H.R. 9772, H.R. 9771, H.R. 9721, and H.R. 9722

The committee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to today's mark-up of legislation to increase transparency in America's tax-exempt se- sector. Hold bad actors accountable, prevent foreign influence in our politics and public discourse, and protect religious freedom. During the last few decades, tax-exempt organizations have experienced rapid growth in the United States. In nineteen eighty-five, three hundred and thirty-five thousand charities held six hundred and sixty-five billion in net assets.

Yes.

Today, there are one point six million charities that have four point eight trillion dollars in net assets. The tax-exempt sector is about fifteen percent of the entire economy, the same size as the state of California, and has grown to account for nearly three point five trillion in annual revenues. As more money flowed into the sector, it has become a prime target for misuse and abuse by foreign nationals and agents acting on behalf of foreign countries like China. Too many of the tax-exempt sector operates in darkness, deliberately hiding in the shadows to avoid scrutiny. This committee has uncovered incidents of organizations abusing their generous tax benefits while seeking to divide Americans, sow chaos in our communities, and manipulate American politics and public life. For example, in twenty twenty four, the committee found that the Alliance for Global Justice, a five O one C three organization, fiscally sponsored, Samidoun, which the Biden treasury department then designated as a sham charity and fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist organization. However, Alliance for Global Justice was never required to disclose Sammy Doon as a project on their form nine ninety, despite giving them the benefit of tax exempt status. Other foreign nationals choose to donate directly to American nonprofits and can do so with the comfort of knowing that their donation will never be made public. Foreign nationals are welcome to contribute resources for the betterment of the American people. But we must draw the line at using US-based nonprofits as Trojan horses of foreign interest. Another example of foreign influence in the American nonprofit sector is the Swiss billionaire Jens-Jorg Wies. He has given over two hundred and eighty million dollars to a largely politically progressive hub that sponsors other nonprofit organizations, and in turn support liberal campaigns and other political causes. American elections should not be subject to foreign influence, let alone major foreign funding laundering through our tax-exempt sector. It is illegal for members of Congress to accept foreign donations. The same standard should apply to our non-profit sector. More recently, this committee committee's oversight efforts in the investigation of Nvil Roy Singham have uncovered how the American non-profit system can be weaponized at scale. Ching Hai Singham and his wife, with close ties to China, channel millions of dollars through non-profits that by design obscure the true source of contributions. As I have said before, this is not a movement It's not a grassroots activism. It is a machine being subsidized by American taxpayer dollars. That is why more transparency in today's legislation is vital. These bills will reign in the rogue actors in the tax-exempt space and redirect the sector's focus on its primary charitable purpose. Our first bill from oversight subcommittee chairman Schweikart shines further light on the tax-exempt sex. by requiring all tax-exempt organizations to publicly disclose foreign donations. This legislation specifically highlights contributions from foreign nationals, from countries of concern, like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Representative Mat Malayatakis has a bill before us today that penalizes tax-exempt organizations that receive donations from foreign nationals and in turn donate to political committees, like Super PACs. This bill is aimed directly at stopping efforts to funnel foreign money into our political process and influence our elections. Our next bill from Representative Smucker specifically addresses fiscal sponsorship. Tax-exempt organizations will be required to disclose certain information about the groups that they are fiscally sponsoring. While most of these arrangements are legitimate and carry out the sponsoring organization's charitable purpose, the committee has found that some organizations are taking advantage of the lack of transparency these arrangements provide to skirt the rules and fund bad and dangerous groups. Lastly, we will consider legislation by Representative Moore of Utah that defends our nation's sacred constitutional right to freedom of religion. Faith-based organizations should be able to carry out their tremendous work in our communities, without the threat of removal of tax-exempt status. Moreover, the IRS should not be in the business of making determinations regarding an organization's tax-exempt status based on specific religious beliefs or practices such organizations might hold. I appreciate each of our colleagues in bringing forward these policies that will go a long way in strengthening the oversight that is desperately needed in America's tax-exempt sector I'm now pleased to recognize the ranking member from Massachusetts Mr. Neal for his opening statement.

Uh thank you, Mister Chairman, with just days to go before Republicans get outta town for more than a month, They're using what time they have left, jamming the house with partisan budget and messaging bills and the CR because they can't even fund the government. This is the third mark-up this committee has held in a month, but not a single effort that will bring relief to families struggling under the weight of higher health care costs, pain at the pump, or certainly rising grocery prices. Instead, the majority is using this limited time to recycle a lot of old bills attacking charities and unions. Every moment they spend chasing manufactured problems and targeting the little guy is yet another moment when we're not focused on families back home who are still struggling with everyday costs and affordability. You won't find one word about what the majority is doing to bring down these costs. What you will find is plenty of funding for Trump's war efforts, while goose chases for so- solutions to problems that don't exist, And if they're serious about doing right by taxpayers, they should start by demanding answers about the senior treasury officials who were forced out for refusing to go along with the politicization of tax audits. Or perhaps we'll get an answer to why the Trump's four hundred million dollar jet, donated by a foreign government, isn't even safe to fly. Maybe the majority can get us a few details about the five hundred million dollar contracts for the President's ballroom or many of the vanity projects around Washington. We never seem, with this majority, to have time for that. The mark-up is also one that comes on the heels of the President imposing ever more price hikes on the American people. He cited wildfires as a reason for slapping one of our closest allies and trading partners with a fifty percent tariff. Think of it. One hundred and fifty years of the best standing, alliance, perhaps on the Earth, Canada. We have now succeeded driving them away from the space where they died with American soldiers, where they saw us in a common border that stretches for thousands of miles, to be an impeccable relationship, only to discover that that relationship is now severely damaged. While there is a scrambling to justify his rationale, We know this, it's always about more tariffs at people we're mad at. That's the motive. We're once again paying the price for incoherent trade policies that are always driven by grievance and retaliation. The only reason that this continues is to get a free pass unilaterally to height costs on the American people because our colleagues will not exercise their constitutional obligation. to stand up for the institution of the House of Representatives. They'd pay no mind to their duty to stand against the president when they disagree, to rein in the chaotic trade policy, and to lower costs for our constituents. We could mark up legislation right now to mark up to come to a conclusion on the immunity agreement, which we're told has been dissolved, but we've yet to see evidence of it. The American people expect more than this. And while we're having another jam, another partisan budget, and more than two hundred billion dollar increase in spending without congressional review, families are watching gas prices now back above four dollars a gallon. Our colleagues could even use these taxpayer dollars in their budget as they question again voter ID. That's not a budget, it's not what we were sent here to do, and the American people clearly see right through it. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Our first order of business is HR ninety-seven seventy-two, the foreign funding transparency act introduced by oversight subcommittee chairman Schweichert. Oversight chairman Schweichert and I led an examination into foreign funding sources for tax exempt organizations, which yielded some very interesting results. His willingness to hold these nonprofits accountable and engage in a nuanced legislative effort is ideal to lead this effort. While his bill collects aggregate data from the contributions of all foreign nationals he specifically highlights the contributions of foreign nationals who are from China Iran North Korea and Russia those nations whose influence is particularly concerning in the tax exempt sector. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I'm pleased to recognize a gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Schweichert for an opening statement.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for everyone here, this is basically, we've done this a couple times, this actually, Bill, is a bit more restrained than some of the language we've offered in previous years. It is aggregate data, um, where we get more granular data as if it's from a country of concern. Um, and, uh, Mr. Chairman, um, uh, my latest data says the non- profit or tax exempt sectors, now almost seventeen percent of the US economy. Where this came from from some of our previous investigations is we don't have enough visibility of foreign participation in tax exempt organizations, how the money flows through and how many of these organizations may also have the ability to move donations, some of these dollars, into five O one C four or C's. C three's which eventually could also end up in US politics. Um, I would prefer to have gone much further and much more granularity in data, but for many of the conversations we had, this seemed to be a communal agreement on a starting point. So we're gonna hopefully with this bill start to collect some baseline data on the scale of it, and then be able to pull out if it's a country of concern. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I now recognize a ranking member from Massachusetts, Mister Nill, for his opening statement.

Right.

Today, working class families across America are wondering how they're going to pay rent at the end of the month, afford groceries, fill up their tank gas tank, or pay for the next doctor's appointment, after being And what are Republicans on this committee doing to help those families? Absolutely nothing. Instead of lowering costs or helping working families, Republicans are once again wasting this committee's time on another partisan messaging bill that won't make a single family's life easier. Rather than strengthening charitable organizations, this bill piles on unnecessary bureaucratic items that will make it harder for nonprofits to serve their communities. That's because charitable nonprofit organizations are already subject to long-standing transparency requirements. Under current law, they must confidentially report the names and addresses of substantial donors to the IRS and they are already prohibited from participating or intervening in political campaigns. These common sense safeguards already protect taxpayers preserve donor privacy and help ensure the integrity of our charitable sector and our elections. But the Foreign Funding Transparency Act goes far beyond those existing requirements. It would require charitable organizations to publicly report the aggregate amount of contributions they receive from foreign nationals each year, and would separately require them to report contributions from so-called foreign countries of concern. And to comply with those requirements, organizations would effectively have to ask every single one of their donors for their nationality, even though that is not information charities currently collect. Think about what that means. Your local food bank, your neighborhood homeless shelter, a disaster relief organization, helping families recover after wildfire, a charity collecting toys for children during the holidays, All of these organizations would have to begin asking every single donor about their nationality before accepting even a dollar's worth of contributions. Imagine wanting to donate twenty dollars to help wildfire survivors support your local food bank or give back during the holidays only to be met with intrusive questions about your nationality before your donation can be accepted. That doesn't increase transparency, it creates unnecessary barriers between charities and the people who simply want to help. And that's exactly why organizations that represent the non-profit sector, including the National Council of Non-profits, oppose this legislation. They understand what Republicans apparently do not. Every additional reporting requirement means more time spent on paperwork and less time. spent serving communities. And in fact, I submit for the record three letters from organizations opposing this requirement and this bill and that is from the Council on Foundations, from the independent sector, and from the AFL CIO.

Without objection.

So once again, rather than addressing the challenges Americans actually face, Republicans are advancing legislation that will make it harder for charitable organizations to feed families, respond to disasters, support veterans, care for vulnerable communities, and provide critical services across this country. I urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back.

The committee will now proceed to consideration of HR ninety-seven seventy-two, the Foreign Funding Transparency Act. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Bartel, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.

Mister Chairman, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents, JCX thirty-five twenty-six and JCX thirty-nine twenty-six, which describe the underlying legislation and the Chairman's amendment the nature of a substitute. By way of background and summary, tax-exempt organizations under present law are generally required to file information returns annually. This is usually the f- uh, form nine ninety. This legislation requires additional information from specified tax-exempt organizations. A specified tax-exempt organization under this legislation is defined as an organization whose gross receipts are greater than or equal to two hundred thousand dollars per year or have assets as of the close of the prior taxable year, greater than or equal to one half million dollars. The aggregate contributions that these organizations receive from foreign nationals are to be part of detail- uh, information required to re- be, uh, reported on the form nine ninety with more detailed breakdown with respect to foreign nationals from foreign countries of concern. This legislation, uh, and then the Chairman's amendment in nature of substitute makes clerical changes uh in identifying sub-sections rather than sections. The legislation itself would be effective for returns filed for taxable years beginning one year after the date of enactment, and the staff of the joint committee has estimated that this would have a negligible effect on federal receipts for the fiscal uh period of twenty-twenty-seven through twenty-thirty-six. That uh concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Mister Doggett has recognized the strike, the last word.

Mister Chairman, uh, a day devoted in this committee to tax exempt organizations instead of the concerns that most American families face, but surprisingly, a day devoted to tax exempt organizations that totally omits the leading tax exempt organization in the country. That's called the Trump Organization. Uh, abusing public trust for private gain has become a way of life for the Trump family.

That's very bad.

Uh, they uh know that they can get away with anything they want because of the enablers they have here in this Congress. As for tax exempt or non-government organizations that are the subject of the four bills before us today, authoritarians around the world deplore NGOs, non-government organizations, because by their very nature they can't totally control and dominate them.

Yeah.

There's nothing in this first bill for the family, the steering, a grocery bill that climbs higher Nothing for the young family that is priced out of having their first home. Nothing for the worker who's wondering whether a decent retirement will ever be within reach. Nothing for the millions of American families that Republicans forced out of affordable care and into Trump nothing care. This bill lowers not a single cost and lifts not a single wage. What it does do is to take our tax code and weaponize it against charities, congregations and unions. that serve American families every day. Let's describe what is actually required. Every charity, every university, house of worship, community group in America files a form nine ninety wi- which would now have to interrogate its donors about where they were from, and hand a foreign donor ledger to the federal government. A donor's nationality is not information that charities normally collect. So, Food Bank in Austin, scholarship fund, a children's hospital, we'd each have to build a system to card their donors and sort them by country. And for what? It stops no adversary of America. It doesn't protect our families. It's already illegal to route foreign money into elections. What it reaches is lawful and often admirable generosity, the international student who gives back to the university that educated her, the foreign foundation that's underwriting cancer research, the immigrant who ties to her parish, the International Union, excuse me, who receives dues from its Canadian members. All of these are legal transactions, and all of it under this bill is treated as suspect. Now, I'm the last person in this room to defend secrecy in politics. This committee knows that the corrosive flood of money, of anonymous corporate and billionaire money that's coursing through the dark money, five O one C fours and into our elections. If the majority really wanted a genuine transparency bill, that money should also be its target. And of course it's not. Instead, this bill trains its fire on lawful giving from those who are not American, while the anonymous domestic billionaire that actually distorts our democracy sails on totally untouched. And we ought to be honest about what kind of law this is, because we've seen it before. Forcing nongovernment organizations to catalog their foreign funding is the opening move in the authoritarians' playbook. Russia wrote that playbook back in twenty-twelve, branding its nonprofits as, quote, foreign agents, and it strangled them thereafter. This is the first step in the right same direction. Today, the Republic of Georgia has a law, and I'm not inventing the name, transparency of foreign influence law, which forces any group that makes more than a fifth of its support from abroad to register as serving a foreign power. It's driven thousands out onto the streets of Tbilisi and sta- and stalled the country's path into Europe. In India, a foreign funding disclosure regime has been used to cancel groups like Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and Oxfam. In Nicaragua, foreign agents law became the pretext to shut down thousands of charities and seize their assets from cancer clinics to save the children. Every one of these regimes began with the same reassuring promise, that it was only about transparency. I think there's a real danger from this bill and the other bills that are before us today. It's critical that we uh provide reasonable protection for these organizations that provide such benefit uh for our country. Uh, let's not politicize and weaponize them. Let them do their jobs. What will this bill do is just to chill lawful, generous giving, bury our charities in paperwork, and hand the Treasury Department, that has already openly declared war on civil society, a fresh list of targets. I yield back.

Mister Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my strong opposition to the bill before us. H R nine seven seven two, the supposed Foreign Fund and Transparency Act. According to the bill's description, H R nine seven seven two is intended to require disclosure by certain tax example organizations of information relating to foreign contributions to such organizations. Yet a deeper dive reveals that the bill is drafted would essentially compel non-profits to ask for and report on the nationality of donors, among other items of information as determined in the future by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is information currently not required or collected. The legislative changes mandated by this bill will do nothing more than increase the administrative and reporting burdens for valuable non-profit organizations, many of which are already struggling to contain and sustain their programming during these tumultuous times. Since the onset of the Trump administration, we have seen US government funding and services slash delayed, paused or restructured. And when this occurs, who do the American people turn to in order to fill the gap? The answer is simple. They turn to the not-for-profit organizations. The very same entities that may be negatively impacted by this bill are the very same entities that have had to step in to deliver critical public services and assistance over the past year and a half to combat such issues as homelessness, behavior health, workforce development, child care, food insecurity, immigrant services, and the list goes on. So instead of collaborating on ways to better support the non-profit sector, or address the portability challenges facing American families and workers, my Republican colleagues are instead advancing harmful policies that target non-profit charities and unions, policies that will potentially have a chilling effect on the abilities of these organizations to generate funding to carry out their important missions. The bill before us also fails to include any dawn of privacy exemption or guardrails as we've seen in past bipartisan approaches to this issue, which is partly why the National Council of Non-Profits, the AFL-CIO, and the Council of Foundations have all raised concerns about the committee's consideration of H. R. nine seven seven two as currently drafted. As Americans continue to struggle, as small businesses and nonprofits alike suffer, and as our economy weakens, I urge my colleagues to revisit this harmful partisan bill and instead focus on the more pressing matters confronting our fellow citizens, the cost of milk, eggs, bread, and gasoline. I thank you, Mister Chairman, and you're back to balance with my time.

Thank you, Miss Moore.

Thank you so much uh for yielding Mister Chairman. I actually wanted to engage in a a colloquy with uh Mister Doggett. Uh he made some observations about the uh hamstringing of nongovernmental organizations and I was wondering if he had if he saw a through line between that and the and um what has happened in international um organizations and what's happening here with this bill. What I'm thinking of uh Mister Doggett is for the first time member directed spending or so-called earmarks we were not allowed to provide them to community-based organizations. And so many of our CBOs in this country do the work that government uh can't do on the local level. And I was just want to yield to you to elaborate that uh because I have been to countries where I've seen them attack the free press, and NGOs of we've actually met with NGOs almost in secret. in some countries. And I wanted to yield to you um to elaborate on that a little bit.

Well, the gentleman is certainly correct that this is a worldwide uh phenomenon. Wherever there's authoritarian government, wannabe tyrants and kings, they like to suppress nongovernment organizations. And you will certainly remember that the first foreign leader that President Trump met with before he was inaugurated was Viktor Orban of Hungary.

Right.

