To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate the tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting organizations.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1576, I call up the bill (H.R. 9495) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to postpone tax deadlines and reimburse paid late fees for United States nationals who are unlawfully or wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad, to terminate the tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting organizations, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror- Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.

This legislation ends the flow of tax subsidies to any U.S. nonprofit that has clearly violated its tax-exempt status by providing material support to terrorist organizations.

At the same time, this bill ends the unfair treatment of Americans who are

held hostage by terrorist organizations or wrongfully detained by foreign governments by ensuring that when they return home, they are not dealing with penalties from the IRS for past-due taxes owed from the time that they were held in captivity.

To be clear, we were here just last week to consider this same piece of legislation. This piece of legislation received unanimous approval by the Committee on Ways and Means and contains provisions that already passed this House with overwhelming bipartisan support and received unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate.

Yet, despite that consistent showing of bipartisan support, the majority of our Democrat colleagues voted last week to block passage of this bill.

Why? Why did they block passage of this bill?

Because President Trump won the election.

Don't take my word for it. Our Democrat colleagues said it themselves on this very House floor. Nevertheless, we are back here today to consider this bill under a rule so that we can advance this commonsense policy despite the partisan antics we witnessed last week.

Those who opposed this legislation last week invented all sorts of excuses. We heard a number of fear-mongering scenarios under which they now believe the authorities in this bill might be abused. Every concern raised by Democrats has been addressed in this bill to ensure due process and to protect legitimate nonprofits.

Moreover, instead of engaging in the myths we hear from the other side, we have real-world examples that show why this bill is desperately needed to end the tax-exempt status of organizations that have provided material support to terrorists.

As I noted last week, we have evidence of a U.S.-based, tax-exempt entity that helped fund the hiring of a so-called journalist whose real day job was working for Hamas and holding Israeli hostages in his home.

There is also the U.S.-based, tax-exempt organization that financially sponsors a foreign entity that the Biden Treasury Department has designated a sham charity because of its support for terrorism.

Yet, both of those U.S.-based nonprofits still enjoy tax-exempt status under the Biden administration. In fact, this week I once again called on the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of the organization supporting that fake charity because the Biden administration has yet to do so.

In no circumstances, not one circumstance, should the U.S. taxpayer be asked to subsidize this activity by allowing such organizations to retain their tax-exempt preferential status. Unlike the made-up stories our colleagues told last week, and that they will no doubt continue to tell this week, this is the reality, and there is absolutely no excuse for it, Mr. Speaker.

Congress must act to stop the abuse of our tax code that is funding terrorism around the world. We must act to end the unfair tax treatment of Americans who have already suffered enough and whose families have suffered enough from being held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad.

This is the right thing to do, and I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will point out the reason why this Chamber cannot take up the bill that was passed by the United States Senate to make sure there are not penalties for hostages is because of a thing called the U.S. Constitution. It is called Article I, Section 7, that says all revenue

measures must come from the House of Representatives. That is why we are doing this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I include in the Record a September 24, 2024, letter from the Committee on Ways and Means to the IRS that refers the Alliance for Global Justice to the IRS for revocation of its tax-exempt status.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2024.

Hon. Daniel Werfel,

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, DC.

Dear Commissioner Werfel: I write today to refer the

Alliance for Global Justice, an Arizona-based 501(c)(3) tax-

exempt organization, for investigation and ultimately

revocation of its tax-exempt status. The Alliance for Global

Justice, in conjunction with its fiscally sponsored project,

Samidoun, has funded and supported conduct intended to incite

violence and instill chaos and holds suspicious ties to

designated terrorist organizations. This is despite receiving

tax-exempt status as a charitable organization. This conduct

is designed to sow chaos and discord in our society, has

involved illegal activities, and certainly is not in

furtherance of any tax-exempt purpose.

As you know, section 7803 of the Internal Revenue Code

(``IRC'') grants the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue

Service

(``IRS'') the authority to execute and apply internal revenue

laws, including section 501 of the IRC's requirements and

prohibitions. Pursuant to section 501(c)(3), tax-exempt

organizations must be organized and operated exclusively for

a tax-exempt purpose, which includes charitable, educational,

literary, and other purposes. However. if a nonprofit

organization conducts substantial activities that do not

further its exempt purposes, such activity may result in the

loss of the organization's tax-exemption.

