Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 998) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require additional information on math and clerical error notices, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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, by voting for unified Republican control of government, the American people chose accountability and a return to common sense. There is no better example of bad government than the IRS.

Every year, taxpayers receive notices from the IRS proposing to adjust their tax liabilities. Unfortunately, the IRS is not required to explain the reasons for the adjustments, nor does it need to explain that taxpayers have a legal right to dispute their adjustments within 60 days. The result is that taxpayers may end up paying more in taxes because they don't know that they can dispute the IRS' assessment of their tax liability.

This bipartisan legislation, the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act, sponsored by Representatives Feenstra and Schneider, will level the playing field for taxpayers and hold the IRS accountable. It will require the IRS to provide individuals with a clear explanation of the error, showing the mathematical change, and inform taxpayers that they have 60 days to correct the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Feenstra and Schneider for their bipartisan work to bring more transparency to the IRS and protect American taxpayers from being left in fear of IRS action against them, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans fear the IRS for very good reason. Under current law, when the IRS claims that you made a math error on your return, they are not required to explain the error or notify taxpayers of their right to appeal within 60 days. What is worse, if taxpayers don't comply, they could be forced to pay more in taxes.

This bill before us, H.R. 998, the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act, will level the playing field for taxpayers by requiring the IRS to explain themselves and notify taxpayers that they have 60 days to challenge this adjustment.

This legislation is an important step to simplifying tax administration and making the IRS more accountable to taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Feenstra and Schneider for their bipartisan work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform to the intent of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105-599, that the National Taxpayer Advocate be able to hire and consult counsel as appropriate, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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. 997, the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act, introduced by my Committee on Ways and Means colleagues, Representatives Feenstra and Davis.

The National Taxpayer Advocate exists to promote and defend the rights of American taxpayers. In order to achieve these goals, not only should the advocate be independent from the IRS, but the staff assisting the advocate should be as well.

Yet, right now, the attorneys hired to assist the National Taxpayer Advocate report to IRS legal counsel, are accountable to IRS legal counsel, and answer to IRS legal counsel, not the National Taxpayer Advocate.

It is a situation that begs for conflicts of interest to occur. It risks undermining the ability of the National Taxpayer Advocate to trust that the legal advice that she receives is without any undue influence from the IRS. It certainly undermines the ability of the American taxpayer to have faith that the National Taxpayer Advocate's service is adhering to its mission.

The National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act gives the NTA the authority to hire her own lawyers, who will report directly to her, rather than be accountable to the IRS, the very agency whose behavior the advocate exists to scrutinize and defend against.

The American people have a well-founded fear of the IRS given its dismal track record of violating the rights of taxpayers. The very least we can do is ensure that an entity that exists to fight on behalf of taxpayers actually has a clearly defined and reinforced independence from the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Feenstra and Davis for their bipartisan leadership on this issue and advocating for the rights of the American taxpayers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I imagine the American people would be surprised and no doubt disappointed to learn that the very organization whose mission it is to advocate on behalf of taxpayers relies on legal advice provided by attorneys who are employed by, and answer to, the IRS. It is a bizarre arrangement to be sure.

The National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act will ensure that the attorneys serving the NTA are hired by her and accountable to her. This will also allow the Advocate's office to promote attorneys from within that organization, helping to retain their talent, experience, and expertise.

Mr. Speaker, the Ways and Means Committee approved this legislation with unanimous consent, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1155) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow taxpayers to elect to receive certain replacement refunds electronically, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit 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. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act.

With the April 15 tax filing deadline right around the corner, we are reminded of the need to make the IRS more responsive to the American people. Unfortunately, the manner in which the IRS currently responds to stolen tax refund checks is truly insane.

Right now, if someone has their refund check stolen out of the mail, the IRS will replace that stolen check by sending another one through the mail. It should surprise no one to learn that quite often that replacement check is also stolen out of the mail.

There is no law keeping the IRS from sending a replacement check through a direct deposit to a bank. However, the IRS currently does not have procedures in place for a taxpayer to make such a request. This bill fixes that flaw.

