H.R. 10357, H.R. 10334, H.R. 6130, H.R. 5439, H.R. 4093, H.R. 10346, and H.R. 10356

Gains and send consumer sentiment. Gains and send consumer sentiment downward. And yet as we sit here for the last meeting of the committee in business for the next seven weeks at least, Republicans still have chosen not to put forward an initiative that would confront the economic fallout. The cost of an action continues to grow. Stunningly, our colleagues have looked at this reality and yet again decided time and again to surrender the prerogative of committees and move forward with legislation to supercharge whatever it is this president says. Raising tariffs up to a hundred percent, more than eight thousand dollars in higher cost to the average household according an analysis from the Yale Budget Lab. Families cannot afford what is happening. It's not that opportunities to bring relief haven't been there. We have seen time and again where there was a chance to work with Democrats Our colleagues on the other side have chosen not to say a word about tariffs, at least publicly. We can lower health care costs if we work together, but we have been turned away by our proposals. Now people are living with the consequences. Gasoline prices headed toward four-fifty a gallon, costs in the doctor's office, at the grocery store, and everywhere else that they're witnessing these increases. Meanwhile, Russian oligarchs get to pay for a family member's wedding. Americans aren't asking for much. They're asking to get by. And they know how bad this is. All they want is their wages to keep up with prices once again. Manufacturers, farmers and ranchers want markets where they can compete. Were any Republicans consulted on the president's latest overtures? Instead of doing the hard work of governing, We get more and more gimmicks. A fake check, five thousand dollars after the election. How does that square with the two thousand dollar tariff dividends we were all supposed to get? And the one thousand dollars meant to paper over rising health care costs. How many times can they make these promises without delivering? Our colleagues have the power to make life easier and more affordable, and I know there's enough goodwill on the Republican side if they would just stand up to this president. Instead, American families are paying more, opportunities are shrinking, and wages certainly are not keeping up. Families want something different, and we are fighting for them on the democratic side to put their needs first. One where making their lives better matters more than helipads, wars, and ballrooms, and some of the opportunities for the president's own family. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Thank you. Our first order of business is HR All right. Our first order of business is HR ten thousand three hundred and fifty seven, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. Over a y- over a year ago, this committee set out to bring our tax code into the twenty-first century by giving digital assets clear and fair rules. Today, after months of thoughtful work by members on both sides of the dais, I'm proud to bring this historic bipartisan legislation forward. What was once seen as a passing trend has now established itself as part of everyday life. At the start of this decade, only three percent of Americans owned digital assets. Today, one in four Americans hold cryptocurrency. more than sixty seven million people in all, and the market is worth over two trillion dollars. Construction workers, waitresses, and factory workers are as likely to hold digital assets as someone in finance or tech, and close to one in four crypto owners make less than seventy-five thousand dollars a year. Digital assets have moved into nearly every community in this country. Our tax code has failed to keep pace with this rapidly growing part of our economy. Attempting to use digital assets for routine purchases, like buying a cup of coffee, triggers an absurd maze of compliance. And digital assets are excluded from long-standing tax rules that apply to traditional financial assets. The digital asset the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act addresses this by providing common sense rules of the road for for how the tax code applies to digital assets. It provides much needed certainty to Americans who own digital assets, and it places digital assets on a level playing field with traditional financial assets. I want to thank representatives Miller, Kerry, Yakim, Kustof, Kelly, Bean, Arrington, and Horsford. for their work building the case for this bill over many, many months. America must remain the crypto capital of the world, and this bill will help to make sure that happens. I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who raised very thoughtful questions and issues as we developed this legislation. And I'm proud of the bipartisan solution that we have reached today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I now recognize Mister Horsford, um, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, for yielding, and to the ranking member. Uh, Mister Chairman, I agree, this mark-up has been a long time coming. After months of work, I am glad that we're able to come together on a bipartisan agreement addressing digital asset taxation. and the inclusion of the wagering loss deduction. I appreciate uh the members and staff who have worked through these complicated issues and the different perspectives that have helped shape the legislation that's before us today. I also want to explain why I will be voting yes. Over the past few months, uh my staff and I have worked diligently with colleagues across the aisle to improve this bill. Through those negotiations we developed legislation focused on tax administration, consistent treatment, and safeguards against abuse. Now, this bill is not as comprehensive as I would have liked, but I continue to believe that Congress needs to address when mining and staking rewards are recognized as income. This package establishes ordinary income treatment, but leaves that timing question unresolved. So there's more work to do. But we also have an opportunity to address gaps in the tax code now. We are establishing basic tax rules for digital assets. We're applying principles already used for comparable financial assets. And we're including requirements intended to prevent abuse while making tax obligations clearer. To me, the details matter. For everyday transactions, the package provides specific treatment for qualifying dollar stable coins and small network and transaction fees for charitable contributions it strengthens the requirements for establishing the value of certain digital assets, including requiring a cash sale followed by a donation of the proceeds in specified circumstances. It also extends existing provisions addressing wash sales and constructive and s- constructive sales. to certain digital asset transactions. These provisions reflect the work that went into this agreement. They address practical questions about how taxpayers report transactions and how established tax principles apply as technology eva evolves. Now, members have raised fair questions about the scope of this legislation and the issues that it leaves unrespo unresolved. I respect those concerns, many of them from my side of the aisle. Our responsibility, though, is to examine the legislation before us and to work together to improve it. And that is what we have sought to do here. The package establishes rules in several areas while leaving other questions for further consideration. Today's vote does not end that work, and I'm committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to continue to make those improvements. I also wanna highlight a provision that I've championed for the past year, my bipartisan Full House Act with my colleague, Representative Max Miller. This provision corrects the wagering loss deduction that can create a phantom tax liability for people who have no net wagering winnings. Under the current ninety percent limitation, someone with uh ten thousand dollars in winnings and ten thousand dollars in losses could deduct only nine percent, nine thousand dollars of those losses. That leaves a thousand dollars in taxable wagering income even though the person broke even. The Full House Act restores the long-standing rule, allowing taxpayers to deduct a hundred percent of their wagering losses, up to the amount of their winnings, subject to the applicable uh deduction requirements. It does not allow taxpayers to deduct losses beyond their own salary. it restores the rule that existed before last year's change. For Nevada and other states, this issue has significance beyond an individual tax return. Gaming is central to our economy, and for workers and families throughout my district, they depend on it, including union workers. That is why I have worked with my colleagues across the aisle on this correction. My concern is the practical effect of this tax provision on taxpayers and the gaming economy that supports so many Nevada livelihoods. We should have a tax code that does not tax people on money they did not actually earn. That is a basic principle of fairness. So in closing, this agreement addresses tax administration, the treatment of comparable financial activities, safeguards against abuse, and the restoration of the wagering loss deduction. It is not the final word on digital asset taxation. Congress will continue to address unresolved questions, including the timing of mining and staking income and the new technologies that will continue to change our economy. But this bill represents progress on many issues that we have spent months working through. I am proud of that work, and I appreciate everyone who contributed to its agreement. I will be voting yes. And I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Horsford. Uh, the committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ten thousand three hundred and fifty-seven the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point. and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Bartel, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, the members of the committee have before them four joint committee documents describing the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, JCX, forty-seven and forty-eight describe the underlying legislation, and on the green sheets JCX fifty and fifty-two describe the Chairman's amendment, the nature of a substitute. The amendment, the nature of substitute, clarifies that the effective date for several of the provisions in the underlying bill, uh, that were stated with respect to the date of introduction is made clear that that effective date is Monday, September fourteenth, twenty twenty uh twenty twenty six. This is relevant for the extension of the wash sale rules that are generally applicable to stock and other securities to digital asset transactions, the extension of the present law constructive sale uh rules that are applicable to appreciated financial positions to uh trading in digital assets, and uh similarly to the application of the present law, straddle rules also would apply to digital assets. It's also perhaps important to note, uh, in this legislation, since there are numerous provisions, that the many provisions have different effective dates. Uh, in some cases, this is to allow both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service time to establish, uh, systems to comp- uh, to comply with the legislation. For example, the establi- es- establishment of the de minimis exception of no gain or loss recognized with to the payment of network fees and certain transaction fees paid with respect to digital assets is effective for dispositions after December thirty-first of twenty-twenty-seven and so not effective in generally until into twenty-twenty-eight. While on the other hand, permitting dealers and traders in digital assets, uh, to, uh, uh, apply mark-to-market, uh, uh, accounting for income is effective for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. So if enacted this year would uh uh be effective for taxable years essentially beginning in twenty twenty uh seven. Uh also note that the restoration of the prior law provision allowing gambling losses to offset winnings dollar for dollar uh is retroactive to tax years beginning after December thirty-first of twenty twenty five, so effective for uh income uh for loss gambling losses recognized during the current calendar year. Uh the staff of the joint committee has estimated that the overall budgetary effect uh for the period fiscal year twenty twenty-seven through fiscal year twenty thirty-six uh would be to raise approximately five hundred million dollars. Um that concludes a brief description of the uh chairman's amendment the nature of substitute and the underlying legislation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Mister Kerry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mister Brodle, it has been uh suggested to me that section four O one of this bill, which provides for uh income from digital asset validation, supporting activities, shall be treated as ordinary income. necessarily requires the conclusion that a receipt of the digital assets from mining or staking is income. Our intention is that nothing in this bill addresses the timing of income related to staking or mining rewards explicitly and implicitly, or implicitly, rather. My understanding that is, under this rule in section four O one B is drafted so that to only address the character of such income without any proper or im- any impact on the timing of such income. So, I just wanna make sure I'm clear with this, Mister Bartoli. In your view, is my understanding of this bill on this point correct?

