“I want the Senate to pass this bill right now. It stops the IRS from charging late fees and taxes to Americans who missed filing deadlines because they were held hostage or wrongfully imprisoned in other countries.”

“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.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“The Senate just passed this bill to stop tax penalties for American hostages. It is now going to the president to be signed into law.”

“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.”

“I object to this bill. It gives federal public land to North Dakota without giving the public equal land or money in return. It also lets the state pick which land to take without a public review.”

“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.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill as it is written. It gives away public land without paying the American people back or giving them land of equal value in return.”

“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.”

“I want to find a compromise on this land deal. Tribal trust land is not the same as public land. Giving federal land to a state is not an equal trade. Any deal must be fair to the tribes, the state, and the public who owns the federal land.”

“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.”

“I want the Senate to pass my bill right now. It makes sure the housing agency has to give its independent watchdog the full budget it asks for. The head of this agency has pushed out staff and gone after political enemies, and the acting watchdog was just fired. My bill stops agency leaders from cutting the watchdog's money to block investigations into fraud and abuse.”

“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.”

“Six Democratic senators are absent. The vote was 47 to 41, so the nomination is approved.”

“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: The nomination was confirmed.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 22 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →