The Winter of Reform: A Comprehensive Analysis of the 119th Congress’s Legislative Offensive (December 2025)

Dec 5

Executive Summary

As the first session of the 119th Congress draws to a close in December 2025, the legislative branch has engaged in a synchronized and aggressive campaign to fundamentally reshape the regulatory, educational, and energy landscapes of the United States. Following the Thanksgiving recess, the House of Representatives and the Senate returned to Washington with a clear mandate to dismantle the administrative frameworks of the previous era and erect new federal standards centered on deregulation, national security in education, and energy dominance.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the legislative activities occurring between December 1 and December 5, 2025. This period, characterized by a flurry of floor votes, heated committee debates, and significant judicial confirmations, marks a pivotal moment in the trajectory of American governance.

In the House of Representatives, the majority coalition executed a disciplined strategy to pass a triad of policy objectives. First, the chamber moved to insulate the American K-12 education system from foreign adversarial influence, specifically targeting the funding streams and cultural programs of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The passage of the CLASS Act (H.R. 1005) and the advancement of the PROTECT Our Kids Act (H.R. 1069) signal a reassertion of federal oversight into local school governance, predicated on national security. Second, the House advanced the SCORE Act (H.R. 4312), a landmark piece of legislation designed to federalize the standards of collegiate athletics, preempt state laws, and codify the non-employee status of student-athletes. Third, the legislative body institutionalized its deregulatory agenda through the DUMP Red Tape Act (H.R. 4305), creating statutory mechanisms for small businesses to directly challenge federal agency rules.

Simultaneously, the Senate utilized the blunt instrument of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the environmental legacy of the Biden administration. The passage of H.J. Res. 131, which nullifies restrictions on oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), fulfills a decades-long objective of the Alaska delegation and signals a return to a policy of maximum resource extraction. This legislative assertiveness was matched by a rapid acceleration in judicial confirmations, cementing a conservative reshape of the federal courts in North Carolina and Mississippi.

This report examines these developments in granular detail, analyzing the specific statutory language, the political dynamics driving the votes, and the long-term implications for the American economy and society.

---

I. The Economic Backdrop: The Shadow of the "One Big Beautiful Bill"

To fully understand the legislative maneuvers of December 2025, one must first contextualize the fiscal environment established earlier in the year. The current legislative session operates under the fiscal architecture of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) (H.R. 1), signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025.1

1.1 The Fiscal Architecture of H.R. 1

The OBBB represents one of the most significant shifts in federal tax and spending policy in modern history. Enacted via the budget reconciliation process, the law permanently extended the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that were scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. However, the OBBB went further, introducing new targeted tax relief measures designed to appeal to specific working-class demographics.

Key Tax Provisions of the OBBB:

No Tax on Tips: Effective January 1, 2025, the law allows individuals in customarily tipped industries to deduct up to $25,000 of tip income. This provision, aimed at the service sector, expires on December 31, 2028.2
No Tax on Overtime: The law created a deduction for overtime pay (compensation exceeding the regular rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act), capped at $12,500 annually for individual filers. This provision also sunsets in 2028.3
Auto Loan Interest Deduction: In a move to stimulate the domestic auto industry, the OBBB allows for the deduction of interest on loans for personal-use vehicles, provided the vehicle was assembled in the United States. This deduction is capped at $10,000.3
Senior Deduction: For tax years 2025 through 2028, individuals over the age of 65 may claim an additional $6,000 deduction ($12,000 for couples), phasing out for incomes over $75,000.3

1.2 The Cost of Reform: Spending Cuts and Deficits

While the tax cuts provided immediate relief to specific sectors, the offsetting spending reductions have created a contentious fiscal environment for the appropriations process in December. The OBBB was financed through significant structural changes to the social safety net, including:

Medicaid Restructuring: The law introduced reforms to Medicaid financing and redetermination processes, projected to reduce federal spending by nearly $1 trillion over ten years.1
SNAP Reforms: Eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was tightened, particularly regarding immigrants and work requirements for older adults (raising the age threshold from 55 to 65).2
Student Loan Reforms: The law implemented changes to federal student loan programs estimated to save $320 billion.1

