Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Speaker Johnson calls our soaring national debt the ``number one threat'' to our Nation. The Republican Senate leader says that it is a ``ticking time bomb'' just before he lights the fuse with this sorry resolution that hikes the debt by $6 trillion.

The independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget urges us to reject this ``unprecedented level of fiscal recklessness.''

Republicans are borrowing trillions more so Elon and his billionaire buddies can get more.

Already a wrecking ball to our democracy, Trump, the self-described ``king of debt,'' is king today with his schemes to spike the debt as the Musk DOGE charade wrecks public services and Trump's ``beautiful'' tariff wrecks our economy and heads us straight toward a recession.

With soaring debt, plummeting markets, and a measles outbreak, I have to give the Republicans credit for turning America red, but not the way we expected.

Mr. Speaker, today Republicans offer a truly remarkable answer to unemployment insurance fraud, and that is to make a big cut in those who are already fighting unemployment insurance fraud and abuse.

Likely gone will be the resources for providing the States access to databases that they use to prevent fraud by confirming identities.

Once again, arithmetic is just simply not a Republican friend. They cut $5 million from antifraud efforts that are going on today to produce a savings of $500,000 over a 10-year period according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that any additional recoveries from their sorry bill of overpaid benefits would be insignificant.

This rash Republican move comes on top of Elon Musk's slash-and-burn rampage through our government. Who knows how many civil servants have already been fired whose principal responsibility is to fight fraud; not only the fraud that has occurred in the past but some shyster who has come up with a new approach?

As the sponsor of antifraud legislation myself, legislation which Mr. Smith has refused to consider to prevent some bilking of Medicaid, I can tell the difference between a real antifraud measure and one advanced on behalf of administration extremists who don't believe in unemployment insurance in the first place.

This bill's true objective is to penalize working Americans who, through no fault of their own, both lost their jobs during the pandemic and then received mistaken amounts of overpayment thereafter. Now, years later, instead of accepting responsibility for the failure of the first Trump administration in improperly making those overpayments done first by the Trump administration itself and in failing to establish safeguards so that there would not be overpayments, Republicans instead are shifting the blame from Trump's wrongs to workers that did not commit the wrongs in the first place.

This bill is just another part of the Trump-Musk fake war on fraud, waste, and abuse--big claims, big, big claims, no proof of genuine savings. Really it is all about wrecking programs like unemployment insurance that the extremist Project 2025 said they wanted to eliminate even though they don't actually help taxpayers.

One thing we can be sure of is that with Trump we have no accountability, no transparency, and no watchdogs. That is why he moved quickly to fire at least 17 inspectors general in different agencies, including the Department of Labor Inspector General Larry Turner.

At the very time he was fired, Mr. Turner received no cause for being fired, of course, because the real cause was they didn't want a watchdog there. He was about fighting fraud. He was prosecuting large, sophisticated criminal rings responsible for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars in other ways.

Make no mistake, if they had really wanted to target those who are taking this money unfairly in a criminal way, they would have taken Mr. Davis' amendment to prioritize those who are doing the most damage. I believe that Trump, Musk, and House Republican enablers here today are much more interested in brash declarations than in genuine savings.

They have made clear that their number one priority in our committee is not unemployment fraud but more tax breaks for plutocrats by shifting more of the tax burden to working families and irresponsibly increasing by trillions of dollars the size of our national debt.

I would urge rejection of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, brokers who sell stocks and mutual funds have long been required to file a report in January of each year on Form 1099. They send it to their customers. They

send it to the Internal Revenue Service.

Many honest taxpayers out there right now have been collecting their 1099s from a bank or a securities broker to attach when they pay their taxes. Well-established crypto exchanges, like Coinbase and Binance, are required to do the same thing this year.

Why is it that Republicans are coming here today and saying: We want these decentralized finance crypto exchanges to be exempt from what everyone else in the financial service industry does?

The answer is two words. The answer is the same answer as to why it is we are about to see a new spending bill approved tonight.

