A bill to provide for the protection of the duties of the Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

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.

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, 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 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 yield the floor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I object.

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.

I know of no further debate on the nomination.

I ask for the yeas and nays.