Uh, yes, Mister Kerry, j- just to briefly restate section four O one B as uh, as you noted, provides an income from digital asset validation supporting activities such as mining, staking, uh, is treated as ordinary income. Uh, but section four O one B does not address, uh, what the timing, uh, of mining or staking income should be.

OK, so, alright, so it, so it's been suggested to me, uh, by some that the, the defined term tokenized digital assets literally includes every digital asset because all digital assets have value, that is related to or correlated to something other than the blockchain that it is on, such as the economy at large. So, um, our intention is that term tokenized digital asset and addresses fact patterns where a digital asset represents ownership, interest in something other than the digital asset, such as a tokenized soybeans or tokenized real estate or tokenized stocks of bronze. So, is my

Uh, Mister Kerry, uh, uh, yes, maybe just to - to walk through the definition again. The term " tokenized digital asset" means any digital asset other than qualified stable coins. If more than an insignificant portion of the value of the digital asset is derived from anything other than the operation of the crypticographically uh secured uh distributed ledger, on which the digital asset is recorded. Um, digital assets then are defined more broadly as any digital representation of value,

Right.

uh, which is recorded on the cryptographically secured distributed led- ledger or similar tech- uh technology. And so, there are digital assets that are not tokenized digital assets. and the staff's underst- uh, understanding of the members' intent is that native digital assets, such as a bit- uh, bitcoin derive their value from the operation of the distributed ledger on which they're recorded. And so in that case, it would not appear that they would meet the definition of tokenized digital assets.

Right. So, Mr. Balto- so, so you, you are saying

The short answer is yes.

OK, OK. Well, I think you've answered all my questions, Mr. Balto. We'll start with that. Uh, you.

Mail back.

Mister Doggett.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman and Mister Barthel. Good morning. Uh, I'm greatly concerned about uh crypto being used by foreign governments, by large corporations, by billionaires to pay what are essentially bribes to uh public officials, even at the highest level of our government. On the tax side, since that's what we're concerned with this morning, is there anything in this bill that would limit the ability of foreign governments and others to make these kind of payments.

Uh, Mister Doggett, the l- the legislation uh is generally addressing issues uh such as uh extension of wash sale rules, straddle rules, uh where uh the legislation is essentially saying that digital assets and digital asset transactions are treated like securities or in some cases, like a commodity. uh, transactions. So there's nothing on point, uh, to the issue that you raised.

Thank you. And it has been described by its supporters as a very broad bill. Uh, I know that in April the Treasury Department issued a warning about the laundering of Iranian oil proceeds through crypto-networks. Is there anything in the bill that will prevent or limit that from continuing to happen?