It is the same answer as to why Republicans are insistent on a reconciliation bill that will add literally trillions of dollars to our national debt as they boast about being fiscal conservatives who are cutting healthcare in this country.

It is the same answer as to why Republicans cannot find their tongue when Elon Musk goes rampaging through our civil service. The President is responsible for dismissing more veterans than any President in the history of the United States.

It is the same answer that exists when the same rampage is undermining Social Security and the ability of the Social Security system to pay those checks that have been the lifeline for so many individuals who are seniors or individuals with disabilities.

The answer, in short, is: Donald Trump.

Shortly before he became President, Mr. Trump began raking in tens of millions of dollars in fees by launching his own meme coin, and the Trump family launched World Liberty Financial, which seeks to become a future decentralized finance.

As usual, the Trumps don't want to play by the rules that apply to mere commoners. King Trump, as he has described himself, plays by different rules for the royalty. Of course, disclosure and transparency are an absolute anathema to this administration, for whom lies are the currency of the realm.

Getting a special interest exemption from a pesky 1099 disclosure makes tax evasion and money laundering so much easier for the wealthy Republican donors who have been using these decentralized exchanges.

This bill, designed to exempt crypto fraud, is consistent with the sudden decision last week of Trump's SEC to halt prosecuting fraud against a Chinese businessman who, just coincidentally, invested $75 million in the Trump family's World Liberty Financial. In this administration, friends don't prosecute friends, or certainly not friendly investors.

Despite President Trump's claim that he must launch a trade war and impose a 25 percent tax on Americans who purchase anything from Canada in order to stop the estimated fraction of 1 percent of the fentanyl that enters our country from that longtime ally, today's bill opens the door to rewarding drug traffickers in fentanyl, cocaine, and whatever, as well as terrorists.

My colleagues need not take my word for it. We can turn to a Republican, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who said: ``Cryptocurrency has played an increasingly prominent role in the global fentanyl trade . . . both in terms of . . . manufacturing and trafficking of fentanyl and in laundering drug cartels' criminal proceeds.''

He says: ``This is particularly true of so-called `decentralized' crypto exchanges,'' for which this bill provides a totally unjustified special treatment.

According to the nonpartisan FACT Coalition, cryptocurrency is becoming attractive to hostile actors like Hamas, who seek ways to sidestep sanctions. The risks are especially severe with decentralized finance platforms, which are enabled to operate outside the traditional regulatory oversight that applies to others.

I further note that, when we talk about fiscal responsibility, this bill will add $4 billion to our national debt. Republicans can't even question that. It is like the $8 billion in one of the gifts the majority gave to the oil industry last week.

With $4 billion here, $8 billion there, and $4 trillion or so with the Republican tax bill to provide more tax breaks to people like Elon Musk and the people who were seated in the front row at the President's inauguration, it adds up. Those Republicans who have been telling us that we have a great national security problem with our national debt are so concerned about it that they are going to add trillions of dollars more, and $4 billion is nothing to ignore, which this bill does and does not pay for.

We should reject this new Trump special interest legislation that will just result in more corruption in this administration, a loophole that would be exploited by wealthy tax cheats, drug traffickers, and terrorist financiers, for which there is absolutely no reasonable justification.

Mr. Speaker, it is a shocking blow to lose the strong voice of Congressman Sylvester Turner. I have known him for over 40 years.

As an attorney, he worked to represent the most vulnerable. He served 27 years in the Texas House of Representatives. As a lifelong Houstonian, mayor for 8 years, he always put Houston and Houston concerns about education and opportunity at the forefront.

Emanuel Cleaver, who is right behind me here, and I represented the House just a few weeks ago, the night before we were all sworn in, at a celebration that Sylvester organized for Houstonians who were here for this event.

It was really a joyous celebration. There were so many Houstonians there who were proud of his service as mayor. He had much of the same staff who worked with him as mayor who had signed on to work with him either here or in Houston. It was clear that he was prepared to hit the ground running as a new Member of Congress.

He brought an immense amount of personal experience and experience working with people of all political affiliations and none.

His life has been cut abruptly short.

