▶ 0:02:48Test, test, test.
▶ 0:16:49Let me know.
▶ 0:16:50You ready?
▶ 0:17:54The committee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to today's markup 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, taxexempt organizations have experienced rapid growth in the United States.
▶ 0:18:24In 1985, charities held 665 billion in net assets. Today, there are $1.6 million charities that have $4.8 in net assets.
▶ 0:18:46The tax exempt sector is about 15% of the entire economy, the same size as the state of California, and has grown to account for nearly 3.5 trillion in annual revenues.
▶ 0:19:03As 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 taxexempt sector operates in darkness, deliberately hiding in the shadows to avoid scrutiny.
▶ 0:19:27This committee has uncovered incidents of organizations abusing their generous tax benefits while seeking to divide Americans so chaos in our communities and manipulate American politics and public life.
▶ 0:19:42For example, in 2024, the committee found that the Alliance for Global Justice, a 501c3 organization, fiscally sponsored Sammy Dune, 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.
▶ 0:20:09However, Alliance for Global Justice was never required to disclose Sammy Dune as a project on their form 9990 despite giving them the benefit of taxexempt 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.
▶ 0:20:35Foreign 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 a Swiss billionaire Jans York V.
▶ 0:20:58He has given over $280 million 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 laundered through our taxexempt sector.
▶ 0:21:26It is illegal for members of Congress to accept foreign donations. The same standard should apply to our nonprofit sector. More recently, this committee committee's oversight efforts in the investigation of Neville Roy Singum have uncovered how the American nonprofit system can be weaponized at scale.
▶ 0:21:50Shanghai Singum and his wife with close ties to China channel millions of dollars through nonprofits that by design obscure the true source of As [snorts] 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 and today's legislation is vital.
▶ 0:22:18These bills will reign in in the rogue actors in the taxexempt space and redirect the sector's focus on its primary charitable Our first bill from oversight subcommittee chairman Schweiker shines further light on the taxexempt se sector by requiring all taxexempt organizations to publicly disclose foreign donations.
▶ 0:22:44This legislation specifically highlights contributions from foreign nationals from countries of concern like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Representative Matt Malotakus has a bill before us today that penalizes taxexempt organizations that receive donations from foreign nationals and in turn donate to political committees like super PACs.
▶ 0:23:13This 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. Taxempt organizations will be required to disclose certain information about the groups that they are fiscally sponsoring.
▶ 0:23:41While 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.
▶ 0:24:03Lastly, 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 taxexempt status.
▶ 0:24:24Moreover, the IRS should not be in the business of making determinations regarding an organization's taxexempt 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 taxexempt sector. I'm now pleased to recognize the ranking member from Massachusetts, Mr. Neil for his opening statement.
▶ 0:24:54Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. With just days to go before Republicans get out of town for more than a month, they're using what time they have left, jamming the House with partisan budget and messaging bills and a CR because they can't even fund the government.
▶ 0:25:11This is the third markup 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.
▶ 0:25:34Every 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, wild goose chases for s solutions to problems that don't exist.
▶ 0:26:02And 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 $400 million jet donated by a foreign government isn't even safe to fly.
▶ 0:26:27Maybe the majority can get us a few details about the $500 million 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 markup 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 50% tariff. Think of it.
▶ 0:26:59150 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 and a common border that stretches for thousands of to be an impeccable relationship only to discover that that relationship is now severely damaged.
▶ 0:27:27While 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.
▶ 0:27:46The only reason that this continues is to get a free pass unilaterally to hike costs on the American people because our colleagues [clears throat] will not exercise their constitutional obligation to stand up for the institution of the House of Representatives. They 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.
▶ 0:28:13We 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 $200 billion increase in spending without congressional review, families are watching gas prices now back above $4 a gallon.
▶ 0:28:42Our 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.
▶ 0:29:00Our first order of business is HR 9772, the Foreign Funding Transparency Act, introduced by Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Schweiker. Oversight Chairman Schweikert and I led an examination into foreign funding sources for taxexempt organizations, which yielded some very interesting results.
▶ 0:29:20His willingness to hold these nonprofits accountable and engage in a nuance 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.
▶ 0:29:45those nations whose influence is particularly concerning in the [snorts] taxexempt sector. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I'm pleased to recognize a gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schwikert for an opening statement.
▶ 0:29:58Um, 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 is if it's from a country of concern. Um and Mr.
▶ 0:30:21Chairman um my latest data says the nonprofit or taxexempt sector is now almost 17% 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 taxexempt organizations.
▶ 0:30:45How the money flows through and how many of these organizations may also have the ability to move donations some of these dollars into 501c4 or CC C3s 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.
▶ 0:31:16So, we're going to hopefully with this bill start to collect some baseline data on the scale of it and [snorts] 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, Mr. Nil, for his opening
▶ 0:31:41Today, workingclass families across America are wondering how they're going to pay rent at the end of the month, afford groceries, fill up their te gas tank, or pay for the next doctor's appointment after being kicked off their health insurance. And what are Republicans on this committee doing to help those families? absolutely nothing.
▶ 0:32:01Instead 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.
▶ 0:32:28That'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.
▶ 0:32:58But 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.
▶ 0:33:20And 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.
▶ 0:33:50All 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 $20 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.
▶ 0:34:19It creates unnecessary barriers between charities and the people who simply want to help. And that's exactly why organizations that represent the nonprofit sector, including the National Council of Nonprofits, 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.
▶ 0:34:49And 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
▶ 0:35:05Without 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 I owe back.
▶ 0:35:34The committee will now proceed to consideration of HR 9772, 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.
▶ 0:35:58I will now turn to Tom Bartal, chief of staff for the joint committee on taxation to provide a technical description of the amendment and 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.
▶ 0:36:13Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents, JCX 3526 and JCX 3926, which describe the underlying legislation and the chairman's amendment, the nature of a substitute. By way of background and summary, taxexempt organizations under present law are generally required to file information returns annually. This is usually the uh form 990.
▶ 0:36:38This legislation requires additional information from specified taxexempt organizations. A specified taxexempt organization under this legislation is defined as an organization whose gross receipts are greater than or equal to per year or have assets as of the close of the prior taxable year greater than or equal to $1.5 million.
▶ 0:37:04The aggregate contributions that these organizations receive from foreign nationals are to be part of deta uh information required to be uh reported on the form 990 with more detailed breakdown with respect to foreign nationals from foreign countries of concern. This legislation in the chairman's amendment nature of substitute makes clerical changes uh in identifying subsections rather than sections.
▶ 0:37:32The 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 2027 through 2036. That concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have.
▶ 0:37:55Thank 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. Mr. Dogget is recognized to strike the last word.
▶ 0:38:08Mr. Chairman, uh, a day devoted in this committee to taxexempt organizations instead of the concerns that most American families face. But surprisingly, a day devoted to taxexempt organizations that totally omits the leading taxexempt organization in the country. That's called the Trump uh abusing public trust for private gain has become a way of life for the Trump family.