He made a crusade out of attacking George and other forces in what was truly an anti-semitic campaign, uh to get uh universities and any kind of foreign organization out of Hungary. Now fortunately, uh despite the campaign efforts of President Trump and Vice President Vance going to his last campaign rally, the people of Hungary after sixteen horrible years were able to overthrow and vote out Orban. Hopefully it's not gonna take us that long here in the United States to reclaim our government. But the point you made, the point Mister Davis made, is very significant, uh, that, uh, community organizations are having to fill in the gaps, uh, at food banks, uh, in education, uh, in one area after another throughout our states, uh, for what the Trump administration, the Trump regime is failing to provide. All the cuts they're doing in order - order to fund their foreign wars, uh and their tax breaks for billionaires. And this is part of the same effort, deny the funding that we can no longer provide to a community organization that we might respect in our communities, uh so that they don't have the resources to do the job, and now impose additional paperwork on them, uh not because of their abuse, but because they are serving and they're serving in a way that is independent and not totally reliant on the Trump regime. So I think that's the focus, and as as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it's not just Hungary, you can look at Nicaragua, uh you can look at Turkey, uh you can look at one country after another around the world where you have all power being concentrated in a single person, and they want to be rid of nongovernment organizations. And then there of course is the total contradiction today that I know you're familiar with uh that uh you talk about tax exempt organizations But you exempt from the discussion the number one tax exempt organization, uh that being the Trump Organization. They don't want to pay taxes. Trump doesn't want to pay taxes on billions of dollars that he earned last year. And this Republican uh committee and Republicans in general are determined that he doesn't ever face an audit about it. He can pay kind of what he wants to pay, and one year in the past he was generous enough on huge earnings to pay seven hundred and fifty dollars, which was more than most years when he didn't pay a dime.

Um, thank you so much, Mister Doggett, I was curious and I was reflecting on being in Hungary and being very anxious to get out of there. And so with that I would yield back.

Mister Beier.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, I too am deeply concerned about the current state of foreign affair- interference in U S domestic policies, that Trump has made it clear that his administration is pay for play. Every day is a new news article about Trump being bought by a foreign government, all so he can enrich himself and his buddies. Just look at UAE buying a stake in World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company owned by the Trump family, and then being rewarded with importing NVIDIA chips or Qatar and Air Force One, since Trump proudly boasted about that the other day. But instead of looking at the elephant in the room, with repeated and well-documented inappropriate foreign influence and self-dealing, we are here today to attack our charitable sector. And instead of operating on evidence and working in a bipartisan manner to address undue influence like how the ballroom or inaugural committee donations were handled, we're making sweeping proposals that infect the entire charitable sector. It's hard not to view this then as another part of the administration's strategy to silence actors it doesn't like, rather than a good faith effort to address malign foreign influence. The practical effect of requiring nonprofits to ask for the nationality of all their donors is that it will create a chilling effect on their donations at a time when charitable donations are slowing. While limiting foreign interference in domestic matters is important, being thoughtful about how we craft legislation so that we are not creating laws that could be weaponized against Americans silencing political dissidents, or for racial profiling, that should be paramount. We've seen time and again how xenophobic sentiment has been weaponized inappropriately in Congress to attack and discriminate against Americans in the US. A nonprofit could set up a selective screening system where those with certain names are the ones who get their nationality questioned. Or you could see this affect diaspora communities. I represent a number of very important diaspora communities in Northern Virginia, folks with legal status who donate to an international pro-democracy or foreign human rights organization, but they fear retribution from their home country, including to their relatives who still live back that home country. This bill could suppress diaspora giving for fear of government surveillance or political fallout at home. And in this administration, we've already seen how they like to create enemy lists. There are very real cases, including some of my constituents, that this administration has initially tried to harass, bringing them up on charges of false pretenses and more. It's not unrealistic to think someone on a green card, who was here legally as a resident, would refrain from donating to an organization for fear of being placed on Stephen Miller's enemies list. We've seen this from Stephen and Katie many times already. And this negatively impacts unions who have members who are non-U. S. citizens or LPRs and risk chilling fundraising for fear of generalizations about the national origin of a donation. And then there's the question of disaster relief. If someone from another country wants to donate to our many disasters, let them. Is that malign influence? I don't think so. We need all the money we can get to support local communities after a disaster. And then let's talk about whether someone lies to these organizations about their nationality. There's still sufficient legal ambiguity in this should-have-known standard that puts these organizations in a tricky position. And if they do everything correctly and report foreign donations regardless of what the percent is, said organization could be weaponized by opponents as being foreign-funded or un-American. I'm really concerned. This is not a bill that helps present hostile foreign actors intent on illicitly influencing U. S. policy. They are unlikely to be caught up in this regime, but rather this will be a burden for compliant charities, those who do obey the law, while foreign influence networks use shell corporations or domestic conduits. And transparently, since my Republican party's belief that the social safety net should come from the church or the private sector, I'm really surprised to see this this attack on the very entities expected to provide relief. This goes too far to risk that safety net without meaningfully trying to fix the problem,

The sponsor is trying to fix. Mister Chairman, you're back.

Thank you. Are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, we will move to amendments. Are there any amendments in the nature of a substitute? Mister Horsford.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, before I begin, I request unanimous consent.

A point of order has been reserved. Um, uh, would the gentleman suspend while the amendment is distributed? Gentlemen proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh before I begin I request unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the AFL CIO citing their concerns on this bill.

Without objection.

Thank you. This underlying bill makes it that every single donation to a non-profit must be surveilled. The bill is as simple as that. The bill requires that non-profits will track every contribution and be required to ask you what nationality you are. What I don't understand is how my colleagues are afraid to fund the IRS, but now you want the IRS to identify and track the nationality of every person to ever donate to a charity. Let's put that into perspective with unions. The bill is so broad that even union dues would count under this bill. So a union is now going to be required to track every single member and group every member by nationality under your bill. A union's job is to advocate for all of its workers, not surveilance. Yet this bill would require every union, every food pantry, to create hidden lists of nationalities for the government to have on them. I dare you to come to Nevada and to tell union workers that I represent, that the government is now requiring a list to track you. And what's so ironic is that in all of these bills, Not once are we dealing with m- billion dollar multinational corporations that can donate through U S subsidies. So why are we requiring food pantries and unions to be the targets? Make it make sense. So my amendment is simple. I would like to exclude labor organizations from this bill. A labor union is meant to represent all workers in the workforce. US citizens and legal foreign nationals. Uh, if you stand with workers, if you stand with their right, uh, to organize, then you will support my amendment. Otherwise, you are supporting a surveillance state, uh, government over these transactions and the collection of their information including their nationality. With that, I yield back.

Thank you. Are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Horsford. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, no. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, no. Mr. LaHood.

Mister LaHood.

Mister LaHood is

Yes, I'm not.

Mister LaHood, yes.

We're good.

He

Yes, I am.

he said

He said no.

Mister LaHood, no.

He said no.

Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, no. Mister Smucker. Mister Hearn.

No.

Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Mister Kustof. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stuebe. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Moore.

No.

Mr. Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, no. Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Feenstra, no. Miss Maliatakis. Miss Maliatakis, no. Mr. Kerry.

No.

Mr. Kerry, no. Mr. Yockem.

No.

Mr. Yockem, no. Mr. Miller.

No.

Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean.

Bean, no.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran. Mister Moran, no. Mister Neal.

Yes.

Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis.

Yes. Hi.

Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

Hi.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell. Miss DelBene.

Hi.

Miss DelBene, yes. Miss Chiu.

Hi.

Miss Chiu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Aye.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes. Aye.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

Yes.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, yes. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi.

Aye.

Mister Swazi, yes.

Mm.

Mister Smith of Nebraska.

No.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister Errington. Mister Errington, no. Mister Schmucker. Doctor Murphy.

No.

Doctor Murphy, no. Mister Kustof. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Miss Sewell. Mister Gomez. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

No.

Chairman Smith, no.

How is Mister Custoff recorded?

Mister Custoff is not recorded. Mister Custoff, no.

How is Mister Gomez recorded?

Mister Gomez is not recorded.

Aye.

Mister Gomez, yes.

Clerk will call the roll.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are seventeen and the noes are twenty-two.

Repeat the number.

Yeses are seventeen and the noes are twenty-two.

There being seventeen yeses and twenty-two noes, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?

True, true, true.

Mr. Chair, I wish to offer an amendment.

It's true?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

A point of order has been reserved will the gentle lady um suspend while the amendment is distributed. You can proceed.

Over the past eighteen months, Americans have grown exhausted by Donald Trump's blatantly corrupt pay-to-play scheme. Time and time again, Trump has shown exactly who he works for himself. The day before Trump's inauguration, billionaire Justin Sun announced he would be purchasing forty-five million dollars in crypto tokens from the World Liberty Financial, the family's uh crypto business of Trump. A month later, Trump's SEC announced they'd be pausing an investigation started by the Biden administration into Sun's alleged crypto crimes. Last year, the Qatari royal family donated a a Boeing airplane to used as his Air Force one jet. A jet, I must note, was recently grounded because it was discovered it lacked the required defensive capabilities only after the president had flown on it for official business. But even after upgrades, the jet won't be used for official business, instead it will be donated to Trump's future presidential library. And speaking of that presidential library, in May it was announced that the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank group donated fifty million dollars to Trump's Presidential Library Foundation, a five O one C three organization. This is exactly the type of non-profit that Republicans are demanding provide more transparency and information regarding contributions or donations from foreign nationals. So my amendment is simple. If Republicans are truly serious about ensuring certain tax-exempt organizations report how many contributions they receive from foreign nationals and from where, then they should have no problem at all with ensuring President Trump's tax-exempt organizations are beholden to the same requirements. My amendment would ensure that presidential libraries and the tax-exempt organizations that operate them like Trump's Presidential Library Foundation, are subject to the requirements of this bill and therefore would be mandated by the same public rep- re- public reporting requirements as Republicans are demanding of other similarly structured tax-exempt organizations. I urge support for my amendment and I yield back.

Is there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Mister Doggett?

Sponsors of this bill are telling us that uh they're so deeply troubled by foreign money going into non-profit organizations, but they ignore the leading uh tax exempt organization in this country, the Trump Organization, and its various uh entities that are out there like the Library Foundation. Uh, they ignore the fact that the Trump Organization, the Trump regime, is out turning on the money spigot in one country after the world. uh around the world, one country after another. Uh, this amendment, a very solid amendment, simply includes the president's own presidential library foundation among those who must disclose. And that's appropriate since it's a five O one C three organization. It files the very same form nine ninety that this bill amends. It's a specified tax exempt organization under the text of their proposal. Uh, it just assures that the president on this foundation cannot wiggle out as he has wiggled out from most everything else, but he ought to at least apply the - we ought to at least apply the same rule to him that we would to a food pantry or a church under this bill. And consider why this matters. Under this bill is written a food bank in Austin must interrogate its donors and report every dollar that comes from abroad. But the president of the United States could accept a four hundred million dollar luxury jet from Qatar, fly it as Air Force one, at least fly it one way, he didn't have it up to date enough to, even after spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, to come back from Turkey, but fly it under this expense and then hand it over in a matter of just a few months to his tax example library foundation and potentially disclose nothing about it. If this committee is truly worried about foreign influence through tax example organizations, there's not a clearer case than Trump's jet, a gift of that size from a foreign government to the president's own nonprofit, a government that depends on him to protect our military uh on hit their soil and ours. The Chew amendment makes sure that there is disclosure, and it's not only the jet. Corporations with billions of dollars writing on the administration's decisions have pledged at least sixty-three million dollars to Trump's library. with the total value of gifts pouring in approaching half a billion dollars. Paramount, for example, routed sixteen million dollars into that library after a p- a phony Trump lawsuit. Uh, this is the very same company that Trump is relying upon to, uh, muzzle CNN just as it muzzled CBS. A deal that would hand, hand, uh, also at the same time gulf sovereign wealth funds like Cutters uh, s- major ownership interest over one of America's largest news companies. Meta paid twenty-two million, ABC fifteen million, Elon Musk ten million. These weren't gifts to history. They were payments from parties with business before the government, routed into a fund, controlled by the very man who would decide their fate. It wasn't a, a taxpayer-free operation. Uh, it was, uh, businesses knowing that this was just a normal course of business to uh to Trump. And there's another significant reason here that we need the disclosure that Congresswoman Chu is proposing. The original fund that was set up to fund the presidential library, the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund, was quietly dissolved down in Florida. Tens of millions of dollars that companies swear they paid cannot be accounted for, by those who have been acquired from the Senate. They had to write requesting that information. And it's unclear how much of that money may have found its way directly into Trump's pocket, or that of his family. In the dark, Mister Chairman, you cannot tell a library fund from a slush fund. And that's what this amendment is focused on. Disclosure is how you tell them apart. Uh, we spent all morning uh demanding that charities and universities and congregations bear their books on foreign money and then vote to keep the blinds drawn on the one tax exempt organization being as a foreign government piggy bank by the president himself. A vote against this amendment says plainly that transparency is for the food bank, but not for the powerful, not for those who are enriching themselves. Really the same kind of problems that we've seen with his destruction of the east wing of the White House, where again donors uh who had business before the government decided to pay him rather than uh compete in a fair uh way. Uh, so I urge the adoption of the amendment as a way of assuring some equity here and applying uniformly uh this new provision to Trump himself. I yield back.

Additional members wish to strike the last word. Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Miss Chiu. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith on Nebraska.

No.

Mister Smith on Nebraska, no. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, no. Mister Schweikert. Mister LaHood.

No.

Mister LaHood, no. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, no. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, no. Mister Hearn.

No.

Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe, no. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mister Moore.

No.

Mister Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra. No. Miss Malia Takis. Miss Malia Takis, no. Mister Kerry.

No.

Mister Kerry, no. Miss Klaus. No. Mister Yackem.

No.

Mister Yackem, no. Mister Miller. No. Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean. Miss Bean.

No. No.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran. No. Mister Moran, no. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell. Miss DelBene. Miss DelBene, yes. Miss Chu. Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle, mister Boyle, yes.

Miss Byer.

Mister Buyer, mister Buyer, yes.

Yes.

Mister Evans,

Yes.

mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider,

Yes. Yes.

mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta, mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez, mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford, mister Horsford, yes. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey.

I am.

Mister Swasey, yes. Mister Buchanan. Mister Schweikert.

No.

Mister Schweikert, no. Mister Errington. Mister Errington, no. Doctor Murphy.

I'm gonna go.

Mister Fitzpatrick.

How is Murphy recorded?

Doctor Murphy is not recorded.

Uh, no.

Doctor Murphy, no.

Mm.

Miss Van Duyn. Miss Sewell. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

No.

Chairman Smith, no. Mister Chairman, the yeses are seventeen and the noes are twenty-three.

There being seventeen noes and Seventeen yeses and twenty-three noes. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DelBene, would you um Would you suspend while um the the amendment is distributed?

Mister Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

A point of order has been reserved. You can proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, my amendment is based on a simple principle, all Americans should pay their fair share. But that won't happen if the IRS lacks the resources needed to effectively enforce our tax laws. For years, Republicans have repeatedly cut IRS's enforcement funding and diminished the agency's workforce. And during the most recent tax filing season, the IRS was forced to reassign many of its remaining employees to responsibilities outside of their Mr. Chairman. Will the gentlewoman suspend?

Mr. Chairman, the committee room is not in order.

It has been a little obnoxious today with the people in this crowd, so let's keep it quiet.

Thank it. Uh, my colleagues across the aisle talk about how they wanna root out waste, fraud, and abuse in programs that working families rely on. Yet the current seven hundred billion dollar tax gap between what taxes are owed to the government and what it collects predominantly a result of wealthy people and corporations not paying their fair share. It's not from working families. And before you argue that this amendment is not related to the underlying bill, I would argue that it is necessary if you actually want to achieve the goals in the bill. For example, let's talk about your own bill's disclosure requirements. Those will only be effective when the agency responsible for enforcement has the personnel, the technology, and the expertise necessary to review those disclosures, identify inconsistencies, and enforce the law. You cannot demand greater transparency while simultaneously stripping the IRS of the resources needed to determine whether organizations are reporting foreign funding fully and accurately. My amendment restores the resources that my Republican colleagues have chipped away at, to provide better taxpayer service, protect the integrity of our tax system, reduce the deficit, and ensure that everyone, no matter how wealthy or powerful they are, follow the same rules. I urge adoption of my amendment and I yield back.

Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?

Mister Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment under clause seven of House rule sixteen, amendments that expand the scope of the underlying measure are not germane. This amendment expands the scope of the underlying measure beyond matters related to funding of the IRS, which are outside the scope of the underlying measure and therefore the amendment is not germane. I urge the chair to sustain the point of order.

Does the sponsor of the amendment wish to be heard on the point of order?

I do, Mr. Chairman. All of today's bills impose additional regulatory and oversight responsibilities on the IRS at a time when the agency is understaffed. My amendment would attempt to bridge the gap between what you are asking the IRS to accomplish and what the IRS actually has the resources to do. My amendment does not add anything outside the scope of the IRS. It simply restores funding that would support the agency in carrying out functions including those in this bill. The underlying bill expands compliance obligations on nonprofits. Adequate IRS resources are necessary for implementing those obligations, and this amendment addresses that.

I'm prepared to rule the amendment is not germane and the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

I'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair.

Mister Chairman, I move to table.

The question is on tabling the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

Yes.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweikert. Mister LaHood.

Yeah.

Mister LaHood, yes. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes.

Yes.

Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker. Mister Hearn.

Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller.

Yes.

Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy. Mister Custoff. Mister Custoff, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick.

Yes.

Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stubbe.

Yes.

Mister Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney.

Yes.

Miss Tenney, yes. Misses Fischbach.

Yes.

Misses Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore.

Aye.

Mister Moore, yes. Miss Van Duyn. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Miss Maliatakis. Miss Maliatakis, yes. Mister Kerry. Mister Kerry, yes. Mister Joachim.

Yes.

Mister Joachim, yes. Mister Miller.

Yes.

Mister Miller, yes. Mister Bean.

Yes.

Mister Bean, yes. Mister Moran.

Yes.

Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, no. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, no. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, no. Mister Larson.

No.

Mister Larson, no.

No.

Mister Davis. Mister Davis, no. Miss Sanchez.

No.

Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell.

Miss

No.

Sewell.

Miss Sewell, no. Miss Delbene.

No.

Miss Delbene, no. Miss Chu.

No.

Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore.

No.

Miss Moore, no. Mister Boyle.

No.

Mister Boyle, no. Mister Buyer.

No.

Mister Buyer, no. Mister Evans.

No.

Mister Evans, no. Mister Schneider.