He demonstrated a tenacity and courage that we can all emulate.

Only last night, he was sitting just a few rows back here, yet today he is gone. It is a reminder of all the uncertainties that each of us face in life.

For me, it is a reminder of an oft spoken prayer by John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, who said:

``Do all the good you can,

By all the means you can,

In all the ways you can,

In all the places you can,

At all the times you can,

To all the people you can,

As long as ever you can.''

Sylvester lived that prayer.

We send our prayers and condolences to his staff, who I know are shocked by this; to his family; and to the countless lives that he touched in Houston and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), one of his best friends.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Fletcher for her words.

It is great to have all the members of our delegation here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the dean of the Republican members of the Texas delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a moment of silence to honor Congressman Sylvester Turner and to ask that when the House adjourns today, that it adjourn in his memory.

Mr. Speaker, Al Green is my friend and, for that matter, so is Mr. Newhouse, though I don't know him quite as well.

I think this motion is a serious mistake. I sat here in this House the night that President Obama made his state of the Union speech, and Joe Wilson from South Carolina jumped up and said: ``You lie.''

Nothing was done about that.

Mr. Green engaged in conduct that I chose not to participate in, though I found that a number of my constituents wished I had joined him. He expressed his strong views in a way that I would not have voiced them myself, but he left this Chamber voluntarily after doing so. To censure him now sets us back. It does not move us forward toward a more bipartisan and a more respectful House.

Indeed, I think many Americans will be surprised that Republicans get upset about decorum on anything. There was no Republican objection when President Trump decided to pardon the criminals that were responsible for the deaths of police officers in this building when they defended us on January 6, sprayed them with bear spray, and harassed and harmed so many officers.

There has been no Republican concern about decorum when the President fired the head of the Office of Ethics at the White House, when he fired the watchdogs of about 17 different Federal departments and agencies, the inspectors general that are designed to uphold and check out corruption and waste in our government.

There has been no outrage when President Trump decided that he would take on General Milley for being the patriot that he is and seek to obtain revenge on him.

What Mr. Green was talking about was outrage about something that is very important. There are 700,000 seniors in Texas who rely on Medicaid and nursing homes.

Mr. Speaker, half the children in my hometown, and probably more in Mr. Green's, are at risk of losing their care as seen in our Children's Hospital. Medicaid is a lifeline to individuals with disabilities.

He was passionate. He was emotional. He is deeply committed to protecting the vulnerable. He should not be censured for the way in which he expressed his passion and his concern and his love of justice.

Mr. Speaker, Putin and Trump: a dictator and a wannabe, and another destroyed Ukrainian city. Thousands have been murdered and thousands of children have been kidnapped. Trump disgracefully voted yesterday with North Korea and Russia to blame the murdered, not the murderer.

Trump is joining a rogues' gallery of lesser dictators to deny Putin's murderous invasion, his war crimes, and a demand that he return occupied Ukrainian territory. Trump, ``the great appeaser,'' is joined in this appalling wrong by House Republican accomplices.

While Ukrainians dodge bullets and missiles and are risking death daily, most of the House Republicans seem scared into silence by the threat of a very mean Trump tweet. By its silence, this Republican white flag surrender caucus is emboldening our adversaries to replace the world order established by both Democratic and Republican leaders since World War II.

If we fail Ukraine, our democratic ally, we fail the rule of law. Let's unite to resist the appeasement of Putin and seek a victory for self-determination, democracy, and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Republican wreckonciliation because it makes a wreck of our Nation's finances and it makes a wreck of the lives of so many of our fellow Americans.

Republicans are so very troubled about our Nation's debt that they want to add trillions more to it. In fact, according to the bipartisan Citizens for a Responsible Federal Budget, they want to make it bigger by about $4 trillion deeper in debt.

Elon Musk's DOGE--it is dodge also--is a sideshow for a multi-ring circus of deception and lies designed to create the illusion that billions are being saved from waste, fraud, and abuse when DOGE itself is the abuse.