▶ 0:38:36Uh they uh know that they can get away with anything they want because of the enablers they have here in this Congress. As for taxexempt or non-government organizations that are the subject of the four bills before us today, authoritarians around the world NOS, non-government organizations, because by their very nature, they can't totally control and dominate them. There's nothing in this first bill for the family that's staring a grocery bill that climbs higher every month.
▶ 0:39:07Nothing 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.
▶ 0:39:29What 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 990 wi which would now have to interrogate its donors about where they were from and hand a foreign donor ledger to the federal government.
▶ 0:39:58A donor's nationality is not information that charities normally collect. So, a food bank in Austin, scholarship fund, a children's hospital would 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.
▶ 0:40:26The 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 [clears throat] 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 and politics.
▶ 0:40:55This committee knows that the corrosive flood of money of anonymous corporate and billionaire money that's coursing through the dark money 501c4s 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.
▶ 0:41:15Instead, 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 non-government organizations to catalog their foreign funding is the opening move in the authoritarians playbook.
▶ 0:41:41Russia wrote that playbook back in 2012 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.
▶ 0:42:06It's driven thousands out onto the streets of Tlisi 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.
▶ 0:42:31Every 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.
▶ 0:42:58What will this bill do is just to chill lawful, generous giving, bury our charities and paperwork, and hand the Treasury Department that has already openly declared war on civil society a fresh list of targets. I yield
▶ 0:43:15Mr. Davis.
▶ 0:43:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I move strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my strong opposition to the bill before us. the supposed foreign funding transparency act.
▶ 0:43:34According to the bill's description, HR9772 is intended to require disclosure by certain taxexempt organizations of information relating to foreign contributions to such organizations.
▶ 0:43:53Yet, a deeper dive reveals that the bill is drafted would essentially compel to ask for and report on the nationality of donors, among other items of as determined in the future by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is information currently not or collected.
▶ 0:44:20The legislative changes mandated by this bill will do nothing more than increase the administrative and reporting burdens for valuable nonprofit organizations, many of which are already struggling to contain and sustain their programming during these tumultuous times.
▶ 0:44:45Since the onset of the Trump we have seen US government funding and services slashed, 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 notfor-profit organizations.
▶ 0:45:12The 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
▶ 0:45:42list goes on. So instead of collaborating on ways to better support the nonprofit sector or address affordability challenges facing American families and workers, my Republican colleagues are instead advancing harmful policies that target nonprofit charities and unions.
▶ 0:46:05policies that will potentially have a chilling effect on the abilities of these organizations to [clears throat] generate funding to carry out their important missions. The bill before us also fails to include any donor privacy exemption or guard rails as we've seen in past bypartisan approaches to this issue which is partly why the national council of nonprofits the AF of LCIO
▶ 0:46:36and the Council of Foundations have all raised concerns about the committee's consideration of 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 harm for partisan bill and instead focus on the more pressing matters confronting
▶ 0:47:07our fellow citizens, the cost of milk, eggs, bread, and gasoline. I thank you, Mr. chairman and yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 0:47:19Thank you, Miss Moore.
▶ 0:47:25Thank you so much uh for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I actually wanted to engage in a a colloquy with uh Mr. Dogget. uh he made some observations about the uh hamstringing of non-governmental organizations and I was wondering if he had if he saw a through line between that and the and um what
▶ 0:47:55has happened in international um organizations and what's happening here with this bill. What I'm thinking of uh Mr. Dog it is for the first time memberdirected 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.
▶ 0:48:25And 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 nos of we've actually met with NOS's almost in secret in some countries and I wanted to yield to you um to elaborate on that a little bit.
▶ 0:48:45Well, the gentleoman is certainly correct that this is a worldwide phenomenon. Wherever there's authoritarian government, wannabe tyrants and kings, they like to suppress non-government organizations. And you will certainly remember that the first foreign leader that President Trump met with before he was inaugurated was Victor Arban of Hungary,
▶ 0:49:06right? He made a crusade out of attacking George Soros 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.
▶ 0:49:23Now, fortunately, uh, despite the campaign efforts of President Trump and Vice President Vance going to his last campaign rally, the people of Hungary, after 16 horrible years, were able to overthrow and vote out Orban. Hopefully, it's not going to take us that long here in the United States to reclaim our government. But the point you made, the point Mr. Davis made is very significant.
▶ 0:49:47uh that uh community organizations are having to fill in the gaps 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 to fund their foreign wars uh and their tax breaks for billionaires. And this is part of the same effort.
▶ 0:50:12deny 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.
▶ 0:50:36So 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 non-government organizations and then there of course is the total contradiction today that I know you're familiar with uh that you talk about taxexempt organizations But
▶ 0:51:06you exempt from the discussion the number one taxexempt organization, 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.
▶ 0:51:29And one year in the past, he was generous enough on huge earnings to pay $750, which was more than most years when he didn't pay a
▶ 0:51:39Um, thank you so much, Mr. Dogget. 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.
▶ 0:51:55Mr. Byer. Uh,
▶ 0:51:57thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I too am deeply concerned about the current state of foreign affair interference in US 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.
▶ 0:52:16Just look at UAE buying a stake in Royal Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company owned by the Trump family and then being rewarded with importing Nvidia chips or Qar and Air Force One since Trump proudly boast about that the other day. But instead of looking at the elephant in the room with repeated and welldocumented evidence of grift inappropriate foreign influence and self-deing, we are here today to attack our charitable sector.
▶ 0:52:40And 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.
▶ 0:53:02The 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 dissident or for racial profiling. That should be paramount.
▶ 0:53:28We'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 question. Or you can see this affect diaspora communities. I represent a number of very important diaspora communities in Northern Virginia.
▶ 0:53:48Folks 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 the 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.
▶ 0:54:10There 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 is here legally as a resident would refrain from donating to an organization for fear of being placed on Steven Miller's enemies list. We've seen this from Steven and Katie many times already.
▶ 0:54:34And this negatively impacts unions who have members who are non- US 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.
▶ 0:55:03There'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 unamerican. I'm really concerned this is not a bill that helps prevent hostile foreign actors intent on illicitly influencing US policy. They are unlikely to be caught up in this regime, but rather this will be a burden for compliant charities.
▶ 0:55:32those 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 0:56:00Thank 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?
▶ 0:56:13Mr. Horford.
▶ 0:56:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh before I begin, I request unanimous consent.
▶ 0:56:20A point of order has been reserved. Um would the gentleman suspend while the amendment is distributed? Gentlemen, proceed.
▶ 0:56:40Thank you, Mr. 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
▶ 0:56:51Without objection.
▶ 0:56:52Thank you. This underlying bill makes it that every single donation to a nonprofit must be surveiled. The bill is as simple as that. The bill requires that nonprofits will track every contribution and be required to ask you what nationality you are.
▶ 0:57:15What 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.
▶ 0:57:38So, 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 surveil them. Yet, this bill would require every union, every food pantry to create hidden lists of nationalities for the government to have on them.