No.

Mister Schneider, no. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, no. Mister Gomez.

No.

Mister Gomez, no. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, no. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Mister Swasey, no. Mister Buchanan. Mister Schweikert.

Yes.

Mister Schweikert, yes. Mister Arrington. Mister Smucker. Dr. Murphy. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith? Yes.

Clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-one and the noes are eighteen.

There being twenty-one yeses and eighteen noes, the appeal is tabled. Are there additional Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no.

No. No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Smith for purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move that the committee favorably report HR ninety seven seventy two as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is an emotion to favorably report H R ninety-seven, seventy-two as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweikert. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker. Mister Hearn.

Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick.

Yes.

Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stuebe.

Yes.

Mister Stuebe, yes. Miss Tenney.

Yes.

Miss Tenney, yes. Misses Fischbach.

Yes.

Misses Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore.

Ten. Yes.

Mister Moore, yes. Miss Van Duyn. Mister Feenstra. Miss Malia Tauches. Miss Malia Tauches, yes. Mister Kerry.

Yes.

Mister Kerry, yes. Mister Joachim.

Yeah.

Mister Joachim, yes. Mister Miller.

Yes.

Mister Miller, yes. Mister Bean.

Yes.

Mister Bean, yes. Mister Moran. Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, no. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, no. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, no. Mister Larson. Mister Larson, no. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell.

No.

Miss Sewell, no. Miss DelBene.

No.

Miss DelBene, no. Miss Chu.

No.

Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, no. Mister Boyle.

No.

Mister Boyle, no. Mister Buyer.

No.

Mister Buyer, no. Mister Evans.

No.

Mister Evans, no. Mister Schneider.

No.

Mister Schneider, no. Mister Panetta.

No.

Mister Panetta, no. Mister Gomez.

No.

Mister Gomez, no. Mister Horsford.

No.

Mister Horsford, no. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey.

No.

Mister Swasey, no. Mister Buchanan. Mister Schweikert. Mister LaHood. Mister LaHood, yes. Mister Errington.

Um, yes, yes.

Mister Errington, yes. I'm gonna go first. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Doctor Murphy. Miss Van Duyn. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Miss Plaskett.

How is Mister Schweikert recorded?

Mister Schweikert is not recorded. Mister Schweikert, yes. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

Clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-three and the noes are eighteen.

There being twenty-three yeses and eighteen noes, the motion is agreed to and H R ninety-seven seventy-two is amended, is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-seven seventy-two and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is H R ninety seven seventy one, the stopping foreign influence and elections act of twenty twenty six, introduced by Representative Maliatakis. As a member of both our tax and oversight subcommittees, as well as someone who has seen the effect that dark money has had on our elections, Representative Maliatakis appreciates the need to close this loophole and keep wealthy foreign donors out of our politics. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I'm pleased to recognize the General Lady from New York, Miss Mali-Takis, for an opening statement.

Well, thank you, Mister Chairman. I appreciate uh this bill, my stopping foreign influence in elections act of twenty twenty six being included in today's mark-up. Foreign nationals should not be able to use tax exempt organizations as a vehicle to influence American elections. Our election should be decided by American voters. not by foreign billionaires who can move money through a network of non-profit organizations and political groups to influence our democratic process. Under current law, foreign nationals are prohibited from donating directly to political committees, but there are no restrictions preventing those same foreign nationals, including those from adversarial nations such as China, Cuba, Russia and Iran, from funneling money through tax exempt organizations that then transfer funds to committees including super PACs that are involved in our elections. This is a significant loophole and my legislation, HR nine seven seven one, closes it in a straight forward and targeted way. Reporting suggests that foreign nationals have taken advantage of this loophole in the tax code which allows tax exempt organizations that receive contributions from foreign nationals to then turn around and donate large sums to political committees. For example, Swiss billionaire Hans-Jörg Weiss has reportedly used his US-based tax-exempt organizations to contribute to other organizations that then directed significant sums into the political process. Mister Weiss operated both a five O one C three organization, the Weiss Foundation, and a five O one C four organization, the Burger Action Fund. According to reporting by the New York Times, Cited in the House Ways and Means Committee report, the Burger Action Fund contributed more than a hundred and thirty-five million dollars to the sixteen thirty fund over a four year period. And in twenty twenty alone, that sixteen thirty fund contributed sixty-three million dollars to Super PAC supporting President Biden and the Democrats. The bill prohibits larger tax-exempt organizations from making contributions committees for two years after receiving a gift or contribution from a foreign national. The restriction applies to organizations with at least two hundred thousand dollars in annual gross receipts or five hundred thousand dollars in assets. The bill also establishes escalating penalties for sex-exempt organizations that violate this prohibition by accepting contributions from foreign nationals and then donating to political committees. After a third violation, the organization's tax exempt status is suspended for a two-year period, beginning on the date the prohibited contribution is made. The legislation is similar to H R eighty-three fourteen, the No Foreign Elections Interference Act, which this committee passed on a bipartisan basis last Congress. The bill before us builds on that effort by incorporating important improvements that make the legislation more practical, proportional, administratively feasible, to enforce. This legislation also ensures that organizations cannot simply vote, um, route money through a five O one C four organization to evade these restrictions. Because certain five O one C four organizations may make unlimited contributions to political committees including Super PACs, closing the political, closing the potential work-around is an important part of this bill. I would also like to clarify a common misconception about this legislation. This bill does not prohibit or interfere with unions or trade associations that receive membership dues from foreign individuals. Those payments are considered business expenses rather than gifts or contributions and are therefore outside the scope of this legislation. This bill is not aimed at program, service, revenue, or membership dues. It is narrowly focused on gifts and contributions made to tax exempt organizations that subsequently make contributions to political committees, including Super PACs. Look, the purpose of this legislation is simple. Foreign nationals should not be able to contribute to tax-exempt organizations, and then have those funds ultimately used to influence American elections. Mister Schweikert's bill requires the transparency to know who's doing it, and our bill penalizes it. Our elections belong to the American people. H R nine seven seven one, the stopping foreign influence in elections act of twenty twenty six is an important step toward ensuring that foreign money does not find its way into our political process through non-profit organizations and I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I yield back thank you.

I now recognize the ranking member.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to yield my time to the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford.

I thank uh the ranking member for yielding uh time and to the chairman Uh, look, first I want to request unanimous consent to enter into the record, uh, the FEC website that specifically states, uh, that foreign nationals, uh, cannot directly or indirectly contribute, uh, to, uh, campaigns.

Without objection.

Thank you. I also want to thank my colleagues for finally showing us what this committee's priorities are, because it sure isn't the affordability crisis. Families in my district from North Las Vegas to Beatty are being squeezed every month by the cost of groceries, rent, child care, gas prices and insurance every single month. And what has this committee done about it? Absolutely nothing. A tax refund from four months ago is not paying for It does not pay August's grocery bill or September's child care payment. You cannot solve a monthly crisis with a one-time payment, and everybody in this committee knows it. So what are we doing today? With this committee's limited time while families ration insulin and skip meals. We are debating the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations. We are adding punitive steps to target unions and food banks. My question is why. Federal law already prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, donations, or expenditures in connections with federal, state, and local elections. And if the thought process is that a five O one C can be a pass through here, then write a clearer bill that does that. Instead, we're here to debate a bill that the majority knows will weaponize the tax code against organizations they don't like. Let's name the organizations being targeted. Food banks, community health centers, civil rights organizations. That's how broadly this bill is written. So instead of lowering the damn rent or making sure insurance premiums don't feel like you're getting mugged, this committee is focused on punishing political enemies through the IRS. But let's talk about what this bill is, if it, what it does. If an organization, any five O one C, received any donation from any foreign national in the past two years, every political contribution becomes radioactive. I wanna put that in perspective for my colleagues who claim to be pro-union, because labor unions are five O one C organizations. That means if a single union, local, has a single dues-paying member who isn't a US national, under this bill, the union's voice in our democracy gets taxed into silence. To my colleagues on the other side who have spent the last few years telling us how pro-worker they've become, the unions have looked at this bill and they don't like it. The unions are telling you it hits them. The people that you claim to fight for are telling you in plain English that this bill silences them. So where is your voice? Where is your anger on behalf of your constituents? When a bill drafted to muzzle working men and women comes to this committee, my colleagues are suddenly silent. In fact, some of them aren't even here. Families can't afford this economy, and this committee can't be bothered to care. It is already illegal. for foreign nationals to directly or indirectly inject money into our elections. The American people are telling us they can't afford basic living standards. That is what the serious issue is that we should abr- be addressing. And before we leave for some August district work period, that's what this committee should be taking up, not a tax on non-profit organizations. that provide services to our constituents. I yield back.

The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety-seven seventy-one, the stopping foreign influence and elections act of twenty twenty-six. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text. for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Bartel, Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment and the nature of its substitute, with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. The, uh, committee members have before them two joint committee documents, JCX thirty-six twenty-six and JCX forty twenty-six, which describe the underlying legislation and the chairman's amendment and nature of a substitute. The Chairman's Amendment, the nature of a substitute, uh, corrects some, uh, singular nouns to, uh, plural nouns to basic- basically, uh, review what the legislation does. It provides that if any organization exempt under section five O one C makes a contribution to a political entity and if in the two year period prior to that contribution the organization has received a contribution or gift from a foreign national, then the organization has made what the legislation defines as a disqualified political committee contribution. There is then imposed a tax of one hundred percent of the value of a disqualified political committee contribution on the first such instance of such contribution. Second instance of such a contribution, a two hundred percent tax is imposed. Uh, and in a third instance, a two hundred percent tax is imposed, plus there's a two year l- period loss of exemption for the organization. An additional penalty is provided under this legislation, equal to two hundred percent of the value of the contribution, uh, by specified tax exempt organizations, and these are certain larger tax exempt organizations. This legislation would be effective for contributions made after the date which is one year after the date of enactment. And the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this would increase uh federal receipts by less than five hundred thousand dollars over the budget period of fiscal years twenty-twenty-seven through twenty-thirty-six. Uh, that concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Miss Chu.

Mister Chair, and uh Mister Bartold, under this bill, a tax-exempt organization that receives even a single contribution from a foreign national during the previous two years would be penalized for making contributions to a political entity, including a section five O one C four organization. If they do so, the organizations could even lose its tax-exempt status for the next two years. Before I begin, I want to clear be clear about one point. Under current law, foreign nationals already prohibit it from contributing to candidates, political committees, and other political organizations. No one on this committee is proposing to weaken those protections. My concern is that this legislation reaches far beyond federal election spending and instead penalizes charities and nonprofits for accepting lawful foreign donations that have nothing to do with politics. So, Mister Bartlett, I'd like to understand how broadly this proposal would apply. There is no minimum dollar amount of foreign contributions that would trigger these restrictions, it could be as little as a dollar or even fifty cents. Is that correct?

Uh, that is correct, Miss Chu.

There is no specific prohibition on union dues being considered contributions, therefore unions could be affected. So let's say the IRS interprets

Uh, uh, Ms. Chu, under present treasury regulations, there's a distinction between contributions and union dues. Uh, but if you stipulate, as you just did, that the treasury were to treat dues as contributions, uh, then, yes, the, uh, union organization could be subject to these, uh, penalties.

OK. Uh, let's say that a US-based tax exempt charity accepts donations from a Canadian grocery store chain, that solicits donations through a customer round-up program. I mean, it might be seven cents. But if the charity receives a donation in such a manner, would they pro- be prohibited from making contributions to a five O one C four social welfare organization?

Uh, the legislation does not provide a prohibition, uh, but it would s- uh, potentially subject the, uh, charitable organization to the, uh, penalty excise tax that they're describing.

So, so the answer is yes. Let's say a US-based tax-exempt disaster relief organization responds to a catastrophic wildfire, like the Eaton fire that devastated my district, and a donor living in Mexico contributes online to support recovery efforts. Under this proposal, would that organization be therefore prohibited for from making contributions to section five O one C four social welfare organization?

Well, again, just to be precise, not a prohibition, but the organization could be subject to the uh penalty excess.

Well, then the answer is yes. Suppose a US-based tax-exempt or humanitarian organization provides medical care overseas and receives a small recurring donation from an Australian supporter of ten dollars a month to help fund that charitable work. Under this proposal would this organization be penalized if it makes contributions to political entities, including five O one C four social welfare organizations.

I I should probably clarify a little bit further. The legislation uh provides that the charitable organization uh can uh, make a reasonable, uh, representation of, of, uh, whether a person is, uh, a donor is foreign, uh, or not. I, I think in the case that you've just described, if it's a regular foreign, uh, foreign donor, it would be reasonable to assume that the organization knew that it was foreign and so would be subject to the necklace.

Well, this, yeah. So the answer is yes. Finally, none of these examples involve foreign nationals contributing to political organizations or election campaigns.

Uh, that's correct, Ms. Chu.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you, Mr. Barthold. These answers confirm my serious concerns that this legislation will do nothing to prevent foreign influence in our elections, and will instead hugely penalize nonprofits and even unions from being able to accept any funding from foreign nationals and entities. This is not a serious proposal I yield back.

Thank you. I have a couple technical questions, Mr. Bartold. Um, uh, as as the gentleman from Las Vegas referred to earlier, um, putting into the record, um, saying that it is a it is illegal for members of Congress to receive foreign donations in the FEC, all of that. I have a question about foreign dollars into these nonprofits, which this bill is about. Um, any nonprofit that receives foreign dollars, is there anything that excludes them to give to a political activity?

Uh, are we talking about five O one C-three organizations,

C-three's, C-fours,

Mr. C- Well, in the, in the case of, uh, C-threes, remember that there's limitations on, uh, uh, what there's definition of exempt purpose and it does not include political activity. Uh, political

But can a C-three give to a C-four?

C-threes can give to C-

And so if foreign money came into a C-three, that C-three still can give to a C-four.

That that's correct, Mister.

So right now, under the current process and the current law, foreigners are able to indirectly fund political operations and political activities.

Uh, as, as you've described, the flow of uh, flow of funds as possible.

Yeah, absolutely. And so anyone who's opposing Miss Malitakis's bill wants foreign dollars to stay indirectly into these political activities, because it's a fact. We can go through many organizations where foreign dollars come in to five O one C three's then convert it to C fours, those C fours then are involved in political activities. But if we do it, as members of Congress, we go to prison. But it's okay for these non-for-profits to do it. I yield back. Miss Moore.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Bartow, uh, with regard to the chairman's, uh, inquiries, Um, five O one C fours are not allowed under current law to engage in political activity that supports or is against a candidate. Am- is that correct? Like a C four might be able to do political education, allowing people, I mean, letting people know that there is an election, uh, maybe do some, uh, political training, uh, uh of young people in the community um a five O one C four may do voter registration that is a non-partisan activity is it or is it not true that any donations that go through a C four the C four activities are limited to non-partisanship is that or is that not true

the the this is an essential point that uh this is actually The the substantial activity and purpose of C four is for social welfare, so that can include uh advocating certain uh certain outcomes, so it's not per se uh non-partisan.

Uh certain outcomes, can a five O one C four uh uh mobilize activities to support President Trump for election?

It can't be substantial.

Yeah, if it's uh, if it's a minor part of the organization's uh activity,

Minor part, I

well less than fifty per- less than fifty percent.

I have never heard a C four do that. Yes. Would that be, is that something new? Yes. Um, are there must be Republican C fours that do that, cuz Democratic C fours do not do that. Yeah. They allow peop- they tell people that, you know November fourth fifth, whatever it is, is election day, make sure you get out and vote. Make sure you uh turn in your absentee ballot. Uh, is that not what C fours do? They do uh uh what would happen if a C four, ask your associate, had would they lose their tax exempt status if they indeed did that, send people to hit doors and say vote for Donald Trump?

Uh, I bel- as long as it's not the substantial uh activity of the C four organization, they can do get out the vote, as you described voter education and things.

Get get out the vote, naming the candidate.

Uh, I I believe uh I believe so, Ms. Moore.

Th- this is brand new law, sir. Uh, I would um, I would yield to Who else can I yield to, to sort of clarify this for me? I've never heard of this. Anyone here like to comment on the activities of C fours? Are there uh OK, thank you, Mr. Barthold.

Additional members wish to uh technical questions. Miss Sanchez.

Mister Barthold, I have a very straightforward ans- or question that I would love for you to answer. Um, in the text of the bill, Is there any definition that says that union dues are business expenses?

Uh, not in the text of the uh bill, Ms. Sanchez, uh, what I noted before.

I just asked for the text of the bill.

That's fine.

Thank you for the answer, and I yield back.

Additional technical questions. Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Um, Mr. Estes is recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word in support of stopping foreign influence in Elections Act of twenty twenty six. As a proud representative from Kansas, I know our constituents expect American elections to be sided by American citizens, and no one else. However, right now a dangerous backdoor allows foreign adversaries to launder dark money and drop it straight into our political system through non-profit activi- activists. This is not only wrong, but fundamentally endangers the security of our elections. The stopping foreign influence of in elections act of twenty twenty six slams the door shut on this avenue of abuse. For too long, certain tax-exempt entities have operated with impunity, taking foreign money with one hand and cutting checks to help political campaigns with the other. This bill establishes a strict escalating penalty framework to stop them. It says plainly that tax-exempt organizations can't use foreign dollars to influence our elections. Kansans are fiercely independent and will not sit idly by while dark foreign money pours into the sunflower state to interfere with our elections, and drown out the voices of Kansans. This bill draws a clear line in the sand. It closes the loophole, holds bad actors accountable, and protects the sanctity of the ballot box. Let's secure our democratic process, penalize those who compromise our sovereignty, foreign money out of Kansas elections once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.

Mister Doggett.