Uh, there's, uh, nothing direct in the legislation.

OK. And by one estimate, a hundred and fifty-four billion dollars in dirty money flowed through crypto wallets last year, which was an amazing tripling of the fifty-nine billion dollars that flowed through them the prior year. Is there anything here to prevent or limit the continued use of crypto by criminals?

Uh, I, again, Mr. Doggett, nothing uh directly on that point.

I assume then there's also nothing in this bill to prevent President Trump, who's pocketed about two point three billion dollars from crypto from uh continuing to make billions more.

Uh, I I again this uh the legislation's about uh how we recognize uh how we recognize income, uh how wash sales are treated, uh other transactions, but nothing in term uh that that changes the ability of individuals to uh uh invest and perhaps earn profits from digital assets.

Thank you very much.

Miss Chu.

Mister Barthold, I have um concerns about the de minimis exemption for network or gas fees being very very costly in fact two point three billion dollars and in fact I'm in possession of a letter from a large group of um groups uh Americans for Tax Fairness, AFL CIO, ASME, Association who state that uh " we have strong concerns that a de minimis exemption for network or gas fees does not represent parity with other similar assets. For example, a construction worker or child care provider cannot use untaxed capital or labor income to pay an ATM fee. According to JCT, the provision is also extremely costly with no measurable benefit to anyone who is not a wealthy crypto owner." Can you walk us through how this network transaction fee works in the first place, and why it would end up being so costly, two point three billion dollars to our uh federal income?

Uh, Ms. Ms. Chu, there are two uh uh two components that you n- uh noted. There's network fees, and these are uh fees that are incurred uh in the validation of digital asset transactions on on the uh network. Uh, and then the legislation also provides certain transaction fees, such as brokerage fees uh or other fees incurred enabling the uh the sale or transfer of assets. Uh, de minimis in this context is described as uh less than less than ten dollars. Uh, how the uh uh staff uh derived uh the estimate is uh we're looking at uh projected um trading uh in digital assets uh and as was noted earlier, there's been substantial growth in uh trading of assets. Uh as as you noted uh this the legislation permits someone to use a digital asset to pay these fees without recognizing any gain that there may be on those assets. There has been substantial growth in the value of uh digital assets. So uh many taxpayers uh holding digital assets who may be trading over the next uh, uh ten years of the budget budget window uh will have gain. And to the extent that the fees incurred uh to do uh the network validation or the brokerage fees are less than ten dollars, no gain uh also no loss in the case of uh taxpayers who have got a loss.

And in fact, this ne-

And that's and that's the basis of the S P P.

Right. And this network transaction fee diminishes. therefore is not in parity with other similar assets, as I pointed out with the ATM fee.

Uh, that that would be correct, Miss Chu.

OK, I also want to ask about the fact that your estimate for the bill that we, uh, had a legislative hearing on, uh, was one point six six billion in June. But this time, with this bill, it it cost two our American taxpayers is two point five billion. What increased the uh cost of this bill to the American taxpayers? And uh the Tax Law Center uh said that this is a subsidy for validation services. Is that correct?

Uh, well, Ms. Chu, to the uh to the first uh the first point, the legislation that the committee reviewed in its hearing uh, uh, in June, uh, only, uh, provided a de minimis rule for, uh, the network, uh, the network fees. So the current legislation before the committee, uh, has expanded de minimis to include the, uh, certain transaction fees such as, uh, de minimis transaction fees such as the brokerage fees. So the primary reason for the, uh, different estimate is we're looking at a broader application of de minimis uh de minimis fees.

And again, it's a two point five billion dollar loss to our budget.

Um, that's uh, yeah, as uh, as reported on JCX uh fifty-two, that's uh uh two point uh three six five.

'Kay, I yield back.