▶ 0:58:05I 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 billiondoll multinational corporations that can donate through US So why are we requiring food pantries and unions to be the targets?
▶ 0:58:36Make 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.
▶ 0:59:02Otherwise, 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.
▶ 0:59:17Thank 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. Horford. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 0:59:28Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. No. Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Schwikert. No. Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Le Hood.
▶ 0:59:56Mr. Lood is
▶ 0:59:58Mr. Le Hood. Yes.
▶ 1:00:02He said
▶ 1:00:03he said no.
▶ 1:00:03Mr. Leood. No. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. No. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Hearn, Mr. Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Miller, no.
▶ 1:00:34Dr. Murphy, Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Stwie. Miss Tenny.
▶ 1:01:04Miss Tenny. No. Mrs. Fishbach. No.
▶ 1:01:08Mrs. Fishbach. No.
▶ 1:01:11Mr. Moore.
▶ 1:01:12Mr. Moore. No. Miss Vanine. Miss Vanine. No. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. No. Miss Malotakus. Miss Maliaakus. No.
▶ 1:01:29Mr. Kerry.
▶ 1:01:30Mr. Kerry. No. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 1:01:34Mr. Yakam. No. Mr. Miller.
▶ 1:01:40Mr. Miller. No.
▶ 1:01:43Mr. Bean.
▶ 1:01:44Bean. No
▶ 1:01:45Mr. Bean. No, Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran. No, Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil. Yes. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Dogget. Yes. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Larson.
▶ 1:02:05Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Davis.
▶ 1:02:09Mr. Davis. Yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. Yes, Miss Su.
▶ 1:02:22Mr. Duben.
▶ 1:02:24Mr. Duben. Yes. Miss Chu Miss Chu. Yes. Miss Moore.
▶ 1:02:33Miss Moore. Yes. Mr. Bole.
▶ 1:02:38Mr. Boille. Yes. Mr. Byer.
▶ 1:02:43Mr. Mr. Byer. Yes. Mr. Evans.
▶ 1:02:48Mr. Evans. Yes. Mr. Schneider.
▶ 1:02:51Mr. Schneider. Yes. Mr. Petta. Mr. Petta. Yes. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horseford. Mr. Horford. Yes. Miss Plask. Mr. Swazy.
▶ 1:03:17Mr. Swazy. Yes.
▶ 1:03:22Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 1:03:25Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No. Mr. Arrington.
▶ 1:03:32Mr. Arrington. No. Mr. Smucker. Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy. No. Mr. Kustoff, Mr.
▶ 1:04:00Fitzpatrick, Mr. Stubby, Miss Su, Mr. Gomez, Miss Plask.
▶ 1:04:41Chairman Smith.
▶ 1:04:43Chairman Smith. No. [clears throat] How is Mr. Kustoff recorded?
▶ 1:04:52Mr. Kustoff is not recorded.
▶ 1:04:55Mr. Kustoff, no. How is Mr. Gomez recorded?
▶ 1:05:24Mr. Gomez is not recorded.
▶ 1:05:27Mr. Gomez, yes.
▶ 1:05:36Clerk will call the role. Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 17 and the nos are 22. [clears throat]
▶ 1:05:51Repeat the number.
▶ 1:05:53Yeses are 17 and the nos are 22.
▶ 1:05:56There being 17 yeses and 22 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?
▶ 1:06:01Mr. Chair, I wish to offer an amendment.
▶ 1:06:04Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
▶ 1:06:06A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentle lady um suspend while the amendment is distributed?
▶ 1:06:33You can proceed. Over the past 18 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 $45 million in crypto tokens from the World Liberty Financial, the family's uh crypto business of Trump.
▶ 1:07:02A month later, Trump's SEC announced they'd be put 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 President Trump to be 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.
▶ 1:07:32But 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 Soft Bank Group donated $50 million to Trump's Presidential Library Foundation, a 501c3 This is exactly the type of nonprofit that Republicans
▶ 1:08:03are 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 taxexempt 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 taxexempt organizations are beholdened
▶ 1:08:33to the same My amendment would ensure that presidential libraries and the taxexempt 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 reporting requirements as Republicans are demanding of other similarly structured taxexempt organizations.
▶ 1:09:01I urge support for my amendment and I yield back. Is there additional members that wish to strike the last word?
▶ 1:09:10Mr. Dogget,
▶ 1:09:12sponsors of this bill are telling us that they're so deeply troubled by foreign money going into nonprofit organizations, but they ignore the leading uh taxexempt organization in this country, the Trump Organization, and its various uh entities that are out there like the library foundation.
▶ 1:09:33uh they ignore the fact that the Trump organization the Trump regime is out turning on the money spigot in one country after the world around the world one country after another. Uh this amendment 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 501c3 organization. It files the very same form 990 that this bill amends.
▶ 1:10:01It's a specified taxexempt organization under the text of their proposal. Uh it just assures that the president on this foundation cannot wiggle out as he is wiggled out from most everything else. But he ought to at least apply that 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.
▶ 1:10:26Under 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 $400 million luxury jet from cutter, 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.
▶ 1:10:51but fly it under this expense and then hand it over in a matter of just a few months to his taxexempt library foundation and potentially disclose nothing about it. If this committee is truly worried about foreign influence through taxexempt 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.
▶ 1:11:20uh on hit their soil and ours. The Chu 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 $63 million to Trump's library with the total value of gifts pouring in approaching half a billion dollars. Paramount, for example, routed $16 million into that library after a phony Trump lawsuit.
▶ 1:11:51Uh, 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 major ownership interest over one of America's largest news companies. Metapay 22 million, ABC 15 million, Elon Musk 10 million. These weren't gifts to history.
▶ 1:12:18They 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 taxpayerfree operation. Uh it was uh businesses knowing that this was just a normal course of business to pay in uh to Trump. And there's another significant reason here that we need the disclosure that Congresswoman Chu is proposing.
▶ 1:12:46The 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 inquired 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, Mr.
▶ 1:13:14Chairman, 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 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 taxexempt organization being used as a foreign government piggy bank by the president himself.
▶ 1:13:40A 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.
▶ 1:14:05Uh so I urge the adoption of the amendment as a way of ensuring 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 Chu. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 1:14:28Mr. Buchanan.
▶ 1:14:33Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 1:14:36Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No.
▶ 1:14:40Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. No.
▶ 1:14:44Mr. Schwiker. Mr. Le Hood.
▶ 1:14:52Mr. Le Hood. No. Mr. Arrington.
▶ 1:15:00Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. No. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. No. Mr. Hearn. No.
▶ 1:15:08Mr. Hearn. No. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller.
▶ 1:15:14Dr. Murphy. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. No. Mr. Mr. Stwie. Mr. Stwie. No. Miss. Tenny. Miss. Tenny. No. Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Moore.
▶ 1:15:44Mr. Moore. No. Miss Vanine.
▶ 1:15:53Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. No. Miss Malotakus. Miss Malotakus. No. Mr. Kerry.