I wish to commend my Ways and Means Committee colleagues, Representatives Malliotakis, Kustoff, and Sewell, for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.

In Representative Malliotakis' district alone, they have seen $3.8 million in IRS tax refund checks stolen. Taxpayers that are victims of this crime need to be made whole. They do not need to jump through more hoops or deal with the hassle of seeing their replacement refund checks stolen as well.

This legislation received unanimous approval in the Ways and Means Committee, and I encourage my colleagues to give it an equally strong bipartisan vote here in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

This legislation will not only help taxpayers who have been victims of fraud, but it will also help combat fraud by eliminating opportunities for criminals to strike a second time.

Check fraud is a major challenge in this country, and it has grown exponentially over the past several years. In fact, in 2022, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network reported over 680,000 instances of check fraud, doubling the previous year's total. In such an environment, it is unacceptable that at this moment the IRS does not have processes and procedures in place for taxpayers to request a replacement check through direct deposit.

This bill is a simple solution to a serious and costly problem. I encourage all of my colleagues to support its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1491) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the postponement of certain deadlines by reason of disasters applicable to the limitation on credit or refund, and to take postponements into account for purposes of sending collection notices, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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. 1491, the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act, introduced by my Ways and Means colleagues Representatives Murphy and Panetta. Both of their home States, North Carolina and California respectively, are no strangers to the toll of natural disasters. This legislation corrects a discrepancy that can deny Americans affected by natural disaster their rightful tax refund.

Often, the IRS postpones the filing and payment deadline for taxpayers impacted by a natural disaster. Understandably, some taxpayers living in a disaster area choose to file their taxes and wait to pay the tax bill at a later date, freeing up resources to instead help replace the items that they have lost. For the average taxpayer who requests a filing extension, the deadline to claim a tax refund or credit for that tax year is also extended; not so for the victims of natural disasters. They do not receive the same amount of additional time to claim a tax credit or refund as taxpayers who request filing extensions.

This situation is fundamentally unfair. It potentially denies Americans affected by a natural disaster their rightful tax refund that they would have otherwise received had they not been struck by a natural disaster and simply requested a filing extension.

This bill provides a straightforward solution that would fix this issue. Victims of natural disasters would have additional time to claim a refund in the same way that those who request a filing extension receive additional time.

I urge my colleagues to stand with taxpayers and provide this measure of tax relief to victims of natural disasters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), my favorite Member from North Carolina's Third Congressional District.

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

This bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee with a united vote from Republicans and Democrats. It is not hard to see why. Disasters know no party affiliation and affect communities all across the country.

In the last few weeks, communities I represent in southeastern and south central Missouri were struck by 19 deadly tornadoes and storms. I had the chance to visit and talk with the people impacted. I saw destroyed homes, tossed cars, and crop damage. I also saw how neighbors, churches, and charities spring into action to provide a warm meal, temporary shelter, and hope to the families who lost so much.

This legislation treats Americans affected by natural disasters fairly and ensures that the Federal Government is going to do its part to be responsive to their needs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1152) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for

the application of the mailbox rule to documents and payments electronically submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, as amended.

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, the April 15 deadline to file one's taxes is rapidly approaching. Right now, if a taxpayer mails a payment or tax return to the IRS that is postmarked by midnight on the due date, the payment or tax return will be considered timely even if it is received a week later. Under current law, taxpayers who file electronically do not receive the same treatment. If a taxpayer submits the same payment or return electronically on the due date, it may be considered late if the IRS receives it and processes it the next day.

In fiscal year 2023, more than 213 million returns and other forms, 79 percent of all filings, were filed electronically. Not only are electronic payments faster and easier to process, but they also eliminate the risk of theft that we have seen recently with checks, like in Representative Malliotakis' district, for example.

If Congress doesn't correct this, taxpayers could potentially be on the hook for late penalties through no fault of their own.