Tax-exempt organizations must meet other requirements to

maintain their tax-exempt status. For example, under section

501(c)(3) of the IRC. organizations seeking to receive an

exemption from federal taxes are prohibited from certain

activity, including being involved in certain types of

political activity. In addition to the prohibitions of

section 501, the IRS has also noted that violations of the

law are an ``antithesis of the public good'' and, as such,

may be a bar to tax-exemption. Not only has the IRS found

conducting illegal activities to be inconsistent with tax-

exemption, but it has stated that the ``planning and

sponsoring of such activities are also incompatible with

charity and social welfare.''

For example, while mass demonstrations and other

confrontational activities are generally permissible under

section 501, the IRS previously found that an organization

that sponsored protests where members were pressed to commit

acts of civil disobedience ``did not qualify for IRC 501

(c)(3) or (4) exemption.'' When determining whether these

types of demonstrations are consistent with IRC section

501(c)(3), the IRS has historically implemented a three-part

test which states that such activities are permissible if:

(1) the organization's tax-exempt purpose is charitable; (2)

the activities are not illegal, contrary to established

public policy, or in conflict with statutory restrictions;

and (3) the activities further the organization's exempt

purpose and are reasonably related to the accomplishment of

that purpose.

Additionally, under Section 501(p) of the Internal Revenue

Code, organizations which have been designated as terrorist

organizations cannot maintain tax-exempt status, and the IRS

has revoked the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations.

Along with the prohibition on tax-exempt status for terrorist

organizations themselves, the IRS also previously revoked the

tax-exempt status of organizations that could not show that

it directed funding exclusively for charitable purposes as

required under the IRC.

Aside from restrictions on conducting illegal activity and

acts supporting or promoting civil disobedience, Internal

Revenue Manual (``IRM'') Part 7, Chapter 20, Section 6,

asserts that ``[c]ases involving grants or activities in

foreign countries present a higher risk of terrorism,

especially in countries where there is war and civil unrest.

Given the language of the IRC, IRM, and previous IRS revenue

rulings. I am referring the Alliance for Global Justice and

its fiscally sponsored project, Samidoun, to the IRS based on

the facts and reasons stated in the appendix attached below.

I ask that you use your authority to make this and similar

referrals a top priority and make certain the IRS moves as

quickly as possible to examine and revoke the tax-exempt

status of the Alliance for Global Justice. Operating at the

agency's historically slow pace is not acceptable given what

is occurring in our streets and on our college campuses. The

IRS must act quickly to address these serious issues. Thank

you in advance for your time, cooperation, and response. If

you have any questions, please contact Ways and Means

Majority staff.

Sincerely,

Jason Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.

[Attachment 1--Appendix]

Alliance for Global Justice: Relevant Facts

Introduction

The Alliance for Global Justice (the ``Alliance'') is an

Arizona-based 501 (c)(3) organization that serves as a fiscal

sponsor to over 130 ``projects.'' The Alliance is an offshoot

of the Nicaragua Network, an organization that previously

supported the socialist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

According to their website, the Alliance envisions

``societies which explore and implement alternatives to the

unjust domination of governments, global financial

institutions and multinational corporations'' and their

mission is to ``achieve social change and economic justice by

helping to build a stronger more unified grassroots

movement.'' According to the Alliance's 2023 Form 990, its

mission is to ``achieve social change and economic justice by

helping to build a stronger and more unified grassroots

movement.''

To help bring these visions to life and fulfill its

mission, the Alliance fiscally sponsors more than 130

projects. Samidoun is one of the Alliance's fiscally

sponsored projects, and describes itself as ``an

international network of organizers and activists working to

build solidarity with Palestinian prisoners in their struggle

for freedom.'' However, Samidoun's conduct and activity

suggests more than activism in support of Palestine.

Samidoun's Ties to a Foreign Terrorist Organization

For example, in February 2021, the National Bureau for

Counter Terror Financing of Israel (``NBCTF'') designated

Samidoun a terrorist organization and a ``part of the Popular

Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)'' which ``was

founded by members of the PFLP in 2012.'' The PFLP was

designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S.

Department of State on October 8, 1997. According to the

NBCTF, one of Samidoun's leaders is part of the leadership of

the PFLP, has been involved in the establishment of militant

cells, and has motivated terrorist activity in ``Judea &

Samaria and abroad.''

Actions Taken Against Samidoun by Private Companies and Foreign

Governments

In January 2023, it was reported that the Alliance and

Samidoun were actively fundraising for a France-based

organization which partners with the PFLP. Later in February

2023, the Alliance announced that it was unable to process

credit card donations following reports that the group was

fundraising for the PFLP, a U.S. designated foreign terror

organization. Additionally in 2023, Germany outlawed Samidoun

after determining that the group spread ``anti-Israel and

antisemitic propaganda under the guise of solidarity for

Palestinian prisoners.'' The ban of Samidoun in Germany came

after the group's leadership was deported from the country in

2019. Two of Samidoun's leaders were also deported from the

European Union in 2022.