▶ 1:16:03Mr. Kerry. No.
▶ 1:16:05Mr. Yakam. No.
▶ 1:16:07Mr. Yakam. No.
▶ 1:16:09Mr. Miller.
▶ 1:16:11Mr. Miller. No.
▶ 1:16:13Mr. Bean. Mr. Bean, no. Mr. Moran,
▶ 1:16:18Mr. Moran, no. Mr. Neil,
▶ 1:16:23Mr. Neil, yes. Mr. Dogget, Mr. Dogget, yes. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson, Mr. Larson, yes. Mr. Davis, Mr. Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez, Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Su, Miss Delben, Miss Delben, Yes. Miss Chu, Miss Chu, yes, Miss Moore,
▶ 1:16:55Miss Moore, yes, Mr. Bole,
▶ 1:16:58Mr. Boille, yes, Mr. Byer.
▶ 1:17:02Mr. Byer. Yes, Mr. Evans.
▶ 1:17:05Mr. Evans, yes, Mr. Schneider.
▶ 1:17:08Mr. Schneider. Yes, Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta. Yes. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez. Yes. Mr. Horford. Mr. Horford. Yes. Miss Mr. Swazy.
▶ 1:17:27Mr. Swazy. Yes.
▶ 1:17:31Mr. Buchanan.
▶ 1:17:36Mr. Schwikert. No.
▶ 1:17:38Mr. Schwikert. No, Mr. Arrington Mr. Arrington. No, Dr. Murphy. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
▶ 1:18:05How is Murphy recorded?
▶ 1:18:08Dr. Dr. Murphy is not recorded.
▶ 1:18:10Dr. Murphy, no.
▶ 1:18:16Miss Van Dy,
▶ 1:18:22Miss Su, Miss Plask.
▶ 1:18:30Chairman Smith,
▶ 1:18:32Chairman Smith, no. Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 17 and the nos are 23.
▶ 1:18:44There being 17 nos and 17 yeses and 23 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?
▶ 1:18:52Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 1:18:54M. Delenny, would you um would you suspend while um the the amendment is distributed?
▶ 1:19:01Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
▶ 1:19:02The point of order has been reserved. You can proceed.
▶ 1:19:14Thank 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 AY's workforce.
▶ 1:19:34And during the most recent tax filing season, the IRS was forced to reassign many of its remaining employees to responsibilities outside of their areas of expertise following the administration's indiscriminate mass The wealthy and well-connected know this and are actively exploiting a weakened RS to avoid scrutiny while ordinary taxpayers bear the consequences.
▶ 1:20:01My colleagues across the aisle talk about how they want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and programs that working families rely on.
▶ 1:20:08Will the gentleoman suspend? Mr. Chairman, the committee room is not in
▶ 1:20:15It has been a little obnoxious today with the people in this crowd. So, let's keep it quiet.
▶ 1:20:20Thank my colleagues across the aisle talk about how they want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in programs that working families rely on. Yet the current $700 billion 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.
▶ 1:20:44And 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.
▶ 1:21:12You 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.
▶ 1:21:41I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 1:21:44Does a gentleman insist on his point of
▶ 1:21:46Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. It's under clause seven of house rule 16. Amendments that expand the scope of the underlying measure are not germanine. 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 gerine. I urge the chair to sustain the point of order.
▶ 1:22:06Does the sponsor of the amendment wish to be heard on the point of order?
▶ 1:22:09I do, Mr. Chairman. All of today's bills impose additional regulatory and oversight responsibilities on the IRS at a time when the agency is 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.
▶ 1:22:39The underlying bill expands compliance obligations on Adequate IRS resources are necessary for implementing those obligations and this amendment addresses that.
▶ 1:22:52I'm prepared to rule the amendment is not gerine and the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in
▶ 1:22:58I'd like to appeal the ruling of the
▶ 1:23:00Mr. Chairman, I move to table.
▶ 1:23:02The question is on tableabling the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 1:23:16Mr. Smith from Nebraska. Yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. Yes. Mr. Schwiker.
▶ 1:23:28Mr. Leood.
▶ 1:23:30Mr. Le Hood. Yes. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. Yes.
▶ 1:23:43Mr. Smucker.
▶ 1:23:48Mr. Hearn.
▶ 1:23:49Mr. Hearn. Yes.
▶ 1:23:52Mrs. Miller.
▶ 1:23:53Mrs. Miller. Yes.
▶ 1:23:56Dr. Murphy. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. Yes. Mr.
▶ 1:24:08Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes.
▶ 1:24:10Mr. Stwie.
▶ 1:24:12Mr. Stwie.
▶ 1:24:13Yes. Miss Tenny.
▶ 1:24:15Miss Tenny. Yes. Mrs. Fishbach.
▶ 1:24:19Mrs. Fishbach. Yes. Mr. Moore.
▶ 1:24:24Mr. Moore. Yes. Miss. Van Dyene. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. Yes, Miss Maliaakis. Miss Malotakus. Yes, Mr.
▶ 1:24:40Mr. Kerry. Yes, Mr. Yakam.
▶ 1:24:43Mr. Yakam. Yes, Mr. Miller.
▶ 1:24:47Mr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Bean.
▶ 1:24:50Mr. Bean. Yes, Mr. Moran.
▶ 1:24:54Mr. Moran. Yes,
▶ 1:24:56Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil, no. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Dogget. No. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. No. Mr. Larson.
▶ 1:25:09Mr. Larson. No. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis. No. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. No. Miss Su Miss Su. No. Miss Delben.
▶ 1:25:22Miss Delben. No. Miss Chu.
▶ 1:25:25Miss Chu. No. Miss Moore.
▶ 1:25:28Miss Moore. No Mr. Boille. No
▶ 1:25:31Mr. Bole. No Mr. Byer Mr. Byer. No Mr. Evans. No
▶ 1:25:39Mr. Evans. No Mr. Schneider.
▶ 1:25:42Mr. Schneider. No Mr. Petta. Mr. Petta. No. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez. No. Mr. Horsesford. Mr. Horford. No. Miss Plask. Mr. Mr. Swazy.
▶ 1:26:00Mr. Swazy. No. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Schwikert.
▶ 1:26:10Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Smucker. Dr. Murphy. Miss Vanine, Miss Plask.
▶ 1:26:44Chairman Smith.
▶ 1:26:47Chairman Smith. Yes. Clerk will report the vote.
▶ 1:27:15Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 21 and the nos are 18.
▶ 1:27:19There being 21 yeses and 18 nos, 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 I. I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 1:27:37In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Smith for purpose of offering a motion.
▶ 1:27:46Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee favorably report HR 9772 as amended to the House of Representatives. The question is in a motion to favorably report HR 9772 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 1:28:00Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. Yes. Mr. Schwiker. Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Arrington.
▶ 1:28:30Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. Yes. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Hearn.
▶ 1:28:40Mr. Hearn. Yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. Yes. Dr. Murphy. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. Yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes. Mr.
▶ 1:28:59Mr. Stwie. Yes. Miss Tenny.