H.R. 1152, the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act, is bipartisan legislation that will harmonize IRS deadline rules to ensure that electronic payments or documents submitted by taxpayers will be treated the same as postmarked mail.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives LaHood, Feenstra, Fitzpatrick, DelBene, Panetta, and Schneider for their leadership on this bill. This is a simple, commonsense fix to tax administration that will save taxpayers time and money.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is simple. Those taxpayers who will be filing their taxes electronically on April 15, just a couple of weeks from now, should be treated the same as taxpayers who use postmarked mail.

Unfortunately, under current law, that is not always the case. If a taxpayer submits a payment or return electronically by midnight on the due date, it could still be considered late if the IRS does not process it until the next day.

H.R. 1152, the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act, will harmonize IRS deadline rules so taxpayers receive equal treatment whether they file electronically or through the mail.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation to help level the playing field for American taxpayers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution constituting a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 211, I call up the bill (H.R. 1156) to amend the CARES Act to extend the statute of limitations for fraud under certain unemployment programs, 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, the American people supported President Trump in November because he pledged to eliminate waste and fraud in government.

There is no better example of what President Trump is talking about than the rampant fraud the Ways and Means Committee has uncovered in the COVID-era unemployment insurance program.

This money was supposed to help workers and their families through a crisis. Instead, it was stolen. It was stolen by fraudsters and criminals. According to government estimates, between $100 billion and $135 billion of UI benefits were stolen during the pandemic.

Outside estimates range as high as $400 billion. That is higher than the economy of my home State of Missouri and about 20 other States. It is the greatest theft of tax dollars in U.S. history. So far, the government has only recovered about $5 billion. As we stand here, there are over 157,000 open UI fraud hotline complaints and more than 1,600 ongoing fraud investigations.

This is a must-pass bill. The statute of limitations for these investigations starts to run out in 16 days on March 27. If we don't extend it, the criminals who stole money from the pockets of taxpayers, and continue to do so to this day, will get away.

The Pandemic Unemployment Fraud Enforcement Act is simple. It doubles the statute of limitations from 5 to 10 years so we can prosecute and recover hundreds of billions of stolen tax dollars. We did this in the 117th Congress when Republicans and Democrats voted unanimously to extend the statute of limitations for fighting fraud and other COVID- era programs plagued by criminal theft. This legislation deserves the same strong bipartisan support. Yet during our markup, not a single Ways and Means Democrat voted for this bill. Let me preview some of the fear-mongering you are going to hear today on this floor.

First, committee Democrats will argue that giving law enforcement more time to prosecute fraud will lead to surprise bills or targeting of innocent Americans who accidentally received an overpayment. This is completely false.

DOJ is focused on prosecuting sophisticated criminals who maliciously defrauded the government, including international crime rings, online scammers, and gangs that are using tax dollars to illegally purchase firearms and commit crimes.

This is not about going after grandma who made a mistake on her form. Anyone making that claim is simply not telling the truth. That isn't happening today, and it won't happen tomorrow. All this bill does is simply extend the investigations ongoing today.

Second, Democrats claim that rescinding $5 million to offset the cost of this bill is a bridge too far. This is unused money sitting over at the Department of Labor. With over 1,600 open investigations, Democrats should be more concerned about what their constituents and American taxpayers have to lose if this doesn't get done.

Third, Mr. Speaker, you will hear complaints about items unrelated to this bill like DOGE or the streamlining of the Federal Government to make it work better for the American taxpayer.

I understand that my colleagues on the other side may want to use their floor time to discuss those issues, but that is not what the bill in front of us is all about. It is simply about continuing ongoing efforts to recoup tens of billions of dollars criminally taken from the American taxpayer.

A ``no'' vote is a vote to allow these criminals to keep the money they stole from taxpayers. It is a vote to surrender to fraudsters. It is a vote that says to Americans we don't care about their hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the chairman of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee.

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

Yesterday, my colleagues introduced an amendment that would limit prosecution of fraud cases with at least $100,000 in stolen funds.

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, Democrats want to give some criminals a get- out-of-jail-free card.

