H.Res. 1576

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 yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1449, the Committing Leases for Energy Access Now Act enforces unreasonable deadlines on geothermal energy permitting that shuts the public out of the process, so my colleagues on the other side can do their favorite thing: Shut out the American people and rush things through in a way that could harm the environment and hurt public safety. That is what they are good at.

The second bill is the so-called Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that families who are held hostage shouldn't be responsible for paying IRS fines or penalties. I think that is a no-brainer. I know that it has already passed the Senate. We could take up that bill and pass it today, send it right to the President's desk, or we could pass a House bill that has been introduced which would do the same thing, ensure that hostage victims don't get charged IRS fines.

If my friends had brought either of those bills up, they could be sent to the President's desk and signed very, very quickly, as I said. That is not what we are doing, and that is not what we are voting on. This bill, the one they are bringing up, has been hijacked and turned into a vehicle to give the incoming administration the ability to revoke the nonprofit status of any advocacy group they want simply by labeling them as terrorist sympathizers. That means the President will acquire the power to just unilaterally accuse an American group of terrorism and then shut them down.

I have to tell you, I just came back from a codel in El Salvador, that is how they do things down there. The government doesn't like you, boom, you are a terrorist.

I am sure the party that talks so much about weaponizing the government, that talks so much about reining in the Federal Government, they have put some guardrails in here, right? Wrong. There are no guardrails, no guardrails for an administration that says it will go after the enemy within, just a bill that gives them the power to do it on day one. This is nuts.

A university has too many protests against Donald Trump: terrorists. An environmental group suing the administration in court: terrorists. Think tanks that think differently than Donald Trump: terrorists. That is what this bill does.

People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Mr. Speaker, the road to fascism in America is paved with a million little votes that slowly erode our democracy and make it easier to go after anyone who disagrees with the government. There is no due process or right to appeal in this bill, no proof required. Donald Trump says you are a terrorist, so you are a terrorist. It is beyond nuts. My friends on the other side of the aisle know that, even if they don't want to admit it.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just respond to the gentlewoman by saying it wasn't me but it was Donald Trump who said he would be a dictator on day one. It was Donald Trump who talked about the enemy from within and actually mentioned individuals who are in the United States House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate.

Forgive me if I am a little concerned about somebody who would say such things on the campaign trail and now coming into power again. Forgive me if I am a little concerned about how he might abuse the power that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem so eager to give him. There would be no due process, no nothing. If Donald Trump says we don't like you, he will label you as a terrorist and will shut you down.

They are talking now about recess appointments in the United States Senate. They don't want to do FBI background checks. They don't want to do confirmation processes where Members of both sides of the aisle get to question potential Cabinet officials and be able to find out whether they are fit for office. No, rush everything through, no questions asked, just take him at his word.

I am on the floor today sounding the alarm bells. We should be concerned. We should be concerned. Maya Angelou had this great line. She said: When somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

People did not vote for the stuff that we are doing today. People did not vote for recess appointments. People voted their pocketbooks, and I understand why.

I just want the record to reflect that there are some of us who are raising the alarm bells because this is the time, quite frankly, when people should be concerned, when we can actually do something about it, when we can put some guardrails into place so the excesses that the President-elect talked about on the campaign trail don't become reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure that every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

Since the Dobbs decision, there are now 21 States that have banned or restricted abortion across the country. Without this fundamental right, women are suffering. In Texas, in Georgia, and in Indiana, the number of preventable deaths due to abortion bans is rising.

This is the grim landscape that the incoming administration wants to maintain and even worsen. I wish I could say that it won't get worse, but we know Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to strip more and more rights from Americans.

That is why we must pass H.R. 12, to ensure that every American has full access to reproductive healthcare and to

make sure that women's rights are protected no matter where they live.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I do not believe that any of what my Republican friends are talking about on the floor today is in line with what the American people voted for. They voted for cheaper groceries, not whatever the hell this stuff is.

They are asking us to vote for a bill, my Republicans friends, that would give the incoming administration the ability to revoke the nonprofit status of any advocacy group they want just by labeling them as a terrorist sympathizer, a bill that would give President-elect Trump a new power to just unilaterally accuse an American group of terrorism and then shut them down. Again, there are no guardrails for an administration that says it will go after the enemy within, just a bill that gives them power to do that on day one.

