Federal dollars to pay for elective abortions; that when I pay my taxes on April 15, it shouldn't be to pay for someone's abortion down the street--that was the agreement that was set in 1976. Now, interestingly enough, it passed in that appropriations bill in the House. It was sent over to the Senate and passed in the Senate. It went to the President of the United States. It was a Republican President--Gerald Ford--at the time. He vetoed it, and it came back to Congress. And with 313 votes in the House of Representatives, they overrode President Ford's veto to pass that appropriations bill, including the Hyde amendment, on September 30, 1976, 50 years ago today. I just thought, for just a moment, in all the chaos and of all the stuff and lots of important things that we are trying to be able to resolve today, for just a moment, we should just pause and remember the 50 years that we have had this simple agreement. Every single year since then, we have had this simple agreement: We will not use Federal dollars that come from taxpayers to pay for elective abortions across the country. Some of us are still crazy enough to believe every child is valuable. We don't believe and I don't believe that some children are disposable and some children are valuable. I think they are all valuable. And I think there is some great value in telling the American taxpayers: You don't pay for the taking of human life; you pay for research from NIH and other things to be able to protect human life. That seems to be a better value. Interestingly enough, studies have been done showing that 2.5 million children are alive today because of the Hyde amendment that passed 50 years ago. Those are folks teaching in schools; those are police officers; those are folks working in manufacturing; those are small business owners all across our country--2.5 million of them--that are alive today, just living life, doing their stuff, because the Hyde amendment passed 50 years ago. And it still gets passed every year. I just thought for just a moment, in the Senate, we should pause and remember that day. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Louisiana.

Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026

Pages S5231–S5236 · Official text

Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 365, S. 3315.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (252 characters)

A bill (S. 3315) to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to coordinate to improve cybersecurity in the health care and public health sectors, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Text printed in the Record (10,922 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026". SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Agency.--The term "Agency" means the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (2) Business associate.--The term "business associate" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation). (3) Covered entity.--The term "covered entity" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation). (4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term "cybersecurity incident" has the meaning given the term "incident" in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code. (5) Cybersecurity state coordinator.--The term "Cybersecurity State Coordinator" means a Cybersecurity State Coordinator appointed under section 2217(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 665c(a)). (6) Director.--The term "Director" means the Director of the Agency. (7) Healthcare and public health sector.--The term "Healthcare and Public Health Sector" means the Healthcare and Public Health sector, as identified in National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience). (8) Information sharing and analysis organization.--The term "Information Sharing and Analysis Organization" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650). (9) Information system.--The term "information system" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650). (10) Recognized security practices.--The term "recognized security practices" has the meaning given such term in section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)). (11) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health and Human Services. SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT COORDINATION WITH THE AGENCY. (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Director shall coordinate, including by entering into a cooperative agreement, as appropriate, to improve cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (b) Assistance.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the Director to make resources available to entities that are receiving information shared through programs managed by the Director or the Secretary, including Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, sector coordinating councils, and non-Federal entities. (2) Scope.--The coordination under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) developing products specific to the needs of Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities; (B) sharing information relating to cyber threat indicators and appropriate defensive measures, including automating cyber threat information sharing, in a manner that adequately protects against unauthorized access or disclosure; and (C) providing technical assistance to covered entities and business associates to improve cybersecurity preparedness. (c) Joint Cybersecurity Planning.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Director shall establish a joint cybersecurity capability plan to coordinate responses to significant cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (2) Elements.--The joint cybersecurity capability plan established under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) protocols for rapid information sharing during sector-wide cybersecurity incidents; (B) coordination mechanisms with the sector coordinating council for the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and (C) coordination with Cybersecurity State Coordinators for incidents affecting multiple States. (3) Submission to congress.-- (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives the final joint cybersecurity capability plan prepared under paragraph (1) and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2). (B) Updates.--If the Secretary and the Director update the joint cybersecurity capability plan required under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives such updated plan and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2). SEC. 4. CLARIFYING CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall delegate a representative to lead oversight and coordination of activities within the Department of Health and Human Services to support internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including coordination and communication with other public and private entities related to preparedness for, and responses to, cybersecurity incidents, consistent with applicable provisions of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), other applicable laws, and National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience). Such activities shall not include implementation or enforcement of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule"). (b) Reports.-- (1) Report on delegation.--Not later than 60 days after delegating a representative under subsection (a), and any time a new representative is delegated under such subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that describes how such representative will implement steps to improve internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (2) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the state of cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including-- (A) an assessment of the most significant cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities facing the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; (B) a summary of major cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector during the preceding year; (C) an assessment of the overall cybersecurity posture of the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; (D) a description of actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve cybersecurity; and (E) recommendations to improve Healthcare and Public Health Sector cybersecurity. SEC. 5. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN. Section 405 of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (4)-- (i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting "information system;" after "federal entity;"; and (ii) by inserting " `information system'," after " `Federal entity',"; (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively; and (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: "(4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term `cybersecurity incident' has the meaning given the term `incident' in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code. "(5) Cybersecurity risk.--The term `cybersecurity risk' has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650)."; and (2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following: "(4) Plan.-- "(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall expand and implement the Cyber Annex of the All Hazards Plan of the Department of Health and Human Services to inform applicable personnel within the Department of Health and Human Services of processes and protocols to prepare for, and respond to, cybersecurity incidents. "(B) Scope.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall address cybersecurity incidents involving information systems, including hardware, software, databases, and networks, used or maintained by, or on behalf of, the Department. "(C) Elements.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall include strategies-- "(i) to assess cybersecurity risks; "(ii) to prevent cybersecurity incidents; "(iii) to detect and identify cybersecurity incidents; "(iv) to minimize damage in the event of a cybersecurity incident; "(v) to protect data; "(vi) to recover from any cybersecurity incidents expeditiously; and "(vii) to communicate and share non-sensitive information about cybersecurity incidents with entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector (as defined in section 2 of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026). "(D) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and relevant experts, as appropriate. "(E) Updates.--The Secretary shall review and update the plan under subparagraph (A)-- "(i) not less frequently than once every 2 years; and "(ii) after any significant cybersecurity incident affecting the Department of Health and Human Services or a Federal health program. "(F) Report.--Not later than 60 days before the date on which the Secretary begins implementing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report that describes such plan.". SEC. 6. CLARIFYING BREACH REPORTING OBLIGATIONS. Section 13402(f) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17932(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(6) The number of individuals affected by the breach.". SEC. 7. ENHANCING RECOGNITION OF SECURITY PRACTICES. (a) Recognized Security Practices.--Section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)) is amended, in the first sentence, by inserting ", investments," after "other programs". (b) Regulation.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations implementing section 13412 of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C.

Text printed in the Record (11,998 characters)

17941), which shall include-- (1) recognized security practices that the Secretary may consider when determining fines under such section; (2) the extent to which such recognized security practices should be in place for consideration by the Secretary; (3) procedural requirements or information that shall be submitted by a covered entity or business associate to the Secretary for consideration; and (4) how the Secretary will take into account such recognized security practices when determining fines, earlier favorable termination of audits, or mitigating remedies that would otherwise be agreed to in any agreement with respect to resolving potential violations of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule") between the covered entity or business associate and the Department of Health and Human Services. (c) Annual Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall include in the annual report required under section 13424(a) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17953(a)) information on implementation of section 13412 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 17941), including an accounting of every case in which the Secretary considered recognized security practices when effectuating audits and assessing fines under such section. SEC. 8. REQUIRED CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall update the security regulations under part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), to require non-governmental entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector and covered entities and business associates to adopt minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices, including-- (1) multifactor authentication, or a successor technology; (2) encryption of protected health information, or a successor technology; (3) requirements to conduct monitoring, including penetration testing, to maintain the protections of information systems; and (4) other minimum cybersecurity standards, as reflected in national cybersecurity frameworks. (b) Requirements.--The minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be based on-- (1) national cybersecurity frameworks, as appropriate, such as-- (A) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Risk Management Framework (or a successor framework); (B) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (or a successor framework); (C) the National Institute of Standards and Technology SP 800-53 r5 Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations (or a successor special publication), with relevant components of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Privacy Framework; or (D) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework; (2) the Health Sector Coordinating Council Cybersecurity Healthcare and Public Health Cybersecurity Performance Goals; and (3) the health care-specific cybersecurity performance goals of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (c) Effective Dates.--The regulations updated in accordance with subsection (a), including each new requirement established, shall take effect on the date that is 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may exercise enforcement discretion for entities experiencing extraordinary circumstances in complying with the requirements of subsection (a). SEC. 9. GUIDANCE ON RURAL CYBERSECURITY READINESS. Section 405(d) of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533(d)) (as amended by section 5(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(5) Rural cybersecurity guidance.-- "(A) Definition of rural.--In this paragraph, the term `rural' has the meaning given such term by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. "(B) Guidance on rural cybersecurity readiness.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall issue guidance to rural entities on best practices to improve cybersecurity readiness, including strategies-- "(i) to improve cybersecurity infrastructure, including any technical safeguards to mitigate cybersecurity risk; "(ii) to integrate best practices issued by the Secretary to improve cybersecurity preparedness; "(iii) to improve workforce preparation to mitigate any cybersecurity risks, including existing public-private programs to support educational initiatives; "(iv) to implement policies to facilitate mandatory cybersecurity incident reporting requirements under law; and "(v) to explore and recommend best practices, including-- "(I) outsourcing information technology and chief information security officer functions to third parties on a part-time basis; "(II) participating in regional rural health care information technology management sharing programs; and "(III) migrating data to secure cloud-based platforms. "(C) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to rural entities to implement the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B). "(D) GAO study and report.-- "(i) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study, and submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, on how rural entities have implemented the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B). "(ii) Contents.--The study under clause (i) shall assess-- "(I) how rural entities have implemented any technical safeguards and any challenges faced by such rural entities in areas for which safeguards were not implemented; "(II) steps to further support cybersecurity resilience for rural entities; "(III) areas to improve coordination between Federal agencies, including for the purposes of required cyber reporting; and "(IV) any opportunities to support public-private collaboration in the area of cybersecurity readiness.". SEC. 10. GRANTS TO ENHANCE CYBERSECURITY IN THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH SECTORS. (a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to eligible entities for the adoption and implementation of cybersecurity best practices. (b) Eligible Entity.--To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), an entity shall be-- (1) a Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(4))); (2) a health facility operated by or pursuant to a contract with the Indian Health Service; (3) a nonprofit hospital; (4) a rural health clinic (as defined in section 1861(aa)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(2))); or (5) a nonprofit entity that enters into a partnership or coordinates referrals with an entity described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4). (c) Use of Funds.--In adopting and implementing cybersecurity best practices pursuant to a grant under subsection (a), an eligible entity may use grant funds-- (1) to hire individuals with demonstrated cybersecurity expertise and train personnel in such cybersecurity best practices; (2) to update electronic data systems, such as by migrating to cloud-based platforms; (3) to join and participate in health cybersecurity threat information sharing organizations; (4) to contract with third parties to assist the eligible entity in carrying out the activities described in this subsection; (5) to conduct cybersecurity risk assessments and vulnerability assessments; and (6) to develop or improve cybersecurity incident response plans. (d) Grant Period.--A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period of not more than 3 years. (e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary may give consideration to the demonstrated need of eligible entities. (f) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including-- (1) a description of how the eligible entity will establish baseline measures and benchmarks that meet the Secretary's requirements to evaluate performance outcomes; and (2) a strategic plan for how, after the end of the grant period, the eligible entity will sustain the activities funded under the grant and continue to adopt cybersecurity best practices. (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030. SEC. 11. HEALTHCARE CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE. (a) Training for Healthcare Experts.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Cybersecurity State Coordinators of the Agency, the Office of the National Cyber Director, and private sector health care experts, as appropriate, shall provide training to Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities on-- (1) cybersecurity risks to information systems within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and (2) ways to mitigate the risks to information systems in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (b) Strategic Plan.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, in coordination with the Agency, shall develop a strategic plan to support growing the cybersecurity workforce for health care entities. (2) Contents.--The strategic plan under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) recommendations for existing educational programs that can be used to support cybersecurity training; (B) dissemination and development of educational materials on how to improve cybersecurity resilience; (C) development of best practices to train the health care workforce on cybersecurity best practices; (D) development of recommendations specific to rural facilities; (E) development of best practices to leverage artificial intelligence to support cybersecurity preparedness; (F) opportunities for public-private collaboration to strengthen the cybersecurity workforce; and (G) alignment with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Workforce Framework. SEC. 12. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT REPORTING COORDINATION WORKING GROUP. (a) Working Group.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convene a working group to examine how to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting for cybersecurity incidents. (2) Membership.--The working group described in paragraph (1) shall include representatives of-- (A) the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; (B) the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) the Office of the National Cyber Director; (D) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (E) the Federal Trade Commission; (F) State attorneys general; (G) State health departments; and (H) private sector health care entities. (3) Conclusion.--The working group shall conclude not later than 18 months after the date of the first meeting of the working group. (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the conclusion of the working group under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that-- (1) identifies areas the working group has identified to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting; (2) includes recommendations to Congress on further streamlining such reporting; and (3) addresses coordination with State breach notification laws. Mr.

Text printed in the Record (11,779 characters)

CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Cassidy substitute amendment No. 5819 be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was withdrawn. The amendment (No. 5819), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to. (The amendment is printed in the Record of June 9, 2026, under "Text of Amendments.") The bill (S. 3315), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026". SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Agency.--The term "Agency" means the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (2) Business associate.--The term "business associate" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation). (3) Covered entity.--The term "covered entity" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation). (4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term "cybersecurity incident" has the meaning given the term "incident" in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code. (5) Cybersecurity state coordinator.--The term "Cybersecurity State Coordinator" means a Cybersecurity State Coordinator appointed under section 2217(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 665c(a)). (6) Director.--The term "Director" means the Director of the Agency. (7) Healthcare and public health sector.--The term "Healthcare and Public Health Sector" means the Healthcare and Public Health sector, as identified in National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience). (8) Information sharing and analysis organization.--The term "Information Sharing and Analysis Organization" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650). (9) Information system.--The term "information system" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650). (10) Recognized security practices.--The term "recognized security practices" has the meaning given such term in section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)). (11) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health and Human Services. SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT COORDINATION WITH THE AGENCY. (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Director shall coordinate, including by entering into a cooperative agreement, as appropriate, to improve cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (b) Assistance.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the Director to make resources available to entities that are receiving information shared through programs managed by the Director or the Secretary, including Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, sector coordinating councils, and non-Federal entities. (2) Scope.--The coordination under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) developing products specific to the needs of Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities; (B) sharing information relating to cyber threat indicators and appropriate defensive measures, including automating cyber threat information sharing, in a manner that adequately protects against unauthorized access or disclosure; and (C) providing technical assistance to covered entities and business associates to improve cybersecurity preparedness. (c) Joint Cybersecurity Planning.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Director shall establish a joint cybersecurity capability plan to coordinate responses to significant cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (2) Elements.--The joint cybersecurity capability plan established under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) protocols for rapid information sharing during sector-wide cybersecurity incidents; (B) coordination mechanisms with the sector coordinating council for the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and (C) coordination with Cybersecurity State Coordinators for incidents affecting multiple States. (3) Submission to congress.-- (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives the final joint cybersecurity capability plan prepared under paragraph (1) and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2). (B) Updates.--If the Secretary and the Director update the joint cybersecurity capability plan required under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives such updated plan and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2). SEC. 4. CLARIFYING CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall delegate a representative to lead oversight and coordination of activities within the Department of Health and Human Services to support internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including coordination and communication with other public and private entities related to preparedness for, and responses to, cybersecurity incidents, consistent with applicable provisions of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), other applicable laws, and National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience). Such activities shall not include implementation or enforcement of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule"). (b) Reports.-- (1) Report on delegation.--Not later than 60 days after delegating a representative under subsection (a), and any time a new representative is delegated under such subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that describes how such representative will implement steps to improve internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (2) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the state of cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including-- (A) an assessment of the most significant cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities facing the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; (B) a summary of major cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector during the preceding year; (C) an assessment of the overall cybersecurity posture of the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; (D) a description of actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve cybersecurity; and (E) recommendations to improve Healthcare and Public Health Sector cybersecurity. SEC. 5. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN. Section 405 of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (4)-- (i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting "information system;" after "federal entity;"; and (ii) by inserting " `information system'," after " `Federal entity',"; (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively; and (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: "(4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term `cybersecurity incident' has the meaning given the term `incident' in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code. "(5) Cybersecurity risk.--The term `cybersecurity risk' has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650)."; and (2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following: "(4) Plan.-- "(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall expand and implement the Cyber Annex of the All Hazards Plan of the Department of Health and Human Services to inform applicable personnel within the Department of Health and Human Services of processes and protocols to prepare for, and respond to, cybersecurity incidents. "(B) Scope.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall address cybersecurity incidents involving information systems, including hardware, software, databases, and networks, used or maintained by, or on behalf of, the Department. "(C) Elements.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall include strategies-- "(i) to assess cybersecurity risks; "(ii) to prevent cybersecurity incidents; "(iii) to detect and identify cybersecurity incidents; "(iv) to minimize damage in the event of a cybersecurity incident; "(v) to protect data; "(vi) to recover from any cybersecurity incidents expeditiously; and "(vii) to communicate and share non-sensitive information about cybersecurity incidents with entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector (as defined in section 2 of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026). "(D) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and relevant experts, as appropriate. "(E) Updates.--The Secretary shall review and update the plan under subparagraph (A)-- "(i) not less frequently than once every 2 years; and "(ii) after any significant cybersecurity incident affecting the Department of Health and Human Services or a Federal health program. "(F) Report.--Not later than 60 days before the date on which the Secretary begins implementing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report that describes such plan.". SEC. 6. CLARIFYING BREACH REPORTING OBLIGATIONS. Section 13402(f) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17932(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(6) The number of individuals affected by the breach.". SEC. 7. ENHANCING RECOGNITION OF SECURITY PRACTICES. (a) Recognized Security Practices.--Section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)) is amended, in the first sentence, by inserting ", investments," after "other programs". (b) Regulation.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations implementing section 13412 of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C.

Text printed in the Record (11,912 characters)

17941), which shall include-- (1) recognized security practices that the Secretary may consider when determining fines under such section; (2) the extent to which such recognized security practices should be in place for consideration by the Secretary; (3) procedural requirements or information that shall be submitted by a covered entity or business associate to the Secretary for consideration; and (4) how the Secretary will take into account such recognized security practices when determining fines, earlier favorable termination of audits, or mitigating remedies that would otherwise be agreed to in any agreement with respect to resolving potential violations of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule") between the covered entity or business associate and the Department of Health and Human Services. (c) Annual Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall include in the annual report required under section 13424(a) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17953(a)) information on implementation of section 13412 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 17941), including an accounting of every case in which the Secretary considered recognized security practices when effectuating audits and assessing fines under such section. SEC. 8. REQUIRED CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall update the security regulations under part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), to require non-governmental entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector and covered entities and business associates to adopt minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices, including-- (1) multifactor authentication, or a successor technology; (2) encryption of protected health information, or a successor technology; (3) requirements to conduct monitoring, including penetration testing, to maintain the protections of information systems; and (4) other minimum cybersecurity standards, as reflected in national cybersecurity frameworks. (b) Requirements.--The minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be based on-- (1) national cybersecurity frameworks, as appropriate, such as-- (A) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Risk Management Framework (or a successor framework); (B) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (or a successor framework); (C) the National Institute of Standards and Technology SP 800-53 r5 Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations (or a successor special publication), with relevant components of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Privacy Framework; or (D) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework; (2) the Health Sector Coordinating Council Cybersecurity Healthcare and Public Health Cybersecurity Performance Goals; and (3) the health care-specific cybersecurity performance goals of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (c) Effective Dates.--The regulations updated in accordance with subsection (a), including each new requirement established, shall take effect on the date that is 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may exercise enforcement discretion for entities experiencing extraordinary circumstances in complying with the requirements of subsection (a). SEC. 9. GUIDANCE ON RURAL CYBERSECURITY READINESS. Section 405(d) of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533(d)) (as amended by section 5(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(5) Rural cybersecurity guidance.-- "(A) Definition of rural.--In this paragraph, the term `rural' has the meaning given such term by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. "(B) Guidance on rural cybersecurity readiness.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall issue guidance to rural entities on best practices to improve cybersecurity readiness, including strategies-- "(i) to improve cybersecurity infrastructure, including any technical safeguards to mitigate cybersecurity risk; "(ii) to integrate best practices issued by the Secretary to improve cybersecurity preparedness; "(iii) to improve workforce preparation to mitigate any cybersecurity risks, including existing public-private programs to support educational initiatives; "(iv) to implement policies to facilitate mandatory cybersecurity incident reporting requirements under law; and "(v) to explore and recommend best practices, including-- "(I) outsourcing information technology and chief information security officer functions to third parties on a part-time basis; "(II) participating in regional rural health care information technology management sharing programs; and "(III) migrating data to secure cloud-based platforms. "(C) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to rural entities to implement the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B). "(D) GAO study and report.-- "(i) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study, and submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, on how rural entities have implemented the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B). "(ii) Contents.--The study under clause (i) shall assess-- "(I) how rural entities have implemented any technical safeguards and any challenges faced by such rural entities in areas for which safeguards were not implemented; "(II) steps to further support cybersecurity resilience for rural entities; "(III) areas to improve coordination between Federal agencies, including for the purposes of required cyber reporting; and "(IV) any opportunities to support public-private collaboration in the area of cybersecurity readiness.". SEC. 10. GRANTS TO ENHANCE CYBERSECURITY IN THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH SECTORS. (a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to eligible entities for the adoption and implementation of cybersecurity best practices. (b) Eligible Entity.--To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), an entity shall be-- (1) a Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(4))); (2) a health facility operated by or pursuant to a contract with the Indian Health Service; (3) a nonprofit hospital; (4) a rural health clinic (as defined in section 1861(aa)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(2))); or (5) a nonprofit entity that enters into a partnership or coordinates referrals with an entity described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4). (c) Use of Funds.--In adopting and implementing cybersecurity best practices pursuant to a grant under subsection (a), an eligible entity may use grant funds-- (1) to hire individuals with demonstrated cybersecurity expertise and train personnel in such cybersecurity best practices; (2) to update electronic data systems, such as by migrating to cloud-based platforms; (3) to join and participate in health cybersecurity threat information sharing organizations; (4) to contract with third parties to assist the eligible entity in carrying out the activities described in this subsection; (5) to conduct cybersecurity risk assessments and vulnerability assessments; and (6) to develop or improve cybersecurity incident response plans. (d) Grant Period.--A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period of not more than 3 years. (e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary may give consideration to the demonstrated need of eligible entities. (f) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including-- (1) a description of how the eligible entity will establish baseline measures and benchmarks that meet the Secretary's requirements to evaluate performance outcomes; and (2) a strategic plan for how, after the end of the grant period, the eligible entity will sustain the activities funded under the grant and continue to adopt cybersecurity best practices. SEC. 11. HEALTHCARE CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE. (a) Training for Healthcare Experts.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Cybersecurity State Coordinators of the Agency, the Office of the National Cyber Director, and private sector health care experts, as appropriate, shall provide training to Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities on-- (1) cybersecurity risks to information systems within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and (2) ways to mitigate the risks to information systems in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector. (b) Strategic Plan.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, in coordination with the Agency, shall develop a strategic plan to support growing the cybersecurity workforce for health care entities. (2) Contents.--The strategic plan under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) recommendations for existing educational programs that can be used to support cybersecurity training; (B) dissemination and development of educational materials on how to improve cybersecurity resilience; (C) development of best practices to train the health care workforce on cybersecurity best practices; (D) development of recommendations specific to rural facilities; (E) development of best practices to leverage artificial intelligence to support cybersecurity preparedness; (F) opportunities for public-private collaboration to strengthen the cybersecurity workforce; and (G) alignment with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Workforce Framework. SEC. 12. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT REPORTING COORDINATION WORKING GROUP. (a) Working Group.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convene a working group to examine how to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting for cybersecurity incidents. (2) Membership.--The working group described in paragraph (1) shall include representatives of-- (A) the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; (B) the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) the Office of the National Cyber Director; (D) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (E) the Federal Trade Commission; (F) State attorneys general; (G) State health departments; and (H) private sector health care entities. (3) Conclusion.--The working group shall conclude not later than 18 months after the date of the first meeting of the working group. (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the conclusion of the working group under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that-- (1) identifies areas the working group has identified to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting; (2) includes recommendations to Congress on further streamlining such reporting; and (3) addresses coordination with State breach notification laws. Passed the Senate September 30, 2026. Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I will briefly speak to this.

Text printed in the Record (531 characters)

Improving cyber security resilience is essential to safeguard patients and ensure that providers can deliver care without disruptions. My bipartisan bill, the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act, would ensure health institutions can safeguard Americans' health data against increasing attacks. At a time when cyber attacks not only put patients' sensitive health data at risk but can delay lifesaving care, we need to do more to provide support. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Executive Calendar

Pages S5236–S5237 · Official text

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to try to discharge 10 career ambassadorial nominees from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In the 21 months the Trump administration has been charged with America's national security, we have seen a complete hallowing out of our diplomatic service. Even with wars in the Middle East, in Sudan, Ethiopia, in Ukraine, and a growing Ebola crisis and strikes against United States bases and diplomatic facilities, over 100 diplomatic posts remain empty. Meanwhile, China--who I think almost everybody in this Chamber would acknowledge is the United States' biggest competitor--has 170 Ambassadors in posts around the world. Despite continued commitments from Secretary Rubio to send more career Ambassadors to the Senate for consideration, only 13 career Ambassadors have been confirmed under this administration. We need Ambassadors on the ground to keep Americans safe, to be held accountable by the Senate when things go wrong. We have a crisis of U.S. leadership across the world. Not only has the President failed to nominate career experts to represent Americans, but he has gone a step further: He has arbitrarily recalled more than 30 career Ambassadors from countries across Africa, from the Middle East, from the Pacific, from the Western Hemisphere. These are all regions where the PRC is engaging our partners as we retreat. We need American leadership overseas because competition with China doesn't just happen in the Indo-Pacific, and it doesn't just happen here at home, and it doesn't just happen in Africa or Latin America; it happens in every corner of the globe. Ensuring American businesses can compete for market access, offering alternatives to China's debt-trap diplomacy tactics, shoring up our alliances, and attracting international talent are why we need Ambassadors to represent the United States on the ground across the globe. Further, we know that China and Iran are working together to target American citizens and American infrastructure in the Middle East. If the Trump administration is serious about confronting China, we cannot let the Chinese write the future of foreign policy. This would be a dereliction of duty. We don't know where the next crisis point may be, and without American leadership on the ground, we risk being caught flatfooted. Now that these posters are up, I want to point out that, as I was talking about, we have 100 vacancies across the world. What we see here is where the United States has not filled ambassadorial posts. All this white, we don't have Ambassadors in those places. Look at China. They have Ambassadors in all those places. This isn't a partisan issue. When our allies and adversaries alike see the United States represented abroad, we need to speak with one voice. Career Ambassadors are nonpartisan public servants, often with decades of experience in the regions where they serve. So today, I am asking for unanimous consent to discharge from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the nominations of 10 career ambassadorial nominees, and I am here to urge the Trump administration to take seriously our national security agenda. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of PN1255-12, Peter Lord, Ambassador to Benin; PN1255-9, Keith Heffern, Ambassador to Gabon; PN1022-36, Daniel Travis, Ambassador to Sierra Leone; PN1022-39, Henry Wooster, Ambassador to Kenya; PN1201-4, Joshua Harris, Ambassador to Malaysia; PN1255-15, Nutan Patel, Ambassador to Cabo Verde; PN1255-7, Steven Gillen, Ambassador to Kyrgyz Republic; PN1255-8, Charles Goodman, Ambassador to Togo; PN1255-13, John McIntyre, Ambassador to Malawi; and PN1255-6, Natasha Franceschi, Ambassador to Nicaragua; and that the Senate proceed to their en bloc consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the nominations en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nominations of Peter Lord, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Benin; Keith Heffern, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Gabonese Republic; Daniel Travis, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Sierra Leone; Henry Wooster, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Kenya; Joshua Harris, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Malaysia; Nutan Patel, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Cabo Verde; Steven Gillen, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kyrgyz Republic; Charles Goodman III, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Togolese Republic; John McIntyre, of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Malawi; Natasha Franceschi, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Nicaragua, en bloc?

The nominations were confirmed en bloc.

Mr. President, just to clarify since I wasn't clear on one of the names, PN1255-15, Nutan Patel, N-U-T-A-N P-A-T-E-L, Ambassador to Cabo Verde.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Duly noted.

Mr. President, I just want to point out how important it is to get our career Ambassadors on the ground, and hopefully, the administration will offer more career Ambassadors as nominees to the Senate. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Texas.

Mystic Alerts Act

Pages S5237–S5238 · Official text

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Mr. President, on July 4, 2025, Central Texas experienced a once-in-a-century flooding event that caused the waters of the Guadalupe River to rise a shocking 26 feet in just 45 minutes. Homes were washed away, trees were toppled, streets were swallowed up, and communities in central Texas were ravaged, bringing an entire State to our knees. The raging and merciless waters took the lives of 139 people, including 27 young girls who went to Camp Mystic in Kerr County. On that day, Heaven gained too many angels. Even more shattering to think about is the reality that lives could have been saved if we had only had sufficient systems in place to deliver wireless emergency alerts to individuals in the danger zone after electricity and cell service were knocked out by the storm. That is why I introduced the Mystic Alerts Act along with Congressman August Pfluger to ensure Texans and all Americans can receive wireless emergency alerts on their mobile devices via satellite even when cellular networks are compromised. This legislation, which passed the House unanimously earlier this year, would help shore up this vulnerability and would undoubtedly save lives. When disaster strikes, every second matters. Access to timely weather alerts would have given more Texans the runway needed to find higher ground before it was too late. We couldn't save these 139 lives more than a year ago, but we will never be able to make things right for the families that continue to grieve unless we take a chance to honor the memories of those who lost their lives and their families and to prevent the horrors from hopefully ever happening again. I urge my colleagues to allow this bill to advance to the President's desk tonight. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 7022 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (108 characters)

A bill (H.R. 7022) to provide for the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 7022) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts)

The Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, we are about to go back to our States, to recess sometime tonight or tomorrow, and then to proceed to the general election. And there is an issue that hangs over the American people that concerns me, and I am sure concerns all of my colleagues, but on which we likely won't act before we adjourn. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and I are the cosponsors of the AI Whistleblower Protection Act, and it is one of a dozen urgently needed and important bills that would inject some guardrails, protections, and accountability into the rapidly advancing technology of AI. Why is this a concern for me? Because in recent days, in recent weeks, there have been alarming incidents of AI agents breaking out of their containment sandboxes, taking on actions that even their designers and developers couldn't predict and can't fully explain. And in recent days, the titans of the AI industry--folks like Sam Altman from Open AI or Demis Hassabis from Google DeepMind or Dario Amodei from Anthropic--have been saying AI is improving itself so fast that we are at risk of it exceeding the capabilities of humans to control it--frankly, even to understand it. So for those of you watching who might want to get tuned in to the debate and to the discussion, to be better informed, to be better engaged, I want to recommend a movie I just saw. It has got an unusual title. It is called "The AI Doc: Or how I Became an Apocaloptimist." And the director, Daniel Roher, is a documentary maker who is facing being a parent for the first time, and he is trying to get his head around alternating depictions, predictions of doom, literally the extinction of the human race, or a utopia where AI will unlock the secrets to cheap, abundant, clean fusion energy or solve all the diseases, cancer, and other ravages known to mankind. And in the course of an hour and a half, this very capable documentarian interviews dozens of the leading commentators, technology leaders, business leaders, civil society leaders, and researchers. The first 20 minutes of the movie was so depressing I had to turn it off. It was so clearly predicting and making a compelling case for the imminent end of the human species at the hands of artificial intelligence that it became overwhelming. The next 30 minutes does the opposite. It gives you the most optimistic view possible: apocalypse or optimism. And we here in the Senate and in the executive branch and in the House have a responsibility to reasonably, responsibly regulate in a timely way. There are so many dangerous technologies developed in the last century where we put guardrails around them, whether it was jet airplanes or nuclear energy, automobiles or the banking system. I was in a terrible car accident end of June. I am here today because of airbags and seatbelts. Those were first advocated by safety folks like Ralph Nader. The Big Three auto companies mostly resisted. Why do we need seatbelts? When airbags came out, why the extra cost? I was in a five-car accident where all five vehicles were totaled and every passenger walked away. And as I walked away, as I walked out of the hospital, I said to a friend: Thank God. What a miracle. And he turned to me and said: And thanks for the seatbelts and the airbags. When you get on an airplane and fly across the country, none of us probably can explain exactly how it works, exactly what the technology is. But we know that it has been maintained. It has been designed, maintained, funded, and flown by a tightly regulated group of people. Airline pilots operate under very strict standards. Those who maintain and operate airplanes operate under very strict standards. That is why we don't have tragic disasters all the time. So there are some good, concrete, bipartisan ideas for how we can inject some responsibility: some third-party auditing; some traceable records of what is happening, what has been done; some predeployment testing. Earlier this week, I introduced my bipartisan AI Systems Transparency Act with Senators Lankford and Britt and Schatz; four Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats, from very different backgrounds--introducing a bill to require transparency about what is driving these AI models so we can better study them, test them, and understand them. There are lots of other good ideas that other Members have, but we, unfortunately, have a President who has said that the risks of AI are a hoax and, while hosting the titans of the AI industry, has refused to take seriously the idea that we in any way should meaningfully regulate this industry. I understand we are in a dire competition with China. I agree with the assertion that the society or country that wins the race to frontier AI will have a decided advantage in national security, in science, in industry, in business of all kinds. But we can and should do both: compete against China, invest in frontier models, and have responsible safety to prevent the worst scenarios from coming true. We are able to do this in banking, to give one other example. Delaware, where I am from, is a major banking center. Every one of the largest banks in America has major operations in Delaware, and they operate under some real restrictions. There are OCC and FDIC inspectors, regulators in every bank. They are required to follow know-your-customer laws, anti-money laundering standards. And after the 2008 to 2009 crisis, no one from the banking industry comes to me and says: We need a lighter touch regulation. They understand that safety and soundness--the rule of law--allows the United States to have deep capital markets and safety. Artificial intelligence is transforming our world, and whether it is adopting the AI whistleblower app that Senator Grassley and I are advocating for or it is adopting the AI Systems Transparency Act that Senator Britt and I and other colleagues are advocating for or other bipartisan bills, when we return in what will likely be a period of greater anxiety about AI, we need to act. We need to take up legislation and move forward reasonable and responsible regulation.

End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act

Pages S5238–S5241 · Official text

Mr. President, I wonder if you have heard the story of Jason Rezaian. Jason was a Washington Post reporter--an Iranian American--who was stationed in Tehran and reporting for the Washington Post on the goings-on of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2014, he was arrested by the secret police and disappeared. Months later, it was revealed that he was a political prisoner being held at a notorious prison inside Iran. Jason was ultimately detained for 544 days before he was released, which he has recounted in his harrowing tale, "Prisoner: My 544 Days in an Iranian Prison." When Jason returned to the United States at last, having been freed, returned to his family, what was the first thing he got from the U.S. Government? A tax bill, a tax bill for $20,000 for late filing and late payment. Mr. Rezaian is a resourceful guy. He went to the IRS, and he said: Hey, how can you charge me for late payment, penalties, and fees? I was in prison in Iran. They said: Well, how are we supposed to know that? It was on the front page of the Washington Post. They said: Well, we can't just forgive fees and fines for anybody who comes and talks to us. They went through months and months of arguing back and forth, and he managed to get most of the fines and fees reduced but not all. And so after I met with him, now years ago, I drafted and introduced the Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. I bet you can guess what this bill does. There is a corollary--a companion--in the House, the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, and I am grateful to Congresswomen Titus and Tenney of Nevada and New York for their cosponsorship. It has passed the House unanimously. Tonight, Senator Rounds and I have an opportunity to ask for unanimous consent that we pass this legislation in the Senate and send it to President Trump's desk. Incredibly, when we asked for the score on this bill, it is positive because the IRS insists on litigating these cases, and they almost always lose them. They waste staff time and money suing people who were hostages or prisoners overseas. This is simple; it is common sense; it is bipartisan; and it is compassionate. I want to thank Senators Crapo and Wyden for allowing Senator Rounds and me to pull this bill out of their larger tax package and pass it by unanimous consent tonight. And I want to thank Senator Mike Rounds for being an early adopter. When I explained what happened to Jason Rezaian, he said: We should pass that and pass it right away. Well, for better or worse, it has taken years, but here we are tonight on the verge of sending it to the President's desk. I cannot say how grateful I am for the chance to get this simple, clear, commonsense bill passed to help Americans who might tragically be held hostage or imprisoned wrongfully overseas. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9496 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (234 characters)

A bill (H.R. 9496) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to postpone tax deadlines and reimburse paid late fees for United States nationals who are unlawfully or wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 9496) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. President, with that, I understand this bill has been adopted by unanimous consent, and I am delighted to say that the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages bill will at long last go to our President's desk for his signature.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2252 and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following bill: Calendar No. 106, H.R. 1829; further, that the committee-reported substitute to H.R. 1829 be agreed to; the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am actually pretty sympathetic to the land management challenges in the West that have come from a history of public land disposal and development, but I cannot support the approach this bill takes transferring public land to a State without a fair exchange for the public. Under the bill, if the State of North Dakota transferred State land to a Tribe, the State could then select Bureau of Land Management public land to replace them. The public would not receive any land or compensation in return for the land transferred to the State. What is more, the bill doesn't specify which public land would be transferred out of public hands. It would allow the State to select any BLM-managed public land in North Dakota that hasn't already been set aside. Land exchanges are an important tool for western public land management. I get that. I have supported many land exchanges in New Mexico and many other States, but land exchanges need to include a public process to determine which parcels are being exchanged. They must be in the public interest and be of equal value for the public and the other parties. I am willing to work with my colleague from North Dakota to find a solution to the State lands within Indian reservations in his State, but the solution can't be simply giving away our public land, especially when we don't know even which lands would be transferred away. I hope we can work together to find a different path forward on this issue but as the bill is currently drafted, I must object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who--we have worked together on many different issues and I appreciate that and I hope we can work on this one. But there are some questions that I have to ask because I sincerely would like to get to a solution on a bill that, first off, does not affect other States. It solely affects land within my State of North Dakota, and it is supported by all of the reservations. We have five reservations in my State, and the Native Americans on all of the reservations across the board have asked us to do this for them. There is no net loss of lands. This is simply exchanging State land within the boundaries of reservations for Federal land, which is outside the reservations, which then would be Federal lands within the reservations, which would be to the benefit of the Native American Tribes. The only objection that I have heard from anybody at any time is in regard to hunting and public access. I am a hunter. I truly enjoy hunting, but I must admit I am probably not a hunter on the scale of my colleague from New Mexico. He is an accomplished hunter. We talk about it all the time. He knows how important that is, obviously, to him and his citizens in New Mexico. It is very important to me and to my citizens in North Dakota. But here is a situation where there is no net loss of land, and, in fact, if anything, there will be more land open and available to hunters. I was Governor of North Dakota for 10 years, and those State lands we opened up to public hunting and tourism. So there will be a gain for hunters and fishermen. And on the reservation, there is no net loss of public land whatsoever. It is a simple exchange of State land for Federal land. These Federal lands will go from outside the borders of the reservation to within the borders of the reservation, and be managed for the benefit of those respective Tribes within the reservations. And it is something that every single Tribe within my State has been asking for and we have been waiting for a long time to get done. And here is how it worked out in the House: It passed unanimously. So, yes, I am willing to work on it, but I have been working on it for a long time. And I am simply asking that the House bill be passed and, along with it, a Democrat bill from the House also that would be of real benefit in the State of Arizona, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is paired with this bill. So by objecting, my good colleague from New Mexico is also holding up the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is important to Native Americans in the State of Arizona. And so, again, I would ask for consent on this bill or at least some commitment as to how this is going to get done.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, this is like a three-legged stool where one of the legs is missing. I support cleaning up the parcels inside of the Tribal reservations that currently do not belong to them. But the public, who owns the Bureau of Land Management lands, also either need compensation or equal value. And this is simply a transfer of the public land of the United States of America that all of our constituents own, whether they are in North Dakota or New Mexico or Florida, without any compensation to the people of the United States. Whether transferring public land to counties, transferring public lands to States, or transferring public lands to private entities, without an equal value for the public, is simply something I cannot support.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, there is no net loss of public lands. It is simply a straight exchange in terms of location. There is no net loss, none whatsoever. I still fail to understand why the good Senator from New Mexico continues to make the case when there is no net lands. It is just a simple exchange. The second thing I would, again, reiterate is: Okay. I know--I know that my colleague is sympathetic to this issue. I truly believe it. What I would like to hear is how we are going to resolve this. I would really appreciate some commitment for how this is going to be resolved.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleague from North Dakota on the issue. I think we need to find a path forward here. Tribal trust land is not the same as public land. Transferring lands from the Federal Government to the status State is not equivalent, and we need something that is fair to the Tribal constituents, the State, and the public that owns those Federal public lands.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from North Dakota.

I understand. But I, again, emphasize that the Federal Government will have the same amount of Federal land before and after. It is simply an exchange where it will be located within the boundaries of the reservation and will benefit the Tribes. By not doing this, we are denying it, to the Tribe's detriment. And as far as the lands that the State would retain, then they would be outside the reservation. So there is no net loss there. I will emphasize that again. And the second thing is, by opposing this measure, my colleague is also holding up the Apache County and Navaho County Conveyance Act, which is paired with it to pass the House--well, both bills passed the House without objection, so I just find it interesting. Here is two bills that went through the House on a voice vote, without objection, and they are being held up. I don't understand. So again, I ask for either consent or some commitment beyond "we will work together." I mean, I would like something--and I am sure the folks at the Tribes in Arizona would like the same thing--of some commitment as to how we are going to get to resolution within some reasonable period of time. What is it going to take? With that, I ask for consent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from North Dakota.

Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I rise today to pass my bill which would ensure the Federal Housing Finance Agency's inspector general can do its job to protect the integrity of our housing market. The inspector general is an independent official who investigates fraud, waste, and abuse in government Agencies. We can all agree that is a critical position. Within the FHFA, the inspector general goes after legitimate fraud and abuse. The IG makes sure government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank meet the housing needs of our communities. And the IG ensures American consumers who need mortgages and loans for their homes aren't being taken advantage of. For example, during President Trump's first term, the FHFA's Office of the Inspector General caught the president and the chief information officer at the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is another example from just this month when the OIG worked with Florida law enforcement to investigate and prosecute a former attorney for real estate fraud. There are so many more instances out there of this office going after fraudsters. I, also, personally know how critical this work is, as a former attorney general of Nevada. It was the responsibility of my office to go after fraud and win restitution for Nevadans who had been exploited. So trust me when I say: The work the OIG does is essential to making sure Americans are getting a fair deal. Unfortunately, President Trump's pick to head the FHFA, Bill Pulte, has weaponized the Agency. Director Pulte has used his position to go after the President's perceived political enemies. He has pushed out staff who are doing their job, including economists who refused to inflate market outlooks. He has also forced out ethics and civil rights staff who help hold the Agency and its leadership accountable. President Trump himself fired the acting inspector general last month. Clearly, there is cause for concern here, and that is why we need to pass this bill. The law already requires FHFA to provide its Office of Inspector General with the resources it needs to do its job. My bill would add safeguards to ensure that the FHFA must provide the funding that the OIG requests. This would protect the OIG from being shortchanged by any FHFA Director playing politics, and it would ensure the FHFA inspector general--and not Bill Pulte--determines the amount of funding it needs to do its job. This bill would protect the American people from waste, fraud, and abuse, and to deter bad actors from taking advantage of their power. I encourage my colleagues to join me in passing this bill. So, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5681 submitted earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, Reserving the right to object, this bill would amend the funding statute for the Federal Housing Finance Agency so that the expenses of the inspector general are collected through the annual assessments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank in an amount independently determined by the inspector general. I support independent oversight. The Inspector General Act already requires a separate budget estimate for that office, and it already lets the inspector general tell Congress if a proposed budget would impair that work. Current law already funds this office. It has more than 100 employees and a budget of more than $50 million. This bill goes further, though. It would make the inspector general's own determination the amount the director must collect. There is no ceiling, no reasonableness test, and no vote of Congress on this matter whatsoever. These assessments, by the way, aren't free. They are costs on the housing finance system, and they show up in the mortgage market. We would literally be costing working Americans more money for mortgages so that a bunch of overpriced attorneys would charge whatever they want, to do whatever work they felt necessary. If the Senate wants to change how this office is funded, that change could include a cap, a reporting requirement, and, most importantly, a recorded vote. And for that reason, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Ohio.

I know of no further debate on the nomination.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there further debate? If not, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Sonderling nomination.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.

The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll.

John Barrasso (R-WY)

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 41, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (1,015 characters)

Armstrong Banks Barrasso Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tuberville Wicker Young Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Fetterman Gallego Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Van Hollen Warnock Warren Welch Wyden Blackburn Blumenthal Cornyn Durbin Ernst Gillibrand McConnell Moran Smith Tillis Warner Whitehouse The nomination was confirmed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Legislative Session

Page S5241 · Official text

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The question is on agreeing to the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. President, I withdraw my motion to proceed to Calendar No. 648, H.R. 9340.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The leader has that right.

SURVIVOR JUSTICE TAX PREVENTION ACT--Motion to Proceed

Page S5241 · Official text

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 453, H.R. 2347.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the motion.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (228 characters)

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, H.R. 2347, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income any damages, other than punitive damages, received on account of any sexual acts or sexual contact.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (648 characters)

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, H.R. 2347, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income any damages, other than punitive damages, received on account of any sexual acts or sexual contact. John Thune, Ted Budd, Jim Banks, Bernie Moreno, Pete Ricketts, James Lankford, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Steve Daines, Jon Husted, Eric Schmitt, Roger Marshall, Roger F. Wicker, John R. Curtis, John Barrasso, James E. Risch, Shelley Moore Capito, John Cornyn.

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)

Page S5241 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 931; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:

Text printed in the Record (166 characters)

The following named officers for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Brig. Gen. Stephen P. Snelson

Legislative Session

Page S5241 · Official text

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senate will now resume legislative session.

Morning Business

Page S5241 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Elections

Pages S5241–S5242 · Official text

Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from former special counsel Jack Smith, the man who investigated Donald Trump's criminal effort overturn the results of the 2020 election. Mr. Smith testified, under oath, about how the President pressured State election officials and Members of Congress to reject the results of the election, even though Trump had privately admitted that Joe Biden had won in 2020. The President's subversion efforts came to a head on January 6, 2021, when an armed mob, that he incited, stormed the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Mr. Smith testified yesterday that it was Donald Trump who caused that violence, that he foresaw what would result from his conspiracy theories and that he sought to exploit it to remain in power. We remain a democracy today because of the brave public servants, many of them Republicans, who refused to cooperate with the President's attacks on our democracy, as well as the men and women in uniform who defended this building and all of us inside on that dark day. Now, in his second term, the President is again sowing chaos and doubt in our electoral process. He is attempting to exceed the authorities granted to him by the Constitution, which clearly gives primary authority over election administration to the States. In March, President Trump signed an illegal Executive order which directed the Department of Homeland Security to overhaul the so-called SAVE database with incorrect and out-of-date citizenship information so it could be used to determine voter eligibility. It was a reckless solution in search of a problem. Yet last week, the Supreme Court's conservative majority permitted part of this dangerous plan to move forward, allowing States to use the flawed database to verify the citizenship of registered voters. This will inevitably lead to voter purges and disenfranchisement of eligible voters in States that choose to use this faulty system. Unfortunately, the Trump administration's efforts to interfere with the upcoming midterm elections go far beyond the SAVE database. Just look at the Department of Justice. In January, the FBI used widely debunked conspiracy theories to justify a raid on an elections office in Fulton County, GA, seizing ballots and voter rolls from the 2020 Presidential election. Later, in March, the FBI seized election materials from a partisan, Republican audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, AZ. In July, reporting emerged that the FBI obtained the IP address of an individual in South Carolina who registered to vote online. In response to that last case, a former senior Justice Department official noted that, "it's not typical and it's not appropriate" "for the FBI to be calling state election officials and just asking and conducting a fishing expedition to see private voter data." The FBI has also raided the office of a voting rights organization in Ohio, and they showed up at the home of a poll worker in Milwaukee to ask questions about the 2020 election. These are unacceptable and unprecedented steps by the FBI, all in an effort to relitigate the 2020 Presidential election. But it isn't just FBI Director Kash Patel. Other components of the Justice Department have joined these efforts to support the Big Lie. DOJ's Civil Rights Division, often called the "crown jewel" of the Department, is responsible for enforcing the laws that protect the right to vote. But that mission has been effectively abandoned. Instead of protecting voting rights, the Civil Rights Division currently seems focused on intimidating eligible voters and election officials. In April, the Division sought to obtain election materials from Wayne County in the swing State of Michigan. The Division has filed 31 lawsuits against States in an effort to obtain access to unredacted voter rolls, filled with sensitive voter data. The Division is also planning to deploy 1,000 election observers across the country; the election observer program has historically played an important role in protecting the right to vote, but it is ripe for misuse under this administration. Additionally, the Division has sent letters to election officials across the country threaten to file criminal charges against officials if a noncitizen casts a ballot in an upcoming election. As the Republican-appointed Utah elections director noted in response to one of those letters, "The federal government can best assist the State of Utah by allowing us to perform our required duties without unjustified interference, as intended by Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution." Across the country, voters are beginning to receive ballots for early voting. I understand why some of those voters may look at this landscape and wonder if they should even bother trying to vote. It is indeed frightening to watch this weaponization of Federal law enforcement. But that makes it all the more critical for Americans to make their voices heard, loud and clear. And there is good news that should give voters confidence. While the Trump administration has had some victories, like the case before the Supreme Court last week, most of their interference efforts have been shut down by the Federal judiciary. Those DOJ lawsuits to obtain sensitive voter roll data? Courts have rejected them in every ruling so far. And countless State attorneys general, State and local election officials, and community organizations stand ready. They have been tirelessly preparing for this election for months, and they will be working to protect every eligible American's right to access the ballot and have their vote counted. Here in Congress, I am working with my colleagues to hold Trump administration officials accountable when they try to interfere with our constituents' rights. The reality is the President's biggest fear is coming true: Americans are fed up with this administration's broken promises. And if Donald Trump thinks that he will overturn the will of the people with a conspiracy-fueled attempt to void the election, he should be ready to once again lose in courtrooms across the country. We Americans will not allow our collective voices to be silenced.

Stop Insider Trading Act

Page S5242 · Official text

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Mr. President, I rise to discuss my vote on rollcall vote No. 253, the motion to proceed to the Stop Insider Trading Act. I strongly support efforts to remove potential conflicts of interest, promote strengthened ethical standards, and restore public trust in government. That is why I voted for commonsense legislation--the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act--which became law and bans lawmakers from trading on nonpublic information and requires lawmakers to disclose stock trades. And, it is why I am a cosponsor of the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, led by Senator Ossoff, which would ban Members of Congress from owning or trading individual stocks and similar investments while in office. But instead of voting on that legislation today, Senate Republicans brought to the floor a bill that would continue to let members own and sell stocks and to trade stocks in privately held companies and therefore potentially profit from insider knowledge. As someone who has never owned individual stocks, I believe this bill simply isn't strong enough. I am also disappointed that congressional Republicans have attached unrelated provisions to this legislation that would undermine voting rights. The bill includes provisions to restrict access to the ballot box that are more severe than any law in any state. The bill would effectively end voting by mail and create new burdens for voters and election officials. Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than our free and fair elections and the right of Americans to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Voting is how the American people make their voices heard and ensure their elected leaders are held accountable. While I have long supported efforts to ensure that lawmakers cannot use insider information to profit off of their elected office, we should not be making it harder for eligible Americans to cast their ballot. For that reason, I opposed the bill.

Common Cents Act

Pages S5242–S5243 · Official text

Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY)

Mr. President, the penny has been a staple of American life since Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792, which mandated that the penny be valued at one hundredth part of a dollar. The following year, in 1793, the U.S. Mint produced 11,178 copper pennies. Billions of pennies later, the penny has been made of zinc, steel, nickel, tin and bronze throughout more than two centuries of history and has featured on its face Lady Liberty, a Flying Eagle, an Indian Head, and, most notably, President Abraham Lincoln since 1909. Since the early 2010s, the penny has cost the U.S. Mint more to produce than its 1 cent face value. Today, it costs taxpayers nearly 4 cents per penny to produce, costing the Federal Government an estimated $56 million annually. As Americans rely heavily on electronic payments, including digital assets, to send and receive value, the penny has become an outdated and inefficient part of our currency. One of my core missions serving on the Banking Committee has been to ensure how Americans transfer value in our payment and currency system is modern, relevant, and efficient, whether it is through stablecoins, Federal Reserve master accounts, or our old friend the penny. I am proud to be leading the Common Cents Act in the Senate, which will bring the penny's role in our economy to an end once signed into law by President Trump. I am joined by my friends Senators Gillibrand, Lankford, and Wyden as cosponsors of this legislation. The Common Cents Act ratifies the Treasury Department's decision in 2025 to permanently discontinue production of the penny. My legislation also provides crucial legal certainty for business by creating a clear national standard authorizing businesses to round to the nearest 5 cents, while specifying that electronic payments are not required to be rounded. My legislation also authorizes the U.S. Mint to test and, if appropriate, implement a new lower-cost composition for the nickel, which could also save taxpayers money. I want to be clear about the intent of that provision. The intent of this provision is to allow the Treasury and Mint to change the composition of the 5-cent coin from its current nickel-copper alloy to a zinc-nickel alloy. Not only should the Treasury and Mint evaluate the direct cost of production of the 5-cent coin when determining its composition, but it also should evaluate the cost and recyclability across the Treasury's and Mint's integrated coin-alloy and scrap-recycling system, as well as the availability of qualified suppliers and the overall resilience of the supply chain. The current copper and nickel 5-cent coin, dime, and quarter production streams are operationally and economically interconnected. The current composition of the 5-cent coin uses a closed-loop recycling model, and the nickel-copper alloy used in the 5-cent coin is compatible with the materials also used in dimes and quarters. This allows the 5-cent coin scrap to be recycled and reused into dime and quarter feedstock. The goal of the Common Cents Act is to save taxpayers money. Therefore, the Treasury and Mint should look at the impact and cost of changing the composition of the 5-cent coin, including the cost of production of the 5-cent coin and other coins, recyclability, availability of suppliers, and supply chain. Discontinuing coinage like the penny is not new. Production of the half-cent coin was discontinued in the Coinage Act of 1857, and today, the Common Cents Act is another step our country will take to modernize how Americans transfer value. The late Senator Mike Enzi, my predecessor from Wyoming in the Senate, began advocating for the abolition of the penny in 2017, when he introduced the Coins Act. I am proud to complete the work he began today with the Common Cents Act.

Common Cents Act

Page S5243 · Official text

Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the following statement printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Remarks by Senators Lummis, Gillibrand, Duckworth and Durbin, 5-Cent Coin Composition

Text printed in the Record (1,790 characters)

Mr. President, earlier this week, Congress passed the Common Cents Act (H.R. 10167), which ends the production of the penny and creates a rounding scheme for cash payments. This legislation will save the U.S. Mint, and ultimately taxpayers, tens of millions of dollars each year. The bill also allows the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Mint to change the composition of the 5-cent coin. As Members of Congress who are engaged on the Common Cents Act, including the bill's bipartisan Senate cosponsors, we wish to clarify our intent of the provision that allows the Treasury and Mint to change the composition of the 5-cent coin from its current nickel-copper alloy to a zinc-nickel alloy. Not only should the Treasury and Mint evaluate the direct cost of production of the 5-cent coin when determining its composition, but it also should evaluate the cost and recyclability across the Treasury's and Mint's integrated coin-alloy and scrap-recycling system, as well as the availability of qualified suppliers and the overall resilience of the supply chain. The current copper and nickel 5-cent coin, dime, and quarter production streams are operationally and economically interconnected. The current composition of the 5-cent coin uses a closed-loop recycling model, and the nickel-copper alloy used in the 5-cent coin is compatible with the materials also used in dimes and quarters. This allows the 5-cent coin scrap to be recycled and reused into dime and quarter feedstock. The goal of the Common Cents Act is to save taxpayers money. Therefore, the Treasury and Mint should look at the impact and cost of changing the composition of the 5-cent coin, including the cost of production of the 5-cent coin and other coins, recyclability, availability of suppliers, and supply chain.

Hawaiian History Month

Pages S5243–S5244 · Official text

Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI)

Mr. President, last year, the State of Hawaii officially designated September as Hawaiian History Month. Hawaiian History Month aims to recognize, reflect, and share Hawaii's history. This year, I come to the floor to celebrate Hawaiian History Month by highlighting three Native Hawaiian leaders who have played pivotal roles in the education and perpetuation of Hawaiian culture: Mary Kawena Pukui, Levon Ohai, and Kaiulani Murphy. These histories are necessarily brief, and I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to take the time to learn more about these revered leaders. In the 1960s and 70s, there were tremendous efforts to revitalize and perpetuate the practices of Native Hawaiians. This era, referred to as the Hawaiian Renaissance, ushered in a cultural resurgence that embraced traditional language, hula, and music to give voice to Native Hawaiian culture. The restoration of the Hawaiian language, which had nearly been lost due to attempts to suppress its teaching, was a necessary part of this renaissance. Mary Abigail Kawenau laokalan iahiiaka ikapoliope lekawahin eaihonua Pukui, born April 20, 1895, was one of the most significant Native Hawaiian scholars and cultural figures who helped preserve Hawaiian language, stories, and traditions. Her leadership, legacy, and outstanding contributions to Hawaiian knowledge earned her the honor of being recognized on the Native American $1 coin program in 2025. As a child, she was immersed in Hawaiian culture; her mother came from a long line of priests, medicinal experts, and midwives. Her mother raised her to be bilingual, receiving education in Hawaiian language, crafts, and culture in addition to the English language. Notably she is known for publishing more than 50 books and articles and composing over 150 songs and chants. Some of her most well-known publications consist of "Place Names of Hawaii (1974), "Olelo Noeau," and co-authoring "Hawaiian-English Dictionary" (1957, revised 1986). The nearly 3,000 Olelo Noeau she published help to share the wisdom, thoughts, guidance, and lessons of Hawaiian ancestors through her translated and annotated proverbs. Another practice that was also revitalized during the Hawaiian Renaissance in the 70s and 80s was laau lapaau, the practice of Hawaiian medicine. In 1988, Congress passed the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act that recognized laau lapaau, knowledge passed down from generation to generation by Hawaiian practitioners, as a legitimate form of traditional medicine. Levon Ammon Ohai, from Kapaa, Kauai, is one of those Hawaiian medicine healers. Ohai worked as a Hawaii Department of Education teacher, as well as a professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Because of his dedication to the preservation and perpetuation of traditional Hawaiian knowledge systems, practices, and culture, he is known in the community as a kahuna laau lapaau, an expert in the medical field. He is also recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi, a federally created entity working to better health outcomes in the Native Hawaiian community, as a traditional healer. Another central part of the Hawaiian Renaissance was the revitalization of traditional wayfinding, showcasing the traditional migration of Polynesians. In 1976, the Polynesian Voyaging Society, with the help of Mau Piailug, a master navigator from Micronesia, sailed their first successful voyage on a double-hulled sailing canoe, named Hokulea. This voyage would be the first of many. In 2013, the Malama Honua Worldwide Voyage began, an over 40,000-nautical-mile voyage that used traditional wayfinding techniques. The journey's name means "to care for our Earth." The voyage's purpose was to spread awareness regarding living sustainably, sharing Hawaiian culture, and showcasing the utilization of traditional knowledge systems. Today, the Polynesian Voyaging Society continues to train and inspire the next generation of Native Hawaiian navigators. Kaiulani Murphy was a key crew member in the Malama Honua Voyage and has been a navigator on Hokulea for more than 20 years. Additionally, she was the first woman to navigate Hokulea from Tahiti to Hawaii. In August 2026, Murphy, along with three other Native Hawaiian women--Shantell De Silva, Pomaikalani Bertelmann, and Lehua Kamalu--became the first and only known females to be granted Pwo, master navigator status, the highest honor and responsibility among traditional Pacific navigators. Murphy is dedicated to steering future generations of wayfinders at Honolulu Community College, where she is a full-time Hawaiian studies professor. Every day, but particularly during this month, we honor and thank Mary Kawena Pukui, Levon Ohai, Kaiulani Murphy, and the many other Native Hawaiian leaders for their extraordinary vision, leadership, and commitment to the Native Hawaiian community at all points of Hawaiian history including past, present, and future.

Hurricane Helene

Page S5244 · Official text

Mr. President, some storms pass. Others permanently change the communities they pass through. For the North Carolinians who lived through Hurricane Helene, September 27, 2024, is not simply a date in the past. It is a dividing line between life before the storm and everything that has come after. This week marks the second anniversary of Hurricane Helene. Only 2 years ago, this Category 4 storm grew to insurmountable levels in a matter of hours, dumping up to 30 inches of rain with winds up to 106 miles per hour. The result: Family homes that stood for generations were washed away, small businesses that had long served as pillars of their communities were shuttered, and roadways connecting towns and neighbors were torn apart. But most devastating of all was the loss of 108 lives across Western North Carolina. Like many North Carolinians across our State and many Americans across the country, I remember watching the storm carve its path through the Blue Ridge Mountains on the news that fateful Friday morning. As the storm picked up pace, I did everything I could to stay in constant contact with local municipal leaders on the ground to gather intel on the storm's growing severity and better gauge the damage it would inevitably leave behind. But when phone lines suddenly dropped, we lost all communication with one-third of the State. And nothing could have prepared us for what would come after. Just days after the storm broke, I surveyed the wreckage from the air with North Carolina Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler. From above, the damage done was horrifying: Rivers rushed where roads once were, trees were collapsed onto buildings, cars were overturned, and homes were caught in mudslides. When it was finally safe to reach the ground, the destruction Helene left behind was overwhelming. I will never forget touring an elementary school classroom in Watauga County that has been flooded by several feet of water during the storm. Walking over the debris and remnants of what once was a place of learning, growth, and opportunity for young children was chilling. That visit made one thing abundantly clear: The road to recovery was about more than rebuilding what Helene destroyed. It was about restoring our communities. Overnight, Hurricane Helene left North Carolina with nearly $60 billion in damage and recovery costs, a price tag so large that it is hard to conceptualize. Now imagine that scale of destruction falling onto counties, small towns, and entities whose entire budgets are not measured in billions, but in millions, or less. In the immediate aftermath of Helene, local governments had no choice but to completely drain their cash reserves to clear debris, restore roads, repair water systems, and provide the basic infrastructure that their communities needed to survive. But Helene's severe economic impact extends far beyond the communities directly hit by the storm because the 39 disaster-designated counties account for 45 percent of North Carolina's GDP. That means western North Carolina's recovery is not just a regional priority; it is essential to our State's overall economic strength. That is why my No. 1 priority in Washington over the past 2 years has been unlocking Federal aid for western North Carolina's recovery. Over the past 2 years, I have made nearly 50 visits to Helene-impacted communities, and my staff has made many more. My casework team has worked on over 500 cases related to Hurricane Helene recovery, with positive outcomes leading to over $66 million in awards. My policy team has worked diligently to ensure western North Carolina receives the Federal disaster funding it needs by securing its inclusion in Federal disaster re supplemental legislation and ensuring the Disaster Relief Fund has the resources needed to support a full recovery. I have also worked closely with Federal Agencies to clear backlogs and get recovery funds flowing so projects can get off the ground and outstanding bills can be paid. In the past 2 years, Federal Agencies have identified over $13 billion in Hurricane Helene-related awards, grants, infrastructure commitments, and Federal loan assistance for North Carolina, significantly advancing recovery efforts. Since September of 2024, FEMA has assisted over 161,000 households with nearly $567 million in direct assistance. North Carolina was also awarded a $1.4 billion Community Development Block Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to support recovery efforts and address housing needs. Additionally, FEMA has removed roughly 15 million cubic yards of debris from rights-of-way and waterways, restoring access and helping communities move forward with rebuilding. In a region where tourism drives local economies, fully reopening the Blue Ridge Parkway by the end of the year is a major milestone on the road to recovery. By the end of 2026, the National Park Service will have repaired more than 55 landslides along the parkway's 200-mile stretch through North Carolina. Although work will continue to repair visitor centers and historic and cultural landmarks in the coming years, the parkway's complete reopening will undoubtedly allow western North Carolina to enter a new stage of much-needed economic recovery by welcoming tourists back to the mountains. When I think back to those first few days after Hurricane Helene, the devastation will forever be scared into my memory. But what stands out most is what emerged from that destruction: an extraordinary sense of unity. In every one of western North Carolina's 39 impacted counties, neighbors were helping neighbors. And that level of unity, in the face of severe adversity, is something I am enormously proud of. I want to recognize and sincerely thank the faith-based and nonprofit organizations that were among the first to respond after Helene--and for their continued efforts in helping families across western North Carolina rebuild. To every family still grieving the loss of a loved one, know that you are not alone. We will never forget the lives Helene stole from us on September 27, 2024. Helene may have changed western North Carolina forever, but it will not define our future. That belongs to the resilient people who call the Blue Ridge Mountains home. As communities continue to rebuild, businesses reopen, and visitors return, western North Carolina will continue moving forward with the same strength and resilience that carried us through the storm--because, if the last 2 years have taught us anything, it is this: No storm is stronger than a community determined to rebuild together.