While foreign money certainly uh should not be permitted in any American election, this bill does not really further that goal. It's already illegal for a union, a charity, or any five O one C three organization to solicit or accept foreign money in connection with an election. This bill is not new protection. What it is is a trap for law ab- law abiding American organizations. Here's how it works. Take any established non-profit. A church that questions the brutality of ICE. A veterans' post that questions why American service members are being forced to die in a reckless war in Iran. A labor union, a conservation group, if it receives even a single gift from a single citizen within a two year window, then the contribution it later makes is branded as quote disqualified. And it's hit with escalating penalties, one hundred percent initially, rising to the loss of a tax exempt status. And it makes no difference whether a single dollar that was received from a foreign entity uh was ever spent on the contribution. The organization can wall these funds off and never touch them, but the penalty falls all the same. And note that while previous similar legislation that this committee considered, uh applied only to political action committees, this bill goes much further. It now penalizes grants to five O one C four social welfare organizations. So a charity that supports an allied advocacy group, a union that funds its community arm, routine entirely lawful transfers are now swept in. That is a major expansion of this bill, and it reaches into the everyday life of American civil society. Now ask the question, well who gets excluded? Who, how does this bill uh affect them? Whose money is safe and whose is not? Well, the for-profit multinationals and the American subsidia- subsidiaries of foreign corporations. That bankroll, their advocacy, their political action committees, their money keeps flowing. Untouched. It is nongovernmental organizations, unions, charities, membership groups that speak up for working people, the environment, and children that are placed in the crosshairs. This is not a shield against foreign influence. It is a muzzle that has been fitted for one side only. And that's why the legal women voters, faith organizations, the ACLU, and dozens of others have urged the committee to reject this proposal. I would have more understanding of this sudden Republican vigilance if it were applied evenly. This committee has previously demanded that the future farmers of America answer for its long-term sponsorship by Syngenta, a Chinese-owned company. Meanwhile, consider President Trump's own record. He took a quarter of a million dollars from that very same Syngenta. And I've heard no concern about that from colleagues, uh, some of whom have certainly never declined a syngenta political contribution. A royal from the United Arab Emirates put half a billion dollars, half a billion dollars into Trump's personal crypto-venture, nearly two hundred million of it flowing straight into the Trump family. And shortly after that, the administration just magically lifted export controls on our most advanced ultra- uh uh AI chips to a firm that uh comes under royal control. The steal for Trump's White House ballroom, donated by a company in Luxembourg, and within days, uh magically, that company was handed a tariff cut. And among the donors back-rolling the ballroom is Tether, a foreign-based crypto giant, giving through an American arm precisely the kind of foreign-linked corporate money that this bill leaves untouched. That is the pattern of foreign money reaching the president's businesses favors flowing back to the same business. There's a word for that, and the word is not philanthropy. Uh, I believe that we need to address the corruption that is plaguing our system. This bill would punish American charities and unions and spare the foreign-linked money that actually flows into a corrupt system, and reach deep instead into the ordinary workings of civil society. I urge uh c- committee members to join the League of Women Voters and the many other organizations who called on us to reject this proposal and do so quickly. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Miss Sanchez is recognized to strike the last word. Oh, uh, Miss Sewell is recognized to strike the last word.

Uh, Mister Chairman, I ask to strike the last word to oppose this bill. As a ranking member of the election subcommittee on the Committee on House Administration, I am constantly working on ways to make our elections more secure and expand access to the ballot box for all eligible American voters. We should all want to protect our elections from foreign in- in- influence. In fact, it is prohibited to have foreign influence. But this bill falls far short of this goal. By defining five O one C four social welfare organizations as political entities, this bill will have a chilling effect on the activities of charitable organizations that are working on critical community projects that have nothing to do with our elections. The Trump administration and the Congres- and Congressional Republicans have lost all credibility on election issues. Republicans refuse to condemn um President Trump's lies that he won the twenty twenty election. Republicans continue to push the Save America Act, which is the broadest voter suppression effort since Jim Crow. And Donald Trump just fired the entire leadership of the U. S. Election Assistance uh commission, which provides crucial assistance to states in running elections. If we were serious about securing and expanding our elections, we would all be calling out President Trump's lies and his dismantling of our democratic institutions. And we would pass the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the protection of the Voting Rights Act. This is not a serious attempt. to protect our democracy. And for that, I ask and encourage my colleagues who oppose this legislation. I yield back the balance.

And the lady yields back the balance of her time. Are others wishing to strike the last word? Mister Schneider?

Yep.

Mister Schneider is recognized to strike the last word for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, I move to strike the last word. Let me um just start with saying that I uh wanna echo the remarks of my friend and colleague from Las Vegas. Sorry, did I echo the friends and uh the words of my friends and colleagues from Las Vegas about the committee. Specifically with this bill though, I I will note that the the problem with my colleagues' rationale for the bill is that the draconian penalties applied to contributions to C four organization that does not engage in political activity. We're talking about an application to contributions to all C four uh organizations, which I think is something that's of concern. Looking more broadly, I'm also baffled by the chaotic week that's unfolding in the House of Representatives. For example, as we sit here today marking up four bills, the committee gave only last minute notice of the mark-up, right before we head out for the August recess. Giving members of this committee less than two days to parse full the through parse through the full implications of bills that propose to make massive changes to how non-profit organizations operate in the country. Last night on the floor, House Republicans passed a continuing resolution to fund the government for fiscal year twenty-seven at fiscal year twenty-six levels, through December, relinquishing relinquishing entirely even the appearance that Congress can actually and fund the damn government. God forbid with ten weeks left before the end of this fiscal year, we actually try to roll up our sleeves and do the work necessary to advance and try to, together, find common ground on a budget and funding bills that could actually pass both chambers of this Congress. There are ten weeks left. There's no reason why we are abdicating our responsibility and rushing out of town with a r- push through c- uh continuing resolution through December. CRs are bad. They're bad for federal agencies, bad for our military, bad for state and local governments, bad for American taxpayers that we are here supposedly to represent and work on behalf. I am tired of watching the Republican majority put walls up around the most extreme policies of their o- from their own conference and saying that this is our only offer. refusing to budge on anything to help garner bipartisan support, support that is necessary for a budget to pass through Congress. I'm tired of the same scene playing out when Democrats aren't on the board to go along with whatever garbage they put in front of us when Democrats want to have a say in what's included, if they want our vote. They pick up their ball, they cancel votes, they go home when they don't get their way. This year alone, votes have been canceled. Fifteen d- times. That's the equivalent of three weeks of snow days without the trace of snow. And that's what's happening time and time again, including this week, where we put a hyper-rushed partisan CR on the floor. We put it on ten weeks before a deadline, sending everyone home, and letting Republicans enjoy a vacation. This, the dysfunction in this place is unmatched in history. And we can't keep punting on the important decisions Congress has to make. We have ten weeks to do the job and fund the government before October first when the new year begins. But not with a CR. Let's do it with a real budget. We need to get serious. I yield back.

Are there other members wishing to strike the last word? Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sanchez is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While this bill may be well-intended, its consequences will harm American workers and the unions that represent them.

Good.

This bill puts labor unions, trade associations and other non-profits at risk of being penalized for participating in the political process. Now, Ms. Meliotakis claimed that union dues are business expenses and that this bill would not harm union members. However, Mister Barthold said that in this bill there is no definition and no clarification anywhere that says that union dues are business expenses. I haven't seen any section in the bill that says that and if if it were the case, and that were true, why does every single union oppose this bill? Because they know that that is not true and they know that this bill has a very real potential of hurting their members. Many major unions in the United States have international members. And this bill fails to address how their membership dues or agency fees would be treated. Does a union member paying dues in Canada count as an international contribution? Would that contribution force unions like the United Steelworkers or the AFC- AFL-CIO to pay a penalty? Labor unions and trade associations also represent foreign nationals on American soil. Permanent residents who hold green cards or an immigrant holding a temporary visa may fall under the category of a foreign national. Under this bill, their routine payments could have a consequence to a union or trade association's ability to participate in the political process. By leveling penalties on contributions to political organizations, we are discouraging unions and trade associations and other non-profits who have international members from participating in our politics. Now, if we wanna have a meaningful, bipartisan conversation about the impact of money in politics, and the need to get money out of politics, I am all ears. But this bill will do nothing but harm working men and women. And for those reasons, I oppose this bill strongly and I urge my colleagues to vote no as well. It just seems like Republicans can't help piling on working families that are struggling. On top of not addressing the high cost of housing, the high energy costs, the inflation uh inflation's effect on the purchase of everyday goods, like groceries, like beef and coffee, instead of trying to address those, you guys just seem to be piling on with more bills that further undermine the average American workers' ability to have a voice in who represents them, and who will fight for them. And so, instead of addressing affordability, we have just another bill that's here to kick working families in the teeth. I cannot support it. I urge a no vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Breen is recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, good morning to you and good morning, Waze. Uh, I will uh stress my objection whenever uh somebody from this dais says uh profane words. How about how about that? uh, it's just ways is better than saying bad words up here. I know we wanna say it sometimes for emphasis, but whether on, uh, either side of the aisle, let me s- state my objection. I didn't mean to or wasn't planning on speaking on this bill, but one thing that we agree on, or at least there I was led to believe we agree on, that foreigners shouldn't participate in Americans' elections. We can argue, uh, very well by ourselves without the rest of the world getting in on our argument. So we all say, you know, foreigners, uh, shouldn't participate in our elections. And so we do not allow a foreigner to give money to, I don't take money from foreign governments or foreign entities or foreigners. Uh, that's prohibited. But we have presented evidence, uh, the representative Mat- Malia Takis has presented evidence where foreigners have given money to, uh, nonprofits. They do that all the time. And then these nonprofits then turn around and give money directly to candidates and uh participate in elections. That is a loophole. That's a back door that needs to be closed. So even if you say, oh this never happens, uh it does happen, but even if you say it never happens, do you believe that foreigners should participate in our elections? And I don't think you sh- I I think we all agree we shouldn't. So uh I believe the the correct answer is to vote yes on the Malia Takis bill that says Americans only should participate in Americans, and let's close these loopholes which foreign billionaires, which he has already presented that evidence, uh let's stop that and let's make the American elections American.

Will the gentleman Will the gentleman

And with that I yield back.

The gentleman yields back.

Uh, point of order.

He's not seen as recognized as strike left.

Mr. Chairman.

Gentlelady is.

Point of order.

Uh, gentlelady uh state your point.

Yeah, just for clarification, what profanity was used on this dais?

Uh profany was used. Uh we'll move on. Mister Mur-

Can the chairman clarify what prof- what word was used?

It it's in the record. Mister Schneider uh spok

I uh I I don't believe that.

No,

Any profanity.

Mister Schneider b- Mister Schneider broke or spoke the - spoke the words

I said it.

Let's uh

Ah, okay,

I love you.

I'm sorry, I thought it was directed at me and I was uncharacteristically and non-profane in my comments. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Uh-huh.

I'll uh we'll move on. Mr. Murphy is recognized to strike the last word.

"Mr. Snyder, I'm gonna call your mother and have you wash your mouth out with soap." So the charge is that Democrat C-fors do not steer money to Democrat campaigns. Few minutes ago, my dear friend Miss Moore told us that Democrat C-fors quote, " They just don't do that." Touche, when referring to the idea that C-fors receive money from C-threes that originate from a foreign donor. Not true. In fact, it's false. Let me, let me give you an example here. I'd like to insert into the record an article from that grand august journal Politico. It's this article shows that Hans-J- or Hans-Johar Weiss donated thirty-one million dollars thirty-one million dollars from his C-four to the sixteen thirty fund, which is a DC-based non-profit, five, five O one C-four that operates as a major dark money hub for left-leaning progressive political causes in the US. In fact, the Politico described it as a massive force on the left. He did this during the twenty twenty election cycle, which contributed tens of millions of dollars to liberal super PACs. A concrete example, concrete, irrefutable, in the press, of an example of foreign dollars laundered into US elections for Democrats. I'd like to insert yet another article into the record. This is from the National Review. reported that Weiss that Weiss also spent fifty-one, fifty-seven million dollars. I wish I had this money just to spend like this. During the twenty twenty-four election cycle cycle, he exploited loopholes around foreign spending on American politics in order to promote left-wing causes. Just another example of five O one C's behaving as democratic money laundering schemes for foreign dollars, hence the protest. After the dollars were claimed anonymized, They're untraceable to a C four and then to a democratic super PAC. Guys, this is happening.

Without a doubt.

Millions of foreign dollars straight into our elections, supporting Democrat candidates. Lastly, I'd like certain to the record form nine ninety from the Burger Action Fund, which, as you all aware,

Without a protection cell ordered.

contains no reference to a single one of these foreign donations to the five O one C. It's completes- completely untraceable. Our bill, Miss Malay Takis, thank you for doing this, will change this. It's just trying to clean out foreign influence from our elections, which I believe should be something that all Americans want. So I would urge a full and unanimous vote in favor of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield back.

Thank you, Miss Moore.

Well, it is really so good to know. And I will be seeking my colleague out next session to help move a bill that will repeal Citizens United. Because by far, I would say that the gentleman has not come up with any examples of the billions and billions of dollars that inure to the benefit of Republican candidates for offices up and down the ballot. because of Citizens United. And so, uh, given your remarks, sir, uh, I would hope that you would join me and other colleagues on repealing Citizens United, uh, a a ruling that has really brought all kinds of corrupt money into our political system. And I will say that our inability, we have tried so hard to upend Citizens United, Democrats have, and the resistance has come predictably from the Republican Party because they in fact benefit from Citizens United. And so that list that you entered into the record, I would challenge you to find the numbers of Republican super PACs that have contributed to Republican candidates. With that, I would yield back.

Are others wishing to strike the last word? Seeing none, I would uh the chair would like to remind members of the house rules of decorum and ask all those present to refrain and to remember certainly those rules of decorum and also to refrain from engaging in personalities including those aimed at the president. Seeing no members wishing to strike the last word, we will now move on to amendments. Are are there any Amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, uh, Mister Schneider is recognized.

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mister Kelly.

No, you're.

Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

The Chairman reserves a point of order. The, uh, sponsor of the amendment will suspend while the amendment is being distributed.

Thank you.

Mister Schneider, you may proceed.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And and and, Mr. Chairman, as as we consider adding restrictions on allowable contributions and adding penalties for tax exempt organ organizations for legal political contributions in this underlying bill, I think it's important that this committee insure the penalties on violations of the law prohibiting political interference from within including from within the administration match the severity of the crime as well. I hope my colleagues on this committee will vote to stand up to the blatant corruption in this White House and oppose political inter interference in IRS corruption. In fact, I assume everyone has seen that the acting chief counsel of the IRS and the treasury assistant sa- secretary for tax policy has been ousted from the department after warning the White House that their attempts to request or influence IRS audits was in violation of section seven two one seven of the Inter Internal Revenue Code. The acting chief counsel for the IRS warned White House that its requests for IRS audits were blatantly illegal and was forced out of the department for speaking up. After warning the White House that their actions were violating federal law, this official was fired. That does not tell me that this administration wants to or intends to obey the law. It tells me that the administration has every intent to fill the position with someone who will do the president's bidding whether or not it is legal. Section seventy-two seventeen is extremely clear. It is unlawful for the President, the Vice President, or any employees of the executive office of the President or Vice President and all cabinet-level officials with the single exception of the Attorney General to " quote request directly or indirectly any officer or employee of the internal revenue service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer. Section seventy-two seventeen also states that anyone who receives such a request must report it to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Anyone who makes a request that is prohibited under this section, or anyone who receives such a request and fails to report it to the Inspector General can be punished for up to five years in prison and a five thousand dollar fine. It's worth reprie repeating. the President cannot legally direct the IRS to audit or investigate any taxpayer. And there's a reason that this law is on the books. President Nixon tried to weaponize the IRS to go after his enemies in the and in the aftermath, Congress, this body, acted in a bipartisan way to pass section seventy-two seventeen to limit potential political interference in IRS operations. It is the duty of this committee to provide oversight to the IRS and to the Treasury, and to ensure the integrity of our tax system. Every taxpayer should be able to feel confident that the IRS is not being used as a political tool or will not be used against them. And every single member of this committee should be outraged by the reporting of the firing and dismissal, given the warnings. Last Congress, following the leak of a taxp- of taxpayer information, by an IRS contractor, Chris Littlejohn, my Republican colleagues on this committee proposed a bill to increase the maximum penalty for the illegal disclosure of taxpayer data the Taxpayer Data Protection Act. During our consideration of that bill, Chairman Smith said, and I quote, "Increasing the maximum fine and imprisonment period for unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information will help deter individuals from violating the trust of American taxpayers. Surely the same should be true for violations of the law prohibiting pro- political interference by the White House into IRS operations. So today I'm offering an amendment to increase the maximum penalty for violations of section seventy-two seventeen to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and increase the maximum term of imprisonment to ten years, the same levels that this committee passed with overwhelming bipartisan support under the Chairman's Taxpayer Data Protection Act. This administration is eroding public trust in our tax system, and this committee cannot continue to ignore the blatant corruption. If this administration is illegally directing the IRS to audit the President's political enemies, the American people deserve to know and the officials responsible should be brought to justice. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Mister Kelly, do you insist on your point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment under clause seven of House rule sixteen and the amendment is not germane and if if its subject matter is different from that of the underlying measure the subject matter of the measure before us is limited to the tax treatment of tax exempt organizations that receive foreign contributions. The subject matter of the event of the amendment is executive branch audits. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and I urge the chair to sustain the point of order.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Snyder, uh, as the sponsor of the amendment, do you wish to be heard on the point of order?

I do wish to be heard.

Please state your point.

Uh, thank you. Uh, the subject matter of of this amendment or this bill deals with the penalties of violating IRS code. This amendment does the exact same thing. I believe it is germane and should be considered by the committee.

I am, uh, prepared to rule. The amendment is not germane and the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order, uh, given the details of the subject matter.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to appeal the ruling.

The Jenner the gentleman from Illinois wants uh seeks to appeal the ruling of the chair.

Mr. Chairman, I've moved to table.

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly moves to table, the question is on tabling, appeal of the ruling of the chair, Yeah, that's fine. Just have this water thing. call the roll. Thank you.

Mr. Buchanan.

Mister Smith of Nebraska.

Yes.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mister Kelly.

Yes.

Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweiker. Mister LaHood. Mister LaHood, yes. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes.

Yes. Yes.

Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn.

Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Custoff. Mister Custoff, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stubbe.

Yes.

Mister Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach.

Yeah.

Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mr. Moore.

Yes.