Are there additional technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Does any member wish to strike the last word? Mister Smith.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I certainly wanna thank my colleagues, Mister Miller and Mister Horsford, for their leadership on the bipartisan work which has gotten us uh to this point. I know a lot has gone into that and I appreciate uh the diligent efforts of my colleagues. I'm proud that uh the work of this committee uh has been done to propose clear common sense rules of the road for digital assets. Americans are increasingly investing in, trading, and using digital assets, and our tax code needs to keep pace. This legislative package provides greater certainty, increases parity between digital assets and traditional financial assets, and removes unnecessary compliance burdens which make it difficult for everyday Americans to participate in this fast- fast-growing part of our economy. If we want America to remain the crypto- crypto-capital of the world, we need a tax code which encourages innovation and investment. here at home. If we do fail to act, innovators, investors, certainly consumers will continue to face an unclear and unpredictable tax landscape. This legislation is an important step toward delivering clarity and strengthening American leadership in digital currency. Glad to support this bipartisan effort. Certainly urge my colleagues to support it as well. I yield back.

Mister Doggett.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come from deep in the heart of Texas. And of all the problems that my neighbors down there talk about, uh, soaring prices at the gas pump and the grocery store from Trumpflation, his tariff tax and his reckless war in Iran, concerns about his authoritarian moves that threaten our democracy, concern about his blatant corruption, I've not had anyone come up to me and say, uh, you know what this committee really ought to prioritize is new tax breaks and loopholes for the crypto industry. Once again, this committee makes very clear that while it ignores the real needs of ordinary Americans that are suffering from failed Trump policies, it eagerly responds to moneyed interest with the strongest lobbyist and the biggest political action committees. There's nothing new or innovative about crypto. Over seventeen years it's been around, and despite extensive promotion at the Super Bowl and otherwise, Gallup poll last year indicated that only fourteen percent of US uh adults own crypto. There's no reason that Congress needs to craft this legislation gifting the crypto industry new tax breaks. And while some of the worst tax giveaways that were in the original bill have been omitted, this bill, and only for now, since we hear this is just the first step, this bill still bestows billions in tax breaks for the crypto industry, benefiting billionaire crypto whales and some of the richest Americans like the Trump family. I agree with my former Austin neighbor, Ben McKenzie, Crypto-critic when he says that cryptocurrency functions as either Ponzi scheme speculation or as a tool for fraud, blackmail, speculation, money laundering, tax evasion, or sanctions evasion. It's a contention that he made very effectively in his book, Easy Money, and his documentary film, Everyone is Lying to You for Money. Mr. Chairman, you talk about bringing clarity to this debate. Well, yesterday the Senate considered the clarity bill and rejected Uh, this committee remains the only place in Congress that's rushing to provide favors to this industry. Crypto poses the same danger to our banking system as Kryptonite did to Superman. By stacking the deck in favor of crypto with special rules and loopholes, resources are being directed away from our community banks toward a minimally regulated crypto industry devoted to get-rich schemes. It is a serious mistake to gamble with the future of our financial system. Nor does this bill do anything about Trump c- crypto-corruption. Instead, it would give the crypto industry preferential treatment, not workers or small businesses nor manufacturers, just crypto. Under this bill, someone speculating with crypto can pay the fees on their own trades with appreciated property and never pay tax on the income. No one else in the economy can do that. If you're a construction worker, you pay the ATM fee with dollars on which you've already been taxed. This bill calls for parity. Well, parity for whom? The crypto industry insists that crypto is a great investment. But actually, you know, the crypto industry itself has found a much better place to invest its dollars and get greater returns. The quarter of a billion dollars that crypto-related PACs spent during the twenty-twenty-four election cycle, accounted for about half of all corporate money uh expenditures on campaigns in this country. Crypto is questionable, but the industry's money talks, talks loudly and effectively. They funded super PACs, they backed candidates, and they got results. So many who did not benefit directly are intimidated by the possibility that crypto will be out there spending a fortune in their next primary election. As to the claim that crypto should be made usable for everyday currency, help function uh as an alternative to money. Those who hold crypto are not running down to the coffee shop to pay with crypto for a uh latte uh they don't uh use it uh with bitcoin that way, they hoard it or they trade it as a speculative investment, which it is. Mister Chairman, the committee should be focused on the real problems that we face as Americans, lowering health care costs, making housing affordable, helping families afford child care, not gambling with crypto. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter from a large number of organizations, including the National Education Association, SEIU, uh and many uh groups like Citizens for Tax Fairness opposing this particular bill.