TRIBUTE TO McKENNA LeVITT

Pages S5244–S5245 · Official text

Jacky Rosen (D-NV)

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and thank my constituent and longtime staffer McKenna LeVitt for her many years of service to the U.S. Senate and to the people of Nevada. McKenna has been a key member of my team since my first year in the Senate, joining my office as part of our first intern class and then returning to work for me in a full-time role after she graduated from the University of Nevada, Reno. Over time, she proved herself to be an incredibly dedicated and talented staffer, rising quickly from staff assistant to legislative correspondent to legislative correspondence manager to legislative aide to legislative assistant and finally becoming our lead policy adviser for all energy, environment, public lands, water, agriculture, and Tribal issues. In this role, McKenna has led my office's work on numerous public lands bills, multi-year legislative efforts that are critical to the landscape, economic development, safety, preservation, and accessibility of the land in our State. She has shepherded the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act through Congress, one of the most significant pieces of legislation directly impacting northern Nevada in recent history. In introducing, negotiating, and working to amend this bill, McKenna has taken many hundreds of meetings and put in thousands of hours of work, collaborating with county and city officials, Tribes, the State of Nevada, conservationists, sportsmen, recreationalists, ranchers, landholders, housing developers, utilities, and others. She has taken public feedback, working parcel-by-parcel on changes and working across the aisle and with members of both the House and Senate and with committee staff to move this bill forward. Its future success in this Chamber will be due in very large part to her, and I am confident that we will get the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act across the finish line thanks to her hard work on it these past many years. She has also played a leading role in working with my national security team to obtain fair compensation for ranchers impacted by the modernization of Naval Air Station Fallon, helped draft and introduce dozens of bills and amendments, secured millions of dollars in critical funding for Nevada through appropriations, and taken what can conservatively be estimated to be over a thousand meetings with Nevadans. Whenever McKenna wasn't at her desk, we knew it meant she was in a meeting talking with Nevadans about how we could help them. It is her personal touch in these interactions that sets her apart, not only coming prepared with policy knowledge and ready to answer any question that comes her way, but also listening with empathy and fully adopting the challenges of her fellow Nevadans as her own. As a colleague, McKenna is beloved, someone whom everyone on my team in both Nevada and DC considers a person they can trust. She has been there for people when they need her, just as she has been there for the State of Nevada. McKenna has a steady hand and an analytical mind, but also a heart of gold. McKenna, I thank you for your service to Nevada and the country, and I look forward to seeing you grow and excel as you move back home to Reno and begin a new life with Ken. We will miss you, but your impact will be felt forever.

Remembering Robin Cogan

Page S5245 · Official text

Cory A. Booker (D-NJ)

Mr. President, today, we honor the selfless life of Robin Cogan, a New Jersey resident who passed away on June 11, 2026, at the age of 65. Robin was a beloved nurse, grandmother, friend, and outstanding member of her community in Cherry Hill, NJ. She will be remembered as a "relentless" advocate for nurses, our community's children, and for working tirelessly to prevent gun violence in our schools. Robin was the New Jersey director for the National Association of School Nurses and a teacher in the school nurse certification program at Rutgers University in Camden, NJ. As a voice of her profession, Robin authored the "Relentless School Nurse" blog, as well as a monthly column in "My American Nurse," the official journal of the American Nurses Association. Her service to the profession was recognized through multiple major professional awards, including the 2019 and 2020 National Association of School Nurses President's Award, the 2018 NCSN School Nurse of the Year, the 2017 Johnson & Johnson School Nurse of the Year, and the New Jersey Department of Health 2017 Population Health Hero Award. One of Robin's guiding principles was that "voice is our most renewable resource," a principle she not only espoused but which she lived out every day. Through programs like her "No More Empty Desks" art campaign at Charles Brimm Medical Arts High School in Camden, Robin's life is proof that ripples make waves if we are relentlessly brave in standing up for our communities. My staff and I had the great pleasure of meeting Robin during the "Hill Days" she coordinated while serving as the legislative cochair for the New Jersey State School Nurses Association. We were left humbled by her story, inspired by her message, and proud to honor all she has done for the great State of New Jersey. Amidst the pandemic of gun violence that has gripped our American communities, Robin's legacy is one of hope. I encourage members of this Chamber to reflect on Robin's life as testament to what we can accomplish if we are relentless in our compassion for others and for the well-being of our communities.

Tribute to A.j. Gary

Page S5245 · Official text

John Boozman (R-AR)

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize A.J. Gary upon his retirement as director of the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management, ADEM, and State Homeland Security adviser. For more than four decades, Gary has dedicated his career to serving others and protecting the people of Arkansas. Since being appointed to manage ADEM in 2016, he has provided steady leadership through some of the most challenging situations our State has faced. His experience has been integral to ADEM's response and recovery efforts across 49 State and federally declared disasters. In every instance, he demonstrated an understanding that emergency management is ultimately about helping people and worked tirelessly to make sure Natural State communities had the resources and support they needed after disaster struck. He also sought to improve Arkansas' ability to prepare for and recover from future emergencies. From expanding ADEM's field operations to modernizing the State's emergency coordination system, Gary has helped ensure we are better equipped to protect Arkansans. But Gary's commitment to public service did not begin with ADEM. He spent more than 28 years with the Conway Police Department, where he retired as police chief, and later served as chief security administrator for Air Transport International. Throughout each chapter of his career, he answered the call to serve and took on the responsibility of protecting others. His impact has also extended beyond Arkansas, having earned the respect of emergency management professionals across the country. In 2025, he was appointed president of the National Emergency Management Association, reflecting the expertise and dedication he has brought to the field. On behalf of the people of Arkansas, I congratulate A.J. Gary on his retirement and thank him for his more than 40 years of public service. I wish him and his family all the best in this well-deserved next chapter.

Remembering Charles Anderson

Pages S5245–S5246 · Official text

Katie Boyd Britt (R-AL)

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the impactful and inspirational life of an Alabama legend, Charles Anderson. An entrepreneur, philanthropist, husband, grandfather, and great-grandfather, Charles will be remembered by his relentless drive, extreme generosity, and unwavering humility. From a young age, Charles learned the values of faith, persistence, and hard work. Born in Florence, AL, Charles was the first of Clyde W. and Ruth Keenum's three children. He developed his entrepreneurial spirit by helping at his father's local newsstand, eventually picking up his own newspaper route. By age 11, Charles had started his own business, a roadside fireworks stand, and by age 14, he was assisting at his dad's magazine and book business, which had grown from a roadside newsstand to an entire storefront. Charles didn't just learn discipline and determination from working alongside his father. He was a star athlete, leader, and student. During his time at Coffee High School, he earned various accolades, including recognition as the youngest football player ever selected to the First Team All Tri-Cities Football squad and the All-Tennessee Valley Conference squad, cocaptain of the football team, and, to no one's surprise, was even named a senior class favorite at Coffee High School. His whole class looked up to him, a trend that would follow Charles wherever he went. After earning his bachelor of science in marketing and minoring in economics from Florence State Teachers College, now the University of North Alabama, Charles joined the family business full-time. Just as he had done as a child, Charles dreamed big, worked tirelessly, and trusted his vision. Soon, that family business had turned into a wide-ranging network of successful enterprises, including Anderson Media, Anderson Press, Books-A-Million, and TNT Fireworks. And in 1987, Charles became the chairman of ANCO Management Services, eventually becoming chairman emeritus and providing mentorship and oversight to his beloved family-founded enterprises. Even more impressive than Charles' professional career was his service to the community that helped fuel his success. He gave his time and expertise freely, serving in multiple board capacities, including the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, Heritage Trust Fund, the First National Bank of Florence (now Truist), the Alabama Kidney Foundation of Alabama, the Salvation Army of the Shoals, the Shoals Economic Development Authority Board, and for nearly a decade, he was the executive chairman of the board of First Southern Bank. In 2026, Charles received the prestigious Life Membership award from the Salvation Army for his unwavering commitment to the organization. He was a valued and dedicated member of Westminster Presbyterian Church, where his life was celebrated by the many who knew and loved him. Charles also gave generously to various causes and organizations, from educational institutions and libraries to hospitals and medical research facilities. He was the benefactor of several scholarships, including the Clyde W. Anderson Scholarship at the University of North Alabama, named for his father, and a business scholarship at the University of Alabama. Proof of his generosity is scattered throughout our State--whether at the University of Northern Alabama's Anderson College of Nursing and Health Professions and Hilda B. Anderson Softball Stadium, the University of Tennessee's Anderson Athletic Training Center and Anderson Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, or at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical Center's Hilda B. Anderson Endowed Chair in Nephrology. The Charles and Hilda Anderson Foundation and the Anderson Foundation both gave abundantly to the causes of literacy, education, healthcare, entrepreneurship, and expansion of opportunity. His philanthropy showcased his spirit of giving, but Charles never asked to be recognized for his generosity; he gave only because he believed that blessings ought to be shared. The Anderson family creed truly exemplifies Charles' ethos: "There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." The great admiration Charles earned from his community and our entire State can be seen through several honors in his namesake. He was inducted into multiple prestigious associations, including the Alabama Business Hall of Fame, the Alabama Academy of Honor, and the Horatio Alger Association. Charles was named the 1979 University of North Alabama Alumni of the Year, the 2016 Shoals Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year, listed as one of the 2021 Most Influential People in Numismatics by Coin World Magazine, named an honorary life fellow of the American Numismatic Society, and named the 2024 Numismatist of the Century by COINage Magazine. In 2016, he was a Walk of Honor inductee, selected for his national and international acclaim among individuals in Florence and Lauderdale Counties. In 2018, the University of North Alabama awarded him an honorary doctorate degree recognizing his extraordinary achievements and his commitment to excellence. In 2025, Charles was honored by Business Alabama as one of five recipients of the Business Alabama Lifetime Achievement Award. Even with all of these great honors, it is hard to capture the spirit, kindness, and leadership that Charles exhibited each and every day. His family, friends, and each person who was fortunate enough to know him were witnesses to his extraordinary life of philanthropy, leadership, lifelong knowledge, and a deep love for his loved ones. His legacy will last for generations to come and touch the lives of so many. Today, we honor the life of a man who exemplifies the American Dream and has been a pillar of Alabama for decades. From a simple roadside newspaper stand--built from piano boxes and manned by a father and his 5-year-old son--to a global success story with tens of thousands impacted by his generosity and leadership, Charles Anderson lived a life worth sharing, which I am humbled to amplify in this body. Along with his loved ones, the Florence community, and our entire State, I am honored to celebrate him here today.

Recognizing Doe a Deer

Page S5246 · Official text

Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Iowa small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Doe a Deer of Guthrie County, IA, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Doe a Deer initially started off as a side hustle in 2016, when the owner, Regan Doely, began creating designs while she worked a full-time job. Ever since she was young, Regan found a deep appreciation for patterns and designs on products such as linens, cookbooks, and packaging. As an adult, she carried that love into her full-time job as a graphic designer. As Regan continued to take on more freelance projects, she found herself wanting to expand her business offerings. Regan created a couple of greeting cards, notepads, and flour sack towels to showcase at a local Small Business Saturday craft show. Her products received numerous positive responses from shoppers, which motivated her to continue designing. Regan's designs even attracted local stores who were willing to sell her products. With enough support from her retailer partners, Regan quit her full-time job and began searching for a place to set up her own store. In 2018, Regan secured a storefront in downtown Stuart, IA, officially marking the start of Doe a Deer. Today, Doe a Deer has moved into a larger storefront, just a short distance from their previous space. In the store, Regan and her team of 11 employees work diligently on creating unique designs for their products, including kitchenware, blankets, gifts, spices, books, and self-care products. The store's wide variety of offerings allows the business to reach a variety of audiences. Doe a Deer strives to serve its local community. Throughout the years, this woman-owned business has supported several local organizations including the Adair Boys & Girls Club, Stuart Revitalization Group, and Adair County Youth Action Committee. Regan and the team also help manage local events, such as high school proms and the Guthrie County Fair. The company continues to make impacts on a national scale, donating to organizations such as the Alzheimer's Association and Operation Christmas Child. In 2024, Regan was recognized for her service, earning the Ten Under Ten Award that is granted to Grand View University alumni who make a significant impact in their community. I want to thank Regan and the entire Doe a Deer team for their dedication to their customers and commitment to serving Iowa communities. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success.

Recognizing Sorensen Studios

Pages S5246–S5247 · Official text

Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Iowa small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Sorensen Studios of Adair County, IA, as Senate Small Business of the Week. The initial idea for Sorensen Studios was born when Maria Galanakis realized she needed a helping hand to complete her journalism projects at Iowa State. Luckily for Maria, her future husband Ray "Bubba" Sorenson was an artist himself, with a particular talent for painting murals. During college, Bubba was inspired by the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and came up with the idea to honor veterans by painting a mural on a 12-foot-tall boulder. This was dubbed "The Freedom Rock," with the first rock mural completed in 1999. Every Memorial Day, Bubba repaints the rock to update the design and highlight stories of Iowa veterans. As the couple continued to work together, they soon realized that Bubba's talent for painting and Maria's knack for photography and logistics was the perfect combination. In 2008, Maria and Bubba opened their own small business. Through the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Sorensens were able to get the capital they needed from local banks and build their business. As the business gained traction, the market for murals grew, inspiring Maria and Bubba to reconfigure Sorensen Studios to focus more on painting projects. In 2013, Bubba and Maria started the Freedom Rock Tour, with the goal of painting one rock mural in each of Iowa's 99 counties. Over the next 10 years, Bubba traveled across the State, creating a Freedom Rock tailored to the history and veterans of each county. Today, all 99 Iowa counties have a Freedom Rock, and the 100th Freedom Rock was completed in Altoona, IA. Nearly two decades later, Sorensen Studios is still solely owned and operated by Maria and Bubba. After years of success, the pair started the Freedom Rock Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to maintaining Freedom Rocks and governed by a board of veterans. The Sorensens have taken their mission to honor veterans through art nationwide, starting the 50 State Freedom Rock Tour, with Bubba painting messages of gratitude for American veterans across the country. In addition to Sorensen Studios, Bubba serves his community as a State representative for the 23rd district in the Iowa House of Representatives. The couple has worked hard over the past 18 years and acknowledge they could not have done it without the support of their family. I am pleased to recognize Bubba and Maria of Sorensen Studios for their creative entrepreneurship and longstanding commitment to our Nation's veterans. I look forward to their continued success and wish them the very best in the years ahead.

Recognizing Diversified Energy

Page S5247 · Official text

David McCormick (R-PA)

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Diversified Energy on the occasion of its 25th anniversary and to commend the company, its employees, and the communities it serves for a quarter century of responsible energy production. Founded in 2001 by its current chief executive officer Rusty Hutson, Diversified Energy has grown into a recognized leader in the responsible management of low-decline natural gas and oil assets. Over 25 years, the company has shown that mature, long-life energy assets can be operated safely, efficiently, and sustainably while delivering reliable energy to families and businesses across the region. Diversified's model rests on long-term stewardship. By focusing on low-decline production, the company extends the productive life of existing wells, limits the need for new surface disturbance, and makes the most of resources that have already been developed. Their approach has also made measurable progress in reducing methane emissions. These efforts show that energy production and environmental responsibility can advance together. For 25 years, Diversified Energy has contributed to economic development, job creation, and energy reliability. Its success is also the success of the men and women who have built it and the communities that have supported it. I congratulate Diversified Energy on this milestone and thank its employees for their dedication. I wish the company continued success in the years ahead.

Honoring Kentucky State Police Trooper Hayden Phillips

Page S5247 · Official text

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and honor Kentucky State Police Trooper Hayden Phillips. On Monday, September 28, 2026, Trooper Phillips reported for duty just as he had for the past 3 years, faithfully serving the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Tragically, he never returned home to his wife and their three young sons. In my hometown of Bowling Green, KY, Trooper Phillips paid the ultimate sacrifice, senselessly murdered while conducting a traffic stop on interstate 65 in Warren County. Trooper Phillips was a proud graduate of Kentucky State Police Cadet Class 103, completing his training in August 2023 before being assigned to KSP Post 3 Bowling Green. He voluntarily swore an oath to serve and protect the people of Kentucky, and he upheld that oath with unwavering honor. Choosing a career in law enforcement is a profound commitment, one made with full understanding of the risks and dangers it carries. Yet Trooper Phillips willingly accepted those risks to make a difference in the lives of countless people he would never meet. To his family, friends, coworkers, and community, Trooper Hayden Phillips was known as a true servant. Before joining the Kentucky State Police, he worked in other emergency service roles, demonstrating a lifelong dedication to helping those in need. Those who knew him described him as caring, hard-working, and genuinely pleasant--a man whose smile left a lasting impression on everyone he met. But Trooper Phillips was more than a dedicated officer. He was a loving husband to his wife Jordan and a devoted father to their three young sons. His legacy will endure through them, allowing his life and his example to continue touching others for generations. Attacks such as this on our law enforcement officers are not only tragedies; they are assaults on the freedoms we cherish as Americans. We must always stand firmly behind our first responders. I commend their dedication and express my deepest gratitude to all who carry the weight of the badge. Please join me in honoring the life and service of Kentucky State Police Trooper Hayden Phillips, Unit 369. May we never forget his sacrifice, and may we lift his family, friends, coworkers, and the entire community up during this difficult time.

Recognizing the 200th Anniversary of Jefferson Barracks

Pages S5247–S5248 · Official text

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 200th anniversary of Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis County, MO, and to honor the generations of Americans whose service has shaped its remarkable history. For two centuries, Jefferson Barracks has stood as a testament to Missouri's enduring commitment to the defense of our Nation. Established in 1826, the installation has served the United States through periods of war, expansion, innovation, and change, becoming one of the most historically significant military sites in the country. From its earliest days as an Army training post, Jefferson Barracks grew into a critical center for military readiness. American soldiers trained there before heading into critical conflicts that shaped the Nation. It served as a recruiting and staging ground, a major hospital during the Civil War, and an enlistment and deployment center during World War I. Its history is intertwined with some of the most consequential figures in American history, including military heroes turned U.S. Presidents like Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The importance of Jefferson Barracks is not confined to the past. Today, it continues to serve the Missouri National Guard as the Jefferson Barracks Air National Guard Station and the surrounding veteran community as a prominent national cemetery. More than 200,000 veterans have been laid to rest there, making the grounds not only a place of service but also one of profound remembrance and gratitude. Few places can claim such a lasting connection to the men and women who have defended this country. For generations of Missourians, Jefferson Barracks has been a place where servicemembers trained, veterans were cared for, families honored loved ones, and our military history was preserved for those who came after them. As Jefferson Barracks marks its 200th anniversary, I am proud to honor its legacy and the countless Americans who have served there. Its history reflects the strength, patriotism, and commitment to service that define Missouri, and I look forward to seeing that legacy continue for generations to come.

Remembering Matt Bair

Page S5248 · Official text

Todd Young (R-IN)

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the life of one of Indiana's most iconic voices; Matt Bair. For years, residents of Indianapolis and central Indiana relied on Matt Bair to get them to work in the morning and safely back home in the afternoon. As the beloved traffic reporter for 93.1 FM WIBC in Indianapolis, Matt not only provided listeners with information on which roads to take or avoid during their commute but also brightened their days with his good cheer and quick wit. Matt's passing in August leaves a notable absence, not just for his family and colleagues at WIBC, but for his community as well. A graduate of Rochester High School and IUPUI, Matt started his career in broadcasting at his family's radio station WROI-FM in Fulton County. This was followed by 16 years at WIBC, a role he took seriously, particularly on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend. Year after year, he was up at 2:30 a.m. to help race fans find their way to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway for the Indy 500. He loved his job, but maybe not as much as he was loved by his colleagues. They admired not only his humor but his honesty. Matt was candid about his own struggles with addiction in the hope that his experiences could help others battling the same illness. The Supporting Sobriety Podcast, which Matt cohosted and for which he received a Marconi Radio Award nomination, was one of the many ways he used his journey and platform to comfort and encourage others. Matt was also an advocate and supporter of the Salvation Army Harbor Light Center and of Horizon House, an Indianapolis homeless shelter where he worked to build a library. Matt Bair's voice will be deeply missed in central Indiana. He leaves behind so many friends and fans, as well as an enduring legacy of generosity and compassion.

Messages from the President

Page S5248 · Official text

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Buckner, one of his secretaries.

Executive Messages Referred

Page S5248 · Official text

In executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations which were referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (The messages received today are printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

Measures Placed on the Calendar

Page S5248 · Official text

The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar:

Text printed in the Record (276 characters)

S. 5602. A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the planning and construction of any structure or monument at Memorial Circle at Columbia Island/Lady Bird Johnson Park in the District of Columbia. S. 5603. A bill to prohibit the demolition of Presidential memorials.

Executive and Other Communications

Page S5248 · Official text

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:

Text printed in the Record (4,918 characters)

EC-4952. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency with respect to the situation in and in relation to Syria that was declared in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4953. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a nomination for a position covered by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 for the position of Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, Department of Transportation, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4954. A communication from the Biologist, Office of Protected Resources, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to the Duckabush Estuary Restoration Project in Washington" (RIN0648-BN42) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4955. A communication from the Commandant, United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled "National Emergency Proclamation Expenditures (CY 2026, First Half): Report to Congress" received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4956. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled "Fiscal Year 2025 Progress Report on Understanding the Long-Term Health Effects of Living Organ Donation"; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-4957. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel, Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Recodification of Title IX Rules" (RIN1870-AA26) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-4958. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Hazard Communication Standard: Extension of Compliance Dates" (RIN1218-AC93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-4959. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Hazard Communication Standard; Corrected" (RIN1218-AC93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-4960. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Hazard Communication Standard: Corrections" (RIN1218-AC93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-4961. A communication from the Research Director of the Administrative Conference of the United States, transmitting, a report of the recommendations adopted by the Administrative Conference of the United States at its 85th Plenary Session; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4962. A communication from the Chief Regulatory Officer, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment-Based Immigrant Visa, Fifth Preference (EB-5) Fee Rule" (RIN1615-AC93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4963. A communication from the Chief, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Annual Notices on Explosive Materials Storage Facilities to Local Fire Authority" (RIN1140-AA51) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4964. A communication from the Chief, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Implementing the Safe Explosives Act" (RIN1140-AA00) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2026; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Petitions and Memorials

Pages S5248–S5259 · Official text

The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

Text printed in the Record (11,602 characters)

POM-105. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to curtail, or allow curtailment of, the number of pelicans within Idaho; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Whereas, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) was implemented to prevent the extinction of birds due to unsustainable feather-trading and hunting practices and makes it illegal to "take," which includes harassing, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, trading, buying, and transporting, among other activities, a protected migratory bird species, of which there are over 1,000, without prior authorization by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and Whereas, one such protected migratory bird species is the pelican, which is also classified as a predator species as they feast on fish; and Whereas, a once-endangered species, the pelican has made a remarkable return and has established a stronghold in Idaho's abundant wetland refuge ecosystems such that its population is beginning to impact the overall use and health of the ecosystem; and Whereas, Idaho's streams and rivers are renowned by fishermen across the nation, particularly the Henry's Fork River that meanders for eight miles through Harriman State Park, attracting fly-fishers from all four corners of the state and nation thereby generating revenues for the local community and business owners; and Whereas, predatory birds, such as pelicans, have been documented to harvest more fish in Idaho than fisherman; and Whereas, pelicans have been documented to consume over three pounds of fish per day; and Whereas, over 30% of the electronic fish tags that originated in Idaho's renowned Silver Creek were documented by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) in pelican feces at the Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge pelican rookeries; and Whereas, millions of sportsmen's dollars are spent by IDFG to create, promote, and enhance Idaho's fishing opportunities; and Whereas, the pelican, a protected migratory bird under the MBTA, is actively managed and bred by the USFWS and cannot be taken, harassed, killed, or otherwise disturbed without prior authorization by the USFWS; and Whereas, the rigorous protections of the MBTA and other environmental acts have successfully ensured this predatory bird's survival but are now hindering the survival of other species and conflicting with areas' traditional use due to the birds' overpopulation. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, That the Legislature supports and urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to curtail, or allow curtailment of, the number of pelicans within Idaho; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature supports and urges the federal government to compensate the State of Idaho for loss of its resources due to the pelican's overpopulation; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, and the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. ____ POM-106. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho affirming the controlling standard announced by the Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency that requires an indistinguishable surface connection to exist for waters adjacent to "waters of the United States," to be subject to the Clean Water Act and federal regulation and jurisdiction, urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fully and immediately implement the standard set forth in Sackett and rescind or revise any pre-Sackett guidance, and urging Idaho's congressional delegation to support legislation that codifies the standards set forth in Sackett in the Clean Water Act and creates oversight mechanisms to ensure that federal agencies do not reintroduced overturned and outdated standards through rule, guidance, or informal policy or practice; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Whereas, in 2004 the Sackett family purchased land near Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho; and Whereas, when the Sacketts attempted to start building their home in 2007, they were quickly stopped by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserting jurisdiction pursuant to a 1996 determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that the land was wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), which the EPA itself affirmed in 2007; and Whereas, the CWA allows for federal jurisdiction, oversight, and regulation of "waters of the United States" (WOTUS), which includes wetlands adjacent to WOTUS; and Whereas, the Sacketts fought for over a decade for their right to build on their property; and Whereas, finally, after nearly 16 years of litigation, the Supreme Court, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 598 U.S. 651 (2023) (Sackett), sided with the Sacketts, finding that the EPA and Corps exceeded their authority, and announced a new standard for determining what is included in WOTUS and, thus, what is subject to federal jurisdiction; and Whereas, courts have historically applied a "significant nexus" test to determine whether waters are, in fact, WOTUS subject to federal jurisdiction, wherein waters or wetlands would so qualify if the wetland has a continuous surface connection to waters that are WOTUS in their own right (i.e. traditional Interstate navigable waters) such that it is difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. Courts have consistently held that nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters, including intermittent or ephemeral streams, man-made drainage ditches, and culverts, were not, in fact, WOTUS subject to federal jurisdiction; and Whereas, the Supreme Court in Sackett further clarified the law by announcing that the CWA extends only to wetlands with a continuous surface connection to waters that are WOTUS in their own right such that the wetland is indistinguishable from the WOTUS, and that the CWA use of WOTUS encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes; and Whereas, despite the decades of Supreme Court cases finding the EPA and Corps overextended their jurisdiction under the CWA by a misguided interpretation of what qualifies as WOTUS and providing clarification on how that term should be interpreted, the two agencies still fail to properly adhere to the law as provided by statute and judicial decree; and Whereas, notwithstanding the law and standards announced by the Supreme Court in its 2023 Sackett decision, among other decisions, the EPA and Corps continue to apply overturned and outdated rules and standards, such as by asserting jurisdiction over intermittent and ephemeral streams and channels that are not relatively permanent or continuously flowing bodies of water and are not what ordinary people would describe as streams, oceans, rivers, or lakes; and Whereas, Idahoans are being materially injured by the two agencies' inability to follow current law and continuing to assert jurisdiction over "waters" that plainly do not qualify as WOTUS, such as stockwater ponds, ditches, and canals; and Whereas, Idaho, as the state in which the Sackett dispute arose, has a compelling interest in ensuring that federal agencies operating within Idaho's borders faithfully implement and adhere to the binding standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Sackett; and Whereas, federal agencies' refusal to follow current law increases compliance costs, delays permits, and causes injury to Idaho's agriculture, housing, transportation, energy, forestry, mining, and water infrastructure projects, with accompanying adverse effects on jobs and regional competitiveness; and Whereas, Idaho's prosperity depends on predictable, lawful, and efficient permitting carried out with a spirit of cooperative federalism that respects the Supreme Court's Sackett decision and provides timely, transparent coordination with state authorities. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, That the Legislature affirms the controlling standard announced by the Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency that requires an indistinguishable surface connection to exist for waters adjacent to "waters of the United States", which are relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water, to be subject to the Clean Water Act and federal regulation and jurisdiction, and the Legislature opposes any federal assertion of jurisdiction inconsistent with that standard; be it further Resolved, That the Legislature urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fully and immediately implement the standard set forth in Sackett and formally recognize that intermittent and ephemeral streams, which are dry for long periods of time, are not "waters of the United States" subject to federal jurisdiction, but are instead subject to state and local oversight and regulation; be it further Resolved, That the Legislature urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to: rescind or revise any pre-Sackett guidance, training materials, or field manuals that rely on outdated and overturned laws, standards, and practices; provide updated materials, manuals, and policies that reflect current law; and provide up-to-date training for Region 10 personnel and consultants operating in Idaho; be it further Resolved, That the Legislature urges Idaho's congressional delegation to support legislation that codifies the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Sackett in the Clean Water Act and creates oversight mechanisms to ensure that federal agencies do not reintroduce overturned and outdated standards through rule, guidance, or informal policy or practice; be it further Resolved, That the Legislature urges the Trump administration to take the appropriate measures to ensure administrative rules that codify the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Sackett are promptly promulgated and implemented by the agencies; be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 10, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, the Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the Director of the Idaho Department of Lands, the members of the Idaho Water Resource Board, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States. ____ POM-107.

Text printed in the Record (11,684 characters)

A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho urging the President of the United States, members of the United States Congress, the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit the inclusion of artificial sweeteners, specifically aspartame, acesulfame potassium, advantame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose, in all school meal programs administered under federal law; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho assembled in the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that: Whereas, the health and well-being of Idaho's children is a matter of the highest priority for the State of Idaho; and Whereas, the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program serve millions of meals daily to American schoolchildren, including thousands of Idaho students; and Whereas, six artificial sweeteners are currently approved by the United State Food and Drug Administration for use in food and beverages, which are aspartame, acesulfame potassium, advantame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose; and Whereas, sufficient long-term research does not exist regarding the impacts of artificial sweeteners on children's development, metabolism, and dietary habits, warranting a precautionary approach to the use of artificial sweeteners in school nutrition programs; and Whereas, Idaho ranks second in the nation for the production of sugar beets and is home to Amalgamated Sugar Company, the second-largest sugar beet processor in the United States; and Whereas, the sugar beet industry contributes more than one billion dollars annually to Idaho's economy and supports thousands of jobs across rural communities, serving as a cornerstone of the state's agricultural sector; and Whereas, real sugar produced from Idaho sugar beets is a natural, minimally processed ingredient that provides a safe, stable, and locally sourced sweetener for food manufacturers and consumers alike; and Whereas, supporting the use of real sugar in school nutrition programs aligns with Idaho's values of agricultural sustainability, economic self-reliance, and transparency in food labeling; and Whereas, it is in the public interest for the federal government to ensure that the meals served to children in public schools are free from artificial sweeteners and based on wholesome, natural ingredients. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the Legislature respectfully urges the President of the United States, members of the United States Congress, the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit the inclusion of artificial sweeteners, specifically aspartame, acesulfame potassium, advantame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose, in all school meal programs administered under federal law. Be it further Resolved, That the Idaho Legislature supports the use of real sugar as a natural and locally produced alternative to artificial sweeteners in school meal programs. Be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. ____ POM-108. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho urging the U.S. Department of War and the Defense Industrial Base Consortium to award grant moneys to American Tungsten for the development of the IMA mine project; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Whereas, Idaho, the 43rd state in the Union, was named the Gem State because of its abundance of gemstones and minerals; and Whereas, responsible resource development is of the utmost importance for our state and country; and Whereas, tungsten is a vital material for defense applications; with unparalleled hardness and high-temperature resistance, it is indispensable for armor-piercing ammunition, missile components, and aerospace manufacturing; and Whereas, the U.S. Department of War and the Defense Industrial Base Consortium classify tungsten as a critical mineral; and Whereas, currently, the United States remains heavily reliant on importing critical minerals, primarily from China, which dominates over 80% of the global supply; and Whereas, China's recent ban on tungsten exports underscores the need to establish a stable, U.S.-domiciled supply chain of tungsten to safeguard national security interests; and Whereas, the U.S. Department of War and the Defense Industrial Base Consortium have issued a solicitation to provide grant moneys for the development of a domestic supply of critical minerals, including tungsten; and Whereas, mining activity for critical minerals, including tungsten, has historically taken place at American Tungsten's IMA mine in Lemhi County, near Patterson, Idaho; and Whereas, a mining company, American Tungsten is seeking to bring IMA mining operations back to life so as to unearth critical resources, including tungsten, and increase our nation's crucially needed domestic supply of critical mineral resources; and Whereas, the IMA mine project is a high-quality underground tungsten deposit located on private land with patented rights that is well above the water table and has significant existing infrastructure given its historic use; and Whereas, as the IMA mine is on private property rather than federal property, the mine will not require permits or other authorizations from the federal government but rather permits and authorizations from state agencies and local governments; and Whereas, once permitted, the IMA mine will be the only tungsten-producing mine in the United States; and Whereas, modern rules and regulations require that companies like American Tungsten set aside adequate financial assurances to cover the cost of environmental restoration, ensuring that reclamation is properly completed; and Whereas, American Tungsten is committed to the highest reclamation standards and to strictly following all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and rules; and Whereas, American Tungsten is committed to being a good steward of the environment and a dedicated member of the community where it operates; and Whereas, as an example of American Tungsten's commitment to its community, it will provide, through financing, the city of Challis a new fire station to serve the community; and Whereas, the American Tungsten company takes pride in providing high-paying job opportunities for Idaho workers, building collaborative relationships, and investing in the long-term resiliency of Idaho's rural communities; and Whereas, once permitted, the IMA mine project will significantly benefit Idaho's economy, particularly in Lemhi and Custer counties, by using local vendors, thereby increasing revenue for local businesses; and Whereas, through high-paying jobs, tax revenues, donations, community sponsorships, and other direct and indirect economic impacts, American Tungsten's resources are essential to the nation's national security, to the region's economic stability, and for keeping Idahoans working in Idaho. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, That the Legislature recognizes the profound role mining has played in the settlement of Idaho, its contemporary role, and the role it will play in our future; and be it further Resolved, That the Idaho Legislature supports and encourages state agencies and local governments to move forward and approve American Tungsten's IMA mine in a timely and cost-effective manner so that the mine may be developed; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature urges the U.S. Department of War and the Defense Industrial Base Consortium to award grant moneys to American Tungsten for the development of the IMA mine project; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, and the Secretary of the United States Department of War. POM-109. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho respectfully urging the United States Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Reclamation to cooperate with the State of Idaho to move forward immediately with fast-track research on the feasibility and desirability of small reservoir raises at Minidoka Dam, Jackson Lake, and American Falls Dam; support planning and design work for new medium-sized reservoirs across eastern Idaho; facilitate creative financing options through federal funds and public-private partnerships; and assist in the completion of an updated basin study in the next two to three years to identify priority projects; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Whereas, water is the foundation of Idaho's farms, communities, and economy, yet the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer continues to decline, forcing water curtailments that now threaten farmers and ground water users every year; and Whereas, Idaho faces longer, hotter summers and warmer winters that reduce snowpack and cause runoff to occur earlier in the year, leaving less water available when it is needed most; and Whereas, the State of Idaho irrigates more acres than ever before, but shrinking and inconsistent snowpack has created shortages that harm farms, cities, fish, and industry; and Whereas, Idaho loses between 1.5 and 2 million acre-feet of water each year as it flows down the Snake River and out to the ocean simply because the state lacks sufficient reservoir space to capture it; and Whereas, while aquifer recharge has proven to be an effective tool, it cannot be sustained without additional late-season water derived from storage; and Whereas, the Idaho Legislature has demonstrated its commitment to water infrastructure through significant annual appropriations, and the people of Idaho have demonstrated broad public support for the research and construction of new reservoirs and expanded storage capacity; and Whereas, to secure the future of our farms, communities, and economy, Idaho must commit to a long-term vision to build 750,000 acre-feet of new water storage by the year 2100; and Whereas, practical near-term solutions have been identified, including modest raises at Minidoka Dam, Jackson Lake, and American Falls Dam; and Whereas, mid-range and long-term opportunities exits for new reservoirs at locations such as Lane Lake, Chester, Soda Springs, Upper Badger Creek, Spring Creek, Moody Creek, and other potential sites, which would offer hydropower, extended irrigation seasons, flood protection, and recreation.

Text printed in the Record (9,782 characters)

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, By the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the Legislature respectfully urges the United States Congress, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to cooperate with the State of Idaho to: (1) Move forward immediately with fast-track research on the feasibility and desirability of small reservoir raises at Minidoka Dam, Jackson Lake, and American Falls Dam; (2) Support planning and design work for new medium-sized reservoirs across eastern Idaho; (3) Facilitate creative financing options through federal funds and public-private partnerships; and (4) Assist in the completion of an updated basin study in the next two to three years to identify priority projects. Be it further Resolved, That the State of Idaho commits to the goal of "750k by 2100" by creating 750,000 acre-feet of new water storage by the year 2100 to turn today's water shortage into tomorrow's water security. Be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and to the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States. ____ POM-110. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho strongly urging the United States Congress to, as expeditiously as possible, enact legislation reaffirminq that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is the proper and primary avenue to facilitate effective federal land management and disposal, including by land exchange; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Whereas, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 245 million acres of public lands, which equates to roughly one tenth of all land in the United States; and Whereas, Idaho, like most other western states, has large portions of land managed by BLM within its borders; and Whereas, BLM land, and other federally owned land, is often intermingled with state and private lands, so exchanges and other disposal options are vital tools for administering such lands and achieving important recreation, community development, wildlife conservation, and resource development objectives, such as timber harvesting, mining, and energy projects; and Whereas, given BLM's large ownership interest of lands within the United States, particularly within Idaho, and the intermingled nature of these lands, it is critical to Idaho, as it should be to the nation, that these lands are predictably manged in accordance with laws that were adopted to ensure orderly and consistent administration of such lands; and Whereas, the federal government once managed these public lands under a patchwork of some 3,000 public land laws; and Whereas, in 1964, Congress charged a commission to bring order to the process and propose ways to rationalize and systemize the management of public lands; and Whereas, in 1976, Congress acted on these recommendations by enacting the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA is the comprehensive system for predictably managing public lands for multiple uses. The statute broadly applies to any land and interest in land owned by the United States, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, that is administered by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, wherein BLM resides; and Whereas, FLPMA provided the tools vital to administering intermingled lands by establishing uniform procedures for the disposal of federally owned public land, including the authority and procedures to exchange public lands for non-federal lands, when it is in the public interest; and Whereas, for the past 50 years, FLPMA's broad authority for conducting land exchanges has been universally recognized and acknowledged; however, a legal decision originating in Idaho threatens FLPMA's comprehensive process; and Whereas, Congress needs to immediately reaffirm FLPMA's primary intent. Failure to act may have far-reaching consequences in Idaho, including encumbering the management of millions of acres across the West, along with threatening the certainty of other completed FLPMA land exchanges and disposals. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, That the Idaho Legislature strongly urges the Congress of the United States to, as expeditiously as possible, enact legislation reaffirming that FLPMA is the proper and primary avenue to facilitate effective federal land management and disposal, including by land exchange. Be it further, Resolved, That as intended by Congress and provided for in FLPMA, previous land disposal laws should not be interpreted to conflict with or override FLPMA's disposal authority. Such expeditious action by Congress will prevent the West from being pushed back into the management chaos that Congress fixed in 1976 by enacting FLPMA. Be it further, Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegations representing the states of Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming in the Congress of the United States, the United States Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Interior. ____ POM-111. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take action to limit the harmful impacts and practices of pharmacy benefit managers and protect the citizens of this state; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Whereas, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are third-party entities that manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of health insurers, employers, and government programs that have significant control over the pricing, availability, and distribution of prescription medications; and Whereas, PBMs are responsible for negotiating drug prices and establishing formularies that influence the cost and accessibility of medications for patients in this state where many individuals rely on Medicaid and other programs that PBMs are responsible for managing; and Whereas, numerous studies and reports have raised concerns about the contributing role of PBMs toward rising drug costs, lack of transparency in pricing, and the imposition of restrictive formularies that limit patient access to necessary medications; and Whereas, the lack of transparency in PBM practices often leads to higher out-of-pocket costs for patients, especially those in underserved communities, and disproportionately affects residents of this state particularly seniors, low-income families, and individuals with chronic health conditions; and Whereas, this state has long been committed to improving access to affordable healthcare for its residents, and the state has a vested interest in ensuring that any entities involved in healthcare delivery, including PBMs, operate in a way that prioritizes the well-being of its citizens; and Whereas, legislation has been proposed in congress to increase transparency, accountability, and regulation of PBMs and to ensure that PBMs are held to high standards that protect consumers from unfair practices; and Whereas, Louisiana's leadership in healthcare reform can have a profound impact on shaping national policy, and it is essential for our congressional delegation to act in the best interest of the residents of this state to mitigate the harmful effects of PBM practices. Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby urge and request the United States Congress to take immediate action to address the harmful practices of pharmacy benefit managers by: (1) Increasing transparency in PBM operations, including detailed reporting of pricing negotiations, rebates, and fees paid to PBMs by drug manufacturers, insurers, and other entities. (2) Requiring PBMs to pass along the savings from rebates and discounts to consumers, ensuring that patients benefit directly from any negotiated cost reductions. (3) Regulating PBM business practices to prevent anti-competitive behavior, such as steering patients to higher-cost drugs or limiting access to medications that are medically necessary. (4) Implementing measures to enhance oversight of PBM practices and ensuring they align with the best interests of consumers especially those in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and individuals with chronic conditions. (5) Supporting legislation that holds PBMs accountable for any harm caused to patients, including restrictions on the use of prior authorization processes that delay access to necessary prescriptions; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana urges all members of Louisiana's congressional delegation to advocate for reform and support legislation aimed at addressing the harmful effects of PBM practices on the citizens of this state and the nation as a whole; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of Louisiana's congressional delegation to the United States Congress. ____ POM-112.

Text printed in the Record (7,851 characters)

A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take action relative to the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Whereas, this state has long been a leader in promoting the well-being of its citizens, particulary in the area of healthcare, and recognizes the ongoing advances in medical technology that have improved patient outcomes; and Whereas, artifical intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies are increasingly being integrated into the healthcare sector to assist in various areas such as dianostics, treatment planning, and patient management; and Whereas, while AI presents significant opportunities for improving healthcare efficiency, enhancing diagnostic accuracy, and reducing healthcare costs, it raises concerns regarding the potential erosion of the critical role of physicians in making medical decisions; and Whereas, physicians are highly trained professionals with years of education and experience to interpret complex medical data, consider the nuances of individual patient needs, and exercise professional judgement, which are essential components of medical care; and Whereas, the use of AI should complement and augment, not replace, the decision-making authority of physicians, who must retain full control over diagnosing, treating, and managing the care of the their patients; and Whereas, there is a need for federal legislation that ensures appropriate oversight of AI technologies in healthcare to protect patient safety, maintain high standards of care, and preserve the essential doctor-patient relationship; and Whereas, AI systems must be held to rigorous standards of transparency, accountability, and ethical practice to ensure that patients' privacy and medical rights are respected, and to guarantee that AI recommendations are consisten with the best medical practices; and Whereas, it should be the goal of the legislature to ensure that AI technologies in healthcare are used responsibly while safeguarding the professional autonomy of physicians in making critical medical decisions for the benefit of patients, and Whereas, the Legislature of Louisiana recognizes the critical role that Congress play in regulating technologies like AI to safeguard public healtch and the practice of medicine. Therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to take immediate action to achieve all of the following: (1) Ensure that physicians retain full control over medical decision-making, with AI serving as a support tool rather than a replacement for professional judgement. (2) Establish clear, nationwide standards for the use of AI in healthcare, with a focus on protecting patient safety, ensuring data privacy, and safeguarding the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. (3) Provide mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the impact of AI technologies on healthcare delivery and outcomes, with a particular emphasis on patient welfare. (4) Promote transparency in AI algorithms, ensuring that medical professionals and patients can understand the basis for AI recommendations and decisions. (5) Develop ethical guidelines for use of AI in healthcare, ensuring that technologies align with the core principles of medicine, including beneficence, non-maleficence, and patient autonomy. Be it further Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana remains committed to ensuring that the integration of new technologies in healthcare supports the professional and ethical practice of medicine, prioritizing the well-being of Louisiana's patients. Be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding offices of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation. ____ POM-113. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress and the administration of the President of the United States to stop government from weaponizing financial institutions; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Whereas, President Donald Trump; United States Senator Tim Scott, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and United States Representative French Hill, Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services; are working to stop federal regulators from leveraging their authority to pressure banks to debank individuals and businesses; and Whereas, the complexity of federal laws and regulations and the broad discretion of regulators have allowed federal regulators to weaponize banks for far too long; and Whereas, banks are required by their regulators to manage risk, to know their customers, and to help detect and deter financial crimes, including money laundering, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and terrorism financing; and Whereas, regulators require banks to file suspicious activity reports if banks suspect suspicious activity involving specific transactions, and banks are prohibited from communicating this to customers; and Whereas, if a regulator decides a bank is not adequately managing risk, does not have a good enough system in place to detect and deter financial crimes, or is closing accounts too slowly, the bank can face significant monetary penalties and costly lawsuits, and potentially criminal charges; and Whereas, this regulatory environment allows regulators to put intense pressure on banks that can result in financial institutions managing risk by reevaluating or even severing their relationships with businesses and individuals to minimize regulatory risks and costs; and Whereas, examples of regulators taking advantage of this leverage include: (1) Operation Choke Point in 2013, where several high-ranking bureaucrats attempted to pressure banks to stop doing business with ammunition and gun sellers, payday lenders, and other industries. (2) Operation Choke Point 2.0 in 2022, where the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sent letters to banks that called for a pause on cryptocunency-related banking activity. (3) Issuance of "guidance" by the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau that evades the rulemaking process. (4) Issuance of "guidance" by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, forcing financial institutions to dedicate significant resources to climate change; and Whereas, when federal regulatory agencies pressure banks to stop doing business with certain industries, it has a chilling effect that is ultimately a direct assault on free market capitalism, which has created the most prosperous nation in history. Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does here by memorialize the United States Congress and President Trump to modernize anti-money laundering laws to better focus banks and law enforcement on potential financial criminal activity rather than the innocent banking activity of law-abiding customers; and be it further Resolved, That all regulatory agencies with supervisory or regulatory authority over financial institutions should narrowly focus on their respective missions to protect the safety, soundness, and integrity of the United States financial system and refrain from using that authority to advance unrelated policy priorities; and be it further Resolved, That all regulatory authority agencies with supervisory or regulatory authority over financial institutions should refrain from abusing that authority by threats implicit in the issuance of allegedly non-binding "guidance". ____ POM-114.

Text printed in the Record (8,559 characters)

A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to modify the H-2B temporary nonagricultural program to assist with the labor workforce shortage in the state of Louisiana; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Whereas, according to the United States Department of Labor, the H-2B temporary nonagricultural program, also commonly referred to as the H-2B nonimmigrant program or H-2B visa program, permits employers to temporarily hire non-United States citizens to perform nonagricultural labor or services in the United States; and Whereas, according to the United States Department of Labor, under the program, employment is only of a temporary nature for a limited period of time, such as a one-time occurrence, seasonal need, peak-load need, or intermittent need; and Whereas, in order to qualify for H-2B nonimmigrant classification, employers must show that there are not enough United States workers who are qualified, able, willing, and available to do the temporary work, and that employing H-2B workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United States workers; and Whereas, according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, there is a statutory numerical limit or "cap" on the total number of non-United States citizens who may be issued an H-2B visa or be granted H-2B status during a fiscal year; and Whereas, the United States Congress currently has the H-2B cap set at sixty-six thousand visas per fiscal year, with thirty-three thousand H-2B visas granted to workers who begin employment in the first half of the fiscal year (October 1-March 31) and the remaining thirty-three thousand H-2B visas granted to workers who begin employment in the second half of the fiscal year (April 1-September 30); and Whereas, any unused visas from the first half of the fiscal year are available for employers seeking to hire H-2B workers during the second half of the fiscal year; however, unused H-2B visas from the previous fiscal year do not carry over into the next fiscal year; and Whereas, once the H-2B cap is reached, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services may accept petitions for H-2B status only from individuals who are exempted from the H-2B cap; and Whereas, those individuals who are exempted from the H-2B cap include: (1) Workers in the United States in H-2B status, who extended their stay, changed employers, or changed the terms and conditions of employment. (2) Workers previously counted against the H-2B cap in the same fiscal year and the employer has indicated the workers were already counted. (3) The spouse and children of H-2B workers classified as H-4 nonimmigrants. (4) Fish roe processors or fish roe technicians or supervisors of fish roe processing. (5) Workers performing labor or services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or Guam until December 31, 2029. Whereas, on December 2, 2024, the United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department of Labor jointly published a temporary final rule, which increased the numerical cap on H-2B nonimmigrant visas to allow for over sixty-four thousand additional visas for the entirety of the 2025 fiscal year; and Whereas, this increase in the numerical cap, is only temporarily and limited to the 2025 fiscal year and, as of now, is not applicable and will not be utilized for future fiscal years; and Whereas, these additional visas are available only to businesses in this country that are suffering irreparable harm or those that will suffer irreparable harm if they are unable to employ all the H-2B workers requested in their petition; and Whereas, according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency has already received enough petitions to meet the H-2B statutory cap for the second half of the 2025 fiscal year, and the filing period for supplemental H-2B visas for the remainder of the fiscal year is now open; and Whereas, considering that the statutory cap has already been met and the supplemental H-2B visas are now being utilized, there is clearly a great need and strong desire for H-2B workers; and Whereas, according to an October 2024 article by the American Immigration Council, an analysis of the United States Department of Labor's data has revealed that the demand for H-2B workers has increased by forty-six percent since 2018 and the number of certified workers has increased from approximately one hundred forty-seven thousand in the 2018 fiscal year to over two hundred fifteen thousand in the 2023 fiscal year; and Whereas, according to the United States Department of Labor, Louisiana ranked seventh in the top ten states that utilized the H-2B temporary nonagricultural program during the second quarter of the 2024 fiscal year; and Whereas, the Save Our Seafood (SOS) Act, bipartisan congressional legislation that was introduced in June 2024 and, which, if it had passed, would have permanently authorized the exemption of nonimmigrants working as fish processors from the numerical cap on H-2B nonimmigrant visas; and Whereas, according to the LSU Agricultural Center, one of the primary employers of the H-2B temporary nonagricultural program in this state is the seafood processing industry, which greatly utilizes and depends upon seasonal and temporary hired labor; and Whereas, based on this statistical information and data, the H-2B temporary nonagricultural program is greatly utilized by Louisiana businesses and appears necessary for operation; and Whereas, a modification of the H-2B temporary nonagricultural program could help business owners further extend their recruitment efforts and allow them to hire more H-2B workers as necessary to help meet workforce needs to ensure the successful continuation and prosperity of their businesses. Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to modify the H-2Btemporary nonagricultural program to assist with the nonagricultural labor workforce shortage in the state of Louisiana; be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of theUnited States of America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation. ____ POM-115. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to compel the United States Food and Drug Administration to fulfill its duties regarding inspection and testing of imported seafood; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Whereas, according to statistics by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States (U.S.) imports of edible fishery products were 6.9 billion pounds, valued at $29.7 billion; and Whereas, the estimated percentage of consumption from seafood imports in the U.S. was eighty-six percent in 2022; and Whereas, NOAA Fisheries statistics show that the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that in 2023 the total value of imported seafood was $25.5 billion, with imports from Canada accounting for the largest share valued more than $3.6 billion in seafood products (14.1 percent), followed by Chile (13.0 percent), India (10.0 percent), Indonesia (7.9 percent), and Vietnam (6.4 percent); and Whereas, the FDA is responsible for the safety of all fish and fishery products entering the U.S. and sold in Louisiana; and Whereas, the FDA's seafood safety program is governed by its Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point regulations, which address food safety management through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production and procurement and handling to manufacturing, distribution, and consumption of the finished product; and Whereas, the FDA's regulations for imported seafood are supposed to measure the compliance of imported seafood with inspections of foreign processing facilities, sampling of seafood offered for import into the U.S., domestic surveillance sampling of imported products, inspections of seafood importers, foreign country program assessments, and the use of information from foreign partners and FDA overseas offices; and Whereas, approximately ninety four percent of the volume of seafood sold in the U.S.

Text printed in the Record (10,420 characters)

is imported from other countries; and Whereas, the Louisiana State University School of Renewable Natural Resources published a 2020 paper titled "Determination of Sulfite and Antimicrobial Residue in Imported Shrimp to the USA", which presented findings from a study of shrimp imported from India, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, Bangladesh, and Ecuador and purchased from retail stores in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Whereas, a screening of these shrimp for sulfites and residues from antimicrobial drugs found the following: (1) five percent of the shrimp contained malachite green, (2) seven percent contained oxytetracycline, (3) seventeen percent contained fluoroquinolone, and (4) seventy percent contained nitrofurantoin, all of which have been banned by the FDA in domestic aquaculture operations; and Whereas, although the FDA requires that food products exposed to sulfites include a label with a statement about the presence of sulfites, of the forty-three percent of these locally purchased shrimp found to contain sulfites, not one package complied with this labeling requirement; and Whereas, the drug and sulfite residues included in this screening can be harmful to human health during both handling and consumption and have been known to cause all of the following: liver damage and tumors, reproductive abnormalities, cardiac arrhythmia, renal failure, hemolysis, asthma attacks, and allergic reactions; and Whereas, the results of this study confirm that existing screening and enforcement measures for imported seafood are insufficient; and Whereas, whatever the percentage of imports inspected may be, seafood is currently being imported that contains unsafe substances that put American consumers at risk; and Whereas, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) directs the FDA to inspect each domestic high-risk food facility at least once every three years and each non-high-risk food facility at least once every five years; and Whereas, according to a January 2025 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the FDA has not met the mandated targets of the FSMA since 2018; and Whereas, from Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2023, the FDA inspected an average of eight thousand fifty-three domestic food facilities per year versus just nine hundred seventeen foreign food facilities; and Whereas, the GAO found that the FDA applies far more scrutiny to U.S.-based seafood processors than it does to their foreign competitors; and Whereas, in contrast, imports of fishery products into the European Union (EU) are subject to strict standards including the requirement of an official certification based on the recognition of the competent authority of the non-EU country by the European Commission; and Whereas, for all fishery products exported into the EU, countries of origin must be on a positive list of eligible countries; and Whereas, imports of fishery products from non-EU countries must enter the EU via an approved border inspection post under the authority of an official veterinarian in the EU member state in question and each consignment is subject to a systematic documentary, identity, and physical check; and Whereas, consignments which are noncompliant with EU legislation shall either be destroyed or, under certain conditions, redispatched within sixty days; and Whereas, the FDA needs to improve oversight of imported seafood to, at minimum, match our foreign counterparts while simultaneously ensuring the seafood consumed in the state is safe; therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to compel the FDA to increase inspection and testing of imported seafood; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby urge the United States Congress to support the recommendations of the GAO in its January 8, 2025, report (GAO-25-107571); and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of the Louisiana Congressional delegation. ____ POM-116. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to fund the sheriffs' offices in the parishes where the Kisatchie National Forest is located; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Whereas, the Kisatchie National Forest spans seven parishes in Louisiana including Claiborne, Grant, Natchitoches, Rapides, Vernon, Webster, and Winn parishes with a total of six hundred eight thousand four hundred eighty-seven acres; and Whereas, the Kisatchie National Forest is owned and managed by the United States federal government; and Whereas, despite the United States federal government's ownership of the Kisatchie National Forest, local Louisiana parish sheriffs' offices patrol the forest and respond to emergency calls; and Whereas, the local oversight of the Kisatchie National Forest is a substantial burden to the local sheriffs' offices; and Whereas, Payments in Lieu of Taxes, referred to as "PILT", are federal payments that help local governments offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable federal land within their boundaries; and Whereas, the amount of funding available for national forests is roughly four hundred thousand dollars; and Whereas, the available funding is not sufficient for the patrol of the Kisatchie National Forest which is a substantial financial burden on the local sheriffs' offices; and Whereas, PILT payments would help the parishes where the Kisatchie National Forest is located to patrol the forest and respond to emergency calls. Therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to fund local sheriffs' offices in order to properly and efficiently patrol the Kisatchie National Forest. Be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress and to each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation. ____ POM-117. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to pass the Flood Insurance Affordability Act, the Risk Rating 2.0 Transparency Act, and the Flood Insurance Affordability Tax Credit Act, and to end the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Risk Rating 2.0 methodology to alleviate the financial burden of flood insurance on citizens who reside in the coastal parishes of Louisiana and across the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Whereas, for years, the state of Louisiana has been at the heart of an insurance crisis that has led to homeowners in the coastal parishes being obliged to pay exorbitant, excessive, and expensive flood insurance premiums; and Whereas, in August of 2020, Hurricane Laura struck the state of Louisiana. The Department of Insurance reported more than one hundred seventy-seven thousand residential property claims, resulting in Individual Assistance from FEMA for the coastal parishes of Acadia, Calcasieu, Cameron, Jefferson Davis, and Vermilion; and Whereas, in October of 2020, Hurricane Delta struck the state of Louisiana. The Department of Insurance reported more than eighty-nine thousand residential property claims, resulting in Individual Assistance from FEMA for the coastal parishes of Acadia, Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Saint Martin, and Vermilion; and Whereas, in October of 2020, Hurricane Zeta struck the state of Louisiana. The Department of Insurance reported more than fifty-six thousand residential property claims, resulting in Individual Assistance from FEMA for the coastal parishes of Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and Terrebonne; and Whereas, in August of 2021, Hurricane Ida struck the state of Louisiana. The Department of Insurance reported more than four hundred seventy-eight thousand residential property claims, resulting in Individual Assistance from FEMA for the coastal parishes of Ascension, Assumption, East Baton Rouge, Iberia, Iberville, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, Saint Bernard, Saint Charles, Saint James, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Martin, Saint Mary, Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, Washington, and West Baton Rouge; and Whereas, in April of 2023, FEMA finished updating the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) risk rating methodology through the implementation of a new pricing methodology called Risk Rating 2.0; and Whereas, despite FEMA's claims, Risk Rating 2.0 has led to significant premium increases for low- and middle-income families, with estimates suggesting that approximately one-fifth of NFIP policyholders may be forced to drop coverage over the next ten years, potentially leading to an actuarial death spiral that threatens the program's sustainability; and Whereas, many homeowners in coastal Louisiana parishes have invested significant sums to elevate their homes and reduce flood risk and have still seen their premiums nearly double under Risk Rating 2.0, undermining the financial benefits of mitigation efforts; and Whereas, the Legislature of Louisiana has significant concerns with Risk Rating 2.0, including its lack of transparency in data inputs, failure to deliver promised premium reductions for mitigated structures, unpredictability for new or code-compliant structures, and potential to render flood insurance unaffordable for many families; and Whereas, the Risk Rating 2.0 Transparency Act, introduced on March 1, 2023, in the One Hundred Eighteenth United States Congress by Senator John Kennedy, requires FEMA to publish all data and methods used to prescribe chargeable premium rates, create an online database for policyholders to access premium rate information, conduct a comprehensive assessment of the economic and social impacts of Risk Rating 2.0, and publish premium rate distributions for every county or parish in the United States; and Whereas, the Risk Rating 2.0 Transparency Act has failed to move through the U.S.