Let me give you an example of what that looks like. A woman from Rockford, Iowa, was sentenced to more than a year in prison for receiving $45,000 in unemployment benefits from eight different States using stolen identities and laundering the proceedings through cryptocurrency.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a September 20, 2022, release from the United States Attorney's Office Northern District of Iowa titled: ``Iowa Woman Sentenced to Federal Prison for COVID-19 Related Benefit Fraud and Money Laundering.''

Tuesday, September 20, 2022.

Iowa Woman Sentenced to Federal Prison for COVID-19 Related Benefit

Fraud and Money Laundering

mendenhall received over $45,000 in fraudulently obtained benefits and

laundered most of the funds by purchasing cryptocurrency

A Rockford, Iowa woman who received unemployment benefits

in other people's names, and laundered most of those funds

through cryptocurrency transactions, was sentenced September

20, 2022, to more than a year in federal prison.

Stephanie Mendenhall, age 53, from Rockford, Iowa, received

the prison term after a March 24, 2022, guilty plea to four

counts of theft of government funds and one count of money

laundering conspiracy. At the plea hearing, Mendenhall

admitted to facilitating false claims for unemployment

insurance benefits, which were intended for those in need due

to the COVID-19 pandemic, in the names of other people and

allowing those funds to be deposited into bank accounts she

owned or controlled. Mendenhall received fraudulent

unemployment benefits paid through the states of Maine,

Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, and

Illinois, including benefits related to COVID-19 relief

funds, to which she was not entitled. Mendenhall received at

least $35,985 in false unemployment benefits. Mendenhall

spent some of the money on herself, but laundered the

majority of it by purchasing cryptocurrency and sending it to

a co-conspirator. After being indicted in this case, while on

pretrial release, Mendenhall attempted to deposit counterfeit

checks into other bank accounts she owned.

Mendenhall was sentenced in Sioux City by United States

District Court Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand. Mendenhall was

sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. She was also ordered to

make $46,378.31 in restitution to the states of Maine,

Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, and

Illinois. She must also serve a 2-year term of supervised

release after the prison term. There is no parole in the

federal system.

On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the

COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the

resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with

agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and

prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters

efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable

domestic and international criminal actors and assists

agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent

fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating

existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and

techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes,

and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained

from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the

Department's response to the pandemic, please visit https:// www.justice.gov/coronavirus.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted

fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the

Department of Justice's National Center for Disaster Fraud

(NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint

Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf/ disaster-complaint-form.

Mendenhall is to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on a

date yet to be set.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States

Attorneys Ron Timmons and Tim Vavricek and was investigated

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of

Labor's Office of Inspector General.

Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/login.pl.

The case file number is 21-3028.

A criminal, Mr. Speaker, is a criminal no matter how much they steal from the American taxpayers. H.R. 1156 is a must-pass bill for anyone interested in enforcing the rule of law.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the folks on the other side of the aisle were referring to President Trump firing the Department of Labor inspector general earlier. President Trump campaigned on changing Washington. He is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will, and it is understandable, Mr. Speaker, that he wants people in his administration who reflect his views.

The Labor Department's inspector general plays an important role in identifying fraud but does not charge cases or decide which ones to prosecute. The Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Offices handle prosecution of Federal crimes. This bill extends the statute of limitations to ensure the Department of Justice has the time they need to go after criminals who committed acts of malice and intentional fraud against American taxpayers.

The criminal activity in the COVID-era unemployment insurance program represents the largest theft of tax dollars in U.S. history. This money was supposed to help American families through a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. Instead, thousands of criminals, including foreign crime rings, made off with hundreds of billions of dollars.

We know that some of these same groups are continuing to perpetrate UI fraud targeting disaster victims. Fraudsters are filing claims on behalf of individuals impacted by fires in your State, Mr. Speaker, and the North Carolina floods, and then using the money for criminal activity.

The statute of limitations to prosecute these crimes is set to expire this month with just 4 percent of the stolen funds having, so far, been recovered. Criminals are going to get away scot-free unless we pass this legislation.

Over the past few weeks, Democrats have sued and stonewalled President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE over the broader investigation into how our tax dollars are being spent.