In January 2020, Mastercard, Visa, and American Express

began blocking direct donations to Samidoun. Discover, the

credit card company, also cut ties with the Alliance a few

months after Israel's NBCTF designated Samidoun a terrorist

organization.

IRS Guidance on Fiscal Sponsorships

Although fiscal sponsorship is not defined in statute and

the IRS has not provided comprehensive guidance regarding

fiscal sponsorships, Revenue Ruling 68-489 provides insight

into the IRS's policy regarding fiscal sponsorships. Revenue

Ruling 68-489 states that 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt organizations

may accept tax-deductible funds on behalf of an entity that

is not tax-exempt under 501(c)(3) if the following three

conditions are satisfied: (i) the 501 (c)(3) organization

ensures that funds are used for exempt purposes ``by limiting

distributions to specific projects that are in furtherance of

its own exempt purposes;'' (ii) the 501 (c)(3) organization

``retains control and discretion as to the use of the

funds;'' and (iii) the 501(c)(3) organization ``maintains

records establishing that the funds were used for section 501

(c)(3) purposes.

Conclusion

Samidoun's designation as a terrorist organization

associated with the PFLP does not further the Alliance's

stated tax-exempt purpose. The European Union, Israel, and

major credit card companies have recognized Samidoun and the

Alliance for what they are, yet tax-exempt dollars continue

to flow to the Alliance and ultimately to Samidoun. This must

stop. The IRS should revoke the Alliance's tax-exempt status.

Please see the exhibits below for numerous examples of

activity that fails to advance any tax-exempt purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the Alliance of Global Justice, an Arizona-based, tax-exempt organization currently fiscally sponsors Samidoun, a group which was recently designated as a sham charity in financial support of terrorists--by what? The Biden Department of the Treasury.

Despite this letter to the IRS, the Alliance still maintains its tax- exempt status in the United States. This letter, coupled with their recent designation as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations, demonstrates the need for H.R. 9495 and the risk of not passing this legislation.

I would also point out that, as the prior speaker said that we should rip out the controversial legislation within this bill, that controversial piece of legislation passed this body by a vote of 382- 11. It doesn't sound too controversial to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. Speaker, only in Washington is a bill that passed 382-11 considered deeply controversial, a bill that says that U.S. tax dollars should not subsidize terrorist organizations.

The other side views that as deeply controversial. That is the statement you just heard from the prior speaker. That is very, very unfortunate. That is why the American public is so upset with Washington. It is because they are completely out of touch with reality.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Speaker, we just heard that a sixth grader could see that this is unconstitutional. However, a Harvard lawyer thought this was okay in April when it passed with only 11 dissenting votes, so to me, I believe that argument does not hold water.

Tax-exempt status, Mr. Speaker, is not a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right, but there is still robust due process protection in this bill that we worked out with our Democratic colleagues before passage in the Ways and Means Committee.

That didn't stop, though, the gentleman from Maryland from voting in favor of these same exact identical provisions earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, one of the speakers on the other side who had previously voted in support of this bill said last week, when explaining his new opposition: ``With Trump's election, the conditions have changed.''

We just heard that from the prior speaker, as well. If the minority thought Ms. Harris would have been the President-elect, my colleagues would still be supporting this bill.

Terrorism exists regardless of who the President of the United States is, and we as Members of Congress have the duty to make sure that taxpayers are not subsidizing terrorism. It is very, very simple.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I point out that the prior speaker voted in April for the exact language that she was railing against, for due process. The only thing that has changed for the majority of the people changing their votes over there is Donald Trump was elected President. That is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with everything the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush) said.

What I will say is that at least she is consistent. She was 1 of the 11 that voted against the bill in April. Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of other people flip-flop, and that is what is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful that the American people have been able to watch the debate of this piece of legislation today because they have seen with their own eyes the differences between the House Republicans and the House Democrats, and the insanity that just in April, 382 individuals in this Chamber voted for and 11 voted against.

The provisions are the same. The only thing that has changed, Mr. Speaker, according to their quotes on the floor, is Donald Trump was elected President. That is the only thing that has changed.