Text printed in the Record (9,048 characters)

Senate, despite the fervent advocacy of Senator John Kennedy and Senator Bill Cassidy; and Whereas, the Flood Insurance Affordability Act, introduced on March 1, 2023, in the One Hundred Eighteenth United States Congress, sponsored by Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, caps annual residential flood insurance premium increases at nine percent, rather than the current eighteen percent; and Whereas, the Flood Insurance Affordability Tax Credit Act, introduced on February 13, 2025, in the One Hundred Nineteenth United States Congress by Senator Bill Cassidy, provides a thirty-three percent refundable tax credit to low-and middle-income households enrolled in the NFIP to offset rising flood insurance premiums, directly reducing the financial burden at the time of payment; and Whereas, flooding is a national issue, with at least one hundred sixty-six Americans across thirteen states killed in 2024 due to floods and storms, and millions more affected by power outages or evacuations, highlighting the need for an affordable and sustainable NFIP for all fifty states; and Whereas, the NFIP, as the primary source of flood insurance for many communities, must be reformed to ensure affordability, accountability to taxpayers, and sustainability for future generations; and Whereas, the Legislature of Louisiana supports efforts to end Risk Rating 2.0, as advocated by Senator Bill Cassidy, who previously worked with the Trump administration in 2019 to delay its implementation due to transparency concerns; and Whereas, it is the intention of the Legislature of Louisiana to ensure that homeowners in the coastal parishes of Louisiana and across the United States have access to fair, equitable, actuarially justified, and affordable flood insurance; therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to pass the Flood Insurance Affordability Act, the Risk Rating 2.0 Transparency Act, and the Flood Insurance Affordability Tax Credit Act, and to end FEMA's Risk Rating 2.0 methodology to assist and benefit the citizens of the coastal parishes in the state of Louisiana and all Americans; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation. POM-118. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to provide federal disaster insurance coverage for flooding, tornadoes, fire, and other disasters that have a negative impact on states; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Whereas, the need for federal disaster insurance is urgent and crucial due to the impacts of hurricanes, flooding, fire risks, and other disasters that have been proven to be devastating nationally and to the state of Louisiana; and Whereas, from 1980-2025, as of April 8, 2025, there have been one hundred and six confirmed weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding one billion dollars each to affect Louisiana, according to the National Centers for Environmental Information; and Whereas, weather and climate disasters often result in losses due to the hazards associated with storm surge flooding, inland flooding from heavy rains, destructive winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, and high surf and rip currents, according to the National Weather Service; and Whereas, Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, and Irma were four of the costliest hurricanes in the United States' history; collectively exceeding trillions of dollars in damages, according to the United States Government Accountability Office; and Whereas, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the estimated cost of damages was approximately one hundred and seventy billion dollars for Katrina, seventy-four billion dollars for Sandy, one hundred thirty-one billion dollars for Harvey, and fifty-two billion dollars for Irma; and Whereas, while the impact of hurricanes is devastating, flooding disasters, nationally and in the state of Louisiana, are also catastrophic; and Whereas, in Louisiana, the flood of August 2016 caused an estimated four billion dollars in residential property damages, with damages exceeding one billion dollars in both Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parish; and Whereas, the Joint Economic Committee's staff estimates that the total cost of flooding in the United States is between one hundred eighty and four hundred ninety-six billion dollars each year in 2023; and Whereas, in addition to hurricane and flooding disasters, fires are also proven to have devastating effects; and Whereas, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, since January 1, 2025, over nineteen thousand wildfires have burned approximately eight hundred eighty-one thousand acres, which is above the ten-year average of thirteen thousand wildfires and approximately eight hundred and twenty-eight thousand acres burned; and Whereas, in Louisiana, fire damages have resulted in millions of dollars in property damage; and Whereas, nationally, fire damages have resulted in approximately twenty-three billion dollars in property damage; and Whereas, the impacts of disasters on a national level and state level are evident and need a solution; and Whereas, the United States Congress should model a federal disaster insurance program, in part, after the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which should be expanded to include federal disaster coverage for hurricanes, flooding, fires, and other disasters; and Whereas, key components of the NFIP that should be considered when implementing a federal disaster relief insurance program are: (1) Providing affordable disaster insurance to homeowners, businesses, and insurers for all types of diasters. (2) Complementing existing Federal Disaster relief programs. (3) Providing flood insurance to help reduce the financial impacts of flooding. (4) Providing disaster insurance that covers the cost of rebuilding. (5) Encouraging communities, homeowners, and insurers to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations to reduce future flood risks; and Whereas, federal disaster insurance would provide the insurer certainty that the insurance carrier would not withdraw insurance coverage before, during, or after a disaster occurs; and Whereas, federal disaster insurance should be implemented by Congress to provide insurers with financial protection, expedited recovery efforts, and dependable insurance when disasters strike; Therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to provide insurance coverage for flooding, tornadoes, fire risks, and other disasters that have a negative impact on states. Be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of Louisiana congressional delegation. ____ POM-119. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to create penalties for improperly mailing cremated human remains; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Whereas, families have to make the difficult decision to transport the cremated remains of their loved ones; and Whereas, cremated human remains can be mailed only through the United States Postal Service (USPS); and Whereas, the USPS has issued guidance on how to package and ship cremated remains; and Whereas, USPS requires a specific cremated remains box and a proper label for cremated human remains; and Whereas, remains can be damaged or destroyed if they are not properly packaged or labeled; and Whereas, currently, there are no penalties for the mislabeling of cremated human remains; and Whereas, USPS does have certain penalties for mailing fireworks and hazardous materials; and Whereas, human remains should be treated with respect and the best way to ensure that respect is to properly package and label cremated human remains so that they are handled with the care that is warranted and needed; therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to create penalties for those who improperly package and label cremated remains; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation. ____ POM-120.

Text printed in the Record (11,026 characters)

A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reconsider any policies that may lead to reductions in Medicaid funding for hospitals in Louisiana; to the Committee on Finance. Whereas, hospitals play a vital role in delivering essential healthcare services to urban and rural communities throughout Louisiana; and Whereas, directives outlined in recent federal memoranda and guidance propose to reduce the longstanding maximum amount hospitals may be reimbursed by the Medicaid program; and Whereas, hospitals in Louisiana serve as lifelines for many communities especially our rural hospitals that provide essential healthcare services to residents in geographically isolated and medically underserved areas; and Whereas, hospitals face unique challenges, including workforce shortages, financial instability, and limited access to specialized care; and Whereas, reductions to Medicaid funding would exacerbate those challenges, potentially leading to service cutbacks, staff reductions, or even closures of hospitals; and Whereas, the closure or reduced capacity of hospitals would disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including the elderly, children, and those with chronic illnesses, as well as place additional strain on remaining healthcare facilities; and Whereas, Medicaid funding is not only essential for sustaining healthcare services but also plays a critical role in supporting the economic viability of our communities since hospitals often serve as major employers and economic contributors; and Whereas, Louisiana is committed to ensuring access to quality healthcare for all residents, regardless of their geographic or economic circumstances; and Whereas, collaboration between state and federal governments is crucial to address the healthcare disparities and challenges faced by communities while safeguarding access to essential services; therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize Congress and urge the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to avoid reductions in Medicaid funding that would adversely affect Louisiana's hospitals and the communities they serve; and Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize Congress and urge the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to immediately approve the pending Louisiana State Directed Payment Preprints for both hospital and physician payment and to not reduce total payment amounts for future rating periods; and be it further Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana emphasizes the importance of sustaining the current levels of Medicaid funding to ensure continued access of comprehensive healthcare services throughout the state; and be it further Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana calls upon Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to actively engage with state officials, healthcare providers, and community stakeholders to develop solutions that address the healthcare needs of Louisiana without undermining the financial stability of our hospitals; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the majority leader of the United States Senate, each member of Louisiana's congressional delegation, the secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. ____ POM-121. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress and the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services to increase pay rates for direct care support workers; to the Committee on Finance. Whereas, direct care support workers (DCSWs) such as nursing assistants, home health aides, and personal care aides provide essential services to individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations in inpatient care facilities, home care settings, and community-based programs; and Whereas, DCSWs play a critical role in ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of those they serve often providing assistance with daily living activities, medical care, and emotional support; and Whereas, despite the essential nature of their work, DCSWs are significantly underpaid, leading to high turnover rates, staffing shortages, and compromised care quality; and Whereas, in 2020, the average hourly rate for DCSWs in Louisiana was approximately nine dollars per hour; and Whereas, the demand for DCSWs continues to rise due to an aging population and increasing needs for long-term support services; and Whereas, inadequate pay has led to a workforce crisis, reducing the availability of qualified professionals and increasing strain on existing caregivers; and Whereas, increase wages would improve workforce retention, enhance the quality of care, and provide economic stability for these essential workers; and Whereas, the Louisiana Legislature, in partnership with the Louisiana Department of Health, has taken steps to increase wages for DCSWs and meet the need for quality care for one of this state's most vulnerable populations; and Whereas, federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare set reimbursement rates that directly impact the wages of DCSWs, and federal action is needed to ensure adequate funding for increased pay. Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress and urge federal agencies, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to revise reimbursement structures, and implement higher wages for DCSWs; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America, each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation, the secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. POM-122. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to explore options for transitioning airport security responsibilities from the Transportation Security Administration to alternative models, such as delegating duties to trained airline personnel in order to enhance the freedom of travel and improve the air travel experience for citizens of the United States; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Whereas, the state of Louisiana recognizes that the freedom to travel securely and efficiently is a fundamental right for citizens of the United States, essential to personal liberty and economic opportunity; and Whereas, the TSA was established to safeguard the nation's transportation systems with a primary focus on airport security, and is tasked with implementing safety measures for air travel in the United States; and Whereas, the TSA conducts security screenings for passengers at airports in the United States to ensure safe travel, yet public perception of air travel has increasingly deteriorated due to lengthy security processes, perceived inefficiencies, and passenger discomfort; and Whereas, Louisiana values the protection of passengers and seeks to explore ways to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and respect for personal freedoms in airport security processes. thereby restoring confidence in the air travel experience; and Whereas, concerns have been raised regarding the efficacy of current security measures, including reports of challenges in detecting prohibited items and ensuring consistent respect for passengers' rights and dignity; and Whereas, 2015 internal TSA review indicated that undercover investigators were able to pass mock prohibited items through security checkpoints in a significant percentage of trials, raising questions about the effectiveness of existing protocols and their impact on travelers' confidence; and Whereas, isolated incidents involving TSA personnel have contributed to public concerns about privacy and property, underscoring the need to investigate alternative security models that prioritize both safety and the freedom of citizens of the United States to travel without undue intrusion; and Whereas, other nations, such as Israel, employ intelligence-driven and behavior-based security approaches that may offer less invasive and potentially more effective methods, thereby improving the travel experience while maintaining high safety standards; and Whereas, airline employees, with appropriate training, may be well-positioned to conduct security screenings, leveraging their familiarity with airport operations to streamline processes and enhance passenger navigation, thereby fostering a more positive travel experience; and Whereas, although the TSA was created to strengthen transportation security, air travel continues to face challenges related to cost, efficiency, and passenger satisfaction, contributing to a growing perception that air travel is burdensome rather than liberating; and Whereas, many countries utilize state or locally-managed airport security systems, which may provide valuable insights for improving airport security operations in the United States and enhancing the freedom and enjoyment of travel; and Whereas, with proper training, airline personnel could potentially perform security functions currently handled by TSA agents, maintaining safety as a top priority while improving efficiency and passenger interactions; and Whereas, airport staff familiar with specific airport layouts and operations could enhance the passenger experience by assisting with navigation and amenities while ensuring effective and respectful security measures, thereby supporting the right to travel freely and enjoyably; therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress to explore options for transitioning airport security responsibilities from the TSA to alternative models, such as delegating duties to trained airline personnel in order to enhance the freedom of travel and improve the air travel experience for citizens of the United States; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation. ____ POM-123.

Text printed in the Record (11,713 characters)

A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Iowa urging the members of Congress to support the Major Richard Star Act to allow medically retired service members to receive full access to their much-deserved retirement pay and benefits; to the Committee on Armed Services. Whereas, Major Richard Star was an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who, after exposure to burn pits during his service, received a diagnosis of lung cancer; and Whereas, due to his diagnosis, Major Richard Star was forced to retire before completing 20 years of service and was therefore unable to collect his retirement and disability benefits; and Whereas, for every dollar of disability pay they receive, veterans with less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 50 percent will have their retirement pay reduced by a dollar; and Whereas, an estimated 50,000 retired service members are ineligible for concurrent benefits under the current rules; and Whereas, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2022, the average offset was approximately $1,900 a month; and Whereas, the Major Richard Star Act would remove these restrictions and ensure that all service members who have medically retired can receive full access to retirement pay and department of veterans affairs disability benefits; and Whereas, after dying from his battle with lung cancer in 2021, Major Richard Star's widow claimed that his greatest goal was to get legislation passed providing for the removal of these restrictions; and Whereas, the United States owes these benefits to its veterans regardless of the cost associated with their allocation; Now therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, that the House of Representatives urges the Congress of the United States to support the Major Richard Star Act to allow medically retired service members to receive full access to their much-deserved retirement and pay benefits; and be it further Resolved, That the House of Representatives call upon our colleagues in the Senate to urge the Congress of the United States to support the Major Richard Star Act; and be it further Resolved, That upon passage of this resolution, the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of Iowa's congressional delegation. ____ POM-124. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan supporting the President of the United States' policies to increase the nation's energy infrastructure and security, which have facilitated emergency permitting for the Enbridge Line 5 project; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Whereas, The Enbridge Line 5 pipeline is critical for meeting Michigan's energy needs. It delivers crude oil and natural gas liquids across 645 miles from northern Wisconsin, through the Great Lakes, across both peninsulas of Michigan, and to Ontario. According to Enbridge, Line 5 supplies sixty-five percent of the propane demand in the Upper Peninsula and fifty-five percent of Michigan's statewide propane needs; and Whereas, A segment of Line 5 has run under the Straits of Mackinac since 1953. This segment uses "dual" or "twin" pipes to deliver oil and propane throughout Michigan, thus preventing the need to use truckloads and rail cars to move these necessary resources across our state; and Whereas, Enbridge has proposed building a tunnel underneath the bed of the Straits of Mackinac which would contain a new pipeline to deliver oil and liquified natural gas, replacing the current twin pipeline; and Whereas, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has filed two lawsuits seeking to shut down Line 5 and its proposed tunnel by voiding the easement, in place since 1953, that allows Enbridge to operate the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac; and Whereas, On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order, entitled Declaring a National Energy Emergency, which seeks to expand the nation's energy infrastructure in order to meet our pressing energy needs. Critically, the executive order directs federal agencies to exercise their lawful emergency authorities to "expedite the completion of all authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects"; and Whereas, In response to the executive order, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has designated projects eligible to receive an emergency permit under the order, and has included Enbridge's Line 5 tunnel project, among others; now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the House of Representatives, That we support President Trump's policies to increase the nation's energy infrastructure and security, which have facilitated emergency permitting for the Enbridge Line 5 project; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation. ____ POM-125. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan supporting the President of the United States' policies that are enabling potash mining in Michigan; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Whereas, Potash is a potassium-rich salt and is a critical component of fertilizer, which is essential for healthy plant growth and crop yields, and Whereas, In the United States, domestic supplies of potash are nearing depletion, making the United States dependent on foreign potash. According to the United States Geological Survey, the country imports ninety-three percent of its potash from foreign countries and eighty-three percent from Canada alone; and Whereas, Michigan has large deposits of potash reserves that are potentially worth billions of dollars. Accessing these reserves would make Michigan a leading domestic supplier of potash fertilizer; and Whereas, On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order, entitled Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, which would boost domestic mineral production and reduce reliance on foreign imports of minerals through an expedited permitting process for priority mining projects; and Whereas, In response to the executive order, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council announced its first wave of priority mineral production projects, which includes Michigan Potash & Salt Company and its mine in Osceola County. The mine aims to tap a 12,500-acre deposit of potash; and Whereas, Increased mining operations in Michigan, such as the potash mining in Osceola County, will increase jobs and the state's economy while reducing the nation's reliance on foreign potash; now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the House of Representatives, That we support President Trump's policies seeking to reduce the United States' reliance on foreign minerals by increasing the nation's potash supply and expediting the permitting process for the Michigan Potash & Salt Company; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation. ____ POM-126. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Nevada urging the United States Congress to enact the Protecting the Right to Organize Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Whereas, An imbalance of earning power exists in the United States economy, where annual income for the bottom 90 percent of U.S. workers increased by 44 percent between 1979 and 2023, while income for the top 1 percent of U.S. workers increased by over 180 percent during that period; and Whereas, Unions play a critical role in increasing wages for workers and reducing income inequality and, according to a 2023 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, workers covered by a union contract earn 13.5 percent more on average than similarly situated workers who are not covered by a union contract; and Whereas, Polls reveal that public support for unions has surged in recent years, with approval for unions at some of the highest levels since the 1960s; and Whereas, On March 5, 2025, the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025 was introduced in the United States Congress as H.R. 20, 119th Cong. (2025), to increase protections relating to the rights of employees to collectively bargain; and Whereas, This comprehensive legislation would prevent employers from misclassifying employees so as to exempt those employees from existing protections under labor laws; and Whereas, The Act would allow a collective bargaining agreement to require the collection of fair share fees by unions to cover the cost of representing all represented workers; and Whereas, The Act would also prohibit employers from permanently replacing or discriminating against workers who participate in strikes; and Whereas, The Act would additionally prevent employers from requiring workers to attend mandatory meetings designed to discourage them from joining a union; now, therefore, be it Resolved by The Assembly and Senate of the State of Nevada, Jointly, That the members of the 83rd Session of the Nevada Legislature respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to enact the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025 to increase protections relating to the rights of employees to collectively bargain; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States as presiding officer of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each member of the Nevada Congressional Delegation; and be it further Resolved, That this resolution becomes effective upon passage. ____ POM-127. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature petitioning the United States Congress and the President of the United States to restore and expand federal compensation and health programs for individuals exposed to radiation resulting from United States nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, including the people of the Commonwealth of the Norther Mariana Islands; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Whereas, as part of its mandate to protect and defend the United States of America, the United States Armed Forces conducted testing of atomic nuclear weapons on Enewetak and Bikini Atolls in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 1958. A total of sixty-seven (67) atomic and thermonuclear bombs were detonated which resulted in radioactive fallout across a wide area of the Pacific beyond the immediate test sites; and Whereas, due to the deleterious effects of the nuclear radiation, on October 5, 1990, the United States Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act("RECA"), which establishes new programs for persons physically present in areas near the Nevada Nuclear Test Site during atomic testing at the site. Atmospheric testing of atomic devices--important to national security during the darkest days of the "cold war"--ended in 1963 when, under President Kennedy, the United States signed and ratified the Limited Test Ban Treaty. Prior to the Treaty, the United States detonated over 200 atomic devices in the open air, in both the South Pacific and in Nevada.

Text printed in the Record (7,381 characters)

The bill provides compassionate payments to persons with specified diseases who fear that their health was harmed because of fallout from atmospheric atomic testing at the Nevada test site, regardless of whether causation can be scientifically established; and Whereas, on July 10, 2000, Pub. L. 106-245, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 was passed, adding two new claimant categories, providing for, among other things, additional compensable illnesses, removing certain lifestyle restrictions, and adding additional geographic areas to the "downwinder" claimant category; and Whereas, residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and other Pacific jurisdictions have long asserted that they were exposed to radioactive fallout generated by such testing; and Whereas, although RECA coverage has been expanded, it still does not provide relief to all Americans affected by fallout, particularly residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam; and Whereas, there is no doubt that the Territory of Guam has received radioactive debris from fallout during the nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific Ocean to such an extent that, in March of 2004, Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo spoke before the Committee to Assess the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program to request that they include an assessment of Guam for "downwinders" and ship decontamination as part of their congressionally mandated study; and Whereas, because the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are close in proximity to the Territory of Guam, separated by a scant 56 miles, and both are affected by the same wind, weather and ocean current patterns, it logically follows that radiation which affects the Territory of Guam necessarily affects the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and Whereas, as a result, the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board published in 2005 its report entitled "Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program" that because radiation fallout may have been higher for people outside RECA-designated areas, the NRSB recommends that all residents of the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and overseas U.S. territories who have been diagnosed with specific RECA-compensable diseases and who may have been exposed, even in utero, to radiation from U.S. nuclear-weapons testing fallout be compensated; and Whereas, the United States Congress has the authority to amend RECA to include residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands affected by radiation as eligible "downwinder" claimants, and its failure to do so resulted in the continued exclusion of similarly situated CNMI residents from federal compensation benefits, leaving their claims unrecognized under existing law; and Whereas, pursuant to the RECA Extension Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-139); authorization for the RECA program expired on June 07, 2024, with the Department of Justice only processing claims postmarked by June 10, 2024 leaving many affected individuals and their families without access to compensation or medical assistance programs; and Whereas, RECA was reinstated through P.L. 119-21 otherwise known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act", specifically in Sections 100201-100205, enacted on July 04, 2025. This reinstatement sets funding to expire on December 31, 2028, with the allowance of the latest claim to be filed by December 31, 2027; and Whereas, residents of the Commonwealth continue to experience concerns regarding cancer, thyroid disease, and other illnesses that may be associated with radiation exposure and deserve the same consideration afforded to other United States citizens and nationals impacted by federal nuclear testing programs; and Whereas, the people of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a territory of the United States of America, request for the restoration of RECA benefits, expansion of eligibility to include affected Pacific populations, and to provide funding for scientific research, health monitoring, cancer screening, and medical treatment programs in the Pacific territories and freely associated states; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate of the Twenty-Fourth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature hereby joins the people of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in respectfully petitioning the United States Congress to declare that all Americans shall be given the same consideration when it comes to compensation for exposure to radiation from U.S. nuclear testing, including the people of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and be it further Resolved, That the United States Congress is hereby respectfully petitioned to amend the "Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990," Public Law 101-426, as amended to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the jurisdiction "Downwinders" covered by the Act; and be it further Resolved, That the United States Congress is hereby respectfully requested to study whether the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands should be granted RECA "on site" status; and be it further Resolved, That the affected population previously and currently in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (those residing who have been exposed to radiation resulting from the Atomic Energy Commission tests in the Marshall Islands) be recognized as being "downwinders" of such tests; and be it further Resolved, That the President of the Senate shall certify and the Senate Legislative Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution, and thereafter the Senate Clerk shall transmit certified copies to the Honorable Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 119th United States Congress; the Honorable J.D. Vance, President of the Senate, United States Senate; the Honorable Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairperson, Committee on Judiciary, United States Senate; the Honorable Senator Dick Durbin, Ranking Member, Committee on Judiciary, United States Senate; the Honorable Senator Bill Cassidy, Chairperson, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate; the Honorable Senator Bernie Sanders, Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate; the Honorable Congressman Jim Jordan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives; the Honorable Congressman Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives; the Honorable Congressman Brett Guthrie, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives; the Honorable Congressman Frank Pallone, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives; the Honorable Kimberlyn King-Hinds, CNMI Delegate to the House of Representatives Washington, 119th United States Congress the Honorable David M. Apatang, Governor of the CNMI; the Honorable Lou Leon Guerrero, Governor of the Territory of Guam; the Honorable Edmund S. Villagomez, Speaker of the House of Representatives; and Mr. Robert N. Celestial, Atomic Veteran from Guam and President of the Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors. ____ POM-128.

Text printed in the Record (6,322 characters)

A joint resolution adopted by the Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature affirming the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' commitment to eliminate the commercial facilitation of birth tourism as evidenced by the enactment of the Business Integrity and Regulation of Tourism Harms Act ("BIRTH Act"); to present updated data demonstrating the effectiveness of existing federal and local measures; and to request continued federal coordination consistent with those efforts; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Whereas, the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America recognizes United States sovereignty while guaranteeing the Commonwealth a substantial measure of local self-government; and Whereas, Article IX, Section 902 of the Covenant provides for consultation between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Commonwealth on matters affecting the economic and social well-being of the Commonwealth; and Whereas, the Commonwealth remains committed to cooperation with the United States in maintaining the integrity of federal immigration systems while preserving the constitutional guarantees that apply within the Commonwealth; and Whereas, the Legislature recognizes that so-called "birth tourism," more precisely described as the compensated commercial facilitation of travel for the primary purpose of childbirth, is materially distinct from lawful tourism and undermines confidence in immigration systems when driven by organized commercial enterprises; and Whereas, the Legislature further recognizes that the appropriate response lies not in restricting constitutional birthright citizenship, but in targeting the commercial machinery, fraud, and profiteering that drive such practices; and Whereas, the Legislature has before it House Bill 24-105, the Business Integrity and Regulation of Tourism Harms Act ("BIRTH Act"), a uniquely tailored statute that prohibits compensated commercial birth tourism facilitation, criminalizes deceptive practices, regulates maternity housing, and provides both civil and criminal enforcement tools while expressly preserving federal authority over immigration and citizenship; Whereas, the BIRTH Act reflects a deliberate and constitutionally grounded approach that focuses on business regulation, consumer protection, and fraud prevention, rather than immigration control, thereby aligning Commonwealth action with federal law and policy; and Whereas, official data from the Commonwealth Healthcare Corporation (CHCC) Health & Vital Statistics Office demonstrates that tourist births in the Commonwealth have declined by approximately ninety-two percent (92%), from a peak of 581 births in 2018 to 47 births in 2025, representing approximately eight percent (8%) of total deliveries and fewer than four births per month; Whereas, current CHCC obstetric utilization reflects approximately forty-four percent (44%) of 2018 capacity levels, and available data does not support claims that tourist births presently impose a significant strain on the Commonwealth's healthcare system; Whereas, the Legislature finds that the substantial decline in tourist births corresponds with prior federal visa policy changes and demonstrates that coordinated federal and local measures can effectively reduce birth tourism; and Whereas, the Legislature affirms that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Covenant, and that enforcement efforts must not diminish or redefine that constitutional right; and Whereas, immigration enforcement in the Commonwealth is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Customs and Border Protection, and the Commonwealth's role is to complement those efforts through lawful regulation of commercial activity within its jurisdiction; and Whereas, the Legislature intends through this Resolution to demonstrate that the Commonwealth has taken concrete, enforceable legislative action to eliminate commercial birth tourism operations and stands ready to support continued federal enforcement efforts; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-Fourth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature hereby affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to eliminating the commercial facilitation of birth tourism through the enactment and enforcement of the BIRTH Act; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature respectfully requests that the Government of the United States, including the Department of Homeland Security and United States Customs and Border Protection, continue to strengthen and consistently apply existing standards governing temporary entry, discretionary parole, and visitor admissions to deter travel undertaken primarily for childbirth where lawful criteria are not satisfied; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature requests continued coordination between federal agencies and the Commonwealth to ensure effective enforcement against fraud, misrepresentation, and commercial facilitation schemes associated with birth tourism; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature emphasizes that the Commonwealth's enactment of the BIRTH Act demonstrates that local enforcement mechanisms--when aligned with federal policy--can effectively address birth tourism without infringing upon constitutional rights; and be it further Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate shall certify and the House Clerk and the Senate Legislative Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this joint resolution and thereafter the House Clerk shall transmit a certified copy to the President of the United States; the appropriate committees of the United States Congress; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; the President of the Senate, Twenty-Fourth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature; the Mayors of the Municipalities of Rota, Tinian and Aguiguan, Saipan, and the Northern Islands; and the CNMI Delegate to the United States Congress.

Executive Reports of Committee

Page S5259 · Official text

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

Text printed in the Record (801 characters)

By Mr. CASSIDY for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. *Douglas Ralph, of Kentucky, to be a Member of the National Mediation Board for a term expiring July 1, 2028. *Nicole Saphier, of New Jersey, to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service, subject to qualifications therefor as provided by law and regulations, and to be Surgeon General of the Public Health Service for a term of four years. *Timothy Westlake, of Wisconsin, to be Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, Department of Health and Human Services. *Mary Lazare, of Florida, to be Assistant Secretary for Aging, Department of Health and Human Services. *Loren E. Sweatt, of Virginia, to be a Member of the National Mediation Board for a term expiring July 1, 2029.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

Introduction of Bills and Joint Resolutions

Pages S5259–S5261 · Official text

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

Text printed in the Record (11,876 characters)

By Mr. SCHIFF (for himself and Mr. Ricketts): S. 5604. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to make improvements to that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. By Ms. SMITH: S. 5605. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide that any mandatory predispute or coerced postdispute arbitration clause, class action waiver, representation waiver, or discretionary clause with respect to a plan is unenforceable, to prohibit any such clause or waiver from being included in a plan document or other agreement with plan participants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. MERKLEY: S. 5606. A bill to authorize the adjustment to lawful permanent resident status for certain permanent residents of Hong Kong who were granted Deferred Enforced Departure; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley): S. 5607. A bill to amend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 to restore the full 75-percent payment to counties from the Oregon and California land-grant fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Merkley): S. 5608. A bill to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mrs. MOODY: S. 5609. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require States to report on anti-fraud measures relating to home and community-based services furnished under the Medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance. By Mrs. MOODY: S. 5610. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to limit the ability of persons that pose a threat to national security to receive and enforce patents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal): S. 5611. A bill to authorize certain actions with respect to Serbia; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. By Mrs. MOODY: S. 5612. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require hospitals receiving payment for direct graduate medical education costs under the Medicare program to report information with respect to the citizenship status of residents in an approved medical residency training program; to the Committee on Finance. By Mrs. HYDE-SMITH: S. 5613. A bill to increase the rate of duty on shrimp originating from Ecuador, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Wyden): S. 5614. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to direct the Secretary of Education to issue guidance and recommendations for institutions of higher education on removing criminal and juvenile justice questions from their application for admissions process; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mrs. MOODY: S. 5615. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to protect worker access to employer equity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Moreno, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina): S. 5616. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the treatment of digital assets; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. SCHMITT (for himself and Mr. Padilla): S. 5617. A bill to amend section 1362 of title 18, United States Code, to address vandalism of copper, fiber, and coaxial cables used to provide telecommunications and information services; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Booker, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kim, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Welch, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden): S. 5618. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide an Inspector General for the judicial branch, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand): S. 5619. A bill to restore the allowance of the premium tax credit for lawfully present individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. KELLY (for himself and Mr. Cotton): S. 5620. A bill to amend title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish the UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. Hickenlooper): S. 5621. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify certain requirements relating to the Nonprofit Security Grant Program of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mrs. MOODY: S. 5622. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for criminal liability where a controlled substance is a substantial factor in the death or bodily injury of another person; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. KELLY (for himself and Mr. Tillis): S. 5623. A bill to express the sense of Congress reaffirming extended nuclear deterrence; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. Curtis): S. 5624. A bill to provide a lump sum death gratuity payment for Federal wildland firefighters killed as a result of duty, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. Reed): S. 5625. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance the low-income housing tax credit, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Booker, Mr. Padilla, and Mr. Lujan): S. 5626. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to change certain grant requirements for certain students with disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. BOOKER: S. 5627. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to improve access to care for all Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries through models tested under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Ms. Lummis): S. 5628. A bill to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to enhance rule-making requirements for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. ROUNDS: S. 5629. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit veterans to seek a second opinion after the receipt of health care under the laws administered by the Secretary, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. By Mr. BENNET (for himself, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Schiff, and Mr. Lujan): S. 5630. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to ensure sufficient bonding and complete and timely reclamation of land and water disturbed by Federal and Indian oil and gas production, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Hirono, and Ms. Blunt Rochester): S. 5631. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to create a program to provide funding for organizations that support startup businesses in formation and early growth stages by providing entrepreneurs with resources and services to produce viable businesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Padilla, and Mr. Schiff): S. 5632. A bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to prohibit the closure of Federal records centers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mrs. SHAHEEN: S. 5633. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to reauthorize the State Trade Expansion Program of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. Kim): S. 5634. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide additional amounts of loan forgiveness to teachers of English learners and teachers of bilingual and dual language immersion students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. LUJAN (for himself and Ms. Hirono): S. 5635. A bill to expand arts education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. GALLEGO: S. 5636. A bill to establish a grant program to support restricting the use of cellular phones and other personal electronic devices at eligible schools during instructional time; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. COONS: S. 5637. A bill to establish the Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. By Mr. HUSTED: S. 5638. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modernize the wage required for exempt H-1B workers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. ROUNDS (for himself and Ms. Cortez Masto): S. 5639. A bill to amend the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to establish a Portal for Appraiser Credentialing and AMC Registration Information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER (for herself and Mr. Curtis): S. 5640. A bill to require reports on the effects of data centers on air quality and water quality, and on electricity consumption by data centers; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. By Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina: S. 5641. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the meaning and eligibility of energy communities for purposes of the increased renewable electricity production and increased clean electricity investment credit rates, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. Cramer): S. 5642. A bill to require the addition of a ticker symbol modifier to securities issued by Chinese military companies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. Cramer): S. 5643. A bill to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to indefinitely suspend the trading of securities of certain companies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mrs. MOODY: S. 5644. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to exempt transactions with respect to cash reward payments by crime stopper organizations from certain currency transaction reports; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. CURTIS (for himself and Ms. Blunt Rochester): S. 5645. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to establish a Data Center Community Assistance Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr. Curtis): S. 5646. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the definition of employee as it relates to direct sellers and real estate agents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley): S. 5647. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain river segments in the State of Oregon as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. Lankford): S. 5648.

Text printed in the Record (9,718 characters)

A bill to direct agencies to be transparent when using automated and augmented systems to interact with the public or make critical decisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mr. SULLIVAN: S. 5649. A bill to make additional Federal public land available for selection under the Alaska Native Vietnam era veterans land allotment program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. HEINRICH: S. 5650. A bill to align priorities and investments relating to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Van Hollen): S. 5651. A bill to establish the National Institutes of Clean Energy; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. KING (for himself, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Welch, and Ms. Murkowski): S. 5652. A bill to clarify the evidentiary treatment of documentation generated under a qualifying process standard for purposes of compliance with the Build America, Buy America Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Heinrich): S. 5653. A bill to prescribe permitting reform, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mrs. Moody): S. 5654. A bill to establish a moratorium on oil and gas production and exploration activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Ms. GRAHAM: S. 5655. A bill to express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name an appropriate United States Navy ship in honor of the Battle of Cowpens, which took place on January 17, 1781, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Coons, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Smith, Ms. Blunt Rochester, and Mr. Schiff): S. 5656. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for victims of crime to be notified of firearms-related activity by the offender, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Booker, and Mr. Fetterman): S. 5657. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of higher education to have an independent advocate for campus sexual assault prevention and response; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. WYDEN: S. 5658. A bill to prohibit the construction of data centers on Federal land, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Mr. Cassidy): S. 5659. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to carry out a grant program to assist local educational agencies with ensuring that each elementary school and secondary school has at least one reading or literacy specialist on staff; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Fetterman, and Mr. Durbin): S. 5660. A bill to establish a grant program for institutions of higher education to implement patient-centered academic counseling services for student survivors of sexual assault and other violence; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. WARNOCK (for himself and Mrs. Britt): S. 5661. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide parity in the taxation of professional sports franchises under the limitation on the deduction for certain employee renumeration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. LUJAN: S. 5662. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to strengthen the provisions relating to child labor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Ms. LUMMIS: S. 5663. A bill to establish a program at the National Science Foundation to fund research awards to reproduce federally funded research; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. By Mr. SCHATZ (for himself and Mr. Booker): S. 5664. A bill to provide for the retraining and support of workers displaced by automation technologies or artificial intelligence, to require Federal action during periods of elevated unemployment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lujan, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Van Hollen): S. 5665. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish grants for tuition-free community colleges, student success grants, and grants for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Minority-Serving Institutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. MORENO: S. 5666. A bill to require the assessment and collection of duties improperly waived under the solar tariff moratorium, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. LANKFORD: S. 5667. A bill to withhold birthright citizenship from individuals born in a United States territory to a mother who is not lawfully present and a father who is not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CURTIS (for himself and Mr. Hickenlooper): S. 5668. A bill to require a Federal science strategy for the monitoring and detection of methane, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Welch, Ms. Smith, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Baldwin): S. 5669. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat transfers of appreciated property to certain tax-exempt organizations the same as transfers of appreciated property to political organizations; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. MERKLEY: S. 5670. A bill to ensure the prudent obligation of budget authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations. By Ms. HASSAN (for herself and Mr. Cornyn): S. 5671. A bill to reauthorize and improve the pilot program to support State medical stockpiles, to ensure that State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments or officials are consulted by the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. MARSHALL: S. 5672. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify certain physician payments under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Lujan, and Ms. Warren): S. 5673. A bill to restrict car manufacturers and other companies from selling consumer car-related data, to increase transparency regarding data practices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. By Mr. CURTIS: S. 5674. A bill to prohibit a person from making a misleading recycled content claim in advertising, marketing, selling, or offering for sale a product to a consumer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. By Mr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr. Kim, Mr. Kaine, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Hickenlooper): S. 5675. A bill to require that certain notifications and certifications relating to WIC be available to members of the Armed Forces undergoing a permanent change of station, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. By Mr. COONS (for himself and Mr. Cornyn): S. 5676. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to support educational programs in civics and history, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. CORNYN: S. 5677. A bill to establish the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area to conserve, protect, and promote the economic benefits of the natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Upper and Middle Texas Gulf Coast as a unit of the National Park System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. BOOKER: S. 5678. A bill to require the Secretary of the Navy to establish a process for naming of Naval vessels, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. BOOKER: S. 5679. A bill to prohibit the naming or renaming of a Naval vessel for an individual serving as the President or Vice President; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. BOOKER: S. 5680. A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to rename, redesignate, or otherwise change the name of the vessel designated as CVN-81 from the "USS Doris Miller"; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Ms. Warren): S. 5681. A bill to provide for the protection of the duties of the Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mrs. MOODY: S.J. Res. 219. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget and establishing the requisite procedures; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Ms. WARREN (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Hirono): S.J. Res. 220. A joint resolution designating a "Slavery Remembrance Day" on August 20th, to serve as a reminder of the evils of slavery; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions

Pages S5261–S5262 · Official text

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

Text printed in the Record (6,299 characters)

By Ms. ROSEN: S. Res. 929. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER (for herself and Mr. Booker): S. Res. 930. A resolution expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "World Menopause Awareness Month" and for global awareness and access to care during menopausal transition and post-menopause; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Warner, and Ms. Warren): S. Res. 931. A resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SCHIFF (for himself and Mr. Kaine): S. Res. 932. A resolution requesting information on Venezuela's human rights practices pursuant to section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. By Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. Hickenlooper, and Mrs. Capito): S. Res. 933. A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 2026 as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month"; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Justice, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Lee, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Lankford, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Risch, Mr. Daines, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Budd, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Moreno, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Graham, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Young, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Schmitt): S. Res. 934. A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Heinrich): S. Res. 935. A resolution designating October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Murphy): S. Res. 936. A resolution designating October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day"; considered and agreed to. By Ms. WARREN (for herself and Mrs. Fischer): S. Res. 937. A resolution recognizing the seriousness of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "PCOS Awareness Month"; considered and agreed to. By Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Ms. Rosen): S. Res. 938. A resolution to honor the Americans killed by Hamas terrorists and their affiliates on and after October 7, 2023, to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to seek legal justice on behalf of their families, and for other purposes; considered and agreed to. By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Ms. Ernst): S. Res. 939. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that it values the active participation of the Republic of Kosovo as the state partner of the Iowa National Guard over the past 15 years; considered and agreed to. By Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Young, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Padilla, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Lankford): S. Res. 940. A resolution expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in order to educate communities across the United States about sickle cell disease and the need for research, early detection methods, effective treatments, and preventative care programs with respect to complications from sickle cell disease and conditions related to sickle cell disease; considered and agreed to. By Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. Booker): S. Res. 941. A resolution expressing support for the designation of the week of October 24, 2026, to October 31, 2026, as "Bat Week"; considered and agreed to. By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Risch): S. Res. 942. A resolution recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of National Forensic Science Week; considered and agreed to. By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself and Mrs. Fischer): S. Res. 943. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a National Move Over Law Day; considered and agreed to. By Mrs. FISCHER (for herself and Mr. Peters): S. Res. 944. A resolution designating September 2026 as "School Bus Safety Month"; considered and agreed to. By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Warren, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Moran, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Coons, Mr. Booker, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Ricketts, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Smith, and Mrs. Hyde- Smith): S. Res. 945. A resolution designating November 7, 2026, as "National Bison Day"; considered and agreed to. By Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Moran, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Warner, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Reed, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Peters, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Booker, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina): S. Res. 946. A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day"; considered and agreed to. By Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Bennet): S. Res. 947. A resolution designating September 2026 as "National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month"; considered and agreed to. By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Cruz): S. Res. 948. A resolution commending and congratulating Texas A&M University for 150 years of service to the State of Texas and the United States; considered and agreed to. By Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Ms. Collins): S. Res. 949. A resolution designating October 12, 2026, as "National Loggers Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Additional Cosponsors

Pages S5262–S5264 · Official text

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 710, a bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent transactions at virtual currency kiosks, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1088, a bill to provide that the memorial to commemorate the sacrifice and service of the women who worked on the home front to support the efforts of the United States military during World War II may be located on the National Mall, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Tillis, the name of the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1252, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to promote the increased use of renewable natural gas, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful transportation-related emissions that contribute to poor air quality, and to increase job creation and economic opportunity throughout the United States. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1500, a bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage from imposing cost-sharing requirements with respect to diagnostic and supplemental breast examinations. At the request of Mr. Young, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1699, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a public awareness and education campaign to provide information regarding the benefits of, risks relating to, and the prevalence of artificial intelligence in the daily lives of individuals in the United States, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1792, a bill to prohibit employment discrimination against whistleblowers reporting AI security vulnerabilities or AI violations, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Cotton, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1793, a bill to protect the United States and assets of the United States from incursions. At the request of Mr. Marshall, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1816, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish requirements with respect to the use of prior authorization under Medicare Advantage plans. At the request of Mr. Paul, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1847, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to clarify the treatment of certain association health plans as employers, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Fischer, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) were added as cosponsors of S. 2828, a bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to reauthorize and update the Act, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Banks, the name of the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2955, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish Federal penalties for the knowing and intentional administration of any abortion-inducing drug to a woman without her informed consent, if the abortion-inducing drug has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3267, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for Medicare coverage of blood-based dementia screening tests. At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3285, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize unlawful adoption practices. At the request of Ms. Collins, the names of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) were added as cosponsors of S. 3296, a bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to cover, for purposes of workers' compensation under such chapter, services by physician assistants and nurse practitioners provided to injured Federal workers, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Sheehy, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Husted) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3314, a bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to expand a directive of the Veterans Health Administration regarding informed consent to apply to certain types of medications. At the request of Mr. Cassidy, the names of the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith) and the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) were added as cosponsors of S. 3315, a bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to coordinate to improve cybersecurity in the health care and public health sectors, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Warren, the name of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3329, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to recognize and honor the service of individuals who served in the United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3332, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. McCormick, the name of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3524, a bill to amend title 54, United States Code, to modify certain cost-sharing requirements for grant programs under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3654, a bill to improve housing and environmental health and safety protections for members of the Armed Forces and their families residing in military family housing, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. King, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3938, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize representatives of veterans service organizations to participate in presentations to promote certain benefits available to veterans during preseparation counseling under the Transition Assistance Program of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Smith, the names of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) were added as cosponsors of S. 3990, a bill to increase access to pre-exposure prophylaxis to reduce the transmission of HIV. At the request of Mr. Schiff, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. Curtis) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4035, a bill to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit the listing of contracts relating to war, death, and similar activities. At the request of Mr. Ricketts, the name of the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4134, a bill to amend chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code, to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Welch, the name of the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4182, a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to modify rural housing financing under that Act. At the request of Mr. Moreno, the names of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) were added as cosponsors of S. 4429, a bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture, sale, resale, or introduction into interstate commerce in the United States of connected vehicles and related software and hardware associated with foreign adversaries. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4436, a bill to nullify certain rules related to foreign assistance. At the request of Mr. Murphy, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4522, a bill to prohibit vulture investors from investing in youth sports, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Rosen, the names of the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) were added as cosponsors of S. 4576, a bill to strengthen Federal efforts to counter antisemitism in the United States and protect the Jewish community. At the request of Mr. Risch, the name of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4726, a bill to promote efforts to bring about stability and security in Sudan, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Heinrich, the name of the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4844, a bill to drive innovation in developing next-generation protection for firefighters by accelerating the development of PFAS-free turnout gear, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Heinrich, the name of the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4933, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the individuals who fought for or with the United States against the armed forces of Imperial Japan in the Pacific theater and became prisoners of war from December 8, 1941, to August 15, 1945. At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4968, a bill to provide for the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Smith, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5004, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to provide for cost-sharing for oral anticancer drugs on terms no less favorable than the cost-sharing provided for anticancer medications administered by a health care provider. At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5054, a bill to exempt AI data centers from bonus depreciation and require data center operators to submit certain information relating to electricity and water use by data centers, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Merkley, the name of the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5087, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of renewable biomass for purposes of the renewable fuel standard, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Kaine, the names of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Husted) were added as cosponsors of S. 5175, a bill to amend the Arms Export Control Act to address third party transfers of certain defense articles for Ukraine, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Heinrich, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5199, a bill to amend the Federal Power Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the interconnection of large loads to the transmission system, to provide for standards and procedures for the interconnection of large loads, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Schatz, the name of the Senator from Colorado (Mr.

Hickenlooper) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5288, a bill to restore press access to the Pentagon, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Lujan, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5321, a bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require coverage of, and expand access to, home and community-based services under the Medicaid program, to award grants for the creation, recruitment, training and education, retention, and advancement of the direct care workforce and to award grants to support family caregivers, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5354, a bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. At the request of Mr. Merkley, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5362, a bill to direct the Secretary of State to advocate for the inclusion and recognition of the Central Tibetan Administration, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Booker, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5431, a bill to remove college cost as a barrier to every student having access to a well-prepared and diverse educator workforce, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Boozman, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5464, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the report on the health of women veterans, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Coons, the name of the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5476, a bill to impose sanctions with respect to foreign persons that have facilitated Israeli settlement construction in the E1 area of the West Bank. At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5549, a bill to support educators. At the request of Mr. Padilla, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5559, a bill to provide for the basic needs of students at institutions of higher education. At the request of Ms. Hirono, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5577, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide grants to upgrade or convert small-capacity cesspools for households in the State of Hawaii. At the request of Ms. Hirono, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5578, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish the Hawaiian Islands Program, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Schmitt, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5593, a bill to prevent the removal of children for sex-rejecting interventions. At the request of Mr. Schmitt, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 212, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ensure that only citizens are eligible to vote in Federal elections. At the request of Ms. Duckworth, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 790, a resolution recognizing and honoring the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v L.C. At the request of Mr. Lankford, the names of the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt) and the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 912, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.

Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Pages S5264–S5265 · Official text

S. 5634. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide additional amounts of loan forgiveness to teachers of English learners and teachers of bilingual and dual language immersion students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Supporting Providers of English Language Learning, SPELL, Act, which I introduced today. English learners are one of the fastest growing student populations in the country. Across the United States, about 10 percent of all publc school students are English learners. In California alone, nearly 19 percent of all public school students identify as English learners. Yet we are facing a devastating shortage of teachers with the skills needed to support these students. If we do not address this shortage, the achievement gap for this vulnerable group of students will continue to grow. Educating students learning English requires specialized instruction and unique teacher strategies. If we are going to meet the needs of these students, we need to facilitate the training and retention of high-quality teachers for our English learners. The SPELL Act, would amend the Higher Education Act to provide up to $17,500 in Federal student loan forgiveness for teachers of English learners, bilingual students, or dual immersion students in high-need schools. This would match the level of loan forgiveness offered to teachers of other in-demand subjects such as math, science, and special education. By lessening the financial burden on prospective English learner teachers, we can help incentivize a greater number of passionate and highly qualified teachers to enter and stay in the classroom. As a Senator representing one of the most diverse States in the country with the most English learners and as an English learner myself, I am proud to work with my colleagues to push forward legislation to support our teachers. I want to thank Representative Espaillat for introducing this bill in the House, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting our English learner teachers and students.

Introductory Statement on S. 5634

Page S5265 · Official text

S. 5634. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide additional amounts of loan forgiveness to teachers of English learners and teachers of bilingual and dual language immersion students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Supporting Providers of English Language Learning, SPELL, Act, which I introduced today. English learners are one of the fastest growing student populations in the country. Across the United States, about 10 percent of all publc school students are English learners. In California alone, nearly 19 percent of all public school students identify as English learners. Yet we are facing a devastating shortage of teachers with the skills needed to support these students. If we do not address this shortage, the achievement gap for this vulnerable group of students will continue to grow. Educating students learning English requires specialized instruction and unique teacher strategies. If we are going to meet the needs of these students, we need to facilitate the training and retention of high-quality teachers for our English learners. The SPELL Act, would amend the Higher Education Act to provide up to $17,500 in Federal student loan forgiveness for teachers of English learners, bilingual students, or dual immersion students in high-need schools. This would match the level of loan forgiveness offered to teachers of other in-demand subjects such as math, science, and special education. By lessening the financial burden on prospective English learner teachers, we can help incentivize a greater number of passionate and highly qualified teachers to enter and stay in the classroom. As a Senator representing one of the most diverse States in the country with the most English learners and as an English learner myself, I am proud to work with my colleagues to push forward legislation to support our teachers. I want to thank Representative Espaillat for introducing this bill in the House, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting our English learner teachers and students.

Senate Resolution 929--Expressing the Sense of the Senate Regarding Equity Stakes Held by the Federal Government in Private Companies

Page S5265 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 929--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EQUITY STAKES HELD BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN PRIVATE COMPANIES Ms. ROSEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:

Text printed in the Record (2,035 characters)

Whereas, since January 2025, Federal agencies have announced the acquisition of equity or equity-like interests in private companies through more than 35 transactions, representing more than $27,000,000,000 in taxpayer funds; Whereas, in August 2025, 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm in which the son of President Trump is a partner, invested in Vulcan Elements, a rare earth magnet manufacturer, and, months later, the Department of Defense announced a conditional commitment to lend $620,000,000 to the company and the Federal Government agreed to take a $50,000,000 equity stake in the company; Whereas, in January 2026, the Department of Commerce announced a tentative agreement to provide up to $1,600,000,000 in funding and loans to USA Rare Earth and to acquire approximately a 10 percent stake in the company, and, on the same day, USA Rare Earth announced a $1,500,000,000 private offering of the stock of the company, for which the lead placement agent was Cantor Fitzgerald, a firm formerly led by the Secretary of Commerce and now led by the sons of the Secretary of Commerce; and Whereas equity interests acquired with taxpayer funds belong to the people of the United States and must never be used to enrich Federal officials, Members of Congress, or the families of Federal officials or Members of Congress: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the President, the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, Members of Congress, officials who participate in Federal equity transactions, and the spouses, children, sons-in-law, and daughters-in-law of any such individuals should be prohibited from-- (1) profiting from any Federal acquisition of an equity interest in a private company, including through ownership of the company or through any fee, commission, or other compensation connected to any such transaction; and (2) purchasing or receiving any equity interest the Federal Government sells or transfers, or receiving compensation connected to any such sale or transfer.

Senate Resolution 930--Expressing Support for the Recognition of October 2026, as "World Menopause Awareness Month" and for Global Awareness and Access to Care During Menopausal Transition And...

Page S5265 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 930--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE RECOGNITION OF OCTOBER 2026, AS "WORLD MENOPAUSE AWARENESS MONTH" AND FOR GLOBAL AWARENESS AND ACCESS TO CARE DURING MENOPAUSAL TRANSITION AND POST-MENOPAUSE Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER (for herself and Mr. Booker) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

Text printed in the Record (3,330 characters)

Whereas, each year, October 18 marks World Menopause Day, a day when organizations and individuals around the world advocate to improve awareness of menopause and support options available for improving health and well-being; Whereas, by 2030, the world population of menopausal and postmenopausal women is projected to increase to 1,200,000,000, with 27,000,000 new entrants each year; Whereas, each year, women in the United States enter the menopausal transition with little guidance on what to expect before, during, and after their reproductive years; Whereas, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, as many as 3 out of 4 women experience hot flashes, the most common menopause symptom, and other symptoms include memory loss, urinary problems, depression, and anxiety; Whereas menopausal symptoms can be severe and affect daily activities and quality of life with hot flashes lasting an average of 7 to 9 years, with a third of women experiencing vasomotor symptoms for a decade or longer; Whereas studies show that Black and Hispanic women may experience menopause earlier, more intense menopausal symptoms, and for a longer period of time; Whereas as many as 40 percent of menopausal women say their symptoms interfered with their work performance or productivity weekly, and nearly 1 in 5 have left or considered leaving the workforce because of their symptoms; Whereas menopause costs women in the United States an estimated $1,800,000,000 in lost working time per year; Whereas, due to medical innovation, a variety of effective treatments for symptoms are available, including non-hormonal medication, hormone therapy, and low-dose antidepressants, that can help improve quality of life during perimenopause and menopause; Whereas, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, menopause may increase the risk of osteoporosis, heart disease, and stroke; and Whereas there is an ongoing need for additional clinical research and treatment options to manage menopause symptoms: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) expresses support for the designation of "World Menopause Awareness Month"; (2) recognizes the impact of menopause on women at individual and societal levels, as well as on the health and economic development of the United States; (3) promotes including training on menopause and treatment options in pre-service curricula for health workers; (4) supports women having access to appropriate health information and services to promote healthy aging and a high quality of life before, during, and after menopause; (5) encourages the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to-- (A) provide information to women, patients, and health care providers with respect to menopause, including available screening tools and treatment options, with a goal of improving quality of life and health outcomes of women affected by menopause; (B) conduct additional research on menopause and possible clinical options; and (C) update information, tools, and studies currently available with respect to helping women live with menopause; and (6) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Senate Resolution 931--Recognizing the Month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and Celebrating the History and Culture of Filipino Americans and Their Immense Contributions to The...

Pages S5265–S5266 · Official text

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Warner, and Ms. Warren) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

Text printed in the Record (8,227 characters)

Whereas the earliest documented Filipino presence in the continental United States was October 18, 1587, when the first "Luzones Indios" arrived in Morro Bay, California, on board the Nuestra Senora de Esperanza, a Manila-built galleon ship; Whereas, in 1763, the first permanent Filipino settlement in the United States was established in St. Malo, Louisiana, marking over 250 years of continuous Filipino American history; Whereas the Filipino American community is the third largest Asian American group in the United States, with a population of approximately 5,000,000; Whereas, from 2000 to 2023, the Filipino American community grew 89 percent, and Filipinos are the largest Asian community in the States of Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming and the territories of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Whereas, in 1991, the Filipino American National Historical Society made efforts to recognize October as Filipino American History Month, in commemoration of the first Filipinos arrival; Whereas, in 2009, Congress first recognized October as Filipino American History Month (S. Res. 298; H. Res. 780); Whereas celebrating Filipino American History Month provides the people of the United States the opportunity to reflect on the many economic, military, political, and social contributions made by Filipino Americans to the development of the United States; Whereas, from the War of 1812 to present day, Filipinos and Filipino Americans have a longstanding history of serving in the Armed Forces of the United States; Whereas more than 250,000 Filipinos fought under the United States flag during World War II to protect and defend the United States in the Pacific theater; Whereas a guarantee to pay back the service of Filipinos through veterans benefits was reversed by the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, 1946 (Public Law 79-301; 60 Stat. 6) and the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, 1946 (Public Law 79-391; 60 Stat. 221), which provided that the wartime service of members of the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines and the new Philippine Scouts shall not be deemed to have been active service, and, therefore, those members did not qualify for certain benefits; Whereas 26,000 Filipino World War II veterans were granted United States citizenship as a result of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-649; 104 Stat. 4978), which was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on November 29, 1990; Whereas, on February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115), which established the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund to compensate Filipino World War II veterans for their service to the United States; Whereas, since June 8, 2016, the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program has allowed Filipino World War II veterans and certain family members to be reunited more expeditiously than the immigrant visa process allowed at that time; Whereas, on December 14, 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-265; 130 Stat. 1376) to award Filipino veterans who fought alongside troops of the United States in World War II the highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress; Whereas, on October 25, 2017, the Congressional Gold Medal was presented to Filipino World War II veterans in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Building, a recognition for which the veterans had waited for more than 70 years; Whereas Filipino Americans have received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force that may be bestowed on an individual serving in the Armed Forces, and continue to demonstrate a commendable sense of patriotism and honor in the Armed Forces; Whereas early Filipino plantation laborers in Hawaii, known as Sakadas, contributed greatly to Hawaii's early agricultural economy and its legacy of strong rights for workers, led by labor organizers like Pablo Manlapit; Whereas early Filipino cannery workers, known as Alaskeros, helped build the United States seafood industry in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest and created the first Filipino-led union, the Cannery Workers' and Farm Labors' Union Local 18257; Whereas the first large group of Filipino immigrants in the early 1900s, known as the Manong generation, became the labor force for the West's vast and growing agricultural industry and faced significant discrimination and exploitation; Whereas Filipino American farmworkers and labor leaders, such as Philip Vera Cruz, Larry Itliong, and Peter Velasco, played an integral role in the multiethnic United Farm Workers movement; Whereas Peter Aquino Aduja of Hawaii and Thelma Garcia Buchholdt of Alaska became the first Filipino American elected to public office and the first Filipina American elected to a legislature in the United States, respectively, inspiring their fellow Filipino Americans to pursue public service in politics and government; Whereas Benjamin Menor of Hawaii and Lorna G. Schofield of New York became the first Filipino Americans to serve as a State supreme court justice and United States district judge, respectively, encouraging new generations of Filipino Americans to enter the legal profession; Whereas, on August 3, 1948, Victoria Manalo Draves became the first Filipino American and Asian American to win an Olympic Gold Medal, and in 1962, Roman Gabriel became the first Filipino American quarterback in the National Football League, and in 1969, the first and only Asian American to be named Most Valuable Player; Whereas Filipino Americans play an integral role in the health care system of the United States as nurses, doctors, first responders, and other medical professionals; Whereas Filipino Americans contribute greatly to music, dance, literature, education, business, hospitality, journalism, sports, fashion, politics, government, science, technology, the fine arts, and other fields that enrich the United States; Whereas Filipino Americans have experienced prejudice, discrimination, and violence throughout the history of the United States, including the 1927 Yakima Valley Riots, the 1930 Watsonville Riots, and the 1999 murder of United States Postal Service Postal Carrier Joseph Ileto; Whereas Filipino American communities in St. Malo, Louisiana and Lahaina, Hawaii were devastated and displaced by hurricanes and the deadliest wildfire in the recent history of the United States, respectively, and demonstrated resiliency as they rebuilt their communities despite language and resource barriers; Whereas efforts should continue to promote the study of Filipino American history and culture because the roles of Filipino Americans and other people of color have largely been overlooked in the writing, teaching, and learning of the history of the United States; Whereas it is imperative for Filipino American youth to have positive role models to instill-- (1) the significance of education, complemented by the richness of Filipino American ethnicity; and (2) the value of the Filipino American legacy; and Whereas it is essential to promote the understanding, education, and appreciation of the history and culture of Filipino Americans in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the celebration of Filipino American History Month in October 2026 as-- (A) a testament to the advancement of Filipino Americans; (B) a time to reflect on and remember the many notable contributions that Filipino Americans have made to the United States; and (C) a time to renew efforts toward the research and examination of history and culture so as to provide an opportunity for all people of the United States to learn more about Filipino Americans and to appreciate the historic contributions of Filipino Americans to the United States; and (2) urges the people of the United States to observe Filipino American History Month with appropriate programs and activities.

SENATE RESOLUTION 932--REQUESTING INFORMATION ON VENEZUELA'S HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES PURSUANT TO SECTION 502B(c) OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

Pages S5266–S5267 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 932--REQUESTING INFORMATION ON VENEZUELA'S HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES PURSUANT TO SECTION 502B(c) OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 Mr. SCHIFF (for himself and Mr. Kaine) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

Text printed in the Record (5,059 characters)

Resolved, SECTION 1. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON VENEZUELA'S HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES. (a) Statement Requested.--The Senate requests that the Secretary of State, not later than 30 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, pursuant to section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304(c)), a statement regarding the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's human rights practices that has been prepared in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the Office of the Legal Adviser at the Department of State. (b) Elements.--The statement submitted pursuant to subsection (a) should include-- (1) all available information concerning alleged violations and abuses of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Government of Venezuela beginning on January 10, 2025, and identifying such alleged violations and abuses that have continued beyond or happened since January 3, 2026, including those involving-- (A) arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, sexual violence, or other abuses of the rights to life, liberty, and the security of person, including of political prisoners; or (B) repression, harassment, political persecution, or restrictions on the freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, expression, and other rights and fundamental freedoms imposed on opposition leaders, civil society organizations, or independent journalists; (2) all available information concerning alleged violations and abuses of internationally recognized human rights committed by all officials of the Government of Venezuela who are currently or were formerly indicted or subject to United States sanctions, including violations committed by the departments or agencies at their direction, including-- (A) Delcy Rodriguez, the Acting President and former Executive Vice President under Nicolas Maduro; (B) Diosdado Cabello, the Minister of Interior, Justice and Peace; (C) Gustavo Enrique Gonzalez Lopez, the current Minister of Defense and former Director of SEBIN under Nicolas Maduro; and (D) Vladimir Padrino Lopez, the current Minister of Productive Agriculture and Lands and former Minister of Defense under Nicolas Maduro; (3) a description of the steps the United States Government took between January 10, 2025, and January 2, 2026, and has taken since January 3, 2026-- (A) to promote respect for, and observance of, human rights as part of the Government of Venezuela's activities; (B) to penalize individuals who wielded government power to suppress political opposition and deter free and fair elections; (C) to discourage any practices that are inimical to internationally recognized human rights; and (D) to publicly or privately call attention to, and disassociate the United States and any security assistance provided for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from, any practices described in subparagraph (B) or (C); and (4) other information, including-- (A) an assessment of the likelihood that United States security assistance (as defined in section 502B(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304(d))) provided to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has been used in support of activities related to facilitating civil repression and arbitrary detentions; (B) an assessment of the efficacy that United States security assistance has brought about change in Venezuela to promote democracy and protect human rights; (C) an assessment of Acting President Delcy Rodriguez's facilitation of arbitrary detentions and civil repression, including denying opposition leaders, such as Maria Corina Machado, the ability to reenter Venezuela; (D) an assessment of Venezuela's Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence, which was enacted by the National Assembly on February 19, 2026, and the extent to which such law restricts hundreds of political prisoners from receiving relief; (E) an assessment of the conditions in prison centers holding political prisoners, including El Helicoide, Rodeo I, Rodeo II, and the Barinas Judicial Internment Center (INJUBA), and an evaluation of the allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and other gross violations of human rights that have taken place in these prison centers; (F) an assessment of the extent to which Venezuelan citizens were deprived of their political rights by the Government of Venezuela's noncompliance with its constitutional requirement to hold a presidential election within 30 days after the April 3, 2026, expiration of Delcy Rodriguez's 90-day temporary role as acting president; and (G) a description of any actions being taken by the United States Government to ensure the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela addresses corruption and human rights violations and abuses tied to civil repression and arbitrary detentions.

Senate Resolution 933--Expressing Support for the Designation of October 2026 as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month"

Page S5267 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 933--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF OCTOBER 2026 AS "NATIONAL DYSLEXIA AWARENESS MONTH" Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. Hickenlooper, and Mrs. Capito) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

Text printed in the Record (2,378 characters)

Whereas dyslexia is-- (1) defined as an unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader; and (2) most commonly caused by a difficulty in phonological processing (the appreciation of the individual sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability of an individual to speak, read, and spell; Whereas the First Step Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-391; 132 Stat. 5194) included a definition of dyslexia as part of the requirement of the Act to screen inmates for dyslexia upon intake in Federal prisons; Whereas the definition of dyslexia in section 3635 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of the First Step Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-391; 132 Stat. 5195), is the first and only definition of dyslexia in a Federal statute; Whereas dyslexia is the most common learning disability and affects 80 to 90 percent of all individuals with a learning disability; Whereas dyslexia is persistent and highly prevalent, affecting as many as 1 out of every 5 individuals; Whereas dyslexia is a paradox, in that an individual with dyslexia may have both-- (1) weaknesses in decoding that result in difficulties in accurate or fluent word recognition; and (2) strengths in higher level cognitive functions, such as reasoning, critical thinking, concept formation, and problem solving; Whereas great progress has been made in understanding dyslexia on a scientific level, including the epidemiology and cognitive and neurobiological bases of dyslexia; Whereas the achievement gap between typical readers and dyslexic readers occurs as early as first grade; Whereas early screening for, and early diagnosis of, dyslexia is critical for ensuring that individuals with dyslexia receive focused, evidence-based intervention that leads to fluent reading, the promotion of self-awareness and self-empowerment, and the provision of necessary accommodations that ensure success in school and in life; and Whereas October 2026 is an appropriate month to designate as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month": Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) calls on Congress, schools, and State and local educational agencies to recognize that dyslexia has significant educational implications that must be addressed; and (2) supports the designation of October 2026 as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month".

Senate Resolution 934--Designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day"

Pages S5267–S5268 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 934--DESIGNATING OCTOBER 10, 2026, AS "AMERICAN GIRLS IN SPORTS DAY" Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Justice, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Lee, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Lankford, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Risch, Mr. Daines, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Budd, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Moreno, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Graham, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Young, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Schmitt) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

Text printed in the Record (2,376 characters)

Whereas athletic participation has an important, positive impact on young girls, improving their physical health, self-confidence, and discipline; Whereas women have been responsible for some of the greatest athletic feats in American history, from the Olympic games to professional competition; Whereas female athletes have served as inspirations for generations of women and girls; Whereas the enactment of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) (referred to in this preamble as "Title IX") marked a pivotal moment in the Federal support of girls in sports; Whereas there are fundamental biological differences between men and women that put women at a competitive disadvantage in sports and jeopardize their safety during competition; Whereas, in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of biological men allowed to compete in women's sports; Whereas, since the 1980s, biological men have displaced women and girls from over 2,000 medals they should have rightfully won; Whereas, on February 5, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14201 (90 Fed. Reg. 9279), entitled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," establishing it as the policy of the United States to protect fair athletic opportunities for women and girls and to oppose male competitive participation in women's sports; Whereas, on June 30, 2026, in West Virginia v. B.P.J., 146 S. Ct. 2356 (2026), and in Little v. Hecox, 146 S. Ct. 2356 (2026), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate athletic teams for men and women based on biological sex, and upheld State laws protecting female athletic competition for biological women and girls; Whereas it is imperative that women's and girls' opportunities to compete athletically are protected; and Whereas October 10th, as represented by the Roman numerals "XX", signifies the female XX chromosomes: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day"; (2) celebrates the impact that American women and girls have had on sports culture throughout our history; (3) recognizes the importance of Title IX in protecting biological women in sports; and (4) calls on sports-governing bodies in the United States and abroad to protect biological women and girls in sports.