The American people are tired of words. It is time for action. The Pandemic Unemployment Fraud Enforcement Act will buy prosecutors and law enforcement more time to go after criminals and recoup the money taxpayers are rightfully owed. It is no wonder this legislation is widely supported by Federal law enforcement agencies and States.

The American people deserve justice, and now it is up to Congress to deliver it.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 211, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 25) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit 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 a Congressional Review Act resolution repealing the last-minute, unfair, and unworkable Biden IRS rule that places a bureaucratic burden on the Americans who own cryptocurrency and the platforms that allow them to own it.

Congress gave the IRS clear instructions in the 2021 infrastructure law regarding digital asset reporting. The IRS was given an inch and took a mile, writing a rule that is overly broad and downright sloppy in the process.

The rule subjects decentralized finance platforms, or DeFi exchanges, to the same reporting requirements as a centralized bank or traditional securities broker. Under President Biden, the IRS traded congressional intent for a politically motivated mandate.

The Biden administration made no secret of its opposition to digital assets and America's leadership in this booming industry. Bureaucrats weaponized every tool in the toolbox, including finalizing this rule at the eleventh hour, crippling the digital asset industry and threatening American leadership and innovation in the process.

Approximately one in four Americans own cryptocurrency. This rule puts a huge burden on these regular folks and could discourage participation in the digital asset market altogether.

While workers lose, foreign countries win. Since only American companies and taxpayers have to comply with the burdensome rules, only American companies and taxpayers will need to spend billions of dollars to change their business models and report billions of pieces of taxpayer data.

America risks losing our edge to foreign companies as a result. The rule disincentivizes the very innovation that has powered American leadership in the digital asset industry. In a global economic competition with China, this rule chips away at a source of American economic strength.

There are real questions if the rule can even be administered. DeFi exchanges are not the same as centralized crypto exchanges or traditional banks or brokers. DeFi platforms do not and cannot even collect the information from users needed to implement this rule. Their software never controls the digital assets. DeFi platforms cannot exchange currencies, hold assets in escrow, or maintain third-party records of financial transactions like their counterparts, yet the Biden administration wanted to treat them the same.

As former IRS Commissioner Rettig said himself, these new IRS crypto regulations require millions of taxpayers to file new Form 1099s in a way that would ``overwhelm the agency and have little or no value to effective and efficient tax administration.''

The lesson here is simple: Laws passed by Congress should be interpreted and implemented fairly, not used as a pretext to gain more control over the economy at the expense of individual taxpayers.

The repeal of this misguided rule would remove a barrier preventing American consumers from participating in crypto and help cement America's digital asset leadership.

I thank my Ways and Means colleague, Congressman Mike Carey, for leading the effort to protect taxpayers from an unjustified overreach from the Biden administration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).

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

Earlier this afternoon, the other Chamber was reminded that the Constitution says all revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives.

The Senate must have been just so excited about this bipartisan CRA that they couldn't wait another minute, but that is okay. Whether it is the CRA or the budget, I guess they will just have to vote again.

Mr. Speaker, the repeal of the Biden IRS rule is a victory for common sense. The Federal Government shouldn't demand decentralized finance platforms, used by ordinary Americans to buy and sell cryptocurrency, to fill out forms when those platforms don't collect the information needed for the form. Neither the American people nor the IRS are equipped to handle the demands of this unworkable rule.

These platforms are not like banks. They are not like security brokers, yet this rule treats them as if they are.

In order to justify the burden placed on ordinary people, Mr. Speaker, the Biden IRS stretched and twisted congressional intent to enact regulations designed to cripple the digital asset industry.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill and help dismantle the politically motivated regulations from the last administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 579) to amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to improve foster and adoptive parent recruitment and retention, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit 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 the Recruiting Families Using Data Act introduced by my Ways and Means colleagues, Representatives Randy Feenstra and Brendan Boyle. This bill would make a relatively straightforward but needed update to current law to promote State-level recruitment of foster care families.