Mr. Moore, yes. Miss Van Duyn. Mr. Feenstra, Mr. Feenstra, yes. Miss Malia Takis. Miss Malia Takis, yes. Mr. Carey.

Yes.

Mr. Carey, yes. Mr. Joachim. Mr. Joachim, yes. Mister Miller.

Yes.

Mister Miller, yes. Mister Bean.

Yes.

Mister Bean, yes. Mister Moran.

Yes.

Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal.

No.

Mister Neal, no. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, no. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, no. Mister Larson. Mister Larson, no. Mr. Davis.

No.

Mr. Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell. Miss Sewell, no. Miss Del Bene. Miss Del Bene, no. Miss Chu. Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, no. Mister Boyle. Mister Beier.

No.

Mister Beier, no. Mister Evans.

No.

Mister Evans, no. Mister Schneider.

And also, I'd like to know Mr. Neto's.

Mister Schneider, no. Mister Panetta.

Neto's.

Mister Panetta, no. Mister Gomez.

No.

Mister Gomez, no. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, no. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey.

No.

Mister Swasey, no. Mister Buchanan. Mister Schweikert.

I said yes.

Mister Schweikert, yes. Mister Arrington. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, yes. Mister Boyle. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

Yeah, yeah.

Chairman Smith, yes.

You didn't? Clark report.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-four and the noes are seventeen.

There being twenty-four yeses and seventeen noes, the motion to table is successful. Are there other amendments at the desk?

So,

Mr. Horsford is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Chairman, I preserve a point of order.

Gentleman reserves a point of order. The sponsor will suspend while the amendment is being distributed. Mister Horsford, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, as I mentioned in my opening statement, it's time for members to walk the walk. Uh, the underlying bill makes it that even if one single dollar from a dues-paying member of a union comes from a foreign national, the entire union's voice is silenced. The stopping foreign influence in election act will essentially gut workers from having their union able to represent them. That means that this bill would put unions in a position where they would have to choose between representing all legal workers in a bargaining unit or being able to fully participate in the political process. It is estimated that fifteen percent of union membership is foreign-born. We are talking about immigrants and US born who build and serve our country every single day. For some unions, like the Sheep Metal or the Steelworkers or like LiUNA, we're talking about the fact that they have chapters both here in the United States and in Canada. It is unacceptable for any friend of labor to support a bill that limits hard workers' ability to have a say in shaping the laws that affect workplace protection, wages, and benefits. That's a good point. That is a choice no union should have to make. So I offer a simple amendment. Make it clear to our workers that their voice can be heard. Make it clear that labor organizations are not targeted. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment that allows unions a seat in creating policy without putting membership at risk. With that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Anyone wishing to strike the last word? Seeing none. Question is on the adoption of the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. No. The amendment is not adopted.

Clearly, yeah.

I ask for the yays and nays.

I, yays and nays are requested.

I

Clear, call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

No.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, no. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, no. Mister Lahoed. Mister Lahoed, no. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes.

No.

Mister Estes. No. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, no. Mister Hearn.

No.

Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe, no. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mister Moore.

Thanks.

Mister Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, no. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, no. Miss Maliatakis. Miss Maliatakis, no. Mister Carey.

No.

Mister Carey, no. Mr. Yackem. No. Mr. Yackem, no. Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean. No. Mr. Bean, no. Mr. Moran. No. Mr. Moran, no. Mr. Neal. Yes. Mr. Neal, yes. Mr. Doggett. Yes. Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson. No. Yes. Mr. Larson, yes. Mr. Davis.

Good.

Mr. Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell. Miss Sewell, yes. Miss DelBene. Miss DelBene, yes. Miss Chu. Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

Yes. Yes.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, yes. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi.

Aye.

Mister Swazi, yes. Mister Buchanan. Mister Arrington. Mrs. Miller.

Uh, no.

Mrs. Miller, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Boyle. Mister Panetta. Mister Gomez. Miss Plaskett.

Miss.

Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith, no.

The clerk will call the roll. Hmm? Oh, sorry. The clerk will report the roll.

Uh, Mister Chairman, the yeses are fifteen and the noes are twenty-three.

So the yeses being fifteen and the noes being twenty-three, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments at the desk?

Okay.

So seeing none, where are we go? The question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying yes. Those opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the yeses have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now recognize Mister Schweikart for the purpose of offering a motion.

Madam Chairwoman, I move that the committee favorably report H R nine seven seven one as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R nine seven seven one, as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.

This should be canon. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

Why does there ain't enough of them?

Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, yes. Mister LaHood. Mister LaHood, yes. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mr. Hearn.

Okay.

Mr. Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Doctor Murphy. Mr. Kustof.

Yes.

Mr. Kustof, yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stubbe. Mr. Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach,

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore. Miss Van Duyn,

Yes.

Miss Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Miss Malia Takis.

Yes.

Miss Malia Takis, yes. Mister Carey. Mr. Yackem.

Yes.

Mr. Yackem, yes. Mr. Miller.

Yes.

Mr. Miller, yes. Mr. Bean.

Yes.

Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran.

Yes.

Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neal. Mr. Neal, no. Mr. Doggett.

No.

Mr. Doggett, no. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, no. Mr. Larson. Mister Davis. So, we're gonna go with Miss Sanchez. Mister Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sewell. No.

No.

Miss Sewell, no. Miss Del Bene. No. Miss Del Bene, no. Miss Chiu. No. Miss Chiu, no. Miss Moore. No. Miss Moore, no. Mister Boyle. Mister Beier.

No.

Mister Beier, no. Mister Evans.

No.

Mister Evans, no. Mister Schneider.

No.

Mister Schneider, no. Mister Panetta.

No. No.

Mister Panetta, no. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, no. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey.

No.

Mister Swasey, now. Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

Yes.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mister Erickson. Mister Estes.

Yes.

Mister Estes, yes. Mrs. Miller.

Yes.

Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Moore.

Yes.

Mister Moore, yes. Mister Carey.

Yes.

Mister Carey, yes. Mister Larson. Mister Larson, no. Miss Sanchez.

No.

Miss Sanchez, no. Mister Boyle. Mister Gomez. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-three and the nos are sixteen.

So there being Uh, twenty-three yeses and sixteen noes, the motion is agreed to and H R ninety-seven seventy-one as amended is ordered favorably reported to the house. With that objection I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-seven seventy-one, and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is H R ninety-seven twenty-one, the fiscal sponsorship transparency act introduced by Representative Smucker. Representative Smucker has been a leading voice for bringing more accountability and transparency to America's tax-exempt sector, including authoring legislation this committee has approved to illuminate how funding flows overseas. I appreciate his ongoing advocacy on behalf of American taxpayers and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mister Smucker, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm uh very grateful that the committee is considering this legislation of H R ninety seven twenty one the fiscal sponsorship uh, Transparency Act, uh, fiscal sponsorship arrangements, uh, serve an important role in America's charitable sector, uh, and the overwhelming majority of them, uh, are operated responsibly and in good faith. They can help launch new organizations. They can support worthwhile community initiatives and allow charitable projects to operate under the guidance and oversight of an established, tax-exempt organization. This legislation recognizes and preserves that important Um, however, the current lack of transparency surrounding some fiscal sponsorship arraignment arrangements can create uncertainty about how charitable donations uh are ultimately administered and whether the sponsoring organization is exercising the oversight that taxpayers expect. Taxpayers deserve appropriate transparency and accountability whenever the tax code provides favorable treatment for charitable contribution. That's why I'm leading this legislation uh to strengthen the integrity of fiscal sponsorship arrangements. This legislation strength strengthens public confidence in those arrangements by ensuring greater transparency and reinforcing the long-standing expectation that sponsoring charities exercise meaningful stewardship over charitable funds. The bill requires covered tax exempt organizations engaged in fiscal to disclose basic information on their annual form nine ninety. Things like including the parties to the arrangement, uh, the amount of funding involved, the charitable activities being supported, the individual responsible for administering the arrangement and when the arrangement began and ended. These are common sense disclosures. They would help taxpayers, donors, and regulators better understand where taxpayer deduct- where tax deductible contributions are going, and who is responsible for ensuring that those funds are used for legitimate charitable purposes. The goal is to preserve legitimate fiscal sponsorship arrangements while closing loopholes that can be exploited by bad actors who misuse the charitable tax system. Americans are extraordinarily generous. They deserve confidence that their charitable contributions are being used as promised and that the tax benefits that Congress provides are accompanied by appropriate transparency and accountability. At the end of the day, this bill reinforces the charitable sector by strengthening public confidence in legitimate fiscal sponsorship arrangements. We help preserve this valuable tool for the many charities that use it responsibly. Uh, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Uh, thank you, uh, Madam Chair, and I yield back.

And I recognize the ranking member from Massachusetts, Mister Gale,

Thank you.

for his opening statement.

I yield my time, uh, Madam Chairman, to the gentleman from California, Mister Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Uh, Madam Chair, fiscal sponsorship is one of the most important tools available to our nonprofit community. It allows new charitable projects to get off the ground before they receive their own tax-exempt status. It allows communities to respond quickly to emergencies, to support innovative ideas and raise money for worthwhile causes. without waiting months or even years for IRS approval. Whether it's disaster relief effort after hurricanes, a community health initiative, an arts program, or a neighborhood organization trying to improve its community, fiscal sponsorship helps charitable work happen faster and more effectively. A great example is energy prep help, a fiscal-sponsored initiative based in Petaluma, California in my district. It has helped seniors prepare for natural disasters, like fires that happen in our area. Unfortunately, this bill risks doing just the opposite of ensuring our communities take care of one another. Instead of encouraging charitable innovation, it creates uncertainty. It establishes for the first time in federal tax law, a statutory framework governing fiscal sponsorship arrangements, imposes new reporting requirements on nonprofits, creates new excise taxes on organizations and even their managers, and it leaves key terms like discretion and control to future treasury regulations. That uncertainty is exactly why the national council of nonprofits opposes this legislation and why the council on foundations has expressed serious concerns. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of fiscal sponsorships are legitimate. They allow experienced charities to provide administrative support so new charitable projects can focus on serving their communities. instead of navigating complex tax rules. If there are isolated cases where organizations are abusing these arrangements, we should address those bad actors head-on. But we should not create a chilling effect that discourages legitimate, charitable partnerships across our country. We should be making it easier, not harder, for nonprofits to feed families. respond to disasters, support local arts uh organizations, uh improve public health, and launch innovative charitable programs. This bill risks burdening the very organizations that are doing that work day in and day out. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back.

Thank you, committee. Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety seven twenty one, the fiscal sponsorship transparency act of twenty twenty six. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Barthold. the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide a technical description of the uh the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction I ask the members hold their questions until after his presentation.

Madam Madam Chair, the committee members have before them two joint committee documents, JCX thirty seven twenty six and JCX forty one twenty six, which describe the underlying legislation and the chairman uh woman's amendment in the nature of a substitute. This legislation codifies a definition of fiscal sponsorship arrangement and requires, uh, expanded reporting of such arrangements undertaken by five O one C organizations on their form nine ninety. The additional reporting would provide detail about the arrangements, such as specifics regarding the activities funded through the fiscal sponsorship, uh, arrangement. The legislation also codifies the regulatory notion of an improper conduit arrangement. Uh, as under present law, no charitable deduction is allowed to a, uh, person for a contribution made under, uh, an improper conduit arrangement. The legislation further imposes taxes of twenty percent on the value of the, um, improper conduit arrangement made by the organization and a tax of five percent on the value of the uh improper conduit aran- arrangement uh upon the manag- the organization's manager, based upon the amount that was knowingly transferred by the organization. Failure to correct uh uh an improper transfer can lead to imposition of a second tier of taxes on the organization and the manager. This legislation would be effective for taxable years beginning after December thirty-first of twenty twenty seven. Uh, and the staff of the joint committee on taxation has estimated that this would have a negligible revenue effect uh during the budget period of fiscal years twenty twenty seven through twenty thirty six. Uh, that concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have.

Thank you very much. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? The chair now recognizes Mister Thompson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Mister Barthel, thank you for being here today, I have a couple of questions. I understand that there was an arrangement between the National Park Service and the National Park Foundation to create the Freedom Two Fifty LLC which is a wholly owned entity of the National Park Foundation on its website. The National Park Foundation states that it is responsible for providing Quote, fiscal oversight to ensure Freedom two fifty LLC properly distributes and accounts for project funds. End quote. The bill contains a special rule uh for disregarded entities. Would this make Freedom two fifty's arrangement with the National Park Foundation a fiscal sponsorship arrangement under this bill?

Uh uh, Mr. Thompson, um, possibly. I don't have enough information to say whether the arrangement would be a fiscal sponsorship, uh, uh, arrangement. Uh, the analysis will really depend on the exact nature of the agreement that has been made between the National Park Foundation and the Freedom two fifty, uh, LLC. But it is possible.

Thank you. Uh, I understand also that there's an arrangement between the National Park Service and the Trust for National Mall for construction of a presidential ballroom. There's a written agreement uh between the parties that provides a management fee to the trust for contributions made. Would this make the trust's arrangement with the National Park Service for construction of the ballroom a fiscal sponsorship arrangement under this bill?

Uh, Mister Thompson, as as with your uh prior question, uh, possibly. Again, uh, we'd need further analysis. There's a three parts to the definition of fiscal sponsorship uh uh arrangement and to answer that we need to know in more detail the exact nature of the agreement that you just described.

So i- if it were a fiscal sponsorship arrangement, would the trust for the mall have to disclose details regarding the activities of the park service with respect to the funds provided for the ballroom?

Uh yes, Mister Thompson, under the uh proposed legislation uh the additional reporting on form nine ninety uh requires among other things uh details regarding the activities funded by the uh under the uh under the arrangement so how much money is spent for this or how much money is spent for that

Thank you uh I think uh we should clarify the treatment of these and similar uh entities under this legislation uh and I yield back to balance my time.

Are there any other technical questions? Saying none, does anyone wish to strike the last word? The chair now recognizes uh C- Congressman Doggett from the great state of Texas for five minutes.

Thank you. Our Republican colleagues had a choice to make today. They could have chosen to deal with the affordability crisis with which one American family after another is struggling. Struggling from lost health care forced on them by these Republicans, millions who don't have access to a family physician as a result of their costly legislation. Uh, millions that are struggling with paying the illegal Trump tariffs, uh, tariff taxes, about which, uh, these previous free traders have been totally silent in the Trump era. Are those who are suffering as a result of his reckless war in Iran paying these huge prices for gasoline, food, and most everything else. But instead they chose uh, instead of American affordability, that what they would focus on today is giving Trump more weapons to maintain uh his regime. And like authoritarians around the world, uh to attack nongovernmental organizations that he cannot control. And so what they've done today is to invent a new tax that can be imposed on nongovernmental organizations, community organizations, that is triggered by the undefined phrase, quote, an organization that fails to exercise discretion and control over the use of its funds. Now, neither of the terms there is defined in the bill. The bill never says who decides this, by what measure, or whether a charity ever sees the evidence or even has the right to appeal after uh summarily facing penalties. So the Trump administration can set a trap. That's what this legislation and the other bills we've considered today are all about, trapping those who don't heed to the Trump regime dogma. And they can decide whether a community organization has quote " corrected" and often a- after the administration says no, it can confiscate a donation. This is an oversight. This is intimidation. That's why the nonpartisan National Council of Nonprofits has warned that this legislation will chill lawful activity, that fiscal sponsors will refuse the risk, and that casualties will be some of the smallest, most local groups. A PTA, a youth league, a volunteer group that uses sponsor because they don't really want or cannot afford a back office. And remember that fiscal responsibility or sponsorship under this bill uh, is something that's important to a brand-new charitable effort that would otherwise have to wait months for the IRS to recognize its tax-exempt status. And a fiscal sponsor lets it begin the work now, receiving tax deductible support under the wing of an established charity until it can stand on its own. This is even more important now that Doge and Trump, uh, have, uh, really, uh, eviscerated the IRS workforce so pe- taxpayers can't get timely responses. It's how a relief group can open a tent clinic in the days after a hurricane, or a town can pull together resources to celebrate its America's two-fiftieth celebration. How a small short-lived project shares one back office, rather than building its own from scratch. This is not some clever loophole. It's been the law since at least the nineteen fifties. And today it stewards more than three billion dollars a year for charitable organizations all over this country. Republicans claim that they're keeping charitable dollars from going into maligned unlawful ends, even terrorism. But the administration already has plenty of tools to stop charities from engaging in any unlawful activities. It's already a federal crime to send any group designated a terrorist organization a single dollar. We need not guess what lies ahead if this tool is granted to the administration. Because the administration recently fired a fellow named Ken Keyes who's well known in this room. I think he's had his fingerprints on most every loophole Republicans have placed in our tax c- code over the last decades. I've fought with him unsparingly, day after day, and yet to his credit, though we disagree so severely about tax loopholes and special he had the courage to say no to the weaponization of the tax code. And as a result, even though he was personal lawyer to President Trump in his various tax avoidance schemes, he's been dismissed, as have others unwilling to weaponize the IRS against Trump's political enemies. This bill does nothing for oversight and everything for intimidation, and we've seen how this administration will weaponize the IRS against uh American citizens in ways that even President Nixon never envisioned. I yield back.

Does anyone else wish to strike their last word? Recognize, the chair recognizes uh Mister Beier from the great state of Virginia for five minutes.