Meanwhile, every decision that has been made by this incoming administration so far has not been about the American people. It has been about them. I am reading in the newspaper again this morning that they want to issue blanket pardons to those who committed crimes on January 6. Republicans call them political prisoners. These are people who were arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted by juries and judges in courtrooms across this country for violently attacking our brave law enforcement officers, people who smashed cops in the head with metal barricades, who jammed them in doors until blood was coming out of their mouths, and the incoming administration is thinking about pardoning them? Let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Before I am accused of harping on January 6, I am not the one bringing it up. The incoming President-elect is. He won't shut up about it.

When I am talking about my concerns over the bill we are considering here today, understand that these are not unfounded fears. The new administration is leaking plans to court martial military officers who are not sufficiently loyal. Isn't that usually how things go in authoritarian dictatorships? They purge the military of anybody who might have a spine and refuse to obey an unlawful order. What the hell is going on here?

Their Cabinet picks so far, these are like beyond insane: someone who is credibly accused of having sex with an underage girl; someone who sucks up to foreign dictators and has attracted major concern that they can't be trusted to protect America's secrets from our adversaries; someone who paid hush money to cover up a sexual assault accusation to lead our military--he is picked because Donald Trump likes him on FOX News; and someone who says that tap water turns kids gay? This is the dream team? Really?

Seriously, it would be funny if it weren't so sad. Hopefully, the United States Senate has a backbone and insists on a thorough confirmation process.

The truth is that this is not what people voted for. They voted for their pocketbooks, and, frankly, I don't blame them.

You know who I do blame? I blame the billionaires who have rigged our country against working people and spent the last four decades squeezing every penny they could out of people. I blame the politicians, including the incoming administration, who have abandoned workers and who have done nothing while the rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed.

My friends on the other side want to blame trans people. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Trans people aren't the ones raising people's grocery prices. Big corporations are. They want to blame immigrants, and here is the deal: Immigrants aren't the ones denying health insurance claims, Mr. Speaker. It is the billion-dollar insurance companies that do that on a daily basis.

They want to blame woke this and woke that. What is woke about thinking special interests should not be able to buy tax breaks? What is woke about telling Chevron and Exxon that they can't dump toxic chemicals into our air and water? What is woke about thinking it is wrong to give tax breaks to billionaires while the rest of us get screwed?

It is time for us to get serious about fixing this country and making sure it works for everyone. Instead, we have BS bills that allow the new administration to go after any group that disagrees with the government and shut them down.

My friends on the other side can keep doing whatever the hell this is. Good luck with that. Democrats will be talking about the economy. We are going to talk about how we will make housing more affordable and lower your grocery bills. We are going to talk about taking on corporate greed and standing up to the donor class that buys off tax breaks for the rich and powerful. We are going to talk about the fact that billionaires pay less in taxes than teachers and police officers.

There is something deeply wrong with that, and it needs to change. We are hearing from the Republicans already that they are planning a tax package that will what? Not help the middle class, not help those struggling to get into the middle class, but, again, more tax breaks for the well off and the well-connected.

Really? Mr. Speaker, do you think that is what the American people voted for?

We Democrats are going to talk about the inequality that has risen in this country under Democratic and Republican Presidents, quite frankly, and the wages that have stagnated for decades and decades as prices go up and people get left behind.

Democrats will be the party of working people in this country, and we are not going to go down every absurd rabbit hole that this majority digs in order to divide and distract us from our mission.

As I have said before, and I am going to say it again today: We will show up, and we will fight for the American people.

Our allegiance is to the American people, not to Elon Musk, not to the billionaires and big donors, not to the oil tycoons and the insurance company CEOs who rip people off on a daily basis. Our allegiance is to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, we will show up, and we will fight tooth and nail every one of these policies that is designed to advantage those who are rich and powerful at the expense of those who work hard for a living, regular people: teachers, police officers, firefighters, and people who work in factories. Those are the people whom we will champion, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that their voices are heard as my Republican friends move forward their agenda that really is about rewarding those who are well-off and well-connected.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this lousy legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1449.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1449, the Committing Leases for Energy Access Now Act, or the CLEAN Act.