Thousands of loving parents open their homes every year to offer care and support for children in need. By doing so, they provide shelter for children who would otherwise be forced to stay in caseworker offices, hospitals, or hotels. However, many of these same parents, for any number of reasons, stop serving as foster families after only 1 year.

In short, there is a dire need for more foster families in our communities. Much of the foster care system is coordinated at the State level, which means we need to enlist the States in helping expand the number of foster families.

Under current law, States are required, as a condition of receiving funding, to have a plan in place to recruit foster and adoptive families, but we know, based on an analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, that many States continue to face challenges.

This bill would build on existing law by calling on States receiving Federal funding to develop family partnership plans that lay out their specific process for finding potential foster families and recruiting and retaining them in the foster care system.

The legislation also authorizes the evaluation of key data to ensure we identify what efforts have been successful in expanding the availability of foster families.

I thank Representatives Feenstra and Boyle for introducing this legislation and for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this commonsense piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, nearly 400,000 American children today are in the Nation's child welfare system and counting on us to help them secure access to a permanent, loving, and stable home. At the same time, thousands of parents across the Nation are ready and willing to provide that love and shelter for kids in need. However, more must be done to link those children with those families who will volunteer to help.

The Recruiting Families Using Data Act will give States the tools and incentives to grow the number of foster families able to care for kids who might otherwise remain stuck in other parts of our welfare system. It is a vote of confidence in the generosity and kindness of potential foster families, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 919) to codify Internal Revenue Service guidance relating to treatment of certain services and items for chronic conditions as meeting the preventive care deductible safe harbor for purposes of high deductible health plans in connection with health savings accounts.

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 the Chronic Disease Flexible Coverage Act, introduced by Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Vern Buchanan and our Ways and Means colleague, Representative Jimmy Panetta.

This legislation provides employers and their employees with greater flexibility to design healthcare coverage options that expand access to treatments for chronic diseases.

The chronic disease epidemic has, unfortunately, impacted nearly every family in America and represents a significant share of our healthcare spending. In fact, 90 percent of the $4.1 trillion this country spends each year on healthcare goes toward chronic disease. This is not surprising when you realize that 60 percent of Americans suffer from some form of chronic disease, whether it be heart disease, diabetes, or cancer.

So many Americans would benefit from having healthcare coverage that is not only more affordable but more responsive to their needs so that they can better manage their health.

Last Congress, the House of Representatives approved a version of this legislation, but unfortunately, we were not able to get the bill across the finish line. However, with President Trump back in the White House, we are moving this bill once again, a bill that further strengthens a policy put in place during the first Trump administration.

For the 53 percent of employers that offer high deductible health plans to their employees, they would now be able to improve those options by allowing predeductible coverage of critical chronic care management services, including beta blockers, blood pressure monitors, glucometers, inhalers, and medications and testing to help individuals with high cholesterol. While the bill includes 14 specific services that could be covered, it leaves the door open for the list to be expanded later, as well.

By providing flexible coverage options for more people living with chronic health conditions, we can help lower their costs and improve their health and well-being.

I thank Representatives Buchanan and Panetta for their leadership on this issue, as well as recognize the work of our Ways and Means Health Subcommittee that held its first hearing this Congress on creating healthier options for families and raising awareness about the chronic disease epidemic we have in this country.

As HHS Secretary Kennedy is shining a light on the chronic disease epidemic, the Ways and Means Committee is leading the charge in Congress to examine the root causes and delivering solutions, including this bill before us today.

I encourage all of my colleagues to once again provide strong bipartisan support for this effort to address chronic disease. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue, particularly given the enormous size, scope, and cost of America's chronic disease epidemic. It will put more patients in the driver's seat when it comes to managing their health, and open doors for folks to get the treatments that will not only save them money but improve their well-being.

High deductible healthcare plans are already a popular option for employers to offer their workers. Expanding what services can be provided under these plans, specifically to help treat chronic diseases, will only make this a more affordable and useful health coverage choice for patients.

I encourage my colleagues to support the passage of the Chronic Disease Flexible Coverage Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Arrington for yielding.