Senate Resolution 935--Designating October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day"

Page S5268 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 935--DESIGNATING OCTOBER 23, 2026, AS "NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY DAY" Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Heinrich) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

Text printed in the Record (4,467 characters)

Whereas, on October 23, 1972, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) became law and ushered in a new era of ocean conservation; Whereas the National Marine Sanctuary System is a nationwide network that conserves spectacular oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes; Whereas communities across the United States can nominate their most treasured marine and Great Lakes waters for consideration as national marine sanctuaries; Whereas national marine sanctuaries protect biodiversity, safeguard extraordinary seascapes, historic shipwrecks, and sacred cultural places, and provide abundant recreational opportunities; Whereas national marine sanctuaries seek opportunities to partner with indigenous governments and communities to achieve shared conservation goals and to support the care-taking of ecological resources and cultural sites of indigenous peoples; Whereas national marine sanctuaries protect vital habitats for countless species of fish and wildlife, including many species that are listed as threatened or endangered; Whereas the conservation of marine ecosystems is vital for healthy oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, for addressing climate change, and for sustaining productive coastal economies; Whereas the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation and its partners work to protect and nurture the growth of the National Marine Sanctuary System; Whereas national marine sanctuaries increase access to nature for all, support coastal communities, and generate billions of dollars annually in local communities by providing jobs in the United States, supporting commercial, Tribal, and recreational fisheries, bolstering tourism and recreation, engaging businesses in stewardship, and driving the growth of the blue economy; Whereas national marine sanctuaries connect people and communities through science, education, United States history, recreation, and stewardship and inspire community-based solutions that help individuals understand and protect the spectacular underwater habitats, wildlife, archaeological resources, and cultural seascapes of the United States; Whereas national marine sanctuaries are living laboratories that enable cooperative science and research that improves resource management and advances innovative public-private partnerships; Whereas national marine sanctuaries can help make oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes more resilient by protecting ecosystems that sequester carbon, by safeguarding coastal communities from flooding and storms, and by protecting biodiversity; Whereas the United States is a historic maritime Nation, and oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are central to the way of life of the people of the United States; Whereas engaging communities as stewards of these protected waters makes national marine sanctuaries unique and provides a comprehensive, ecosystem-based, highly participatory approach to managing and conserving marine and Great Lakes environments for current and future generations; and Whereas October 23, 2026, is recognized as "National Marine Sanctuary Day" to increase awareness about the importance of the National Marine Sanctuary System and healthy oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes and to celebrate the many recreational opportunities available for the enjoyment of this network of protected waters: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day"; (2) encourages the people of the United States and the world to responsibly visit, experience, recreate in, and support the treasured national marine sanctuaries of the United States; (3) acknowledges the importance of national marine sanctuaries in supporting community resilience, protecting biodiversity, and increasing access to nature; (4) recognizes the importance of national marine sanctuaries for their recreational opportunities and contributions to local and national economies across the United States; (5) celebrates the ability of the National Marine Sanctuary System to protect nationally significant places in oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes; (6) calls on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to partner with communities and to complete designations of new national marine sanctuaries; and (7) encourages Federal agencies to balance priorities and work together to support the priorities of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).

Senate Resolution 936--Designating October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day"

Page S5268 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 936--DESIGNATING OCTOBER 8, 2026, AS "NATIONAL HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL DAY" Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Murphy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (2,550 characters)

Whereas hydrogen, which has an atomic mass of 1.008, is the most abundant element in the universe; Whereas the United States is a world leader in the development and deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies; Whereas hydrogen fuel cells played an instrumental role in the United States space program, helping the United States achieve the mission of landing a man on the Moon; Whereas private industry, Federal and State governments, national laboratories, and institutions of higher education continue to improve fuel cell and hydrogen technologies to address the most pressing energy, environmental, and economic issues of the United States; Whereas fuel cells utilizing hydrogen and hydrogen-rich fuels to generate electricity are clean, efficient, safe, and resilient technologies being used for-- (1) stationary and backup power generation; and (2) zero-emission transportation for light-duty vehicles, industrial vehicles, delivery vans, buses, trucks, trains, military vehicles, marine applications, and aerial vehicles; Whereas stationary fuel cells are being placed in service for continuous and backup power to provide businesses and other energy consumers with reliable power in the event of grid outages; Whereas stationary fuel cells can help reduce water use, as compared to traditional power generation technologies; Whereas fuel cell electric vehicles that utilize hydrogen can mimic the experience of internal combustion vehicles, including comparable range and refueling times; Whereas hydrogen fuel cell industrial vehicles are deployed at logistical hubs and warehouses across the United States and exported to facilities in Europe and Asia; Whereas hydrogen is a nontoxic gas that can be derived from a variety of domestically available traditional and renewable resources, including solar, wind, bio-gas, and the abundant supply of natural gas in the United States; Whereas hydrogen and fuel cells can store energy to help enhance the grid and maximize opportunities to deploy renewable energy; Whereas the United States produces and uses approximately 10,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year; Whereas engineers and safety code and standard professionals have developed consensus-based protocols for safe delivery, handling, and use of hydrogen; and Whereas the ingenuity of the people of the United States is essential to paving the way for the future use of hydrogen technologies: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day".

Senate Resolution 937--Recognizing the Seriousness of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (Pcos) and Expressing Support for the Designation of September 2026 as "Pcos Awareness Month"

Pages S5268–S5269 · Official text

Ms. WARREN (for herself and Mrs. Fischer) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (4,633 characters)

Whereas polycystic ovary syndrome (referred to in this preamble as "PCOS") is a common health problem among women and girls involving multiple systems of the body, including hormones, metabolism, and mental and reproductive health; Whereas there is no universal definition of PCOS, but researchers estimate that 10 percent of women in the United States are affected by the condition; Whereas, according to a 2023 study, the annual burden of PCOS in the United States is estimated to be in excess of $15,000,000,000, and this estimate does not include-- (1) the cost of all comorbidities in post-menopause or adolescence; or (2) indirect and intangible costs related to the disorder; Whereas PCOS can affect girls at the onset of puberty and throughout the remainder of their lives; Whereas the symptoms of PCOS include infertility, irregular or absent menstrual periods, acne, weight gain, thinning of scalp hair, excessive facial and body hair growth, numerous small ovarian follicles, pelvic pain, and mental health problems; Whereas research has found that women with PCOS have higher rates of mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and eating disorders, and are potentially at greater risk for suicide; Whereas up to 70 percent of women with PCOS are undiagnosed; Whereas PCOS is one of the most common causes of female infertility; Whereas PCOS in pregnancy is associated with increased risk of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preterm delivery, cesarean delivery, miscarriage, and fetal and infant death; Whereas the cause of PCOS is unknown, but researchers have found strong links to a genetic predisposition, significant insulin resistance and cardiometabolic issues (including prediabetes and type 2 diabetes), high blood pressure, high cholesterol, stroke, metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease), and heart disease (the leading cause of death among women); Whereas adolescents with PCOS often are not diagnosed, and many have metabolic dysfunction and insulin resistance (which can lead to type 2 diabetes), cardiovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease), heart disease, and endometrial cancer at a young adult age; Whereas research suggests PCOS may be associated with increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer, and the risk of developing endometrial cancer is 4 times higher than for women who do not have PCOS; Whereas PCOS negatively alters metabolic function independent of, but exacerbated by, an increased body mass index (commonly referred to as "BMI"); Whereas there is no known cure for PCOS; and Whereas, in 2026, "polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome" (or "PMOS") was selected as the new name for PCOS through an international multistakeholder process that provides for both terms to remain in use during a multiyear transition: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes polycystic ovary syndrome (referred to in this resolution as "PCOS") as a serious disorder that impacts many aspects of health, including cardiometabolic, reproductive, and mental health, and quality of life; (2) expresses support for the designation of September 2026 as "PCOS Awareness Month"; (3) supports the goals and ideals of PCOS Awareness Month, which are-- (A) to increase awareness of, and education about, PCOS and its connection to comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes, endometrial cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease, and mental health disorders, among the general public, women, girls, and health care professionals; (B) to improve diagnosis and treatment of PCOS; (C) to disseminate information on diagnosis, treatment, and management of PCOS, including prevention of comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, endometrial cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease, and eating disorders; and (D) to improve quality of life and outcomes for women and girls with PCOS; (4) recognizes the need for further research, improved treatment and care options, and a cure for PCOS; (5) acknowledges the struggles affecting all women and girls who have PCOS in the United States; (6) urges medical researchers and health care professionals to advance their understanding of PCOS to improve research, diagnosis, and treatment of PCOS for women and girls; and (7) encourages States, territories, and localities to support the goals and ideals of PCOS Awareness Month.

Senate Resolution 938--To Honor the Americans Killed by Hamas Terrorists and Their Affiliates on and After October 7, 2023, to Reaffirm the Commitment of the United States to Seek Legal Justice On...

Page S5269 · Official text

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Ms. Rosen) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (4,629 characters)

Whereas, beginning on October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists and their affiliates launched a coordinated and unprovoked attack against the State of Israel, murdering more than 1,200 people, wounding thousands more, and taking 251 hostages, including 12 Americans, into the Gaza Strip; Whereas the Department of State has confirmed that at least 46 Americans were killed by Hamas and its affiliates in the attacks of October 7, 2023, one of the largest losses of American lives in a single day since September 11, 2001; Whereas the 46 Americans who were killed on October 7, 2023, that have been publicly reported as of the date of adoption of this resolution include the following victims: (1) Laor Abramov, 20. (2) Amitai Ben Zvi, 80. (3) Danielle Ben-Senyor, 34. (4) Arnon Benveniste, 26. (5) Yona Betzalel Brief, 23. (6) Itay Chen, 19. (7) Etai Cohen, 22. (8) Giora Duvdevani, 81. (9) Cindy Flash, 67. (10) Itay Glisko, 20. (11) Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23. (12) Gad Haggai, 72. (13) Avraham Hankin, 38. (14) Yannai Kaminka, 20. (15) Hayim Katsman, 32. (16) Roi Yosef Levy, 44. (17) Deborah Matias, 50. (18) Adir Mesika, 23. (19) Smadar Mor Edan, 38. (20) May Naim, 24. (21) Adrienne Neta, 66. (22) Omer Neutra, 21. (23) Jonathan Rom, 23. (24) Ofek Rousso, 21. (25) Avraham Sasi, 65. (26) Ori Mordechai Shani, 22. (27) Sivan Sha'arabany, 21. (28) Yaron Ori Shay, 21. (29) Carol Siman Tov, 70. (30) Johnny Siman Tov, 36. (31) Arbel Siman Tov, 5. (32) Omer Siman Tov, 2. (33) Shachar Siman Tov, 5. (34) Amit Wachs, 49. (35) Igal Wachs, 53. (36) Danielle Waldman, 24. (37) Roey Weiser, 21. (38) Judy Weinstein, 70. (39) Itay Zafrani, 35. (40) Aryeh Ziering, 27; Whereas the remains of several Americans killed on October 7, 2023, as well as the remains of another hostage killed in captivity, were held in Gaza, in some cases for more than 760 days; Whereas seven Americans were released alive following diplomatic efforts in which the United States Government played a significant role across successive administrations, including Judith Raanan and her daughter Natalie Raanan, Avigail (Abigail) Idan, then four years old, Liat Beinin Atzili, Keith Siegel, Sagui Dekel-Chen, and Edan Alexander, the last living American hostage released May 12, 2025, after 584 days in captivity; Whereas the safe return of these American hostages demonstrates what sustained, high-level engagement by the United States Government can achieve on behalf of Americans, and underscores the responsibility of the United States to continue to use every available diplomatic and legal tool on behalf of American hostages and their families; Whereas the families of the American victims of October 7, 2023, continue to seek acknowledgment, accountability, and legal justice on behalf of their murdered loved ones, and have pursued that justice, including through litigation in the courts of the United States against those alleged to have provided material and financial support to Hamas and its affiliates; and Whereas United States law provides American victims of international terrorism, and their families, with avenues to seek legal accountability in United States courts from those responsible for acts of international terrorism, and, where authorized by law, those who provide material support for such acts: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) honors and mourns Americans who were murdered by Hamas terrorists and their affiliates on and after October 7, 2023; (2) expresses its deepest condolences to the hostages, as well as the families and loved ones of American victims; (3) condemns Hamas and its affiliates for the murder of 1,200 people and the taking of 251 hostages on October 7, 2023; (4) commends the sustained diplomatic efforts of the United States Government, across successive administrations, in helping to secure the release of 12 living and fallen Americans taken hostage by Hamas and its affiliates on October 7, 2023, and urges the United States Government to continue to use every available diplomatic and legal tool on behalf of Americans held hostage, alive or deceased, anywhere in the world; (5) supports continued engagement from the United States Government with the victims of October 7, 2023, as well as with their families; and (6) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Secretary of State, for transmission to the families of the American victims murdered by Hamas and its affiliates on and after October 7, 2023, and to the Americans taken hostage and subsequently released and their families.

Senate Resolution 939--Expressing the Sense of the Senate That It Values the Active Participation of the Republic of Kosovo as the State Partner of the Iowa National Guard Over the Past 15 Years

Pages S5269–S5270 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 939--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT IT VALUES THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO AS THE STATE PARTNER OF THE IOWA NATIONAL GUARD OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Ms. Ernst) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (3,454 characters)

Whereas the National Guard State Partnership Program was created in 1993 to link foreign partner countries with segments of the National Guard to foster mutual interests and establish long-term relationships; Whereas, in 2011, the Iowa National Guard and the Kosovo Security Force were joined via the National Guard Bureau's State Partnership Program; Whereas, since 2011, Iowa and Kosovo have participated in numerous joint activities; Whereas several members of the Ministry of Defense and the Kosovo Security Force have received knowledge and training according to the standards, tactics, and strategies of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas the joint activities of the Iowa-Kosovo state partnership have shown the Kosovo Security Force how the United States military operates and have prepared and trained soldiers for international engagements, civil-military operations, crisis management, economic development, higher education, and environmental policy; Whereas, in 2021, Kosovo Security Force deployed to Kuwait for the first time in a joint mission with the Iowa National Guard; Whereas, in May 2024, 165 Kosovo Security Force personnel trained alongside the Iowa National Guard for over three weeks at the Joint Readiness Training Center in Louisiana, focusing on tactical training for joint deployments on peacekeeping missions; Whereas, in the interest of building on the excellent joint cooperation between the Kosovo Security Force and the Iowa National Guard, the Ministry of Defense of Kosovo is currently in the process of designating a military liaison officer, who is expected to deploy to Iowa in the near future to facilitate and coordinate military activities; Whereas the Kosovo Security Force's continued development in accordance with democratic principles, civilian control, and Euro-Atlantic standards contributes to the security and resilience of Kosovo and the broader Western Balkans; Whereas the Government of Kosovo has continued to strengthen defense diplomacy by expanding the network of military attaches and deepening cooperation with strategic partners through Euro-Atlantic integration; Whereas the Government of Kosovo participates in regional cooperation initiatives and provides assistance to neighboring countries; Whereas the Government of Kosovo has expressed strong public support and a commitment to pursuing full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); and Whereas sustained United States engagement with Kosovo sends a clear message of United States commitment to regional security, deterrence, and the peaceful resolution of disputes in the Western Balkans: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the cooperation between the State of Iowa and the Republic of Kosovo and the joint military partnership between the Iowa National Guard and the Kosovo Security Force for the past 15 years; (2) greatly appreciates these efforts by the Iowa National Guard and the Republic of Kosovo, and congratulates the Government and people of Kosovo on their commitment to and participation with the Government and people of the United Sates and other countries in advancing peace, democracy, stability, and mutual understanding among governments and people around the world; and (3) expresses appreciation for the joint endeavors of the Iowa National Guard, the Republic of Kosovo, and the United States in combating malign activities around the world.

Senate Resolution 940--Expressing Support for the Designation of September 2026 as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in Order to Educate Communities Across the United States About Sickle Cell...

Page S5270 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 940--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF SEPTEMBER 2026 AS "SICKLE CELL DISEASE AWARENESS MONTH" IN ORDER TO EDUCATE COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES ABOUT SICKLE CELL DISEASE AND THE NEED FOR RESEARCH, EARLY DETECTION METHODS, EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS, AND PREVENTATIVE CARE PROGRAMS WITH RESPECT TO COMPLICATIONS FROM SICKLE CELL DISEASE AND CONDITIONS RELATED TO SICKLE CELL DISEASE Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Young, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Padilla, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Lankford) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (3,952 characters)

Whereas sickle cell disease (referred to in this preamble as "SCD") is an inherited blood disorder that is a major health problem in the United States and worldwide; Whereas SCD can result in multiple medical complications, including anemia, jaundice, gallstones, strokes, restricted blood flow, damaged tissue in the liver, spleen, and kidneys, and death; Whereas SCD causes acute and chronic episodes of severe pain; Whereas SCD affects an estimated 100,000 individuals in the United States; Whereas approximately 1,800 to 2,000 babies are born with SCD each year in the United States, with the disease occurring in approximately 1 in 365 newborn Black or African American infants and 1 in 16,300 newborn Hispanic-American infants, and can be found in individuals of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Indian origin; Whereas more than 2,000,000 individuals in the United States have the sickle cell trait and 1 in 13 Black or African Americans carries the trait; Whereas there is a 1 in 4 chance that a child born to parents who both have the sickle cell trait will have the disease; Whereas the life expectancy of an individual with SCD in the United States is often severely limited, with some estimates showing a shortened life expectancy of more than 20 years; Whereas sickle cell anemia is a common cause of childhood stroke, and in 2019, fewer than half of children with sickle cell anemia who were 2 to 16 years old received the recommended screening for stroke; Whereas, in 2019, only 2 in 5 children with sickle cell anemia who were 2 to 9 years old used recommended medication that can prevent sickle cell anemia complications; Whereas, in 2020, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine developed a comprehensive strategic plan and blueprint for action to address sickle cell disease, which, among other things, cited the need for new innovative therapies and promoting widespread patient access to approved treatments; Whereas, in 2023, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (commonly known as "HSCT") was the only cure for SCD, and the Food and Drug Administration has since approved 2 gene therapies that have been demonstrated to cure SCD; Whereas, in 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved Casgevy and Lyfgenia, the first 2 cell-based gene therapies to treat certain patients with SCD; Whereas, on July 1, 2026, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the approval of Casgevy to include certain patients aged 2 years and older with SCD and recurrent vaso-occlusive crises or transfusion-dependent b thalassemia; Whereas more research is needed to find more treatments and cures to help individuals with SCD; Whereas the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is operating the cell and gene therapy access model to support outcomes-based agreements between participating Medicaid programs and manufacturers of gene therapies for SCD: Whereas 32 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, representing approximately 84 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries living with SCD, are participating in the cell and gene therapy access model; and Whereas September 2026 has been designated as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in order to educate communities across the United States about SCD, including early detection methods, effective treatments, and preventative care programs with respect to complications from SCD and conditions related to SCD: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals and ideals of Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month; and (2) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month to raise public awareness of the sickle cell trait, preventative care programs, treatments, and other patient services for those suffering from sickle cell disease, complications from sickle cell disease, and conditions related to sickle cell disease.

Senate Resolution 941--Expressing Support for the Designation of the Week of October 24, 2026, to October 31, 2026, as "Bat Week"

Pages S5270–S5271 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 941--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 24, 2026, TO OCTOBER 31, 2026, AS "BAT WEEK" Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. Booker) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (3,002 characters)

Whereas bats are vital to the sustainability of natural ecosystems, national economies, and human health by controlling damaging insect pests, pollinating plants that produce fruits and vegetables, dispersing seeds to ensure healthy functioning forests and fields, and saving farmers in the United States more than $3,700,000,000 in pest control every year; Whereas bats have captured the human imagination through backyard sightings, folklore, art, myths, and legends, making outreach and education about the importance of bats instrumental; Whereas bats are present throughout the world, except in extremely cold regions, and are the second-largest order of mammals with over 1,400 species; Whereas white-nose syndrome, a fungal disease that has killed millions of bats in North America, has now spread to 41 States and 12 species of hibernating bats; Whereas the disease has caused significant declines in populations of the tricolored bat, the little brown bat, and the northern long-eared bat, which is listed as endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); Whereas the Department of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, is leading the international response to the disease in partnership with the United States Forest Service and more than 150 Federal and State agencies, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and universities; Whereas the United States Geological Survey and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service co-lead the multinational, multiagency North American Bat Monitoring Program, which, since 2015, has consolidated nearly 94,000,000 records from partners in 49 States, 9 Canadian Provinces, and 20 Tribal organizations, demonstrating the power of collaborative conservation science to monitor changes in North American bat populations; Whereas the United States Geological Survey conducts scientific research on bats that helps resource managers and policymakers make informed decisions regarding the conservation of bats across North America; and Whereas, in the past decade, the international partnership of States, Tribes, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other institutions has made extraordinary progress to understand white-nose syndrome, slow the spread of the disease, and develop treatments that hold promise for ending this epidemic: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) expresses support for the designation of the week of October 24, 2026, to October 31, 2026, as "Bat Week"; (2) encourages the observance of Bat Week with appropriate events and activities; (3) acknowledges the important role bats play as pollinators and pest control for agriculture; and (4) intends to-- (A) continue working to conserve bat species and their habitat; and (B) work to defeat the disease known as white-nose syndrome.

Senate Resolution 942--Recognizing and Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Forensic Science Week

Page S5271 · Official text

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Risch) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (3,351 characters)

Whereas the Senate is committed to the use of forensic science in the investigation of crimes, the prosecution and conviction of the correct perpetrators of crimes, and the exoneration of innocent individuals falsely accused of crimes in the United States; Whereas forensic science service providers address critical questions in civil and criminal investigations and trials in the United States, including by providing scientific conclusions relating to forensic evidence; Whereas forensic science service providers partner with-- (1) Federal agencies to build and maintain criminal databases relating to latent prints, DNA, and other information relevant to criminal cases; and (2) Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure public safety; Whereas forensic science service providers serve a vital role in the criminal justice system by providing scientific information to investigators and officers of the court; and Whereas the week of September 20, 2026, to September 26, 2026, is recognized as "National Forensic Science Week": Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Forensic Science Week; and (2) recognizes that National Forensic Science Week provides a special opportunity for-- (A) forensic science service providers-- (i) to acknowledge the contributions of forensic scientists in the laboratories in which those individuals work; (ii) to organize community events to encourage a better understanding of forensic science; (iii) to provide tours to Federal, State, and local policymakers to assist those individuals in gaining better insight into the current capabilities of forensic science service providers and the future demands that forensic science service providers will face; and (iv) to contact and invite local media outlets to cover events hosted during National Forensic Science Week; (B) local policymakers-- (i) to recognize, through formal commendation or resolution, the contributions of local forensic science laboratories to the communities of those policymakers; (ii) to formally declare the week of September 20, 2026, to September 26, 2026, to be "National Forensic Science Week" by proclamation; (iii) to visit local forensic science laboratories to gain an understanding of the capabilities and needs of those laboratories; and (iv) to discuss the operational needs of State and local forensic science laboratories; (C) individuals in the United States, including members of the media-- (i) to attend community events sponsored by local forensic science laboratories; (ii) to take tours of local forensic science laboratories; and (iii) to ask local forensic science laboratories about the operational and legislative needs of those laboratories; (D) members of the media to highlight local news stories that focus on the work of local forensic science laboratories in the communities that those laboratories serve; and (E) public safety officers, law enforcement officers, and officers of the court-- (i) to attend community events sponsored by local forensic science laboratories; (ii) to take tours of local forensic science laboratories; (iii) to discuss the operational needs of State and local forensic science laboratories; and (iv) to engage with local forensic science laboratories about working together more effectively.

Senate Resolution 943--Supporting the Goals and Ideals of a National Move Over Law Day

Page S5271 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 943--SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF A NATIONAL MOVE OVER LAW DAY Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself and Mrs. Fischer) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (2,701 characters)

Whereas the Senate wishes to recognize traffic incident management responders (as described in the Traffic Incident Management Handbook of the Federal Highway Administration), which include law enforcement officers, fire and rescue personnel, emergency medical services personnel, tow truck operators, and transportation workers; Whereas many traffic incident management responders are seriously injured or lose their lives while performing their duties each year as a result of being struck by speeding, impaired, or distracted motorists and motorists who are not aware of move over laws; Whereas, in 2025, 36 traffic incident management responders were killed in the United States due to roadside collisions, according to data published by the Emergency Responder Safety Institute; Whereas the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation host the Crash Responder Safety Week annually in November as part of a national effort-- (1) to protect traffic incident management responders who are at the scene of highway crashes; and (2) to remind the public of their responsibility to slow down, move over, and stay alert when driving near roadside incidents involving traffic incident management responders; Whereas each State has a move over law, which has correlated directly with a safer environment on the roads and along the roadsides of the United States for traffic incident management responders and stranded travelers; Whereas move over laws generally require motorists to move at least one lane over when there is an emergency or rescue activity taking place, including on the shoulder or side of the roadway, or, if unable to do so safely, to slow down and pass the scene with caution; Whereas the Government Accountability Office report entitled "Roadside Safety: DOT Should Update Public Awareness Materials on Move Over Laws" (GAO-24-106216) stated that available resources affect States' abilities to raise public awareness of their move over laws; and Whereas providing traffic incident management responders with an enhanced opportunity to inform the motoring public about move over laws is critical to the public safety: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals and ideals of a National Move Over Law Day; and (2) urges national, State, and regional incident management organizations-- (A) to spread awareness and promote the existence of, and adherence to, State move over laws; and (B) to educate the public further on the dangers and loss of life that occur if State move over laws are not faithfully observed.

Senate Resolution 944--Designating September 2026 as "School Bus Safety Month"

Pages S5271–S5272 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 944--DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 2026 AS "SCHOOL BUS SAFETY MONTH" Mrs. FISCHER (for herself and Mr. Peters) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (2,699 characters)

Whereas school buses comprise the largest mass transportation fleet in the United States; Whereas, in an average year, 26,000,000 K-12 students ride a school bus every day, and school bus operators drive school buses more than 3,800,000,000 miles; Whereas the Child Safety Network (referred to in this preamble as the "CSN"), which is celebrating 37 years of public service in the United States, supports the CSN Safe Ride campaign, which is designed to provide the school bus industry with driver training, the latest technology, and free safety and security resources, including resources to help parents raise safer and healthier children; Whereas CSN is providing free downloadable video education to tens of millions of kindergarten through sixth grade students on danger zones, safely boarding and disembarking from school buses, emergency evacuation, pedestrian safety, and preventing bullying aboard school buses; Whereas billions of student boarding and unloading events occur each school year; Whereas motorists illegally pass stopped school buses tens of millions of times annually, placing students entering and exiting school buses at risk, and CSN continues to work with local, State, and Federal authorities, institutions of higher education, school transportation professionals, and other safety partners to identify, evaluate, and advance evidence-based countermeasures and technologies intended to reduce these preventable threats; Whereas the designation of School Bus Safety Month will allow broadcast and digital media and social networking industries to commit to disseminating public service announcements that are produced to-- (1) provide free resources designed to safeguard children; (2) recognize school bus operators and professionals; and (3) encourage the driving public to engage in safer driving behavior near school buses when students board and disembark from school buses; Whereas key leaders who deserve recognition during School Bus Safety Month and beyond have, according to the CSN-- (1) provided security awareness training materials to more than 14,000 school districts; (2) trained more than 131,000 transportation professionals; and (3) provided access to more than 181,000 counterterrorism guides to individuals who are key to providing both safety and security for children in the United States; and Whereas School Bus Safety Month offers the Senate and the people of the United States an opportunity to recognize and thank the school bus operators and the professionals focused on school bus safety and security in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates September 2026 as "School Bus Safety Month".

Senate Resolution 945--Designating November 7, 2026, as "National Bison Day"

Page S5272 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 945--DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 7, 2026, AS "NATIONAL BISON DAY" Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Warren, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Moran, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Coons, Mr. Booker, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Ricketts, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Smith, and Mrs. Hyde-Smith) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (4,057 characters)

Whereas, on May 9, 2016, the North American bison was adopted as the national mammal of the United States; Whereas bison are considered a historical and cultural symbol of the United States; Whereas bison are integrally linked with the economic and spiritual lives of many Indian Tribes through trade and sacred ceremonies; Whereas there are approximately 87 Indian Tribes participating in the InterTribal Buffalo Council, which is a Tribal organization incorporated pursuant to section 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the "Indian Reorganization Act") (48 Stat. 988, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 5124); Whereas numerous members of Indian Tribes are involved in bison restoration on Tribal land; Whereas members of Indian Tribes have a combined herd of almost 25,000 bison on more than 1,000,000 acres of Tribal land in 22 States; Whereas bison play an important role in the health of the wildlife, landscapes, and grasslands of the United States; Whereas bison hold significant economic value for private producers and Tribal and rural communities; Whereas, as of 2022, the Department of Agriculture estimates that 192,477 head of bison were under the stewardship of private producers, creating jobs and contributing to the food security of the United States by providing a sustainable and healthy meat source; Whereas a bison has been depicted on the official seal of the Department of the Interior since 1912; Whereas the Department of the Interior has launched the Bison Conservation Initiative, a 10-year cooperative initiative to coordinate the conservation and restoration of wild American bison; Whereas a bison is portrayed on 2 State flags; Whereas the bison has been adopted by 3 States as the official mammal or animal of those States; Whereas the buffalo nickel played an important role in modernizing the currency of the United States; Whereas several sports teams and businesses have the bison as a mascot, which highlights the iconic and cultural significance of bison in the United States; Whereas Indigenous communities and a group of ranchers helped save bison from extinction in the late 1800s by gathering the remaining bison of the diminished herds; Whereas, on December 8, 1905, William Hornaday, Theodore Roosevelt, and others formed the American Bison Society in response to the near extinction of bison in the United States; Whereas, on October 11, 1907, the American Bison Society sent 15 captive-bred bison from the New York Zoological Park, now known as the "Bronx Zoo", to the first big game refuge in the United States, now known as the "Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge"; Whereas, in 2005, the American Bison Society was reestablished, bringing together bison ranchers, Native American leaders and bison herd managers, Federal and State agencies, conservation organizations, artists, writers, young people, and natural and social scientists from the United States, Canada, and Mexico to create a vision for the North American bison in the 21st century; Whereas there are bison herds in national wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests, and other Federal land; Whereas there are bison in State-managed herds across 11 States; Whereas private, public, and Tribal bison leaders are working together to continue bison restoration throughout North America; Whereas there is a growing effort to celebrate and officially recognize the historical, cultural, and economic significance of the North American bison to the heritage of the United States; and Whereas members of Indian Tribes, bison producers, conservationists, sportsmen, educators, and other public and private partners have celebrated the annual National Bison Day since 2012 and are committed to continuing this tradition annually on the first Saturday of November: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates November 7, 2026, the first Saturday of November, as "National Bison Day"; and (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Senate Resolution 946--Designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day"

Pages S5272–S5273 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 946--DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, AS "NATIONAL VETERANS SUICIDE PREVENTION DAY" Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Moran, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Warner, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Reed, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Peters, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Booker, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (2,498 characters)

Whereas the wounds sustained through armed service to the United States are both visible and invisible; Whereas the wounds sustained through armed service to the United States may be invisible, but those wounds are treatable if the bearers of those wounds are connected to the right resources; Whereas the Department of Veterans Affairs has reported that there are, on average, 17.5 veteran suicides per day; Whereas veterans account for a disproportionate percentage of all adult suicides in the United States; Whereas early intervention, connection to care, and community support are critical components of effective suicide prevention; Whereas comprehensive veteran suicide prevention efforts include promoting evidence-based practices to reduce suicide risk, including promoting safe firearm storage and connecting veterans in crisis with timely care and support; Whereas preventing veteran suicide requires collaboration among Federal, State, and local governments, veteran service organizations, health care providers, and community partners; Whereas the surviving family members of veterans who succumb to the invisible wounds of armed service to the United States must not be forgotten or isolated, but instead should remain connected to available resources, support, and the strength of the military and veteran communities; Whereas the families of veterans who die by suicide hold valuable lessons from their experiences that may help inform efforts to prevent future suicides among veterans, and those experiences should be leveraged in prevention efforts; Whereas formal recognition of the families of veterans who succumb to the invisible wounds of armed service to the United States is vital to the strength, health, and survival of the veteran community; Whereas those who have been lost to suicide and their families should be remembered, recognized, supported, and heard on National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day and throughout the year; and Whereas September 30, 2026, is an appropriate day to designate as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day": Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the designation of September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day"; and (2) encourages the people of the United States, veteran service organizations, community partners, and health care providers to observe the day with appropriate programs and activities that raise awareness of veteran suicide prevention and available resources.

Senate Resolution 947--Designating September 2026 as "National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month"

Page S5273 · Official text

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Bennet) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (1,892 characters)

Whereas each year almost 15,000 children and adolescents up to age 19 in the United States are diagnosed with cancer; Whereas every year approximately 1,600 children and adolescents in the United States lose their lives to cancer; Whereas cancer is the leading cause of death from disease for children and adolescents after infancy and one of the leading causes of death overall for children and adolescents in the United States; Whereas the 5-year survival rate for children and adolescents with cancer in the United States has increased from 63 percent in the mid-1970s to more than 85 percent as of the date of introduction of this resolution, representing a significant improvement from previous decades; Whereas from 60 to more than 90 percent of children and adolescents in the United States who survive cancer will develop at least one chronic health condition, and some survivors may face a late effect from treatment that can be severe or life-threatening; and Whereas childhood cancer occurs frequently and spares no racial or ethnic group, socioeconomic class, or geographic region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates September 2026 as "National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month"; (2) requests that the Federal Government, States, localities, and nonprofit organizations observe the month with appropriate programs and activities, with the goal of increasing public knowledge of the risks of childhood cancer; (3) encourages survivors of childhood cancer to continue to receive ongoing monitoring and care throughout their adult lives; (4) recognizes the human toll of childhood cancer and pledges to make the prevention of and cure for childhood cancer a public health priority; (5) reminds the people of the United States of the bravery of children who are diagnosed with cancer; and (6) commends and honors the courage of such children.

Senate Resolution 948--Commending and Congratulating Texas A&m University for 150 Years of Service to the State of Texas and the United States

Pages S5273–S5274 · Official text

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Cruz) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Text printed in the Record (7,002 characters)

Whereas President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Land-Grant Agricultural and Mechanical College Act of 1862 (7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) (commonly known as and referred to in this preamble as the "Morrill Land-Grant Act"), granting public lands to the States to fund colleges for the benefit of agriculture, mechanic arts, and military tactics and, thereby establishing a system of land-grant universities in the United States; Whereas the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (AMC) was chartered on April 17, 1871, under the Morrill Land-Grant Act by the Texas Legislature, making it the first public institution of higher education in the State of Texas; Whereas, on October 4, 1876, the AMC, founded as a military institution grounded in discipline, leadership, and camaraderie, held its inaugural day of classes with 6 students and 6 faculty members; Whereas Major Robert P.W. Morris, a Virginia Military Institute graduate, was among the first 6 faculty members and served as the Corps of Cadets' first commandant; Whereas, in 1887, the Scott Volunteers, renamed the Ross Volunteers in 1890, were established as a cadet drill team and would later serve as the official honor guard of the governor of Texas, making the company the oldest of its kind in Texas; Whereas, in 1890, Lawrence Sullivan Ross, former governor of Texas, was appointed President of AMC; Whereas, in 1894, the nationally acclaimed Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, known for its precision military marching formations, was formed; Whereas, in 1917, the AMC offered its campus facilities and equipment for war training and was the first college in the United States to do so; Whereas, during World War I, approximately 49 percent of all AMC graduates (referred to in this preamble as "Aggies") were in military service; Whereas, during World War I, more than 2,000 Aggies served and more than 70 Aggies made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the United States; Whereas, during World War II, more than 20,000 Aggies entered the Armed Forces of the United States, and the entire senior class of 1943 mobilized directly into service; Whereas, during World War II, the AMC produced more than 14,000 Aggies who served as officers and 29 Aggies who reached the rank of general, contributing more officers to the Armed Forces than the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy combined; Whereas, during World War II, Aggies fought in every major theater of the war, including the D-Day invasion, the Battle of the Bulge, and the Pacific campaign, and were among the liberators of Nazi concentration camps; Whereas, on April 21, 1946, 128 Aggie veterans of World War II returned to Corregidor Island to honor fallen comrades by reading aloud the names of the 27 Aggies, and thereby established the way Aggie Muster is observed today, serving as an enduring example of loyalty and remembrance; Whereas AMC's contributions to World War I and World War II fundamentally shaped the university's culture, traditions, and identity as a leading military and land-grant institution; Whereas the Fish Drill Team, formed in 1947 by 36 freshmen as a competitive rifle drill squad within the AMC Corps of Cadets that promotes unity and military precision, is now integral to the university's mission to develop leaders of character dedicated to serving the greater good; Whereas, in 1950, the Liberty Bell replica given to Texas was presented to AMC to honor the university's extraordinary military service and sacrifice; Whereas, on April 21, 1951, the Memorial Student Center was dedicated in honor of students killed during military service to the United States; Whereas James Earl Rudder, who graduated from AMC in 1932, became a United States Army Major General known for leading the 2nd Ranger Battalion on D-Day, and in 1959, he was appointed President of the university; Whereas, on February 24, 1962, the Texas Maritime Academy, one of only 6 maritime academies in the United States, was established to give cadets practical experience in seamanship, navigation, and engineering operations; Whereas, in 1963, under President Rudder's leadership, the university opened enrollment to African American students and began admitting women on a limited basis; Whereas, in 1963, the Texas Legislature renamed the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas as Texas A&M University, maintaining a symbolic link to the school's past; Whereas, in 1964, the first African American freshmen joined the Corps of Cadets; Whereas, in 1965, participation in the Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets was made voluntary, while the Corps continued to embody the university's commitment to spirit and traditions; Whereas, in 1968, the Mitchell Campus at Texas A&M University at Galveston was established on 100 acres on Pelican Island that was donated by George P. Mitchell, who graduated from AMC in 1940; Whereas, in 1971, the Texas Maritime Academy was incorporated into the College of Marine Sciences and Maritime Resources, later renamed the Moody College of Marine Sciences and Maritime Resources; Whereas, in 1972, the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps was established at Texas A&M University, making the Corps of Cadets open to all branches of the Armed Forces; Whereas, in 1973, Parsons Mounted Cavalry, named after former Corps Commandant Colonel Thomas R. Parsons, who graduated from AMC in 1949, was founded as the only collegiate mounted cavalry unit in the United States; Whereas, in 1974, the Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets began admitting women into the Corps, with 51 women joining the all-female outfit W-1; Whereas, in 1981, the Texas Legislature officially renamed the Moody College as Texas A&M University at Galveston; Whereas, in 1984, Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug, known as the Father of the Green Revolution, began teaching and conducting research at Texas A&M University, underscoring the university's global impact, cutting-edge research, and academic excellence; Whereas, in 1989, Texas A&M University is recognized as one of the first land-, sea-, and space-grant universities in the nation; Whereas, on November 6, 1997, former United States President George H.W. Bush dedicated the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum to Texas A&M University's campus because of the university's strong culture of tradition, duty, and public service; Whereas, in 1999, the Texas A&M Health Science Center was founded to organize and unify health-related academic programs into one comprehensive health institution, and now serves as an interdisciplinary and collaborative community dedicated to improving health and quality of life; Whereas, in 2001, Texas A&M University became a member of the Association of American Universities, an association of leading research universities at the forefront of innovation, scholarship, and solutions that contribute to scientific progress, economic development, and national security; Whereas, in 2002, Dr.

Text printed in the Record (5,547 characters)

Robert Gates became the 22nd President of Texas A&M University, and in 2006 he was appointed to serve as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense; Whereas, in 2002, Texas A&M University was designated the Military College of Texas by former Governor Rick Perry, who graduated from Texas A&M University in 1972, in recognition of the university's extensive history of military service, officer training programs, and student organizations that develop patriotic leaders; Whereas, in August 2013, Texas A&M University acquired Texas Wesleyan Law School, renamed the Texas A&M University School of Law, which provides legal education that, as of the date of this resolution, is ranked among the top-25 nationally and produces service-oriented lawyers; Whereas, in 2017, the Higher Education Center at McAllen was established, which empowers students to fulfill individual career goals, enhances economic development of the Rio Grande Valley, and supports a strong labor market; Whereas, in 2021, Texas A&M University's Bush School of Government and Public Service opened its Washington, DC, teaching site, to offer graduate students from diverse backgrounds a path to successful careers in national security, diplomacy, and intelligence; Whereas, as of the date of this resolution, Texas A&M University has grown to host more than 81,300 students participating in more than 410 programs of study across 17 colleges and schools, 3 branch campuses, a law school, and specialized health science centers across Texas; Whereas Texas A&M University offers more than 1,300 student organizations, where students cultivate character grounded in the Aggie Core Values; Whereas Texas A&M University's oldest, largest, and most recognizable student organization is the Corps of Cadets; Whereas Texas A&M University holds a Senior Military College (SMC) designation, has the largest uniformed student body outside the United States service academies, and consistently commissions more officers into the United States Armed Forces than any other SMC; Whereas Texas A&M University has established a learning environment that prepares the next generation of leaders to make a difference in the State of Texas, the United States, and around the world (referred to in this preamble as "Aggie leaders"); Whereas notable Aggie leaders include 14 United States Congressmen, 3 United States Cabinet Secretaries, 2 Governors, 2 International Heads of State, dozens of State legislators, 3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts, and 9 Medal of Honor recipients; Whereas Texas A&M University ranks among the top research institutions in the United States and, as of 2024, the largest in Texas, with annual research expenditures of more than $1,500,000,000, making Texas A&M University a leader in discoveries in science, security, health, energy, agriculture, and space; Whereas quality academic and research experiences at Texas A&M University are supported by The Texas A&M Foundation, where The Foundation, founded in 1953 by 21 former students, serves as the primary academic fundraiser for the university, raising $412,000,000 in 2025 through collaboration with former students, corporations, and supporters; Whereas Texas A&M University, a proud member of the Southeastern Conference, fields more than 650 student-athletes across 20 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I men's and women's varsity teams and has earned 33 national championship titles, including recent championships in women's volleyball and women's tennis; Whereas the traditions surrounding Texas A&M Athletics, including the 12th Man, Midnight Yell, and Kyle Field, reflect the unity and school spirit of tens of thousands of Aggie students, alumni, and fans; Whereas Texas A&M Athletics is supported by the 12th Man Foundation, which is a charitable organization founded in 1950 to raise funds for athletes returning from World War II and has raised more than $47,000,000 for scholarships, programs, and facilities in support of championship athletics; Whereas, since its founding in 1876, more than 653,000 students have graduated from Texas A&M University; Whereas Texas A&M University is supported by The Association of Former Students, which was formed in 1919 by a coalition of alumni groups and serves to strengthen the network of former students, promote the interests of Texas A&M University, and serve the current student body, including by raising $16,700,000 in 2025 and supporting 15 constituent networks and 259 chartered clubs worldwide; Whereas Texas A&M University is committed to honoring tradition, promoting academic excellence, exemplifying service, driving discovery and innovation, and cultivating leadership for future generations; and Whereas October 4, 2026, marks 150 years of service by Texas A&M University to the State of Texas and the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate (1) commends and congratulates Texas A&M University for 150 years of service to the State of Texas and the United States; (2) recognizes Texas A&M University's 150 years of service and its impact as a force for good for the State of Texas and the United States; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the chairman of the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents; Mr. Robert Albritton; (B) the chancellor of the Texas A&M University, the Honorable Glenn Hegar; and (C) the president of Texas A&M University, Dr. Susan Ballabina.

Senate Resolution 949--Designating October 12, 2026, as "National Loggers Day"

Page S5274 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 949--DESIGNATING OCTOBER 12, 2026, AS "NATIONAL LOGGERS DAY" Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

Text printed in the Record (1,219 characters)

Whereas the logging industry has served as an economic driver and cultural tradition in the United States for centuries; Whereas the logging industry creates rural jobs and provides revenue for local and State governments and National forests; Whereas loggers provide renewable material for products used by people in the United States every day; Whereas loggers are the first link in the $288,000,000 domestic forest products supply chain; Whereas loggers are the means by which healthy forest management plans are accomplished; Whereas logging provides for healthy forests, which-- (1) create and maintain vital wildlife habitats; (2) protect watersheds; (3) provide young forests that sequester carbon for cleaner air; (4) provide social wellbeing and public recreational opportunities; and (5) reduce loss of life and property from wildfires; Whereas logging provides for healthy forests through regeneration and conservation, including by planting 2,500,000,000 trees annually; and Whereas innovative clean energy solutions and clean energy jobs are part of the energy future of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates October 12, 2026, as "National Loggers Day".

Text of Amendments

Pages S5274–S5294 · Official text

SA 6845. Mr. MARKEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 9340, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (11,915 characters)

On page 2, line 4, strike "2" and insert "4". On page 2, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following: SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. It is the sense of Congress that the high level of electricity usage by data centers constitutes interstate commerce. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Commission.--The term "Commission" means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (2) Data center.--The term "data center" includes any facility, or group of facilities with the same owner located in the same utility area, that-- (A) primarily contains electronic equipment used to host information and information systems accessed by other systems or by users on other devices both in and outside of the State in which the facility or group of facilities is located; (B) is a free-standing structure or a facility within a larger structure that uses environmental control equipment to maintain the proper conditions for the operation of electronic equipment; and (C) has an energy demand greater than 50 megawatts. (3) Data center corporation.--The term "data center corporation" means any corporation, joint-stock company, partnership, association, business trust, organized group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or a receiver or trustee of such, that owns or proposes to own a data center. (4) Distributed clean energy resource.--The term "distributed clean energy resource" means any small-scale, modular electricity generation, storage, or demand-side management technology that-- (A) is located on the distribution system, on a subsystem, or behind a customer meter; and (B) generates or stores renewable energy and storage or manages demand for electricity. (5) Fund.--The term "Fund" means the Distributed Renewable Energy Fund established under section 5(b)(4). (6) Independent system operator.--The term "Independent System Operator" has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796). (7) Labor organization.--The term "labor organization" has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152). (8) Labor peace agreement.--The term "labor peace agreement" means a written agreement between an employer and a labor organization through which the employer guarantees that-- (A) the employer will be neutral regarding any of the employees of the employer seeking to be represented by the labor organization; and (B) if employees seek to be represented by a labor organization, the employer shall recognize the labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative on a showing that a majority of the employees choose to be represented by the labor organization. (9) Project labor agreement.--The term "project labor agreement" means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with 2 or more labor organizations that-- (A) establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project; and (B) is an agreement described in subsections (e) and (f) of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158). (10) Regional transmission organization.--The term "Regional Transmission Organization" has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796). (11) Renewable energy and storage.--The term "renewable energy and storage" means any 1 or more of wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, or battery energy. (12) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy. (13) Transmission planning region.--The term "Transmission Planning Region"-- (A) when used in a geographical sense, means a region for which the Commission determines that electric transmission planning is appropriate, such as a region established in accordance with Order No. 1000 of the Commission, entitled "Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities" (76 Fed. Reg. 49842 (August 11, 2011)); and (B) when used in a corporate sense, means the Regional Transmission Organization, Independent System Operator, or other entity responsible for planning or operating electric transmission facilities within a region described in subparagraph (A). On page 6, after line 7, add the following: SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATA CENTER INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENTS. (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue 1 or more rules requiring that-- (1) each Transmission Planning Region shall establish a distinct data center interconnection queue; and (2) with respect to each such interconnection queue, a data center corporation shall-- (A) pay a fee to join the interconnection queue; (B) pay a fee to exit the interconnection queue, if the decision to exit the interconnection queue is made by the data center owner or operator; (C) pay the full cost of any new or upgraded infrastructure, including generation infrastructure and transmission infrastructure, needed to serve the data center, directly or indirectly; (D) enter into a binding agreement with the Transmission Planning Region to reduce or shift their electricity usage during peak demand periods and other periods of grid stress in response to a request from the applicable electric utility or Transmission Planning Region; (E) utilize project labor agreements and labor peace agreements; and (F) meet the renewable energy and storage requirements described in subsection (b). (b) Renewable Energy and Storage Requirements.-- (1) Requirement for data centers interconnected at the transmission level.-- (A) In general.--Beginning on the applicable date described in subparagraph (B), 100 percent of the peak megawatt demand of each data center that is interconnected at the transmission level shall be-- (i) derived from new renewable energy and storage described in subparagraph (A) or (B) paragraph (3); (ii) energy for which the data center makes a contribution to the Fund in accordance with subparagraph (C) of that paragraph; or (iii) offset with efficiency improvements by using grid-enhancing technologies or alternative transmission technologies that increase delivery of power over transmission networks, including-- (I) dynamic line ratings; (II) topology optimization; (III) power flow control; or (IV) advanced conductors and superconductors. (B) Date described.--The date referred to in subparagraph (A) is-- (i) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to a data center interconnecting at the transmission level on or after that date; and (ii) the date that is 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to a data center that is already interconnected at the transmission level as of the day before the date described in clause (i). (C) Phase-in for certain data centers.--With respect to a data center described in subparagraph (B)(ii), the applicable data center corporation shall ensure that-- (i) by January 1, 2030, not less than 40 percent of the peak megawatt demand of the data center is in compliance with subparagraph (A); and (ii) by January 1, 2035, not less than 70 percent of the peak megawatt demand of the data center is in compliance with that subparagraph. (2) Rules for determinations.--For purposes of this subsection, any determination of the peak megawatt demand of a data center, the megawatts required by a data center, or the monetary value of any megawatts in the applicable Transmission Planning Region shall be-- (A) made by the data center, in partnership with the applicable Transmission Planning Region, on an annual basis; and (B) subject to approval by the Commission, with the burden of proof on the data center. (3) Compliance strategies.--A data center corporation shall ensure compliance with paragraph (1) through a combination of the following approaches, as determined by the data center corporation: (A) Adding renewable energy and storage to the electric grid, subject to the conditions that-- (i) the renewable energy and storage-- (I) comes from new renewable energy and storage sources built specifically to support the data center; (II) is not existing renewable energy and storage diverted from the electric grid; and (III) is generated or stored in the same Transmission Planning Region as the data center; and (ii) the electricity consumed by the data center is matched, on an hour-by-hour basis, by the renewable energy and storage described in clause (i). (B) Adding on-site renewable energy and storage, which may account for not more than 20 percent of the total megawatts required to meet the peak megawatt demand of the data center. (C) Contributing to the Fund an amount equal to the monetary value, in the applicable Transmission Planning Region, of the megawatts required by the data center for the applicable year, which shall account for a minimum of 10 percent of the total megawatts required to meet the peak megawatt demand of the data center. (4) Distributed renewable energy fund.-- (A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a fund, to be known as the "Distributed Renewable Energy Fund". (B) Deposits.-- (i) In general.--There shall be deposited in the Fund such amounts as are contributed by data centers pursuant to paragraph (2)(C). (ii) Requirement.--Deposits under paragraph (2)(C) shall be made on an annual basis. (C) Administration.-- (i) Fund segregation.--The Secretary shall segregate amounts in the Fund based on the Transmission Planning Regions in which the data centers for which those funds were deposited are located. (ii) Uses.--The Secretary shall use amounts segregated for a Transmission Planning Region under clause (i) to provide grants to States in that Transmission Planning Region or relevant nonprofit organizations in those States for the purposes of providing grants, loans, or other forms of financial assistance to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from distributed clean energy resources that utilize renewable energy, such as rooftop solar. (c) Prohibition.--No new diesel storage facility may be constructed to serve a data center constructed on or after the date of enactment of this Act. (d) Enforcement.--The Commission shall establish fines for noncompliance with this section. SEC. 6. STATE CONSIDERATION OF STANDARDS. (a) In General.--Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) (as amended by section 4(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(23) Data centers.--Each State shall consider establishing frameworks and requirements consistent with the frameworks and requirements described in section 5 of the Ratepayer Protection Act.". (b) Compliance.-- (1) Time limitation.--Section 112(b) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2622(b)) (as amended by section 4(b)(1)(A)) is amended-- (A) by indenting paragraphs (4) through (9), and any subparagraphs within those paragraphs, appropriately; and (B) by adding at the end the following: "(10)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with respect to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking authority) and each nonregulated electric utility shall commence consideration under section 111, or set a hearing date for consideration, with respect to the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d). "(B) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with respect to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking authority), and each nonregulated electric utility shall complete the consideration and make the determination under section 111 with respect to the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d).". (2) Failure to comply.--Section 112(c) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.

Text printed in the Record (1,832 characters)

2622(c)) (as amended by section 4(b)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "In the case of the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d), the reference contained in this subsection to the date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of that paragraph (23).". (3) Prior state actions.-- (A) In general.--Section 112 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2622) (as amended by section 4(b)(1)(C)) is amended-- (i) in each of subsections subsection (h) and (i), in the subsection heading, by striking "Other"; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: "(j) Prior State Actions.--Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to the standard established by paragraph (22) of section 111(d) in the case of any electric utility in a State if, before the date of enactment of this subsection-- "(1) the State has implemented the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility; "(2) the State regulatory authority for the State or the relevant nonregulated electric utility has conducted a proceeding to consider implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility; or "(3) the State legislature has voted on the implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility during the 3-year period ending on that date of enactment.". (B) Cross-reference.--Section 124 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2634) (as amended by section 4(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "In the case of the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d), the reference contained in this section to the date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of that paragraph (23).". ______

SA 6846. Mr. GALLEGO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 9340, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (2,161 characters)

At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. __. IMPOSITION OF DATA CENTER FRESHWATER CONSUMPTION TAX. (a) In General.--Chapter 38 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter: "Subchapter E--Tax on Consumption of Freshwater by Data Centers "Sec. 4691. Data Center Freshwater Consumption Tax. "SEC. 4691. DATA CENTER FRESHWATER CONSUMPTION TAX. "(a) In General.--For each calendar year, there is hereby imposed on any AI data center a tax equal to 1 percent of the amount paid or incurred by the AI data center operator with respect to direct freshwater consumption by such AI data center during such calendar year. "(b) Payment of Tax.-- "(1) In general.--The tax imposed by this section with respect to any AI data center shall be paid by the AI data center operator. "(2) Remittance of tax.--The AI data center operator shall remit such tax annually to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as provided by the Secretary. "(c) Definitions.--In this section-- "(1) AI data center.--The term `AI data center' means a facility or group of facilities primarily used to host computing infrastructure for the training or deployment of artificial intelligence or machine learning models, including associated storage, cooling, and networking equipment. "(2) AI data center operator.-- "(A) In general.--The term `AI data center operator' means person who owns, operates, or occupies an AI data center. "(B) Multiple operators.--In the case where more than 1 person meets the description under subparagraph (A) with respect to an AI data center, the person responsible for payment of the public water utility account to the public water system shall be deemed to be the AI data center operator for purposes of this section. "(3) Direct freshwater consumption.--The term `direct freshwater consumption' means the volume of water an AI data center withdraws from a public water system (such as a municipal water provider).". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to calendar years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act. ______

SA 6847. Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Wyden) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5349, to improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (7,950 characters)

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the "Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act" or the "TAS Act". (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (c) References to Secretary.--For purposes of this Act, the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate. (d) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; etc. Sec. 101. Digitization of tax returns and correspondence. Sec. 102. Establishment of dashboard to inform taxpayers of backlogs and wait times. Sec. 103. Expansion of electronic access to information about returns and refunds. Sec. 104. Expansion of callback technology. Sec. 105. Expansion of online accounts. Sec. 106. Automation of refund offset bypass. Sec. 107. Installment agreement fees eliminated for certain individuals. Sec. 108. Individuals facing economic hardships informed of collection alternatives. Sec. 109. Quarterly notices to certain taxpayers with delinquencies. Sec. 110. Low-income taxpayer clinic funding unlocked. Sec. 111. Chief Counsel reviews of offers-in-compromise streamlined. Sec. 112. Modification of procedural requirements for penalties and disallowance periods. Sec. 113. Return of amounts collected by IRS in excess of accepted offer-in-compromise amount. Sec. 114. Extension of period for return of amounts subject to wrongful levy. Sec. 115. Reports to Congress. Sec. 201. Report on combined tax and foreign bank and financial account reporting. Sec. 202. Study and reports on simplification. Sec. 203. Extension of time for persons outside of the United States to request abatement of math error. Sec. 204. Clarification of assessment authority; pre-assessment appeals of foreign information return penalties. Sec. 205. Repeal of due date requirements for certain information returns relating to foreign gifts and trusts. Sec. 301. Authorization of subpoenas before hearings to facilitate settlements. Sec. 302. Clarification of Tax Court authority to order relief from a judgment or order. Sec. 303. Authorization of special trial judges to hear additional cases and address contempt. Sec. 304. Disqualification of judges and special trial judges. Sec. 305. Notice and review with respect to multi-year bans on claiming credits. Sec. 306. Authorization of de novo review of innocent spouse relief by the Tax Court and other courts. Sec. 307. Clarification of certain court filing deadlines. Sec. 308. Clarification of Tax Court jurisdiction to determine tax liability in collection due process appeals. Sec. 309. Authorization of the Tax Court to issue refunds in collection due process cases. Sec. 310. Authorization of the Tax Court to hear suits for refunds or credits. Sec. 311. Authorization to allow claims for refund in certain cases where full tax not paid. Sec. 312. Adjustment of threshold for small disputes. Sec. 401. NTA authorization to direct hire attorneys. Sec. 402. NTA authorization to make personnel decisions. Sec. 403. Access to Internal Revenue Service information, legal advice, and meetings. Sec. 404. Repeal of limitation period suspension for taxpayers seeking assistance from TAS. Sec. 405. Operations to assist taxpayers experiencing hardships during lapse in appropriations. Sec. 501. Penalties for tax return preparers who improperly alter returns. Sec. 502. Ensuring the use of valid preparer identification numbers and electronic filing identification numbers. Sec. 503. Penalties for improper tax preparation or misappropriation of refunds. Sec. 504. Authority to deny, revoke, or suspend preparer tax identification numbers. Sec. 601. Authorization for Office of Appeals to hire attorneys. Sec. 602. Authorization for Office of Appeals to direct hire certain individuals. Sec. 603. Responses to claims for refund required; appeal of claims for refund authorized. Sec. 604. Appeals of returned offers. Sec. 605. Purposes and duties of Independent Office of Appeals; right of appeal clarified. Sec. 701. Standard and scope of review of whistleblower award determinations. Sec. 702. Exemption from sequestration. Sec. 703. Whistleblower privacy protections. Sec. 704. Modification of IRS whistleblower report. Sec. 705. Interest on whistleblower awards. Sec. 706. Correction regarding deductions for attorney's fees. Sec. 801. Postponement of tax deadlines for hostages and individuals wrongfully detained abroad. Sec. 802. Refund and abatement of penalties and fines paid by eligible individuals. Sec. 901. Implementation of voluntary withholding agreements for payments to independent contractors. Sec. 902. Extension of mailbox rule to electronic submissions and payments. Sec. 903. Specificity of third-party contact notices. Sec. 904. Modification of estimated tax rules for farmers and fishermen. Sec. 905. Business child care liaison. Sec. 1001. Authority for redisclosure of certain tax information related to education loans to the Congressional Budget Office. Sec. 1002. Authorization to require large partnerships to file on magnetic media. Sec. 1003. Limitation period not extended for victims of preparer fraud. Sec. 1004. Technical amendment related to the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act. Sec. 1005. Time for filing certain information returns. Sec. 1006. Modifications to penalties for unauthorized disclosures of taxpayer information. SEC. 101. DIGITIZATION OF TAX RETURNS AND CORRESPONDENCE. (a) Returns Accepted Electronically.--Any Federal tax return which any person is required to file with the Secretary, as well as any amendments to such return-- (1) may be filed by such person electronically, and (2) if such return or amendment is filed electronically, shall be processed electronically by the Secretary. (b) Digitization of Returns and Correspondence.--The Internal Revenue Service shall use optical character recognition technology (or any functionally similar technology) to transcribe-- (1) any return which is received by the Internal Revenue Service only in a paper form, or (2) any correspondence which is received by the Internal Revenue Service only in a paper form. (c) Exceptions.-- (1) In general.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to any technology to the extent that the Secretary determines such technology is slower or less reliable than-- (A) the process of manually transcribing returns or correspondence received in a paper form, or (B) any other process that the Internal Revenue Service is using or would otherwise use. (2) Report to congress.--Any exception to the application of a technology described in subsection (b) pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not take effect unless the Secretary provides a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding the determination made by the Secretary under such paragraph within 30 days of such determination. (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to-- (1) any individual income tax return (as defined in section 6011(e)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) received on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, (2) any estate tax return (as described in section 6018 of such Code) or gift tax return (as described in section 6019 of such Code) received on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and (3) any other return or correspondence received on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 102.