▶ 1:29:03M. Tenny. Yes. Mrs. Fishbach.
▶ 1:29:06Mrs. Fishbach. Yes. Mr. Moore.
▶ 1:29:11Mr. Moore. Yes. Miss Vanine. Mr. Mr. Fenstra, Miss Malotakus. Miss Malotakus. Yes. Mr. Kerry.
▶ 1:29:29Mr. Carrie. Yes. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 1:29:33Mr. Yakam. Yes. Mr. Miller.
▶ 1:29:37Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Bean.
▶ 1:29:40Mr. Bean. Yes. Mr. Moran.
▶ 1:29:43Mr. Moran. Yes.
▶ 1:29:46Mr. Neil Mr. Neil No Mr. Dogget Mr. Dogget No Mr. Thompson Mr. Thompson no Mr. Larson Mr. Larson no Mr. Davis Mr. Davis, no. Miss Sanchez, Miss Sanchez, no Miss Sul Miss Su, no Miss Dennu,
▶ 1:30:12Miss Chu, no Miss Moore, Miss Moore, no Mr. Boille, no
▶ 1:30:17Mr. Boille, no Mr. Byer,
▶ 1:30:20Mr. Byer, no Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans, no Mr. Schneider,
▶ 1:30:27Mr. Schneider. No. Mr. Petta,
▶ 1:30:30Mr. Petta, no. Mr. Gomez,
▶ 1:30:34Mr. Gomez, no.
▶ 1:30:36Mr. Horseford Mr. Horford. No. Miss Plasket. Mr. Swazy. No.
▶ 1:30:52Mr. Swazy. No. Mr. Buchanan Mr. Schwiker. Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Le Hood. Yes. Mr. Arrington.
▶ 1:31:16Mr. Arrington. Yes. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. Yes, Dr. Murphy. Miss Vanine. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. Yes. Miss Plask.
▶ 1:31:49How's Mr. Schwher recorded?
▶ 1:31:50Mr. Schwiker is not recorded. Mr. Schwiker. Yes.
▶ 1:32:02Chairman Smith.
▶ 1:32:04Chairman Smith. Yes.
▶ 1:32:17Clerk will report the vote.
▶ 1:32:19Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 23 and the nos are 18.
▶ 1:32:22There being 23 yeses and 18 nos, the motion is agreed to in HR 9772 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to HR 9772 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 HR 9771, the Stopping Foreign Influence and Elections Act of 2026, introduced by Representative Malotakus.
▶ 1:32:53As 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 Malotakus 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 a gentle lady from New York, Miss Malotakus, for an opening statement.
▶ 1:33:18Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate uh this bill, my stopping foreign influence and elections act of 2026 being included in today's markup. Foreign nationals should not be able to use taxexempt 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 nonprofit organizations and political groups to influence our democratic process.
▶ 1:33:48Under 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 taxexempt organizations that then transfer funds to political committees, including super PACs that are involved in our elections.
▶ 1:34:15This is a significant loophole, and my legislation, HR 9771, closes it in a straightforward and targeted way. Reporting suggests that foreign nationals have taken advantage of this loophole in the tax code, which allows taxexempt organizations that receive contributions from foreign nationals to then turn around and donate large sums to political committees.
▶ 1:34:39For example, Swiss billionaire Hanjour has reportedly used his USbased taxexempt organizations to contribute to other organizations that then directed significant sums into the political process. Mr.
▶ 1:34:56Weiss operated both a 501c3 organization, the Weiss Foundation, and a 501c4 organization, the Burger Action According to reporting by the New York Times cited in the House Ways and Means Committee report, the Burger Action Fund contributed more than $135 million to the 1630 fund over a 4-year period.
▶ 1:35:21And in 2020 alone, that 1630 fund contributed $63 million to super PACs supporting President Biden and the The bill prohibits larger taxexempt organizations from making contributions to political committees for two years after receiving a gift or contribution from a foreign national.
▶ 1:35:43The restriction applies to organizations with at least $200,000 in annual gross receipts or in assets. The bill also establishes escalating penalties for taxexempts organizations that violate this prohibition by accepting contributions from foreign nationals and then donating to political committees.
▶ 1:36:04After a third violation, the organization's tax exempt status is suspended for a 2-year period beginning on the date the prohibited contribution is made. The legislation is similar to HR 8314, the No Foreign Elections Interference Act, which this committee passed in 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.
▶ 1:36:35This legislation also ensures that organizations cannot simply vote um route money through a 501c4 organization to evade these restrictions because certain 501c4 organizations may make unlimited contributions to political committees including super PACs. Closing the political closing the potential workaround is an important part of this bill. I would also like to clarify a common misconception about this legislation.
▶ 1:37:05This 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.
▶ 1:37:29It is narrowly focused on gifts and contributions made to taxexempt 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 taxexempt organizations and then have those funds ultimately used to influence American elections. Mr. Schwiker's bill requires the transparency to know who's doing it and our bill penalizes it.
▶ 1:37:59Our elections belong to the American people. HR9771, the Stopping for Foreign Influence and Elections Act of 2026, is an important step toward ensuring that foreign money does not find its way into our political process through nonprofit organizations. And I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 1:38:18I now recognize the ranking member.
▶ 1:38:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to yield my time to the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horford.
▶ 1:38:25I 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 uh to
▶ 1:38:56uh campaigns.
▶ 1:38:57Without objection.
▶ 1:38:58Thank 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 Batty 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.
▶ 1:39:26A tax refund from four months ago is not paying for next month's rent. 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?
▶ 1:39:48With this committee's limited time while families ration insulin and skip meals, we are debating the taxexempt status of nonprofit 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.
▶ 1:40:18And if the thought process is that a 501c 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.
▶ 1:40:46So 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.
▶ 1:41:02If it what it does if an organization any 501c received any donation from any foreign national in the past two years every political contribution becomes I want to put that in perspective for my colleagues who claim to be pro- union because labor unions are 501c That means if a single union local has a single duespaying
▶ 1:41:32member 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 proworker 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.
▶ 1:42:02So 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.
▶ 1:42:22It is already illegal for foreign nationals to directly or indirectly inject money into our The American people are telling us they can't afford basic living standards. That is what the serious issue is that we should be addressing. and before we leave for some August district work period.
▶ 1:42:47That's what this committee should be taking up, not attacks on nonprofit organizations that provide services to our constituents. I yield The committee will now proceed to consideration of HR 9771, the Stopping Foreign Influence and Elections Act of 2026. 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.
▶ 1:43:15Without 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 Bartold, chief of staff of the joint committee on taxation to provide a technical description of the amendment and 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.
▶ 1:43:37Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. The uh committee members have before them two joint committee documents JCX 3626 and JCX 4026 which describe the underlying legislation and the chairman's amendment the nature of a substitute. The chairman's amendment the nature of a substitute uh corrects some uh singular nouns to plural nouns to basic basically uh review what the legislation does.