Mr. Chair, 4 years ago, President Trump left Joe Biden a blueprint for success, and then Democrats proceeded to open our borders, undermine American energy, and spend trillions of dollars on handouts to the wealthy.

They created the highest inflation in 40 years that made it impossible for working families to survive. That is why the American people sent Donald Trump back to the White House with a mandate. Now it is up to Congress to deliver on that mandate, to make our economy work again for working families.

The economy isn't just numbers on a chart. It is the farmer who wakes up at 4 a.m., the mom or dad working two jobs just to get by, the shop owner figuring out how to keep the store lights on, and the truck driver working overtime.

Mr. Chair, let me be clear, a vote against this budget is a vote to raise taxes on low-income Americans. Mr. Chair, $2.6 trillion of the tax cuts in this resolution are people making less than $400,000 a year. Democrats campaigned on not allowing taxes to increase on people making less than $400,000 a year. Let us see if their voting cards show up. Extending the Trump tax cuts will give the lowest income families a tax cut of 15 percent, the highest of any income group.

On the other hand, failing to extend these tax cuts means the average taxpayer will see a 22 percent tax hike.

The average family of four making $80,000 a year will see their taxes go up almost $1,700. That is 2 months' worth of groceries.

Americans need certainty that relief is on the way. Workers need certainty that their taxes won't go up.

Mr. Chair, 26 million small businesses need certainty that their tax rates won't rise to 43 percent in a few short months so that they can focus on investing and hiring more workers.

Mr. Chair, 2 million family-owned farms need certainty that they won't be forced to sell their farm to pay an increased death tax. They need to know right now if they should be contacting an estate planner for the massive tax hike that is coming.

Parents need certainty that their guaranteed deduction of $30,000 won't be cut in half and that their child tax credit won't be slashed from $2,000 to $1,000.

Following passage of the Trump tax cuts, wages increased by 4.9 percent, the fastest 2-year growth in real wages in 20 years. Mr. Chair, 5 million new jobs were created. More than 6 million people were lifted out of poverty. Real median household income rose by $5,000. The economy grew a full percentage point higher than CBO's initial forecast, and revenues have remained steady at 17 percent of GDP.

Building on President Trump's tax cuts will deliver a new golden age of prosperity: over 1 million new small business jobs each year, $284 billion in economic growth for more manufacturing, and billions in new investments to revitalize our poorest neighborhoods.

We will reignite our economy with a return of policies like 100 percent immediate expensing and incentives to make sure R&D is happening here and not being outsourced around the globe.

We will deliver on President Trump's commitment to tax relief for tipped workers, help for seniors struggling

with inflation, and tax relief for overtime workers.

President Trump's policies will spark an economic recovery, and that recovery starts by passing this budget so we can send one big, beautiful bill to President Trump's desk.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 33) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide special rules for the taxation of certain residents of Taiwan with income from sources within the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act, bipartisan legislation that will unleash more American manufacturing investment and jobs and help combat China's harmful influence.

For too long, America has been too dependent on China. It comes at a high price, as communities across this country lose jobs and live with little hope for the future. It also puts America's national security at risk.

This bill before us establishes fair tax treatment for both American workers and businesses operating in Taiwan and puts Americans on equal footing with our competitors around the world.

Enacting this legislation will help create jobs right here at home. U.S. exports to Taiwan support 188,000 American jobs, and Taiwanese investment in the United States supports another 21,000. Reducing burdens on Taiwanese investment in America will help aid in building new cutting-edge manufacturing plants staffed by American workers. It will help support our domestic semiconductor and chip manufacturing capabilities, securing strategic supply chains and helping us further move away from China.

Citizens and companies from countries like Great Britain, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand and the European Union all enjoy better tax treatment than Americans in Taiwan currently do. That is not right. In fact, the United States is Taiwan's largest trading partner without a tax treaty.

Enhancing our relationship with Taiwan will strengthen the U.S. economy and our national security. Instead of leaving critical supply chains in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, we need to be making more goods in America, or in partnership with allies like Taiwan that share our interests, to reduce our dependence on China.