Text printed in the Record (11,882 characters)

ESTABLISHMENT OF DASHBOARD TO INFORM TAXPAYERS OF BACKLOGS AND WAIT TIMES. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall require the Internal Revenue Service to provide in real time on its public website, to the extent practical, the following: (1) Separately with respect to each applicable phone number extension-- (A) the number of callers connected to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, (B) the number of callers connected to speak with an automated system, (C) the number of callers who are waiting to be connected to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service or an automated system, (D) the longest amount of time that any caller has been waiting to be connected to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, and (E) whether callback service is currently available, and if not, when such service is scheduled to be available. (2) An application or tool embedded on the website which-- (A) displays all of the information described in paragraph (1), and (B) estimates the approximate wait time to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service. (3) An application programming interface which allows any person to access the information described in subsection (a)(1) using automation and to create an application or tool embedded on a website to display such information. (4) For each applicable phone number extension, a summary of the information described in paragraph (1) with respect to the prior month, including-- (A) the average and median length of calls, (B) the average and median amount of time that callers were speaking directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, (C) the number and percent of calls that were directed to an automated system, (D) the number and percent of calls that were disconnected or terminated by the Internal Revenue Service, (E) the number of callers who were transferred to another applicable phone number extension after the call was initially answered by a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, (F) the average and median amount of time that callers described in subparagraph (E) were on hold following the transfer, and (G) the number and percent of callers who indicated that they received the answers or service for which they were contacting the Internal Revenue Service. (b) Detection of Automated Calls.--The Secretary shall require the Internal Revenue Service to use technology to detect and screen out automated calls. (c) Information Regarding Delays.--For any week in which there was a significant delay with respect to any applicable item (referred to in this subsection as an "applicable week"), the Secretary shall require the Internal Revenue Service to provide on its public website, during the week subsequent to the applicable week, information with respect to each such applicable item regarding the earliest date on which any such applicable items that were processed during the applicable week were received by the Internal Revenue Service. (d) Definitions.-- For purposes of this section-- (1) Applicable item.--The term "applicable item" means each category of tax return, claim, statement, or other document filed with the Internal Revenue Service. (2) Applicable phone number extension.--The term "applicable phone number extension" means any extension or application which may be reached by calling a phone number which is listed by the Internal Revenue Service on any website, publication, form, or instruction which is available to the public and-- (A) operated by the Internal Revenue Service accounts management function, (B) operated by the Internal Revenue Service automated collection function, (C) managed by the Internal Revenue Service Joint Operations Center, (D) managed and staffed by a contractor on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, or (E) received not less than 200,000 calls during the preceding calendar year. (3) Significant delay.--The term "significant delay" means, in the case of any applicable item for any week, the failure to process all of such applicable items which were received by the Internal Revenue Service at least 21 days before the first day of the week. (e) Effective Date.--The requirements of this section shall apply to periods beginning after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT RETURNS AND REFUNDS. Not later than January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, through a website and mobile application, the Secretary shall provide individualized, specific, and up-to-date information to taxpayers regarding their tax returns and amended returns, including information with respect to whether the Internal Revenue Service has-- (1) received such return and entered such return into their systems, (2) completed processing such return, including-- (A) the date on which the Internal Revenue Service issued any refund of any overpayment of tax, (B) the estimated date on which the taxpayer can expect to receive such refund, and (C)(i) if the refund will be issued by electronic fund transfer, the financial account to which such refund will be deposited, including-- (I) the partial or full account number for such account, and (II) the name and routing number of the financial institution, or (ii) if the refund will be issued by paper check, the address to which the check will be mailed, or (3) suspended processing such return, including-- (A) the reason for the suspension, and (B) in the case of any information which was requested by the Internal Revenue Service-- (i) the information requested, (ii) the form and manner for submission of such information, and (iii) the date on which such information is due to be submitted to the Internal Revenue Service. SEC. 104. EXPANSION OF CALLBACK TECHNOLOGY. It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) taxpayers contacting the Internal Revenue Service should have the option to receive a callback, and (2) not later than calendar year 2028, the Internal Revenue Service should provide any taxpayer (including any taxpayer residing outside of the United States) the option to receive a callback for any call made by the taxpayer to an applicable phone number extension (as defined in section 102(d)(2) of this Act) which has not been answered within 5 minutes. SEC. 105. EXPANSION OF ONLINE ACCOUNTS. (a) In General.--Not later than January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make available a website or mobile application which allows any taxpayer (including any taxpayer residing outside of the United States) the ability to-- (1) in a manner consistent with any applicable limitations under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, view any return (as defined in section 6103(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), document, notice, or letter (with the exception of any educational item which has no legal effect) which, during the applicable period (as defined in subsection (d)), has been-- (A) sent by the Internal Revenue Service to such taxpayer, or (B) filed with (or, in the case of any document not required to be filed, sent to) the Internal Revenue Service-- (i) by such taxpayer, (ii) by a person described in subsection (c) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to such taxpayer, or (iii) with respect to such taxpayer in a manner described in subsection (e) of such section, (2) with respect to any document, notice, or letter sent to such taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, respond to such document, notice, or letter by uploading or otherwise transmitting the taxpayer's response through the website or mobile application, and (3) in the case of-- (A) any representative of such taxpayer who is authorized to practice before the Department of the Treasury pursuant to section 330 of title 31, United States Code, (B) any tax return preparer (as defined in section 7701(a)(36) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) with an identifying number (as described in section 6109(a)(4) of such Code), or (C) any qualified reporting agent, permit such representative, preparer, or agent, to the extent authorized by the taxpayer, to access the information described in paragraph (1) or transmit any information described in paragraph (2). (b) Availability for Viewing.--With respect to any return, document, notice, or letter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a), such return, document, notice, or letter shall be made available for viewing by the taxpayer (or, pursuant to paragraph (3) of such subsection, any representative, tax return preparer, or qualified reporting agent authorized by the taxpayer) as soon as is practicable and within such periods as are established pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. (c) Access to Multiple Accounts by Representative, Preparer, or Agent.--For purposes of subsection (a)(3), the website or mobile application shall allow a representative, tax return preparer, or qualified reporting agent to be able to access information for multiple taxpayers who have provided permission under such subsection without any requirement to individually and separately access the account of each such taxpayer. (d) Applicable Period.-- (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for purposes of subsection (a)(1), the term "applicable period" means the preceding 6-year period. (2) Prospective application.--The term "applicable period" shall not include any years ending before the date of enactment of this Act. (e) Qualified Reporting Agent.-- (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term "qualified reporting agent" means a person-- (A) which is properly authorized as an agent to sign and file employment tax returns, make related payments and deposits, and perform such other acts on behalf of a taxpayer under procedures set forth by the Secretary, (B) which has met such requirements as may be established by the Secretary, and (C) for which authorization has not been revoked or suspended by the Secretary pursuant to procedures established by the Secretary. (2) Employment tax return.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the term "employment tax return" means-- (A) any return required to be filed by an employer to report the obligations of the employer and its employees under section 3101, 3111, 3301, or 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (B) such other returns as designated by the Secretary. (f) Preventing Unauthorized Disclosure of Return Information by Persons Designated by Taxpayers.--Not later than January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (1) establish a program to investigate and address-- (A) any access, use, or disclosure of return information (as defined in section 6103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) by any person which is in excess of the authorization permitted to such person pursuant to subsection (a)(3), and (B) any related misconduct, and (2) annually publish, on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service, the actions undertaken pursuant to the program described in paragraph (1), such as the number of complaints investigated, the number of persons whose access was revoked, and other relevant statistical data. (g) Focus Groups.--For purposes of subsection (a), prior to the date that the website or mobile application described in such subsection is made available, the Secretary shall conduct focus groups with taxpayers and tax professionals to ensure that any amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for such purposes are expended in an appropriate manner. SEC. 106.

Text printed in the Record (10,887 characters)

AUTOMATION OF REFUND OFFSET BYPASS. (a) In General.--Section 6402(a) is amended-- (1) by striking "In the case" and inserting the following: "(1) Authority.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case", and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: "(2) Special rule for certain individuals.--In the case of an overpayment with respect to any taxable year for which a credit is allowed to an applicable taxpayer under section 32, the Secretary shall, subject to subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), refund such overpayment in an amount not to exceed the amount of the credit allowed under such section for such taxable year. "(3) Applicable taxpayer.--For purposes of paragraph (2), the term `applicable taxpayer' means a taxpayer who was classified by the Secretary as currently not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)) prior to the date on which the refund was requested by the taxpayer.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to offsets made after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 107. INSTALLMENT AGREEMENT FEES ELIMINATED FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. (a) In General.--Section 6159(f) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: "(2) Waiver.--No fee shall be imposed on an installment agreement under this section in the case of any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income, as determined for the most recent year for which such information is available, which does not exceed 250 percent of the applicable poverty level (as determined by the Secretary).". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to installment agreements entered into after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 108. INDIVIDUALS FACING ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS INFORMED OF COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES. (a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (1) establish a program to identify taxpayers who-- (A) are reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship, and (B) have an unpaid tax liability, and (2) in the case of any taxpayer described in paragraph (1) who requests to enter into an agreement described in section 6159(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, provide such taxpayer with information regarding other options which the Internal Revenue Service makes available to taxpayers who have an unpaid tax liability and are experiencing an economic hardship, including-- (A) an agreement described in such section for partial collection of a tax liability, (B) an offer-in-compromise (as described in section 7122 of such Code), and (C) classification as currently not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e) of such Code). (b) Economic Hardship.--For purposes of this section, in determining whether a taxpayer is reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship, such determination shall be made in the same manner as determined under section 6343(a)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 based on-- (1) the most recent income and asset data which the Secretary has received from a return or a report from, or with respect to, such taxpayer, and (2) the schedules described in section 7122(d)(2)(A) of such Code. (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, shall submit a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding-- (1) the accuracy of the Internal Revenue Service with respect to identifying taxpayers who are reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship under subsection (a)(1), (2) whether such identification procedures may be appropriately applied for other purposes, and (3)(A) the number of taxpayers with an unpaid tax liability who were identified as reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship under subsection (a)(1), (B) the options described in subsection (a)(2) that were provided to such taxpayers, and (C) the status of the tax liabilities of such taxpayers. SEC. 109. QUARTERLY NOTICES TO CERTAIN TAXPAYERS WITH DELINQUENCIES. (a) In General.--Section 7524 is amended-- (1) in the heading, by striking "annual notice" and inserting "notice", (2) by striking "Not less often than annually" and inserting the following: "(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), not less often than quarterly", and (3) by adding at the end the following: "(b) Information on Penalties and Interest.--The notice described in subsection (a) shall include-- "(1) an estimate of the amount of penalties and interest that may accrue if the delinquent tax debt is not fully paid within the period remaining under section 6502(a), and "(2) programs and services that can provide assistance to the taxpayer. "(c) Exception.--The requirement under subsection (a) shall not apply-- "(1) during any period in which an agreement described in section 6159(a) or an accepted offer-in-compromise (as described in section 7122) is in effect, or "(2) in the case of a taxpayer for which the Secretary has determined that the tax is not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)).". (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 77 is amended by striking the item relating to section 7524 and inserting the following new item: "Sec. 7524. Notice of tax delinquency.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 110. LOW-INCOME TAXPAYER CLINIC FUNDING UNLOCKED. (a) Matching Funds.--Paragraph (5) of section 7526(c) is amended to read as follows: "(5) Requirement of matching funds.-- "(A) In general.--With respect to any grant provided to a low-income taxpayer clinic under this section, such clinic shall provide matching funds equal to the applicable percentage of the amount of such grant. "(B) Matching funds.-- "(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term `matching funds' may include-- "(I) the salary (including fringe benefits) of individuals performing services for the low-income taxpayer clinic, and "(II) the cost of equipment used in the low-income taxpayer clinic. "(ii) Exclusion.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term `matching funds' shall not include any indirect expenses, such as general overhead of the institution sponsoring the low-income taxpayer clinic. "(C) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be 100 percent, except that the Secretary may establish a lower percentage (not below 25 percent) if the Secretary determines that such percentage would expand the coverage of the low-income taxpayer clinic to additional taxpayers.". (b) Technical Amendments.--Section 7526(c), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended-- (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2), and (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs (1) through (4). (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to calendar years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 111. CHIEF COUNSEL REVIEWS OF OFFERS-IN-COMPROMISE STREAMLINED. (a) In General.--Section 7122(b) is amended by striking "in any case" and all that follows through "his delegate" and inserting "in any case which the Secretary determines presents a significant legal issue, there shall be placed on file in the office of the Secretary the opinion of the General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, or the Counsel's delegate". (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7122(b) is amended by striking the second and third sentences. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to offers-in-compromise submitted or pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PENALTIES AND DISALLOWANCE PERIODS. (a) In General.--Section 6751(b) is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--No penalty under this title shall be assessed, and no disallowance period shall take effect, unless-- "(A) the decision (as defined by the Secretary in regulations) to apply such penalty or disallowance period, as applicable, is personally approved (in writing on an electronic form) by-- "(i) the immediate supervisor of the individual making such decision, or "(ii) the Internal Revenue Service Office of Servicewide Penalties (or any successor organization), and "(B) the approval described in subparagraph (A) is obtained on or before the date any appealable notice is sent to the taxpayer regarding the application of such penalty or disallowance period.", and (2) by adding at the end the following: "(3) Appealable notice.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `appealable notice' means the first written notice issued to a taxpayer that provides the taxpayer an opportunity to-- "(A) appeal the decision to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals, or "(B) petition a Federal court for review of the decision.". (b) Disallowance Period.--Section 6751 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(d) Disallowance Period.-- "(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term `disallowance period' means-- "(A) with respect to any credit under section 24, the period determined under section 24(g)(1), "(B) with respect to any credit under section 25A, the period determined under section 25A(b)(4)(A), and "(C) with respect to any credit under section 32, the period determined under section 32(k)(1). "(2) Approval required for disallowance period automatically calculated through electronic means.--With respect to the application of any disallowance period, subsection (b)(2)(B) shall not apply.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to notices sent after the date which is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall make publicly available a report regarding all penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 during the preceding calendar year, with all relevant data regarding such penalties to be collected and reported with respect to-- (1) every organizational unit of the Internal Revenue Service that has power to assess, abate, or otherwise enforce any penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (2) the progression of such penalties at each step of the determination, assessment, and review processes, as well as the final result with respect to such penalties. SEC. 113.

Text printed in the Record (11,647 characters)

RETURN OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY IRS IN EXCESS OF ACCEPTED OFFER-IN-COMPROMISE AMOUNT. (a) In General.--Section 7122 is amended by adding at the end the following: "(h) Return Amounts Collected in Excess of Payment Amount of Accepted Offer-in-compromise.-- "(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in the case of any taxpayer for which an offer-in-compromise has been accepted under this section, any proceeds collected with respect to the Federal income tax liability that is the subject of the accepted offer-in-compromise which are in excess of any remaining payments scheduled under such compromise shall be transferred to the taxpayer. "(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-- "(A) the taxpayer and the Secretary have specifically agreed otherwise, or "(B) the Secretary has-- "(i) determined that, under the terms of the compromise, such compromise is in default, and "(ii) elected to terminate such compromise.". (b) Authority to Release Levy and Return Property.--Section 6343 is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1)-- (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking "or" at the end, (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end and inserting ", or", and (C) by adding at the end the following subparagraph: "(F) subject to subsection (h)(2) of section 7122, an offer-in-compromise is accepted under such section with respect to the liability for which the levy was imposed.", and (2) in subsection (d)(2)-- (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking "or" at the end, (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the comma at the end and inserting ", or", and (C) by adding at the end the following subparagraph: "(E) subject to subsection (h)(2) of section 7122, an offer-in-compromise is accepted under such section with respect to the liability for which the levy was imposed,". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to any compromise made under section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which is accepted by the Secretary after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 114. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR RETURN OF AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO WRONGFUL LEVY. (a) In General.--Section 6343(b) is amended, in the flush text following paragraph (3), by striking "the date of such levy" and inserting "the date that the Secretary received any such amount". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to any money levied upon or any amount of money received from the sale of property after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 115. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) Implementation.--Not later than the date which is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary (following consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and the Comptroller General of the United States) shall provide a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding the actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service to implement this title and the amendments made by this title, including-- (1) an analysis of successes and challenges with respect to implementation of such title, and (2) any recommendations to Congress with respect to the implementation or administration of such title. (b) Fraud.-- (1) In general.--Not later than the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall provide a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding efforts made by the Internal Revenue Service to identify, prevent, and resolve each type of tax fraud, including first-person fraud and stolen identity refund fraud. (2) Information included in report.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) a detailed description, timeline, and analysis of any efforts undertaken by the Internal Revenue Service and any of the other members of the Security Summit during the most recent tax filing season to address and prevent each type of tax fraud, including-- (i) any specific information or guidelines provided by the Internal Revenue Service to any of the other members of the Security Summit (and vice versa) with respect to tax fraud, including-- (I) any "be on the lookout" alerts or other warnings, (II) updated guidelines or restrictions, (III) potential threat analyses, (IV) specific data or analytics, and (V) any other actionable threat information, and (ii) any specific recommendations provided by the Internal Revenue Service to any of the other members of the Security Summit (and vice versa) with respect to identifying, preventing, and resolving tax fraud, including any potential improvements to data, analytics, information sharing, and collaboration between the Internal Revenue Service and other members of the Security Summit, (B) a detailed description and timeline of any interactions between the Internal Revenue Service and any provider of tax filing options which does not participate in the Security Summit, including-- (i) any specific information or guidelines provided by the Internal Revenue Service to such provider (and vice versa) with respect to each type of tax fraud, including any items described in subclauses (I) through (V) of subparagraph (A)(i), and (ii) any specific recommendations provided by the Internal Revenue Service to such provider (and vice versa) with respect to identifying, preventing, and resolving tax fraud, including any potential improvements to data, analytics, information sharing, and collaboration between the Internal Revenue Service and such provider, (C) with respect to the most recently completed tax filing season-- (i) with respect to each specific type or form of tax fraud that has been identified by the Internal Revenue Service, any relevant data and analysis regarding the amount of such fraud during such tax filing season, including detailed numerical data regarding such fraud in relation to each separate Federal tax return form (including any amended returns) and the manner in which such returns were filed, and (ii) the total dollar amount of fraudulent claims for refund-- (I) for which any disbursement was erroneously made, and (II) which were identified and disallowed prior to any disbursement being made. (3) Publicly available.--Data included in the report described in paragraph (1) shall be made available on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service, provided that such data is appropriately redacted by the Secretary. (c) Complexity Report.--For purposes of section 4022 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (26 U.S.C. 7801 note), the submission of the report required under section 7803(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not satisfy the requirement under subsection (a) of section 4022 of such Act to conduct an analysis of the sources of complexity in administration of the Federal tax laws and report the results of such analysis. (d) Document Management to Avoid Duplicative Requests to Constituents.-- (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for the following 5 years, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report describing the systems and practices for tracking documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service by taxpayers, Congressional offices, and authorized third-party representatives. (2) Matters included.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) A description of how the Internal Revenue Service catalogues, tracks, and retains documents and communications, including procedures for internal document sharing and for avoiding lost documents and duplicative requests to taxpayers. (B) A description of the status and future plans for managing electronic and paper submissions through online accounts, new document submission tools, and paper-retention processes. (C) A discussion of any modernization efforts aimed at reducing duplicative document requests and any barriers the Internal Revenue Service has identified to implementing improvements. SEC. 201. REPORT ON COMBINED TAX AND FOREIGN BANK AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNT REPORTING. (a) Study.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on-- (A) combining and simplifying reporting required under section 5314 of title 31, United States Code and sections 6038, 6038A, 6038B, 6038C, 6038D, 6039F, 6046A, and 6048 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and (B) eliminating duplicative requests for information from nonresident United States taxpayers. (2) Consultation.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include input from the National Taxpayer Advocate and nonresident United States taxpayers. (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection (a), which shall include any actions taken by the Secretary as a result of such study and any recommendations for legislative changes necessary to effectuate the goal described in subsection (a)(1). SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORTS ON SIMPLIFICATION. (a) GAO Study and Report.-- (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on the burdens of compliance with Federal tax laws applicable to individuals who are United States persons (as defined in section 7701(a)(30) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) living abroad. (2) Factors considered.--The study conducted under subsection (a) shall identify problems relating to compliance of Federal tax laws for such United States persons, including burdens specific to low-income and moderate-income individuals, related to-- (A) understanding and complying with United States tax obligations, including obligations with respect to-- (i) the duty to file returns and pay taxes while living abroad, including in the absence of tax treaties that otherwise eliminate double taxation of income; (ii) the filing (including through electronic means) of Federal tax returns and any reports required under section 5314 of title 31, United States Code, in a timely, accurate, and affordable manner, (iii) foreign retirement plans treated as passive foreign investment companies; and (iv) foreign currency gains; (B) receiving and responding to inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network about returns and reports described in subparagraph (A)(ii), and access to services of such agencies with respect to such returns and reports; (C) access to financial products and services abroad, including local retirement vehicles and bank accounts; (D) access to affordable tax preparation services for United States income tax obligations; and (E) compliance burdens that are disproportionate to the amount of tax owed. (3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Secretary of Treasury and to Congress, and make publicly available, a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1). (b) Treasury Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Comptroller General submits the report under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a report that describes-- (1) actions taken by the Department of Treasury to address any problems identified by the Comptroller General in such report; and (2) any legislation necessary to address such problems. SEC. 203.

Text printed in the Record (11,718 characters)

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PERSONS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES TO REQUEST ABATEMENT OF MATH ERROR. (a) In General.--Section 6213(b)(2)(A) is amended by inserting "(120 days in the case of a notice addressed to a person outside the United States)" after "60 days". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to notices sent after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY; PRE- ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF FOREIGN INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES. (a) Treatment of Penalties as Taxes.--Section 6671(a) is amended-- (1) by striking "The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter" and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--Any penalties provided by this title, including the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter,", (2) by striking "the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter." and inserting "the penalties provided by this title, including the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.", and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any penalty not provided by this subchapter if such penalty is a penalty for which a civil or criminal action is prescribed as the method of collection or has been consistently treated by the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this paragraph as such a penalty.". (b) Notice Requirement for Certain Penalties.-- (1) In general.--Subchapter C of chapter 68 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 6752. PRELIMINARY NOTICE AND RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR COVERED PENALTIES. "(a) Notice.-- "(1) In general.--No covered penalty shall be assessed unless the Secretary provides a notice to the taxpayer in writing by mail to an address as determined under section 6212(b) that contains the following information: "(A) The covered penalty proposed to be assessed. "(B) The taxable years or periods involved. "(C) The basis for the proposed penalty. "(D) Information about the right of the taxpayer to request review as provided in subsection (b). "(2) Timing of notice.--The mailing of the notice described in paragraph (1) shall precede any notice and demand of any covered penalty by at least 60 days (120 days in the case of a notice addressed to a taxpayer outside the United States). "(b) Right to a Review.--Within 60 days (120 days in the case of a notice sent to a taxpayer outside the United States) of the mailing of the notice described in subsection (a), the taxpayer may request a review of the proposed penalty by the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals. "(c) Suspension of Assessment and Collection.-- "(1) In general.--A covered penalty may not be assessed, demanded, or collected before-- "(A) the expiration of the period provided under subsection (b), or "(B) in any case in which the taxpayer requests a review under subsection (b), the date a final determination is issued in such review. "(2) Statute of limitations.--If a notice described in subsection (a) with respect to any covered penalty is mailed before the expiration of the period provided by section 6501 for the assessment of such penalty (determined without regard to this paragraph), the running of such period shall be suspended for the period during which assessment is prohibited under this section and for 30 days thereafter. "(d) Covered Penalty.--For purposes of this section, the term `covered penalty' means any penalty imposed under section 6038(b)(1), 6038A(d)(1), 6038B(c), 6038C(c), 6038D(d)(1), 6039F(c)(1)(B), or 6677. "(e) Exception for Jeopardy.--This section shall not apply if the Secretary finds that the collection of the penalty is in jeopardy. "(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this section, including regulations or other guidance relating to-- "(1) procedures for issuing notices under subsection (a), and "(2) establishing simplified reviews for cases in which the penalty amount at issue does not exceed a designated dollar threshold.". (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subchapter C of chapter 68 is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 6752. Preliminary notice and right of review for covered penalties.". (c) Interpretive Rules.--(1) Taxpayer rights.--Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed to create any limitation on the rights of a taxpayer--(A) under subchapter C or D of chapter 64 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or (B) to pursue refund litigation with respect to the assessment or imposition of any penalty imposed under such Code. (2) No inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed to create any inference with respect to the treatment of any covered penalty (as defined in section 6752 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) before the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 205. REPEAL OF DUE DATE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION RETURNS RELATING TO FOREIGN GIFTS AND TRUSTS. (a) In General.--Section 2006(b) of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 is amended by striking paragraphs (9) and (10). (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to returns for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026. SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF SUBPOENAS BEFORE HEARINGS TO FACILITATE SETTLEMENTS. Section 7456(a) is amended to read as follows: "(a) In General.-- "(1) Administration of oaths.--For the efficient administration of the functions vested in the Tax Court or any division thereof, any judge or special trial judge, the clerk or the clerk's deputies, as such, or any other employee of the Tax Court designated in writing for the purpose by the chief judge, may administer oaths or affirmations. "(2) Examination.--Any judge or special trial judge may examine parties or witnesses. "(3) Subpoena authority.--Any judge or special trial judge may require, by subpoena ordered by the Tax Court or any division thereof and signed by the judge or special trial judge (or by the clerk of the Tax Court or by any other employee of the Tax Court when acting as deputy clerk), any of the following: "(A) The attendance and testimony of parties or witnesses. "(B) The production of books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things from any place in the United States by any party or witness having custody or control thereof for purposes of discovery or for use of the things produced as evidence in accordance with the rules and orders of the Tax Court. Any such subpoena shall be issued and served, and compliance therewith shall be compelled, as provided in the rules and orders of the Tax Court. "(4) Depositions.--Pursuant to rules and orders of the Court, the deposition of a witness may be taken before any designated individual competent to administer oaths under this title. Any deposition testimony shall be reduced to writing by the individual taking the deposition, or under such individual's direction, and shall be subscribed by the deponent.". SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF TAX COURT AUTHORITY TO ORDER RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER. Section 7481 is amended-- (1) by striking "and (d)," in subsection (a) and inserting "(d), and (e)," and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(e) Relief From a Judgment or Order.-- "(1) Corrections based on clerical mistakes; oversights and omissions.-- "(A) In general.--The Tax Court may correct a clerical mistake, or a mistake arising from oversight or omission, whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The Tax Court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. "(B) Appellate court leave required on appeal.--After an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court, and while such appeal is pending, any such mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave. "(2) Grounds for relief from a final judgment or order.--On motion and just terms, the Tax Court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment or order for any of the following reasons: "(A) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. "(B) Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under rules prescribed by the Court and that would have a reasonable likelihood of changing the outcome. "(C) Fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. "(D) The judgment is void. "(E) Any other circumstance where justice so requires. "(3) Timing and effect of the motion.-- "(A) Timing.--A motion under paragraph (2)-- "(i) must be made within a reasonable time, and "(ii) in the case of a reason described in subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C), not later than 1 year after the entry of the judgment or order. "(B) Effect on finality.--While pending, any such motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation. "(4) Other powers to grant relief.--This subsection shall not limit the Tax Court's power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the Tax Court. "(5) Court of appeals jurisdiction.--If the Tax Court provides relief from a judgment or order that is otherwise final under this section, either or both parties may obtain review of such relief by filing a notice of appeal under this subchapter within 90 days of the Court's judgment or order directing such relief.". SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGES TO HEAR ADDITIONAL CASES AND ADDRESS CONTEMPT. (a) Consent to Assignment.--Section 7443A(b) is amended by striking "and" at the end of paragraph (6), by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8), and by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph: "(7) upon the consent of the parties, and pursuant to rules promulgated by the Tax Court, any proceeding not described in paragraphs (1) through (6), and". (b) Authorizing Special Trial Judge.--Section 7443A(c) is amended by striking "or (6)" and inserting "(6), or (7)". (c) Contempt Authority.--Section 7443A is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(f) Incidental Powers.--A special trial judge appointed under this section shall have the independent power to punish for contempt of the authority of the Tax Court as provided in section 7456(c), except the sentence imposed by such a special trial judge for any contempt shall not exceed the penalties for a Class C misdemeanor as set forth in sections 3571(b)(6) and 3581(b)(8) of title 18, United States Code. This subsection shall not be construed to limit the authority of a special trial judge to order sanctions under any other statute or any rule of the Tax Court prescribed pursuant to section 7453.". (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect on the date the United States Tax Court adopts rules implementing the consent procedures of section 7443A. SEC. 304. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES AND SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGES. (a) In General.--Part II of subchapter C of chapter 76 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 7467. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE OR SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE. "Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to judges, special trial judges, and proceedings of the Tax Court.". (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such part is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 7467. Disqualification of judge or special trial judge.". SEC. 305.

Text printed in the Record (11,217 characters)

NOTICE AND REVIEW WITH RESPECT TO MULTI-YEAR BANS ON CLAIMING CREDITS. (a) Notice.-- (1) In general.--Section 6212(a) is amended-- (A) by striking "If the" and inserting the following: "(1) Notice.--If the", (B) by striking "Such notice shall include a notice" and inserting the following: "(2) Matters included.--Such notice shall include-- "(A) a notice", (C) by striking period at the end of the second sentence and inserting ", and", and (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(B) in any case in which such deficiency for a taxable year is attributable to the denial of a credit under section 24, 25A, or 32, a statement-- "(i) identifying the credit or credits which are denied and providing the grounds for each such denial, "(ii) informing the taxpayer that, unless the denial is overturned on appeal, the taxpayer will not be able to claim such credit for any subsequent taxable year unless the taxpayer provides information required by the Secretary to demonstrate eligibility for the credit, and "(iii) in any case in which the Secretary has made a determination to impose a disallowance period under section 24(g)(1), 25A(b)(4)(A), or 32(k)(1), providing the grounds for such disallowance period (and the length of the disallowance period unless overturned on appeal).". (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to notices mailed on or after the date that is 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (b) Authority of the Tax Court.-- (1) In general.--Section 6214 is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection: "(e) Jurisdiction With Respect to Multi-Year Bans With Respect to Certain Credits.-- "(1) In general.--The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction-- "(A) to redetermine the imposition of any disallowance period with respect to any credit under section 24, 25A, or 32 for the taxable year in which such disallowance period was imposed if the deficiency relates to such taxable year, and "(B) to determine whether any such disallowance period should be imposed if claim therefor is asserted by the Secretary in the answer or an amended answer filed in accordance with the rules of the Tax Court. "(2) Disallowance period.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `disallowance period' has the meaning given such term under section 6751(d).". (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection apply to petitions filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act. (3) Transition rule for review of previously imposed disallowance periods.-- (A) In general.--In the case of any deficiency which is attributable to an entry on the return claiming a credit under section 24, 25A, or 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a taxable year in a disallowance period described in subparagraph (B), the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to redetermine whether the disallowance period was properly imposed. (B) Disallowance period described.--A disallowance period is described in this subparagraph if the notice of the deficiency under section 6212 of such Code for the taxable year with respect to which the determination to impose the disallowance period was made-- (i) did not include the grounds for such disallowance period, and (ii) was mailed before the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (C) Disallowance period.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term "disallowance period" has the meaning given such term under section 6751(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this Act). (D) Refunds.--Notwithstanding section 6512(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of a petition with respect to a disallowance period described in subparagraph (B), the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of an overpayment for any taxable year in the disallowance period, and such amount shall, notwithstanding section 6511, when the decision of the Tax Court has become final, be credited or refunded to the taxpayer. If a notice of appeal in respect of the decision of the Tax Court is filed under section 7483 of such Code, the Secretary is authorized to refund or credit the overpayment determined by the Tax Court to the extent the overpayment is not contested on appeal. (c) Burden of Production.-- (1) In general.--Section 7491(c) is amended-- (A) by striking "Notwithstanding" and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--Notwithstanding", (B) by striking "with respect to the liability" and inserting "with respect to-- "(A) the liability", (C) by striking the period after "title" and inserting ", and", (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(B) the application of any disallowance period (as defined in section 6751(d)) to any individual.", and (E) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(2) Standard of proof for certain disallowance periods.--In the case of any court proceeding with respect to any disallowance period described in section 24(g)(1)(B)(i), 25A(b)(4)(A)(ii)(I), or 32(k)(1)(B)(i), the standard of proof shall be the same standard as required in a proceeding under section 7454(a).". (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to court proceedings beginning after the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act in connection with disallowance periods (as defined in section 6751(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this Act) determined after such date. (d) Modification of Disallowance Period.-- (1) Child tax credit.--Section 24(g)(1) is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking "for which there was a final determination that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was" each place it appears in clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting "for which a notice of deficiency has been sent under section 6212(a) which notifies the taxpayer that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was denied, or a determination that has become final under section 7481 has been made by the Tax Court to deny such claim,", and (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(C) Allowance of previously denied credits after tax court consideration.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a taxable year shall not be treated as a taxable year in the disallowance period if the Tax Court determines that the disallowance period was not properly imposed for such year pursuant to section 6214(e).". (2) American opportunity tax credit.--Section 25A(b)(4)(A) is amended-- (A) in clause (ii), by striking "for which there was a final determination that the taxpayer's claim of the American Opportunity Credit under this section was" each place it appears in subclauses (I) and (II) and inserting "for which a notice of deficiency has been sent under section 6212(a) which notifies the taxpayer that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was denied, or a determination that has become final under section 7481 has been made by the Tax Court to deny such claim,", and (B) by adding at the end the following new clause: "(iii) Allowance of previously denied credits after tax court consideration.--Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), a taxable year shall not be treated as a taxable year in the disallowance period if the Tax Court determines that the disallowance period was not properly imposed for such year pursuant to section 6214(e).". (3) Earned income tax credit.--Section 32(k)(1) is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking "for which there was a final determination that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was" each place it appears in clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting "for which a notice of deficiency has been sent under section 6212(a) which notifies the taxpayer that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was denied, or a determination that has become final under section 7481 has been made by the Tax Court to deny such claim,", and (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(C) Allowance of previously denied credits after tax court consideration.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a taxable year shall not be treated as a taxable year in the disallowance period if the Tax Court determines that the disallowance period was not properly imposed for such year pursuant to section 6214(e).". (4) Suspension of running of limitations period filing of a claim for credit or refund.--Section 6511(d) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(9) Special rules relating to disallowance periods.--The running of the periods described in subsections (a) and (b)(2) with respect to any claim for a credit allowed under section 24, 25A, or 32 for any taxable year in a disallowance period (as defined in section 6751(d)) shall be suspended during any period in which the imposition of such disallowance period is pending before the Tax Court.". (5) Effective date.-- (A) In general.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall apply to-- (i) taxable years beginning after the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and (ii) disallowance periods (as defined in section 6751(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this Act) in taxable years beginning on or before such date if the notice of deficiency for the taxable year with respect to which the determination to impose such disallowance period was made was sent after such date. (B) Suspension of running of limitations period.--The amendment made by paragraph (4) shall apply to petitions filed after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF DE NOVO REVIEW OF INNOCENT SPOUSE RELIEF BY THE TAX COURT AND OTHER COURTS. (a) Review.--Section 6015(e)(7) is amended by striking "by the Tax Court and shall be based upon" and all that follows and inserting a period. (b) Clarification of Scope of Review.--Section 6015(e)(1)(A) is amended by inserting "(including any remedy applicable in a suit for refund or collection or in a bankruptcy case)" after "In addition to any other remedy provided by law". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to petitions, requests, and suits filed or pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) No Inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed to limit the authority or jurisdiction of the Tax Court or any other court to grant relief under section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or to review any relief granted under such section. SEC. 307. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN COURT FILING DEADLINES. (a) In General.-- (1) Treatment of deadlines.--Section 7451 is amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection: "(b) Treatment of Deadlines for Certain Petitions.-- "(1) In general.--The deadlines for filing petitions under section 6015(e)(1)(A), the first sentence of section 6213(a), and section 6330(d)(1)(A) shall be considered nonjurisdictional claims-processing rules subject to waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

Text printed in the Record (11,993 characters)

For purposes of section 6015(e)(1)(B), the second and fourth sentences of section 6213(a), and the last sentence of section 6330(e)(1), a petition not timely filed shall be treated as timely filed if the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file is excused by waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, or equitable tolling. "(2) Treatment of collection activity.--If the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under section 6015(e)(1)(A), 6213(a), or 6330(d)(1)(A) is excused by waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, or equitable tolling, the Secretary (or the Attorney General, as the case may be) shall abate any assessment made under section 6213(c) to which the petition relates, suspend any levy or proceeding for the collection of the liability to which the petition relates, and (unless the taxpayer otherwise requests) refund any amount of such liability previously collected. The previous sentence shall not apply if section 6330(e)(2), 6330(f), 6330(g), 6851, 6852, or 6861 applies. The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this paragraph.". (2) Conforming amendments.-- (A) Section 6015(e) is amended-- (i) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking "or, if a petition has been filed with the Tax Court under subparagraph (A), until the decision of the Tax Court has become final" and inserting "or, if a timely petition has been filed with the Tax Court under subparagraph (A), from the date such petition is filed (or, if filed after the close of the 90th day referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii), the date the Tax Court determines such petition is excused under section 7451(b)) until the decision of the Tax Court has become final", and (ii) in paragraph (2)-- (I) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and by moving such clauses two ems to the right, (II) by striking "for the period" and inserting "for any period", (III) by striking "for 60 days thereafter" and inserting "for 60 days after the latest of such periods", (IV) by striking "shall be suspended" and inserting "shall-- "(A) be suspended--", and (V) by striking the period after "Secretary" and inserting ", and "(B) if the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under paragraph (1)(A) is excused under section 7451(b), be extended by the number of days between the deadline for filing the petition (determined without regard to the application of section 7451(b)) and the date on which the court determines that the failure to timely file the petition is excused.". (B) The second sentence of section 6213(a) is amended-- (i) by inserting "timely" before "petition", and (ii) by inserting "from the time such petition is filed (or, if filed after the close of the 90-day or 150-day period, the date the Tax Court determines such filing is excused under section 7451(b))" before "until the decision". (C) Section 6213(c) is amended by inserting "(without regard to the application of section 7451(b))" after "the time prescribed in subsection (a)". (D) Section 6330(e)(1) is amended-- (i) by inserting "timely" before "appeals therein", and (ii) by striking "are pending" through "a final determination in such hearing." and inserting the following: "are pending, but in no event shall any such period expire before the 90th day after the day on which there is a final determination in such hearing. If the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under subsection (d) is excused under section 7451(b), such levy actions shall be suspended between the date the court so determines and the date which is 90 days after the decision of the Tax Court becomes final, and the running of any such period of limitations shall be extended by the number of days between the deadline for filing the petition (determined without regard to the application of section 7451(b)) and the date on which the court determines that the failure to timely file the petition is excused.". (E) Section 6503(a)(1) is amended-- (i) by striking "the period" and inserting "any period", (ii) by striking "for 60 days thereafter" and inserting "for 60 days after the latest of such periods", and (iii) by adding at the end the following new sentence: "If the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under section 6213(a) is excused under section 7451(b), the periods of limitations provided in sections 6501 and 6502 on the making of assessments and the collection by levy or a proceeding in court shall be extended by the number of days between the deadline for filing the petition (determined without regard to the application of section 7451(b)) and the date on which the court determines that the failure to timely file the petition is excused.". (F) Section 7459(d) is amended to read as follows: "(d) Effect of Decision Dismissing Petition.-- "(1) In general.--If a petition has been filed by the taxpayer under section 6015(e)(1)(A), 6213(a), or 6330(d)(1)(A), a decision of the Tax Court dismissing the proceeding shall be considered as its decision on the merits, unless the dismissal is-- "(A) for lack of jurisdiction, "(B) for failure to timely file the petition, or "(C) in the case of a petition under section 6015(e)(1)(A) or 6330(d)(1)(A), at the request of the taxpayer (unless the Tax Court orders that the dismissal shall be considered its decision on the merits). "(2) Entry of order.--An order specifying the amount of deficiency or liability, if appropriate, shall be entered in the records of the Tax Court unless the Tax Court cannot determine such amount from the record in the proceeding.". (b) Tolling of Time in Certain Cases.--Section 7451(c), as redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking "date" and inserting "day (in whole or in part)". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to cases pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) No Inference.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall not be construed to create any inference with respect to the treatment of-- (1) any case brought under section 6015(e)(1)(A), the second sentence of section 6213(a), or section 6330(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for which there is a final determination by the Tax Court before the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) any other petition filed with the Tax Court under any other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 before, on, or after such date. SEC. 308. CLARIFICATION OF TAX COURT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE TAX LIABILITY IN COLLECTION DUE PROCESS APPEALS. (a) In General.--Section 6330(c)(2)(B) is amended by inserting "in the Tax Court or any other Federal court (other than through a suit for a refund under section 7442 or under section 1346(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code)" after "otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability". (b) Underlying Tax Liability.--Section 6330(c)(4) is amended by striking "An issue may not be raised" and inserting "An issue which is not related to the amount or existence of the underlying tax liability may not be raised". SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF THE TAX COURT TO ISSUE REFUNDS IN COLLECTION DUE PROCESS CASES. (a) In General.--Section 6330(d)(1) is amended-- (1) by striking "The person may" and inserting the following: "(A) In general.--The person may", (2) by inserting "and, unless a challenge was precluded under subsection (c), with respect to the determination of any overpayments of tax for the taxable periods or events at issue in the determination" after "matter" , and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs: "(B) Determination and enforcement of overpayments.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 6512(b) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. "(C) Limitation on amount of credit or refund.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any petition under subparagraph (A), no credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid-- "(I) after the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) was given, "(II) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if, on the date the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) was given, a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or "(III) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) was given-- "(aa) which had not been disallowed before that date, "(bb) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have commenced as of that date, or "(cc) in respect of which a suit for refund had been commenced before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. In a case described in subclause (II) where the date the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) is given is during the third year after the due date (determined without regard to any extensions) for filing the return of tax and no return was filed before such date, the applicable period under subsections (a) and (b)(2) of section 6511 shall be 3 years. "(ii) Date notice was given.--For purposes of this subparagraph-- "(I) if notice was given under subsection (a)(2) or section 6320(a)(2) by mail, the date the notice was given shall be the date such notice was mailed, and "(II) if notice was given under subsection (a)(2) or 6320(a)(2) by leaving such notice at the dwelling or usual place of business of the person, the date the notice was given shall be the date such notice was left.". (b) Suspension of Period of Limitations for Credit or Refund During Proceedings.-- (1) In general.--Section 6330(e)(1) is amended by inserting "section 6511 (relating to limitations on credit or refund)," after "section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment)". (2) Prohibition on crediting of overpayments against disputed tax liability during collection action proceedings.--Section 6402 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(o) Prohibition on Crediting of Overpayments Against Disputed Tax Liability During Collection Action Proceedings.--If a hearing is properly requested under section 6320(a)(3)(B) or 6330(a)(3)(B), and an underlying tax liability referred to in section 6330(c)(2)(B) is properly disputed at such hearing, such tax liability shall not, except with the consent of the taxpayer, be taken into account under subsection (a) for the period during which the period of limitations for filing a claim for credit or refund relating to such tax liability is suspended by reason of section 6330(e).". (c) Clarification of Application of Certain Levy Hearing Rules to Lien Hearings.--Section 6330(c)(2)(A) is amended by striking "unpaid tax or the proposed levy" and inserting "unpaid tax, collection action, or proposed collection action". (d) Effective Date.-- (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the amendments made by this section shall apply to cases pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) Prohibition on crediting of overpayments.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall apply with respect to any period described in section 6402(o) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) if any portion of such period is after the date of the enactment of this Act. (3) Clarification of application of certain levy hearing rules to lien hearings.--The amendment made by subsection (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 310.

Text printed in the Record (10,660 characters)

AUTHORIZATION OF THE TAX COURT TO HEAR SUITS FOR REFUNDS OR CREDITS. (a) In General.--Section 7442 is amended-- (1) by striking "The Tax Court" and inserting the following: "(a) In General.--The Tax Court", and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(b) Actions for Refunds.-- "(1) Jurisdiction.-- "(A) In general.--In addition to any other court authorized by law, the Tax Court shall, subject to section 7422, have jurisdiction over any action, not exceeding the applicable amount, for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws to the same extent as the district courts of the United States. "(B) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, the applicable amount means-- "(i) $2,000,000 for any one taxable year, in the case of taxes imposed by subtitle A, "(ii) $2,000,000, in the case of the tax imposed by chapter 11, "(iii) $2,000,000 for any one calendar year, in the case of the tax imposed by chapter 12, "(iv) $2,000,000 for any 1 taxable period (or, if there is no taxable period, taxable event) in the case of any tax imposed by subtitle C, D, or E, and "(v) $2,000,000, in the case of any other amount collected. "(2) Further notice of deficiency.--If the Secretary prior to the hearing of a suit brought by a taxpayer under paragraph (1) mails to the taxpayer a notice that a deficiency has been determined in respect of the tax which is the subject matter of the taxpayer's suit, the proceedings in the taxpayer's suit shall be stayed during the period of time in which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the asserted deficiency, and for 60 days thereafter. If the taxpayer files such a petition with the Tax Court, such petition shall be consolidated with the suit brought under paragraph (1).". (b) Use of Small Dispute Procedures.--Section 7463(f) is amended by striking "and" at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ", and", and by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(4) a petition to the Tax Court under section 7442(b) in which the amount of the refund sought does not exceed $50,000.". (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Section 7422(k) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(5) For jurisdiction of the Tax Court, see section 7442(b).". (2) Section 7482(b)(1) is amended by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G) and inserting ", or", and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(H) in the case of a petition under section 7442(b)-- "(i) the legal residence of the petitioner if the petitioner is an individual, and "(ii) the principal place of business or principal office or agency if the petitioner is an entity other than an individual.". (3) Section 1346(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ", concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims,", (B) in paragraph (1), by striking "Any" and inserting "Concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims and the Tax Court, any", and (C) in paragraph (2), by striking "Any" and inserting "Concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, any". (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to actions filed after the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 311. AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW CLAIMS FOR REFUND IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE FULL TAX NOT PAID. (a) In General.--Section 7422, as amended by this Act, is amended by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l) and by inserting after subsection (j) the following new subsection: "(k) Special Rule for Actions Where There Is an Agreement in Effect With the Taxpayer Under Section 6159 or When the Taxpayer Is in Currently Not Collectible Status.-- "(1) In general.--The district courts of the United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Tax Court shall not fail to have jurisdiction over any applicable action brought by a taxpayer to determine the correct amount of liability of such taxpayer solely because the full amount of such liability has not been paid. "(2) Applicable action.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable action' means any action to determine the correct amount of the liability of such taxpayer (or for any refund with respect thereto) with respect to any amount if, as of the date such action is filed, such amount-- "(A) is the subject of an agreement under section 6159 for which all installments the due date for which is on or before the date the action is filed have been paid, or "(B) has been determined by the Secretary to be not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)). "(3) Permissive dismissal.-- "(A) Request for dismissal.--The United States (or the Secretary, in the case of a case in the Tax Court) may request the dismissal of an applicable action if the taxpayer is no longer in compliance with an installment agreement under section 6159 or is no longer in currently not collectible status (within the meaning of section 6343(e)). "(B) Court action.--In any case in which there is a request for dismissal under subparagraph (A), the court may, with or without taking any evidence or holding a hearing, dismiss the action with leave to refile when either the full amount of such liability has been paid or the conditions in paragraph (2) are met at the time of refiling. In deciding whether to dismiss the action, the court may consider the extent to which the action has proceeded, the extent to which full payment has been made, any burden that may result to the taxpayer, the United States, the Secretary, or the court from such dismissal (including reasons the taxpayer is no longer in compliance with an installment agreement under section 6159), and any other reason relating to the policy of the full payment rule. A dismissal under this paragraph shall not be reviewed by any other court. "(4) Prohibition on collection of disallowed liability.--If the court redetermines under paragraph (1) the correct amount of liability of the taxpayer, no part of such liability which is disallowed by a decision of such court which has become final may be collected by the Secretary, and amounts paid in excess of the amount determined by the court as correctly paid shall be refunded.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to actions filed on or after the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 312. ADJUSTMENT OF THRESHOLD FOR SMALL DISPUTES. (a) In General.--Section 7463, as amended by this Act, is amended-- (1) by striking "$50,000" each place it appears in subsections (a) and (f) and inserting "$100,000", and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(g) Inflation Adjustment.-- "(1) In general.-- In the case of any petition filed in a calendar year beginning after 2026, each of the $100,000 amounts in subsections (a) and (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2025' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(2) Rounding.--If any increase determined under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $1,000, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.". (b) Proceedings for Determination of Employment Status.--Section 7436(c)(1) is amended by striking "if the amount of employment taxes placed in dispute is $50,000 or less for each calendar quarter involved" and inserting "if the amount of employment taxes placed in dispute is equal to or less than the dollar amount in effect under section 7463(a)(1) (determined at the time the pleading is filed under subsection (a)) for each calendar quarter involved". (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Section 7443A(b)(3) is amended by striking "$50,000" and inserting "the dollar amount in effect under section 7463(a)(1) (determined at the time the pleading is filed)". (2) Section 7463(f)(2) is amended by striking "an appeal" and inserting "a petition". (3) The heading for section 7463 is amended by striking "disputes involving $50,000 or less" and inserting "small disputes". (4) The item relating to section 7463 in the table of section for part II of subchapter C of chapter 76 is amended by striking "Disputes involving $50,000 or less" and inserting "Small disputes". (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to proceedings commencing after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 401. NTA AUTHORIZATION TO DIRECT HIRE ATTORNEYS. Section 7803(c)(2)(D) is amended-- (1) in clause (i)-- (A) in subclause (I), by striking "and" at the end, (B) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and", and (C) by adding at the end the following: "(III) appoint counsel in the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate or delegate thereof.", and (2) by adding at the end the following: "(iii) Counsel.--For purposes of clause (i)(III)-- "(I) the National Taxpayer Advocate may utilize direct hire authority to recruit and appoint qualified applicants, without regard to any preference requirements, "(II) any counsel appointed pursuant to such clause shall not report to the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and shall not represent the Government in litigation, "(III) any legal interpretation of counsel appointed pursuant to such clause shall not be binding on the Secretary, and "(IV) pursuant to section 301(f)(2) of title 31, United States Code, and subsection (b)(2)(A), the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service shall continue to provide advice to the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate.". SEC. 402. NTA AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE PERSONNEL DECISIONS. (a) In General.--Section 7803(c)(2)(D)(i)(II) is amended by striking "any employee of any local office of a taxpayer advocate described in subclause (I)" and inserting "any officer or employee of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 403.

Text printed in the Record (11,993 characters)

ACCESS TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INFORMATION, LEGAL ADVICE, AND MEETINGS. (a) In General.--Section 7803(c) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(6) Access to information and meetings.-- "(A) In general.--Upon request, the Commissioner shall provide the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate with access to any of the following: "(i) In the case of any request made by a taxpayer for assistance by the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate which is open and pending-- "(I) any return or return information (as such terms are defined in section 6103(b)) which the National Taxpayer Advocate determines is necessary to assist such taxpayer, "(II) any legal advice provided by the staff of the Office of Chief Counsel to any employee of the Internal Revenue Service (including any legal advice prepared in contemplation of litigation) which the National Taxpayer Advocate determines is necessary to assist such taxpayer, regardless of whether such legal advice cannot be disclosed to such taxpayer, and "(III) any meeting between such taxpayer and any employee of the Internal Revenue Service. "(ii) To the extent necessary to perform a full and substantive analysis included in any report described in paragraph (2)(B)-- "(I) any relevant document, data, or statistical information, and "(II) any legal advice provided by the staff of the Office of the Chief Counsel to any employee of the Internal Revenue Service (including any legal advice prepared in contemplation of litigation). "(iii) Legal advice from the staff of the Office of Chief Counsel on any matter or issue. "(B) Deadline.--Access to any information, advice, or meeting described in subparagraph (A) shall be provided by the Commissioner not later than-- "(i) the date which is 2 weeks after the date on which a written request submitted by the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate has been received by the Commissioner, or "(ii) such date as is otherwise agreed to by the Commissioner and the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate. "(C) Meetings.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(III), the Commissioner shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement under such subparagraph if the Commissioner has extended an invitation to attend the meeting to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, without regard to whether such an invitation was declined by any employee of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate. "(D) Privilege.--Any access provided to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate pursuant to this paragraph with respect to information or legal advice from the staff of the Office of Chief Counsel shall have no effect on any privilege which otherwise applies to such information or legal advice.". (b) Annual Reports.--Section 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii) is amended-- (1) in subclause (XII), by striking "and" at the end, (2) in subclause (XIII), by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and", and (3) by adding at the end the following new subclause: "(XIV) identify any failure by the Commissioner to provide access to any information, advice, or meeting described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) by the date required under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 404. REPEAL OF LIMITATION PERIOD SUSPENSION FOR TAXPAYERS SEEKING ASSISTANCE FROM TAS. (a) In General.--Section 7811 is amended-- (1) by striking subsection (d), and (2) by redesignating subsections (e) through (g) as subsections (d) through (f), respectively. (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6306(k)(2) is amended by striking "section 7811(g)" and inserting "section 7811(f)". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 405. OPERATIONS TO ASSIST TAXPAYERS EXPERIENCING HARDSHIPS DURING LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the third sentence of section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, for purposes of the first sentence of such section, during any lapse in appropriations, functions described in subsection (b) performed by an employee of the Internal Revenue Service who is designated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the National Taxpayer Advocate for purposes of this section shall be treated in the same manner as an emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. (b) Function Described.--The functions described in this subsection are functions necessary-- (1) to assist any taxpayer who is or may be experiencing an economic hardship (within the meaning of section 6343(a)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) as a result of any action or inaction by the Internal Revenue Service, and (2) to comply with any Taxpayer Assistance Order issued pursuant to section 7811 of such Code. SEC. 501. PENALTIES FOR TAX RETURN PREPARERS WHO IMPROPERLY ALTER RETURNS. (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 6696(e) is amended to read as follows: "(1) Return.--The term `return' means-- "(A) any return of any tax imposed by this title, "(B) any administrative adjustment request under section 6227, "(C) any partnership adjustment tracking report under section 6226(b)(4)(A), and "(D) any other document purporting to be a return, request, or report described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 502. ENSURING THE USE OF VALID PREPARER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS AND ELECTRONIC FILING IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS. (a) In General.-- (1) Penalty.--Section 6695 is amended-- (A) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: "(c) Failure to Furnish Valid Identifying Number.-- "(1) In general.-- "(A) Penalty.--Any person who is a tax return preparer with respect to any return or claim for refund and who fails to furnish an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(4)(A) with respect to such return or claim shall pay a penalty of $250 for such failure. "(B) Non-compliance.--For purposes of this paragraph, an identifying number shall be deemed to not comply with section 6109(a)(4)(A) if such identifying number-- "(i) is assigned to another person, "(ii) does not exist, "(iii) is inactive or expired, "(iv) has been withdrawn, "(v) is suspended or has been revoked, or "(vi) is otherwise invalid for use by the tax return preparer. "(2) Exception.--The penalty imposed under paragraph (1) shall not apply if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. "(3) Limitation.--The maximum penalty imposed under this subsection on any person with respect to documents filed during any calendar year shall not exceed $75,000.", (B) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i), (C) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection: "(h) Use of Invalid or Appropriated Electronic Filing Identification Number.-- "(1) In general.--Any person who is an electronic return originator with respect to any applicable electronically filed document who fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (2), with respect to such applicable electronically filed document, shall pay a penalty of $250 for such failure, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. "(2) Requirement.--The requirements of this paragraph are met if-- "(A) the electronic return originator uses an electronic filing identification number which is assigned to such person by the Secretary, and "(B) in the case of any applicable electronically filed document filed after the date on which the program under paragraph (4) is established, the electronic filing identification number has been validated under such program at the time of the filing. "(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection-- "(A) Electronic return originator.-- "(i) In general.--The term `electronic return originator' means a person who originates the electronic submission of 1 or more applicable electronically filed documents. "(ii) Exceptions.--The term `electronic return originator' shall not include a person merely because such person originates an electronic submission described in clause (i)-- "(I) by providing services which are limited to typing, reproduction, or other mechanical assistance, "(II) at the direction of an employer (or of an officer or employee of the employer) by whom such person is regularly and continuously employed, "(III) as a fiduciary, or "(IV) in response to a determination by the Secretary that directly or indirectly affects the tax liability of a taxpayer. "(B) Electronic filing identification number.-- "(i) In general.--The term `electronic filing identification number' means a unique identifier issued by the Secretary to authorize a person or entity to electronically file on behalf of other taxpayers-- "(I) any return of Federal tax, "(II) any claim for a refund, and "(III) except as provided by the Secretary, any other document required to be filed with the Secretary under this title. "(ii) Suspension or revocation.--In the case of any electronic filing identification number which has been suspended or revoked by the Secretary, such number shall not be deemed valid for purposes of paragraph (1). "(C) Applicable electronically filed document.--The term `applicable electronically filed document' means any document which is described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of subparagraph (B)(i) and filed electronically on behalf of other taxpayers. "(4) Electronic filing identification number validation program.-- "(A) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall establish and maintain a program for the validation of electronic filing identification numbers. "(B) Timing and frequency of validation.--The Secretary shall validate an electronic filing identification number-- "(i) prior to the initial use of such electronic filing identification number for electronic filing, and "(ii) at such intervals, or upon such events, as the Secretary determines appropriate, to ensure the continued validity and integrity of such electronic filing identification number. "(C) Real-time validation system.-- "(i) In general.--The program established under this paragraph shall provide a real-time system for the validation of electronic filing identification numbers. "(ii) System requirements.--The system provided under clause (i) shall-- "(I) provide immediate confirmation of the validity status of an electronic filing identification number, "(II) identify whether an electronic filing identification number has been suspended, revoked, or compromised or is otherwise ineligible for the activity for which it is used, and "(III) be designed to support secure, automated, and high-volume validation requests, including usage by large-scale tax preparation software systems. "(D) Access.--The Secretary shall-- "(i) provide access to the system in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe, and "(ii) accept a validation request only from a person authenticated and authorized in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Secretary and only with respect to an electronic filing identification number and electronic filing activity for which such person is authorized to request validation, whether on its own behalf or in connection with services provided to the person to whom the electronic filing identification number was issued.", and (D) in subsection (i)(1), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by striking "and (g)" and inserting "(g), and (h)". (2) Requirement for filing software to provide for use of validation program.--Software which enables the electronic filing of applicable electronically filed documents (as defined in section 6695(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by paragraph (1)(C)) with the Secretary-- (A) shall require validation of an

Text printed in the Record (8,996 characters)

electronic filing identification number (as defined in section 6695(h) of such Code, as amended by this section) under the program described in section 6695(h)(4) of such Code (as amended by this section) prior to the electronic filing of any applicable electronically filed document (as so defined) filed after the date such program has been established, and (B) shall not permit such electronic filing unless such electronic filing identification number has been validated under such program. (3) Validation program implementation plan and report.-- (A) Implementation plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives an implementation plan for the program established under section 6695(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this subsection). Such plan shall include-- (i) a description of the planned design and operation of the program, (ii) the implementation timeline, major milestones, and testing schedule, (iii) the categories of persons eligible to submit validation requests and the procedures for authorizing such persons, (iv) the proposed performance and reliability standards and contingency procedures, and (v) a description of the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized discovery, enumeration, testing, or bulk verification of electronic filing identification numbers. (B) Post-implementation report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which the program under section 6695(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this subsection) is established, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation and operation of the program. Such report shall include-- (i) the performance of the program, including system availability, response times, and peak-volume performance, (ii) the number, duration, and effect on electronic filing of any material service disruptions, (iii) the aggregate number of validation requests and the aggregate number of affirmative, negative, and unable-to-validate responses, (iv) the nature and extent of any use of contingency procedures, (v) any material deviation from the implementation plan submitted under subparagraph (A), and the actions taken or planned to address such deviation, and (vi) any recommendations for administrative or legislative changes. (b) Modification of Definition of Tax Return Preparer.--Section 7701(a)(36) is amended-- (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: "(A) In general.--The term `tax return preparer' means any person who prepares for compensation, or who employs one or more persons to prepare for compensation, any return of tax imposed by this title, any document purporting to be a return of tax imposed by this title, or any claim for refund of tax imposed by this title. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the preparation of a substantial portion of a return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund shall be treated as if it were the preparation of such return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund.", and (2) in subparagraph (B)-- (A) in clause (ii), by striking "return or claim for refund" and inserting "return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund", and (B) in clause (iii), by striking "return or claim for refund" and inserting "return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund". (c) Prevention of Inadvertent Errors Involving Identifying Numbers.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a program to improve voluntary compliance with respect to requirements under subsections (c) and (h) of section 6695 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by this section) and avoid the imposition of penalties under such subsections. (2) Consultation.--The program described in paragraph (1) shall be established by the Secretary following consultation with-- (A) the National Taxpayer Advocate, (B) qualified low-income taxpayer clinics that have received a grant under section 7526 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (C) other relevant stakeholders. (3) Opportunity to correct.--For purposes of the program described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall-- (A) prior to acceptance for processing, identify-- (i) any return or claim for refund which has been electronically submitted and does not include an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (ii) any return or claim for refund which has been electronically submitted and does not use an electronic filing identification number (as defined in section 6695(h)(3)(B) of such Code) or which uses an electronic filing identification number which been suspended, revoked, or compromised or is otherwise ineligible for the activity for which it is used, and (B) provide an opportunity for the person who submitted such return or claim for refund to avoid imposition of a penalty under subsection (c) or (h) of section 6695 of such Code, as applicable, if the correct identifying number or electronic filing identification number is provided. (d) Criminal Penalty.-- (1) In general.--Part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 7218. WILLFUL FAILURE TO PROVIDE A VALID PREPARER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. "(a) In General.--Any tax return preparer who, with respect to any return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund willfully fails to furnish an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(4)(A) with respect to such return or document or willfully furnishes a preparer tax identification number which is described in section 6695(c)(1)(B) with intent to evade or defeat the application of any requirement under any provision of this title which requires such preparer to obtain and furnish such number, shall, in addition to any other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $50,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. "(b) Preparer Tax Identification Number.--In this section, the term `preparer tax identification number' means an identifying number described in section 6109(a)(4)(A).". (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 7218. Willful failure to provide a valid preparer identification number.". (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns or claims for refund filed after the date which is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 503. PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER TAX PREPARATION OR MISAPPROPRIATION OF REFUNDS. (a) Other Assessable Penalties With Respect to the Preparation of Tax Returns for Other Persons.--Section 6695, as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$50,000", (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$75,000", (3) in subsection (d)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$50,000", (4) in subsection (e)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$75,000", (5) in subsection (g), by striking "$500" and inserting "$1,000", and (6) in subsection (i)(1)-- (A) by striking "2014" and inserting "2025", and (B) by striking "calendar year 2013" and inserting "calendar year 2024". (b) Misappropriation of Refunds.-- (1) In general.--Subsection (f) of section 6695 is amended to read as follows: "(f) Misappropriation.-- "(1) In general.--Any person who is a tax return preparer who misappropriates any payment made in respect of the taxes imposed by this title which is issued to a taxpayer (other than the tax return preparer) shall pay a penalty in an amount determined under paragraph (2). "(2) Penalty.--The amount of the penalty determined under this paragraph shall, with respect to each payment described in paragraph (1), be equal to the greater of-- "(A) $1,000, or "(B) the full amount of such payment. "(3) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to the deposit by a bank (within the meaning of section 581) of the full amount of the payment in the taxpayer's account in such bank for the benefit of the taxpayer.". (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6695(i)(1) is amended by striking "(f)," and inserting "(f)(2)(A),". SEC. 504.