Even with these fake savings, the insatiable demand of these Republicans for additional billionaire tax breaks requires denying opportunities to middle-class families; denying access to a family physician, first by slashing hundreds of millions from Medicaid for which Trump professes to love and cherish; wrecking Medicaid which pays for half the babies born at Seton hospital in Austin and half the children that go to the Children's Hospital there.

Millions of Americans will lose health protection, and millions more will lose educational opportunity. For those who are facing a dreaded disease like cancer, Republicans are cutting innovative medical research in the hope for a cure. With the looming threat of a flu pandemic, there would be a 40 percent cut of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. All of this represents more Republican broken promises.

Remember last month when Trump was going to drastically bring down grocery prices? The only thing that is drastic is the pain of this Republican budget. Now Trump tells us we will have a golden age in America. With this budget imposing so many burdens on our finances, the sick, the hungry, and students, we see who gets the gold. It is those billionaires that were on the front seat of his inauguration as working families are betrayed.

Mr. Speaker, very small instances--President Trump's excuse last night for freeing the violent January 6 criminals.

To the 140 dedicated police officers who were injured that day, to the officer who was crushed in a door and had to protect his eye from being gouged out, to the officer who was punched with a flagpole, this was hardly Trump's ``day of love.''

Now, he has released these criminals back to their communities. One boasted of buying guns. Another would: Turn up the heat in the spirit of vengeance--total disrespect for law enforcement, unleashing a heightened threat to the safety of families and communities across this country.

By freeing the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, Trump seems to be following the example of the authoritarian leaders he has admired in telling them to ``stand back and standby''--his private militias, available to crush any opposition at the slightest dog whistle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes Donald Trump to recklessly impose a death penalty on any nonprofit in America that happens to be on his enemies list. With this bill, he can destroy the very life of civil society in this country, one group after another. Even though the group involved that he targets as a ``terrorist-supporting'' group has not violated a single law, even though the group or the public have not been presented with a shred of evidence for doing this, without offering any specific explanation or reason as to why the life is being taken out of this civil society group, and without providing a day in court, a hearing, and without any meaningful right of appeal, no matter how capricious, no matter how unjustified Trump's action may be.

H.R. 9495 is a repackaged version of legislation that was originally filed months ago, with good intentions, including that of some of my Democratic colleagues.

With Trump's election, the conditions have changed. The dangers of granting additional power to him are far outweighed by any benefits from this bill. This is the same Trump who vowed to be ``dictator on day one'' and has declared the greatest danger our country faces today is ``the enemy within.''

This bill is now opposed by a growing number of civil society groups, over 120 groups--the ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice, the NAACP, Planned Parenthood, the Center for American Progress, the American Federation of Teachers--a list that goes on and on--including the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

This legislation is done in the name of stopping financial support for terrorism. All of us support stopping terrorism. Like everyone here, I have done that, and I have previously voted for this very language not once but twice, though the last time it came before our committee, I voiced the very same concerns about the lack of due process that I voice today.

Since none of the deficiencies of this bill have been corrected and no amendment is offered today, we must reject it.

If he is on a march to make America Fascist, we do not need to supply Donald Trump with any additional weapons to accomplish his ill purpose. Our freedoms will not be destroyed in one great blow. No, it will be a thousand cuts over the term of this administration, undermining our liberties one after another.

To those who say that this bill only applies to groups that are supporting terrorism, consider how very expansive that term can be, both at home and abroad. The foreign tyrants who Donald Trump so much admires have imprisoned journalists, academics, and rights activists by claiming that they are supporters of terrorism.

State and Federal elected officials in this country have called for terrorism investigations or prosecution of major news outlets. Trump himself has criticized and labeled any racist activist as terrorist. Some have mischaracterized environmental groups as ecoterrorists. Under this bill, Trump's list of targets would only be limited by his imagination. There are not any guardrails in the bill.

For example, if Trump claimed that Democrats, myself included, who didn't clap enough for him in this Chamber when he gave his first State of the Union were traitors, that we were treasonous, we could be targeted. He could target organizations that assist refugees for harboring terrorists.