First, I thank my friend and colleague Representative Russ Fulcher for being a leader on geothermal energy and for his dedication to this issue.

Geothermal energy is poised to be an important part of America's energy portfolio. Some predictions indicate that geothermal energy can provide up to 90 gigawatts of electricity by 2050. These are great metrics and goals to strive for, but we will never reach this goal if we keep the status quo for permitting and leasing geothermal energy.

Current law requires multiple layers of environmental review for geothermal projects, which leads to higher costs and longer development timelines compared to our power production efforts.

H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, would streamline the Federal leasing and permitting process for geothermal energy and spur the development of this renewable energy source in the United States.

California is a prime example of a Western State with huge geothermal potential, but a lease sale has not been held by the DOI in that State since 2016.

H.R. 1449 would fix lapses like this by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to hold annual geothermal lease sales rather than once every 2 years. It will also force the Secretary to hold a replacement lease sale if one is missed.

In addition, this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to notify an applicant whether or not its geothermal drilling permit application is complete within 30 days of receiving the application. If Interior determines that the application is complete, then it must issue a final decision on the applications within 30 days.

Some may argue that these deadlines are too fast and don't allow adequate time for the bureaucracy to complete reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws, but this simply is not the case.

The bill itself does not waive the agency's responsibilities under current environmental laws. We all know from experience that agencies will not issue permits until they meet the necessary legal requirements.

The potential for geothermal energy in this country cannot be understated. There are myriad hot spots in the West that are prime for developing this kind of energy. We must do all we can to ensure that bureaucratic red tape does not hamper this resource moving forward.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), who is the author of the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I again urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 1449.

As has been said, geothermal energy in the U.S. has potential to generate 90

gigawatts of power. To put that in perspective, that would be like 150 to 200 large power-producing plants.

It is energy, electricity, coming from non-carbon-emitting sources and from a renewable resource.

This should be a no-brainer for both sides of the aisle as we face challenges with as much as an increased rate of three times per year more electricity demand than what we have seen in the past. We know we need energy from anywhere we can get it in greater volumes than we have had before.

Just this last week, we passed a bill that would streamline the permitting process for geothermal plants on State and private lands. This bill is another commonsense solution that will help bring our lagging geothermal industry online.

It is time we build more geothermal plants to reach our full geothermal potential in this country and unleash America's energy resources for our citizens and allies around the world.

It is imperative that we increase the rate of leasing geothermal plants so that American citizens can enjoy the low-cost, reliable, and renewable energy that comes from these plants.

Again, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1449, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is good to see my colleague, Mr. Grijalva, here in the Chamber today. Although it is good to see him presenting his amendment, I oppose the amendment.

This amendment attempts to mirror the language in the Mineral Leasing Act for oil and gas production on Federal lands, but, unfortunately, there are some key differences. If my colleagues look at it in its whole, the amendment would make it more difficult to lease geothermal resources than to lease oil and gas.

In fact, this amendment would triple the timeline for an agency to respond to a project applicant on whether their geothermal drilling permit application is complete or deficient.

This is not a timeline for permit approval. It is a timeline for simply letting someone know if they submitted a complete application.

Under current law, the BLM is already required to provide similar affirmation on oil and gas permit applications within 10 days. This amendment

would create a timeline for geothermal permit applicants nine times longer than those BLM is already held to for oil and gas.

The amendment also states that the NEPA review must be complete before final permit approval. This language is unnecessary. The bill does nothing to waive NEPA requirements.

Additionally, the amendment would create a new option for the BLM to deny geothermal permits, effectively pulling the rug out from under energy projects at the last step in the permitting process.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, the bill does nothing to waive NEPA requirements. It just simply speeds up the timeline.

It shouldn't take an agency 90 days to notify an applicant if an application is complete or not. We need more of this clean, renewable energy. To get more of it, we need to get a permitting process that works.

Unfortunately, this amendment would slow down the process even more. That is why I am opposed to the amendment. I encourage others to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It would gut the bill by conditioning enactment on a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the Bureau of Land Management and other relevant Federal permitting agencies have received adequate funding to resolve permitting staff shortages.

If Members felt the urge to laugh when I stated that, they are probably not too far off because this amendment doesn't really pass the laugh test.