Text printed in the Record (11,999 characters)

AUTHORITY TO DENY, REVOKE, OR SUSPEND PREPARER TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS. (a) In General.--Section 6109 is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following: "(4) Furnishing identifying number of tax return preparer.-- "(A) In general.--Any return, claim for refund, or document purporting to be a return or claim for refund which is prepared by a tax return preparer shall bear such identifying number for securing proper identification of such preparer, their employer, or both, as may be prescribed. "(B) Suspension or revocation.--In the case of any identifying number which has been suspended or revoked by the Secretary under subsection (e), such number shall not be deemed valid for purposes of subparagraph (A). "(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- "(i) Specified practitioner.--The term `specified practitioner' means a certified public accountant, attorney, or enrolled agent-- "(I) who is-- "(aa) in good standing with-- "(AA) the Department of the Treasury, and, "(BB) in the case of a certified public accountant or attorney, State licensing authorities, and "(bb) authorized to represent persons before the Department of the Treasury under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, and "(II) whose professional license or certification has not been revoked or suspended. "(ii) Return; claim for refund.--The terms `return' and `claim for refund' have the respective meanings given to such terms by section 6696(e).", and (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: "(e) Identifying Number of Tax Return Preparer.-- "(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain a program for administration of preparer tax identification numbers required under subsection (a)(4), which shall include restrictions on the issuance of such numbers to any individual other than an individual who-- "(A) meets the suitability requirements of paragraph (2) and the education requirements of paragraph (3), "(B) meets the state program requirements of paragraph (4), or "(C) is a specified practitioner. "(2) Demonstration of suitability.-- "(A) In general.--An individual meets the suitability requirements of this paragraph if such individual has demonstrated to the Secretary the individual's suitability to be a tax return preparer by-- "(i) providing such information as the Secretary determines necessary, and "(ii) passing a background check, including a review by the Secretary regarding compliance with personal tax obligations. "(B) Conduct demonstrating lack of suitability.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), an individual shall be deemed to have failed to demonstrate their suitability to be a tax return preparer if-- "(i) any license or registration issued to such individual by a State to prepare tax returns has been suspended or revoked by such State, or "(ii) the Secretary determines that such individual is described in clauses (ii) through (vi) of paragraph (5)(A). "(C) Regulations and guidance.--The Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. "(D) Prohibition on examinations.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), except as provided in paragraph (3)(C)(iii), the Secretary may not require an examination as a prerequisite for the assignment or renewal of a preparer tax identification number. "(E) Grandfathering of prior background checks.-- "(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), in the case of a class of individuals (as identified by the Secretary) who have passed a background check prior to the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary may deem such class of individuals to have satisfied the requirement under such subparagraph. "(ii) Nonapplication to requirement regarding compliance with personal tax obligations.--Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to review by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(ii) regarding compliance with personal tax obligations. "(3) Educational programs.-- "(A) In general.--An individual shall meet the education requirements of this paragraph if such individual completes a specified number of hours of educational programs on ethics, professional responsibility, and tax law (including recently enacted Federal income tax legislation) as required by the Secretary prior to the assignment or renewal of a preparer tax identification number. "(B) Additional educational requirements for renewal.--The Secretary may require any individual seeking the renewal of a preparer tax identification number to complete educational programs in addition to those required under subparagraph (A). Any educational programs required under this subparagraph shall be based on-- "(i) a review of returns which include the preparer tax identification number of such preparer, and "(ii) any errors identified by the Secretary as part of the review described in clause (i). "(C) Other requirements.--For purposes of this paragraph, the Secretary-- "(i) may not require a tax return preparer to annually complete more than 18 hours of educational programs, "(ii) shall require that any educational program include written materials which satisfy such standards as are established by the Secretary, "(iii) shall require that any educational program include a method to ensure that the tax return preparer attended the program and sufficiently understood the material presented, and "(iv) may not direct any educational program to be completed through a specific provider. "(D) Notice of failure to timely complete requirements.--The Secretary shall provide any tax return preparer who fails to complete the requirements of this paragraph notice of such failure and a 30-day period in which to cure such failure. "(E) Publication of approved courses.--The Secretary shall publish, on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service-- "(i) a list of educational programs which have been determined by the Secretary to satisfy the requirement under clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) (and, if applicable, the requirement under clause (iii) of such subparagraph), including the providers of such programs, and "(ii) any such requirements as the Secretary deems necessary to impose with respect to any additional programs required under subparagraph (B), provided that such requirements are similar to the requirements provided under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed thereunder. "(4) Exemption.-- "(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), any individual meets the state program requirements of this paragraph if such individual maintains a valid State license or registration issued by a State licensing program or State registration program (including State tax education councils) which includes examination, education, and background check requirements that are comparable to the suitability requirements described in paragraph (2) and the education requirements described in paragraph (3). "(B) Grandfathering of certain programs.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), with respect to determining whether a State licensing program or State registration program (including State tax education councils) includes examination, education, and background check requirements which are comparable to the suitability requirements described in paragraph (2) and the education requirements described in paragraph (3), such determination shall be made by the Secretary without regard to whether such requirements were included in such program at the time that such individual was licensed or registered under such program, provided that such requirements are, as of the date that such individual requested assignment or renewal of a preparer tax identification number under this subsection, presently included in such program. "(5) Authority to revoke or suspend preparer tax identification number.-- "(A) In general.--The Secretary may suspend or revoke a preparer tax identification number if, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary makes a determination that the tax return preparer-- "(i) has not met-- "(I) the suitability requirements of paragraph (2) and the education requirements of paragraph (3), or "(II) the state program requirements of paragraph (4), "(ii) is incompetent, as demonstrated by a repeated pattern of errors in returns that were prepared by such preparer which affected the determination of tax liability in such returns, "(iii) is disreputable, as demonstrated by-- "(I) giving false or misleading information under paragraph (2)(A)(i), "(II) willful failure to comply with personal tax obligations, "(III) an unpaid tax delinquency-- "(aa) which is outstanding for greater than 180 days, "(bb) which is not being actively disputed, and "(cc) which is not-- "(AA) subject to an agreement or compromise under section 6159 or 7122, "(BB) classified as currently not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)), or "(CC) subject to a pending application for such an agreement, compromise, or status, "(IV) revocation or suspension of any license or registration issued by a State for the preparation of tax returns, "(V) conviction of any criminal offense-- "(aa) involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or "(bb) which is punishable under this title, "(VI) a final determination of liability for a penalty pursuant to section 6694, 6695(h), 6700, 6701, 6702, or 6713, "(VII) subject to an injunction under section 7407 or 7408, or "(VIII) any conduct similar to the conduct described in subclauses (I) through (VII), as provided under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, "(iv) in the case of a person subject to regulation under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed thereunder, has violated the requirements under such section or such regulations, "(v) with intent to defraud, willfully and knowingly misleads or threatens-- "(I) the person whose return or claim for refund is being prepared, or "(II) a prospective person seeking for a return or claim for refund to be prepared, or "(vi) has engaged in conduct (as identified in regulations or guidance issued by the Secretary) which is similar to the conduct described in clauses (i) through (v) and that the denial, suspension, or revocation of such number would promote compliance with the requirements of this title and effective tax administration. "(B) Monetary penalty.-- "(i) In general.--In addition to, or in lieu of, any suspension or revocation of a preparer tax identification number under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may impose a penalty in any amount not exceeding $5,000. "(ii) Reduction.--Any penalty imposed under clause (i) shall be reduced by the amount of any penalty imposed under section 6694, 6695, 6700, 6701, 6702, or 6713 with regard to the same conduct. "(iii) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(I) In general.--In the case of any penalty imposed during any calendar year beginning after 2025, the dollar amount in clause (i) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(aa) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(bb) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(II) Rounding.--If any amount determined under subclause (I) is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100. "(C) Reinstatement.--The Secretary shall, through regulations or other guidance, establish procedures to allow any tax return preparer whose preparer tax identification number has been suspended or revoked pursuant to subparagraph (A) to have such number reissued (or, in the case of a suspension, for such suspension to be terminated), provided that such preparer demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that-- "(i) the conduct described in such paragraph which was the basis for such suspension

Text printed in the Record (11,997 characters)

or revocation has been sufficiently addressed or resolved (such as through completion of educational programs described in paragraph (3) or reinstatement of a license issued by a State for the preparation of tax returns), and "(ii) effective tax administration would be promoted by terminating the suspension of such number or reissuing such number to such preparer. "(D) Preliminary suspension.-- "(i) In general.--After notice and opportunity to respond, the Secretary may suspend the preparer tax identification number of a tax return preparer for a period of not greater than 180 days if the Secretary determines that-- "(I) such tax return preparer has engaged in any conduct described in clauses (i) through (vi) of subparagraph (A), and "(II) such suspension is necessary to prevent serious economic harm to taxpayers or serious impairment of effective tax administration, such as to prevent the filing of fraudulent returns or claims for refund. "(ii) Limitation.--For purposes of clause (i), if the preparer tax identification number of a tax return preparer has been suspended pursuant to such clause 2 times during any 5-year period, the Secretary may not issue an additional suspension pursuant to such clause with respect to such preparer during such period unless such suspension is subsequent to a determination by the Secretary to suspend or revoke the preparer tax identification number of such preparer pursuant to subparagraph (A). "(E) Regulations.--Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including-- "(i) guidelines that identify the particular penalty applicable to any conduct described in subparagraph (A), and "(ii) the manner of notice and opportunity to respond for purposes of subparagraph (D). "(F) No inference.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to create any inference with respect to the definition or meaning of any term used in section 330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed thereunder. "(6) Appeal.--In the case of any tax return preparer for whom the Secretary has made a determination-- "(A) that such preparer has not met the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) or of paragraph (4) and that issuance of a preparer tax identification number should be denied, "(B) under paragraph (5)(A) that the preparer tax identification number for such preparer should be suspended or revoked, or "(C) that a penalty should be imposed pursuant to paragraph (5)(B), such preparer shall be provided with an opportunity to appeal such determination pursuant to procedures (as established by the Secretary through regulations or other guidance) which are similar to the procedures provided under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, and regulations prescribed thereunder. "(7) Disclosure of final determinations.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any determination-- "(i) in which an extended suspension or revocation of a preparer tax identification number is imposed under this subsection, and "(ii) for which all administrative and judicial appeals are exhausted, not later than 30 days following such determination, the Secretary shall publish such determination on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service, which shall include a statement of the facts and circumstances relating to such determination and the reasons for the determination. "(B) Extended suspension.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `extended suspension' means a suspension issued by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (5)(A) for a period of greater than 180 days. "(8) Preparer tax identification number.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `preparer tax identification number' means an identifying number described in subsection (a)(4)(A).". (b) Determinations Regarding Practice Before the Department.--Section 330 of title 31, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: "(e) Disclosure of Final Determinations.--In the case of any determination under subsection (c) or (d)-- "(1) in which a suspension, disbarment, or censure, or other penalty is imposed, and "(2) for which all administrative and judicial appeals are exhausted, not later than 30 days following such determination, the Secretary shall publish such determination on a public website, which shall include a statement of the facts and circumstances relating to such determination and the reasons for the determination.". (c) Disclosure Relating to Misconduct by Practitioners and Tax Return Preparers.-- (1) In general.--Section 6103(k) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(16) Disclosure relating to misconduct by practitioners and tax return preparers.--Under such procedures as the Secretary may prescribe, the Secretary may disclose returns and return information to the extent the Secretary determines it is necessary to publish determinations pursuant to section 6109(e)(7) and section 330(e) of title 31, United States Code, provided that such disclosure is redacted to remove-- "(A) any name, address, or other identifying information with respect to any persons other than the representative or tax return preparer who is the subject of such determination, and "(B) such other information as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the privacy of such persons.". (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6103(p)(3)(A) is amended by striking "or (9)" and inserting "(9), or (16)". (d) Requirement to Include Identifying Number for Paid Preparer of Offer-in-compromise.-- (1) In general.--Section 6109(a) is amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph: "(5) Furnishing identifying number for offer-in-compromise.--Any offer-in-compromise (as described in section 7122), including any required schedule or statement, which has been prepared by any person for compensation shall include such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.". (2) Penalty.--Section 7122, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(i) Failure to Furnish Identifying Number.-- "(1) In general.-- "(A) Penalty.--Any person who prepares an offer-in-compromise (including any required schedule or statement) for compensation and who fails to include an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(5) with respect to such offer-in-compromise shall pay a penalty of $250 for such failure. "(B) Non-compliance.--For purposes of this paragraph, an identifying number shall be deemed to not comply with section 6109(a)(5) if such identifying number-- "(i) is assigned to another person, "(ii) does not exist, "(iii) is inactive or expired, "(iv) has been withdrawn, "(v) is suspended or has been revoked, or "(vi) is otherwise invalid for use by the preparer. "(C) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any documents filed during any calendar year beginning after 2025, the $250 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(ii) Rounding.--If any amount determined under clause (i) is not a multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. "(2) Exception.--The penalty imposed under paragraph (1) shall not apply if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. "(3) Limitation.-- "(A) In general.--The maximum penalty imposed under this subsection on any person with respect to documents filed during any calendar year shall not exceed $75,000. "(B) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any penalty imposed during any calendar year beginning after 2025, the $75,000 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(ii) Rounding.--If any amount determined under clause (i) is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. "(4) Other applicable rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 6696 shall apply for purposes of this subsection.". (e) GAO Study and Report on the Exchange of Information Between the IRS and State Taxation Authorities.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the sharing of information between the Secretary and State authorities, as authorized under subsections (d) and (k)(5) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, regarding identification numbers issued to paid tax return preparers and return preparer minimum standards. (2) Increased information sharing.--The study and report described in paragraph (1) shall include an analysis of the impact that increased information sharing between Federal and State authorities would have on efforts to enforce minimum standards on paid tax return preparers. (3) Audit of internal revenue service.--Section 6103(i)(8) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) Application to study conducted under taxpayer assistance and service act.--For purposes of this paragraph, the study and report described in section 504(e)(1) of the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act shall be deemed to be an audit of the Internal Revenue Service.". (f) Publication of Common Errors and Penalties.--Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue shall publish on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service-- (1) the 10 most frequent errors found on tax returns which were prepared by tax return preparers (as defined in section 7701(a)(36) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) during the most recent calendar year for which data is available, and (2) with respect to the preceding calendar year, the top 10 reasons that tax return preparers were-- (A) subject to penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or (B) otherwise disciplined under section 6109 of such Code or section 330 of title 31, United States Code. (g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section (or amendment made by this section) shall be construed to require the Secretary to eliminate or terminate any existing program or authority-- (1) which, pursuant to section 330 of title 31, United States Code, permits a tax return preparer to represent a taxpayer before the Department of the Treasury in cases in which such preparer prepared and signed the return of tax, or (2) for publication of a public database on the website of the Internal Revenue Service of tax return preparers who have satisfied the requirements for issuance of a preparer tax identification number (as defined in section 6109(e)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). (h) Effective Date.-- (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. (2) Transition rules for educational requirements for tax return preparers.-- (A) Annual filing season program.--In the case of any tax return preparer who, as of the date of enactment of this Act, has received a record of completion with respect to the Annual Filing Season Program established by the Internal Revenue Service, such tax return preparer

Text printed in the Record (7,087 characters)

shall be deemed to have satisfied the education requirements of section 6109(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) for the calendar year for which such record of completion applies. (B) Approved courses.--In the case of any entity which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, is approved to provide continuing education for purposes of the Annual Filing Season Program established by the Internal Revenue Service, such entity shall be deemed to satisfy the applicable requirements under section 6109(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 until the date on which the Secretary has-- (i) issued such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary for purposes of establishing standards for educational programs under such section, and (ii) pursuant to subparagraph (E) of such section, published a list of educational programs which have been determined by the Secretary to satisfy the applicable requirements under such section. SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF APPEALS TO HIRE ATTORNEYS. Subparagraph (B) of section 7803(e)(6) is amended to read as follows: "(B) Hiring of counsel.--The Chief of Appeals shall have the authority to appoint counsel in the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals to report directly to the Chief of Appeals. Any counsel appointed pursuant to this subparagraph shall not report to the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and shall not represent the Government in litigation. Any legal interpretation of counsel appointed pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be binding on the Secretary.". SEC. 602. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF APPEALS TO DIRECT HIRE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. Section 7803(e)(6) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(C) Authority to appoint individuals not employed by internal revenue service.--The Secretary may utilize direct hire authority to recruit and appoint qualified applicants, without regard to any notice or preference requirements, to positions within the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals, provided that such applicants are not employees of the Internal Revenue Service engaged in enforcement functions.". SEC. 603. RESPONSES TO CLAIMS FOR REFUND REQUIRED; APPEAL OF CLAIMS FOR REFUND AUTHORIZED. (a) In General.--Subsection (l) of section 6402 is amended to read as follows: "(l) Explanation of Reason for Refund Disallowance; Appeals.-- "(1) In general.--Not later than the applicable date, the Secretary shall review any claim for refund, make a determination with respect to such claim, and, in the case of a disallowance of such claim (in whole or in part), provide the taxpayer with a detailed written explanation for such disallowance, which shall-- "(A) be mailed to the last known address of the taxpayer, and "(B) in the case of any taxpayer entitled to an appeal of such determination, include instructions for appealing such disallowance to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals. "(2) Failure to make timely determination.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any claim for refund for which the Secretary fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1) by the applicable date, for purposes of determining interest on any overpayment for any period subsequent to such date, the overpayment rate (as established under section 6621(a)(1)) shall be increased by 1 percentage point. "(B) Limitation.--With respect to any claim for refund described in subparagraph (A), the amount of any increase in interest on any overpayment pursuant to such subparagraph shall not exceed $500. "(C) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any claim for refund filed during any calendar year beginning after 2026, the $500 amount in subparagraph (B) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(ii) Rounding.--If any amount determined under clause (i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50. "(3) Appeals.-- "(A) In general.--Any disallowance of a claim for refund may, within 30 days after the date such disallowance is mailed (or, if mailed to an address outside of the United States, 90 days), be appealed to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals. Notwithstanding paragraph (4) of section 6532(a), during the period in which any such appeal is pending before the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals (and for 30 days thereafter), the 2-year period in paragraph (1) of such section for filing suit for refund after disallowance of a claim shall be suspended. "(B) Deemed disallowance.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), in the case of any claim for refund for which the Secretary has failed to make a determination with respect to such claim by the date described in paragraph (5)(A), the taxpayer may elect for such claim to be deemed to have been disallowed by the Secretary as of such date. "(4) Frivolous claims.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any frivolous claim-- "(i) paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply, and "(ii) not later than the applicable date, written notification of the denial of such claim shall be mailed to the last known address of the taxpayer. "(B) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term `frivolous claim' means a claim for refund which is based on-- "(i) a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous for purposes of subsection (c) of section 6702, or "(ii) a position which is substantially similar to a position described in clause (i). "(5) Applicable date.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable date' means, with respect to any claim for refund-- "(A) the date which is 12 months after the date of receipt of such claim by the Secretary, or "(B) such other date as is agreed to by the Secretary and the taxpayer.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to any claim for refund received after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 604. APPEALS OF RETURNED OFFERS. Section 7122(e) is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: "(1) for an independent administrative review of-- "(A) any determination that an offer-in-compromise be returned to the taxpayer because such offer-in-compromise is not accepted for processing or is otherwise determined to be nonprocessable before such determination is communicated to the taxpayer, and "(B) any rejection of a proposed offer-in-compromise or installment agreement made by a taxpayer under this section or section 6159 before such rejection is communicated to the taxpayer, and", and (2) in paragraph (2), by striking "any rejection of such offer or agreement" and inserting "any determination described in paragraph (1)(A) or any rejection described in paragraph (1)(B)". SEC. 605.

Text printed in the Record (10,612 characters)

PURPOSES AND DUTIES OF INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF APPEALS; RIGHT OF APPEAL CLARIFIED. (a) In General.--Section 7803(e) is amended--(1) in paragraph (3)--(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking "and" at the end, (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ", and", and (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) without exception, evaluates and considers all hazards of litigation in resolving any case referred to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals.", (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following new paragraph: "(4) Right of appeal.-- "(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided under this title, the resolution process described in paragraph (3) shall be available to all taxpayers with respect to any determination by the Secretary concerning a Federal tax controversy regarding subtitles A, B, or C and relating to-- "(i) liability for, or any claim for refund of, any tax, "(ii) liability for, or any claim for refund of, any penalty or addition to tax, "(iii) eligibility for alternatives to collection of a tax liability, such as an installment agreement or compromise under section 6159 or 7122, "(iv) any determination to deny or revoke the tax-exempt status of an organization, or "(v) any exercise of discretion by the Secretary with respect to any determination described in clauses (i) through (iv). "(B) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary may restrict access to the resolution process described in paragraph (3) with respect to any appeal-- "(i) to the extent that such appeal is based on a claim that-- "(I) a law is unconstitutional, unless there is a final and unreviewable decision rendered by a Federal court that the relevant provision of such law is unconstitutional, or "(II) a regulation, notice, or revenue procedure which was issued by the Secretary is procedurally invalid, unless there is a final and unreviewable decision rendered by a Federal court that the relevant provision of such regulation, notice, or revenue procedure is procedurally invalid, "(ii) which-- "(I) is based on a position which-- "(aa) a Federal court has determined to be frivolous, and "(bb) the Secretary has identified as frivolous for purposes of subsection (c) of section 6702, "(II) is substantially similar to a position described in subclause (I), or "(III) relates to any penalty imposed under such section with respect to such position, "(iii) which relates to any matter agreed upon pursuant to an agreement under section 7121, "(iv) subject to subparagraph (C), during any period in which-- "(I) the Secretary is actively investigating whether to refer the taxpayer to the Attorney General for criminal prosecution, "(II) a recommendation made by the Secretary to the Attorney General for the criminal prosecution of the taxpayer for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws is pending, or "(III) any criminal prosecution of the taxpayer, or of any other person in a case in which the taxpayer is a witness, for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws is pending, or "(v) with respect to any issue in a case which, based on the relevant facts and circumstances of such case, the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service-- "(I) has designated for litigation, and "(II) is prepared to proceed with such litigation in a timely manner. "(C) Exception for certain criminal prosecutions.--Subparagraph (B)(iv) shall not apply if the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service determines that the resolution process described in paragraph (3) would not interfere with the criminal prosecution of a taxpayer. "(D) Notice to tax-exempt organizations.--In the case of any determination described in subparagraph (A)(iv), the Secretary shall provide written notice to the organization of the availability of the resolution process described in paragraph (3). "(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph-- "(i) Federal tax controversy.--The term `Federal tax controversy' means a dispute described in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 301.7803-2 of title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act). "(ii) Procedurally invalid.--The term `procedurally invalid' means, with respect to any regulation, notice, or revenue procedure, that such regulation, notice, or revenue procedure failed to comply with any applicable requirement under subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act'). "(F) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the availability of the resolution process described in paragraph (3) solely to the Federal tax controversies described in subparagraph (A).", and (3) in paragraph (5)-- (A) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E), and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph: "(D) Clarification of tax court authority.--In any case before the Tax Court, the Tax Court may direct the parties to request referral to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals in any case in which the Tax Court determines that the resolution process described in paragraph (3) is appropriate.". SEC. 701. STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW OF WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD DETERMINATIONS. (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 7623(b) is amended-- (1) by striking "appealed to" and inserting "reviewed by"; and (2) by adding at the end the following: "Any review by the Tax Court under the preceding sentence shall be de novo and shall be based on the administrative record established at the time of the original determination and any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.". (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of paragraph (4) of section 7623(b) is amended by striking "Appeal" and inserting "Review". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to petitions under section 7623(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which are pending on, or filed on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 702. EXEMPTION FROM SEQUESTRATION. (a) In General.--Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 905) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l); and (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following: "(k) Awards to Whistleblowers.--An award authorized under section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part.". (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to any sequestration order issued under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 703. WHISTLEBLOWER PRIVACY PROTECTIONS. (a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 7623(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) Whistleblower anonymity before the tax court.--Notwithstanding sections 7458 and 7461, a whistleblower shall proceed anonymously before the Tax Court for all proceedings under this section absent a finding by the Tax Court that a societal interest exists for disclosing the whistleblower's identity which exceeds the potential harm disclosure could cause to the whistleblower.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to petitions filed with the Tax Court which are pending on, or filed on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 704. MODIFICATION OF IRS WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT. (a) In General.--Section 406(c) of division A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended by striking "such use," in paragraph (1) and inserting "such use (which shall include a list and descriptions of the top tax avoidance schemes, not to exceed 10, disclosed by whistleblowers during such year),". (b) Effective Date.-- The amendments made by this section shall apply to reports for fiscal years ending after the enactment of this Act. SEC. 705. INTEREST ON WHISTLEBLOWER AWARDS. (a) In General.--Section 7623(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(7) Interest.-- "(A) In general.--If the Secretary has not provided notice to an individual described in paragraph (1) of a preliminary award recommendation before the applicable date, the amount of any award under this subsection shall include interest from such date at the overpayment rate under section 6621(a). "(B) Exception.--No interest shall accrue under this paragraph after the date on which the Secretary provides notice to the individual of a preliminary award recommendation. "(C) Applicable date.--For purposes of this paragraph, the applicable date is the date that is 12 months after the first date on which-- "(i) all of the proceeds resulting from actions subject to the award recommendation have been collected, and "(ii) either-- "(I) the statutory period for filing a claim or suit for refund has expired, or "(II) the taxpayers subject to the actions and the Secretary have agreed with finality to the tax or other liabilities for the periods at issue, and either the taxpayers have waived the right to file a claim or suit for refund or any claim or suit for refund has been resolved.". (b) Effective Date.-- (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) Special rule.--If, as of the date described in paragraph (1)-- (A) the Secretary has not provided notice to the individual of a preliminary award recommendation as described in paragraph (7)(A) of section 7623(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this Act, and (B) the applicable date provided in paragraph (7)(C) of such section, as so added, has passed, the applicable date for purposes of such paragraph (7)(C) is the date that is 12 months after the date described in paragraph (1). SEC. 706. CORRECTION REGARDING DEDUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. (a) In General.--Section 62(a)(21)(A)(i) is amended by striking "7623(b)" and inserting "7623". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 801. POSTPONEMENT OF TAX DEADLINES FOR HOSTAGES AND INDIVIDUALS WRONGFULLY DETAINED ABROAD. (a) In General.--Chapter 77 is amended by inserting after section 7510 the following new section: "SEC. 7511.

Text printed in the Record (11,336 characters)

TIME FOR PERFORMING CERTAIN ACTS POSTPONED FOR HOSTAGES AND INDIVIDUALS WRONGFULLY DETAINED ABROAD. "(a) Time to Be Disregarded.-- "(1) In general.--The period during which an applicable individual was unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad, or held hostage abroad, shall be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability of such individual-- "(A) whether any of the acts described in section 7508(a)(1) were performed within the time prescribed thereof (determined without regard to extension under any other provision of this subtitle for periods after the initial date (as determined by the Secretary) on which such individual was unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad or held hostage abroad), "(B) the amount of any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax for periods after such date, and "(C) the amount of any credit or refund. "(2) Application to spouse.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply to the spouse of any individual entitled to the benefits of such paragraph. "(b) Applicable Individual.-- "(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term `applicable individual' means any individual who is-- "(A) a United States national unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad, as determined under section 302 of the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 1741), or "(B) a United States national taken hostage abroad, as determined pursuant to the findings of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell (as described in section 304 of the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 1741b)). "(2) Information provided to treasury.--For purposes of identifying individuals described in paragraph (1), not later than January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter-- "(A) the Secretary of State shall provide the Secretary with a list of the individuals described in paragraph (1)(A), as well as any other information necessary to identify such individuals, and "(B) the Attorney General, acting through the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, shall provide the Secretary with a list of the individuals described in paragraph (1)(B), as well as any other information necessary to identify such individuals. "(c) Special Rule for Overpayments.-- "(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply for purposes of determining the amount of interest on any overpayment of tax. "(2) Special rules.--If an individual is entitled to the benefits of subsection (a) with respect to any return and such return is timely filed (determined after the application of such subsection), subsections (b)(3) and (e) of section 6611 shall not apply. "(d) Modification of Treasury Databases and Information Systems.--The Secretary shall update, as necessary, any database or information system of the Department of the Treasury in order to ensure that the provisions of subsection (a) are applied with respect to each applicable individual. "(e) Refund and Abatement of Penalties and Fines Imposed Prior to Identification as Applicable Individual.--In the case of any applicable individual-- "(1) for whom any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax in respect to any tax liability for any taxable year ending during the period described in subsection (a)(1) was assessed or collected, and "(2) who was, subsequent to such assessment or collection, determined to be an individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall abate any such assessment and refund any amount collected to such applicable individual in the same manner as any refund of an overpayment of tax under section 6402.". (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 77 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7510 the following new item: "Sec. 7511. Time for performing certain acts postponed for hostages and individuals wrongfully detained abroad.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 802. REFUND AND ABATEMENT OF PENALTIES AND FINES PAID BY ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS. (a) In General.--Section 7511, as added by section 801 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(f) Refund and Abatement of Penalties and Fines Paid by Eligible Individuals.-- "(1) In general.-- "(A) Establishment.--Not later than January 1, 2027, the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General) shall establish a program to allow any eligible individual (or the spouse or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of such individual) to apply for a refund or an abatement of any amount described in paragraph (2) (including interest) to the extent such amount was attributable to the applicable period. "(B) Identification of individuals.--Not later than January 1, 2027, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting through the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell (as described in section 304 of the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 1741b)), shall-- "(i) compile a list, based on such information as is available, of individuals who were applicable individuals during the applicable period, and "(ii) provide the list described in clause (i) to the Secretary. "(C) Notice.--For purposes of carrying out the program described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General) shall, with respect to any individual identified under subparagraph (B), provide notice to such individual-- "(i) in the case of an individual who has been released on or before the date of enactment of this subsection, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, or "(ii) in the case of an individual who is released after the date of enactment of this subsection, not later than 90 days after the date on which such individual is released, that such individual may be eligible for a refund or an abatement of any amount described in paragraph (2) pursuant to the program described in subparagraph (A). "(D) Authorization.-- "(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), in the case of any refund described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue such refund to the eligible individual in the same manner as any refund of an overpayment of tax under section 6402. "(ii) Extension of limitation on time for refund.--With respect to any refund under subparagraph (A)-- "(I) the 3-year period of limitation prescribed by section 6511(a) shall be extended until the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date that the notice described in subparagraph (C) is provided to the eligible individual, and "(II) any limitation under section 6511(b)(2) shall not apply. "(2) Eligible individual.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `eligible individual' means any applicable individual who, for any taxable year ending during the applicable period, paid or incurred any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax in respect to any tax liability for such year of such individual based on a determination that an act described in section 7508(a)(1) which was not performed by the time prescribed therefor (without regard to any extensions). "(3) Applicable period.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable period' means the period-- "(A) beginning on January 1, 2021, and "(B) ending on the date of enactment of this subsection.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending on or before the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 901. IMPLEMENTATION OF VOLUNTARY WITHHOLDING AGREEMENTS FOR PAYMENTS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. (a) In General.--Section 3402(p) is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: "(3) Voluntary withholding on certain non-wage remuneration.-- "(A) In general.--If, at the time a payment of applicable non-wage remuneration is made to any person, there is a voluntary agreement in effect between the person making and the person receiving the payment that the applicable non-wage remuneration be subject to withholding, then for purposes of this chapter and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter, such payment shall be treated as if it were a payment of wages by an employer to an employee. "(B) Applicable non-wage remuneration.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable non-wage remuneration' means remuneration for services performed by an individual which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages. "(C) Regulations and guidance.--Not later than the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this section, including such regulations or guidance for determining the amount to be deducted and withheld and the types of payments which are considered to be applicable non-wage remuneration.". SEC. 902. EXTENSION OF MAILBOX RULE TO ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS AND PAYMENTS. (a) In General.--Section 7502(c) is amended-- (1) in the heading, by inserting "and Payment" after "Filing", (2) in paragraph (2)-- (A) in the heading, by striking "; electronic filing", and (B) by striking "and electronic filing", and (3) by adding at the end the following: "(3) Electronic filing and payment.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any document or payment which the Secretary has permitted to be filed or made by electronic means, if such document or payment is-- "(i) authorized to be submitted by the taxpayer using a permitted electronic means to the agency, officer, or office to which the document was required to be filed (or payment was required to be made) on or before the prescribed date (or within the period required) with respect to such document or payment, and "(ii) received (or, in the case of a payment, received and accounted for) no later than 3 business days after the prescribed date or period required with respect to such document or payment, the date that such document or payment was authorized to be submitted (as described in clause (i)) shall be deemed to be the date that such document was filed or such payment was made. "(B) Exception.--This paragraph shall not apply to any payment if the Secretary determines that the taxpayer (or any intermediary used by the taxpayer) used a system designed with a principal purpose of delaying the transfer of funds to the Treasury to derive economic benefit from the period of such delay. "(C) Regulations.--Not later than the date which is 1 year after the date of enactment of the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act, the Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations or other guidance describing the records or proof sufficient to demonstrate timely electronic submission.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to any document or payment sent on or after the date which is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 903.

Text printed in the Record (11,924 characters)

SPECIFICITY OF THIRD-PARTY CONTACT NOTICES. (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7602(c) is amended-- (1) by striking "and" at the end of subparagraph (A), (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph: "(B) in any case in which the information sought to be obtained from such other persons could reasonably be provided by the taxpayer, identifies the item of information intended to be sought from such persons, and", and (3) by amending subparagraph (C), as redesignated by paragraph (2), to read as follows: "(C) provides the taxpayer with reasonable opportunity and a period of not less than 45 days (or more, if the taxpayer requests additional time and shows reasonable cause) to respond, including by providing the information described in subparagraph (B), before contact is made with such other persons.". (b) Exception.--Section 7602(c)(3) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and by moving such clauses 2 ems to the right, (2) by striking "This subsection" and inserting the following: "(A) In general.--This subsection", and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(B) Good cause.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), good cause includes a reasonable belief that compliance with this subsection will lead to-- "(i) attempts by any person to conceal, remove, destroy, or alter records or assets that may be relevant to any tax examination or collection activity; "(ii) attempts by any person to prevent other persons, through intimidation, bribery, or collusion, from communicating any information that may be relevant to any tax examination or collection activity; or "(iii) attempts by any person to flee, or otherwise avoid testifying or producing records that may be relevant to any tax examination or collection activity.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to notices provided under section 7602(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 904. MODIFICATION OF ESTIMATED TAX RULES FOR FARMERS AND FISHERMEN. (a) In General.--Section 6654(i)(1)(D)(i) is amended by striking "March 1" and inserting "April 15". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 905. BUSINESS CHILD CARE LIAISON. Section 7803 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(g) Business Child Care Liaison.-- "(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall appoint within the Internal Revenue Service a Business Child Care Liaison. The appointment shall be made without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to appointments in the competitive service or Senior Executive Service. At the Commissioner's discretion, the Commissioner may create an office with additional support staff to assist the Business Child Care Liaison in carrying out the duties described in this subsection. "(2) Duties.--The Business Child Care Liaison shall-- "(A) act as a liaison between the Internal Revenue Service, employer-provided child care benefit advocates, businesses considering providing or expanding child care benefits for their employees, state workforce boards, state economic development agencies, child care resource and referral agencies, tribal organizations (as defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act), and other stakeholders, including child development experts, "(B) provide public education and assistance related to the expansion of employer-provided child care benefits through the establishment and maintenance of practices that promote employer-provided child care benefits, including the use of dependent care assistance programs (as defined in section 129(d)), on-site or subsidized child care, Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, child care stipends, near-site child care partnerships, shared and pooled child-care arrangements, backup child care, and resource and referral services, "(C) issue a fact sheet for use by tax return preparers listing the different tax benefits for employer-provided child care and the appropriate rules for each such benefit, "(D) help facilitate communication between businesses and the Internal Revenue Service about the operational challenges and opportunities that exist to improve the use of Federally incentivized child care benefits such as dependent care assistance programs (as so defined), Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, and the credit under section 45F, "(E) in collaboration with the General Services Administration, within 120 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection, establish a link on the homepage of SAM.gov, which allows website visitors to access a landing page on the SAM.gov website which is tailored to helping businesses learn about utilizing dependent care assistance programs (as so defined), Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, and the credit under section 45F, resources for understanding the rules and regulations with these programs, and the benefits of utilizing these programs on worker recruitment, retention, productivity, and well-being, "(F) identify and recommend to Congress potential legislative and administrative changes to increase practices that promote employer-provided child care benefits, and "(G) coordinate with other Federal agencies and officials, including the Secretary, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Education, or the designee of any such individual, and State and local governments on outreach and education to inform employers and employees about the possibilities and benefits of employer-provided child care benefits and particularly reducing information barriers for small businesses. "(3) Consultation and input.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall solicit advice and input from the Business Child Care Liaison in developing regulations or interpretations of this title that relate to employer-provided child care benefits. "(4) Compensation.--The Business Child Care Liaison shall be entitled to compensation at the same rate as the rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code. "(5) Annual report.-- "(A) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each calendar year beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Business Child Care Liaison shall submit a report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on the activities of the Business Child Care Liaison during the fiscal year ending during such calendar year. "(B) Contents.--Each report submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall-- "(i) summarize the assistance requests received by the Business Child Care Liaison during the fiscal year ending during the calendar year of such report, "(ii) describe the activities conducted by the Business Child Care Liaison, including the activities described under subparagraphs (B) and (F) of paragraph (2), and evaluate the effectiveness of the Business Child Care Liaison during such fiscal year, "(iii) describe any significant problems the Business Child Care Liaison has identified during such fiscal year and ways to mitigate such problems, "(iv) contain recommendations for any administrative or legislative action which may be appropriate to resolve barriers to, and to incentivize, practices which promote employer-provided child care benefits, and "(v) describe progress related to employer-provided child care benefits in businesses in the United States, including data updated at least annually on the utilization of dependent care assistance programs, Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, and the credit under section 45F, in particular-- "(I) the number of employers utilizing these tax benefits, "(II) a breakdown of the size of employers utilizing these tax benefits, and "(III) other relevant information as deemed appropriate by the Business Child Care Liaison. "(C) Concurrent submission.--The Business Child Care Liaison shall submit a copy of each report submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and any other appropriate official, at the same time such report is submitted pursuant to such subparagraph. "(D) Public availability.--The Commissioner shall make a copy of each report submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) available and widely accessible to the public.". SEC. 1001. AUTHORITY FOR REDISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN TAX INFORMATION RELATED TO EDUCATION LOANS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE. (a) In General.--Section 6103(l)(13)(D) is amended by adding at the end the following new clause: "(vii) Redisclosure to the congressional budget office.--Authorized persons may, upon written request by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to the Secretary of Education, redisclose return information received under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) to officers and employees of the Congressional Budget Office for the purpose of, but only to the extent necessary in, carrying out the purposes described in subclause (III) of clause (i).". (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6103(l)(13)(F) is amended by striking "(iv) (v), or (vi)" and inserting "(iv), (v), (vi), or (vii)". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to disclosures made after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Reports.--The Secretary of Education shall annually submit a written report to the Secretary of the Treasury-- (1) regarding redisclosures of return information under subparagraph (D)(vii) of section 6103(l)(13) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section), including the number of such redisclosures; and (2) regarding any unauthorized use, access, or disclosure of return information disclosed under such section. SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION TO REQUIRE LARGE PARTNERSHIPS TO FILE ON MAGNETIC MEDIA. (a) In General.--Section 6011(e) is amended-- (1) by striking the first paragraph (6), as added by section 2301(b) of the Taxpayer First Act, and inserting the following: "(6) Partnerships required to file on magnetic media.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall require a partnership to file returns on magnetic media if, at the close of the partnership's taxable year-- "(A) the partnership has more than 50 partners, or "(B) the value of the partnership's assets equals or exceeds $1,000,000, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.", and (2) by redesignating the second paragraph (6), as added by section 202(d) of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, as paragraph (7). (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns filed on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 1003. LIMITATION PERIOD NOT EXTENDED FOR VICTIMS OF PREPARER FRAUD. (a) In General.--Section 6501(c)(1) is amended-- (1) by inserting "by the taxpayer" after "intent", and (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: "For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of a joint return under section 6013, intent by either spouse to evade tax with respect to such return shall be treated as intent by the taxpayer, and this paragraph shall apply to both spouses.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to assessments made or proceedings begun after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 1004.

Text printed in the Record (4,647 characters)

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE DISASTER RELATED EXTENSION OF DEADLINES ACT. (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 7508A (as added by the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act) is redesignated as subsection (g). (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect as if included in section 2(a) of the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act. SEC. 1005. TIME FOR FILING CERTAIN INFORMATION RETURNS. (a) In General.--Section 6071(b) is amended-- (1) by striking "Returns made under" and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--Returns made under", and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(2) Special rule for certain returns.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any return to which this paragraph applies and which is filed electronically, such return shall be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year to which such return relates. "(B) Returns.--This paragraph shall apply to any return required to be filed under section 6041 (other than returns and statements required to be filed with respect to nonemployee compensation), 6042, 6047(d), 6049, 6050F, or 6050W.". (b) IRA Reporting.--Section 408(i)(1) is amended by inserting "(but not later than January 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year to which reports relate in the case of reports relating to distributions)" after "at such time". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns relating to calendar years after December 31, 2027. SEC. 1006. MODIFICATIONS TO PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION. (a) Criminal Penalties.-- (1) In general.--Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 7213(a) are each amended by striking "$5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years" each place it appears and inserting "$250,000, or imprisonment of not more than 7 years". (2) Failure of contractors to maintain safeguards.-- (A) In general.--Part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 of subtitle F is amended by inserting after section 7213A the following new section: "SEC. 7213B. FAILURE OF IRS CONTRACTORS TO MAINTAIN SAFEGUARDS. "(a) In General.--In the case of a contractor of the Internal Revenue Service that willfully fails to implement or enforce any applicable requirement under section 6103 (or regulations prescribed thereunder) to protect the confidentiality of returns or return information, if such failure results in the unauthorized disclosure of returns or return information, such contractor shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined the greater of-- "(1) $500,000, or "(2) an amount equal to 25 percent of the specific contract with the Internal Revenue Service under which such contractor was provided access to the returns or return information related to the unauthorized disclosure. "(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term `contractor of the Internal Revenue Service' means any person described in section 6103(n) (including any officer or employee of such person) in connection with a written contract with the Internal Revenue Service.". (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 of subtitle F is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7213A the following new item: "Sec. 7213B. Failure of IRS contractors to maintain safeguards.". (C) Conforming amendments.--(i) Section 6103(e)(11) is amended by inserting "7213B," after "7213A,". (ii) Section 6105(d) is amended by inserting "7213B," after "7213A,". (iii) Section 7431(e) is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: "If any person is criminally charged by indictment or information with--"(1) inspection or disclosure of a taxpayer's return or return information in violation of--"(A) paragraph (1) or (2) of section 7213(a), "(B) section 7213A(a), or "(C) subparagraph (B) of section 1030(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, or "(2) failure to protect the confidentiality of returns or return information which results in the unauthorized disclosure of the taxpayer's return or return information in violation of section 7213B(a), the Secretary shall notify such taxpayer as soon as practicable of such inspection or disclosure.". (iv) Section 7513(c) is amended by striking "section 7213" and inserting "sections 7213 and 7213B". (b) Civil Damages.--Section 7431(c)(1)(A) is amended by striking "$1,000" and inserting "$5,000". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to disclosures or inspections made after the date of the enactment of this Act. ______

SA 6848. Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Wyden) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5349, to improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (108 characters)

Amend the title so as to read: "To improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service.".

Text of Senate Amendment 6845

Pages S5274–S5276 · Official text

SA 6845. Mr. MARKEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 9340, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (11,915 characters)

On page 2, line 4, strike "2" and insert "4". On page 2, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following: SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. It is the sense of Congress that the high level of electricity usage by data centers constitutes interstate commerce. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Commission.--The term "Commission" means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (2) Data center.--The term "data center" includes any facility, or group of facilities with the same owner located in the same utility area, that-- (A) primarily contains electronic equipment used to host information and information systems accessed by other systems or by users on other devices both in and outside of the State in which the facility or group of facilities is located; (B) is a free-standing structure or a facility within a larger structure that uses environmental control equipment to maintain the proper conditions for the operation of electronic equipment; and (C) has an energy demand greater than 50 megawatts. (3) Data center corporation.--The term "data center corporation" means any corporation, joint-stock company, partnership, association, business trust, organized group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or a receiver or trustee of such, that owns or proposes to own a data center. (4) Distributed clean energy resource.--The term "distributed clean energy resource" means any small-scale, modular electricity generation, storage, or demand-side management technology that-- (A) is located on the distribution system, on a subsystem, or behind a customer meter; and (B) generates or stores renewable energy and storage or manages demand for electricity. (5) Fund.--The term "Fund" means the Distributed Renewable Energy Fund established under section 5(b)(4). (6) Independent system operator.--The term "Independent System Operator" has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796). (7) Labor organization.--The term "labor organization" has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152). (8) Labor peace agreement.--The term "labor peace agreement" means a written agreement between an employer and a labor organization through which the employer guarantees that-- (A) the employer will be neutral regarding any of the employees of the employer seeking to be represented by the labor organization; and (B) if employees seek to be represented by a labor organization, the employer shall recognize the labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative on a showing that a majority of the employees choose to be represented by the labor organization. (9) Project labor agreement.--The term "project labor agreement" means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with 2 or more labor organizations that-- (A) establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project; and (B) is an agreement described in subsections (e) and (f) of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158). (10) Regional transmission organization.--The term "Regional Transmission Organization" has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796). (11) Renewable energy and storage.--The term "renewable energy and storage" means any 1 or more of wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, or battery energy. (12) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy. (13) Transmission planning region.--The term "Transmission Planning Region"-- (A) when used in a geographical sense, means a region for which the Commission determines that electric transmission planning is appropriate, such as a region established in accordance with Order No. 1000 of the Commission, entitled "Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities" (76 Fed. Reg. 49842 (August 11, 2011)); and (B) when used in a corporate sense, means the Regional Transmission Organization, Independent System Operator, or other entity responsible for planning or operating electric transmission facilities within a region described in subparagraph (A). On page 6, after line 7, add the following: SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATA CENTER INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENTS. (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue 1 or more rules requiring that-- (1) each Transmission Planning Region shall establish a distinct data center interconnection queue; and (2) with respect to each such interconnection queue, a data center corporation shall-- (A) pay a fee to join the interconnection queue; (B) pay a fee to exit the interconnection queue, if the decision to exit the interconnection queue is made by the data center owner or operator; (C) pay the full cost of any new or upgraded infrastructure, including generation infrastructure and transmission infrastructure, needed to serve the data center, directly or indirectly; (D) enter into a binding agreement with the Transmission Planning Region to reduce or shift their electricity usage during peak demand periods and other periods of grid stress in response to a request from the applicable electric utility or Transmission Planning Region; (E) utilize project labor agreements and labor peace agreements; and (F) meet the renewable energy and storage requirements described in subsection (b). (b) Renewable Energy and Storage Requirements.-- (1) Requirement for data centers interconnected at the transmission level.-- (A) In general.--Beginning on the applicable date described in subparagraph (B), 100 percent of the peak megawatt demand of each data center that is interconnected at the transmission level shall be-- (i) derived from new renewable energy and storage described in subparagraph (A) or (B) paragraph (3); (ii) energy for which the data center makes a contribution to the Fund in accordance with subparagraph (C) of that paragraph; or (iii) offset with efficiency improvements by using grid-enhancing technologies or alternative transmission technologies that increase delivery of power over transmission networks, including-- (I) dynamic line ratings; (II) topology optimization; (III) power flow control; or (IV) advanced conductors and superconductors. (B) Date described.--The date referred to in subparagraph (A) is-- (i) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to a data center interconnecting at the transmission level on or after that date; and (ii) the date that is 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to a data center that is already interconnected at the transmission level as of the day before the date described in clause (i). (C) Phase-in for certain data centers.--With respect to a data center described in subparagraph (B)(ii), the applicable data center corporation shall ensure that-- (i) by January 1, 2030, not less than 40 percent of the peak megawatt demand of the data center is in compliance with subparagraph (A); and (ii) by January 1, 2035, not less than 70 percent of the peak megawatt demand of the data center is in compliance with that subparagraph. (2) Rules for determinations.--For purposes of this subsection, any determination of the peak megawatt demand of a data center, the megawatts required by a data center, or the monetary value of any megawatts in the applicable Transmission Planning Region shall be-- (A) made by the data center, in partnership with the applicable Transmission Planning Region, on an annual basis; and (B) subject to approval by the Commission, with the burden of proof on the data center. (3) Compliance strategies.--A data center corporation shall ensure compliance with paragraph (1) through a combination of the following approaches, as determined by the data center corporation: (A) Adding renewable energy and storage to the electric grid, subject to the conditions that-- (i) the renewable energy and storage-- (I) comes from new renewable energy and storage sources built specifically to support the data center; (II) is not existing renewable energy and storage diverted from the electric grid; and (III) is generated or stored in the same Transmission Planning Region as the data center; and (ii) the electricity consumed by the data center is matched, on an hour-by-hour basis, by the renewable energy and storage described in clause (i). (B) Adding on-site renewable energy and storage, which may account for not more than 20 percent of the total megawatts required to meet the peak megawatt demand of the data center. (C) Contributing to the Fund an amount equal to the monetary value, in the applicable Transmission Planning Region, of the megawatts required by the data center for the applicable year, which shall account for a minimum of 10 percent of the total megawatts required to meet the peak megawatt demand of the data center. (4) Distributed renewable energy fund.-- (A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a fund, to be known as the "Distributed Renewable Energy Fund". (B) Deposits.-- (i) In general.--There shall be deposited in the Fund such amounts as are contributed by data centers pursuant to paragraph (2)(C). (ii) Requirement.--Deposits under paragraph (2)(C) shall be made on an annual basis. (C) Administration.-- (i) Fund segregation.--The Secretary shall segregate amounts in the Fund based on the Transmission Planning Regions in which the data centers for which those funds were deposited are located. (ii) Uses.--The Secretary shall use amounts segregated for a Transmission Planning Region under clause (i) to provide grants to States in that Transmission Planning Region or relevant nonprofit organizations in those States for the purposes of providing grants, loans, or other forms of financial assistance to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from distributed clean energy resources that utilize renewable energy, such as rooftop solar. (c) Prohibition.--No new diesel storage facility may be constructed to serve a data center constructed on or after the date of enactment of this Act. (d) Enforcement.--The Commission shall establish fines for noncompliance with this section. SEC. 6. STATE CONSIDERATION OF STANDARDS. (a) In General.--Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) (as amended by section 4(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(23) Data centers.--Each State shall consider establishing frameworks and requirements consistent with the frameworks and requirements described in section 5 of the Ratepayer Protection Act.". (b) Compliance.-- (1) Time limitation.--Section 112(b) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2622(b)) (as amended by section 4(b)(1)(A)) is amended-- (A) by indenting paragraphs (4) through (9), and any subparagraphs within those paragraphs, appropriately; and (B) by adding at the end the following: "(10)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with respect to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking authority) and each nonregulated electric utility shall commence consideration under section 111, or set a hearing date for consideration, with respect to the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d). "(B) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with respect to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking authority), and each nonregulated electric utility shall complete the consideration and make the determination under section 111 with respect to the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d).". (2) Failure to comply.--Section 112(c) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.

Text printed in the Record (1,824 characters)

2622(c)) (as amended by section 4(b)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "In the case of the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d), the reference contained in this subsection to the date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of that paragraph (23).". (3) Prior state actions.-- (A) In general.--Section 112 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2622) (as amended by section 4(b)(1)(C)) is amended-- (i) in each of subsections subsection (h) and (i), in the subsection heading, by striking "Other"; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: "(j) Prior State Actions.--Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to the standard established by paragraph (22) of section 111(d) in the case of any electric utility in a State if, before the date of enactment of this subsection-- "(1) the State has implemented the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility; "(2) the State regulatory authority for the State or the relevant nonregulated electric utility has conducted a proceeding to consider implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility; or "(3) the State legislature has voted on the implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility during the 3-year period ending on that date of enactment.". (B) Cross-reference.--Section 124 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2634) (as amended by section 4(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: "In the case of the standard established by paragraph (23) of section 111(d), the reference contained in this section to the date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of that paragraph (23).".

Text of Senate Amendment 6846

Page S5276 · Official text

SA 6846. Mr. GALLEGO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 9340, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (2,153 characters)

At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. __. IMPOSITION OF DATA CENTER FRESHWATER CONSUMPTION TAX. (a) In General.--Chapter 38 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter: "Subchapter E--Tax on Consumption of Freshwater by Data Centers "Sec. 4691. Data Center Freshwater Consumption Tax. "SEC. 4691. DATA CENTER FRESHWATER CONSUMPTION TAX. "(a) In General.--For each calendar year, there is hereby imposed on any AI data center a tax equal to 1 percent of the amount paid or incurred by the AI data center operator with respect to direct freshwater consumption by such AI data center during such calendar year. "(b) Payment of Tax.-- "(1) In general.--The tax imposed by this section with respect to any AI data center shall be paid by the AI data center operator. "(2) Remittance of tax.--The AI data center operator shall remit such tax annually to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as provided by the Secretary. "(c) Definitions.--In this section-- "(1) AI data center.--The term `AI data center' means a facility or group of facilities primarily used to host computing infrastructure for the training or deployment of artificial intelligence or machine learning models, including associated storage, cooling, and networking equipment. "(2) AI data center operator.-- "(A) In general.--The term `AI data center operator' means person who owns, operates, or occupies an AI data center. "(B) Multiple operators.--In the case where more than 1 person meets the description under subparagraph (A) with respect to an AI data center, the person responsible for payment of the public water utility account to the public water system shall be deemed to be the AI data center operator for purposes of this section. "(3) Direct freshwater consumption.--The term `direct freshwater consumption' means the volume of water an AI data center withdraws from a public water system (such as a municipal water provider).". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to calendar years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.

Text of Senate Amendment 6847

Pages S5276–S5294 · Official text

SA 6847. Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Wyden) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5349, to improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (7,950 characters)

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the "Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act" or the "TAS Act". (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (c) References to Secretary.--For purposes of this Act, the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate. (d) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; etc. Sec. 101. Digitization of tax returns and correspondence. Sec. 102. Establishment of dashboard to inform taxpayers of backlogs and wait times. Sec. 103. Expansion of electronic access to information about returns and refunds. Sec. 104. Expansion of callback technology. Sec. 105. Expansion of online accounts. Sec. 106. Automation of refund offset bypass. Sec. 107. Installment agreement fees eliminated for certain individuals. Sec. 108. Individuals facing economic hardships informed of collection alternatives. Sec. 109. Quarterly notices to certain taxpayers with delinquencies. Sec. 110. Low-income taxpayer clinic funding unlocked. Sec. 111. Chief Counsel reviews of offers-in-compromise streamlined. Sec. 112. Modification of procedural requirements for penalties and disallowance periods. Sec. 113. Return of amounts collected by IRS in excess of accepted offer-in-compromise amount. Sec. 114. Extension of period for return of amounts subject to wrongful levy. Sec. 115. Reports to Congress. Sec. 201. Report on combined tax and foreign bank and financial account reporting. Sec. 202. Study and reports on simplification. Sec. 203. Extension of time for persons outside of the United States to request abatement of math error. Sec. 204. Clarification of assessment authority; pre-assessment appeals of foreign information return penalties. Sec. 205. Repeal of due date requirements for certain information returns relating to foreign gifts and trusts. Sec. 301. Authorization of subpoenas before hearings to facilitate settlements. Sec. 302. Clarification of Tax Court authority to order relief from a judgment or order. Sec. 303. Authorization of special trial judges to hear additional cases and address contempt. Sec. 304. Disqualification of judges and special trial judges. Sec. 305. Notice and review with respect to multi-year bans on claiming credits. Sec. 306. Authorization of de novo review of innocent spouse relief by the Tax Court and other courts. Sec. 307. Clarification of certain court filing deadlines. Sec. 308. Clarification of Tax Court jurisdiction to determine tax liability in collection due process appeals. Sec. 309. Authorization of the Tax Court to issue refunds in collection due process cases. Sec. 310. Authorization of the Tax Court to hear suits for refunds or credits. Sec. 311. Authorization to allow claims for refund in certain cases where full tax not paid. Sec. 312. Adjustment of threshold for small disputes. Sec. 401. NTA authorization to direct hire attorneys. Sec. 402. NTA authorization to make personnel decisions. Sec. 403. Access to Internal Revenue Service information, legal advice, and meetings. Sec. 404. Repeal of limitation period suspension for taxpayers seeking assistance from TAS. Sec. 405. Operations to assist taxpayers experiencing hardships during lapse in appropriations. Sec. 501. Penalties for tax return preparers who improperly alter returns. Sec. 502. Ensuring the use of valid preparer identification numbers and electronic filing identification numbers. Sec. 503. Penalties for improper tax preparation or misappropriation of refunds. Sec. 504. Authority to deny, revoke, or suspend preparer tax identification numbers. Sec. 601. Authorization for Office of Appeals to hire attorneys. Sec. 602. Authorization for Office of Appeals to direct hire certain individuals. Sec. 603. Responses to claims for refund required; appeal of claims for refund authorized. Sec. 604. Appeals of returned offers. Sec. 605. Purposes and duties of Independent Office of Appeals; right of appeal clarified. Sec. 701. Standard and scope of review of whistleblower award determinations. Sec. 702. Exemption from sequestration. Sec. 703. Whistleblower privacy protections. Sec. 704. Modification of IRS whistleblower report. Sec. 705. Interest on whistleblower awards. Sec. 706. Correction regarding deductions for attorney's fees. Sec. 801. Postponement of tax deadlines for hostages and individuals wrongfully detained abroad. Sec. 802. Refund and abatement of penalties and fines paid by eligible individuals. Sec. 901. Implementation of voluntary withholding agreements for payments to independent contractors. Sec. 902. Extension of mailbox rule to electronic submissions and payments. Sec. 903. Specificity of third-party contact notices. Sec. 904. Modification of estimated tax rules for farmers and fishermen. Sec. 905. Business child care liaison. Sec. 1001. Authority for redisclosure of certain tax information related to education loans to the Congressional Budget Office. Sec. 1002. Authorization to require large partnerships to file on magnetic media. Sec. 1003. Limitation period not extended for victims of preparer fraud. Sec. 1004. Technical amendment related to the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act. Sec. 1005. Time for filing certain information returns. Sec. 1006. Modifications to penalties for unauthorized disclosures of taxpayer information. SEC. 101. DIGITIZATION OF TAX RETURNS AND CORRESPONDENCE. (a) Returns Accepted Electronically.--Any Federal tax return which any person is required to file with the Secretary, as well as any amendments to such return-- (1) may be filed by such person electronically, and (2) if such return or amendment is filed electronically, shall be processed electronically by the Secretary. (b) Digitization of Returns and Correspondence.--The Internal Revenue Service shall use optical character recognition technology (or any functionally similar technology) to transcribe-- (1) any return which is received by the Internal Revenue Service only in a paper form, or (2) any correspondence which is received by the Internal Revenue Service only in a paper form. (c) Exceptions.-- (1) In general.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to any technology to the extent that the Secretary determines such technology is slower or less reliable than-- (A) the process of manually transcribing returns or correspondence received in a paper form, or (B) any other process that the Internal Revenue Service is using or would otherwise use. (2) Report to congress.--Any exception to the application of a technology described in subsection (b) pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not take effect unless the Secretary provides a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding the determination made by the Secretary under such paragraph within 30 days of such determination. (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to-- (1) any individual income tax return (as defined in section 6011(e)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) received on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, (2) any estate tax return (as described in section 6018 of such Code) or gift tax return (as described in section 6019 of such Code) received on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and (3) any other return or correspondence received on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 102.

Text printed in the Record (11,882 characters)

ESTABLISHMENT OF DASHBOARD TO INFORM TAXPAYERS OF BACKLOGS AND WAIT TIMES. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall require the Internal Revenue Service to provide in real time on its public website, to the extent practical, the following: (1) Separately with respect to each applicable phone number extension-- (A) the number of callers connected to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, (B) the number of callers connected to speak with an automated system, (C) the number of callers who are waiting to be connected to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service or an automated system, (D) the longest amount of time that any caller has been waiting to be connected to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, and (E) whether callback service is currently available, and if not, when such service is scheduled to be available. (2) An application or tool embedded on the website which-- (A) displays all of the information described in paragraph (1), and (B) estimates the approximate wait time to speak directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service. (3) An application programming interface which allows any person to access the information described in subsection (a)(1) using automation and to create an application or tool embedded on a website to display such information. (4) For each applicable phone number extension, a summary of the information described in paragraph (1) with respect to the prior month, including-- (A) the average and median length of calls, (B) the average and median amount of time that callers were speaking directly with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, (C) the number and percent of calls that were directed to an automated system, (D) the number and percent of calls that were disconnected or terminated by the Internal Revenue Service, (E) the number of callers who were transferred to another applicable phone number extension after the call was initially answered by a representative of the Internal Revenue Service, (F) the average and median amount of time that callers described in subparagraph (E) were on hold following the transfer, and (G) the number and percent of callers who indicated that they received the answers or service for which they were contacting the Internal Revenue Service. (b) Detection of Automated Calls.--The Secretary shall require the Internal Revenue Service to use technology to detect and screen out automated calls. (c) Information Regarding Delays.--For any week in which there was a significant delay with respect to any applicable item (referred to in this subsection as an "applicable week"), the Secretary shall require the Internal Revenue Service to provide on its public website, during the week subsequent to the applicable week, information with respect to each such applicable item regarding the earliest date on which any such applicable items that were processed during the applicable week were received by the Internal Revenue Service. (d) Definitions.-- For purposes of this section-- (1) Applicable item.--The term "applicable item" means each category of tax return, claim, statement, or other document filed with the Internal Revenue Service. (2) Applicable phone number extension.--The term "applicable phone number extension" means any extension or application which may be reached by calling a phone number which is listed by the Internal Revenue Service on any website, publication, form, or instruction which is available to the public and-- (A) operated by the Internal Revenue Service accounts management function, (B) operated by the Internal Revenue Service automated collection function, (C) managed by the Internal Revenue Service Joint Operations Center, (D) managed and staffed by a contractor on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, or (E) received not less than 200,000 calls during the preceding calendar year. (3) Significant delay.--The term "significant delay" means, in the case of any applicable item for any week, the failure to process all of such applicable items which were received by the Internal Revenue Service at least 21 days before the first day of the week. (e) Effective Date.--The requirements of this section shall apply to periods beginning after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT RETURNS AND REFUNDS. Not later than January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, through a website and mobile application, the Secretary shall provide individualized, specific, and up-to-date information to taxpayers regarding their tax returns and amended returns, including information with respect to whether the Internal Revenue Service has-- (1) received such return and entered such return into their systems, (2) completed processing such return, including-- (A) the date on which the Internal Revenue Service issued any refund of any overpayment of tax, (B) the estimated date on which the taxpayer can expect to receive such refund, and (C)(i) if the refund will be issued by electronic fund transfer, the financial account to which such refund will be deposited, including-- (I) the partial or full account number for such account, and (II) the name and routing number of the financial institution, or (ii) if the refund will be issued by paper check, the address to which the check will be mailed, or (3) suspended processing such return, including-- (A) the reason for the suspension, and (B) in the case of any information which was requested by the Internal Revenue Service-- (i) the information requested, (ii) the form and manner for submission of such information, and (iii) the date on which such information is due to be submitted to the Internal Revenue Service. SEC. 104. EXPANSION OF CALLBACK TECHNOLOGY. It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) taxpayers contacting the Internal Revenue Service should have the option to receive a callback, and (2) not later than calendar year 2028, the Internal Revenue Service should provide any taxpayer (including any taxpayer residing outside of the United States) the option to receive a callback for any call made by the taxpayer to an applicable phone number extension (as defined in section 102(d)(2) of this Act) which has not been answered within 5 minutes. SEC. 105. EXPANSION OF ONLINE ACCOUNTS. (a) In General.--Not later than January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make available a website or mobile application which allows any taxpayer (including any taxpayer residing outside of the United States) the ability to-- (1) in a manner consistent with any applicable limitations under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, view any return (as defined in section 6103(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), document, notice, or letter (with the exception of any educational item which has no legal effect) which, during the applicable period (as defined in subsection (d)), has been-- (A) sent by the Internal Revenue Service to such taxpayer, or (B) filed with (or, in the case of any document not required to be filed, sent to) the Internal Revenue Service-- (i) by such taxpayer, (ii) by a person described in subsection (c) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to such taxpayer, or (iii) with respect to such taxpayer in a manner described in subsection (e) of such section, (2) with respect to any document, notice, or letter sent to such taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, respond to such document, notice, or letter by uploading or otherwise transmitting the taxpayer's response through the website or mobile application, and (3) in the case of-- (A) any representative of such taxpayer who is authorized to practice before the Department of the Treasury pursuant to section 330 of title 31, United States Code, (B) any tax return preparer (as defined in section 7701(a)(36) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) with an identifying number (as described in section 6109(a)(4) of such Code), or (C) any qualified reporting agent, permit such representative, preparer, or agent, to the extent authorized by the taxpayer, to access the information described in paragraph (1) or transmit any information described in paragraph (2). (b) Availability for Viewing.--With respect to any return, document, notice, or letter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a), such return, document, notice, or letter shall be made available for viewing by the taxpayer (or, pursuant to paragraph (3) of such subsection, any representative, tax return preparer, or qualified reporting agent authorized by the taxpayer) as soon as is practicable and within such periods as are established pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. (c) Access to Multiple Accounts by Representative, Preparer, or Agent.--For purposes of subsection (a)(3), the website or mobile application shall allow a representative, tax return preparer, or qualified reporting agent to be able to access information for multiple taxpayers who have provided permission under such subsection without any requirement to individually and separately access the account of each such taxpayer. (d) Applicable Period.-- (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for purposes of subsection (a)(1), the term "applicable period" means the preceding 6-year period. (2) Prospective application.--The term "applicable period" shall not include any years ending before the date of enactment of this Act. (e) Qualified Reporting Agent.-- (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term "qualified reporting agent" means a person-- (A) which is properly authorized as an agent to sign and file employment tax returns, make related payments and deposits, and perform such other acts on behalf of a taxpayer under procedures set forth by the Secretary, (B) which has met such requirements as may be established by the Secretary, and (C) for which authorization has not been revoked or suspended by the Secretary pursuant to procedures established by the Secretary. (2) Employment tax return.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the term "employment tax return" means-- (A) any return required to be filed by an employer to report the obligations of the employer and its employees under section 3101, 3111, 3301, or 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (B) such other returns as designated by the Secretary. (f) Preventing Unauthorized Disclosure of Return Information by Persons Designated by Taxpayers.--Not later than January 1 of the first calendar year beginning more than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (1) establish a program to investigate and address-- (A) any access, use, or disclosure of return information (as defined in section 6103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) by any person which is in excess of the authorization permitted to such person pursuant to subsection (a)(3), and (B) any related misconduct, and (2) annually publish, on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service, the actions undertaken pursuant to the program described in paragraph (1), such as the number of complaints investigated, the number of persons whose access was revoked, and other relevant statistical data. (g) Focus Groups.--For purposes of subsection (a), prior to the date that the website or mobile application described in such subsection is made available, the Secretary shall conduct focus groups with taxpayers and tax professionals to ensure that any amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for such purposes are expended in an appropriate manner. SEC. 106.