Planned Parenthood or a hospital could be targeted for the alleged terror of abortion. An environmental group could be mislabeled as an ecoterrorist. A private university that permits too many anti-Trump demonstrations could be targeted. A disability rights group that is objecting to Trump's interference with the Affordable Care Act could be targeted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, a shelter offering housing to LGBTQ youth could be targeted. A Vietnam Veterans of America group that previously declared Trump's attacks on Gold Star families disgraceful and un- American could be targeted.

Other possible targets might be think tanks that don't happen to think the way Trump wanted, groups fighting Christian nationalism, or simply any tax-exempt group not viewed as sufficiently pro-MAGA.

Now, let's talk about the two examples that the chairman just referred to. He thinks the IRS Commissioner has not acted swiftly enough, and it sounds like perhaps he is right. Well, who do you think appointed the IRS Commissioner? His name is Donald J. Trump.

The defect is not in the law as it exists today, but on the question of whether or not there is being proper administration of the law that exists today that can deal with terrorism.

If the real purpose of this bill, as well, were simply to postpone tax filing deadlines for the very small number of Americans who have been detained hostage, as wrong as that is, our approving right now the bill that has lingered here, as Republicans shelved it for 6 months, that the Senate approved to do that, to provide them that protection, we could put that bill on the President's desk right now.

The very fact that the Republicans used this claim of helping hostages is a subterfuge because what it is really about is empowering Trump to do more harm. They are, in essence, holding the hostages hostage once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to tell the chairman he is absolutely right. I stand corrected concerning the IRS Commissioner. That is the only thing I stand corrected on, and I would be glad to join him in a further appeal to the current Commissioner if the facts are as you say because none of us want to see a dollar, profit or nonprofit, going to terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Mr. Beyer.

The bill the gentleman has is the same one that the Senate passed 6 months ago. Has the gentleman been given any reason why the Republicans, if they are so eager to help the hostages, have held that bill instead of bringing it up to us to consider and getting it on the President's desk right now, this week?

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) to answer my question.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for responding, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the ability to demand that no dollars flow from America to any terrorist organization has been long recognized in the law as it exists today. In fact, the chairman has conceded that when he says his complaint is that the IRS has not moved fast enough under existing law.

This is not a question of inadequate law. It is against the law today to provide support to a terrorist organization, be it exempt or nonexempt. The question here is whether we should change the law to eliminate the right to know the evidence to that effect.

Is it just the chairman's claim that something is a terrorist organization? If it is a terrorist organization, why not present the evidence? Why not provide an opportunity for a hearing for that evidence to be tested? Why not provide a meaningful right of appeal?

None of these safeguards are there, and they are lacking for a reason. The desire is to be able to weaponize the Treasury with regard to these organizations and to do as has happened under one tyrant after another in another country to claim that the opponents are terrorists, a term that is expansive.

Unchecked authority to revoke the nonprofit status of such groups without cause or due process risks Trump truly weaponizing the Treasury Department and destroying civil society organizations across this country.

As David Thompson with the National Council of Nonprofits has said, by violating basic due process rights, this bill ``bodes ill . . . without input from the charitable sector.''

As civil society groups have stated, over 120 of them: ``The executive branch could use this authority to target its political opponents and use the fear of crippling legal fees, the stigma of designation, and donors fleeing controversy to stifle dissent and chill speech and advocacy.''

It is not just the denial of tax status; it is the threat of denial. It is the use of intimidation, at which our President-elect is an expert, to let this be an intimidation of one group after another--a church, a social organization that has nothing to do with terrorism but can be characterized as such by him.

That is all it takes. Mr. Speaker, if Trump calls you a terrorist, just as he called me a traitor for not clapping long enough for him, that is all it takes under this bill. You have no hearing. You have no evidence. You have no true appeal rights. The supposed administrative provisions, administrative safeguards of this bill, are a total sham.

Mr. Speaker, after you are found guilty and denied your taxpayer status, then you can complain about it. It is based on the principle that you are guilty before proven innocent. The process there provides no protection whatsoever.

