Urging the Government of Ukraine to review and modify its decision to suspend adoption by foreign nationals with a view to resuming such adoptions, particularly in cases where the mutual concerns of the Governments of Ukraine and of the United States can be substantially addressed.

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, when Russia launched its brutal invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Matt and Deidre Gordon of New Jersey were in the final stage of adopting Bogdan and Galena, an orphaned brother and sister from Ukraine.

The Gordons had been vetted and approved as adoptive parents by both the United States and Ukrainian Governments. They had a strong bond and relationship, they had a deep love, and they have a deep love for those two children and had spent precious time with them at their home in New Jersey, including regular contact and two long home stays totaling 5 months.

In March of 2022, however, during the first weeks of the Russian invasion, the Gordons had an appointment in Kyiv to be officially matched with the kids. It was at that point, however, that the Ukrainian Government temporarily suspended intercountry adoptions.

Arguably, the Government of Ukraine had reasons to suspend some adoptions, because of the fog of war and the difficulty in doing the requisite due diligence to safely and effectively process new adoption requests, but the Gordon case wasn't new. Matt and Deidre and many other Americans, hundreds of Americans, were nearing the end of the process when it all grounded to a halt leaving, in this case, these two children, and hundreds of other children, stranded.

Because of their deep love for their children, the Gordons have continued to visit Bogdan and Galena, who are in an institutional setting in Poland.

Let me just say, I did contact and wrote letters to President Zelenskyy, and this one goes back to July, asking for a remedy and to resolve this. We didn't even get an answer.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record my letter to President Zelenskyy.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

July 28, 2023.

His Excellency Volodymyr Zelenskyy,

President of Ukraine, Via: Oksana Markarova, Ambassador,

Washington, DC.

Your Excellency: I write to urge you to review and modify

your government's decision to suspend intercountry adoptions

from Ukraine, particularly in cases in which the adoptive

Ukrainian children have already participated in American

homestays approved and facilitated by Ukrainian officials

before the suspension of the adoption process on March 13,

2022.

Throughout my tenure in the U.S. Congress, I have focused

much of my work on promoting human rights, freedom and

democracy around the world, including supporting democratic

reform in Ukraine since 1991. Similarly, I have led numerous

efforts to secure the rights and dignity of children across

the world who, due to their age and vulnerabilities, are

often tragically neglected and abused.

As the author of landmark legislation on issues pertaining

to children--including the Trafficking Victims Protection

Act, the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction

Prevention and Return Act and the International Megan's Law

to Prevent Child Exploitation, as well as proposals that

increased federal tax incentives to help overcome the upfront

costs of adoption--I am acutely aware of the complexity of

issues facing children internationally and the need for

government oversight of intercountry adoption to fully ensure

the ``best interest of the child'' throughout the process.

Notwithstanding your government's reasons for initially

suspending intercountry adoptions in 2022, I now urge that

Ukraine's Ministry of Social Policy (MSP) revise that

decision with a view to resuming intercountry adoptions in

cases where our mutual concerns to protect and benefit

children can be substantially addressed.

Principal examples of this include cases in which, first,

the American adoptive parents have already had their dossiers

vetted and approved by the Ukrainian government, and, second,

the Ukrainian children have been determined to be adoptable

by the Ukrainian government, and, third, the Ukrainian

children have already participated in homestays with the

American families--such cases are few and were at or very

near the end stage of the process on February 24, 2022. In

such situations, Ukrainian children have come to know and

feel themselves as part of American families. I urge your

government to seek solutions in these cases that recognize

the deep bonds that have grown between the children and

parents and, consistent with Ukrainian law and regulations,

permit adoptions to be finalized.

One family that finds itself in this situation is that of

Matt and Deidre Gordon of New Jersey, and a boy and a girl--

natural siblings--of Ukraine. After the Ukrainian government

approved the Gordons' adoption dossiers in December 2021,

their previously scheduled final appointment with MSP

officials was cancelled in the wake of the invasion. The

children, whom the Gordon parents have already come to know,

now endure the agony of war while awaiting the day when they

can reunite. Any immediate assistance you could provide in

this urgent matter will be greatly appreciated. Having worked

with the family, please know I stand ready to provide

additional information or assist in any way you deem

appropriate.

Intercountry adoption is a profoundly beneficial way to

help children in need of parents and families that are eager

and able to open their hearts and homes to benefit children.

I sincerely thank you for your strength and courage in

defending your country in the face of Russia's brutal

onslaught and urge you to help unite American families and

Ukrainian children in new family environments that will

enhance the love and lives of both parents and children.