This bill is very simple. If a nonprofit organization is funding terrorism, you lose your tax-exempt status. If we are truly against terrorism, our actions will speak louder and we will vote for this legislation, but we will see. We will see who is brave on the other side, who wants to stand with real America and not woke policies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a death penalty bill that we are considering today, a bill that empowers Donald Trump to extinguish the life of any nonprofit, of any civic society group, which happens to be on his enemies list.

Authoritarianism is not born overnight. It creeps in. It erodes our freedoms. A tyrant tightens his grip, not just by seizing power, but when he demands new powers and those who can stop him willingly cede and bend to his will.

Opposing terrorism and hostage taxation, truly those are not even issues this morning, but fascism is. Today we must show that we are more than a speed bump on the march to fascism.

Of course, we oppose terrorism and all who support terrorists. That is why it is already a Federal criminal offense to provide material support for terrorism or foreign entities who are engaging in terrorism. Tax-exempt organizations are already prohibited from engaging in illegal activity.

What current law does not prohibit, however, is the type of sweeping power advocated today to enact a revenge campaign and silence any nonprofit or public media outlet that may criticize Donald Trump, assist the many innocent people he demonizes, or those who simply don't offer enough support to satisfy him.

There are so many groups in America, almost 300, that have expressed their concern about this bill and their opposition to it. Nor does anyone here today oppose protection of American hostages from tax penalties.

The chairman is absolutely correct about one tiny thing: A part of this bill has been approved by unanimous consent in the United States Senate. That is the part that he won't let us consider today as a freestanding bill, which as late as Monday, we have tried again to have presented here because we could have unanimous consent here to protect those hostages.

No. What he is doing is holding the hostages' tax provision hostage to provide more power to Donald Trump. Chairman Smith did not bother to disclose to this House that on October 1 of this year, the Internal Revenue Service renewed relief for taxpayers affected by terrorist attacks, postponing the hostages' tax filings and payment deadlines. Without our approving even the legislation we support, hostages would not face penalties or interest costs.

As to the over 290 groups that are opposing this legislation and calling for a ``no'' vote, they recognize the danger that it poses. Today I urge my colleagues to believe more in Donald Trump.

Believe what he says. Listen when he says the press is the ``enemy of the people.'' Listen to him when he declares ``I am your justice, I am your retribution.'' Listen to him when he says he will be a dictator ``on day one.''

Trump will not use this provision provided today as a shield to protect us from some foreign terrorism. He will use it as a sword against those he views as his political enemies. Today's vote is a chance for this House to take Trump at his word.

A ``no'' vote signals that we will not be accomplices in turning threats into reality. If this bill were to become law, we would hand him a bludgeon for a crusade against those who he deems the greatest danger to America, what he called the enemy within.

A unilateral designation by the President-elect through his Treasury Secretary would mean immediate-- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, through the Treasury Secretary, he would be given the power to have immediate revocation of the tax-exempt status, an effective death penalty for the nonprofits.

An appeal after the tax-exempt status is taken away is no relief at all. The President would not be required to provide the reasons for the decision or the evidence upon which he relied.

It is not just Trump imposing a death sentence that should concern us, but it is his power to intimidate, to threaten to eliminate a hospital, to eliminate a community nonprofit press entity, to eliminate those who give aid to immigrants.

The fear of that death penalty, that intimidation, is what would do great damage to American civil society.

Clearly, the bill would have a chilling effect on any group that has the audacity to criticize his dark vision. Surely, the first rule of confronting a wannabe tyrant is not to provide him more tools to achieve that tyranny.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond before calling on my colleague to speak.

The gentlewoman well knows that at that very hearing when we chose not to block her bill from coming to the floor, I raised the same concerns, as did Mr. Beyer, that we have today and asked them to amend it, to provide due process in this bill, the very thing they have refused to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), who is in the same position from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), who serves on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that on October 1, the IRS, once again, extended for another year the protection that the gentleman says he wants. I am as opposed to Hamas as he is, but this has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with what happens within this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for further explanation of that and to tell us a little bit about what due process means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is trying to turn the world upside down. We are the ones who accept election results. We are not the ones who stormed the Capitol. We are not the ones who still deny the results of the last election. We believe in democracy and the will of the people and the responsibility of the Members of this body to stand up and exercise effective checks and balances.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who was here with me last week to oppose this very bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the chair of the Progressive Caucus within our Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what is not at stake today, and that is tax relief for the hostages. The IRS issued an order on October 1 as it had issued an order previously. If we pass no legislation, they have protection. That has never been denied here.