I have never heard of a Federal agency admitting to having enough funding or enough staff, and this amendment simply is a poison pill because the action it is conditioned on simply will never happen.

The issue is not DOI staff capacity but burdensome permitting processes that take years, produce duplicative reviews, and consume thousands of hours for regulators and project proponents alike.

Actually, we passed a bill just last week that will help resolve any issue that may be there. H.R. 7409 would decrease the administrative load on staff and field offices by not requiring a Federal permit for geothermal energy produced on State and private lands. That bill would rapidly streamline the approval process by relying on the States' permitting procedures rather than the duplicative Federal process.

My friends on the other side of the aisle had a chance last week to free agency staffers from their redundant work, but many opposed the bill.

Let's not forget that last Congress, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) stated, the Democrats rammed through a reconciliation package with a billion dollars for permitting. DOI had $150 million, and from that bill, it was to provide for the hiring and training of personnel, the development of programmatic environmental documents, the procurement of technical or scientific services for environmental reviews, the development of

environmental data or information systems, stakeholder and community engagement.

In fact, the Department has grown by 4,000 full-time equivalents from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2023.

More funding and bureaucrats aren't what is needed now. What is needed is for DOI to recognize energy permitting as a priority and create a plan for meeting the required timelines.

We must continue working here to pass more permitting reform measures to help alleviate the permitting burden on important energy projects. These measures will also reduce the redundant permitting tasks performed by the Federal workforce.

H.R. 1449 will hold the Department's feet to the fire by forcing them to act on geothermal leasing and permitting in a timely manner. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I think we have to ask ourselves, do we want environmental growth in this country to be based on growing the bureaucracy and spending more money on permits, or do we actually want to make things? Do we want to produce energy? Do we want to use the resources that we have?

Geothermal operators are often required to complete six separate NEPA reviews to get a Federal permit: one for exploration, another if there is a subsurface anomaly, a third for drilling a slim confirmation hole, a fourth to develop the well field, a fifth for the power plant itself, and a sixth if the project is speculative exploration on lands not previously leased.

The status quo is a duplicative and wasteful process and prevents the United States from developing this very clean energy source. Performing NEPA six times does not provide six times the environmental benefit, rather less duplicative NEPA reviews will actually increase the rate at which these clean energy resources come online.

This bill is an attempt to put more clean energy resources on the grid at a faster pace. This amendment would undermine that goal. I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Chair, I am happy to be here once again on another set of energy bills and amendments. While I certainly support the goal of this bill to deploy more clean, renewable geothermal energy on our public lands, unfortunately I and other members of our Caucus are unable to support this bill in its current form and urge opposition to the bill.

Throughout this Congress, geothermal energy has been a bright spot of bipartisanship. Geothermal is an extremely promising and growing source of sustainable and reliable renewable energy.

We have heard from geothermal developers that there can be challenges to permitting new plants and new facilities, so we understand the intent of this bill. That is why our committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to get to solutions that will help support the industry and deploy more renewable energy.

I am grateful to my colleagues who have taken up this issue, bills like the Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act from Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, the GEO Act from Representative Curtis, and H.R. 6474 from Representative Steel and others.

I was pleased to see these responsible permitting solutions pass the House, and I hope to see Senate action on them soon and continued bipartisan work.

Unfortunately, this bill is not in a place where we can offer bipartisan support.

H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, does contain some important provisions that we would be supportive of, but it also contains some serious technical flaws that could create major constraints and unintended consequences for geothermal projects.

First, the bill mandates that more geothermal lease sales happen. Democrats, in general, support this. We want to see additional geothermal facilities and the use of our Federal resources where appropriate to do that. We would love to see more resources offered through our agencies so that they can actually do this work, but we will take it as it is.

Next, however, the bill says that the Department of the Interior must notify an applicant for a geothermal drilling permit as to whether the application is complete within 30 days. When the Department of the Interior testified on the bill, they recommended increasing the timeline to 90 days to provide sufficient time for the limited situations where staffing, project size, or complexity would prevent an office from complying. For example, let's say an office is understaffed at the moment.