Without objection. Thank you, Mister Mister Kelly.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, for your leadership on this issue and for including my bill, charitable deductions for digital asset donations act in today's mark-up. But before I go on, uh, Mister Barthold, uh, I've had a chance to - to sit in this committee for a while, and uh, I wanna thank you and - and your team for what you do. I - I've often told you the talents that you have. I'm sure if you had gone into the private sector, the - the, uh, revenue that you would have gained would have been much greater than what you're doing here. Plus the fact, uh, trying to explain difficult things to to people who are are are more focused on on the politics instead of the policy. So tens of millions of Americans now use digital assets every day. These markets are no longer hypothetical. Our economy depends on a modernized, agile and principled tax code, a code that does not stand in the way of new ways of doing business. It is the constitutional responsibility of this committee to ensure the tax code keeps up with the times. The Digital Assets Tax Certainty Act Advances the the goals of stability, neutrality, and simplicity, not special treatment. Today, many tax rules that apply to traditional financial assets do not apply to digital assets simply because this asset class did not exist when many of these provisions of the code were written that uncertainty and compliance burdens for taxpayers businesses and the IRS when digital assets function similarly to traditional assets, taxpayers should be able to rely on familiar tax framework that produce predictable results. One area where this principle is particularly clear is in charitable giving. For more than a century, the charitable deduction has encouraged Americans to support the missions of churches, charities, schools, universities, and foundations across this incredible nation. By lowering the after-tax cost of giving, the deduction helps leverage greater private support for the organizations that strengthen our communities. America is really well served when we promote habits of giving across all taxpayers and all asset classes. When Americans contribute to local churches, to food banks, or youth programs, they help those who are in need and strengthen the very fabric of our society. The tax code should not stand in the way of that generosity. The charitable deduction ensures that private citizens, not the federal government, decide which organiz- organizations and causes deserve their support. That is why I introduced the charitable deductions for Digital Asset Donations Act. The legislation would treat widely traded digital assets similar to public traded stock by removing burdensome appraisal requirements where reliable market values are readily available. It also maintains guardrails to prevent abuse from bad actors and speculative assets. This proposal does not create a new tax preference. It applies long-standing tax principles consistently across economically similar assets. It simply removes an unnecessary barrier to charitable giving, modernizes the tax code, and provides taxpayers with greater certainty. Most importantly, it makes it easier for more Americans to support their churches, their charities, and the community institutions that serve those that need it the most. Uh, Chairman, I want to thank you again f- for this leadership and - and also including the - the provision in the broader uh broader uh digital assets uh, tax certainty. I, I, I know when, when we do this work on, on ways and means and, I, I don't wanna belabor this too much. I, I don't think there's anything that, uh, that most of us are, are concerned with and, and I would, I would just tell you this, I've been in business all my whole life, I would never do my own taxes, I just, I simply can't, uh, handle that. Uh, I don't mind paying taxes when we're profitable. I also don't mind paying wage taxes and property taxes and everything else, even when we're not able to make a profit, but we still participate in funding this incredible this incredible experiment we have in this in this nation. So, everything that we do, and sometimes we get we get caught up in the politics of this and not the policy. Uh, Mister Barthold, again, you, your team, and what you do to try to explain how this works. I I will tell you what, I hope I'm the only one in this room that I am I am absolutely appalled by the fact that we use acronyms and codes, and that people, we have this bobble-head society, yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about. and I always turn to my colleagues, I say that that's that's interesting, would you explain it to me, cuz I don't have a frickin' idea what the hell we're talking about. Uh, the one thing I do know, we are taxed and taxed and taxed again, and the question is always, since we can't spend money the way a private citizen would do, but we continue to go deeper, deeper in debt, I think we're at forty trillion dollars, but who's counting? Um, the work that you've done, the work that this committee does. I hope we would step outside the the red team, blue team, and take a look at who is providing all the money and who co-signing and every single loan that we have out there and debt that we have, a hard-working American taxpayer. So I want to thank the chairman for doing this today, uh, people who, uh, who use this asset to help fund charitable things. What's more American than that? So thank you all for what you do. And I want to thank you both, both side to the aisle, by the way. I think we're all, we all think the same way, is the only problem is when we get in public, we've gotta separate because the country's so polarized over red and blue. We forget that we represent the greatest nation the world's ever seen. And we're actually red, white, and blue. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Mister Thompson.