This legislation has strong bipartisan support. Last Congress, we took action in authorizing and establishing the first steps in a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Taiwan. As we continue to grow our economic relationship together, a tax treaty represents the logical next move. Advancing this legislation to President Trump's desk is the right thing to do for American workers and our economy as a whole.

I thank Ranking Member Neal for helping lead this effort and introducing this legislation with me. Today, we are showing the world that American leaders are united in standing up for our workers and businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to help critical American manufacturing sectors and to protect our national and economic security, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), who is the chairman of the Tax Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the chair of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), one of our newest members of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), one of the newest members to the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym), another new member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, to continue to rely on China for critical items like semiconductors and chips is very dangerous. There is no reason America can't make those same items. This bipartisan bill will remove unfair tax barriers for American workers and businesses, strengthen our Nation's manufacturing base, and grow jobs right here at home.

The United States is Taiwan's largest trading partner without a tax treaty, and that means American workers are at a disadvantage. If the relationship between the United States and Taiwan is to serve as a defense against China, our workers must be on equal footing with one another. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this critical bill that will shift control over our economy away from China and back toward American workers and businesses.

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

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

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 rise today, with Ranking Member Neal, to commend Harold Hirsch on his service to the United States Congress for over 47 years. Mr. Hirsch served as a lawyer and tax expert on the staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation of the United States Congress from the beginning of 1977 to October, 2024, when he retired. Prior to 1977, Mr. Hirsch had worked as a lawyer for the office of the Judge Advocate General and for the Legislation and Regulations section at the Internal Revenue Service, government service for which we also thank him.

The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation performs useful or at times indispensable functions to Members of Congress as the Legislative Branch develops tax policy. Mr. Hirsch's legal acumen, drafting brilliance, and deep understanding of tax issues contributed to the quality of tax legislation in numerous tax bills over the period he served on the JCT staff. Though reserved, even self-effacing, Mr. Hirsch brought thoughtful commentary to the development of proposed tax legislation. He gave an extremely careful reading of proposed legislative text, and his keen eye for possible statutory errors averted problems that would otherwise have plagued taxpayers, practitioners, and government administrators alike. Mr. Hirsch's technical skills and expertise in the craft of helping Congress produce the best statutory representation of Members' intent redounded to the benefit of the American taxpayer.

This dedicated work should not go unknown and unrecognized. I thank Mr. Hirsch for his service in the field of tax legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the windfall elimination provision, or WEP as it is more commonly known, was put in place more than four decades ago to prevent workers with earnings that were exempt from Social Security payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment from Social Security than workers who spent their whole careers contributing to Social Security.

Unfortunately, WEP still results in overly generous payments for some while unfairly penalizing others.

H.R. 5342, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, provides current beneficiaries affected by the WEP with an additional $100 per month and replaces the current-law WEP for future beneficiaries with a new formula that bases benefits on a worker's total career earnings.

This past year, the Ways and Means Committee has held more hearings on WEP than in any other Congress in the past 20 years and identified that the WEP formula could be replaced with a formula that provides all beneficiaries with a fair benefit based on their actual earnings using data that wasn't available when the WEP was put in place 40 years ago.

The bill before us today, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, replaces the WEP with a new formula based on this now-available earnings data to more accurately adjust benefits.

While I have concerns with this bill's short-term costs, I commend my colleagues and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman Jodey Arrington, for his dedication to finding a pragmatic solution that ultimately improves the financial health of the Social Security programs over the long term.

It is vital that any solution to WEP protects the Social Security trust funds that all beneficiaries rely on. I know a very similar proposal to permanently replace the WEP used to share bipartisan support of members of the Ways and Means Committee, but, unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues abandoned this approach several years back.

I share the goals of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to work with myself and Chairman Arrington to develop a permanent, bipartisan solution that permanently fixes the Windfall Elimination Provision, and the related government pension offset, while also protecting the Social Security benefits of all retirees, which could actually pass the United States Senate and become law.