Text printed in the Record (10,887 characters)

AUTOMATION OF REFUND OFFSET BYPASS. (a) In General.--Section 6402(a) is amended-- (1) by striking "In the case" and inserting the following: "(1) Authority.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case", and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: "(2) Special rule for certain individuals.--In the case of an overpayment with respect to any taxable year for which a credit is allowed to an applicable taxpayer under section 32, the Secretary shall, subject to subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), refund such overpayment in an amount not to exceed the amount of the credit allowed under such section for such taxable year. "(3) Applicable taxpayer.--For purposes of paragraph (2), the term `applicable taxpayer' means a taxpayer who was classified by the Secretary as currently not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)) prior to the date on which the refund was requested by the taxpayer.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to offsets made after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 107. INSTALLMENT AGREEMENT FEES ELIMINATED FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. (a) In General.--Section 6159(f) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: "(2) Waiver.--No fee shall be imposed on an installment agreement under this section in the case of any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income, as determined for the most recent year for which such information is available, which does not exceed 250 percent of the applicable poverty level (as determined by the Secretary).". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to installment agreements entered into after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 108. INDIVIDUALS FACING ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS INFORMED OF COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES. (a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (1) establish a program to identify taxpayers who-- (A) are reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship, and (B) have an unpaid tax liability, and (2) in the case of any taxpayer described in paragraph (1) who requests to enter into an agreement described in section 6159(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, provide such taxpayer with information regarding other options which the Internal Revenue Service makes available to taxpayers who have an unpaid tax liability and are experiencing an economic hardship, including-- (A) an agreement described in such section for partial collection of a tax liability, (B) an offer-in-compromise (as described in section 7122 of such Code), and (C) classification as currently not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e) of such Code). (b) Economic Hardship.--For purposes of this section, in determining whether a taxpayer is reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship, such determination shall be made in the same manner as determined under section 6343(a)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 based on-- (1) the most recent income and asset data which the Secretary has received from a return or a report from, or with respect to, such taxpayer, and (2) the schedules described in section 7122(d)(2)(A) of such Code. (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, shall submit a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding-- (1) the accuracy of the Internal Revenue Service with respect to identifying taxpayers who are reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship under subsection (a)(1), (2) whether such identification procedures may be appropriately applied for other purposes, and (3)(A) the number of taxpayers with an unpaid tax liability who were identified as reasonably likely to be experiencing an economic hardship under subsection (a)(1), (B) the options described in subsection (a)(2) that were provided to such taxpayers, and (C) the status of the tax liabilities of such taxpayers. SEC. 109. QUARTERLY NOTICES TO CERTAIN TAXPAYERS WITH DELINQUENCIES. (a) In General.--Section 7524 is amended-- (1) in the heading, by striking "annual notice" and inserting "notice", (2) by striking "Not less often than annually" and inserting the following: "(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), not less often than quarterly", and (3) by adding at the end the following: "(b) Information on Penalties and Interest.--The notice described in subsection (a) shall include-- "(1) an estimate of the amount of penalties and interest that may accrue if the delinquent tax debt is not fully paid within the period remaining under section 6502(a), and "(2) programs and services that can provide assistance to the taxpayer. "(c) Exception.--The requirement under subsection (a) shall not apply-- "(1) during any period in which an agreement described in section 6159(a) or an accepted offer-in-compromise (as described in section 7122) is in effect, or "(2) in the case of a taxpayer for which the Secretary has determined that the tax is not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)).". (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 77 is amended by striking the item relating to section 7524 and inserting the following new item: "Sec. 7524. Notice of tax delinquency.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 110. LOW-INCOME TAXPAYER CLINIC FUNDING UNLOCKED. (a) Matching Funds.--Paragraph (5) of section 7526(c) is amended to read as follows: "(5) Requirement of matching funds.-- "(A) In general.--With respect to any grant provided to a low-income taxpayer clinic under this section, such clinic shall provide matching funds equal to the applicable percentage of the amount of such grant. "(B) Matching funds.-- "(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term `matching funds' may include-- "(I) the salary (including fringe benefits) of individuals performing services for the low-income taxpayer clinic, and "(II) the cost of equipment used in the low-income taxpayer clinic. "(ii) Exclusion.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term `matching funds' shall not include any indirect expenses, such as general overhead of the institution sponsoring the low-income taxpayer clinic. "(C) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be 100 percent, except that the Secretary may establish a lower percentage (not below 25 percent) if the Secretary determines that such percentage would expand the coverage of the low-income taxpayer clinic to additional taxpayers.". (b) Technical Amendments.--Section 7526(c), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended-- (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2), and (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs (1) through (4). (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to calendar years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 111. CHIEF COUNSEL REVIEWS OF OFFERS-IN-COMPROMISE STREAMLINED. (a) In General.--Section 7122(b) is amended by striking "in any case" and all that follows through "his delegate" and inserting "in any case which the Secretary determines presents a significant legal issue, there shall be placed on file in the office of the Secretary the opinion of the General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, or the Counsel's delegate". (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7122(b) is amended by striking the second and third sentences. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to offers-in-compromise submitted or pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PENALTIES AND DISALLOWANCE PERIODS. (a) In General.--Section 6751(b) is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--No penalty under this title shall be assessed, and no disallowance period shall take effect, unless-- "(A) the decision (as defined by the Secretary in regulations) to apply such penalty or disallowance period, as applicable, is personally approved (in writing on an electronic form) by-- "(i) the immediate supervisor of the individual making such decision, or "(ii) the Internal Revenue Service Office of Servicewide Penalties (or any successor organization), and "(B) the approval described in subparagraph (A) is obtained on or before the date any appealable notice is sent to the taxpayer regarding the application of such penalty or disallowance period.", and (2) by adding at the end the following: "(3) Appealable notice.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `appealable notice' means the first written notice issued to a taxpayer that provides the taxpayer an opportunity to-- "(A) appeal the decision to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals, or "(B) petition a Federal court for review of the decision.". (b) Disallowance Period.--Section 6751 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(d) Disallowance Period.-- "(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term `disallowance period' means-- "(A) with respect to any credit under section 24, the period determined under section 24(g)(1), "(B) with respect to any credit under section 25A, the period determined under section 25A(b)(4)(A), and "(C) with respect to any credit under section 32, the period determined under section 32(k)(1). "(2) Approval required for disallowance period automatically calculated through electronic means.--With respect to the application of any disallowance period, subsection (b)(2)(B) shall not apply.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to notices sent after the date which is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall make publicly available a report regarding all penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 during the preceding calendar year, with all relevant data regarding such penalties to be collected and reported with respect to-- (1) every organizational unit of the Internal Revenue Service that has power to assess, abate, or otherwise enforce any penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (2) the progression of such penalties at each step of the determination, assessment, and review processes, as well as the final result with respect to such penalties. SEC. 113.

Text printed in the Record (11,647 characters)

RETURN OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY IRS IN EXCESS OF ACCEPTED OFFER-IN-COMPROMISE AMOUNT. (a) In General.--Section 7122 is amended by adding at the end the following: "(h) Return Amounts Collected in Excess of Payment Amount of Accepted Offer-in-compromise.-- "(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in the case of any taxpayer for which an offer-in-compromise has been accepted under this section, any proceeds collected with respect to the Federal income tax liability that is the subject of the accepted offer-in-compromise which are in excess of any remaining payments scheduled under such compromise shall be transferred to the taxpayer. "(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-- "(A) the taxpayer and the Secretary have specifically agreed otherwise, or "(B) the Secretary has-- "(i) determined that, under the terms of the compromise, such compromise is in default, and "(ii) elected to terminate such compromise.". (b) Authority to Release Levy and Return Property.--Section 6343 is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1)-- (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking "or" at the end, (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end and inserting ", or", and (C) by adding at the end the following subparagraph: "(F) subject to subsection (h)(2) of section 7122, an offer-in-compromise is accepted under such section with respect to the liability for which the levy was imposed.", and (2) in subsection (d)(2)-- (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking "or" at the end, (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the comma at the end and inserting ", or", and (C) by adding at the end the following subparagraph: "(E) subject to subsection (h)(2) of section 7122, an offer-in-compromise is accepted under such section with respect to the liability for which the levy was imposed,". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to any compromise made under section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which is accepted by the Secretary after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 114. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR RETURN OF AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO WRONGFUL LEVY. (a) In General.--Section 6343(b) is amended, in the flush text following paragraph (3), by striking "the date of such levy" and inserting "the date that the Secretary received any such amount". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to any money levied upon or any amount of money received from the sale of property after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 115. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) Implementation.--Not later than the date which is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary (following consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and the Comptroller General of the United States) shall provide a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding the actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service to implement this title and the amendments made by this title, including-- (1) an analysis of successes and challenges with respect to implementation of such title, and (2) any recommendations to Congress with respect to the implementation or administration of such title. (b) Fraud.-- (1) In general.--Not later than the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall provide a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate regarding efforts made by the Internal Revenue Service to identify, prevent, and resolve each type of tax fraud, including first-person fraud and stolen identity refund fraud. (2) Information included in report.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) a detailed description, timeline, and analysis of any efforts undertaken by the Internal Revenue Service and any of the other members of the Security Summit during the most recent tax filing season to address and prevent each type of tax fraud, including-- (i) any specific information or guidelines provided by the Internal Revenue Service to any of the other members of the Security Summit (and vice versa) with respect to tax fraud, including-- (I) any "be on the lookout" alerts or other warnings, (II) updated guidelines or restrictions, (III) potential threat analyses, (IV) specific data or analytics, and (V) any other actionable threat information, and (ii) any specific recommendations provided by the Internal Revenue Service to any of the other members of the Security Summit (and vice versa) with respect to identifying, preventing, and resolving tax fraud, including any potential improvements to data, analytics, information sharing, and collaboration between the Internal Revenue Service and other members of the Security Summit, (B) a detailed description and timeline of any interactions between the Internal Revenue Service and any provider of tax filing options which does not participate in the Security Summit, including-- (i) any specific information or guidelines provided by the Internal Revenue Service to such provider (and vice versa) with respect to each type of tax fraud, including any items described in subclauses (I) through (V) of subparagraph (A)(i), and (ii) any specific recommendations provided by the Internal Revenue Service to such provider (and vice versa) with respect to identifying, preventing, and resolving tax fraud, including any potential improvements to data, analytics, information sharing, and collaboration between the Internal Revenue Service and such provider, (C) with respect to the most recently completed tax filing season-- (i) with respect to each specific type or form of tax fraud that has been identified by the Internal Revenue Service, any relevant data and analysis regarding the amount of such fraud during such tax filing season, including detailed numerical data regarding such fraud in relation to each separate Federal tax return form (including any amended returns) and the manner in which such returns were filed, and (ii) the total dollar amount of fraudulent claims for refund-- (I) for which any disbursement was erroneously made, and (II) which were identified and disallowed prior to any disbursement being made. (3) Publicly available.--Data included in the report described in paragraph (1) shall be made available on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service, provided that such data is appropriately redacted by the Secretary. (c) Complexity Report.--For purposes of section 4022 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (26 U.S.C. 7801 note), the submission of the report required under section 7803(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not satisfy the requirement under subsection (a) of section 4022 of such Act to conduct an analysis of the sources of complexity in administration of the Federal tax laws and report the results of such analysis. (d) Document Management to Avoid Duplicative Requests to Constituents.-- (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for the following 5 years, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report describing the systems and practices for tracking documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service by taxpayers, Congressional offices, and authorized third-party representatives. (2) Matters included.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) A description of how the Internal Revenue Service catalogues, tracks, and retains documents and communications, including procedures for internal document sharing and for avoiding lost documents and duplicative requests to taxpayers. (B) A description of the status and future plans for managing electronic and paper submissions through online accounts, new document submission tools, and paper-retention processes. (C) A discussion of any modernization efforts aimed at reducing duplicative document requests and any barriers the Internal Revenue Service has identified to implementing improvements. SEC. 201. REPORT ON COMBINED TAX AND FOREIGN BANK AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNT REPORTING. (a) Study.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on-- (A) combining and simplifying reporting required under section 5314 of title 31, United States Code and sections 6038, 6038A, 6038B, 6038C, 6038D, 6039F, 6046A, and 6048 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and (B) eliminating duplicative requests for information from nonresident United States taxpayers. (2) Consultation.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include input from the National Taxpayer Advocate and nonresident United States taxpayers. (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection (a), which shall include any actions taken by the Secretary as a result of such study and any recommendations for legislative changes necessary to effectuate the goal described in subsection (a)(1). SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORTS ON SIMPLIFICATION. (a) GAO Study and Report.-- (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on the burdens of compliance with Federal tax laws applicable to individuals who are United States persons (as defined in section 7701(a)(30) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) living abroad. (2) Factors considered.--The study conducted under subsection (a) shall identify problems relating to compliance of Federal tax laws for such United States persons, including burdens specific to low-income and moderate-income individuals, related to-- (A) understanding and complying with United States tax obligations, including obligations with respect to-- (i) the duty to file returns and pay taxes while living abroad, including in the absence of tax treaties that otherwise eliminate double taxation of income; (ii) the filing (including through electronic means) of Federal tax returns and any reports required under section 5314 of title 31, United States Code, in a timely, accurate, and affordable manner, (iii) foreign retirement plans treated as passive foreign investment companies; and (iv) foreign currency gains; (B) receiving and responding to inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network about returns and reports described in subparagraph (A)(ii), and access to services of such agencies with respect to such returns and reports; (C) access to financial products and services abroad, including local retirement vehicles and bank accounts; (D) access to affordable tax preparation services for United States income tax obligations; and (E) compliance burdens that are disproportionate to the amount of tax owed. (3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Secretary of Treasury and to Congress, and make publicly available, a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1). (b) Treasury Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Comptroller General submits the report under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a report that describes-- (1) actions taken by the Department of Treasury to address any problems identified by the Comptroller General in such report; and (2) any legislation necessary to address such problems. SEC. 203.

Text printed in the Record (11,718 characters)

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PERSONS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES TO REQUEST ABATEMENT OF MATH ERROR. (a) In General.--Section 6213(b)(2)(A) is amended by inserting "(120 days in the case of a notice addressed to a person outside the United States)" after "60 days". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to notices sent after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY; PRE- ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF FOREIGN INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES. (a) Treatment of Penalties as Taxes.--Section 6671(a) is amended-- (1) by striking "The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter" and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--Any penalties provided by this title, including the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter,", (2) by striking "the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter." and inserting "the penalties provided by this title, including the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.", and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any penalty not provided by this subchapter if such penalty is a penalty for which a civil or criminal action is prescribed as the method of collection or has been consistently treated by the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this paragraph as such a penalty.". (b) Notice Requirement for Certain Penalties.-- (1) In general.--Subchapter C of chapter 68 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 6752. PRELIMINARY NOTICE AND RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR COVERED PENALTIES. "(a) Notice.-- "(1) In general.--No covered penalty shall be assessed unless the Secretary provides a notice to the taxpayer in writing by mail to an address as determined under section 6212(b) that contains the following information: "(A) The covered penalty proposed to be assessed. "(B) The taxable years or periods involved. "(C) The basis for the proposed penalty. "(D) Information about the right of the taxpayer to request review as provided in subsection (b). "(2) Timing of notice.--The mailing of the notice described in paragraph (1) shall precede any notice and demand of any covered penalty by at least 60 days (120 days in the case of a notice addressed to a taxpayer outside the United States). "(b) Right to a Review.--Within 60 days (120 days in the case of a notice sent to a taxpayer outside the United States) of the mailing of the notice described in subsection (a), the taxpayer may request a review of the proposed penalty by the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals. "(c) Suspension of Assessment and Collection.-- "(1) In general.--A covered penalty may not be assessed, demanded, or collected before-- "(A) the expiration of the period provided under subsection (b), or "(B) in any case in which the taxpayer requests a review under subsection (b), the date a final determination is issued in such review. "(2) Statute of limitations.--If a notice described in subsection (a) with respect to any covered penalty is mailed before the expiration of the period provided by section 6501 for the assessment of such penalty (determined without regard to this paragraph), the running of such period shall be suspended for the period during which assessment is prohibited under this section and for 30 days thereafter. "(d) Covered Penalty.--For purposes of this section, the term `covered penalty' means any penalty imposed under section 6038(b)(1), 6038A(d)(1), 6038B(c), 6038C(c), 6038D(d)(1), 6039F(c)(1)(B), or 6677. "(e) Exception for Jeopardy.--This section shall not apply if the Secretary finds that the collection of the penalty is in jeopardy. "(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this section, including regulations or other guidance relating to-- "(1) procedures for issuing notices under subsection (a), and "(2) establishing simplified reviews for cases in which the penalty amount at issue does not exceed a designated dollar threshold.". (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subchapter C of chapter 68 is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 6752. Preliminary notice and right of review for covered penalties.". (c) Interpretive Rules.--(1) Taxpayer rights.--Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed to create any limitation on the rights of a taxpayer--(A) under subchapter C or D of chapter 64 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or (B) to pursue refund litigation with respect to the assessment or imposition of any penalty imposed under such Code. (2) No inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed to create any inference with respect to the treatment of any covered penalty (as defined in section 6752 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) before the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 205. REPEAL OF DUE DATE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION RETURNS RELATING TO FOREIGN GIFTS AND TRUSTS. (a) In General.--Section 2006(b) of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 is amended by striking paragraphs (9) and (10). (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to returns for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026. SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF SUBPOENAS BEFORE HEARINGS TO FACILITATE SETTLEMENTS. Section 7456(a) is amended to read as follows: "(a) In General.-- "(1) Administration of oaths.--For the efficient administration of the functions vested in the Tax Court or any division thereof, any judge or special trial judge, the clerk or the clerk's deputies, as such, or any other employee of the Tax Court designated in writing for the purpose by the chief judge, may administer oaths or affirmations. "(2) Examination.--Any judge or special trial judge may examine parties or witnesses. "(3) Subpoena authority.--Any judge or special trial judge may require, by subpoena ordered by the Tax Court or any division thereof and signed by the judge or special trial judge (or by the clerk of the Tax Court or by any other employee of the Tax Court when acting as deputy clerk), any of the following: "(A) The attendance and testimony of parties or witnesses. "(B) The production of books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things from any place in the United States by any party or witness having custody or control thereof for purposes of discovery or for use of the things produced as evidence in accordance with the rules and orders of the Tax Court. Any such subpoena shall be issued and served, and compliance therewith shall be compelled, as provided in the rules and orders of the Tax Court. "(4) Depositions.--Pursuant to rules and orders of the Court, the deposition of a witness may be taken before any designated individual competent to administer oaths under this title. Any deposition testimony shall be reduced to writing by the individual taking the deposition, or under such individual's direction, and shall be subscribed by the deponent.". SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF TAX COURT AUTHORITY TO ORDER RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER. Section 7481 is amended-- (1) by striking "and (d)," in subsection (a) and inserting "(d), and (e)," and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(e) Relief From a Judgment or Order.-- "(1) Corrections based on clerical mistakes; oversights and omissions.-- "(A) In general.--The Tax Court may correct a clerical mistake, or a mistake arising from oversight or omission, whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The Tax Court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. "(B) Appellate court leave required on appeal.--After an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court, and while such appeal is pending, any such mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave. "(2) Grounds for relief from a final judgment or order.--On motion and just terms, the Tax Court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment or order for any of the following reasons: "(A) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. "(B) Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under rules prescribed by the Court and that would have a reasonable likelihood of changing the outcome. "(C) Fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. "(D) The judgment is void. "(E) Any other circumstance where justice so requires. "(3) Timing and effect of the motion.-- "(A) Timing.--A motion under paragraph (2)-- "(i) must be made within a reasonable time, and "(ii) in the case of a reason described in subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C), not later than 1 year after the entry of the judgment or order. "(B) Effect on finality.--While pending, any such motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation. "(4) Other powers to grant relief.--This subsection shall not limit the Tax Court's power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the Tax Court. "(5) Court of appeals jurisdiction.--If the Tax Court provides relief from a judgment or order that is otherwise final under this section, either or both parties may obtain review of such relief by filing a notice of appeal under this subchapter within 90 days of the Court's judgment or order directing such relief.". SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGES TO HEAR ADDITIONAL CASES AND ADDRESS CONTEMPT. (a) Consent to Assignment.--Section 7443A(b) is amended by striking "and" at the end of paragraph (6), by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8), and by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph: "(7) upon the consent of the parties, and pursuant to rules promulgated by the Tax Court, any proceeding not described in paragraphs (1) through (6), and". (b) Authorizing Special Trial Judge.--Section 7443A(c) is amended by striking "or (6)" and inserting "(6), or (7)". (c) Contempt Authority.--Section 7443A is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(f) Incidental Powers.--A special trial judge appointed under this section shall have the independent power to punish for contempt of the authority of the Tax Court as provided in section 7456(c), except the sentence imposed by such a special trial judge for any contempt shall not exceed the penalties for a Class C misdemeanor as set forth in sections 3571(b)(6) and 3581(b)(8) of title 18, United States Code. This subsection shall not be construed to limit the authority of a special trial judge to order sanctions under any other statute or any rule of the Tax Court prescribed pursuant to section 7453.". (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect on the date the United States Tax Court adopts rules implementing the consent procedures of section 7443A. SEC. 304. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES AND SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGES. (a) In General.--Part II of subchapter C of chapter 76 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 7467. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE OR SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE. "Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to judges, special trial judges, and proceedings of the Tax Court.". (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such part is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 7467. Disqualification of judge or special trial judge.". SEC. 305.

Text printed in the Record (11,217 characters)

NOTICE AND REVIEW WITH RESPECT TO MULTI-YEAR BANS ON CLAIMING CREDITS. (a) Notice.-- (1) In general.--Section 6212(a) is amended-- (A) by striking "If the" and inserting the following: "(1) Notice.--If the", (B) by striking "Such notice shall include a notice" and inserting the following: "(2) Matters included.--Such notice shall include-- "(A) a notice", (C) by striking period at the end of the second sentence and inserting ", and", and (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(B) in any case in which such deficiency for a taxable year is attributable to the denial of a credit under section 24, 25A, or 32, a statement-- "(i) identifying the credit or credits which are denied and providing the grounds for each such denial, "(ii) informing the taxpayer that, unless the denial is overturned on appeal, the taxpayer will not be able to claim such credit for any subsequent taxable year unless the taxpayer provides information required by the Secretary to demonstrate eligibility for the credit, and "(iii) in any case in which the Secretary has made a determination to impose a disallowance period under section 24(g)(1), 25A(b)(4)(A), or 32(k)(1), providing the grounds for such disallowance period (and the length of the disallowance period unless overturned on appeal).". (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to notices mailed on or after the date that is 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (b) Authority of the Tax Court.-- (1) In general.--Section 6214 is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection: "(e) Jurisdiction With Respect to Multi-Year Bans With Respect to Certain Credits.-- "(1) In general.--The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction-- "(A) to redetermine the imposition of any disallowance period with respect to any credit under section 24, 25A, or 32 for the taxable year in which such disallowance period was imposed if the deficiency relates to such taxable year, and "(B) to determine whether any such disallowance period should be imposed if claim therefor is asserted by the Secretary in the answer or an amended answer filed in accordance with the rules of the Tax Court. "(2) Disallowance period.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `disallowance period' has the meaning given such term under section 6751(d).". (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection apply to petitions filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act. (3) Transition rule for review of previously imposed disallowance periods.-- (A) In general.--In the case of any deficiency which is attributable to an entry on the return claiming a credit under section 24, 25A, or 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a taxable year in a disallowance period described in subparagraph (B), the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to redetermine whether the disallowance period was properly imposed. (B) Disallowance period described.--A disallowance period is described in this subparagraph if the notice of the deficiency under section 6212 of such Code for the taxable year with respect to which the determination to impose the disallowance period was made-- (i) did not include the grounds for such disallowance period, and (ii) was mailed before the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (C) Disallowance period.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term "disallowance period" has the meaning given such term under section 6751(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this Act). (D) Refunds.--Notwithstanding section 6512(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of a petition with respect to a disallowance period described in subparagraph (B), the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of an overpayment for any taxable year in the disallowance period, and such amount shall, notwithstanding section 6511, when the decision of the Tax Court has become final, be credited or refunded to the taxpayer. If a notice of appeal in respect of the decision of the Tax Court is filed under section 7483 of such Code, the Secretary is authorized to refund or credit the overpayment determined by the Tax Court to the extent the overpayment is not contested on appeal. (c) Burden of Production.-- (1) In general.--Section 7491(c) is amended-- (A) by striking "Notwithstanding" and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--Notwithstanding", (B) by striking "with respect to the liability" and inserting "with respect to-- "(A) the liability", (C) by striking the period after "title" and inserting ", and", (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(B) the application of any disallowance period (as defined in section 6751(d)) to any individual.", and (E) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(2) Standard of proof for certain disallowance periods.--In the case of any court proceeding with respect to any disallowance period described in section 24(g)(1)(B)(i), 25A(b)(4)(A)(ii)(I), or 32(k)(1)(B)(i), the standard of proof shall be the same standard as required in a proceeding under section 7454(a).". (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to court proceedings beginning after the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act in connection with disallowance periods (as defined in section 6751(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this Act) determined after such date. (d) Modification of Disallowance Period.-- (1) Child tax credit.--Section 24(g)(1) is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking "for which there was a final determination that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was" each place it appears in clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting "for which a notice of deficiency has been sent under section 6212(a) which notifies the taxpayer that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was denied, or a determination that has become final under section 7481 has been made by the Tax Court to deny such claim,", and (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(C) Allowance of previously denied credits after tax court consideration.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a taxable year shall not be treated as a taxable year in the disallowance period if the Tax Court determines that the disallowance period was not properly imposed for such year pursuant to section 6214(e).". (2) American opportunity tax credit.--Section 25A(b)(4)(A) is amended-- (A) in clause (ii), by striking "for which there was a final determination that the taxpayer's claim of the American Opportunity Credit under this section was" each place it appears in subclauses (I) and (II) and inserting "for which a notice of deficiency has been sent under section 6212(a) which notifies the taxpayer that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was denied, or a determination that has become final under section 7481 has been made by the Tax Court to deny such claim,", and (B) by adding at the end the following new clause: "(iii) Allowance of previously denied credits after tax court consideration.--Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), a taxable year shall not be treated as a taxable year in the disallowance period if the Tax Court determines that the disallowance period was not properly imposed for such year pursuant to section 6214(e).". (3) Earned income tax credit.--Section 32(k)(1) is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking "for which there was a final determination that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was" each place it appears in clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting "for which a notice of deficiency has been sent under section 6212(a) which notifies the taxpayer that the taxpayer's claim of credit under this section was denied, or a determination that has become final under section 7481 has been made by the Tax Court to deny such claim,", and (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(C) Allowance of previously denied credits after tax court consideration.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a taxable year shall not be treated as a taxable year in the disallowance period if the Tax Court determines that the disallowance period was not properly imposed for such year pursuant to section 6214(e).". (4) Suspension of running of limitations period filing of a claim for credit or refund.--Section 6511(d) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(9) Special rules relating to disallowance periods.--The running of the periods described in subsections (a) and (b)(2) with respect to any claim for a credit allowed under section 24, 25A, or 32 for any taxable year in a disallowance period (as defined in section 6751(d)) shall be suspended during any period in which the imposition of such disallowance period is pending before the Tax Court.". (5) Effective date.-- (A) In general.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall apply to-- (i) taxable years beginning after the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and (ii) disallowance periods (as defined in section 6751(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this Act) in taxable years beginning on or before such date if the notice of deficiency for the taxable year with respect to which the determination to impose such disallowance period was made was sent after such date. (B) Suspension of running of limitations period.--The amendment made by paragraph (4) shall apply to petitions filed after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF DE NOVO REVIEW OF INNOCENT SPOUSE RELIEF BY THE TAX COURT AND OTHER COURTS. (a) Review.--Section 6015(e)(7) is amended by striking "by the Tax Court and shall be based upon" and all that follows and inserting a period. (b) Clarification of Scope of Review.--Section 6015(e)(1)(A) is amended by inserting "(including any remedy applicable in a suit for refund or collection or in a bankruptcy case)" after "In addition to any other remedy provided by law". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to petitions, requests, and suits filed or pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) No Inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed to limit the authority or jurisdiction of the Tax Court or any other court to grant relief under section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or to review any relief granted under such section. SEC. 307. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN COURT FILING DEADLINES. (a) In General.-- (1) Treatment of deadlines.--Section 7451 is amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection: "(b) Treatment of Deadlines for Certain Petitions.-- "(1) In general.--The deadlines for filing petitions under section 6015(e)(1)(A), the first sentence of section 6213(a), and section 6330(d)(1)(A) shall be considered nonjurisdictional claims-processing rules subject to waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

Text printed in the Record (11,993 characters)

For purposes of section 6015(e)(1)(B), the second and fourth sentences of section 6213(a), and the last sentence of section 6330(e)(1), a petition not timely filed shall be treated as timely filed if the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file is excused by waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, or equitable tolling. "(2) Treatment of collection activity.--If the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under section 6015(e)(1)(A), 6213(a), or 6330(d)(1)(A) is excused by waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, or equitable tolling, the Secretary (or the Attorney General, as the case may be) shall abate any assessment made under section 6213(c) to which the petition relates, suspend any levy or proceeding for the collection of the liability to which the petition relates, and (unless the taxpayer otherwise requests) refund any amount of such liability previously collected. The previous sentence shall not apply if section 6330(e)(2), 6330(f), 6330(g), 6851, 6852, or 6861 applies. The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this paragraph.". (2) Conforming amendments.-- (A) Section 6015(e) is amended-- (i) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking "or, if a petition has been filed with the Tax Court under subparagraph (A), until the decision of the Tax Court has become final" and inserting "or, if a timely petition has been filed with the Tax Court under subparagraph (A), from the date such petition is filed (or, if filed after the close of the 90th day referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii), the date the Tax Court determines such petition is excused under section 7451(b)) until the decision of the Tax Court has become final", and (ii) in paragraph (2)-- (I) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and by moving such clauses two ems to the right, (II) by striking "for the period" and inserting "for any period", (III) by striking "for 60 days thereafter" and inserting "for 60 days after the latest of such periods", (IV) by striking "shall be suspended" and inserting "shall-- "(A) be suspended--", and (V) by striking the period after "Secretary" and inserting ", and "(B) if the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under paragraph (1)(A) is excused under section 7451(b), be extended by the number of days between the deadline for filing the petition (determined without regard to the application of section 7451(b)) and the date on which the court determines that the failure to timely file the petition is excused.". (B) The second sentence of section 6213(a) is amended-- (i) by inserting "timely" before "petition", and (ii) by inserting "from the time such petition is filed (or, if filed after the close of the 90-day or 150-day period, the date the Tax Court determines such filing is excused under section 7451(b))" before "until the decision". (C) Section 6213(c) is amended by inserting "(without regard to the application of section 7451(b))" after "the time prescribed in subsection (a)". (D) Section 6330(e)(1) is amended-- (i) by inserting "timely" before "appeals therein", and (ii) by striking "are pending" through "a final determination in such hearing." and inserting the following: "are pending, but in no event shall any such period expire before the 90th day after the day on which there is a final determination in such hearing. If the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under subsection (d) is excused under section 7451(b), such levy actions shall be suspended between the date the court so determines and the date which is 90 days after the decision of the Tax Court becomes final, and the running of any such period of limitations shall be extended by the number of days between the deadline for filing the petition (determined without regard to the application of section 7451(b)) and the date on which the court determines that the failure to timely file the petition is excused.". (E) Section 6503(a)(1) is amended-- (i) by striking "the period" and inserting "any period", (ii) by striking "for 60 days thereafter" and inserting "for 60 days after the latest of such periods", and (iii) by adding at the end the following new sentence: "If the Tax Court determines that the failure to timely file a petition under section 6213(a) is excused under section 7451(b), the periods of limitations provided in sections 6501 and 6502 on the making of assessments and the collection by levy or a proceeding in court shall be extended by the number of days between the deadline for filing the petition (determined without regard to the application of section 7451(b)) and the date on which the court determines that the failure to timely file the petition is excused.". (F) Section 7459(d) is amended to read as follows: "(d) Effect of Decision Dismissing Petition.-- "(1) In general.--If a petition has been filed by the taxpayer under section 6015(e)(1)(A), 6213(a), or 6330(d)(1)(A), a decision of the Tax Court dismissing the proceeding shall be considered as its decision on the merits, unless the dismissal is-- "(A) for lack of jurisdiction, "(B) for failure to timely file the petition, or "(C) in the case of a petition under section 6015(e)(1)(A) or 6330(d)(1)(A), at the request of the taxpayer (unless the Tax Court orders that the dismissal shall be considered its decision on the merits). "(2) Entry of order.--An order specifying the amount of deficiency or liability, if appropriate, shall be entered in the records of the Tax Court unless the Tax Court cannot determine such amount from the record in the proceeding.". (b) Tolling of Time in Certain Cases.--Section 7451(c), as redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking "date" and inserting "day (in whole or in part)". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to cases pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) No Inference.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall not be construed to create any inference with respect to the treatment of-- (1) any case brought under section 6015(e)(1)(A), the second sentence of section 6213(a), or section 6330(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for which there is a final determination by the Tax Court before the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) any other petition filed with the Tax Court under any other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 before, on, or after such date. SEC. 308. CLARIFICATION OF TAX COURT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE TAX LIABILITY IN COLLECTION DUE PROCESS APPEALS. (a) In General.--Section 6330(c)(2)(B) is amended by inserting "in the Tax Court or any other Federal court (other than through a suit for a refund under section 7442 or under section 1346(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code)" after "otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability". (b) Underlying Tax Liability.--Section 6330(c)(4) is amended by striking "An issue may not be raised" and inserting "An issue which is not related to the amount or existence of the underlying tax liability may not be raised". SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF THE TAX COURT TO ISSUE REFUNDS IN COLLECTION DUE PROCESS CASES. (a) In General.--Section 6330(d)(1) is amended-- (1) by striking "The person may" and inserting the following: "(A) In general.--The person may", (2) by inserting "and, unless a challenge was precluded under subsection (c), with respect to the determination of any overpayments of tax for the taxable periods or events at issue in the determination" after "matter" , and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs: "(B) Determination and enforcement of overpayments.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 6512(b) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. "(C) Limitation on amount of credit or refund.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any petition under subparagraph (A), no credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid-- "(I) after the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) was given, "(II) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if, on the date the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) was given, a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or "(III) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) was given-- "(aa) which had not been disallowed before that date, "(bb) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have commenced as of that date, or "(cc) in respect of which a suit for refund had been commenced before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. In a case described in subclause (II) where the date the notice described in subsection (a)(1) or section 6320(a)(1) (as the case may be) is given is during the third year after the due date (determined without regard to any extensions) for filing the return of tax and no return was filed before such date, the applicable period under subsections (a) and (b)(2) of section 6511 shall be 3 years. "(ii) Date notice was given.--For purposes of this subparagraph-- "(I) if notice was given under subsection (a)(2) or section 6320(a)(2) by mail, the date the notice was given shall be the date such notice was mailed, and "(II) if notice was given under subsection (a)(2) or 6320(a)(2) by leaving such notice at the dwelling or usual place of business of the person, the date the notice was given shall be the date such notice was left.". (b) Suspension of Period of Limitations for Credit or Refund During Proceedings.-- (1) In general.--Section 6330(e)(1) is amended by inserting "section 6511 (relating to limitations on credit or refund)," after "section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment)". (2) Prohibition on crediting of overpayments against disputed tax liability during collection action proceedings.--Section 6402 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(o) Prohibition on Crediting of Overpayments Against Disputed Tax Liability During Collection Action Proceedings.--If a hearing is properly requested under section 6320(a)(3)(B) or 6330(a)(3)(B), and an underlying tax liability referred to in section 6330(c)(2)(B) is properly disputed at such hearing, such tax liability shall not, except with the consent of the taxpayer, be taken into account under subsection (a) for the period during which the period of limitations for filing a claim for credit or refund relating to such tax liability is suspended by reason of section 6330(e).". (c) Clarification of Application of Certain Levy Hearing Rules to Lien Hearings.--Section 6330(c)(2)(A) is amended by striking "unpaid tax or the proposed levy" and inserting "unpaid tax, collection action, or proposed collection action". (d) Effective Date.-- (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the amendments made by this section shall apply to cases pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) Prohibition on crediting of overpayments.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall apply with respect to any period described in section 6402(o) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) if any portion of such period is after the date of the enactment of this Act. (3) Clarification of application of certain levy hearing rules to lien hearings.--The amendment made by subsection (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 310.

Text printed in the Record (10,660 characters)

AUTHORIZATION OF THE TAX COURT TO HEAR SUITS FOR REFUNDS OR CREDITS. (a) In General.--Section 7442 is amended-- (1) by striking "The Tax Court" and inserting the following: "(a) In General.--The Tax Court", and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(b) Actions for Refunds.-- "(1) Jurisdiction.-- "(A) In general.--In addition to any other court authorized by law, the Tax Court shall, subject to section 7422, have jurisdiction over any action, not exceeding the applicable amount, for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws to the same extent as the district courts of the United States. "(B) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, the applicable amount means-- "(i) $2,000,000 for any one taxable year, in the case of taxes imposed by subtitle A, "(ii) $2,000,000, in the case of the tax imposed by chapter 11, "(iii) $2,000,000 for any one calendar year, in the case of the tax imposed by chapter 12, "(iv) $2,000,000 for any 1 taxable period (or, if there is no taxable period, taxable event) in the case of any tax imposed by subtitle C, D, or E, and "(v) $2,000,000, in the case of any other amount collected. "(2) Further notice of deficiency.--If the Secretary prior to the hearing of a suit brought by a taxpayer under paragraph (1) mails to the taxpayer a notice that a deficiency has been determined in respect of the tax which is the subject matter of the taxpayer's suit, the proceedings in the taxpayer's suit shall be stayed during the period of time in which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the asserted deficiency, and for 60 days thereafter. If the taxpayer files such a petition with the Tax Court, such petition shall be consolidated with the suit brought under paragraph (1).". (b) Use of Small Dispute Procedures.--Section 7463(f) is amended by striking "and" at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ", and", and by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(4) a petition to the Tax Court under section 7442(b) in which the amount of the refund sought does not exceed $50,000.". (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Section 7422(k) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(5) For jurisdiction of the Tax Court, see section 7442(b).". (2) Section 7482(b)(1) is amended by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G) and inserting ", or", and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(H) in the case of a petition under section 7442(b)-- "(i) the legal residence of the petitioner if the petitioner is an individual, and "(ii) the principal place of business or principal office or agency if the petitioner is an entity other than an individual.". (3) Section 1346(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ", concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims,", (B) in paragraph (1), by striking "Any" and inserting "Concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims and the Tax Court, any", and (C) in paragraph (2), by striking "Any" and inserting "Concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, any". (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to actions filed after the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 311. AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW CLAIMS FOR REFUND IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE FULL TAX NOT PAID. (a) In General.--Section 7422, as amended by this Act, is amended by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l) and by inserting after subsection (j) the following new subsection: "(k) Special Rule for Actions Where There Is an Agreement in Effect With the Taxpayer Under Section 6159 or When the Taxpayer Is in Currently Not Collectible Status.-- "(1) In general.--The district courts of the United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Tax Court shall not fail to have jurisdiction over any applicable action brought by a taxpayer to determine the correct amount of liability of such taxpayer solely because the full amount of such liability has not been paid. "(2) Applicable action.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable action' means any action to determine the correct amount of the liability of such taxpayer (or for any refund with respect thereto) with respect to any amount if, as of the date such action is filed, such amount-- "(A) is the subject of an agreement under section 6159 for which all installments the due date for which is on or before the date the action is filed have been paid, or "(B) has been determined by the Secretary to be not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)). "(3) Permissive dismissal.-- "(A) Request for dismissal.--The United States (or the Secretary, in the case of a case in the Tax Court) may request the dismissal of an applicable action if the taxpayer is no longer in compliance with an installment agreement under section 6159 or is no longer in currently not collectible status (within the meaning of section 6343(e)). "(B) Court action.--In any case in which there is a request for dismissal under subparagraph (A), the court may, with or without taking any evidence or holding a hearing, dismiss the action with leave to refile when either the full amount of such liability has been paid or the conditions in paragraph (2) are met at the time of refiling. In deciding whether to dismiss the action, the court may consider the extent to which the action has proceeded, the extent to which full payment has been made, any burden that may result to the taxpayer, the United States, the Secretary, or the court from such dismissal (including reasons the taxpayer is no longer in compliance with an installment agreement under section 6159), and any other reason relating to the policy of the full payment rule. A dismissal under this paragraph shall not be reviewed by any other court. "(4) Prohibition on collection of disallowed liability.--If the court redetermines under paragraph (1) the correct amount of liability of the taxpayer, no part of such liability which is disallowed by a decision of such court which has become final may be collected by the Secretary, and amounts paid in excess of the amount determined by the court as correctly paid shall be refunded.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to actions filed on or after the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 312. ADJUSTMENT OF THRESHOLD FOR SMALL DISPUTES. (a) In General.--Section 7463, as amended by this Act, is amended-- (1) by striking "$50,000" each place it appears in subsections (a) and (f) and inserting "$100,000", and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(g) Inflation Adjustment.-- "(1) In general.-- In the case of any petition filed in a calendar year beginning after 2026, each of the $100,000 amounts in subsections (a) and (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2025' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(2) Rounding.--If any increase determined under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $1,000, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.". (b) Proceedings for Determination of Employment Status.--Section 7436(c)(1) is amended by striking "if the amount of employment taxes placed in dispute is $50,000 or less for each calendar quarter involved" and inserting "if the amount of employment taxes placed in dispute is equal to or less than the dollar amount in effect under section 7463(a)(1) (determined at the time the pleading is filed under subsection (a)) for each calendar quarter involved". (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Section 7443A(b)(3) is amended by striking "$50,000" and inserting "the dollar amount in effect under section 7463(a)(1) (determined at the time the pleading is filed)". (2) Section 7463(f)(2) is amended by striking "an appeal" and inserting "a petition". (3) The heading for section 7463 is amended by striking "disputes involving $50,000 or less" and inserting "small disputes". (4) The item relating to section 7463 in the table of section for part II of subchapter C of chapter 76 is amended by striking "Disputes involving $50,000 or less" and inserting "Small disputes". (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to proceedings commencing after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 401. NTA AUTHORIZATION TO DIRECT HIRE ATTORNEYS. Section 7803(c)(2)(D) is amended-- (1) in clause (i)-- (A) in subclause (I), by striking "and" at the end, (B) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and", and (C) by adding at the end the following: "(III) appoint counsel in the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate or delegate thereof.", and (2) by adding at the end the following: "(iii) Counsel.--For purposes of clause (i)(III)-- "(I) the National Taxpayer Advocate may utilize direct hire authority to recruit and appoint qualified applicants, without regard to any preference requirements, "(II) any counsel appointed pursuant to such clause shall not report to the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and shall not represent the Government in litigation, "(III) any legal interpretation of counsel appointed pursuant to such clause shall not be binding on the Secretary, and "(IV) pursuant to section 301(f)(2) of title 31, United States Code, and subsection (b)(2)(A), the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service shall continue to provide advice to the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate.". SEC. 402. NTA AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE PERSONNEL DECISIONS. (a) In General.--Section 7803(c)(2)(D)(i)(II) is amended by striking "any employee of any local office of a taxpayer advocate described in subclause (I)" and inserting "any officer or employee of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 403.

Text printed in the Record (11,993 characters)

ACCESS TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INFORMATION, LEGAL ADVICE, AND MEETINGS. (a) In General.--Section 7803(c) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(6) Access to information and meetings.-- "(A) In general.--Upon request, the Commissioner shall provide the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate with access to any of the following: "(i) In the case of any request made by a taxpayer for assistance by the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate which is open and pending-- "(I) any return or return information (as such terms are defined in section 6103(b)) which the National Taxpayer Advocate determines is necessary to assist such taxpayer, "(II) any legal advice provided by the staff of the Office of Chief Counsel to any employee of the Internal Revenue Service (including any legal advice prepared in contemplation of litigation) which the National Taxpayer Advocate determines is necessary to assist such taxpayer, regardless of whether such legal advice cannot be disclosed to such taxpayer, and "(III) any meeting between such taxpayer and any employee of the Internal Revenue Service. "(ii) To the extent necessary to perform a full and substantive analysis included in any report described in paragraph (2)(B)-- "(I) any relevant document, data, or statistical information, and "(II) any legal advice provided by the staff of the Office of the Chief Counsel to any employee of the Internal Revenue Service (including any legal advice prepared in contemplation of litigation). "(iii) Legal advice from the staff of the Office of Chief Counsel on any matter or issue. "(B) Deadline.--Access to any information, advice, or meeting described in subparagraph (A) shall be provided by the Commissioner not later than-- "(i) the date which is 2 weeks after the date on which a written request submitted by the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate has been received by the Commissioner, or "(ii) such date as is otherwise agreed to by the Commissioner and the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate. "(C) Meetings.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(III), the Commissioner shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement under such subparagraph if the Commissioner has extended an invitation to attend the meeting to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, without regard to whether such an invitation was declined by any employee of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate. "(D) Privilege.--Any access provided to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate pursuant to this paragraph with respect to information or legal advice from the staff of the Office of Chief Counsel shall have no effect on any privilege which otherwise applies to such information or legal advice.". (b) Annual Reports.--Section 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii) is amended-- (1) in subclause (XII), by striking "and" at the end, (2) in subclause (XIII), by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and", and (3) by adding at the end the following new subclause: "(XIV) identify any failure by the Commissioner to provide access to any information, advice, or meeting described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) by the date required under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 404. REPEAL OF LIMITATION PERIOD SUSPENSION FOR TAXPAYERS SEEKING ASSISTANCE FROM TAS. (a) In General.--Section 7811 is amended-- (1) by striking subsection (d), and (2) by redesignating subsections (e) through (g) as subsections (d) through (f), respectively. (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6306(k)(2) is amended by striking "section 7811(g)" and inserting "section 7811(f)". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 405. OPERATIONS TO ASSIST TAXPAYERS EXPERIENCING HARDSHIPS DURING LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the third sentence of section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, for purposes of the first sentence of such section, during any lapse in appropriations, functions described in subsection (b) performed by an employee of the Internal Revenue Service who is designated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the National Taxpayer Advocate for purposes of this section shall be treated in the same manner as an emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. (b) Function Described.--The functions described in this subsection are functions necessary-- (1) to assist any taxpayer who is or may be experiencing an economic hardship (within the meaning of section 6343(a)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) as a result of any action or inaction by the Internal Revenue Service, and (2) to comply with any Taxpayer Assistance Order issued pursuant to section 7811 of such Code. SEC. 501. PENALTIES FOR TAX RETURN PREPARERS WHO IMPROPERLY ALTER RETURNS. (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 6696(e) is amended to read as follows: "(1) Return.--The term `return' means-- "(A) any return of any tax imposed by this title, "(B) any administrative adjustment request under section 6227, "(C) any partnership adjustment tracking report under section 6226(b)(4)(A), and "(D) any other document purporting to be a return, request, or report described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 502. ENSURING THE USE OF VALID PREPARER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS AND ELECTRONIC FILING IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS. (a) In General.-- (1) Penalty.--Section 6695 is amended-- (A) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: "(c) Failure to Furnish Valid Identifying Number.-- "(1) In general.-- "(A) Penalty.--Any person who is a tax return preparer with respect to any return or claim for refund and who fails to furnish an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(4)(A) with respect to such return or claim shall pay a penalty of $250 for such failure. "(B) Non-compliance.--For purposes of this paragraph, an identifying number shall be deemed to not comply with section 6109(a)(4)(A) if such identifying number-- "(i) is assigned to another person, "(ii) does not exist, "(iii) is inactive or expired, "(iv) has been withdrawn, "(v) is suspended or has been revoked, or "(vi) is otherwise invalid for use by the tax return preparer. "(2) Exception.--The penalty imposed under paragraph (1) shall not apply if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. "(3) Limitation.--The maximum penalty imposed under this subsection on any person with respect to documents filed during any calendar year shall not exceed $75,000.", (B) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i), (C) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection: "(h) Use of Invalid or Appropriated Electronic Filing Identification Number.-- "(1) In general.--Any person who is an electronic return originator with respect to any applicable electronically filed document who fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (2), with respect to such applicable electronically filed document, shall pay a penalty of $250 for such failure, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. "(2) Requirement.--The requirements of this paragraph are met if-- "(A) the electronic return originator uses an electronic filing identification number which is assigned to such person by the Secretary, and "(B) in the case of any applicable electronically filed document filed after the date on which the program under paragraph (4) is established, the electronic filing identification number has been validated under such program at the time of the filing. "(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection-- "(A) Electronic return originator.-- "(i) In general.--The term `electronic return originator' means a person who originates the electronic submission of 1 or more applicable electronically filed documents. "(ii) Exceptions.--The term `electronic return originator' shall not include a person merely because such person originates an electronic submission described in clause (i)-- "(I) by providing services which are limited to typing, reproduction, or other mechanical assistance, "(II) at the direction of an employer (or of an officer or employee of the employer) by whom such person is regularly and continuously employed, "(III) as a fiduciary, or "(IV) in response to a determination by the Secretary that directly or indirectly affects the tax liability of a taxpayer. "(B) Electronic filing identification number.-- "(i) In general.--The term `electronic filing identification number' means a unique identifier issued by the Secretary to authorize a person or entity to electronically file on behalf of other taxpayers-- "(I) any return of Federal tax, "(II) any claim for a refund, and "(III) except as provided by the Secretary, any other document required to be filed with the Secretary under this title. "(ii) Suspension or revocation.--In the case of any electronic filing identification number which has been suspended or revoked by the Secretary, such number shall not be deemed valid for purposes of paragraph (1). "(C) Applicable electronically filed document.--The term `applicable electronically filed document' means any document which is described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of subparagraph (B)(i) and filed electronically on behalf of other taxpayers. "(4) Electronic filing identification number validation program.-- "(A) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall establish and maintain a program for the validation of electronic filing identification numbers. "(B) Timing and frequency of validation.--The Secretary shall validate an electronic filing identification number-- "(i) prior to the initial use of such electronic filing identification number for electronic filing, and "(ii) at such intervals, or upon such events, as the Secretary determines appropriate, to ensure the continued validity and integrity of such electronic filing identification number. "(C) Real-time validation system.-- "(i) In general.--The program established under this paragraph shall provide a real-time system for the validation of electronic filing identification numbers. "(ii) System requirements.--The system provided under clause (i) shall-- "(I) provide immediate confirmation of the validity status of an electronic filing identification number, "(II) identify whether an electronic filing identification number has been suspended, revoked, or compromised or is otherwise ineligible for the activity for which it is used, and "(III) be designed to support secure, automated, and high-volume validation requests, including usage by large-scale tax preparation software systems. "(D) Access.--The Secretary shall-- "(i) provide access to the system in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe, and "(ii) accept a validation request only from a person authenticated and authorized in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Secretary and only with respect to an electronic filing identification number and electronic filing activity for which such person is authorized to request validation, whether on its own behalf or in connection with services provided to the person to whom the electronic filing identification number was issued.", and (D) in subsection (i)(1), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by striking "and (g)" and inserting "(g), and (h)". (2) Requirement for filing software to provide for use of validation program.--Software which enables the electronic filing of applicable electronically filed documents (as defined in section 6695(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by paragraph (1)(C)) with the Secretary-- (A) shall require validation of an

Text printed in the Record (8,996 characters)

electronic filing identification number (as defined in section 6695(h) of such Code, as amended by this section) under the program described in section 6695(h)(4) of such Code (as amended by this section) prior to the electronic filing of any applicable electronically filed document (as so defined) filed after the date such program has been established, and (B) shall not permit such electronic filing unless such electronic filing identification number has been validated under such program. (3) Validation program implementation plan and report.-- (A) Implementation plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives an implementation plan for the program established under section 6695(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this subsection). Such plan shall include-- (i) a description of the planned design and operation of the program, (ii) the implementation timeline, major milestones, and testing schedule, (iii) the categories of persons eligible to submit validation requests and the procedures for authorizing such persons, (iv) the proposed performance and reliability standards and contingency procedures, and (v) a description of the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized discovery, enumeration, testing, or bulk verification of electronic filing identification numbers. (B) Post-implementation report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which the program under section 6695(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this subsection) is established, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation and operation of the program. Such report shall include-- (i) the performance of the program, including system availability, response times, and peak-volume performance, (ii) the number, duration, and effect on electronic filing of any material service disruptions, (iii) the aggregate number of validation requests and the aggregate number of affirmative, negative, and unable-to-validate responses, (iv) the nature and extent of any use of contingency procedures, (v) any material deviation from the implementation plan submitted under subparagraph (A), and the actions taken or planned to address such deviation, and (vi) any recommendations for administrative or legislative changes. (b) Modification of Definition of Tax Return Preparer.--Section 7701(a)(36) is amended-- (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: "(A) In general.--The term `tax return preparer' means any person who prepares for compensation, or who employs one or more persons to prepare for compensation, any return of tax imposed by this title, any document purporting to be a return of tax imposed by this title, or any claim for refund of tax imposed by this title. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the preparation of a substantial portion of a return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund shall be treated as if it were the preparation of such return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund.", and (2) in subparagraph (B)-- (A) in clause (ii), by striking "return or claim for refund" and inserting "return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund", and (B) in clause (iii), by striking "return or claim for refund" and inserting "return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund". (c) Prevention of Inadvertent Errors Involving Identifying Numbers.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a program to improve voluntary compliance with respect to requirements under subsections (c) and (h) of section 6695 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by this section) and avoid the imposition of penalties under such subsections. (2) Consultation.--The program described in paragraph (1) shall be established by the Secretary following consultation with-- (A) the National Taxpayer Advocate, (B) qualified low-income taxpayer clinics that have received a grant under section 7526 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (C) other relevant stakeholders. (3) Opportunity to correct.--For purposes of the program described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall-- (A) prior to acceptance for processing, identify-- (i) any return or claim for refund which has been electronically submitted and does not include an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (ii) any return or claim for refund which has been electronically submitted and does not use an electronic filing identification number (as defined in section 6695(h)(3)(B) of such Code) or which uses an electronic filing identification number which been suspended, revoked, or compromised or is otherwise ineligible for the activity for which it is used, and (B) provide an opportunity for the person who submitted such return or claim for refund to avoid imposition of a penalty under subsection (c) or (h) of section 6695 of such Code, as applicable, if the correct identifying number or electronic filing identification number is provided. (d) Criminal Penalty.-- (1) In general.--Part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 7218. WILLFUL FAILURE TO PROVIDE A VALID PREPARER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. "(a) In General.--Any tax return preparer who, with respect to any return, document purporting to be a return, or claim for refund willfully fails to furnish an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(4)(A) with respect to such return or document or willfully furnishes a preparer tax identification number which is described in section 6695(c)(1)(B) with intent to evade or defeat the application of any requirement under any provision of this title which requires such preparer to obtain and furnish such number, shall, in addition to any other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $50,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. "(b) Preparer Tax Identification Number.--In this section, the term `preparer tax identification number' means an identifying number described in section 6109(a)(4)(A).". (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 7218. Willful failure to provide a valid preparer identification number.". (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns or claims for refund filed after the date which is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 503. PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER TAX PREPARATION OR MISAPPROPRIATION OF REFUNDS. (a) Other Assessable Penalties With Respect to the Preparation of Tax Returns for Other Persons.--Section 6695, as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$50,000", (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$75,000", (3) in subsection (d)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$50,000", (4) in subsection (e)-- (A) by striking "$50" and inserting "$250", and (B) by striking "$25,000" and inserting "$75,000", (5) in subsection (g), by striking "$500" and inserting "$1,000", and (6) in subsection (i)(1)-- (A) by striking "2014" and inserting "2025", and (B) by striking "calendar year 2013" and inserting "calendar year 2024". (b) Misappropriation of Refunds.-- (1) In general.--Subsection (f) of section 6695 is amended to read as follows: "(f) Misappropriation.-- "(1) In general.--Any person who is a tax return preparer who misappropriates any payment made in respect of the taxes imposed by this title which is issued to a taxpayer (other than the tax return preparer) shall pay a penalty in an amount determined under paragraph (2). "(2) Penalty.--The amount of the penalty determined under this paragraph shall, with respect to each payment described in paragraph (1), be equal to the greater of-- "(A) $1,000, or "(B) the full amount of such payment. "(3) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to the deposit by a bank (within the meaning of section 581) of the full amount of the payment in the taxpayer's account in such bank for the benefit of the taxpayer.". (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6695(i)(1) is amended by striking "(f)," and inserting "(f)(2)(A),". SEC. 504.