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I move to strike the last word. The American people are likely asking why we aren't marking up legislation that would address the cost of living crisis that they're facing. And that's a fair question and one that the majority will need to answer for. In the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that these technologies are properly regulated. Digital assets are here. Cryptocurrency is not a passing fad, and this technology is not going to disappear. For too long, digital assets have operated under tax rules that were written well before this technology existed. That's created uncertainty for taxpayers and opportunities for abuse. I concur with my colleague, Mister Doggett, in his comments regarding some of those abuses and those potential uh for abuses. This bill is not perfect. There're provisions which we would have written differently, and this legislation is only one part of the broader framework that Congress must establish. But the negotiated bill before us, I believe, is substantially better than where this process began. And I wanna thank specifically Mister Horsford, uh for the great work that he's done on this and working uh to represent uh his constituency in the great way that he has. Um the bill does not create a sweeping new exemption allowing people to spend uh appreciated cryptocurrency tax-free. It preserves ordinary income treatment for staking and for mining. It applies long-standing wash sale rules to digital assets so investors cannot use cryptocurrency to exploit loopholes. It also protects the charitable tax base, closes opportunities to shift pre-existing gains into territorial tax shelters, and requires taxpayers participating in the voluntary disclosure program to report their violations and pay the taxes, interest and a- applicable penalties that they owe. These are meaningful improvements. Again, they don't go far enough, but they're They reflect a straightforward principle. New technology should not receive a free pass from the basic rules that apply to everyone else. This debate should serve as a lesson for how Congress needs to address technological change such as artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is advancing even faster than digital assets. It's already transformed the workplace, our schools, health care, national security, financial markets, and the information Americans see every day. AI can create extraordinary opportunities, but it can also displace workers, invade privacy, facilitate fraud, and cause significant dangers to society. Yet Congress has failed to enact meaningful guardrails, and Speaker Johnson has shown no interest in keeping Congress in session, to address these issues, notwithstanding some of the major IAEA leaders in the country calling on us to do just that. We can't govern by waiting for powerful technologies to cause harm, and then asking why no one acted sooner. We cannot allow the companies developing these systems to write the rules for themselves. And we cannot pretend that supporting innovation requires Congress to abandon its responsibility to protect the American people. We have a job, we have a duty. This bill should not be the end of our work on digital assets. It should be the beginning of Congress taking these responsibilities seriously. And we should bring that same urgency to artificial intelligence. I intend to support this bill today because as I said, I think it's a puts us in a better spot than where we are today. But we've got a lot more work to do. And, Mister Chairman, I hope we get to doing that work. I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Estes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Can I rise in strong support of H R ten thousand three fifty seven, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. When this committee hailed its hearing in June, I said the tax code never envisioned these technologies and their applications. Digital assets were forced into rules that were never intended for them. The result is a lack of clarity and purity and parity and legal uncertainty that prevents further investment and adoption by the wider public. The lack of a clear framework only helps foreign adversaries like China who want to replace US financial leadership. Congress was must set the standards so capital, innovation and jobs stay in America. The sys- the system now is the equivalent of a highway with no guardrails to keep cars from running in the ditch. If we don't establish the clear rules of the road to provide certainty, accidents will continue to happen. I'm proud to say that thousand that that that I'm proud to say that thanks to the hard work of this committee the bill gives us clear rules of the road it provides certainty consistency and simplicity that this industry needs take the common sense fixes to the reporting requirements for everyday crypto use for the twenty twenty five tax year the IRS required hundreds of millions of ten ninety-nine DA forms for crypto transactions. According to brokers, half of those forms were for transactions less than ten dollars. That's a mountain of red tape that doesn't protect against tax avoidance or abuse. It just stifles everyday commerce and innovation. With this bill, if you pay a digital asset fee of ten dollars or less, it won't trigger a reporting gain or loss. Additionally, brokers won't have to report those fees one transaction at a time. This makes the system work better and faster, for everyone involved and eases the burden on taxpayers, brokers and the IRS and alike. The bill also provides parity for crypto with traditional finance. Right now, the long-standing wash-sale and constructive-sale rules prevent protect traditional securities from abuse and tax avoidance. These rules currently don't apply to digital assets because they were written before crypto existed. This bill extends those rules so digital assets aren't treated better or worse,