Indeed, we offered other protection. The Constitution was used as an argument against our approving that very relief. Mr. Beyer and others have a bill that could easily have been taken up here in the House, but no. They want to hold the hostage tax bill itself hostage for their other unfortunate purposes.

The second thing that is not at stake is our opposition to terrorism. Everyone, Republican and Democrat, oppose terrorists and we want to do all that we can to prevent terrorists from affecting this country, affecting Israel, the Middle East, and any other part of the world. We have laws on the books today to do just that.

They have been used against terrorist organizations. They have been used against those who support terrorist organizations, but they have been used with regard to due process. The only reason they have this bill up here is to empower future Presidents to ignore those two vital words of ``due process.''

Let's talk a little about what is at stake here. Mr. Smith presented to this body a letter that he sent the IRS on September 24.

I have that letter here. It was one of nine letters he sent to the IRS on the 24th, and he is complaining that less than 2 months later, they have not acted on all nine of his letters. He says that he is only interested in protecting legitimate nonprofits, not any illegitimate nonprofits.

Well, if we look at his letters as I have, we find out what he considers to be ``material support to terrorism'' that he wants to prohibit, and it is the very kind of thing that is at stake in this bill that a future President, our President-elect, could use to undermine civic organizations all over this country.

One of the organizations that he wants to deny, wants to terminate their nonprofit status, the material support that they provided to terrorism was that they had a protest and they engaged in civic disobedience.

Surprisingly, I would say, the same organization he complains about has protested one of my speeches. I believe America is stronger when we provide and permit dissent in all its forms, as long as it is done in a proper way.

Let's think a little bit about civil disobedience. There are today 151 Members of this Congress who are women. Does anyone think they would be here if the suffragettes had not had the willingness to engage in civic disobedience and be taken to jail from out in front of the White House?

We have 64 African-American Members in this Congress today. Does anyone think that had it not been for the Freedom Riders, for those who put their lives on the line to protect the right to vote, who engaged in civil disobedience and did not obey the laws of Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, does anyone think we would have moved our country as far as it has despite its many successes, its many shortcomings?

We have made some progress, and those who are willing to put their lives on the line and, yes, engage in civil disobedience, they have contributed on the whole to this being a fairer and more just country, and to deny, to terminate the life of a civic organization because they choose to engage and face the penalties of civil disobedience, but not the elimination of their right to exist as a nonprofit organization.

Protests are inconvenient. The one I had was inconvenient. Sometimes they are misconceived. They get out of hand, but over our Nation's history, nonviolent protests and acts of civil disobedience have made this a more equal country.

We all live in a better Nation today because people and civic organizations have stood up for our democratic values and our fundamental freedoms, even when we found their conduct to be most disagreeable.

Now, there has been much made in this debate of the fact that some of us have switched our positions. We have been called flip-floppers. I voted for this part of this legislation three times, including the times in committee, though, I did ask in committee that it be amended to address the very concerns I am raising today. But what is the answer to those who may change their vote today, as many will, and vote ``no''?

The answer is, we listened to our constituents, and the Republicans who support this bill, they were listening also, but as you can tell from the frequent flyer miles they have been earning going back and forth to Mar-a-Lago, they were listening to one person. We were listening to constituents from all over this country.

Now almost 300 organizations expressed concern and fear about what will happen in the next 4 years under a vengeful President against these organizations who this chairman says are not legitimate because they protest. They sometimes engage in civic disobedience.

Let me tell you a little bit about who those organizations are and how they cover and involve so many people across this country.

The American Civil Liberties Union has its work cut out over the next 4 years with regard to what is already happening. The American Public Health Association may not agree with destroying ObamaCare and denying and making people who are poor who rely on Medicaid pay for tax cuts for the rich. The Brennan Center is another

voice for civil society and civil liberties in our country. Planned Parenthood has been attacked by one extremist group as a terrorist organization because it recognizes that abortion care is healthcare. The AFL-CIO, the Service Employees Union, the United Auto Workers, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, these are the kind of employee groups and professionals that serve our country whose voice is being heard, who many of my colleagues who, like I, once voted for this bill, have listened to them and the impact that they think this bill under the incoming President will have on their ability to function and defend working people.

The League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club are attacked by extremists as being eco-terrorists sometimes when they don't automatically approve every mine that gets opened, every destruction of native lands that occurs, and stand up and speak up for the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.