Ma- Madam Chair, thank you very much. I'm I'm deeply concerned that this bill is not ready for prime time and desperately needs stakeholder input I wanna thank Congressman Dager for explaining how the fiscal sponsorships really work. Non-profits and foundations support a number of critical roles in our society. Affordable housing, health care access, food, workforce development, education, disaster relief, environmental conservation, and many more fundamental societal services. And they're often the most trusted organizations in our society, but also our society's third largest largest employment sector. Fiscal sponsorship is one of the key ways to support and advance key charitable projects. and it's been a long established method to get new charitable in- initiatives off the ground. There are good reasons why charitable work can take the form of fiscal sponsorship, like responding to urgent needs, testing new ideas, or undertaking time-limited initiatives. My great concern is that this bill doesn't match the current use of fiscal sponsorships. It would include things not normally attributed to fiscal sponsorships and not include others that typically would be. Vague and improper definitions are not just a problem in this bill, they have real-world consequences. The bill is employees facing potentially harsh penalties, failing to exercise proper discretion and control. The lack of definition of discretion and control could potentially stifle fiscal sponsorship because organizations will not be willing to accept an undefined level of risk. A nonprofit would be liable, even if they did not know or have reason to know that the arrangement was improper, and they wouldn't be provided an opportunity to avoid liability if they correct the issue. When statutory definitions definitions remain vague, organizations are vulnerable to subjective enforcement and severe tax penalties before treasury regulations are finalized. And with personal liability risk, literally personal excise taxes on organization managers, it could deter volunteer directors and board members from serving on nonprofit boards due to fear of unexpected personal financial liability. Another concern I have about the bill is that given the lack of standards for individual projects, This bill would potentially subject very small initiatives to these requirements and make them prohibitively difficult to operate. I worry, as written, they could be inadvertently forced, tax exempt charities to report on routine internal programs, grants, or standard restricted funding agreements. You know, I've been on a lot of nonprofit boards over the years and usually Americans are very critical organizations that spend their contribution money more on the administrative side than rather than just doing direct service. that helps people. But this bill is gonna do exactly the opposite. It's gonna force lots more administrative side work. In some, the bill creates enormous financial and legal risks for fiscal sponsors' chilling lawful activity. And many fiscal sponsors will be unable to accept the increased risks, and they may decide not to act as a fiscal sponsor. Especially in a country where we rely on our charities so very, very much. This is definitely a move in the wrong direction. It's gonna leave communities without important fiscally sponsored projects. And I confess this bill feels to me more politically motivated to target a few of few very few high profile, politically oriented fiscal sponsorship networks, the ones we can attack with existing law. But the practical reality of the bill is that it imposes harsh regulatory burdens and penalties on tens of thousands of community-based charities. Madam Chair, yield back.

Thank you very m- very much. Are there any other Um, um, um, statements? No.

This one.

Oh, the chair now recognizes uh, Mr. Smucker for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to uh address some of the comments um that were made. Um Again, this is about transparency. I started my comments saying that almost all or most of fiscal sponsorships are indeed doing uh good work and are operating as they should, but they're clearly examples um, that we've heard in hearings here, where that is not the case, um, and all we're asking simply is for more transparency about, uh, where those dollars, um, are going, how taxpayer dollars or, uh, contributors who are giving their, uh, dollars, um, to charitable, uh, uh, uh, giving their charitable contributions to organizations, they really should be able to track how that money is being used. And that's That's the purpose of - of this bill. So, um, again, it's - it's about transparency, um, so that, uh, the public can understand and - and track those dollars. On the issue that was brought up on discretion and control, um, it's a fair point, the standard is not included in, uh, in this bill, but it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to, uh, come up with those regulations during rulemaking as we do in uh many bills and that would be done well before the bill goes into effect. Remember the effective date um is not until uh December thirty-first of twenty twenty seven which will provide uh time for treasury guidance and also stake uh in a stakeholder input as is the case with many bills uh before any of these obligations take effect so So I say that's a that's a fair point that but that will be addressed um as the rule making for this uh uh bill takes place so um thank you Madam Chair.

Are there any other members wish to strike the last word? Not seeing any, are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Mister Thompson got an amendment.

The the Chair recognizes Mister Thompson for five minutes.

Thank you Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair.

I I reserve a point of order.

The clerk will distribute the amendment and I ask the the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes. All right, the gentleman from California is recognized for five s- minutes to speak on his amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I must admit this bill is a little hard to take seriously. We're told this legislation is all about transparency. We're told Congress needs to crack down on fiscal arrangements because the public deserves to know how charitable dollars are being raised and how they're being spent apparently that principle applies to everyone, everyone, except the White House. Right now, a section five O one C three organization is raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the president's proposed White House ballroom. Under its agreement with the National Park Service, donors can remain anonymous to the maximum extent permitted by law. The organization also retains an administrative fee from the funds it raises. Enter into the public record or I'd like to enter into the public record uh this uh uh statement that I have. Thank you.

That objection.

So while this bill imposes new reporting requirements, new penalties and new compliance burdens, on charities across our country and in our districts, the administration is overseeing an arrangement where the American people may never know who's writing the biggest checks for one of the most high profile projects in our country. That's not transparency. It's a double standard. If the majority truly believes th- this these arrangements deserve greater scrutiny, then the very first arrangement we should scrutinize is the one connected to the White House. My amendment requires the names of the ballroom donors and the amount of every donation be publicly disclosed. If there's nothing to hide, there should be no objection. If this bill is really about restoring public confidence, then let's start with a project in the President's backyard. The American people deserve to know who's financing a four hundred million dollar White House ballroom. They deserve to know whether anyone seeking influence or anyone seeking access is helping to fund it. And they deserve to know before Congress starts imposing new transparency requirements on every other non-profit across our country. We should not have one set of rules for Main Street charities and another for projects benefiting those in the highest positions of power. Transparency is either a principle or it's a talking point. I urge adoption of my amendment.

Thank you very much. Um, does anyone wish to start the last word? All right, seeing none. Uh. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mister Thompson. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, no. Mister Schweikart. Mr. Schweikart, no. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, no. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, no. Mister Hearn. Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe, no. Miss Tenney. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach? No. Mister Moore.

No.

Mister Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn.

Yes.

Miss Van Duyn, no. Mister Feenstra.

Make a, uh, seven seconds. No.

Mister Feenstra, no. Miss Mayotakis. Miss Mayotakis, no. Mister Kerry. Mister Kerry, no. Mister Joachim.

No.

Mister Joachim, no. Mister Miller.

No.

Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean.

No.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis.

Yes.

Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell. Mister Albany. Mister Albany, yes. Miss Chu. Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider. Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta. Mister Gomez.

Yes.

Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, yes. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi.

Yes.

Mister Swazi, yes. Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister LaHood.

No.

Mister LaHood, no. Mister Errington. Mister Fitzpatrick. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mister Moran.

No.

Mister Moran, no. Mister Doggett. Miss Sewell. Miss Sewell, yes. Mister Boyle. Mister Panetta. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith, no.

The clerk will report the vote.

Madam Chair, the yeses are fifteen and the noes are twenty-three.

The yes is being fifteen, the no is being twenty-three, the agree the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments to the amendment?

No, we're good.

Seeing none. Uh, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying yes. Those opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the yeses have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Estes for the purpose of offering a motion. I'm just worried it's

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee favorably report HR ninety seven twenty one as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report HR ninety seven twenty one as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan.

Yes, yes.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert.

Yes.

Mr. Schweikert. Yes. Mister LaHood. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Yeah, I know who I'm gonna pick. Mister Estes, yes. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna pick. Mister Smucker.

Huh? Yeah, I used him.

Mister Hearn. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yeah.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe. Yes, Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra. Miss Maliotakis. Miss Maliotakis, yes. Mister Kerry. Mister Kerry, yes. Mister Joachim. Mr. Yockem, yes. Mr. Miller.

Yes.

Mr. Miller, yes. Mr. Bean.

Yes.

Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran.

Yes.

Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neal. Mr. Neal, no. Mr. Doggett. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, no. Mr. Larson.

No.

Mr. Larson, no. Mr. Davis.

No.

Mr. Davis. No. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell. Miss Sewell, no. Miss DelBene. Miss DelBene, no. Miss Chu.

No.

Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, no. Mister Boyle. Mister Beier. Mister Beier, no. Mister Evans.

No.

Mister Evans, no. Mister Schneider. Mister Schneider, no. Mister Panetta. Mister Gomez.

No.

Mister Gomez, no. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, no. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Mister Swazi, no. Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

Yes.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mister LaHood. Mister LaHood, yes. Mister Arrington. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Moore.

Yes.

Mister Moore, yes. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Boyle.

Yes.

Mister Panetta. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith. So we're gonna have to pick one. Chairman Smith, yes.

I'll just take one.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-three and the noes are fifteen.

There being twenty-three yeses and fifteen noes, the motion is agreed to and H R ninety-seven twenty-one is amended as ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-seven twenty-one and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our last order of business is H R ninety-seven twenty-two. the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of twenty twenty six, introduced by Representative Moore of Utah. I commend Representative Moore for recognizing the need to proactively defend the rights of faith-based organizations, including prohibiting the IRS from determining that an organization's religious beliefs or practices are inconsistent with law or public policy. Representative Moore's steadfast commitment to uphold our nation's constitutionally protected freedom of religion is to be applauded. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mister Moore, for an opening statement.

Thank you. Mister Chairman, thank you for holding this mark-up today and for including my bill, the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act. Our committee provides important oversight of federal agencies and I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute to that work. I'm immensely proud to represent one of the most religious and charitable states in the nation. churches, religious nonprofits, and other faith-based institutions provide incredible services and opportunities for so many people across our nation. These organizations contribute billions of dollars to our economy, but most importantly they strengthen our communities and help Americans find purpose and meaning. Religious freedom is central to who we are as a nation, and what makes that freedom so powerful is the fact that our government does not get to decide what beliefs are acceptable. I introduced the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act to ensure there was no encroachment on that freedom. It provides standards to prevent federal overreach into the beliefs of religious organizations and prevents the IRS from making tax-related determinations based on a religious belief on marriage, sexuality, and gender identity. So to provide some context, the twenty twenty Supreme Court decision in Bostock versus Clayton County held that title seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty-four prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Justice Gorsuch, majori- his m- his majority opinion acknowledged the tension this ruling would create with religious employers, noting that they " are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution. That guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society." The tension that Justice- that Justice Gorsuch Details is what this bill aims to fix. There should never be a situation where the president can administratively decide that the beliefs of a religious institution are fundamentally against the interests of the United States and certainly should not be a determining factor for tax exempt status. Unfortunately, previous administrations have abused this power, uh, and they made, ma- a- as they made these kinds of decisions. The Obama administration's IRS singled out conservative groups with extensive delays in questioning the Biden administration denied tax exempt status to a nonprofit because their beliefs were typically affiliated with the Republican Party there's really nothing stopping a future president from abusing this again this is what I'm working to solve and get this off the table. Rather than leaving religious organizations dependent on case by case litigation or shifting administrative interpretations this bill creates clear and forcible standards that end the debate before it begins. This bill does not prescribe the religious beliefs that will be protected and protects against an administration from doing the same. Rather, the fair treatment of religious organization acts limits government overreach provides interpretive stability for religious organizations and ensures equal treatment of belief. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this bill and ensure that the promise of religious freedom can be guaranteed for all and with that I yield back.

I now recognize a ranking member.

First top percent.

uh the gentleman from Texas was on the house floor and I was gonna ask the indulgence of the committee to allow him to offer a post opening statement. But since he's arrived and has asked me to filibuster while he gets his notes straight right here, I'm in full cooperation with the gentleman as I keep talking. And as soon as he puts his thumb up he will be ready to go. We await.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your understanding. Over uh forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed that Americans should not be forced to help an organization whose core practices violate fundamental public policy or promote illegal conduct. That was in the Bob Jones University case, where Bob Jones claimed its religious beliefs permitted it to reject any student who is married to a person of a different race. The Supreme Court rightly said, you're entitled to your religious belief, But you're not entitled to require taxpayers uh to accept an unacceptable practice. This bill would essentially repeal the Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones, and go much further by decreeing that any belief or practice concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity can never again be treated as inconsistent with law or public policy. Nor needs such a belief be a central tenet of the particular faith. It can be a marginal or incidental consideration. This bill directs the IRS to ignore a group that invents a belief tomorrow, purely to discriminate, with no grounding in religious tradition. The Supreme Court decades ago rejected state prohibition of interracial marriage, but under this bill, all it takes is a professed belief that marriage must be within a single race, white nationalism, to justify employment discrimination. Similarly, six years ago the Supreme Court held that firing a person for being gay or transgender constitutes illegal, But this legislation would protect the tax-exempt status of a religious charity or, say, a disaster relief organization that fired an employee of its own faith for marrying her wife. This is a road map around the nondiscrimination laws of multiple states and cities across our country. One of the many reasons that I s- respect my colleague from Utah, uh, who offers this amendment, is because he had the courage as one of forty-seven Republicans to support the Respect for Marriage Act, to write into federal law the recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages. So this isn't a debate about whether those marriages are valid. He and I agree there. Here is where we part ways. He believes an organization should be able to keep its taxpayer subsidy while discriminating against the very marriages that both of us voted to protect. I don't. Every American should be assured of equal dignity, regardless of who they love, and our communities are stronger, our economy is healthier. Austin, Texas is a great example of this, when everyone can contribute fully and without discrimination. We should not recognize a family's marriage with one hand and fund discrimination against it on the other. Nor does this bill operate in a vacuum. It arrives amid a sustained campaign, state resolutions from Republican groups, demanding the reversal of the ruling on gay marriage, justices openly inviting another challenge, a deliberate culture of fear that's meant to pressure people out of living as who they are. That is how authoritarianism works. It rewards those who fall in line and punishes everyone else, and this bill would again make our tax code one more weapon in that awful campaign. But as written, this bill goes much further than anything that I believe By exhibiting practices concerning marriage, all of them from the public policy test, he covers child marriage. Right now, Andy Biggs, the Republican nominee for governor of Arizona, is being questioned about his previous action as state Senate president in killing a twenty thirteen bill the Arizona House had approved to rein in a police force that had become the enforcement arm of a sect that forced girls into underage marriage. That be covered and excused by this bill. Uh, the Tax Court in two thousand ten made a decision that denied tax exempt status to an organization whose stated purpose was to discriminate uh, excuse me, to decriminalize sex between adults and children and eviscerate our child pornography laws because the purpose was contrary to public policy and promoted criminal conduct. The public policy doctrine is being stopped today. This bill strips this tool away for anything relabeled as a religious belief about sexuality, handling the worst actions, actors imaginable, a road map to wrongdoing. Religious freedom is a bedrock American value that all of us support, already protected by the First Amendment and exemptions in our civil rights law. I believe that this particular misguided bill r- represents a permanent taxpayer-funded license to discriminate, and could facilitate very dangerous conduct that I'm sure the author does not support. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety-seven twenty-two, Um Yeah, the fair treatment of religious organizations act of twenty twenty-six. well, well, it should just be read. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. I'm gonna just offer Yeah, I'm just, it's a, yeah, I'll make a three point At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which was I'll make a three point distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Bartel, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.

Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents JCX thirty-eight twenty-six, and JCX forty-two twenty-six. which describe the underlying legislation and the Chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute. As was noted, under common uh law of public policy, the common law of public policy doctrine, an organization is not organized or operated for an exempt purpose, if a purpose of the organization is contrary to fundamental public policy or is illegal. The proposal before the committee today would establish that a religious belief or practice concerning marriage or concerning sexuality or concerning gender gender identity is not inconsistent with law or with fundamental public policy. The, uh, this provision would be effective for tax years beginning after December thirty-first of twenty twenty-five, so effective as of, uh, the current year. The Chairman's amendment, uh, in the nature of a substitute, has made uh grammatical corrections changing uh plural nouns to uh singular nouns in appropriate places in the legislation. The staff of the joint committee has estimated that this would have no budgetary effect over the budget period of fiscal years twenty twenty seven through twenty thirty six uh that concludes my brief description I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there technical questions in the to the amai amendment in the nature of substitute? I recognize Miss Chu from California.

This bill would prohibit the IRS from treating a religious organization's beliefs or practices concerning marriage,

Mm-hmm.

sexuality, or gender identity as inconsistent with law or public policy for purposes of determining tax exempt status. It also provides that a belief cannot be denied protection simply because it is not central or compelled by a particular religion. As drafted, this is an extraordinarily broad exception, that could preserve federal tax benefits for organizations espousing deeply harmful or discriminatory beliefs. So, Mister Bartold, I'd like to better understand just how broad these protections are. As a threshold matter, under this bill, a religious organization's beliefs or practices concerning marriage sexuality or gender identity could not be treated as inconsistent with law or public policy when determining its tax exempt status. Is that correct?

Uh, that is correct, Ms. Chu.

So I'd like to ask about a few examples. If an organization's religious belief on marriage is that ten year old children should marry adults, would this disqualify the organization from tax exempt status?

The organization would not appear to be disqualified, uh, but Remember, Ms. Chu, there is a broader context to the organization. A charitable organization must be organized and operate, uh, under the laws of a particular state. Uh, and so the bill addresses IRS determinations, it does not directly affect state law. And so an organization that wou- might prom- uh, promote this, uh, may well not be able to be incorporated in the state, just as a threshold matter.

Well, uh, in other words, the answer is no. It would not.

It,

Uh

it, it, as a, as a general matter, does not appear to be automatically disqualified.

Okay. What if an organization's religious belief on marriage includes and propo- promotes polygamy? Would this disqualify it from tax exempt status?

Uh, uh, again, uh, as a general matter, would not appear to be disqualified.

Yes, I, I understand. The answer is the same, no. What if an organization's religious belief on marriage discrimination it discriminates against interracial marriage, would this disqualify it from tax exempt status?

Uh, again, as a general matter, not dis- not disqualified.

Yeah, okay. No. What if an organization's religious belief on sexuality or gender identity is that all LGBTQ people should be jailed would this disqualify it from tax exempt status?

Uh, well, uh, Uh, uh, again, I would say as a general matter would not be disqualified,

No.

Okay, the answer is no.

but there is the broader context.

Under this bill, if an organization's religious belief on marriage is that all husbands should be able to rape their wives would this disqualify the organization from tax-exempt status?

Uh, uh, again, miss Chu, getting uh beyond what would be legal under, under the state's law, the IRA and IRS determination would would not be defining what uh practice is,

No. The answer is no, I get it.

as a as a religious practice.

What if an organization's religious belief on sexuality advocates for decriminalizing child pornography? Would this disqualify it from tax exempt status?

Uh, again, this legislation uh uh addresses what uh how the IRS treats a religious belief or practice, I should note in the case of five O one C three organizations, you still have to meet the general tax exempt purposes, one of which

Well, um, I think the answer is

uh i- one of one of which is the protection of, well, one of which is the protection of the child.

the answer is, is similarly, no. What if an organization's religious belief on sexuality advocates for bestiality? Would that disqualify from tax exempt status?