Mister Davis. Mister Davis.

Word. In the last year, over a hundred and ninety-eight thousand Illinoisians lost their health care due to the Republican health care disaster. In the last week or so, seven hundred thousand Illinoisians learned that they will lose or could lose their health insurance in the very near future due to the Republican health care disaster. Health insurance premiums have doubled for almost four hundred thousand Illinoisans due to the Republican health care disaster. And the average household in Illinois had to pay an additional four thousand seven hundred dollars more for goods and services due to the rising cost under President Trump. Yet today the Republican leadership decided that we needed to spend billions of dollars to help Cryptobros. Families deserve action to help meet their basic needs. The billions of dollars in spending in this field could have helped families with the high cost of child care by increasing the child care entitlement to states. It could have helped farmers, small businesses and families afford health insurance by restoring the a c a tax credits. It could have helped all parents with the high cost of Trump's economy by restoring the twenty twenty-one enhanced child tax credits. A tiny fraction of the billions in this bill could have delivered an historic investment to older foster youth for college or housing or services for teen parents. But the Republican leadership refused to do anything to help the regular worker, farmer, parent, or small business owner, instead prioritized in the crypto industry. Also, I am deeply concerned about a Republican rush to limit taxes on crypto when President Trump, his children, and his cronies are profiting daily from crypto. A rush to action now when most Americans are struggling seems like an effort to grow the president's wealth since it is not meeting the urgent needs of regular people. I thank my friend Steve Horsford for his outstanding work to improve this bill and to lead thoughtful and fair digital asset tax policy. However, I strongly believe that moving this bill ignores the struggles of Americans and fail to meet the real needs of our constituents. I do not believe that this bill helps lower the cost of food or fuel or strengthens our economy. And I yield back.

Mister LaHood.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, HR one zero three five seven is built around the idea of tax parity. When digital assets serve the same economic purpose as traditional financial assets, they should generally be treated the same way for tax purposes. The bill brings digital assets into a established tax frameworks where appropriate. It extends securities lending rules to qualifying digital asset loans, provides mark-to-market treatment for eligible dealers and traders, creates a trading safe harbor similar to those for stocks and commodities, and allows simplified accounting for certain widely traded digital assets. These provisions reduce unnecessary compliance burdens while giving businesses and taxpayers greater clarity. Just as importantly, this bill applies existing anti-abuse rules to digital assets where appropriate. The goal is straightforward, a fair, predictable, and technology neutral tax code that treats comparable assets consistently. Unfortunately, we're starting to see very, a very different approach at the state level, including my home state of Illinois. Illinois recently enacted the digital asset tax that takes effect next year. This law in Illinois imposes a point two percent tax on digital asset transactions, including exchanges, transfers, and storage, including when a trade loses money or when assets are transferred between two accounts owned by the same individual. This would be like the government imposing a tax every time you transferred money from your savings account to your checking account, even though you haven't made money on that purchase. This is fundamentally different from the approach we're taking with this legislation here today, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. At the federal level, we're working towards parity between digital assets and comparable traditional financial assets. Illinois is moving in the opposite direction by imposing a separate transaction-based tax on digital asset activity. We should be asking whether it makes sense to tax a digital asset transaction simply because it uses different technology than a comparable traditional financial transaction, particularly when that transaction may not involve any economic gain at all. I believe our tax code should encourage innovation, provide certainty, and treat pa- taxpayers fairly. This legislation here today is an important step towards that goal. But as states pursue policies that depart from tax parity, like the Illinois law, we may need to consider whether additional federal action is necessary to ensure that we have a consistent national framework for digital assets. Our goal should be straightforward, a tax code that is fair, clear, and supports American innovation and competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.

Miss Sanchez.