This legislation would grant the Secretary of the Treasury the unilateral authority to suspend the tax-exempt status of any organization deemed ``terrorist supporting'' without due process or evidence. U.S. law already prohibits nonprofits from providing material support to terrorists. Additionally, I am deeply concerned about how this legislation could provide President-elect Trump's incoming administration with unchecked power to cause irreparable damage to any nonprofit he deems a threat to his own political agenda. This could be disastrous for nonprofits across the country, including those doing important work in the Fourth District like Springboard for the Arts, the Playwrights' Center, and the Center for Victims of Torture. More than 120 civil society groups--including the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, the NAACP, and the League of Conservation Voters--signed a letter opposing this bill due to the potential for abuse. I include in the Record this letter. I stand with them, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

September 20, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to

express our deep concerns with H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-

Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.

Specifically, this bill includes the text of H.R. 6408,

legislation we strongly oppose as it raises significant

constitutional concerns. Because H.R. 6408 vests vast

unilateral discretion in the Secretary of Treasury, it

creates a high risk of politicized and discriminatory

enforcement. The executive branch already has extensive

authority to prohibit transactions with individuals and

entities it deems connected to terrorism and nonprofit

organizations are already prohibited from providing material

support to terrorist organizations. In fact, it would be a

federal crime for them to do so.

Moreover, we do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that

relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and

penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed,

these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own,

and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of

this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it

could be sent immediately to the President for his signature.

Without any evidence as to the need for this legislation,

H.R. 6408 authorizes broad and easily abused new powers for

the executive branch. It grants the Secretary of the Treasury

virtually unfettered discretion to designate a U.S. nonprofit

as a ``terrorist supporting organization'' and to strip it of

its tax-exempt status if the Secretary finds that the

nonprofit has provided material support to a terrorist group,

even if the ``support'' is not intentional or connected to

actual violence.

While the sponsors of this legislation have stated that it

is needed to avoid what they refer to as ``time-consuming

bureaucratic process'' under current law, what the bill

sponsors are actually seeking to avoid is fundamental due

process. If this bill were to become law, the Secretary of

Treasury could strip a US nonprofit of its tax-exempt status

without providing the nonprofit a meaningful opportunity to

defend itself before a neutral decisionmaker. The legislation

further does not require disclosure of all the reasons for

such a decision or the evidence relied upon to support it.

Nor would the government be required to provide any evidence

in its possession that might undermine its decision, leaving

an accused nonprofit entirely in the dark about what conduct

the government believes qualifies as material support.

The potential for abuse under H.R. 6408 is immense as the

executive branch would be handed a tool it could use to curb

free speech, censor nonprofit media outlets, target political

opponents, and punish disfavored groups across the political

spectrum. Moreover, the addition of this authority to the tax

code would allow the IRS to explicitly target and harass

domestic nonprofits using its investigative authority. It is

also not hard to imagine a future administration using this

power in far broader circumstances that have nothing to do

with the

hostilities in Gaza. And as more recent congressional

oversight efforts make clear, these efforts are part of

concerted attack on civil society that is targeted at more

than just groups involved in the campus protests regarding

Gaza. The executive branch could use this authority to target

its political opponents and use the fear of crippling legal

fees, the stigma of the designation, and donors fleeing

controversy to stifle dissent and chill speech and advocacy.

And while the broadest applications of this authority may not

ultimately hold up in court, the potential reputational and

financial cost of fending off an investigation and litigating

a wrongful designation could functionally mean the end of a

targeted nonprofit before it ever has its day in court.

The lack of guardrails creates the potential for future

administrations to weaponize these powers against groups on

both ends of the ideological spectrum. Even if they may never

be designated as ``terrorist-supporting,'' let alone charged

with a crime, nonprofits will curtail their activities as a

precaution in order to avoid stigmatizing and financially

devastating punishments. That is why we strongly urge you to

oppose the inclusion of H.R. 6408 in H.R. 9495.

Sincerely,

#WelcomeWithDignity, 18 Million Rising, Advocacy for

Principled Action in Government, Alliance for Peacebuilding,

American Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union, American

Federation of Teachers, American Friends Service Committee,

American Oversight, Americans United for Separation of Church

and State, Amnesty International USA, Anethum Global, Arab

American Institute (AAI), Asian Americans Advancing Justice |

AAJC, Asian Law Caucus, Aunties Coalition, Ayuda, Bend the

Arc: Jewish Action, Borderlands Resource Initiative, Brennan

Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

Center for American Progress, Center for Civilians in

Conflict (CIVIC), Center for Common Ground, Center for

Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy & Technology,

Center for International Policy, Center for Media and

Democracy, Center for Popular Democracy, Center for Victims

of Torture, Charity and Security Network, Chinese for

Affirmative Action, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in

Washington (CREW), Civil Liberties Defense Center, Coalition

for Civil Freedoms, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

(CHIRLA), COLAGE, Colorado Immigrant Rights, Coalition Color

of Change, Community Change Action, Council on American-

Islamic Relations.