▶ 1:44:01It provides that if any organization exempt under section 501c makes a contribution to a political entity and if in the 2-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 There is then imposed a tax of 100%
▶ 1:44:31of the value of a disqualified political committee contribution on the first such instance of such contribution. Second instance of such a contribution a 200% tax is imposed. Uh and in a third instance a 200% tax is imposed plus there's a 2-year lo period loss of exemption for the organization.
▶ 1:44:55An additional penalty is provided under this legislation equal to 200% of the value of the contribution uh by specified taxexempt organizations and these are certain larger taxexempt organizations. This legislation would be effective for contributions made after the date, which is one year after the date of enactment.
▶ 1:45:18And the staff of the joint committee on taxation has estimated that this would increase uh federal receipts by less than $500,000 over the budget period of fiscal years 2027 through 2036. Uh that concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might
▶ 1:45:37Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Miss Chu,
▶ 1:45:44Mr. Chair and uh Mr. Bart told under this bill, a taxexempt 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 501c4 organization. If they do so, the organizations could even lose its taxexempt status for the next two years. Before I begin, I want to clear be clear about one point.
▶ 1:46:11Under current law, foreign nationals are already prohibited 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, Mr.
▶ 1:46:39Bartold, 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 50 cents. Is that
▶ 1:46:55Uh, that is correct, M. Chu.
▶ 1:46:58There is no specific prohibition on union dues being considered contributions. Therefore, unions could be affected. So, let's say the IRS interprets this bill's incredibly broad definitions to mean that union dues do count as contributions. And so let's say a non-citizen joins a union as they are explicitly allowed to do and they begin paying their dues under this bill.
▶ 1:47:25Would that union then be penalized for donating to a pack or 501c4 social welfare organization?
▶ 1:47:32Uh Miss 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.
▶ 1:47:53Okay. Uh let's say that a US-based taxexempt charity accepts donations from a Canadian grocery store chain that solicits donations through a customer roundup 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 501c4 social welfare
▶ 1:48:15Uh the legislation does not provide a prohibition uh but it would uh potentially subject the uh charitable organization to the uh penalty excise
▶ 1:48:27So the answer is yes. Let's say a US-based taxexempt 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 from making contributions to section 501c4 social welfare organization?
▶ 1:48:52Well, again, just to be pre precise, not a prohibition, but the organization could be subject to the uh penalty excess.
▶ 1:48:58Then the answer is yes. Suppose a US-based taxexempt or humanitarian organization provides medical care overseas and receives a small recurring donation from an Australian supporter of $10 a month to help fund that charitable work. Under this proposal, would this organization be penalized if it makes contributions to political entities, including 501c4, social welfare I I should probably clarify a little bit further.
▶ 1:49:25The legislation provides that the charitable organization uh can make reasonable uh representation of of uh whether a person is 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 sub. So the answer is yes.
▶ 1:49:54Finally, none of these examples involve foreign nationals contributing to political organizations or election campaigns. Instead, they involve lawful charitable donations that are entirely unrelated to political activity. Yet under this bill, each organization could fa still face these penalties. Is that
▶ 1:50:15Uh that's correct, Miss Chu.
▶ 1:50:17Thank you, Mr. Barto. 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.
▶ 1:50:41Um 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 FC, all of that. I have a question about foreign dollars into these nonprofits, which this bill is about.
▶ 1:51:04Um, any nonprofit that receives foreign dollars, is there anything that excludes them to give to a political activity?
▶ 1:51:18Are we talking about 501c3
▶ 1:51:21C3s, C4s.
▶ 1:51:22Well, in in the case of C3s, remember that there's limitations on uh uh what there's definition of exempt purpose and it does not include political activity.
▶ 1:51:33but can a C3 give to a C4?
▶ 1:51:36C3s can give to C.
▶ 1:51:38And so if foreign money came into a C3, that C3 still can give to a C4.
▶ 1:51:46That That's correct, Mr.
▶ 1:51:47So right now, under the current process and the current law, foreigners are able to indirectly fund political operations and political uh as as you've described the flow of uh flow of funds as possible.
▶ 1:52:07Yeah, absolutely. And so anyone who's opposing Miss Malotakus' 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 501c3s then converted to C4s. Those C4s then are involved in political activities. But if we do it as members of Congress, we go to prison.
▶ 1:52:36But it's okay for these nonforprofits to do it. I yield back. Miss Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr.
▶ 1:52:51BTO, uh, with regard to the chairman's, uh, inquiries, um, 501c4s are not allowed under current law to engage in political activity that supports or is against a candidate. Is that correct? Like a C4 might be able to do political education, allowing people, I mean, letting people know that there is an election.
▶ 1:53:19uh maybe do some uh political training uh uh of young people in the community. Um 501c4 may do voter registration that is nonpartisan activity. Is it or is it not true that any donations that go through a C4 the C4 activities are limited to Is that or is that not true?
▶ 1:53:52the substantial activity and purpose of C4 is for social welfare. So that can include uh advocating certain uh certain outcomes. So it's not per se uh
▶ 1:54:07certain outcomes. Can a 501c4 uh uh mobilize activities to support President Trump for election?
▶ 1:54:20Yeah, if it's uh if it's a minor part of the organization activity well less than 50 less than 50%
▶ 1:54:30I have never heard a C4 do that.
▶ 1:54:33Would that be is that something new? Um, are there must be Republican C4s that do that because Democratic C4s do not do
▶ 1:54:44They allow PE they tell people that, you know, November 4th, 5th, 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 C4s do? They do. I are what would happen if a C4 ask your associate had [snorts] would they lose their tax exemptive status if they indeed did that send people to hit doors and say vote for Donald Trump?
▶ 1:55:16Uh I as long as it's not the substantial uh activity of the C4 organization, they can do get out the vote as you
▶ 1:55:28Get out the vote. Naming the candidate.
▶ 1:55:31I I I believe uh I believe so. Ms.
▶ 1:55:34this is brand new law, sir. Uh I would um I would yield to Who else could I yield to to sort of clarify this for me? I've never heard of this before. Anyone here like to comment on the activities of
▶ 1:55:54Are there Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barto.
▶ 1:55:58Additional members wish to uh technical questions. Miss Sanchez.
▶ 1:56:03Mr. Barthol, I have a very straightforward answer or question that I would love for you to answer. Um, in the text of the bill, is there any that says that union dues are business
▶ 1:56:21Uh, not in the text of the uh, bill, Miss Sanchez. What I noted,
▶ 1:56:26I just asked for the text of the bill. Thank you for the answer and I yield
▶ 1:56:31Additional technical questions. Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Um, Mr. Estus is recognized to strike the last word.
▶ 1:56:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word in support of stopping foreign influence in elections act of 2026. As a proud representative from Kansas, I know our constituents expect American elections to be cited 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 nonprofit activi activists.
▶ 1:57:08This is not only wrong, but fundamentally endangers the security of our elections. The stopping foreign influence of in elections act of 2026 slams the door shut on this avenue of abuse. For too long, certain taxexempt 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.