We offered this change in committee and again today are offering it on the House floor. Ranking Member Grijalva's amendment would change the first deadline from 30 days to 90 days, an easy fix. We are willing to negotiate on the exact number, but unfortunately, we have not had willing partners in that negotiation. They are continuing to insist on a timeline that is not workable for our Federal Government.

Next, and most problematically, the bill would require that the Department of the Interior make a final decision on a permit, either approving or denying it, within 30 days of the application being complete. The Department has called this essentially impossible to achieve. Issuing a decision within 30 days would not allow adequate time to complete the analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. There are other permits from other agencies, like Fish and Wildlife, EPA, and Tribal consultation that must occur before a permit can be issued.

In the best case scenario, this bill would result in uncoordinated, rushed approvals where the Department and our communities barely understand the potential environmental and cultural impacts required by law, which would result in lawsuits and delay projects even further.

In a worst case scenario, good, worthy projects could get denied simply because an agency doesn't have sufficient staffing and time to comply with the deadline in the bill.

All the possible scenarios here are just a bad deal for geothermal developers and a bad deal for Americans who would like to see clean energy deployed responsibly, effectively, and quickly. To solve this, we filed several amendments at markup for consideration on the floor to provide necessary flexibility and time to complete the reviews and prevent avoidable denials, but unfortunately, those were not taken up at the committee level.

I will also point out that the House passed a bill along these lines by voice vote earlier this year. The GEO Act from Representative Curtis of Utah addresses similar permitting concerns but directs the Department to issue a decision on a permit within 60 days of the completion of the review under NEPA and other laws. That is a Republican-led bill that the agency believes they can work with, so we have a possibility of a path forward.

Even in the Senate, we have a Manchin-Barrasso bipartisan permitting bill that would adopt similar language to make a more workable timeline, which is similar to the amendment offered by Ranking Member Grijalva today.

We hope that our colleagues across the aisle will come to the negotiating table if this bill does move forward. It is important that we fix these timelines. I understand that we are trying to expedite and improve the deployment and permitting of these projects, but we have to make sure that they are workable from a practical standpoint within our communities and agencies.

We want positive outcomes, clean energy, and geothermal. This is a bipartisan issue. We can do this. Let's come to the table and get something done that we can all support. Unfortunately, today, I have to urge opposition to this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I want to respond to one comment that was just made about the employees of the Department of the Interior.

For many folks who are not familiar with the Department of the Interior, I will note that there have been people in history who have called it the department of everything because it manages our public lands, water resources and reservoirs, wildlife through the Fish and Wildlife Service, and mineral leasing. It does our geologic surveys. It manages and provides programs and responsibilities to our Tribal nations. The reason why there are 70,000 employees in the Department of the Interior is because they work across all of those bureaus and missions.

The reality is, if you have ever had to work with the Federal Government, Mr. Chair, is that many of these kinds of decisions are made at the most local level in a field office in the Bureau of Land Management, which is the agency responsible for permitting at the most local level. Oftentimes, the agencies find themselves with staff vacancies, a lack of resources, or they have multiple permits come across the desk of a local resource manager.

To expect somebody who is working in a field office, potentially in a rural or remote area of the United States, to process a sophisticated permit and all the related interagency and interbureau coordination and Tribal consultation required in 30 days is just not realistic. While I appreciate the assertion, that is just not how it works.

Let's be reasonable. We all want the same outcome. Let's not create a law that just results in lawsuits and difficulties for our Federal agencies so that we can move on and get this done.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the debate. Democrats are strong proponents of geothermal energy and support the intent of this bill. This technology is critical for the clean energy transition, jobs, and replacing other kinds of energy.

We want to see responsible development in relation to our public lands. To make that goal a reality, Democrats have supported bipartisan legislation that increases efficiency in permitting processes and other legislation that gets at the same challenges that this bill is trying to address without taking away the necessary environmental and community input.

Unfortunately, there are technical aspects of this bill, including the timelines, that are just not realistic.

In addition to those arbitrary timelines that would undercut community voices and potential protections in sensitive places, this would make projects themselves more vulnerable to delays should lawsuits happen or there are shoddy reviews or a lack of outside input.

I want us to be good bipartisan partners to all of you in this work, but we really do have to come up with some commonsense fixes.

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, I hope that we can work together to resolve those technical issues. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill as it is currently drafted, and I yield back the balance of my time.