The Senate passed the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act by unanimous consent, sending it to the president. The bill extends federal tax deadlines for Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad, forgives and refunds taxes, interest, and penalties they were charged for missing deadlines during their detention, and directs the State and Justice Departments to give the IRS lists of who qualifies. Senator Coons, who supported passage, told the story of Jason Rezaian, a reporter detained in Iran, and urged quick passage. Other business on the floor, including objections to a separate North Dakota land exchange bill and a housing agency inspector general funding bill, was about other measures and is not part of this bill’s debate.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
“I am asking the Senate to take up and pass these bills right now without any debate.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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.
“I want the Senate to pass this land exchange bill for North Dakota, along with a land bill for Arizona. It trades state land inside reservations for federal land outside them. All five tribes in my state support it. It does not reduce public land, and it will actually give hunters more access.”
“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.”
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.
“This land trade does not cause any net loss of public land. It is just a direct swap of locations. I do not understand why the senator from New Mexico keeps objecting to it. I want a commitment from him on how we are going to resolve this.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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.
“I want the Senate to approve this land exchange. The government keeps the same amount of land, and the trade helps the Tribes. Blocking this also stops another bill that easily passed the House. I want us to pass it now or agree on a clear plan to finish it soon.”
“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.”
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.
“I oppose this bill. It lets the housing watchdog decide its own budget with no cap and no vote from Congress. That money comes from housing groups, which will raise costs and mortgage rates for regular people. Any funding change should have a cap and a recorded vote.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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 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).”
Official Congressional Record
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).
