Bills Introduced – 2-20-26
Yesterday, with the House meeting in pro forma session, there were 41 bills introduced. One of those bills will receive additional coverage in this blog:
HR 7625 To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the budget, resources, and capabilities of the Coast Guard as the co-Sector Risk Management Agency for the marine transportation system. McDowell, Addison P. [Rep.-R-NC-6]
Sector Risk Management Agency
I can find no legislation in the 118th Congress that would appear to be similar to HR 7625. According to a press release issued by McDowell’s office:
““The Coast Guard is a major defender of our ports, terminals, and vessels against cyber threats – a critical component of our national security that is too often overlooked,” Rep. McDowell said. “Congress has a duty to make sure the Coast Guard has the resources and workforce it needs to carry out its cybersecurity responsibilities effectively. The MTS CYBER Act does exactly that.””
MIP Legislation
I would like to mention in passing one bill that will not receive additional coverage in this blog:
HR 7636 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish the individual tariff refund credit. Thompson, Mike [Rep.-D-CA-4]
Thompson is part of a small (but significant) cohort of Republican congresscritters that have believed that the President’s multiple rounds of tariffs proposed, imposed, retracted, revised, and reimplemented since January 20th, 2025, are not only fiscally irresponsible, but not authorized in law. This is clearly reflected in the press release from his office yesterday dealing with the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday about those tariffs.
The interesting thing about his proposed bill (draft language) is that it would only provide the proffered tax credit if there is a covered court order {proposed §6436(e)} that requires the repayment of covered tariff revenues {proposed §6436(f)}. This would allow Republicans to vote for the bill without specifically opposing the President’s tariff policies; they would simply be following the law….
The SCOTUS Blog yesterday noted that:
“The court’s holding resolves the question of whether the president has statutory authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA. It does not resolve the refund question; the opinion does not set out a refund mechanism, does not order restitution, and does not address the administrative processes by which duties already paid might be recovered.”
And then concluded:
“That the refund discussion is concentrated entirely in the dissent, rather than anywhere in the majority’s rule statement, is itself a meaningful feature of the opinion: the court resolved the legal question of authority and left the remedial mechanics entirely to future proceedings.”
In short, we have a way to go yet before any real discussion about HR 7636 can proceed.