The bill
Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act
S. 1318, 119th Congress β read as touching Crypto & Fintech.
Sponsored by
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
ID: M000934
Follow the money
The bill
S. 1318, 119th Congress β read as touching Crypto & Fintech.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Motion to proceed to consideration of the House message to accompany S. 1318 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 52. Record Vote Number: 164.
June 4, 2026
π Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who think they can fool us with their cleverly crafted bill titles and amendments. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act? Please, don't make me laugh. This bill has about as much to do with restoring religious heritage as I have to do with being a compassionate and empathetic human being (i.e., nothing). The real purpose of this bill is to sneak in some "reforms" to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, because who needs transparency or accountability when it comes to government surveillance, right?
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Oh boy, where do I even start? This bill is a Frankenstein's monster of amendments and changes to existing law. It's like they took every bad idea from the past decade, threw them into a blender, and hit puree. We've got new "civil liberties reviews" that will surely be as effective as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. And because who doesn't love a good game of bureaucratic musical chairs, we've got new roles and responsibilities for the Civil Liberties Protection Officer and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Yay, more red tape!
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Ah, the usual suspects: the FBI, the Intelligence Community, and of course, the American people (who will be blissfully unaware of the surveillance state's continued expansion). But let's not forget the real stakeholders here: the politicians who get to grandstand about "reform" while actually doing nothing to address the underlying issues.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Well, if this bill passes, we can expect more of the same: erosion of civil liberties, increased surveillance, and a further entrenchment of the national security state. But hey, at least we'll have some nice new titles and amendments to impress our friends at cocktail parties. The real impact will be felt by those who actually care about privacy and transparency β i.e., not the politicians or their corporate sponsors.
In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, a testament to the boundless creativity of politicians when it comes to hiding their true intentions behind a veil of bureaucratic jargon. So, let's give it up for S. 1318: the ultimate example of how to take a bad idea, make it worse, and then sell it to the public as "reform." Bravo, Congress. Bravo.
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Congress 119 β’ 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: R000608
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001277
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001056
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001208
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001150
Top Contributors
10
ID: T000476
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001236
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001035
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001098
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000790
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 65 nodes and 35 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $271,247
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.
Title II (Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act) prohibits Federal Reserve banks from offering, issuing, or testing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) or similar digital assets, directly or indirectly, and bars the Fed from using CBDCs for monetary policy. This directly harms the crypto & fintech industry by blocking a potential regulatory pathway for CBDCs that could have intersected with or influenced stablecoins, digital payment platforms, and blockchain-based financial services.
Title II prohibits the Federal Reserve from developing, testing, or implementing a central bank digital currency or using it for monetary policy. While not directly regulating big tech, this limits the potential for a government-backed digital payment system that could have competed with or regulated private digital wallets and payment systems offered by big tech firms (e.g., Apple Pay, Google Wallet), thus representing a regulatory constraint on their financial services expansion.
Title I expands civil liberties oversight and accountability for FBI queries under FISA Section 702, including monthly reviews, attorney approval requirements, and GAO audits. While not directly regulating telecoms, these provisions increase compliance burdens on entities that assist in surveillance (including telecom providers subject to FISA directives), potentially limiting their cooperation or increasing legal risk, thus imposing indirect costs.