DAWN, DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, Defending Rights &

Dissent, Demand Progress, Democratic Messaging Project,

EarthRights International, Earthworks, Emgage Action,

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities, Ensaaf, Equality

Federation, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Faith in

Action, Food Shift, Free Press Action, Freedom of the Press

Foundation, Friends Committee on National Legislation,

Friends of Human Rights, Greenpeace USA, HEART.

Hindus for Human Rights, Human Rights First, Human Rights

Watch, ICNA Dallas, Immigration Hub, Indivisible,

International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN),

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, International

Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Islamic Association of The

Colony, Islamic Center of Quad Cities, Just Foreign Policy,

League of Conservation Voters, McKinney Islamic Association,

Medical Center Islamic Society, Middle East Democracy Center

(MEDC), MLFA, MoveOn, MPower Change Action Fund,

Multicultural Center.

Muslim Advocates, Muslim Counterpublics Lab, Muslim Justice

League, Muslims for Just Futures, NAACP, National Council of

Asian Pacific Americans, National Disabled Legal

Professionals Association, National Education Association,

National Immigration Law Center, National Iranian American

Council Action, National Lawyers Guild-Mesoamerica

subcommittee, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National

Network of Abortion Funds, National Women's Law Center,

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Georgia

Project Action Fund, New Israel Fund, North American Indian

Muslim Association, NTIC, Oil Change International.

Organization for Identity & Cultural Development

(OICD.net), Othman Bin Affan Mosque, OPAWL--Building AAPI

Feminist Leadership, Oxfam America, Palestine Legal, PASNY,

Peace Action, Peace Appeal Foundation, Peace Catalyst

International, Peace Direct, People for the American Way,

People's Action, Planned Parenthood Federation of America,

Plus, Positive Women's Network-USA, Presbyterian Church

(USA), Office of Public Witness, Project On Government

Oversight, Project South, Protect Democracy, Public Citizen.

Refreshed Refined Reformed R3 Inc, Reproductive Freedom for

All (former NARAL Pro-Choice America), Restore the Fourth,

September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, Shoulder to

Shoulder Campaign, Southern Poverty Law Center, Stop AAPI

Hate, The Interfaith Center of New York, The Seed Program by

Kai, Inc., The Sikh Coalition, The United Methodist Church--

General Board of Church and Society, The Workers Circle, The

X-Lab, Tides Center, Tides Foundation, Unitarian Universalist

Service Committee (UUSC), US Campaign for Palestinian Rights

Action (USCPR Action), Win Without War, Women for Weapons

Trade Transparency, Women's March.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 9495, the Stop-Terror Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which has been the subject of political hysteria since the election of President Trump on November 5.

I want to be clear to my Democratic colleagues, most of whom supported Congressman Kustoff's legislation last April, about what this bill actually does.

The bill does two things: It allows the IRS to waive penalties for late taxes on Americans held hostage abroad. While the IRS can waive penalties on the back end when the taxpayer returns home, this would allow them to do it on the front end to ensure that returning hostages and their families, who have endured unimaginable hardship, don't have the burden of having to deal with it upon return.

It directs the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of a nonprofit found to be providing financial support to a terrorist organization. Right now, an entity must be deemed a terrorist organization itself to lose its tax-exempt status. This bill says that if a nonprofit provides material support to a designated terrorist group, they will also lose that status. This bill and parts of this bill have received strong bipartisan support on multiple occasions from this Congress.

H.R. 9495 passed unanimously out of Ways and Means in September by a vote of 38-0, including and with the support of Ranking Member Richard Neal, along with Mr. Doggett.

The portion of this bill to terminate the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations supporting terrorist groups, H.R. 6408, led by my fabulous colleague Representative Kustoff, also passed unanimously out of Ways and Means last year as a standalone bill by a vote of 41-0, and the House passed it overwhelmingly by a vote of 382-11. That is resounding, in my book.

Legislation preventing the IRS from imposing fines and tax penalties on Americans held hostage upon their return was approved by unanimous consent in the Senate. It is shameful that Democrats who supported this commonsense position are now opposing it and citing the election of President Trump as the reason and also manufacturing concerns about the targeting of nonprofits' tax-exempt status for unrelated purposes.