With regard to helping the hostages, let's be very clear about that. For 6 months, we have had in this House the opportunity to pass a Senate bill that is word for word a bill that is pending here in the House to help the hostages. Why has that not been done?

The very fact that there is such great interest in the hostages today and such total insensitivity over the last 6 months to do anything about them tells you that there is an ulterior motive here, that the goal is not about helping perhaps a dozen hostage victims' families who have gone through hell. It is not about that. It is about placing one civil society group after another on the line under a new President to use unlimited discretion to attack his political foes.

We have an opportunity tonight to either advance the cause of fascism or to push back against it. We have statements not from Democrats but from those who worked closest with President Trump raising concern, causing my concern about giving him any additional power.

After he called the press the enemy of the people, there is concern about the impact on the press. So many of our journalist organizations now at the local level are nonprofit organizations. To lose their tax- exempt status is to destroy freedom of the press.

We know with regard to President-elect Trump, that his appointee, General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a decorated hero and patriot, referred to Mr. Trump as fascist to the core, that his former Chief of Staff, the longest serving Chief of Staff, one of those best people in the world that he told us he would bring to Washington, said he is certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators. He has said that.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, the former Chief of Staff said he is certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators, so he certainly falls into the general definition of fascism.

Kelly also said that our President-elect has said that Hitler did some good things. I don't want those kinds of good things done here in America. I want people that disagree with me, as much as the chairman does tonight, from across this country to have the opportunity to have their say. I think that a vibrant, diverse, civil society and freedom of the press here is vital to the future of American democracy, and I don't want to see it snuffed out by one new figure. Let us not tonight give a wannabe tyrant the tool of tyranny.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Texas, the Honorable Erica Lee Carter, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome to the House a new addition from Texas, Erica Lee Carter. This is a somewhat bittersweet moment for all of us because it was only a few months ago that we gathered here to commemorate the life and legacy of her mother, Sheila Jackson Lee. There is more than physical resemblance between the two.

When I was elected in 1994 in the same small class of 13 that Sheila was a Member of, Erica was a teenager. She has been here a number of times over the three decades that Sheila served. Sheila was a fierce advocate for justice who fought relentlessly for her community. Erica, I know, has her mother's tenacity and her compassion.

She carries on a legacy of helping those with the least. She has led initiatives on economic equality and voting rights in Harris County. She spearheaded a funding drive for after-school programs. She has also worked to end discriminatory practices in the workplace and uplift minority- and women-owned businesses.

She is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She earned a master's degree at Duke University's Terry Sanford School of Public Policy. She began her career as an elementary schoolteacher in Houston. Her expertise in the classroom and in making education more accessible for every child, regardless of ZIP Code, is a great example of why her strong voice will be valuable.

While cancer cruelly cut Sheila's term short and Erica will be with us for a short time, I believe that we can count on her to continue carrying the torch for social justice in whatever role she may play, and we welcome her tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Lee Carter), our new colleague for her maiden speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill wrongfully seeks to codify Trump's one-state solution.

Strangely, Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas completely agree on one subject, they want from the river to the sea. The only question is: Who gets to control and subjugates the other one?

I believe that subjugation is not security. Rather, it is a time bomb that is just getting ready to explode causing more grief and misery to all, as we are seeing now with the repeated rocket firing into Israel, the ongoing destruction of Gaza, and the escalating settler violence in the West Bank.

I strongly believe in Israel as a democratic Jewish state. The Hamas attackers were not martyrs, they were murderers and rapists. They can never be a partner for peace, but neither can Netanyahu's cohorts, Ben- Gvir and Smotrich. They cannot be partners for peace. They have refused to be partners for peace, nor do they prioritize the release of the hostages. They continue to endanger Israeli security.

Smotrich, a self-described Fascist, wrongly insists that a hostage deal would be surrender. He is responsible for the largest seizure of land in the West Bank since the 1993 Oslo Accords. His myopic vision for Israel is to annex everything and create a greater Israel that incorporates all the so-called Palestinians.

In a June speech, he said: ``[We] created a separate civilian system'' . . . ``It will be easier to swallow in the international and legal context.''

