HB9039, the Preserving Accountability for National Assets Act of 2026 (PANA Act of 2026), would create a new federal Treasury account called the Venezuela Restoration Fund. The fund would receive money and assets forfeited to the United States after enactment when the forfeiture is tied to an individual or entity acting directly or indirectly for the regimes of Hugo Chávez or Nicolás Maduro. Those deposited assets would be available to the Secretary of State, without further appropriation or fiscal-year limitation, to support efforts related to Venezuela.
The bill directs the fund to be used for four main purposes: strengthening democratic governance and institutions in Venezuela; defending internationally recognized human rights, including documenting crimes against humanity and abuses; supporting independent media in Venezuela; and combating corruption while improving transparency and accountability in government institutions and state-owned enterprises. It also allows support for governmental and nongovernmental entities working toward those goals and requires that spending complement existing U.S. foreign policy, diplomacy, and anti-corruption efforts. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, would have to report annually to Congress on deposits and expenditures.
If enacted, the bill would amend federal law by establishing a dedicated Treasury fund and redirecting certain forfeited assets into that fund for Venezuela-related democracy and human-rights programs. It would not create a new tax or direct spending authorization from annual appropriations; instead, it would make forfeited assets available for use by the State Department outside the normal appropriations cycle. The bill would also impose annual reporting obligations on Treasury and State and define the congressional committees that receive those reports, affecting federal foreign assistance, sanctions/forfeiture-related asset handling, and oversight procedures.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to have a generally supportive, bipartisan framing, as reflected by its introduction by members from both parties. The bill’s stated goals—support for democracy, human rights, independent media, and anti-corruption efforts in Venezuela—are presented in positive terms and align with established U.S. foreign policy themes. No committee debate or recorded votes are available in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment activity in the record supplied.
The main potential points of contention are the use of forfeited assets tied to individuals or entities associated with the Chávez or Maduro regimes, and the decision to make those funds available without further appropriation. Some policymakers may question whether the asset-forfeiture trigger is sufficiently broad or legally precise, whether the fund could be seen as bypassing the normal appropriations process, and how closely the spending would align with broader U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Another possible issue is oversight: although the bill requires annual reporting, it gives the Secretary of State broad discretion over how the funds are used among eligible democracy, human-rights, media, and anti-corruption activities.