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that despite these cuts, the OBBB would add approximately $3.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, or over $4 trillion when accounting for debt service costs.1 This fiscal reality has placed immense pressure on the current appropriations negotiations, as the "Statutory Pay-As-You-Go" (PAYGO) requirements triggered by the deficit increase had to be waived in subsequent legislation to prevent automatic sequestration.5

1.3 The Appropriations Cliff

This fiscal tension came to a head in November 2025, resulting in the passage of H.R. 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026. This stopgap measure, signed into law on November 12, 2025, ended a lapse in appropriations but only funded specific sectors (Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, Military Construction) for the full fiscal year.5

As Congress convened in December, the remaining government functions were operating under a ticking clock. The friction between the OBBB’s tax cuts and the need to fund discretionary spending has defined the strategic calculus of the House majority, driving them to pursue deregulation and "anti-woke" educational policies that do not carry direct fiscal costs but satisfy their base's ideological demands.

---

II. The Battle for the Classroom: Countering Foreign Influence

In a coordinated legislative offensive, the House of Representatives dedicated the first week of December to passing a suite of bills designed to sever financial and pedagogical ties between American K-12 schools and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This "China Package" represents a significant federal intervention into local school districts, traditionally the purview of state and local boards.

2.1 The Legislative Triad

Three specific pieces of legislation anchored this initiative, all debated under a single rule (H. Res. 916) that highlighted the majority’s focus on "educational sovereignty."

H.R. 1069: The PROTECT Our Kids Act

The Promoting Responsible Oversight To Eliminate Communist Teachings for Our Kids Act (H.R. 1069) is the most aggressive of the three measures. It establishes a direct prohibition on the availability of federal education funds to any elementary or secondary school that:

Maintains a partnership with a cultural or language institute funded directly or indirectly by the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Operates a "Confucius Classroom," a learning center supported by the PRC.
Receives support in the form of teaching materials, personnel, or resources from any entity acting on behalf of the PRC.7

Analysis of the Mechanism:
The bill leverages the "power of the purse" to force divestment. It grants schools a one-year grace period to terminate these contracts. However, it includes a waiver provision: the Secretary of Education may allow a contract to continue if the school demonstrates that the partnership promotes the "security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States".7 This waiver shifts the burden of proof entirely onto the school district, creating a presumption of guilt for any foreign-backed language program.

H.R. 1005: The CLASS Act

The Combating the Lies of Authoritarians in School Systems Act (H.R. 1005) focuses on transparency. It mandates that K-12 schools disclose the source of any foreign funding and prohibits them from entering into new contracts with the CCP or the PRC government.8
Strategic Context: Historically, Section 117 of the Higher Education Act required universities to report foreign gifts, but no such requirement existed for K-12 schools. Supporters argued that the CCP exploited this "soft power loophole" to influence American students at a formative age through subtle curriculum adjustments in language programs.9

H.R. 1049: The TRACE Act

The Transparency in Reporting of Adversarial Contributions to Education Act (H.R. 1049) frames the issue through the lens of parental rights. It grants parents the statutory right to know if their child’s school receives funding from foreign adversaries and, crucially, requires schools to disclose any "strings attached" to those funds.8

2.2 The Debate: National Security vs. Local Control

The debate on the House floor was characterized by sharp rhetorical divides. Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) championed the package, arguing that authoritarian regimes use financial ties to "shape curricula and exert influence," effectively terming Confucius Classrooms as vehicles for "enemy propaganda".8 Representative Kevin Hern (R-OK), sponsor of H.R. 1069, emphasized that infiltrating K-12 education is a "top priority" for the CCP and that federal inaction would amount to complicity.9

Opponents, while generally critical of the CCP, raised concerns about the unintended consequences of such broad prohibitions. Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) and others argued during the Rules Committee debate that the bills could unfairly penalize underfunded schools that rely on external grants for legitimate language instruction. There was also concern that the definition of "indirect support" was overly broad, potentially endangering partnerships with non-governmental Chinese cultural organizations.10

2.3 The Votes

The precarious nature of the House majority was on full display during the vote on the rule itself. H. Res. 916, which set the terms for the debate, passed by a razor-thin margin of 210 to 209 (Roll Call 309), with zero room for error.11
However, once the rule passed, the individual bills attracted more bipartisan support, reflecting the political difficulty of voting against "national security" measures.