Ben-Gvir told Israeli settlers: ``We are behind you. Run for the hilltops, settle them.''

He promotes an exclusive Israeli control of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The same message that those people protesting Israel are advocating, he is also advocating. He has distributed thousands of assault weapons to Israeli settlements to drive Palestinians from the West Bank.

When dozens of armed Israeli settlers stormed one West Bank village, firing bullets and setting homes on fire, they said that they were ``Ben-Gvir's gang here to kill the Arabs.''

Smotrich and Ben-Gvir should be sanctioned for their incitement of violence. It has led to 1,000 incidents of settlers driving over 1,300 Palestinians from their homes since October 7, with 600 Palestinians killed.

Unfortunately, at the same time that Gaza is being rendered uninhabitable, Netanyahu's refusal to stop settler violence in the West Bank and the expansion of these West Bank settlements are all designed to prevent a Palestinian state from ever coming into being in a viable way.

Like this very bill, their goal is to block creation of any Palestinian state and to refer to it as Judea and Samaria, rather than many of us, who consider ourselves to be strongly for Israel, calling it the occupied territories because it has been occupied since the 1967 war.

The only hope for lasting peace and security is for a Jewish state and a Palestinian state to be side by side and find security guarantees for each. That will be a long, difficult, and challenging process. We have been unable to accomplish it for decades, but it is the only process that we can undertake that will truly lead to the survival and the viability of Israel, so it is not a matter of a temporary peace and another threat to innocent people on either side of the line.

Efforts to conflate the occupied territories with Israel defeat any real hope of a lasting solution. We should reject the approach that Trump, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, Netanyahu, and Hamas all share, of a river to the sea, a one-state approach, because that is only a recipe for an endless war and untold suffering.

Madam Speaker, Republicans are true masters, masters at naming bills that do exactly the opposite of what they say they do. They sure have the wrong name on this bill. They call it: End Chinese Domination Act. It ought to be called the ``guarantee act.'' It guarantees Chinese domination, because they are undermining America's ability to compete with the Chinese who have dominated this market.

After listening to their fossilized friends, about the only progress that House Republicans have made is that they move from becoming total climate deniers to just becoming climate obstructionists. They are just here in case someone else decides to do something about the climate, and the climate crisis is truly engulfing our world.

This is the latest Republican bill where America going a little greener just seems to make them a little redder because a transition is needed here in the United States from an industry we did not have fully developed. These inflexible, micromanaging requirements will have the opposite effect they say they will intend.

It will take more than tough talk to stand up to Chinese domination. It takes careful American manufacturing and developing it. We don't want to cede the world to China and its domination, but all they offer is a white flag of surrender to the Chinese, jeopardizing domestic jobs and weakening American industry, ensuring that it is China that will profit at our expense.

While Democrats have championed cleaner vehicles, Republicans have attempted to throw us into their favorite gear, reverse. They have tried to reverse just about everything that we have done to respond to the climate crisis.

We know the transportation sector is so very important because it represents about 28 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. We have taken the steps to promote clean vehicles that don't generate these emissions with last Congress' historic climate legislation.

From this summer's suffocating heat, the wildfires, the extreme storms, the intense weather, the growing tropical diseases in our area, we know the climate crisis is already here. We don't have to sizzle further to do something about it, and our clean vehicle credits have helped consumers absorb the cost, beginning the transition to a greener and renewable future.

It has helped jump-start our EV industry, leading to more than $175 billion in new investments in building electric vehicles and creating over 100,000 jobs while decreasing emissions. Our investments are designed to make our domestic industry and our domestic workers competitive in the world.

Our tax incentives for going green are used to boost American workers and build more factories, as is happening right here in the USA.

This bill that is being offered today would impose impossible tracking requirements on battery components and critical minerals. This simply is not possible, and it is not necessary. Tracking every screw is truly nuts.

We have reasonable transition rules already in place to enable us to make it in America. That is what we need to do. If Republicans undo these rules, they will not only jeopardize American manufacturing jobs, they will only strengthen China.