Uh. again would not appear to be disqualif uh disqualified.

Yeah. Well, thank you, Mr. Bartow. Rather than simply protecting religious liberty, this bill would prevent the IRS from considering whether some of the most egregious, backwards, and disgusting practices are inconsistent with long-standing public policy when determining eligibility for valuable federal tax benefits. We must do better than this. I yield back.

Are there additional technical questions? Miss Moore.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, for yielding, Mister Bartel, I want to follow up on an answer that you gave, Miss Chu. You said that um that uh states would have to follow, that practices would have to be um done in context of whatever state law was. Seven, only seventeen states have declared child marriage as illegal. So if there is a state that doesn't have a law uh against child marriages, then um the example that Ms. Chu gave, a ten year old, and this has been, we have had ten year olds being married off to much older men, that would not be disqualifying uh under this bill. Is that is that correct?

It, it, well, uh, Ms. Moore, again, the bill addresses, uh, IRS determinations of tax exempt status under five O one C three, and it precludes the IRS from considering certain religious beliefs or practices in that determination.

Yes.

Under, in the case you mentioned, uh, another aspect of being qualified organization in, under five O one C three, uh, is uh, organizations that uh, promote or protect child uh, child welfare or child abuse. So in terms of an overall determination of an organization, there are, there are multiple uh, things that the uh, IRS looks at. It looks at the stated purpose of the organization and also the activities. So what does the organization say its principles are? What does it do to carry out those out those principles which will all all be fact.

Well, I I just I I think that's great, Mister Bar- uh, Bartol, and I don't wanna put pressure on you. The only thing that I'm trying to determine here is that the IRS would not be able to use as a pretext for taking away your five O one C three status that you have, is that that the church or organization has performed marriages to a ten year old. Uh, their purpose is a religious purpose, and uh, they say if your soul. needs to be saved you need to be married when you're ten years old the irs would be precluding precluded for using that as a pretext for taking away their status is that am i correct

uh uh i've i think if we've determined that that's a uh a valid religious practice however that might

right uh uh yeah i'm just thinking of cases like with war and jiffs and so forth that

be interpreted that that uh

married off kids twelve years old and so forth

if you

who are in jail now. This would overturn that.

N- well, it, remember, it does not change state law if a person was put in jail for that purpose. This, this is really only about,

About states that allow child

uh, an organization seeking five O one C three status.

So, so the forty-three or thirty-three states that allow child marriage, um, then they would be able to continue that practice under this provision.

And And organi-

and then not be penalized with regard to their s- their five O one C three status.

I- if an organization ad- uh, if that was part of its purpose, uh, what you've stated is correct, Ms. Moore.

Thank you so much, sir, and I yield back.

Are there additional technical questions? Mister Doggett.

So if I understand your answers, if Mister Epstein had used a non-profit uh for his uh grooming of underage girls and all of the abuse that has traumatized our whole country. Uh, the IRS couldn't do anything about it under this bill as long as they claimed it was part of a religious practice.

Uh, well, Mister Doggett, I'd li- I'd like to go back to the general precept a- again.

I'd just like to, yeah. I'd just like to know whether you agree or disagree.

As a religious pra- a- taking it, assessing only the religious practice aspect of it

Right.

Yes, is is removed, but there are other things that the IRS would look at in terms of determining the validity. Uh, and it could include uh, I don't know what the laws were in the in the state that Mister Epstein would create this uh organization, but it could well be that uh everything you just mentioned is illegal in that state. And that would give the IRS a a scrambles.

Well, that's that's all well and good, but as far as the powers of the Internal Revenue Service, they're being disarmed in this bill by the claim of religious practice. and someone who engaged in the very kind of uh co- conduct that's been covered up with reference to Mr. Epstein could get away with it, as far as the IRS is concerned. It's it's very troubling to see how this weave of misconduct uh interconnects. I yield back.

Additional technical questions. Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Mister Moore is recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Chairman. I'll just reiterate, Mr. Barthold, I appreciate your um clear responses on this. This doesn't take away uh even the e- even the examples, and I and I get why we wanna you know, share a bunch of really absurd examples and and things like that, but none of this legislation would never supersede the very legal authority. You've mentioned state law. We'll continue with that. that actually makes all of that criminal activity. It doesn't do anything with respect to that. This is um a very narrowly uh uh this bill forecloses one narrow legal authority as applied to marriage sexuality and gender identity beliefs. It does not and cannot by its text legalize marriages that violate state or kinship laws. It leaves intact the independent broader internal revenue tool kit including the operational test, illegality doctrine, the private environment rules, that the IRS would use against any organization actually facilitating unlawful marriages regardless of that religious framing involved. We can come up with a lot of, uh, you know, examples that are gonna catch a headline or, uh, something to that nature, but let's, let's, let's talk about what the reality of this is. It doesn't change any of those things that are make all that stuff illegal, things that you even brought up. What it does, it narrowly defines this and is not gonna force a, a religion to, to, to go against its beliefs, and this is a good intent good faith piece of legislation that is far more narrow and doesn't affect any of the the legal authorities that already exist. Um, even the the Bob Jones, the United States versus Bob Jones University, that remains good law, uh, and and not related and and touched in this in any way. And I appreciate I appreciate the dialogue, but I wanna at least reiterate the le legality that makes all that stuff illegal is is still fully in place and enforceable and I yield back.

Mister Davis.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mister Chairman, I am deeply troubled by HR ninety-seven twenty-two, the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of twenty twenty-six. While the bill's title promises fairness, its substance, however, delivers the exact opposite. compromising the fundamental protections and fair treatment of millions of Americans. In fact, as drafted, this bill would sanction unfairness and discrimination by religious organizations by amending section five O one of the Internal Revenue Code of nineteen eighty-six to add that a religious belief or practice concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity should not be treated as being inconsistent with law or public policy. The bill would also stipulate that a belief should not fail to be treated as a religious belief merely because such belief is not compelled by are central to a system of religion. In other words, H. R. ninety-seven twenty-two essentially permits tax exempt religious organizations that exercise or practice child or polygamous marriage, that prohibit interracial or same-sex marriage, or that condone sexual behaviors such as child pornography, to exist. For this reason, and others, I absolutely cannot support this harmful bill, a bill that basically dismantles decades of hard-won civil rights and erodes the fundamental principles of equal opportunity and equal treatment. The bill before us in its current form is opposed by the Congressional Equality Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Interfaith Alliance, the National Women's Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and rightfully so. The measure creates a different standard for tax exempt status, when it comes to organizations' practices that relate to marriage, sexuality, and gender gender identity. By carving out those practices from the law's requirement, that practices can't contradict public policy. Moreover, the bill permits religious organizations to discriminate, including against interracial couples, and still receive tax exempt status. This is unacceptable on American and on Constitution. Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value, and religious exemptions already exist on the books for both federal nondiscrimination laws and, when appropriate, the Constitution. Therefore, I contend that this bill does more harm than good. and should be rejected. Instead of considering bills that further divide us, I urge the committee to focus more on meeting the urgent needs of struggling families who are losing health care, can't afford food and gas, and are paying more than thirty percent of their income for rent. In Illinois, we're seeing family farm bankruptcies surge by fifty-five percent. and long-term unemployment is increasing. Therefore, I would urge that we reconsider advancing this bill as it establishes a dangerous and lasting loophole in our civil rights protections and nondiscrimination laws related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and marriage. It is not good for America. Therefore, I would urge that we reconsider, not pass it. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Miss Moore.

Thank you so much, Mister Chairman, and uh I I move to strike the last word. Um, Representative Moore, I have no doubt that this was offered in good faith. But this is not good for the country. Uh, you have heard the arguments, uh, by, uh, Doctor Davis, Doctor Chu about child marriage, which is unhealthy for women. Um, if you're fourteen years old and an adult male has sex with you, uh, in America, that's that's called um, uh, that that is sexual assault. That is called statutory rape. And this particular bill would really upend that notion. Um, if there were a state that allowed child marriages, and of course there are thirty-three that do, then then the IRS would, uh, be mum with regard to taking away that status. Uh, I just wanna say, um, Sex is not for children, and it's not for girls. There are data, there are studies. We need to do more studies on it. But child marriages have resulted, uh, invariably in domestic violence. It has resulted in women not being able to fulfill their educational needs and desires. It has pit women and families into deep poverty, um, because of forced marriages. Women have been abused uh through immigration policy, where they've been forced to marry someone um uh in in both directions, uh American citizens and citizens of other countries in order to facilitate some man's immigration status, uh and this bill would fully facilitate that. Um, Representative Moore has indicated to us that what we have done is brought up just rare cases you know of of child marriages you know like uh um you you know it is not rare unfortunately these child marriages data show that between two thousand and two thousand eighteen more than three hundred thousand children under the age of eighteen were married in the us some as young as ten and and married of course to older men Um, I remember once when the, when the um uh uh when we had an audit of why Milwaukee continued to appear on the list of out of wed pregnancies for a decade, for over a decade, United Way did a study in our region and found out that it's because of statutory rape. It's because, kids, I personally know of girls who've had babies at age twelve, thirteen. And of course, it it it it, you know, they are unable in many cases to have children in the future because it's just they're not physically ready to have babies at age twelve and thirty. It is unfortunately not rare. And the United States has been a leader in in efforts to end child marriage internationally, but we've failed to take steps on this issue in our own backyard. Um. My time is um winding up. Uh, but I would hope that we would um establish a national commission to combat child marriage, to study, evaluate, and report on eliminating child marriage in the US, providing states that have already ended child marriage with increased violence against women, act grant funding, establish a competitive grant program for states to create dedicated task forces to examine and make comprehensive policy, recommendations to address child marriage um and prohibit child marriage from occurring in or on property owned or funded by the federal government such as military bases. Um this these are recommendations from the Tahiri Justice Center. Um they are supporting the bill that I have dropped um and it has um uh support from both chambers to prevent child marriages. It is unhealthy for women. And before I uh end this particular uh mention, I am also go- I'm gonna be offering an amendment um to prevent child marriages, and I'm also gonna offer an amendment to prevent female genital mutilation, which this bill would authorize under the pretext of religious ceremonies. And so with that, um, I would yield back to you, Mister Chairman, and thank you.

Uh, additional members wish to strike the last word. Miss Fischbach.

Mister Chairman, I'm going to strike the last word, I yield my time to Mister Moore.

Thank you to the gentlemen from Minnesota. Let me just reiterate, um, the hypotheticals and the issues and the situations and the crimes that my colleagues have said most recently from, my friend from Wisconsin, these are already federal crimes. Nothing in this legislation changes a s- a a a a a sentence, a word, a letter, with res- with regards to this already being a crime. Um, child pornography is a federal crime. The Supreme Court held unanimously in New York versus Ferber that it receives no constitutional protection whatsoever. We all know that. Right? Um, these situations are are brought up, look there's been violations of IRS, the IRS going after organizations based on um, political reasons. We, we know that. Those have been documented. They've happened in previous administrations. This is trying to take it off the table because I sincerely believe too that my democratic colleagues also know they don't want Um, they're faith-based people, they're they're they're they're they're they tend to churching, they they tend churches, they don't want um this to be weaponized. Churches in our nation that educate kids, that provide um philanthropic efforts beyond what our government has the capacity to do, are given tax-exempt status. This benefits our nation, this benefits uh it's a non- it's a non-partisan issue. Right? And so it's tough to hear these, the, these accusations that this, this legislation in any way is going to change something from being a felony, federal crime. This legislation does nothing of that. It is designed to take this off the table so there won't be a weaponization against um religious organizations in the future, and they can continue to do the good things that they're trying to do for our communities. Um. I believe it's disingenuous to make up all these claims that that that we're hearing. That's not going to be changed at all from this legislation, and I yield back.

Mister Chair, I yield back.

Additional members wish to strike the last word. Mister Doggett.

Religious freedom is so fundamental to this country. It's what brought people here to America over two hundred and fifty years ago, to seek the ability to practice their religion. It's what draws people here today. to this wonderful country. Uh, I uh believe in religious freedom. I don't believe in religious persecution. And to have a bill that really will encourage organizations to discriminate against people, to deny them employment because of whom they love, and because they might love someone of a different race or of the same sex, is fundamentally wrong. I think this bill has to be considered in the current context of the increased discussion of white Christian nationalism, which I've never viewed as very Christian, but which seeks to impose its views to the exclusion of others. Uh, I respect the author of the legislation, but I respectfully disagree with him that this is a narrow exception. Uh, to use terms to prohibit basically to tell the Internal Revenue Service, look the other way, if any practice here concerns marriage, sexuality, or gender identity, is not a narrow exception, it is a wide open exception that tells the IRS not to bother with these kind of practices. Uh, I believe that as our colleague, Ms. Moore, has pointed out, child marriage is not against the law in multiple states. Uh, but this bill will say the Internal Revenue service should turn the other way if it's viewed as contrary to public practice. Uh, and I'm not aware of any federal law on child marriage. The same is true of some of the other practices that we're concerned about here. Uh, it also raises a question of with these dangers from this overly expensive bill, what value is there in it? Unless a group is really out to discriminate against people based on their choices as to whom they love, uh, based on some of the other, uh, issues here that might not comport with Christian white nationalism. Why have this bill? I don't see that there's been any good cause given for the bill, and the dangers certainly override any minimal benefit that could occur from adopting this legislation. So I hope we can look at further with reference to amendments, but that ultimately, uh,

Well, Mr. Doggett yield?

I yield.

Um, I just wanna refute a point that the author of this bill just stated. He said that there are laws against child pornography, there are laws against child marriage, against polygamy, bestiality, incest, but I wanna read into the record a section of the bill, which contradicts what you have just said. It says, " For purposes of this section," number one, "a religious belief or practice concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity," here's the important part here, " shall not be treated as being inconsistent with law, or public policy. That means you can engage in any of the things I just said, polygamy, statutory rape, uh, child marriage, incest, and it shall not be treated as being inconsistent with the law. So even though we have laws against those things, if this bill passes, any religious belief or practice that engages in any of those activities is treated as not being contrary to the law, therefore not illegal. Therefore, they do not lose their tax exempt status. What this is is taxpayer subsidies for religious organizations that are breaking the law. I, and I find that like shocking that nobody, even the author, has realized that that is in what this bill does. The this, I, the intent of the of the bill I don't quibble with, but the way in which it is drafted is really overly broad and opens the door for all kinds of terrible practices to be considered not illegal, and therefore people can have their tax exempt status, they don't have to pay taxes to the United States, even though they are breaking the law. Th- that is here in the actual text of the bill, I think that is why you are seeing such fervent pushback from this side of the aisle. I see my, Mister Doggett's time has expired, I would ask for five minutes of my, my own time to be recognized. I'd like to continue to talk about this bill.

I'll recognize you after I, after Mister Kelly's five minutes. What do you do?

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh Mister Moore, I didn't realize what's your purpose of. proposing this legislation entailed. I uh I actually thought it was about something altogether different, but apparently, no, that's just not possible. Uh, when we debate these things, I I I really I I'm sh- I'm shocked, I went through your your piece of legislation and I didn't really, I didn't really try to find something in there that would suggest some of the things you're being accused of hiding in there or trying to protect and and it comes down to a tax status which doesn't everything um I hope that the American people are watching this. For some reason, this body has turned into something that I don't think the founders ever expected it could possibly reach. But, Mister Moore, I've known you for quite some time, I know you quite well, I, I am really, um, I couldn't find anything that you hid in this legislation. I, I, uh, I, I, I know you've had a chance to talk on this, but, um, This is where we are. This is where we are. I think what you've put together is fine. I uh This has become too bizarre. It really has, and we tried to, we tried to find something wrong. I, I, it's uh it's just beyond my wildest imagination that when I ran for office back in two thousand ten we would actually be spending time looking at a piece of legislation that apparently has all these issues hidden in it that we just weren't able to see so I wanna thank my friends in the other for pointing out just how nefarious this piece of legislation is. So, shocking, shocking that you would try to hide something like that, Mister Moore, of all the time I've known you. I know he- you're - what you - what you stand for. I know what your family stands for. I know what your religion stands for. I know everything about that. And I know that is not who you are, and that was not what you were attempting to do in this piece of legislation. Now, having said all that, I also wanna take just a moment before the action that today started, I had a chance to talk to Mister Barthold. And I've always been impressed with Mister Barthold and his team. Mister Barthold has been doing this for thirty-eight years. Um, sometime when you have an opportunity to sit down and put together your journals, um, it's gonna be interesting to see your perception of it. But for you to give thirty-eight years of your life, for your team to give up time that they could be doing else- d- other things. Well, I g- I guarantee you, if you ever were looking for a r- any other thing to do you have a resume that could get you into almost any office, anywhere in the country uh for your your expertise um I guess this is what our former government allows though this debate if you wanna call it a debate um these conversations that we have regarding things that are important to our fellow citizens uh and no matter how far we take it it's just the way it works And I'm told so many times that, uh, you know what, Kelly, your problem is you don't understand politics. You always thought it was about policy. Uh, you didn't understand that depending on who was in office, uh, we turned inflation into affordability. We double-digit inflation and all of a sudden, well, that things aren't affordable. Yeah, no kidding. Uh, we had runaway inflation, but we forgot about that. Uh, we talk about the fact that, uh, this trade of home moves is the reason, uh, that President Trump is doing this and and we forget about the previous and we shut down the Keystone pipeline. That didn't require any military action, but we did it, and that's when the prices of gasoline were the highest they've ever been, OK? So, convenient loss of memory is OK,

Mm.

uh, but the American people, I, I, and I really hope, uh, that they don't read too much into these debates that we have, other than the fact it's about politics, it has nothing to do with policy, and all my friends and they were saying, " Oh, how How dare you say that? How dare you say that? Of course I said, well we do all have the right to say what we think. And I'm just telling you what I think, and I think that this is a great example of what makes the American people think. Do you know what? I don't like any of you people. I don't like any of you. Because you never get anything done except this bartering back and forth, battering each other. So, Mister Moore, I want to tell you, I emphatically am gonna support what you put together because I know why you do it, and I know your heart. But I guess it goes with the territory right now. We can tear anybody apart for any reason we want and say, nope, you don't understand, see, I can't be held liable for anything I say because this is a matter of politics. Um, Mister Moore, thank you for bringing it forward, thank you for your stance, thank you for your, I know who you are and everything you stand for. I I thank you very much. Uh, Chairman, thank you for bringing this forward today. As much as we say it has nothing to do, with anything that we really need to be concerned with. I've watched so many things. By the way, uh, the Epstein, uh, situation actually was ignored for the previous four years. Apparently it just bubbled it up to the top. It may be because somebody thought they could get some time in the front steps of the Capitol to talk about it. But, um, the facts are the facts, and in this case, the facts go on your side,

Mister Chairman.