H.R. 1005 (CLASS Act) passed 242-176 (Roll Call 312).11
H.R. 1069 (PROTECT Our Kids Act) advanced through the legislative process, with its principles strongly endorsed by the majority leadership.8

---

III. Redefining Amateurism: The SCORE Act and the Future of College Sports

Perhaps the most culturally significant legislation advanced during this period was H.R. 4312, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act. This bill represents a comprehensive federal intervention into the chaotic landscape of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in intercollegiate athletics.

3.1 The "Wild West" Context

Since the Supreme Court's Alston decision and the subsequent opening of the NIL market, college athletics has operated in what Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) termed a "Wild West environment".12 The lack of a federal standard allowed "collectives"—third-party entities ostensibly independent of universities—to broker deals that functioned as de facto unregulated salaries, creating recruiting imbalances and legal uncertainties.

Furthermore, the NCAA faced an existential threat from the House v. NCAA antitrust litigation, which proposed a settlement involving revenue sharing. The SCORE Act was drafted largely to codify the terms of this settlement into federal law, thereby shielding the NCAA from future antitrust lawsuits.

3.2 Key Provisions of H.R. 4312

The SCORE Act is designed to stabilize the NCAA's business model while granting specific codified rights to athletes. Its primary mechanisms include:

Table 1: Key Mechanisms of the SCORE Act

Provision	Description	Strategic Implication
Antitrust Exemption	Provides a "safe harbor" for interstate athletic associations (NCAA) to set rules on recruitment, transfer, and eligibility without violating the Sherman Act.	Protects the NCAA from treble damages in future lawsuits, allowing them to enforce caps on compensation and restrict athlete movement.13
Non-Employee Status	Explicitly defines student-athletes as not employees of the institution, conference, or association.	Prevents unionization (e.g., the Dartmouth men's basketball union effort) and denies athletes protection under the NLRA or FLSA.13
State Preemption	Preempts all state laws regarding NIL compensation, employment status, and eligibility.	overrides state-level "protectionist" NIL laws (e.g., Texas, Florida) designed to give local schools a recruiting edge.14
Service Mandates	Requires schools with >$20M in athletics revenue to provide medical coverage, life skills counseling, and degree completion funds.	Forces high-revenue programs to reinvest in athlete welfare, serving as a counter-argument to claims of exploitation.14

3.3 The Debate: Stabilization vs. Labor Rights

The legislation drew support from the major power brokers in college sports. The Big Ten, SEC, and ACC conferences all issued statements endorsing the bill. The SEC explicitly noted that the bill "codifies key provisions of the historic House v. NCAA settlement" and provides stability by eliminating the "patchwork" of state laws.16

However, the opposition was fierce and rooted in labor economics. The Drake Group, a watchdog for academic integrity in sports, urged Congress to reject the bill. They argued that the "revenue pool" payments authorized by the bill are essentially "recruiting or retention bonuses" and that denying employee status allows institutions to treat athletes as "expendable commodities" rather than students or workers.17

Critics pointed out that the bill prioritizes the financial solvency of athletic departments over the economic rights of the predominantly Black athletes who generate revenue in football and basketball. By statutorily defining them as non-employees, Congress effectively strips them of the leverage to bargain collectively for a share of the billions they generate.18

3.4 Legislative Status

The bill advanced to the House floor following the passage of H. Res. 916 (Roll Call 309). During the Rules Committee markup, amendments offered by Democrats to strike the non-employee clause (Rep. Sykes) or remove the antitrust protections (Rep. Baumgartner) were defeated on party-line votes.19 As of December 5, 2025, the bill had cleared the procedural hurdles and was pending final disposition, with the majority leadership pushing for a vote to send it to the Senate before the holiday recess.