▶ 1:57:33It says plainly that taxexempt organizations can't use foreign dollars to influence our elections. Canons 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 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.
▶ 1:57:58Let's secure our democratic process, penalize those who compromise our sovereignty, and keep 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,
▶ 1:58:12Mr. Dogit.
▶ 1:58:16While foreign money certainly should not be permitted in any American election, this bill does not really further that gold. It's already illegal for a union, a charity, or any 501c3 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 law lawabiding American organizations. Here's how it works. Take any established nonprofit.
▶ 1:58:44A 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.
▶ 1:58:59If it receives even a single gift from a single non-citizen within a two-year window, then the contribution it later makes is branded as quote disqualified, and it's hit with escalating penalties, 100% initially, rising to the loss of a taxexempt status. And it makes no difference whether a single dollar that was received from a foreign entity was ever spent on the contribution.
▶ 1:59:27The 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 501c4 social welfare organizations.
▶ 1:59:48So, 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?
▶ 2:00:16Well, the for-profit multinationals and the American subsidi subsidiaries of foreign corporations that bankroll their advocacy, their political action committees, their money keeps flowing untouched. It is non-governmental 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.
▶ 2:00:46And that's why the League of 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 Sententa, a Chinese-owned company. Meanwhile, consider President Trump's own record.
▶ 2:01:16He took a quarter of a million dollars from that very same sententa. And I've heard no concern about that from colleagues, some of whom have certainly never declined a Sententa 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 $200 million of it flowing straight into the Trump family.
▶ 2:01:41And shortly after that, the administration just magically lifted export controls on our most advanced alter uh AI chips to a firm that comes under royal control. the steel for Trump's White House ballroom donated by a company in Luxembourg. And within days, magically, that company was handed a tariff cut.
▶ 2:02:05And among the donors bankrolling the ballroom is Tether, a foreignbased crypto giant giving through an American arm. Precisely the kind of foreign link 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.
▶ 2:02:26There's a word for that and the word is not 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 link money that actually flows into a corrupt system and reach deep instead into the ordinary workings of civil society.
▶ 2:02:52I urge 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.
▶ 2:03:04Gentleman yields back. Miss Sanchez is recognized to strike the last word. Oh, Miss Sule is recognized to strike the last word.
▶ 2:03:12Uh, Mr. Chairman, I asked 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 influence. In fact, it is prohibited to have foreign influence. But this bill falls far short of this goal.
▶ 2:03:41By defining 501c4 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 Congress and congressional Republicans have lost all credibility on election issues. Republicans refuse to condemn uh President Trump's lies that he won the 2020 election.
▶ 2:04:09Republicans 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 US Election Assistance uh Commission, which provides crucial assistance to states in running elections.
▶ 2:04:28If 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 to oppose this legislation. I yield back the balance. Gentle lady yields back the balance of her time.
▶ 2:04:57Are others wishing to strike the last word?
▶ 2:05:05Mr. Schneider.
▶ 2:05:09Mr. Schneider is recognized to strike the last word for five minutes.
▶ 2:05:12Uh thank you. I move to strike the last Let me um just start with saying that I uh want to echo the remarks of my friend and colleague from Las Vegas. Sorry to echo the friends and uh the words of my friends and colleagues from Las Vegas about the committee.
▶ 2:05:32Specifically with this bill though, I I will note that the the problem with my colleagues rationale for the bill is that the draconian penalties apply to contributions to a C4 organization that does not engage in political activity. We're talking about an application to contributions to all C4 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.
▶ 2:06:02For example, as we sit here today marking up four bills, the committee gave only last minute notice of the markup. 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 nonprofit organizations operate in the country.
▶ 2:06:25Last night on the floor, House Republicans passed a continuing resolution to fund the government for fiscal year 27 at fiscal year 26 levels through December, relinquishing relinquishing entirely even the appearance that Congress can actually do its job and fund the damn government.
▶ 2:06:47God forbid with 10 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 10 weeks left. There's no reason why we are abdicating our responsibility and rushing out of town with a push through uh continuing resolution through December. CRS are bad.
▶ 2:07:17They'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 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.
▶ 2:07:47I'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 cancelled 15 times. That's the equivalent of three weeks of snow days without the trace of snow.
▶ 2:08:15And 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 10 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 10 weeks to do the job and fund the government before October 1st when the new year begins.
▶ 2:08:46But not with the CR. Let's do it with the real budget. We need to get serious. I yield back.
▶ 2:08:53Are there other members wishing to strike the last word? Miss Sanchez is
▶ 2:08:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While this bill may be well intended, its consequences will harm American workers and the unions that represent them. This bill puts labor unions, trade associations, and other nonprofits at risk of being penalized for participating in the political process. Now, Ms. Maliotakus claimed that union dues are business expenses and that this bill would not harm union members. However, Mr.
▶ 2:09:25Barthold 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?
▶ 2:09:48because 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?
▶ 2:10:13Would that contribution force unions like the United Steel Workers or the AFC AFL CIO to pay a penalty? Labor unions and trade associations also represent foreign nationals on American soil.
▶ 2:10:27Permanent residents who hold green cards or an immigrant holding a temporary visa may fall under the category of a foreign Under this bill, their routine payments could have a consequence to a union or trade association's ability to participate in the political process.
▶ 2:10:47By leveling penalties on on contributions to political organizations, we are discouraging unions and trade associations and other nonprofits who have international members from participating in our politics. Now, if we want to 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.
▶ 2:11:14But this bill will do nothing but harm working men and women. And for those reason, 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 On top of not addressing the high cost of housing, the high energy costs, the inflation's effect on the purchase of everyday goods like groceries, like beef and coffee
▶ 2:11:45instead 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.
▶ 2:12:12Mr. Bean is recognized to strike the last word.
▶ 2:12:16Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and good morning ways. Uh I will uh stress my objection whenever uh somebody from this dis says uh profane words. How about how about that? Profanity is not uh it's just ways is better than saying bad words up here. And I know we want to say it sometimes for emphasis, but whether on either side of the aisle, let me state my objection.
▶ 2:12:43I didn't mean to or wasn't planning on speaking on this bill, but one thing that we agree on, 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 on our arguments. So we all say, you know, foreigners uh shouldn't participate in our elections.
▶ 2:13:06And 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, Representative Malotakus has presented evidence where foreigners have given money to uh, nonprofits. They do that all the time.
▶ 2:13:30And 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 I I think we all agree we shouldn't.
▶ 2:13:56So, uh I believe the the correct answer is to vote yes on the Malotakus bill that says Americans only should participate in Americans and let's close these loopholes which foreign billionaires which she has already presented that evidence. Uh let's stop that and let's make American elections Americans. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 2:14:16The gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:14:17Uh, point of order.
▶ 2:14:18Recognized to strike back. Mr.
▶ 2:14:20point of order.
▶ 2:14:22Gentle lady, state your point.
▶ 2:14:24Yeah, just for clarification, what profanity was used on this deis?