Sincerely,

Christopher H. Smith,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of other children and U.S. families in the same or similar situations, as I have indicated.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 915, which respectfully urges the Government of Ukraine to review and modify its decision to suspend adoption by foreign nationals for adoptive parents like the Gordons and their children.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes specific recommendations, which I will put in the Record, including cases in which adoptive U.S. parents have already completed, as I mentioned, the requirements under the Ukrainian domestic law for the adoption of Ukrainian children and in which the adoptability of these children has already been confirmed and also which the adoptive U.S. parents have already had their dossiers vetted and approved by the Ukrainian Government.

We ask them to please not delay any longer. Those kids want a loving home, and there is one awaiting them as we speak.

Second, there are also cases in which Ukrainian children have already participated in hosting programs facilitated by the Government of Ukraine and placed with individuals within the U.S. before suspension of adoption by foreign nationals.

Mr. Speaker, those kids have suffered much, certainly being in that kind of isolation. Orphanages are there, but it is so much better to be in a loving home. We have got a remedy sitting right at our fingertips. I am calling on the Ukrainian Government and President Zelenskyy, especially, to do so.

Let me also say, the Ukrainian Government resumed domestic adoptions and did that in June of 2022. There is an apparatus, there is a capability and a capacity to do this job.

I thank Matt and Deidre Gordon from New Jersey for bringing the needs of these Ukrainian children to my attention.

For his extraordinary leadership and compassion, I thank former State Senator Ray Lesniak for first suggesting that the House pass this resolution.

Special thanks to my good friend and colleague Donald Norcross, who helped us craft this resolution and has been there every step of the way as the lead Democrat cosponsor. I thank Donald so much for his leadership on this important issue.

I also thank Mark Milosch, the Republican staff director of the Lantos Commission. Previous to that, when I chaired the Helsinki Commission, he was my chief of staff there, as well. He is very, very capable and really understands the European theater and the politics, and he helped us draft this, as well. I also thank Trent Bunker.

This resolution deserves the full support of this body, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 915, urging the Government of Ukraine to review and modify its decision to suspend adoption by foreign nationals with a view to resuming such adoptions, particularly in cases where the mutual concerns of the Governments of Ukraine and the United States can be substantially addressed.

In the beginning of this Congress, my colleague from Texas and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman McCaul, held a number of hearings that underlined the evil actions and aims of Russia's war against Ukraine. We looked at oversight issues, questions regarding strategic goals, and other aspects of U.S. support for Ukraine. All of that committee work was designed to shore up support for the freedom of Ukrainians ahead of difficult decisions and difficult votes about the United States' support for Ukraine's sovereignty and its ability to defend itself against wanton, unjustified Russian assaults.

One of the fundamental reasons to support Ukraine in this war boils down to truth and justice, whether we will decry the depravity of Putin's actions in Ukraine or whether we will look away. No other issue brings this better into focus than the forcible transfer and deportation of Ukraine's children to camps promoting indoctrination. These are brutal war crimes, plain and simple.

We were able to meet some of these children who were able to escape Russia at a committee hearing, and it was heartbreaking.

Due to Russia's renewed war of aggression, Ukraine limited intercountry adoptions, including Americans seeking to adopt Ukrainian children. On June 1, 2023, the Government of Ukraine amended its suspension of adoptions by allowing relatives of orphaned children to adopt. Ukraine is also processing intercountry adoptions for persons who have already received an official referral from its National Social Service to adopt.

We must recognize the positive steps that Ukraine has taken to permit intercountry adoptions while promoting the welfare and safety of Ukrainian orphans. I commend the Ukrainian Government and the Department of State for working to address

such concerns, including by allowing American families the opportunity to adopt Ukrainian children and provide them a second chance at a life free of the miseries of war.

Furthermore, in March 2024, the United States, under President Biden's leadership, was proud to join the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children. The goal is to ensure the safe return of all Ukrainian children who have been unlawfully deported or forcibly transferred by Russia to Russia and to promote accountability for those responsible.

Unfortunately, this Russian war has left Ukraine wounded, its families destroyed, and its children orphaned. H. Res. 915 paves the way for a path forward, empowering the Department of State to continue its diplomatic engagements with the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Policy, the National Social Service of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington to help provide these children with families to help raise them.

I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting this measure, in supporting freedom and democracy for Ukraine, its people and its children, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), my friend and the lead Democrat on this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an unimaginable and agonizing time for the Ukrainian people, especially for the Ukrainian children who, sadly, have been pawns in this terrible war.

It has been agonizing for adoptive parents like those we heard about today who have been waiting to give some of these children warm and loving homes.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about doing what is right for Ukraine and for the children of Ukraine who have already endured such tragedy and hardship.

By working with Ukraine to reopen pathways for intercountry adoption, we are extending a lifeline to children who have been caught in the crossfire of an unjust war.

Let's make sure that, even in the darkest of times, we are creating pathways to brighten futures.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H. Res. 915, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.