---

IV. Unleashing Energy: The ANWR Reversal

In the Senate, the legislative agenda was dominated by a stark reversal of energy policy. Using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the Senate voted to overturn a Biden-administration rule that had restricted oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

4.1 The Mechanism: H.J. Res. 131

The resolution, H.J. Res. 131 (the House companion to S.J. Res. 91), targeted a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on December 9, 2024. This administrative rule had effectively nullified the leasing program established by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by rendering 1.2 million acres of the 1.6 million-acre Coastal Plain unavailable for leasing.20

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the architect of the 2017 leasing provision, argued that the Biden administration had "unilaterally rewritten" federal law. She contended that while the 2017 law mandated leasing, the 2024 administrative rule placed restrictions so severe—such as "no surface occupancy" on 231,700 acres—that it made development economically impossible.20

4.2 The Senate Vote

On December 4, 2025, the Senate passed the resolution by a vote of 49 to 45.22

The Majority: The Republican conference voted nearly unanimously in favor, framed by Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) as a restoration of "American energy dominance" and a rejection of "bureaucratic overreach."
The Dissenter: Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) was the sole Republican to vote against the resolution, maintaining her long-standing opposition to drilling in the refuge.22
The Opposition: No Democrats voted in favor. Environmental groups, led by organizations like Earthjustice, condemned the vote. They argued that the CRA is a "blunt instrument" that ignores the "dismal prospects" of oil discovery in the region and threatens the Porcupine Caribou Herd, a critical subsistence resource for the Gwich'in Nation.23

4.3 Strategic Implications

The use of the CRA has profound legal implications beyond the immediate reopening of the refuge. By overturning the rule via CRA, Congress prohibits the Department of the Interior from issuing a "substantially similar" rule in the future without express congressional authorization. This effectively "locks in" the pro-drilling policy, erecting a high legislative barrier against future administrative attempts to restrict development in ANWR.22

---

V. Deregulation: The "Red Tape" Agenda

Parallel to the high-profile fights over education and energy, the House advanced a package of bills aimed at regulatory relief for small businesses, a core tenet of the majority's economic platform.

5.1 H.R. 4305: The DUMP Red Tape Act

The Destroying Unnecessary, Misaligned, and Prohibitive (DUMP) Red Tape Act (H.R. 4305) codifies a deregulation initiative originally launched via executive order. It directs the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to establish a permanent "Red Tape Hotline."

Functionality:

Mechanism: The bill establishes a dedicated channel (email, phone, and website) for small entities to report "burdensome agency rules" directly to the SBA.
Reporting: The SBA is mandated to report annually to Congress on these complaints, identifying specific agencies and rules that are causing the most friction for the private sector.24

Political Context: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) championed the bill as a tool to "unleash prosperity" and give small businesses a "direct voice" in government. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly endorsed the bill, citing internal data that regulatory costs burden small businesses 20% more than larger firms on a per-employee basis.25
The bill passed decisively with a vote of 269 to 146 (Roll Call 311), attracting significant support from moderate Democrats who viewed the hotline as a sensible feedback mechanism rather than a radical deregulation.11

5.2 H.R. 2965: The Regulatory Reduction Act

Complementing the hotline, the House passed H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act. This bill is more structural, requiring the SBA to certify that any new regulatory changes do not raise compliance costs for small businesses. Effectively, it attempts to institute a "zero-growth" regulatory budget for the small business sector. This measure faced stiffer partisan resistance but passed 223 to 190 (Roll Call 310).11

---

VI. The Judiciary: Reshaping the Bench

While the House legislated, the Senate aggressively processed judicial nominations, focusing on vacancies in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits (North Carolina and Mississippi). These confirmations are particularly significant given the "blue slip" controversies that had previously stalled appointments in these states.

6.1 North Carolina: A Conservative Sweep

The Senate confirmed four district court judges for North Carolina in rapid succession. This wave of confirmations was made possible by the results of the 2024 election, which broke the stalemate between the White House and North Carolina Senators Thom Tillis and Ted Budd.