Text printed in the Record (11,999 characters)

AUTHORITY TO DENY, REVOKE, OR SUSPEND PREPARER TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS. (a) In General.--Section 6109 is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following: "(4) Furnishing identifying number of tax return preparer.-- "(A) In general.--Any return, claim for refund, or document purporting to be a return or claim for refund which is prepared by a tax return preparer shall bear such identifying number for securing proper identification of such preparer, their employer, or both, as may be prescribed. "(B) Suspension or revocation.--In the case of any identifying number which has been suspended or revoked by the Secretary under subsection (e), such number shall not be deemed valid for purposes of subparagraph (A). "(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- "(i) Specified practitioner.--The term `specified practitioner' means a certified public accountant, attorney, or enrolled agent-- "(I) who is-- "(aa) in good standing with-- "(AA) the Department of the Treasury, and, "(BB) in the case of a certified public accountant or attorney, State licensing authorities, and "(bb) authorized to represent persons before the Department of the Treasury under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, and "(II) whose professional license or certification has not been revoked or suspended. "(ii) Return; claim for refund.--The terms `return' and `claim for refund' have the respective meanings given to such terms by section 6696(e).", and (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: "(e) Identifying Number of Tax Return Preparer.-- "(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain a program for administration of preparer tax identification numbers required under subsection (a)(4), which shall include restrictions on the issuance of such numbers to any individual other than an individual who-- "(A) meets the suitability requirements of paragraph (2) and the education requirements of paragraph (3), "(B) meets the state program requirements of paragraph (4), or "(C) is a specified practitioner. "(2) Demonstration of suitability.-- "(A) In general.--An individual meets the suitability requirements of this paragraph if such individual has demonstrated to the Secretary the individual's suitability to be a tax return preparer by-- "(i) providing such information as the Secretary determines necessary, and "(ii) passing a background check, including a review by the Secretary regarding compliance with personal tax obligations. "(B) Conduct demonstrating lack of suitability.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), an individual shall be deemed to have failed to demonstrate their suitability to be a tax return preparer if-- "(i) any license or registration issued to such individual by a State to prepare tax returns has been suspended or revoked by such State, or "(ii) the Secretary determines that such individual is described in clauses (ii) through (vi) of paragraph (5)(A). "(C) Regulations and guidance.--The Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. "(D) Prohibition on examinations.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), except as provided in paragraph (3)(C)(iii), the Secretary may not require an examination as a prerequisite for the assignment or renewal of a preparer tax identification number. "(E) Grandfathering of prior background checks.-- "(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), in the case of a class of individuals (as identified by the Secretary) who have passed a background check prior to the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary may deem such class of individuals to have satisfied the requirement under such subparagraph. "(ii) Nonapplication to requirement regarding compliance with personal tax obligations.--Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to review by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(ii) regarding compliance with personal tax obligations. "(3) Educational programs.-- "(A) In general.--An individual shall meet the education requirements of this paragraph if such individual completes a specified number of hours of educational programs on ethics, professional responsibility, and tax law (including recently enacted Federal income tax legislation) as required by the Secretary prior to the assignment or renewal of a preparer tax identification number. "(B) Additional educational requirements for renewal.--The Secretary may require any individual seeking the renewal of a preparer tax identification number to complete educational programs in addition to those required under subparagraph (A). Any educational programs required under this subparagraph shall be based on-- "(i) a review of returns which include the preparer tax identification number of such preparer, and "(ii) any errors identified by the Secretary as part of the review described in clause (i). "(C) Other requirements.--For purposes of this paragraph, the Secretary-- "(i) may not require a tax return preparer to annually complete more than 18 hours of educational programs, "(ii) shall require that any educational program include written materials which satisfy such standards as are established by the Secretary, "(iii) shall require that any educational program include a method to ensure that the tax return preparer attended the program and sufficiently understood the material presented, and "(iv) may not direct any educational program to be completed through a specific provider. "(D) Notice of failure to timely complete requirements.--The Secretary shall provide any tax return preparer who fails to complete the requirements of this paragraph notice of such failure and a 30-day period in which to cure such failure. "(E) Publication of approved courses.--The Secretary shall publish, on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service-- "(i) a list of educational programs which have been determined by the Secretary to satisfy the requirement under clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) (and, if applicable, the requirement under clause (iii) of such subparagraph), including the providers of such programs, and "(ii) any such requirements as the Secretary deems necessary to impose with respect to any additional programs required under subparagraph (B), provided that such requirements are similar to the requirements provided under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed thereunder. "(4) Exemption.-- "(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), any individual meets the state program requirements of this paragraph if such individual maintains a valid State license or registration issued by a State licensing program or State registration program (including State tax education councils) which includes examination, education, and background check requirements that are comparable to the suitability requirements described in paragraph (2) and the education requirements described in paragraph (3). "(B) Grandfathering of certain programs.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), with respect to determining whether a State licensing program or State registration program (including State tax education councils) includes examination, education, and background check requirements which are comparable to the suitability requirements described in paragraph (2) and the education requirements described in paragraph (3), such determination shall be made by the Secretary without regard to whether such requirements were included in such program at the time that such individual was licensed or registered under such program, provided that such requirements are, as of the date that such individual requested assignment or renewal of a preparer tax identification number under this subsection, presently included in such program. "(5) Authority to revoke or suspend preparer tax identification number.-- "(A) In general.--The Secretary may suspend or revoke a preparer tax identification number if, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary makes a determination that the tax return preparer-- "(i) has not met-- "(I) the suitability requirements of paragraph (2) and the education requirements of paragraph (3), or "(II) the state program requirements of paragraph (4), "(ii) is incompetent, as demonstrated by a repeated pattern of errors in returns that were prepared by such preparer which affected the determination of tax liability in such returns, "(iii) is disreputable, as demonstrated by-- "(I) giving false or misleading information under paragraph (2)(A)(i), "(II) willful failure to comply with personal tax obligations, "(III) an unpaid tax delinquency-- "(aa) which is outstanding for greater than 180 days, "(bb) which is not being actively disputed, and "(cc) which is not-- "(AA) subject to an agreement or compromise under section 6159 or 7122, "(BB) classified as currently not collectible (within the meaning of section 6343(e)), or "(CC) subject to a pending application for such an agreement, compromise, or status, "(IV) revocation or suspension of any license or registration issued by a State for the preparation of tax returns, "(V) conviction of any criminal offense-- "(aa) involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or "(bb) which is punishable under this title, "(VI) a final determination of liability for a penalty pursuant to section 6694, 6695(h), 6700, 6701, 6702, or 6713, "(VII) subject to an injunction under section 7407 or 7408, or "(VIII) any conduct similar to the conduct described in subclauses (I) through (VII), as provided under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, "(iv) in the case of a person subject to regulation under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed thereunder, has violated the requirements under such section or such regulations, "(v) with intent to defraud, willfully and knowingly misleads or threatens-- "(I) the person whose return or claim for refund is being prepared, or "(II) a prospective person seeking for a return or claim for refund to be prepared, or "(vi) has engaged in conduct (as identified in regulations or guidance issued by the Secretary) which is similar to the conduct described in clauses (i) through (v) and that the denial, suspension, or revocation of such number would promote compliance with the requirements of this title and effective tax administration. "(B) Monetary penalty.-- "(i) In general.--In addition to, or in lieu of, any suspension or revocation of a preparer tax identification number under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may impose a penalty in any amount not exceeding $5,000. "(ii) Reduction.--Any penalty imposed under clause (i) shall be reduced by the amount of any penalty imposed under section 6694, 6695, 6700, 6701, 6702, or 6713 with regard to the same conduct. "(iii) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(I) In general.--In the case of any penalty imposed during any calendar year beginning after 2025, the dollar amount in clause (i) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(aa) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(bb) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(II) Rounding.--If any amount determined under subclause (I) is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100. "(C) Reinstatement.--The Secretary shall, through regulations or other guidance, establish procedures to allow any tax return preparer whose preparer tax identification number has been suspended or revoked pursuant to subparagraph (A) to have such number reissued (or, in the case of a suspension, for such suspension to be terminated), provided that such preparer demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that-- "(i) the conduct described in such paragraph which was the basis for such suspension

Text printed in the Record (11,997 characters)

or revocation has been sufficiently addressed or resolved (such as through completion of educational programs described in paragraph (3) or reinstatement of a license issued by a State for the preparation of tax returns), and "(ii) effective tax administration would be promoted by terminating the suspension of such number or reissuing such number to such preparer. "(D) Preliminary suspension.-- "(i) In general.--After notice and opportunity to respond, the Secretary may suspend the preparer tax identification number of a tax return preparer for a period of not greater than 180 days if the Secretary determines that-- "(I) such tax return preparer has engaged in any conduct described in clauses (i) through (vi) of subparagraph (A), and "(II) such suspension is necessary to prevent serious economic harm to taxpayers or serious impairment of effective tax administration, such as to prevent the filing of fraudulent returns or claims for refund. "(ii) Limitation.--For purposes of clause (i), if the preparer tax identification number of a tax return preparer has been suspended pursuant to such clause 2 times during any 5-year period, the Secretary may not issue an additional suspension pursuant to such clause with respect to such preparer during such period unless such suspension is subsequent to a determination by the Secretary to suspend or revoke the preparer tax identification number of such preparer pursuant to subparagraph (A). "(E) Regulations.--Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including-- "(i) guidelines that identify the particular penalty applicable to any conduct described in subparagraph (A), and "(ii) the manner of notice and opportunity to respond for purposes of subparagraph (D). "(F) No inference.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to create any inference with respect to the definition or meaning of any term used in section 330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed thereunder. "(6) Appeal.--In the case of any tax return preparer for whom the Secretary has made a determination-- "(A) that such preparer has not met the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) or of paragraph (4) and that issuance of a preparer tax identification number should be denied, "(B) under paragraph (5)(A) that the preparer tax identification number for such preparer should be suspended or revoked, or "(C) that a penalty should be imposed pursuant to paragraph (5)(B), such preparer shall be provided with an opportunity to appeal such determination pursuant to procedures (as established by the Secretary through regulations or other guidance) which are similar to the procedures provided under section 330 of title 31, United States Code, and regulations prescribed thereunder. "(7) Disclosure of final determinations.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any determination-- "(i) in which an extended suspension or revocation of a preparer tax identification number is imposed under this subsection, and "(ii) for which all administrative and judicial appeals are exhausted, not later than 30 days following such determination, the Secretary shall publish such determination on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service, which shall include a statement of the facts and circumstances relating to such determination and the reasons for the determination. "(B) Extended suspension.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `extended suspension' means a suspension issued by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (5)(A) for a period of greater than 180 days. "(8) Preparer tax identification number.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `preparer tax identification number' means an identifying number described in subsection (a)(4)(A).". (b) Determinations Regarding Practice Before the Department.--Section 330 of title 31, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: "(e) Disclosure of Final Determinations.--In the case of any determination under subsection (c) or (d)-- "(1) in which a suspension, disbarment, or censure, or other penalty is imposed, and "(2) for which all administrative and judicial appeals are exhausted, not later than 30 days following such determination, the Secretary shall publish such determination on a public website, which shall include a statement of the facts and circumstances relating to such determination and the reasons for the determination.". (c) Disclosure Relating to Misconduct by Practitioners and Tax Return Preparers.-- (1) In general.--Section 6103(k) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(16) Disclosure relating to misconduct by practitioners and tax return preparers.--Under such procedures as the Secretary may prescribe, the Secretary may disclose returns and return information to the extent the Secretary determines it is necessary to publish determinations pursuant to section 6109(e)(7) and section 330(e) of title 31, United States Code, provided that such disclosure is redacted to remove-- "(A) any name, address, or other identifying information with respect to any persons other than the representative or tax return preparer who is the subject of such determination, and "(B) such other information as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the privacy of such persons.". (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6103(p)(3)(A) is amended by striking "or (9)" and inserting "(9), or (16)". (d) Requirement to Include Identifying Number for Paid Preparer of Offer-in-compromise.-- (1) In general.--Section 6109(a) is amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph: "(5) Furnishing identifying number for offer-in-compromise.--Any offer-in-compromise (as described in section 7122), including any required schedule or statement, which has been prepared by any person for compensation shall include such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.". (2) Penalty.--Section 7122, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(i) Failure to Furnish Identifying Number.-- "(1) In general.-- "(A) Penalty.--Any person who prepares an offer-in-compromise (including any required schedule or statement) for compensation and who fails to include an identifying number which complies with section 6109(a)(5) with respect to such offer-in-compromise shall pay a penalty of $250 for such failure. "(B) Non-compliance.--For purposes of this paragraph, an identifying number shall be deemed to not comply with section 6109(a)(5) if such identifying number-- "(i) is assigned to another person, "(ii) does not exist, "(iii) is inactive or expired, "(iv) has been withdrawn, "(v) is suspended or has been revoked, or "(vi) is otherwise invalid for use by the preparer. "(C) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any documents filed during any calendar year beginning after 2025, the $250 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(ii) Rounding.--If any amount determined under clause (i) is not a multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. "(2) Exception.--The penalty imposed under paragraph (1) shall not apply if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. "(3) Limitation.-- "(A) In general.--The maximum penalty imposed under this subsection on any person with respect to documents filed during any calendar year shall not exceed $75,000. "(B) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any penalty imposed during any calendar year beginning after 2025, the $75,000 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(ii) Rounding.--If any amount determined under clause (i) is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. "(4) Other applicable rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 6696 shall apply for purposes of this subsection.". (e) GAO Study and Report on the Exchange of Information Between the IRS and State Taxation Authorities.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the sharing of information between the Secretary and State authorities, as authorized under subsections (d) and (k)(5) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, regarding identification numbers issued to paid tax return preparers and return preparer minimum standards. (2) Increased information sharing.--The study and report described in paragraph (1) shall include an analysis of the impact that increased information sharing between Federal and State authorities would have on efforts to enforce minimum standards on paid tax return preparers. (3) Audit of internal revenue service.--Section 6103(i)(8) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) Application to study conducted under taxpayer assistance and service act.--For purposes of this paragraph, the study and report described in section 504(e)(1) of the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act shall be deemed to be an audit of the Internal Revenue Service.". (f) Publication of Common Errors and Penalties.--Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue shall publish on the public website of the Internal Revenue Service-- (1) the 10 most frequent errors found on tax returns which were prepared by tax return preparers (as defined in section 7701(a)(36) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) during the most recent calendar year for which data is available, and (2) with respect to the preceding calendar year, the top 10 reasons that tax return preparers were-- (A) subject to penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or (B) otherwise disciplined under section 6109 of such Code or section 330 of title 31, United States Code. (g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section (or amendment made by this section) shall be construed to require the Secretary to eliminate or terminate any existing program or authority-- (1) which, pursuant to section 330 of title 31, United States Code, permits a tax return preparer to represent a taxpayer before the Department of the Treasury in cases in which such preparer prepared and signed the return of tax, or (2) for publication of a public database on the website of the Internal Revenue Service of tax return preparers who have satisfied the requirements for issuance of a preparer tax identification number (as defined in section 6109(e)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). (h) Effective Date.-- (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. (2) Transition rules for educational requirements for tax return preparers.-- (A) Annual filing season program.--In the case of any tax return preparer who, as of the date of enactment of this Act, has received a record of completion with respect to the Annual Filing Season Program established by the Internal Revenue Service, such tax return preparer

Text printed in the Record (7,087 characters)

shall be deemed to have satisfied the education requirements of section 6109(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) for the calendar year for which such record of completion applies. (B) Approved courses.--In the case of any entity which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, is approved to provide continuing education for purposes of the Annual Filing Season Program established by the Internal Revenue Service, such entity shall be deemed to satisfy the applicable requirements under section 6109(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 until the date on which the Secretary has-- (i) issued such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary for purposes of establishing standards for educational programs under such section, and (ii) pursuant to subparagraph (E) of such section, published a list of educational programs which have been determined by the Secretary to satisfy the applicable requirements under such section. SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF APPEALS TO HIRE ATTORNEYS. Subparagraph (B) of section 7803(e)(6) is amended to read as follows: "(B) Hiring of counsel.--The Chief of Appeals shall have the authority to appoint counsel in the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals to report directly to the Chief of Appeals. Any counsel appointed pursuant to this subparagraph shall not report to the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and shall not represent the Government in litigation. Any legal interpretation of counsel appointed pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be binding on the Secretary.". SEC. 602. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF APPEALS TO DIRECT HIRE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. Section 7803(e)(6) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(C) Authority to appoint individuals not employed by internal revenue service.--The Secretary may utilize direct hire authority to recruit and appoint qualified applicants, without regard to any notice or preference requirements, to positions within the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals, provided that such applicants are not employees of the Internal Revenue Service engaged in enforcement functions.". SEC. 603. RESPONSES TO CLAIMS FOR REFUND REQUIRED; APPEAL OF CLAIMS FOR REFUND AUTHORIZED. (a) In General.--Subsection (l) of section 6402 is amended to read as follows: "(l) Explanation of Reason for Refund Disallowance; Appeals.-- "(1) In general.--Not later than the applicable date, the Secretary shall review any claim for refund, make a determination with respect to such claim, and, in the case of a disallowance of such claim (in whole or in part), provide the taxpayer with a detailed written explanation for such disallowance, which shall-- "(A) be mailed to the last known address of the taxpayer, and "(B) in the case of any taxpayer entitled to an appeal of such determination, include instructions for appealing such disallowance to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals. "(2) Failure to make timely determination.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any claim for refund for which the Secretary fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1) by the applicable date, for purposes of determining interest on any overpayment for any period subsequent to such date, the overpayment rate (as established under section 6621(a)(1)) shall be increased by 1 percentage point. "(B) Limitation.--With respect to any claim for refund described in subparagraph (A), the amount of any increase in interest on any overpayment pursuant to such subparagraph shall not exceed $500. "(C) Adjustment for inflation.-- "(i) In general.--In the case of any claim for refund filed during any calendar year beginning after 2026, the $500 amount in subparagraph (B) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- "(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by "(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. "(ii) Rounding.--If any amount determined under clause (i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50. "(3) Appeals.-- "(A) In general.--Any disallowance of a claim for refund may, within 30 days after the date such disallowance is mailed (or, if mailed to an address outside of the United States, 90 days), be appealed to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals. Notwithstanding paragraph (4) of section 6532(a), during the period in which any such appeal is pending before the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals (and for 30 days thereafter), the 2-year period in paragraph (1) of such section for filing suit for refund after disallowance of a claim shall be suspended. "(B) Deemed disallowance.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), in the case of any claim for refund for which the Secretary has failed to make a determination with respect to such claim by the date described in paragraph (5)(A), the taxpayer may elect for such claim to be deemed to have been disallowed by the Secretary as of such date. "(4) Frivolous claims.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any frivolous claim-- "(i) paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply, and "(ii) not later than the applicable date, written notification of the denial of such claim shall be mailed to the last known address of the taxpayer. "(B) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term `frivolous claim' means a claim for refund which is based on-- "(i) a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous for purposes of subsection (c) of section 6702, or "(ii) a position which is substantially similar to a position described in clause (i). "(5) Applicable date.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable date' means, with respect to any claim for refund-- "(A) the date which is 12 months after the date of receipt of such claim by the Secretary, or "(B) such other date as is agreed to by the Secretary and the taxpayer.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to any claim for refund received after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 604. APPEALS OF RETURNED OFFERS. Section 7122(e) is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: "(1) for an independent administrative review of-- "(A) any determination that an offer-in-compromise be returned to the taxpayer because such offer-in-compromise is not accepted for processing or is otherwise determined to be nonprocessable before such determination is communicated to the taxpayer, and "(B) any rejection of a proposed offer-in-compromise or installment agreement made by a taxpayer under this section or section 6159 before such rejection is communicated to the taxpayer, and", and (2) in paragraph (2), by striking "any rejection of such offer or agreement" and inserting "any determination described in paragraph (1)(A) or any rejection described in paragraph (1)(B)". SEC. 605.

Text printed in the Record (10,612 characters)

PURPOSES AND DUTIES OF INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF APPEALS; RIGHT OF APPEAL CLARIFIED. (a) In General.--Section 7803(e) is amended--(1) in paragraph (3)--(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking "and" at the end, (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ", and", and (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) without exception, evaluates and considers all hazards of litigation in resolving any case referred to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals.", (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following new paragraph: "(4) Right of appeal.-- "(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided under this title, the resolution process described in paragraph (3) shall be available to all taxpayers with respect to any determination by the Secretary concerning a Federal tax controversy regarding subtitles A, B, or C and relating to-- "(i) liability for, or any claim for refund of, any tax, "(ii) liability for, or any claim for refund of, any penalty or addition to tax, "(iii) eligibility for alternatives to collection of a tax liability, such as an installment agreement or compromise under section 6159 or 7122, "(iv) any determination to deny or revoke the tax-exempt status of an organization, or "(v) any exercise of discretion by the Secretary with respect to any determination described in clauses (i) through (iv). "(B) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary may restrict access to the resolution process described in paragraph (3) with respect to any appeal-- "(i) to the extent that such appeal is based on a claim that-- "(I) a law is unconstitutional, unless there is a final and unreviewable decision rendered by a Federal court that the relevant provision of such law is unconstitutional, or "(II) a regulation, notice, or revenue procedure which was issued by the Secretary is procedurally invalid, unless there is a final and unreviewable decision rendered by a Federal court that the relevant provision of such regulation, notice, or revenue procedure is procedurally invalid, "(ii) which-- "(I) is based on a position which-- "(aa) a Federal court has determined to be frivolous, and "(bb) the Secretary has identified as frivolous for purposes of subsection (c) of section 6702, "(II) is substantially similar to a position described in subclause (I), or "(III) relates to any penalty imposed under such section with respect to such position, "(iii) which relates to any matter agreed upon pursuant to an agreement under section 7121, "(iv) subject to subparagraph (C), during any period in which-- "(I) the Secretary is actively investigating whether to refer the taxpayer to the Attorney General for criminal prosecution, "(II) a recommendation made by the Secretary to the Attorney General for the criminal prosecution of the taxpayer for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws is pending, or "(III) any criminal prosecution of the taxpayer, or of any other person in a case in which the taxpayer is a witness, for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws is pending, or "(v) with respect to any issue in a case which, based on the relevant facts and circumstances of such case, the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service-- "(I) has designated for litigation, and "(II) is prepared to proceed with such litigation in a timely manner. "(C) Exception for certain criminal prosecutions.--Subparagraph (B)(iv) shall not apply if the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service determines that the resolution process described in paragraph (3) would not interfere with the criminal prosecution of a taxpayer. "(D) Notice to tax-exempt organizations.--In the case of any determination described in subparagraph (A)(iv), the Secretary shall provide written notice to the organization of the availability of the resolution process described in paragraph (3). "(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph-- "(i) Federal tax controversy.--The term `Federal tax controversy' means a dispute described in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 301.7803-2 of title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act). "(ii) Procedurally invalid.--The term `procedurally invalid' means, with respect to any regulation, notice, or revenue procedure, that such regulation, notice, or revenue procedure failed to comply with any applicable requirement under subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act'). "(F) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the availability of the resolution process described in paragraph (3) solely to the Federal tax controversies described in subparagraph (A).", and (3) in paragraph (5)-- (A) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E), and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph: "(D) Clarification of tax court authority.--In any case before the Tax Court, the Tax Court may direct the parties to request referral to the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals in any case in which the Tax Court determines that the resolution process described in paragraph (3) is appropriate.". SEC. 701. STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW OF WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD DETERMINATIONS. (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 7623(b) is amended-- (1) by striking "appealed to" and inserting "reviewed by"; and (2) by adding at the end the following: "Any review by the Tax Court under the preceding sentence shall be de novo and shall be based on the administrative record established at the time of the original determination and any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.". (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of paragraph (4) of section 7623(b) is amended by striking "Appeal" and inserting "Review". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to petitions under section 7623(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which are pending on, or filed on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 702. EXEMPTION FROM SEQUESTRATION. (a) In General.--Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 905) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l); and (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following: "(k) Awards to Whistleblowers.--An award authorized under section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part.". (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to any sequestration order issued under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 703. WHISTLEBLOWER PRIVACY PROTECTIONS. (a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 7623(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) Whistleblower anonymity before the tax court.--Notwithstanding sections 7458 and 7461, a whistleblower shall proceed anonymously before the Tax Court for all proceedings under this section absent a finding by the Tax Court that a societal interest exists for disclosing the whistleblower's identity which exceeds the potential harm disclosure could cause to the whistleblower.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to petitions filed with the Tax Court which are pending on, or filed on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 704. MODIFICATION OF IRS WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT. (a) In General.--Section 406(c) of division A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended by striking "such use," in paragraph (1) and inserting "such use (which shall include a list and descriptions of the top tax avoidance schemes, not to exceed 10, disclosed by whistleblowers during such year),". (b) Effective Date.-- The amendments made by this section shall apply to reports for fiscal years ending after the enactment of this Act. SEC. 705. INTEREST ON WHISTLEBLOWER AWARDS. (a) In General.--Section 7623(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(7) Interest.-- "(A) In general.--If the Secretary has not provided notice to an individual described in paragraph (1) of a preliminary award recommendation before the applicable date, the amount of any award under this subsection shall include interest from such date at the overpayment rate under section 6621(a). "(B) Exception.--No interest shall accrue under this paragraph after the date on which the Secretary provides notice to the individual of a preliminary award recommendation. "(C) Applicable date.--For purposes of this paragraph, the applicable date is the date that is 12 months after the first date on which-- "(i) all of the proceeds resulting from actions subject to the award recommendation have been collected, and "(ii) either-- "(I) the statutory period for filing a claim or suit for refund has expired, or "(II) the taxpayers subject to the actions and the Secretary have agreed with finality to the tax or other liabilities for the periods at issue, and either the taxpayers have waived the right to file a claim or suit for refund or any claim or suit for refund has been resolved.". (b) Effective Date.-- (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) Special rule.--If, as of the date described in paragraph (1)-- (A) the Secretary has not provided notice to the individual of a preliminary award recommendation as described in paragraph (7)(A) of section 7623(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this Act, and (B) the applicable date provided in paragraph (7)(C) of such section, as so added, has passed, the applicable date for purposes of such paragraph (7)(C) is the date that is 12 months after the date described in paragraph (1). SEC. 706. CORRECTION REGARDING DEDUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. (a) In General.--Section 62(a)(21)(A)(i) is amended by striking "7623(b)" and inserting "7623". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 801. POSTPONEMENT OF TAX DEADLINES FOR HOSTAGES AND INDIVIDUALS WRONGFULLY DETAINED ABROAD. (a) In General.--Chapter 77 is amended by inserting after section 7510 the following new section: "SEC. 7511.

Text printed in the Record (11,336 characters)

TIME FOR PERFORMING CERTAIN ACTS POSTPONED FOR HOSTAGES AND INDIVIDUALS WRONGFULLY DETAINED ABROAD. "(a) Time to Be Disregarded.-- "(1) In general.--The period during which an applicable individual was unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad, or held hostage abroad, shall be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability of such individual-- "(A) whether any of the acts described in section 7508(a)(1) were performed within the time prescribed thereof (determined without regard to extension under any other provision of this subtitle for periods after the initial date (as determined by the Secretary) on which such individual was unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad or held hostage abroad), "(B) the amount of any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax for periods after such date, and "(C) the amount of any credit or refund. "(2) Application to spouse.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply to the spouse of any individual entitled to the benefits of such paragraph. "(b) Applicable Individual.-- "(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term `applicable individual' means any individual who is-- "(A) a United States national unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad, as determined under section 302 of the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 1741), or "(B) a United States national taken hostage abroad, as determined pursuant to the findings of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell (as described in section 304 of the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 1741b)). "(2) Information provided to treasury.--For purposes of identifying individuals described in paragraph (1), not later than January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter-- "(A) the Secretary of State shall provide the Secretary with a list of the individuals described in paragraph (1)(A), as well as any other information necessary to identify such individuals, and "(B) the Attorney General, acting through the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, shall provide the Secretary with a list of the individuals described in paragraph (1)(B), as well as any other information necessary to identify such individuals. "(c) Special Rule for Overpayments.-- "(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply for purposes of determining the amount of interest on any overpayment of tax. "(2) Special rules.--If an individual is entitled to the benefits of subsection (a) with respect to any return and such return is timely filed (determined after the application of such subsection), subsections (b)(3) and (e) of section 6611 shall not apply. "(d) Modification of Treasury Databases and Information Systems.--The Secretary shall update, as necessary, any database or information system of the Department of the Treasury in order to ensure that the provisions of subsection (a) are applied with respect to each applicable individual. "(e) Refund and Abatement of Penalties and Fines Imposed Prior to Identification as Applicable Individual.--In the case of any applicable individual-- "(1) for whom any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax in respect to any tax liability for any taxable year ending during the period described in subsection (a)(1) was assessed or collected, and "(2) who was, subsequent to such assessment or collection, determined to be an individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall abate any such assessment and refund any amount collected to such applicable individual in the same manner as any refund of an overpayment of tax under section 6402.". (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 77 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7510 the following new item: "Sec. 7511. Time for performing certain acts postponed for hostages and individuals wrongfully detained abroad.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 802. REFUND AND ABATEMENT OF PENALTIES AND FINES PAID BY ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS. (a) In General.--Section 7511, as added by section 801 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(f) Refund and Abatement of Penalties and Fines Paid by Eligible Individuals.-- "(1) In general.-- "(A) Establishment.--Not later than January 1, 2027, the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General) shall establish a program to allow any eligible individual (or the spouse or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of such individual) to apply for a refund or an abatement of any amount described in paragraph (2) (including interest) to the extent such amount was attributable to the applicable period. "(B) Identification of individuals.--Not later than January 1, 2027, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting through the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell (as described in section 304 of the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 1741b)), shall-- "(i) compile a list, based on such information as is available, of individuals who were applicable individuals during the applicable period, and "(ii) provide the list described in clause (i) to the Secretary. "(C) Notice.--For purposes of carrying out the program described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General) shall, with respect to any individual identified under subparagraph (B), provide notice to such individual-- "(i) in the case of an individual who has been released on or before the date of enactment of this subsection, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, or "(ii) in the case of an individual who is released after the date of enactment of this subsection, not later than 90 days after the date on which such individual is released, that such individual may be eligible for a refund or an abatement of any amount described in paragraph (2) pursuant to the program described in subparagraph (A). "(D) Authorization.-- "(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), in the case of any refund described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue such refund to the eligible individual in the same manner as any refund of an overpayment of tax under section 6402. "(ii) Extension of limitation on time for refund.--With respect to any refund under subparagraph (A)-- "(I) the 3-year period of limitation prescribed by section 6511(a) shall be extended until the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date that the notice described in subparagraph (C) is provided to the eligible individual, and "(II) any limitation under section 6511(b)(2) shall not apply. "(2) Eligible individual.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `eligible individual' means any applicable individual who, for any taxable year ending during the applicable period, paid or incurred any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax in respect to any tax liability for such year of such individual based on a determination that an act described in section 7508(a)(1) which was not performed by the time prescribed therefor (without regard to any extensions). "(3) Applicable period.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable period' means the period-- "(A) beginning on January 1, 2021, and "(B) ending on the date of enactment of this subsection.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending on or before the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 901. IMPLEMENTATION OF VOLUNTARY WITHHOLDING AGREEMENTS FOR PAYMENTS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. (a) In General.--Section 3402(p) is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: "(3) Voluntary withholding on certain non-wage remuneration.-- "(A) In general.--If, at the time a payment of applicable non-wage remuneration is made to any person, there is a voluntary agreement in effect between the person making and the person receiving the payment that the applicable non-wage remuneration be subject to withholding, then for purposes of this chapter and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter, such payment shall be treated as if it were a payment of wages by an employer to an employee. "(B) Applicable non-wage remuneration.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable non-wage remuneration' means remuneration for services performed by an individual which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages. "(C) Regulations and guidance.--Not later than the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this section, including such regulations or guidance for determining the amount to be deducted and withheld and the types of payments which are considered to be applicable non-wage remuneration.". SEC. 902. EXTENSION OF MAILBOX RULE TO ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS AND PAYMENTS. (a) In General.--Section 7502(c) is amended-- (1) in the heading, by inserting "and Payment" after "Filing", (2) in paragraph (2)-- (A) in the heading, by striking "; electronic filing", and (B) by striking "and electronic filing", and (3) by adding at the end the following: "(3) Electronic filing and payment.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any document or payment which the Secretary has permitted to be filed or made by electronic means, if such document or payment is-- "(i) authorized to be submitted by the taxpayer using a permitted electronic means to the agency, officer, or office to which the document was required to be filed (or payment was required to be made) on or before the prescribed date (or within the period required) with respect to such document or payment, and "(ii) received (or, in the case of a payment, received and accounted for) no later than 3 business days after the prescribed date or period required with respect to such document or payment, the date that such document or payment was authorized to be submitted (as described in clause (i)) shall be deemed to be the date that such document was filed or such payment was made. "(B) Exception.--This paragraph shall not apply to any payment if the Secretary determines that the taxpayer (or any intermediary used by the taxpayer) used a system designed with a principal purpose of delaying the transfer of funds to the Treasury to derive economic benefit from the period of such delay. "(C) Regulations.--Not later than the date which is 1 year after the date of enactment of the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act, the Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations or other guidance describing the records or proof sufficient to demonstrate timely electronic submission.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to any document or payment sent on or after the date which is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 903.

Text printed in the Record (11,924 characters)

SPECIFICITY OF THIRD-PARTY CONTACT NOTICES. (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7602(c) is amended-- (1) by striking "and" at the end of subparagraph (A), (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph: "(B) in any case in which the information sought to be obtained from such other persons could reasonably be provided by the taxpayer, identifies the item of information intended to be sought from such persons, and", and (3) by amending subparagraph (C), as redesignated by paragraph (2), to read as follows: "(C) provides the taxpayer with reasonable opportunity and a period of not less than 45 days (or more, if the taxpayer requests additional time and shows reasonable cause) to respond, including by providing the information described in subparagraph (B), before contact is made with such other persons.". (b) Exception.--Section 7602(c)(3) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and by moving such clauses 2 ems to the right, (2) by striking "This subsection" and inserting the following: "(A) In general.--This subsection", and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(B) Good cause.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), good cause includes a reasonable belief that compliance with this subsection will lead to-- "(i) attempts by any person to conceal, remove, destroy, or alter records or assets that may be relevant to any tax examination or collection activity; "(ii) attempts by any person to prevent other persons, through intimidation, bribery, or collusion, from communicating any information that may be relevant to any tax examination or collection activity; or "(iii) attempts by any person to flee, or otherwise avoid testifying or producing records that may be relevant to any tax examination or collection activity.". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to notices provided under section 7602(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 904. MODIFICATION OF ESTIMATED TAX RULES FOR FARMERS AND FISHERMEN. (a) In General.--Section 6654(i)(1)(D)(i) is amended by striking "March 1" and inserting "April 15". (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 905. BUSINESS CHILD CARE LIAISON. Section 7803 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(g) Business Child Care Liaison.-- "(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall appoint within the Internal Revenue Service a Business Child Care Liaison. The appointment shall be made without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to appointments in the competitive service or Senior Executive Service. At the Commissioner's discretion, the Commissioner may create an office with additional support staff to assist the Business Child Care Liaison in carrying out the duties described in this subsection. "(2) Duties.--The Business Child Care Liaison shall-- "(A) act as a liaison between the Internal Revenue Service, employer-provided child care benefit advocates, businesses considering providing or expanding child care benefits for their employees, state workforce boards, state economic development agencies, child care resource and referral agencies, tribal organizations (as defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act), and other stakeholders, including child development experts, "(B) provide public education and assistance related to the expansion of employer-provided child care benefits through the establishment and maintenance of practices that promote employer-provided child care benefits, including the use of dependent care assistance programs (as defined in section 129(d)), on-site or subsidized child care, Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, child care stipends, near-site child care partnerships, shared and pooled child-care arrangements, backup child care, and resource and referral services, "(C) issue a fact sheet for use by tax return preparers listing the different tax benefits for employer-provided child care and the appropriate rules for each such benefit, "(D) help facilitate communication between businesses and the Internal Revenue Service about the operational challenges and opportunities that exist to improve the use of Federally incentivized child care benefits such as dependent care assistance programs (as so defined), Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, and the credit under section 45F, "(E) in collaboration with the General Services Administration, within 120 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection, establish a link on the homepage of SAM.gov, which allows website visitors to access a landing page on the SAM.gov website which is tailored to helping businesses learn about utilizing dependent care assistance programs (as so defined), Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, and the credit under section 45F, resources for understanding the rules and regulations with these programs, and the benefits of utilizing these programs on worker recruitment, retention, productivity, and well-being, "(F) identify and recommend to Congress potential legislative and administrative changes to increase practices that promote employer-provided child care benefits, and "(G) coordinate with other Federal agencies and officials, including the Secretary, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Education, or the designee of any such individual, and State and local governments on outreach and education to inform employers and employees about the possibilities and benefits of employer-provided child care benefits and particularly reducing information barriers for small businesses. "(3) Consultation and input.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall solicit advice and input from the Business Child Care Liaison in developing regulations or interpretations of this title that relate to employer-provided child care benefits. "(4) Compensation.--The Business Child Care Liaison shall be entitled to compensation at the same rate as the rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code. "(5) Annual report.-- "(A) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each calendar year beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Business Child Care Liaison shall submit a report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on the activities of the Business Child Care Liaison during the fiscal year ending during such calendar year. "(B) Contents.--Each report submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall-- "(i) summarize the assistance requests received by the Business Child Care Liaison during the fiscal year ending during the calendar year of such report, "(ii) describe the activities conducted by the Business Child Care Liaison, including the activities described under subparagraphs (B) and (F) of paragraph (2), and evaluate the effectiveness of the Business Child Care Liaison during such fiscal year, "(iii) describe any significant problems the Business Child Care Liaison has identified during such fiscal year and ways to mitigate such problems, "(iv) contain recommendations for any administrative or legislative action which may be appropriate to resolve barriers to, and to incentivize, practices which promote employer-provided child care benefits, and "(v) describe progress related to employer-provided child care benefits in businesses in the United States, including data updated at least annually on the utilization of dependent care assistance programs, Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts, and the credit under section 45F, in particular-- "(I) the number of employers utilizing these tax benefits, "(II) a breakdown of the size of employers utilizing these tax benefits, and "(III) other relevant information as deemed appropriate by the Business Child Care Liaison. "(C) Concurrent submission.--The Business Child Care Liaison shall submit a copy of each report submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and any other appropriate official, at the same time such report is submitted pursuant to such subparagraph. "(D) Public availability.--The Commissioner shall make a copy of each report submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) available and widely accessible to the public.". SEC. 1001. AUTHORITY FOR REDISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN TAX INFORMATION RELATED TO EDUCATION LOANS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE. (a) In General.--Section 6103(l)(13)(D) is amended by adding at the end the following new clause: "(vii) Redisclosure to the congressional budget office.--Authorized persons may, upon written request by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to the Secretary of Education, redisclose return information received under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) to officers and employees of the Congressional Budget Office for the purpose of, but only to the extent necessary in, carrying out the purposes described in subclause (III) of clause (i).". (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6103(l)(13)(F) is amended by striking "(iv) (v), or (vi)" and inserting "(iv), (v), (vi), or (vii)". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to disclosures made after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Reports.--The Secretary of Education shall annually submit a written report to the Secretary of the Treasury-- (1) regarding redisclosures of return information under subparagraph (D)(vii) of section 6103(l)(13) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section), including the number of such redisclosures; and (2) regarding any unauthorized use, access, or disclosure of return information disclosed under such section. SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION TO REQUIRE LARGE PARTNERSHIPS TO FILE ON MAGNETIC MEDIA. (a) In General.--Section 6011(e) is amended-- (1) by striking the first paragraph (6), as added by section 2301(b) of the Taxpayer First Act, and inserting the following: "(6) Partnerships required to file on magnetic media.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall require a partnership to file returns on magnetic media if, at the close of the partnership's taxable year-- "(A) the partnership has more than 50 partners, or "(B) the value of the partnership's assets equals or exceeds $1,000,000, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.", and (2) by redesignating the second paragraph (6), as added by section 202(d) of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, as paragraph (7). (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns filed on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 1003. LIMITATION PERIOD NOT EXTENDED FOR VICTIMS OF PREPARER FRAUD. (a) In General.--Section 6501(c)(1) is amended-- (1) by inserting "by the taxpayer" after "intent", and (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: "For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of a joint return under section 6013, intent by either spouse to evade tax with respect to such return shall be treated as intent by the taxpayer, and this paragraph shall apply to both spouses.". (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to assessments made or proceedings begun after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 1004.

Text printed in the Record (4,640 characters)

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE DISASTER RELATED EXTENSION OF DEADLINES ACT. (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 7508A (as added by the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act) is redesignated as subsection (g). (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect as if included in section 2(a) of the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act. SEC. 1005. TIME FOR FILING CERTAIN INFORMATION RETURNS. (a) In General.--Section 6071(b) is amended-- (1) by striking "Returns made under" and inserting the following: "(1) In general.--Returns made under", and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(2) Special rule for certain returns.-- "(A) In general.--In the case of any return to which this paragraph applies and which is filed electronically, such return shall be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year to which such return relates. "(B) Returns.--This paragraph shall apply to any return required to be filed under section 6041 (other than returns and statements required to be filed with respect to nonemployee compensation), 6042, 6047(d), 6049, 6050F, or 6050W.". (b) IRA Reporting.--Section 408(i)(1) is amended by inserting "(but not later than January 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year to which reports relate in the case of reports relating to distributions)" after "at such time". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns relating to calendar years after December 31, 2027. SEC. 1006. MODIFICATIONS TO PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION. (a) Criminal Penalties.-- (1) In general.--Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 7213(a) are each amended by striking "$5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years" each place it appears and inserting "$250,000, or imprisonment of not more than 7 years". (2) Failure of contractors to maintain safeguards.-- (A) In general.--Part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 of subtitle F is amended by inserting after section 7213A the following new section: "SEC. 7213B. FAILURE OF IRS CONTRACTORS TO MAINTAIN SAFEGUARDS. "(a) In General.--In the case of a contractor of the Internal Revenue Service that willfully fails to implement or enforce any applicable requirement under section 6103 (or regulations prescribed thereunder) to protect the confidentiality of returns or return information, if such failure results in the unauthorized disclosure of returns or return information, such contractor shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined the greater of-- "(1) $500,000, or "(2) an amount equal to 25 percent of the specific contract with the Internal Revenue Service under which such contractor was provided access to the returns or return information related to the unauthorized disclosure. "(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term `contractor of the Internal Revenue Service' means any person described in section 6103(n) (including any officer or employee of such person) in connection with a written contract with the Internal Revenue Service.". (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for part I of subchapter A of chapter 75 of subtitle F is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7213A the following new item: "Sec. 7213B. Failure of IRS contractors to maintain safeguards.". (C) Conforming amendments.--(i) Section 6103(e)(11) is amended by inserting "7213B," after "7213A,". (ii) Section 6105(d) is amended by inserting "7213B," after "7213A,". (iii) Section 7431(e) is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: "If any person is criminally charged by indictment or information with--"(1) inspection or disclosure of a taxpayer's return or return information in violation of--"(A) paragraph (1) or (2) of section 7213(a), "(B) section 7213A(a), or "(C) subparagraph (B) of section 1030(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, or "(2) failure to protect the confidentiality of returns or return information which results in the unauthorized disclosure of the taxpayer's return or return information in violation of section 7213B(a), the Secretary shall notify such taxpayer as soon as practicable of such inspection or disclosure.". (iv) Section 7513(c) is amended by striking "section 7213" and inserting "sections 7213 and 7213B". (b) Civil Damages.--Section 7431(c)(1)(A) is amended by striking "$1,000" and inserting "$5,000". (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to disclosures or inspections made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Text of Senate Amendment 6848

Page S5294 · Official text

SA 6848. Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Wyden) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5349, to improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (108 characters)

Amend the title so as to read: "To improve services provided to taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service.".

Authority for Committees to Meet

Pages S5294–S5295 · Official text

Mr. President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 9:45 a.m. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND CENSUS The Subcommittee on Disaster Management, District of Columbia, and Census of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Privileges of the Floor

Page S5295 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Michael Kellermann, serving a detail from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the Committee on Natural Resources, and Francisco Alvarez, serving a fellowship from Sandia National Laboratories to the Committee on National Resources, for the duration of their assignments to the committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows in my office be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 119th Congress: Alandrea Harris, Stephanie Meredith, Jada Owens, Dana Moffat, Kathleen Hart, and Jessica Nielson.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Signing Authority

Page S5295 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all Members of the Republican Conference be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or Joint Resolutions from October 1 through November 9.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Appointment Authority

Page S5295 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore and the majority the minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent actions of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Reporting Authority

Page S5295 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the Senate's adjournment, reports of committees and introduction of measures be authorized on Thursday, October 15 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Wyoming Education Trust Modernization Act

Page S5295 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 483, S. 2273.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (170 characters)

A bill (S. 2273) to amend the Act of July 10, 1890, to modify certain provisions relating to the disposal of public land in the State of Wyoming for educational purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (S. 2273) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:

Text printed in the Record (644 characters)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Wyoming Education Trust Modernization Act". SEC. 2. DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LAND IN THE STATE OF WYOMING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. The Act of July 10, 1890 (26 Stat. 222, chapter 664), is amended-- (1) in section 5, in the first sentence, by striking "interest of" and inserting "earnings on"; (2) in section 7, by striking "interest of" and inserting "earnings on"; and (3) in section 8, in the first sentence, by striking "income thereof" and inserting "earnings on which".

Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025

Page S5295 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 571, H.R. 5235.

The clerk will report the bill by title. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (195 characters)

A bill (H.R. 5235) to amend title 41, United States Code, to prohibit minimum educational requirements for proposed contractor personnel in certain contract solicitations, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 5235) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Modernizing Outdated Regulations to Expand American Fuel Act of 2026

Pages S5295–S5296 · Official text

MODERNIZING OUTDATED REGULATIONS TO EXPAND AMERICAN FUEL ACT OF 2026

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 621, S. 5249.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (184 characters)

A bill (S. 5249) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to align the licensing of uranium enrichment facilities with other fuel cycle facilities under that Act, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Text printed in the Record (4,515 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Modernizing Outdated Regulations to Expand American Fuel Act of 2026" or the "MORE American Fuel Act of 2026". SEC. 2. LICENSING OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITIES. (a) Amendments.--Section 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2243) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking "construction and"; and (B) in paragraph (2)-- (i) by striking "the hearing on"; and (ii) by striking "construction and"; (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) by striking "The Commission shall conduct a single adjudicatory hearing on the record" and inserting "In accordance with section 189 a.(1)(A), the Commission shall grant a hearing"; (ii) by striking "construction and"; and (iii) by inserting "on the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the operation of the uranium enrichment facility and shall admit that person as a party to the proceeding" after "and 63"; (B) by striking paragraph (2); (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and (D) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), in the paragraph heading, by striking "Single proceeding" and inserting "No further action required"; (3) in subsection (c), by striking "construction and"; and (4) by adding at the end the following: "(g) Pre-license Construction.--Nothing in this section prohibits the construction of a uranium enrichment facility prior to issuance of a license authorizing operation of that facility under sections 53 and 63, subject to the conditions that the construction-- "(1) commences after the date on which the Commission dockets the application; "(2) complies with all applicable Federal laws and regulations; and "(3) is entirely at the risk of the applicant.". (b) Notification of Enrichment Construction.--As part of an application for a license under sections 53 and 63 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093) for operation of a uranium enrichment facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as the "Commission") shall require that an applicant submit a certification that, not fewer than 15 days before commencing construction of the uranium enrichment facility pursuant to subsection (g) of section 193 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2243), the applicant will submit a written notification with respect to commencing construction to-- (1) the Governor of the State in which the uranium enrichment facility is to be located; (2) the chief executive and governing body of each unit of local government in which the facility is to be located; and (3) the governing body of each Indian Tribe with an offsite response organization that would be notified by the applicant in the event of an emergency, as described in the emergency plan of the applicant pursuant to section 70.22(i)(3)(viii) of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), if applicable. (c) Regulations Required.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations to revise part 70 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as appropriate to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a). (2) Pending applications.--With respect to an applicant for a license under sections 53 and 63 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093) for the operation of a uranium enrichment facility the application for which was submitted before the date on which the regulations required under paragraph (1) take effect, the Commission may grant an exemption from the requirements of the regulations in effect on the date on which the application was submitted in accordance with this Act and the amendments made by this Act. (d) Savings Clause.--Except as expressly provided in the amendments made by subsection (a), nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act-- (1) limits or otherwise affects the authority of the Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) to regulate construction as necessary to license and oversee the operation of a uranium enrichment facility; (2) limits or otherwise affects the authority of the Commission to deny an application for a license to operate a uranium enrichment facility, including because the applicant failed to meet applicable regulatory requirements; or (3) affects judicial review of a final action by the Commission otherwise available under section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to. The bill (S. 5249), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Reauthorization Act of 2026

Pages S5296–S5297 · Official text

SNOW WATER SUPPLY FORECASTING PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2026

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 637, S. 2437.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (167 characters)

A bill (S. 2437) to amend the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Authorization Act to reauthorize the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Text printed in the Record (4,399 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Reauthorization Act of 2026". SEC. 2. SNOW WATER SUPPLY FORECASTING PROGRAM. The Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1477) is amended-- (1) in subsection (c)(2)-- (A) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking "develop" and inserting "continue developing"; and (ii) by striking "culminating in the report required under subsection (d)(3)" and inserting "with an emphasis on development and deployment of more accurate, timely, and cost-effective snow monitoring technologies and water supply forecasting, including technologies that integrate snowpack measuring and modeling"; and (B) in subparagraph (B)-- (i) by striking "after submitting the report required by subsection (d)(3),"; and (ii) by inserting "and to improve water supply forecasting" after "watersheds"; (2) in subsection (d)-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting "and water supply forecasting" after "data"; (ii) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking "emerging technologies for snowpack measurement, such as" and inserting "technologies for snowpack measurements and methods to forecast water supply, including"; (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking "and" at the end; and (iv) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: "(C) imaging spectroscopy; "(D) machine learning; "(E) snowpack and hydrologic modeling; and "(F) other technologies that the Secretary determines are likely to provide more accurate or timely snowpack measurement data or analytical methods utilizing snowpack data that can improve water supply forecasting to inform water management and reservoir operations."; (B) in paragraph (2), by striking "emerging technologies for snowpack measurement" and inserting "technologies for snowpack measurement and models, including the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration"; and (C) by striking paragraph (3); (3) in subsection (e)-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) by striking "After submitting the report required under subsection (d)(3), the" and inserting "The"; and (ii) by striking "in particular watersheds" and inserting "and water supply forecasts in particular watersheds and to explore new statistical, machine learning, or physical models to generate improved water supply forecasts utilizing snowpack data"; and (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: "(2) Focus.--The program shall focus on activities that will maintain, establish, expand, or advance snowpack measurement and modeling projected water supply, with an emphasis on-- "(A) enhancing activities to achieve improved snow and water supply forecasting results that are more responsive to changing weather and watershed conditions; "(B) activities in river basins where activities described in this section relating to snowpack measurement and water supply forecasting can inform water management decisions or models at a multi-water user, multi-basin, or multi-State scale, including interstate water management decisions; and "(C) building the capacity of program partners to implement and adapt to the new measurement and forecasting capabilities enabled under the program."; (4) in subsection (f)-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking "this Act" and inserting "the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Reauthorization Act of 2026"; (B) in paragraph (2), by striking "or sub-basin"; (C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and (D) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: "(1) a list of basins for which snowpack measurement and integrated modeling technologies are being used under the program, including a description of each application, outcome, and data resource used; "(2) an assessment of which technologies best inform water supply forecasting for multiple water districts, communities, or States; "(3) an assessment of forecasts generated using new technologies authorized under this Act compared against water supply forecast benchmarks from the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and"; and (5) in subsection (g), by striking "$15,000,000, in the aggregate, for fiscal years 2022 through 2026" and inserting "$3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031".

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to. The bill (S. 2437), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act

Page S5297 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 673, S. 1514.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (146 characters)

A bill (S. 1514) to take certain land in the State of Washington into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs with amendments, as follows: (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are in boldfaced brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are in italic.)

Text printed in the Record (2,807 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act". SEC. 2. LAND TAKEN INTO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION. [(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, the approximately 72 acres of land located in the State of Washington and generally depicted as "Allotment 1157" on the map entitled "Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act" and dated February 2, 2024, shall be administratively transferred from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior and taken into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation.] (a) Land to Be Taken Into Trust.-- (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, the approximately 72 acres of land located in the State of Washington and generally depicted as "Allotment 1157" on the map entitled "Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act" and dated February 2, 2024, shall be administratively transferred from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior and taken into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation. (2) Valid existing rights.--Any valid existing rights, including easements, rights-of-way, permits, utility corridors, access rights, and any other recorded or legally recognized interests in the land taken into trust under paragraph (1), shall remain in effect following the transfer and trust acquisition under that paragraph unless modified, relinquished, or terminated in accordance with applicable Federal law. (b) Land Part of Reservation; Administration.--The land taken into trust under [subsection (a)] subsection (a)(1) shall be-- (1) part of the Quinault Indian Reservation; and (2) administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the laws and regulations generally applicable to property held in trust by the United States for an Indian Tribe. (c) Gaming Prohibited.--The land taken into trust under [subsection (a)] subsection (a)(1) shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). (d) No Impact on Treaty Rights.--Nothing in this Act affects treaty rights under the Treaty between the United States and the Qui-nai-elt and Quil-leh-ute Indians, done at the Qui-nai-elt River July 1, 1855, and Olympia January 25, 1856 (12 Stat. 971) (commonly known as the "Treaty of Olympia"). (e) Hazardous Materials.--For purposes of the taking of land into trust under [subsection (a)] subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of the Interior-- (1) shall meet disclosure requirements for hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)); and (2) shall not otherwise be required to remediate or abate those hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee-reported amendments were agreed to. The bill (S. 1514), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (2,447 characters)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act". SEC. 2. LAND TAKEN INTO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION. (a) Land to Be Taken Into Trust.-- (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, the approximately 72 acres of land located in the State of Washington and generally depicted as "Allotment 1157" on the map entitled "Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act" and dated February 2, 2024, shall be administratively transferred from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior and taken into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation. (2) Valid existing rights.--Any valid existing rights, including easements, rights-of-way, permits, utility corridors, access rights, and any other recorded or legally recognized interests in the land taken into trust under paragraph (1), shall remain in effect following the transfer and trust acquisition under that paragraph unless modified, relinquished, or terminated in accordance with applicable Federal law. (b) Land Part of Reservation; Administration.--The land taken into trust under subsection (a)(1) shall be-- (1) part of the Quinault Indian Reservation; and (2) administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the laws and regulations generally applicable to property held in trust by the United States for an Indian Tribe. (c) Gaming Prohibited.--The land taken into trust under subsection (a)(1) shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). (d) No Impact on Treaty Rights.--Nothing in this Act affects treaty rights under the Treaty between the United States and the Qui-nai-elt and Quil-leh-ute Indians, done at the Qui-nai-elt River July 1, 1855, and Olympia January 25, 1856 (12 Stat. 971) (commonly known as the "Treaty of Olympia"). (e) Hazardous Materials.--For purposes of the taking of land into trust under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of the Interior-- (1) shall meet disclosure requirements for hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)); and (2) shall not otherwise be required to remediate or abate those hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2026

Pages S5297–S5298 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 676, H.R. 2400.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (125 characters)

A bill (H.R. 2400) to take certain Federal land in the State of California into trust for the benefit of the Pit River Tribe.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (2,629 characters)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2026". SEC. 2. LAND TO BE TAKEN INTO TRUST. (a) Administrative Transfer.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer administrative jurisdiction over the Four Corners Federal land to the Secretary. (b) Land to Be Taken Into Trust.--Subject to valid existing rights, the Four Corners Federal land shall be taken into trust by the Secretary for the benefit of the Tribe. (c) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out a complete survey of the Four Corners Federal land, including the areas described in subsection (g)(1)(B). (d) Administrative Provisions Corrections.--The Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Tribe may, by mutual agreement, make minor corrections and adjustments to the land taken into trust under this section to facilitate land management, including corrections and adjustments to the survey carried out pursuant to subsection (c). (e) Administration.--On being taken into trust under this section, the Four Corners Federal land shall be-- (1) considered part of the Reservation of the Tribe; and (2) administered by the Secretary in accordance with the laws and regulations generally applicable to property held in trust by the United States for an Indian Tribe. (f) Gaming Prohibited.--The land taken into trust under this section shall not be used for any class II gaming or class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) (as those terms are defined in section 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)). (g) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Four corners federal land.-- (A) In general.--The term "Four Corners Federal land" means the approximately 557 acres of land managed by the Forest Service, as generally depicted within the "Proposed Land Conveyance" boundary on the Map, including improvements and appurtenances thereon. (B) Exclusion.--The term "Four Corners Federal land" does not include the approximately 87 acres of roads, highways, public rights-of-way, easements, and special use permit areas subject to existing easements generally depicted within the "Proposed Land Conveyance" boundary on the Map. (2) Map.--The term "Map" means the map prepared by the Forest Service entitled "Proposed Land Conveyance to the Pit River Tribe" and dated June 30, 2026. (3) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior. (4) Tribe.--The term "Tribe" means the Pit River Tribe, California (includes XL Ranch, Big Bend, Likely, Lookout, Montgomery Creek, and Roaring Creek Rancherias).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time. The bill (H.R. 2400), as amended, was passed.

Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act

Page S5298 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 681, S. 1055.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (193 characters)

A bill (S. 1055) to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the notification requirement for emergency contract health services for certain beneficiaries, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (S. 1055) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (906 characters)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act". SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES. Section 406 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1646) is amended-- (1) by striking "With respect to" and inserting the following: "(b) Elderly or Disabled Indians.--With respect to"; and (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so designated) the following: "(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), with respect to an Indian receiving emergency medical care or services from a non-Service provider or in a non-Service facility under the authority of this Act, the time limitation (as a condition of payment) for notifying the Service of such treatment or admission shall be 15 days.".

Floodplain Enhancement and Recovery Act

Page S5298 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from S. 1564 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (148 characters)

A bill (S. 1564) to amend the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 to address ecosystem restoration projects, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (S. 1564) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,394 characters)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Floodplain Enhancement and Recovery Act". SEC. 2. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS. (a) In General.--Section 22 of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 4101e) is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 22. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS. "(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `ecosystem restoration project' means a project proposed for the primary purpose of manipulating the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of-- "(1) recovering natural and beneficial functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource or floodplain; or "(2) enhancing, accelerating, reclaiming, or improving a specific, natural, and beneficial function of an aquatic resource or floodplain. "(b) Exemption From Fees for Flood Hazard Change Requests for Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a requester shall be exempt from submitting a review or processing fee for a request for a flood insurance rate map change based on an ecosystem restoration project. "(c) Exemption From Conditional Approval for Certain Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--A community may permit an ecosystem restoration project within an adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, if-- "(1) a professional engineer uses the best judgment of the engineer to determine that the cumulative effect of the proposed ecosystem restoration project, when combined with all other existing development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than 1 foot (or a greater amount or metric determined appropriate by the Administrator); "(2) no insurable structure or any critical infrastructure is located in an area that would be adversely impacted by the increased base flood elevation; and "(3) not later than 180 days after the date on which the ecosystem restoration project is completed, the community submits to the Administrator an analysis regarding the changed conditions caused by the ecosystem restoration project. "(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the procedure (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Floodplain Enhancement and Recovery Act) for providing notification to a landowner with respect to development in a regulatory floodway.". (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-89) is amended by striking the item relating to section 22 and inserting the following: "Sec. 22. Ecosystem restoration projects.". (c) Guidance.--(1) Definitions.--In this subsection: (A) Administrator.--The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (B) Covered agencies.--The term "covered agencies" means Federal and State natural resource agencies, as determined by the Administrator. (2) Issuance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and after consultation with the heads of covered agencies, the Administrator shall issue guidance to implement section 22 of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 4101e), as amended by this section.

Clergy Act

Pages S5298–S5299 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 227 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (148 characters)

A bill (H.R. 227) to allow a period in which members of the clergy may revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 227) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Choices for Increased Mobility Act of 2026

Page S5299 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1703.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (152 characters)

A bill (H.R. 1703) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify payment rules for manual wheelchairs under part B of the Medicare program.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

If there is no further debate on the bill, the bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass? The bill (H.R. 1703) was passed.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Enhancing Detection of Human Trafficking Act

Page S5299 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4307, which was received from the House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (254 characters)

A bill (H.R. 4307) to direct the Secretary of Labor to train certain employees of Department of Labor how to effectively detect and assist law enforcement in preventing human trafficking during the course of their official duties, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 4307) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Criminal History Access Act of 2026

Page S5299 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 8352 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (137 characters)

A bill (H.R. 8352) to authorize peace officer standards and training agencies to access criminal history records, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 8352) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Resolutions Submitted Today

Page S5299 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 936, S. Res. 937, S. Res. 938, S. Res. 939, S. Res. 940, S. Res. 941, S. Res. 942, S. Res. 943, S. Res. 944, S. Res. 945, S. Res. 946, S. Res. 947, and S. Res. 948.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The resolutions were agreed to. The preambles were agreed to.

(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")

Supporting the Designation of October 2026 as "Substance Use & Misuse Prevention Month" to Raise Awareness of Substance Use and Misuse in the United States

Page S5299 · Official text

PREVENTION MONTH" TO RAISE AWARENESS OF SUBSTANCE USE AND MISUSE IN THE UNITED STATES

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 866.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report the resolution by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (183 characters)

A resolution (S. Res. 866) supporting the designation of October 2026 as "Substance Use & Misuse Prevention Month" to raise awareness of substance use and misuse in the United States.

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The resolution (S. Res. 866) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of September 17, 2026, under "Submitted Resolutions.")

Orders for Thursday, October 1, 2026, Through Monday, November 9, 2026

Page S5299 · Official text

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2026, THROUGH MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned, to then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times: Thursday, October 1, at 10:30 a.m.; Monday, October 5, at 4 p.m.; Tuesday, October 6, at 1:30 p.m.; Friday, October 9, at 1:30 p.m.; Tuesday, October 13, at 3:30 p.m.; Thursday, October 15, at 9:30 a.m.; Monday, October 19, at 9 a.m.; Thursday, October 22, at 9 a.m.; Monday, October 26, at 2 p.m.; Thursday, October 29, at 2 p.m.; Monday, November 2, at 4:30 p.m.; and Thursday, November 5, at 10:30 a.m.; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, November 5, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, November 9; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, H.R. 2347; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 5:30 p.m., the cloture motion filed during today's session of the Senate ripen.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Order for Adjournment

Page S5299 · Official text

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of the Democratic leader.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The Democratic leader.

119th Congress

Pages S5299–S5300 · Official text

Mr. President, 20 months ago, Republicans won control of Washington on a promise to bring down costs, make government more efficient, and end senseless wars. But over the past 2 years, Republicans betrayed the trust of the American people. For the past 20 months, Senate Republicans catered to Donald Trump's every wish, but Senate Democrats stood up for the American people. The Trump administration, empowered by his feckless Republican majorities in Congress, has been a catastrophe for working families everywhere. Rising costs, increasing chaos, and rampant corruption characterize the Trump administration and its Republican acolytes. Though we lack the majority in both the House and Senate, Democrats came together like never before to hold Trump and Republicans' feet to the fire and do everything we could to stop them. We fought Republicans' radical agenda on front after front and blunted some of their worst attacks on the American people. On costs, we worked tirelessly and fiercely to call attention to how Republicans' disastrous agenda is making costs for the American people skyrocket. Americans have watched the price of everything--everything--explode these past 2 years--groceries, gasoline, healthcare, electricity, housing, childcare. Everything is more expensive. Americans are crying out for relief, and instead of listening to Americans, my Republican colleagues across the aisle back the very same administration policies that have cost families an average of $4,200 in higher prices since Trump took office--$4,200 in higher prices because of Republican and Trump policies. Senate Republicans back Trump's horrendous tariff tax to the hilt. Democrats fought Trump's tariff tax in court and won. Americans shouldn't have to shell out a fortune at the grocery store so Trump can pound his chest about his senseless trade wars. As Trump has pursued new tariffs, Republicans in Congress have abetted these tax increases on families and small businesses, while Democrats have pushed to end them. We fought back when Trump and congressional Republicans gleefully cut $1 trillion--$1 trillion--from our healthcare system so they could cut taxes for billionaires and their biggest corporation friends. The result: 5 million Americans have already lost their healthcare coverage. Can you imagine being a family with no healthcare when your kid gets sick? And another 10 million will lose it in the coming years. Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans with ACA coverage have to shell out more than $1,000 extra because of soaring premiums and deductibles. Medicaid, food assistance--every program designed to help Americans keep their heads above water--all cut to the bones by Republicans in the Senate and in the country. Let's not forget how Americans' electricity bills are up 18 percent under Donald Trump because Republicans gutted the historic investments Democrats made in the cheapest, fastest forms to get energy on the grid. We fought hard to secure these investments, and you had better believe we are going to fight to bring them back. Republicans are also charging the American people for senseless foreign wars that they promised to end. The Republican majority continues to back Trump's disastrous war with Iran that has made gas prices skyrocket and mortgage rates soar. Democrats know just how badly Americans are hurting right now. Republicans can turn a blind eye to the affordability crisis all they want, but fixing it means offering a positive vision to lower costs. That is what Democrats will continue to do.

Corruption

Page S5300 · Official text

Mr. President, on corruption, Senate Democrats have also been unrelenting in exposing Trump's unprecedented corruption. Senate Republicans have aided and abetted Trump's efforts to rob the American people and enrich himself every step of the way. The Trump family has profited $4 billion off the Presidency in the past 2 years. Trump couldn't have done it without the Senate GOP stroking his ego and lining his pockets. The list of Trump's scams and taxpayer-funded vanity projects is truly egregious. Billions of dollars in upgrades to Trump's $400 million foreign luxury jet, Trump's gaudy triumphal arch and his billion-dollar ballroom, his recent propaganda ad, sweetheart deals for his sons' companies from foreign governments, his $2 billion MAGA slush fund to funnel American taxpayers' money to himself, his billionaire friends, and January 6 insurrectionists--the list, unfortunately, goes on and on and on, and Trump charged it all to the American taxpayer. Senate Democrats have laid Trump's grifting bare for the whole world to see. Now, everyone knows that this is the most corrupt administration in American history. Americans are already drowning in higher costs; they shouldn't have to pay for Trump's corruption too. Democrats are ready to actually drain the swamp--to really do it--to root out corruption and ensure government works for the people, not special interests.

Trump Administration

Pages S5300–S5301 · Official text

Mr. President, on chaos, with a record so terrible, with an agenda so deeply unpopular, Trump has resorted to sowing chaos everywhere he can--chaos in our financial markets; chaos in our streets, where he unleashed his rogue ICE agents to go after Americans; chaos abroad, where his war has put our economy at risk--all because he didn't think to keep the Strait of Hormuz open when he began. Republicans have embraced Trump's chaos at every turn, but Senate Democrats have done everything we can to restore stability, especially in our elections. Trump has waged an all-out war on free and fair elections in the United States. He has tried to disenfranchise millions of Americans, kill vote-by-mail, and make it harder for people to make their voices heard in their democracy. Trump has given up on winning over the electorate, so he is trying to silence it. Republicans tried to jam through Trump's SAVE Act--the most devious anti-voting rights legislation Trump ever dreamed up--to purge millions of voters from the rolls. We told Republicans that the SAVE Act ain't going to happen. It didn't. We killed the SAVE Act in Congress, we took Trump to court over his attacks with his voter-suppression Executive orders, we protected mail-in voting, and we defeated Trump's attacks on our elections in case after case after case. Senate Democrats launched our Election Protection Task Force to plan how we will protect our elections on election day from Trump, we held tabletop exercises to prepare for Trump's efforts to interfere with our elections, and we launched a historic Election Observer Program to train and deploy Senate staff volunteers across the country to monitor for any meddling in our electoral system. In America, Donald Trump should know--he doesn't--that voters pick their leaders; leaders don't pick their voters. You hear that, Trump? Voters pick their leaders; leaders don't pick their voters. Senate Democrats have taken every precaution to make sure it stays that way. In conclusion, make no mistake, the past 2 years have been hard--extremely hard--on Americans. Costs are through the roof. Millions are losing their healthcare. Trump's masked agents have run down Americans in the streets. At least 19 Americans have been killed, and hundreds more have been wounded. The global economy is in tatters, and Americans are watching costs climb even further because Trump launched a reckless, illegal war with absolutely no plan. We are fighting Trump tooth and nail on every front, but we are the first to recognize that stopping the worst of the worst isn't enough. We are ready to hit the ground running to lower costs, rein in chaos, and stop the corruption. Republicans broke faith with the American people. We know we need to build that trust with the Americans back up, and we will. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Page S5301 · Official text