Mister Moore, a great piece of legislation.

Chairman.

I support you heartily.

Thanks, Mister Sanchez.

Yeah, um, perhaps Mister Kelly was absent when I started my remarks. which said I impugn no ill intent by the author of this legislation. I didn't make personal attacks against Mister Moore. I didn't accuse him of trying to hide something in the legislation, like you just said. I was merely pointing out what the language of his bill allows. And if there's any accusation that I have made today against Mister Moore, It's that the language is overly broad and it was sloppily drafted. It is way over broad. It says that nothing concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity that a religious belief or practice concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity shall not be treated as being inconsistent with the law or public policy. I have, this is a policy debate, this is not politics. I'm not bringing the prior administration into this or the straight of Hormuz. I'm looking at the actual words that are written on a piece of paper in this bill that you all are so desperate to pass. And I'm asking myself why, if the language is so clear, it so clearly states that it would not be treated as being inconsistent with the law, even though many of these things are illegal. If this bill were to pass, those religious beliefs, child marriage, incest, polygamy, bestiality, those would not be inconsistent with the law or with public policy, which means they would not be illegal. So they would retain their tax-exempt status, which means they don't have to pay taxes to United States federal government, but they can engage in a legal action. That's a problem. If you guys can't see that that's overly broad and that's a problem, I'm frightened. It's very clear in the text of the bill itself. Perhaps you haven't read the bill. Maybe you should take some time to read it and try to digest what that particular provision states because it's, it's a big deal. It's not just like some nothing. That is the crux of why we are sh- sh- shocked that the bill was brought forward and not discussed further, or - or - or not drafted n- in a more narrow scope. Again, uh, just so that we're absolutely clear for those who have not read this provision, a religious belief or practice concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity shall not be treated as being inconsistent with law or public policy. I'll let those words sink in for just a second. Because it means that if you are a religion that believes in polygamy, or believes in child brides, child marriage, incest, bestiality, and you have a tax exempt status, which means you don't have to pay taxes to the federal government. If you, if you, if this is your religious belief, that practice cannot be considered inconsistent with laws against that practice, or public policy against that practice. That means we are allowing certain organizations who have practices that are against the law to maintain their tax exempt status, to - to maintain the benefit of not having to pay taxes to the federal government. I mean, I'm I'm genuinely shocked that this doesn't raise any kind of concern with the other side of the aisle. That there's no, okay, let's go back to the drafting board and see if we can make it more narrow to to to fit the purpose of what the bill is trying to do, without allowing all of this ugliness uh uh uh uh uh to, you know to allow to - to - to go forward with - without - you know, with - with while maintaining benefits of tax exempt status. I - I would love to - if somebody on the other side of the aisle could say why - why that language doesn't trouble them. Shall not be treated as being inconsistent with law or public policy. That says it all. I guess I have no takers on anybody diving deep on that language and - and - and having a counter-argument. as t- as to why these illegal practices under this section, as long as they're a religious belief or practice, are not treated as if they are illegal. And my time has run out, so I will yield back.

Miss Chu.

The author of this amendment has as its defense that the things that I raised as objectionable are already considered to be illegal by state laws. But let's take a few of these examples. How about child marriage? I raised shouldn't a ten year old child marrying an adult qualify this organization to be removed from tax exempt status? Well, you know what? Thirty-three states permit child marriage and there is no federal minimum. And let's talk about interracial marriage. Interracial marriage is allowed in all fifty states. And yet, if this amendment passes, then an organization's religious belief on marriage that discriminates against interracial marriage would still allow it to have its tax exempt status. And let's talk about jailing LGBTQ people. Actually, that's against the law. It's a federal law that they should not be jailed just based on being LGBTQ plus. And yet, this amendment would say that if an organization's religious belief on sexuality or gender identity is that all LGBTQ people should be jailed, they could still maintain their tax exempt status. Even in, for bestiality, there is actually one state for which that is still legal. And yet, there, if an organization's belief on sexuality advocates for bestiality, they could still maintain their tax-exempt status. So, rather than simply protecting religious liberty, this bill would prevent the IRS from considering some of the most egregious backwards and disgusting practices inconsistent with long-standing public policy when determining eligibility for valuable federal tax benefits. This is not right. And that's why we must defeat this amendment.

Are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, we will move to amendments. Are th- are there any amendments, uh, to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Miss Sanchez.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mister Chairman? Mister Chairman? Mister Chairman, I reserve your point of order.

A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentle lady suspend while the amendment is distributed?

Yep.

Proceed.

My Republican colleagues would have you believe that this bill is about religious freedom and I believe that that's what the intent was but it's simply not the case the way the bill is drafted there should be no mistake about it, this bill is actually a license to discriminate on the taxpayer dime. My amendment is a simple one. It clarifies that this bill does not apply to religious practices or beliefs that discriminate against same-sex or interracial marriages, promote exploitation of minors, or discriminate based on gender identity or sexual orientation. It is truly outrageous to me that any member on this committee, regardless of their party, would vote to advance a bill that allows our tax dollars to subsidize blatant discrimination. That is why my amendment would ensure that discriminatory organizations have no right to maintain tax-exempt status. Not only does the underlying bill green-light discrimination, it also green-lights some very dangerous ideals. This bill, which is only a few lines long, does not include any specific definitions of these beliefs surrounding marriage or sexuality. It is so broad that it could make room for fringe religious organizations that support child marriage to operate under a tax-exempt status. To combat that, my amendment would make sure that this bill does not apply to any religious belief that exploits or endangers children. I wish I could say that I expect this amendment to be adopted unanimously, but unfortunately I don't think that that's going to be the case, if the debate thus far has proven anything. If this bill passes out of committee unamended, it will glean green light discrimination from organizations that are meant to protect and educate Americans. I would remind every w- member on this dais that they have LGBTQ constituents, and every member on this dais has constituents in interracial marriages. I urge you all to consider your most vulnerable constituents back home. and vote for my amendment to ensure that their rights are protected. And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Does any member wish to strike the last word on the amendment? Seeing none, um, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Miss Sanchez. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Kelly.

No.

Mister Kelly, no. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, no. Mister Lahood.

No.

Mister Lahood, no. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, no. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, no.

Yep.

Mr. Hearn.

No.

Mr. Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mr. Kustof.

No.

Mr. Kustof, no. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stubbe. Mr. Stubbe, no. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no.

No.

Mister Moore.

No.

Mister Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, no. Miss Malia Tauches. Miss Malia Tauches, no.

Mister.

Mister Kerry.

No.

Mister Kerry, no. Mister Joachim.

No.

Mister Joachim, no. Mister Miller. Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean. Mister Moran.

No.

Uh, not Mr. Neal. Mister Neal. Mister Neal. Yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett. Yes. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson. Yes. Mister Larson? Mister Larson? Yes. Mister Davis?

Yes.

Mister Davis? Yes. Miss Sanchez? Miss Sanchez? Yes. Miss Sewell? Miss DelBene? Miss DelBene? Yes. Miss Chu? Miss Chu? Yes. Miss Moore? Miss Moore? Yes. Mister Boyle? Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider. Mister Panetta.

Yeah.

Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, yes. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Mister Swasey. Yes. Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

No.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister Errington. Mister Fitzpatrick. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, no. Mister Bean,

No.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran. Miss Sewell. Mister Boyle. Mister Schneider. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

No.

Chairman Smith, no.

Clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are fifteen and the noes are twenty-two.

There being fifteen yeses and twenty-two noes, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments? Miss Moore?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Thank you. A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentlelady suspend while the amendment is distributed?

Thank you.

Gentlelady may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I can see that the committee rejected, uh, a very good amendment, um, a few seconds ago. This one is very, very narrow. It just says this amendment would provide that this bill does not apply to religious beliefs or practices that promote child marriage. Um, I again want to rebut Mister Moore's notion that these are, you know, ten year olds getting married, children being married to older men is, uh, these are isolated, uh, incidences. They are not. I'm not talking about, uh, uh, R Kelly and Alia. I'm talking about real people every day. I'm talking about the founder of the Resilience Foundation in Indiana. Her name is Genevieve. Quote, "I was only fourteen and fresh out of foster care when my parent decided to marry me off to a forty-three old to avoid his prosecution. You know, him having sex with her was illegal, so she had to marry him. I felt powerless and without a future. Just one of the many children married off each year in the US, a country that boasts democracy and justice. Ignoring the issue of child marriage contradicts our stated values of equality. And that is why she has said that she supports my bill that I've just introduced the Child Marriage Prevention Act of twenty twenty six and I am just stunned that everybody won't agree with me. As I have indicated in my further in my um um in um previous uh dialogue said child marriage is harmful to women. You know, it it it is accompanied by violence domestic violence and brutality, giving birth at a very early age, um, uh, forcing women to abdicate their ability to go to school, uh, and, and to be able to become financially independent. Um, and not only is it a problem for American women, three hundred thousand of them just this decade, it United States citizens being forced into it. It is women who are being trafficked from other countries here to be married. There's no limit in age on how young you can be. There there's one account that I have here where a woman was eight years old, pinned down to the bed to get her ear pierced as a part of a ceremony of before she became a bride. Uh, this is not a joke, this is not abstract. And it is not unfortunately, um, just, uh, something that happens every once in a while. Uh, I would hope that, uh, my amendment would be taken in good faith, uh, Representative Moore. Um, just as you offered your bill in good faith, I'm offering this amendment in good faith. And that is because, as you know, From my advocacy, I am very, very, very, uh, triggered by sexual assault. I'm very, very interested in preserving uh, preventing violence against women. Uh, and there is no way that, uh, we that we should we should be, you know, putting this in statute against all of the efforts that have been made over decades to get the seventeen states that we have already had to prevent child marriages. But the other thirty-three, as Miss Chu indicated, that don't have a minimum age for child marriage. It's not even they're not even saying you get your parents' permission and you can marry at sixteen. No. Ten. And so I would I would yield back and and and and offer this entire body an opportunity to do the right thing. by women and by children. I yield back.

Additional members wish to strike the last word on the amendment. Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Miss Moore. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly? No. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert. No. Mister LaHood?

No.

Mister LaHood? No. Mister Arrington? Mister Estes? Mister Estes? No. Mister Smucker? Mister Smucker? No. Mister Hearn?

No.

Mister Hearn? No. Mrs. Miller? Mrs. Miller? No. Doctor Murphy? Mister Kustoff?

No.

Mister Kustoff?

No.

No. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stuebe. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mister Moore. Mister Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, no. Mister Feenstra, Mister Feenstra, no. Miss Maliatakis. Miss Maliatakis, no. Mister Kerry. Mister Joachim. Mister Miller. Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean.

Bean, yes. Bean, no.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran. Mister Neal.

Yes.

Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett,

Yes.

No.

Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson.

Aye.

Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis.

Yes.

Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

Aye.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell. Miss Del Bene. Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chu. Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Aye.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, yes. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi.

Aye.

Mister Swazi, yes. Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister Arrington. Doctor Murphy. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe is not recorded. Mister Stubbe? No. Mister Kerry.

No.

Mister Kerry, no. Mister Yacoum.

No.

Mister Yacoum, no. Mister Moran. Miss Sewell. Mister Schneider. Mister Gomez.

Aye.

Mister Gomez, yes. Miss Plaskett.

How is Doctor Murphy recorded?

Doctor Murphy is not recorded.

No.

Doctor Murphy, no. Chairman Smith.

No.

Chairman Smith, no.

Clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are sixteen and the noes are twenty-two.

There being sixteen yeses and twenty-two noes, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments? Miss Moore is recognized for a second amendment.

Mister Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

A point of order has been reserved. Uh, will the General Lady suspend while the amendment is distributed? You can proceed, Miss Moore.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This is a really straightforward amendment that would prohibit female genital mutilation. Uh, US policy for a long time has condemned the practice of female genital mutilation or the intentional cutting or removal of the female external genitals for non-medical reasons. Unlike circumcision, which is performed on men and is performed in the in the in a religious context, um circumcision can promote the health and safety of boys. Female genital mutilization uh is unhealthy, uh it is harmful to women, and it's harmful to society as a whole. Forty-one states in the United States have criminalized female genital mutilation. That's a shocking number. All of them should prohibit it. It's a serious human rights violation. It's a form of child abuse. And since nineteen ninety six, it has been a federal crime. In twenty thirteen, Congress amended the federal law to strengthen it. And again, in twenty twenty one, when Congress enacted the strengthening the opposition to female genital mutilation, the Stop FGM Act, that prohibits female genital mutilation of minors. It was the work of our late colleague, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. The legislation established clear statutory definition of FG FGM, and made it a federal crime to perform, to attempt to perform, to conspire to f- perform FGM on a minor for parents, guardians, or caretakers to consent to FGM being performed on a minor, or to transport a minor for the purpose of performance of FGM on the minor. The law passed the House Assembly unanimously. At that time, the sponsors of that legislation noted that some may think of FGM as occurring only in foreign nations. But this portrayal is completely inaccurate, and we must set the record straight. FGM is practiced right here in the United States. According to a twenty two twenty twenty three report, of from the US Department of Justice, as many as five hundred thirteen thousand women and girls living in the United States may have experienced FGM uh or cutting in their countries of origin or may potentially over um practically undergo this practice in the future. When I was in the state senate, I was one of the st- uh persons I offered uh the bill that made it illegal in Wisconsin because we had female genital uh mutilation occurring in our state. And over two hundred and thirty million women today are estimated to be survivors of female genital mutilation. While girls are one third less likely to be subject to to female uh genital mutilation than they were thirty years ago, it is only because of laws that are being made now and a recognition and a recognition of the harm and the health consequences of it. It's a human rights abuse that harms all women. When I was in the Gambia, and who did, who was I in the Gambia with? Members of this committee. When I was in the Gambia, as you recall, we traveled overseas on a bipartisan code L to reaffirm to the elected officials in the Gambia, their need to keep a ban on female genital mutilation in place. We should not be hypocrites today, because this bill will clearly, clearly condone female genital mutilation. Um, and so, you know, we need to sweep around our own front door as we criticize other nations for child abuse because it is happening in the United States and we should not pass any law to support it. Uh and I would yield back the balance of my time and thank you so very much. I also want to say to the, before I yield back, to the author, um you can stop this right now. You can accept this amendment um uh in good faith, uh that it won't upend your bill totally. I know I'm in the minority. But my God. This this is this this is we are enacting child abuse into the law, and we shouldn't do it. You can stop it, Mister Moore. I yield back.

Additional members, was to stri- strike the last word on the amendment. Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Miss Moore, the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, no. Mr. Schweikart. Mr. LaHood. Mr. LaHood, no. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, no. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker, no. Mr. Hearn.

No.

Mr. Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Dr. Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mr. Kustof, no. Mr. Kustof, no. Mr. Fitzpatrick.

No.

Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe, no. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mister Moore. Mister Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, no. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, no. Miss Malia Tauches. Miss Malia Tauches, no. Mister Kerry.

No.

Mister Kerry, no. Mister Joachim.

No.

Mister Joachim, no. Mister Miller.

Nope.

Mister Miller, nope. Mister Mr. Bean.

No.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett.

Yes.

Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson.

Aye.

Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis.

Yes.

Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

Aye.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell. Miss Delbene.

Aye.

Miss Delbene, yes.

Miss.

Miss Chu.

Aye.

Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle. Mister Beyer. Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beyer. Mister Beyer. Mister Beyer, yes. Mister Evans. Yes. Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Beyer.

Mister.

Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Mister Horsford, yes. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey.

Aye. Aye.

Mister Swasey, yes. Mister Buchanan. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, no. Mister Ericsson. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Moran. Miss Sewell. Mister Schneider. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

No.

Chairman Smith, no.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are sixteen and the noes are twenty-two.

There being sixteen yeses and twenty-two noes, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Smith for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move that the committee favorably report H R ninety seven twenty two as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R ninety seven twenty two

Mr. Buchanan.

Oh.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, yes. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. Yes, Mr. Hearn.

Yes.

Mr. Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mr. Kustolf.

Yes.

Mr. Kustolf, yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stubbe.

Yes.

Mr. Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney.

Yes.

Miss Tenney, yes. Misses Fischbach.

Yes. Yes.

Misses Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore.

Yes.

Mister Moore, yes. Miss Van Duyn. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Miss Maliatakis, Miss Maliatakis, yes. Mister Carey.

Yes.

Mister Carey, yes. Mister Joachim. Mister Miller. Mister Miller, yes. Mister Bean.

Yes.

Mister Bean. Yes, Mister Moran.

Yes.

Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal.

Take a half a second. Oh, there you go, dude.

Mister Neal, no. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, no. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, no. Mister Larson. Mister Larson, no. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell.

No.

Miss Sewell, no. Miss Del Bene. Miss Del Bene, no. Miss Chu. Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, no. Mister Boyle.

No.

Mister Boyle, no. Mister Buyer. Mister Buyer, no. Mister Evans.

No.

Mister Evans, no. Mister Schneider. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, no. Mister Gomez.

No.

Mister Gomez, no. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi.

No.

Mister Swazi, no. Mister Buchanan.

Oh, hard.

Mister LaHood. Mister LaHood, ye-

Oh yes, he's here.

Yes, Mister LaHood.

Mister LaHood, yes. Mister Errington. Mister Fitzpatrick.

Yes.

Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Miss Van Duyn. Mister Joachim.

Yes.

Mister Joachim, yes. Mister Schneider. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-three and the noes are six.

There being twenty-three yeses and sixteen noes, the motion is agreed to and H R ninety-seven twenty-two as amended is ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-seven twenty-two and that members have two additional days to file with the with the committee clerk's supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. There being no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. you