Table 2: North Carolina Judicial Confirmations (Dec 2025)

Nominee	District	Vote Date	Result	Vote Tally
Lindsey Ann Freeman	Middle Dist. NC	Dec 2	Confirmed	60 - 39
David A. Bragdon	Middle Dist. NC	Dec 2	Confirmed	53 - 45
Matthew E. Orso	Western Dist. NC	Dec 3	Confirmed	57 - 41
Susan C. Rodriguez	Western Dist. NC	Dec 4	Confirmed	57 - 32

Source: Senate Daily Press / Congress.gov 27

Analysis: With these confirmations, the Middle District of North Carolina is now entirely staffed by Republican appointees. The votes indicate a degree of bipartisan support for Freeman and Rodriguez (reaching 60 and 57 votes respectively), while Bragdon faced stiffer opposition, confirmed with a narrower 53-45 margin.28

6.2 The Mississippi Standoff: James D. Maxwell II

The Senate also moved to consider James D. Maxwell II for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Maxwell, a current Associate Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court and former Assistant U.S. Attorney, was nominated in September 2025.29

Maxwell’s confirmation process has been complicated by both procedural hurdles and scrutiny of his judicial record. In 2025, he authored an 8-1 majority opinion denying a name change to a 16-year-old transgender boy, citing common law traditions regarding the maturity of minors.30 This ruling drew opposition from progressive groups like the Alliance for Justice.31
Despite this, his nomination advanced to the floor. On December 4, 2025, the Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to his nomination, but the final confirmation vote remained pending as Cloture was filed.32

---

VII. Disaster Policy: A Rare Bipartisan Victory

Amidst the partisan maneuvering, the Senate introduced and advanced S. 3372, the Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act. Introduced by Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), with House companions led by Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), this bill addresses a critical gap in the tax code.

The Issue: Under current law, settlement payments received by wildfire victims (for lost wages, additional living expenses, or emotional distress) were set to become taxable gross income following the expiration of the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act at the end of 2025. This threatened to penalize victims of major utility-caused fires (like the PG&E fires in California) who are still in the process of rebuilding.34

The Solution: S. 3372 makes the tax exclusion for these payments permanent. It applies retroactively and covers settlements from any federally declared wildfire disaster. The broad bipartisan sponsorship of this bill highlights the growing political salience of "megafire" recovery in the American West, transcending traditional party lines to address a crisis affecting constituents in both deep-blue California and deep-red Wyoming.35

---

VIII. Conclusion: The Legislative Tectonics of 2025

The week of December 1-5, 2025, serves as a microcosm of the 119th Congress’s broader ambitions. The legislative branch, emboldened by the fiscal framework of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" and driven by a deregulatory ideology, has moved decisively to assert its authority.

Reasserting Energy Dominance: By utilizing the CRA to open ANWR, the Senate has prioritized resource extraction over conservation, locking in a pro-drilling policy that will be difficult to reverse.
Federalizing Education and Sports: In a paradoxical twist for a party often associated with local control, the House majority has moved to federalize standards for K-12 school funding (to counter China) and collegiate athletics (to stabilize the NCAA). This signals a new phase of conservatism willing to use federal power to achieve cultural and national security outcomes.
Institutionalizing Deregulation: The passage of the DUMP Red Tape Act creates permanent statutory machinery for challenging the administrative state, ensuring that the deregulatory pressure remains long after the current Congress adjourns.

As the session heads toward its holiday recess, the tension between these aggressive policy reforms and the looming fiscal reality of the appropriations cliff remains the defining dynamic of the 119th Congress. The Winter of Reform has only just begun.