I want to clarify, Treasury can only revoke tax-exempt status under this legislation if the nonprofit in question is providing material support to terrorist groups designated under longstanding statutory standards. There are no changes to those standards or the executive branch's ability to make those designations. There is even an opportunity to cure included in this bill where the organization can make reasonable efforts to recoup funds given to the terrorist organization--imagine that--given to a terrorist organization and certify in writing to Treasury that they will not provide any further support to said organization and they will not lose their nonprofit status.

Organizations abusing tax-exempt status to funnel money to terrorist organizations has been a pervasive issue, which was exposed by Chairman Smith's ongoing investigation into various nonprofit groups' ties to foreign terrorist organizations.

This is a crucial time for Congress to act and to make it clear that we stand for our fellow citizens who have endured unthinkable circumstances abroad, like my constituent, Ryan Corbett of Dansville, New York. He is husband to Anna, and he and his wife are the parents of three children, Ketsia, Miriam, and Caleb. Today marks the 834th day since he has been wrongfully detained by the Taliban in a 9-by-9-foot cell. It is a tragic situation.

In closing, I urge my colleagues, especially my Democratic colleagues, not to put their hatred of President Trump and I daresay Trump derangement syndrome--by the way, there is no vaccine and no cure that we know of right now for that, which is obvious from what we are seeing on the other side--and let's not put the needs of terrorist adversaries ahead of helping American hostages and their families and stopping the flow of cash to terrorists that are actively working to harm the United States, by supporting H.R. 9495.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to grab some common sense and allow this bill to pass and put some relief finally in the hands of the people who greatly need it, those in harm's way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I had a law professor who once asked the class: What are the two most beautiful words in the English language? He said due process. I thought the answer might be free speech, but all four of these words are ravaged and devoured by H.R. 9495, which is truly a werewolf in sheep's clothing.

Mr. Speaker, it is a Federal felony crime today to provide any material support to terrorist groups. If your not-for-profit does that, then you are going to prison for at least 10 years and maybe for the rest of your life. Losing your 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is the least of your worries.

If rendering support to terrorists is already a felony crime, then what is this all about?

Americans have an absolute First Amendment right to give money to support political groups that don't engage in terrorism, like the ACLU, Amnesty International, Razom for Ukraine, and the International Rescue Committee, but this bill would give the new administration unilateral power to designate any of them a terrorist-supporting group and strip them of their tax-exempt status while capsizing and inverting the Constitution's guaranty of due process.

In Freedman v. Maryland in 1965, the Supreme Court found that the government can only impose a prior restraint on speech, which is what this is, if there is first a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding in which the party being targeted can hear all the evidence against them, provide rebutting evidence of their own, and obtain an independent adjudication of the charge by a neutral judge. That is what due process is.

This sloppy bill thrown before us today contains everything condemned by the Supreme Court. The Treasury Department will be able to unilaterally affix the terrorist-supporting label on a not-for-profit group without going to court, without offering any legal proof, without meeting any legal standard, and without giving the target an opportunity even to know the evidence against them.

Although the Treasury Secretary must notify the group that it will be designated a terrorist-supporting organization in 90 days unless the Secretary is satisfied with the group's answer, it remains completely up to the Secretary to make a ``final agency determination'' without meeting any standard of proof.

Once this scarlet letter and the infamy of being designated a terrorist-supporting group are firmly affixed on the organization, the stigmatized then can finally go to a judge. Incredibly, the legal burden is explicitly put on them to prove they are not a terror- supporting group, completely reversing the burden of due process, which properly belongs to the government. A sixth grader would know this is unconstitutional.

This is an unlawful power to vest in any President and a dangerous power to vest in a President who shows no qualms about leveling threats of retribution and revenge against his enemies. The President-elect has said that Special Counsel Jack Smith should be arrested, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, the former head of the Republican Conference, should be jailed, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley should be court-martialed.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine what they would do to a human rights group that dares to criticize Vladimir Putin or another of the beloved autocrats around the world.

Mr. Speaker, American civil society and the not-for- profit sector must be protected against political censorship and government vendetta.

To get America to bite on this toxic sandwich, they have tucked the rotten unconstitutional meat in with language clarifying that Americans held hostage are not subject to IRS penalties for failing to pay their taxes on time. The Senate already passed this fine legislation, and we could do that unanimously today. Instead, they want us to vote to give the President Orwellian powers and the American not-for-profit sector Kafkaesque nightmares.

I voted against this bill last week, and I will vote against it today, tomorrow, next week, for the next 4 years, and beyond.