Works cited

What Does the One Big Beautiful Bill Cost? - Bipartisan Policy Center, accessed December 5, 2025, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/what-does-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-cost/
The Implementation Timeline of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act - Center for American Progress, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-implementation-timeline-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act/
One, Big, Beautiful Bill provisions | Internal Revenue Service, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/one-big-beautiful-bill-provisions
H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/index.php/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1
Nov. 14, 2025: Advocacy Update spotlight on government shutdown ending, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/health-care-advocacy/advocacy-update/nov-14-2025-advocacy-update-spotlight-government-shutdown
Text - H.R.5371 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371/text
Text - H.R.1069 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): PROTECT Our Kids Act, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1069/text
Combatting China's Influence in K-12 Schools | Committee on Education & the Workforce, accessed December 5, 2025, https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=412890
The Republican Recap: Week of December 1, 2025 | Majority Leader, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.majorityleader.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5755
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H4985 - Congress.gov, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2025/12/02/171/201/CREC-2025-12-02-pt1-PgH4985-3.pdf
House Roll Call Votes by the US Congress, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/votes/house/119th-congress/1st-session
This is an unedited transcript. The statements within may be inaccurate, incomplete, or misattributed to the speaker. - Congress.gov, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116756/documents/HHRG-118-IF17-Transcript-20240118.pdf
Text - H.R.4312 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SCORE Act | Congress.gov, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text
H.R.4312 - SCORE Act 119th Congress (2025-2026), accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312
Coming Sooner or Later: Congress Considers Bills to Standardize Name, Image, and Likeness Rights - Law Offices of Snell & Wilmer, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.swlaw.com/publication/coming-sooner-or-later-congress-considers-bills-to-standardize-name-image-and-likeness-rights/
Whip Emmer touts key stakeholder support for the SCORE Act | House Majority Whip, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.majoritywhip.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3664
Press Release: The Drake Group Urges Members of Congress to Oppose the SCORE Act and Support the College Athletics Reform Act as an Alternative, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.thedrakegroup.org/2025/12/01/press-release-the-drake-group-urges-members-of-congress-to-oppose-the-score-act-and-support-the-college-athletics-reform-act-as-an-alternative/
The SCORE Act Would Harm College Athletes by Codifying Inequity into Federal Law, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.clasp.org/blog/the-score-act-would-harm-college-athletes-by-codifying-inequity-into-federal-law/
H.R. 4312 - SCORE Act | House of Representatives Committee on Rules, accessed December 5, 2025, https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-4312
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S8460 - Congress.gov, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2025/12/03/171/202/CREC-2025-12-03-pt1-PgS8460.pdf
H.J.Res.131 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision"., accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-joint-resolution/131
Congress scraps Biden ANWR drilling limits - POLITICO Pro, accessed December 5, 2025, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/12/05/congress-scraps-biden-anwr-drilling-limits-ee-00676875
Arctic Refuge CRA Opposition Letter - Earthjustice, accessed December 5, 2025, https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/arctic-refuge-cra-opposition-letter-3.pdf
R E P O R T - GovInfo, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-119hrpt383/pdf/CRPT-119hrpt383.pdf
House Republicans are Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation, accessed December 5, 2025, https://mikejohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2782
Support for H.R. 4305, the DUMP Red Tape Act of 2025 | U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.uschamber.com/small-business/support-for-h-r-4305-the-dump-red-tape-act-of-2025
Roll Call Votes 119th Congress - 1st Session (2025) - U.S. Senate, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_119_1.htm
Four Trump appointees to take the bench in North Carolina’s federal district courts, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/four-trump-appointees-take-bench-north-carolinas-federal-district-courts
Jimmy Maxwell - Ballotpedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://ballotpedia.org/Jimmy_Maxwell
James D. Maxwell II - Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Maxwell_II
James Donald Maxwell - Alliance for Justice, accessed December 5, 2025, https://afj.org/nominee/james-donald-maxwell/
PN466-5 - Nomination of James D. Maxwell II for The Judiciary, 119th Congress (2025-2026), accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/119th-congress/466/5
Recent Floor Activity - U.S. Senate, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/floor_activity.htm
Padilla, Lummis, Wyden, Sheehy Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Extend Tax Relief for Wildfire Victims, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-lummis-wyden-sheehy-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-extend-tax-relief-for-wildfire-victims/
Protect Innocent Victims Of Taxation After Fire Act - Senator Alex Padilla, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.padilla.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wildfire-Settlement-Bill-One-Pager-3.pdf

Victor Acorda