▶ 2:14:28Profanity was used. Uh, we'll move on.
▶ 2:14:31Can the chairman clarify what prof what word was used?
▶ 2:14:35It's in the record.
▶ 2:14:37Mr. Snider,
▶ 2:14:37I uh I don't believe that any
▶ 2:14:40Mr. Snder Mr. Schneider broke or spoke the spoke the words.
▶ 2:14:45Let's uh
▶ 2:14:46Ah, okay. I'm sorry. I thought it was directed at me and I was uncharacteristically and non-profane in my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:14:57I'll uh we'll move on. Mr. Murphy is recognized to strike last word. Mr. Snyder, I'm going to call your mother and have you wash your mouth out with So the charge is that Democrat C4s do not steer money to Democrat campaigns. Few minutes ago, my dear friend Miss Moore told us that Democrat C4s, quote, "They just don't do that." Touche when referring to the idea that C4s receive money from C3s that originate from a foreign donor. Not true. In fact, it's false.
▶ 2:15:27Let me let me give you an example here. like to insert into the record an article from that grand august journal Politico. This article shows that Hans Hansore Weiss donated $31 million $31 million from his C4 to the 1630 fund which is a DCbased nonprofit 501c4 that operates as a major dark money hub for left-leaning progressive political causes in the US.
▶ 2:15:53In fact, the Politico described it as a massive force on the left. He did this during the 2020 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.
▶ 2:16:22Reported that way that Weiss also spent 515 $57 million. I wish I had this money just to spend like this. During the 2024 election citle cycle, he exploited loopholes around foreign spending on American politics in order to promote left-wing causes. Just another example of 501c's behaving as democratic money laundering schemes for foreign dollars. Hence the protest.
▶ 2:16:48After the dollars are cleaned anonymized, they're untraceable to a C4 and then to a Democratic super PAC. Guys, this is happening. Millions of foreign dollars straight into our elections supporting Democrat candidates. Lastly, I'd like certain to the record form 990 from the Burger Action Fund, which as you are aware,
▶ 2:17:09contains no reference to a single one of these foreign donations to the 501c. It's completely untraceable. Our bill, Miss Malotakus, 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
▶ 2:17:38Thank you, [clears throat] 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 enure to the benefit
▶ 2:18:08of 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.
▶ 2:18:36And I will say that our inability, we have tried so hard to upend Citizen United, Democrats have and the resistance has come predictably from the Republican party because they in fact benefit from Citizens United.
▶ 2:18:54And 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.
▶ 2:19:10Are others wishing to strike the last 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 to remember that 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.
▶ 2:19:38Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Mr. Schneider is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 2:19:48Mr. Kelly,
▶ 2:19:49chairman, I reserve a point of order.
▶ 2:19:51The chairman reserves a point of order.
▶ 2:19:55The uh sponsor of the amendment will suspend while the amendment is being
▶ 2:20:00Thank you.
▶ 2:20:35Mr. Schneider, you may proceed.
▶ 2:20:37Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And and Mr. Chairman, as as we consider adding restrictions on allowable contributions and adding penalties for taxexempt or organizations for illegal political contributions in this underlying bill, I think it's important that this committee ensure 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.
▶ 2:21:01I hope my colleagues on this committee will vote to stand up to the blatant corruption in this White House and oppose political interference and IRS corruption. In fact, I assume everyone has seen that the acting chief counsel of the IRS and the Treasury Assistant SE 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 7217 of the inter Internal
▶ 2:21:31Revenue Code. The acting chief counsel for the IRS warned the 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 wants to or intends to obey the law.
▶ 2:21:58It 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 7217 is extremely clear.
▶ 2:22:12It 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 Section 7217 also states that anyone who receives such
▶ 2:22:42a 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 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. It's worth 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.
▶ 2:23:13President 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 7217 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.
▶ 2:23:38Every 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.
▶ 2:23:55Last Congress, following the leak of a tax of taxpayer information by an IRS contractor, Chris Little John, 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.
▶ 2:24:12During 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 Surely, the same should be true for violations of the law prohibiting political interference by the White House into IRS operations.
▶ 2:24:39So today, I'm offering an amendment to increase the maximum penalty for violations of section 7217 to $250,000 and increase the maximum term of imprisonment to 10 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.
▶ 2:25:08If 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.
▶ 2:25:23Gentleman yields back. Mr. Kelly, do you insist on your point of order? Mr. Chair, may I make a point of order against the amendment under clause 7 of House Rule 16, an amendment is not gerine 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 taxexempt organizations that receive foreign contributions. The subject matter of the event of the amendment is executive branch audits. Therefore, the amendment is not germaine and I urge the chair to sustain the point of order.
▶ 2:25:52Mr. Chairman,
▶ 2:25:53Mr. Snyder, as the sponsor of the amendment, do you wish to be heard on the point of order?
▶ 2:25:56I do wish to be heard.
▶ 2:25:58Please state your point.
▶ 2:25:59Uh, thank you. Uh the subject matter of of this amendment or of this bill deals with the penalties of violating IRS code. This amendment does the exact same thing. I believe it is gerine and should be considered by the committee.
▶ 2:26:15I am prepared to rule the amendment is not gerine and the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order uh given the details of the subject
▶ 2:26:27Uh Mr. Chairman, I'd like to appeal the
▶ 2:26:31The gentleman from Illinois wants seeks to appeal the ruling of the chair.
▶ 2:26:36Mr. Chairman, I've moved to table.
▶ 2:26:37Kelly Mr. Kelly moves to table. The question is on tableabling the appeal of the ruling of the chair. Cler call the
▶ 2:26:45Thank you.
▶ 2:26:47Mr. Buchanan,
▶ 2:26:53Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 2:26:55Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Yes. Mr. Kelly.
▶ 2:27:01Mr. Kelly. Yes. Mr. Schwiker.
▶ 2:27:09Mr. Leood. Mr. Leood. Yes. Mr. Mr. Estus.
▶ 2:27:19Mr. Estus. Yes. Mr. Smucker.
▶ 2:27:22Mr. Smucker. Yes. Mr. Mr. Hearn,
▶ 2:27:26Mr. Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Miller, yes. Dr. Dr. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. Yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes. Mr. Stwie. Mr. Stwie. Yes. Miss Tenny. M. Tenny. Yes. Mrs.
▶ 2:27:51Mrs. Fishbach. Yes.
▶ 2:27:53Mr. Moore. Yes,
▶ 2:27:55Mr. Moore. Yes, Miss Vanine. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. Yes, Miss Miss Malotakus. Yes. Mr. Carrie.
▶ 2:28:11Mr. Kerry. Yes. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 2:28:15Mr. Yakam. Yes.
▶ 2:28:18Mr. Miller.
▶ 2:28:19Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Bean.
▶ 2:28:22Mr. Bean. Yes, Mr. Moran.
▶ 2:28:25Mr. Moran. Yes,
▶ 2:28:29Mr. Neil.
▶ 2:28:30Mr. Neil. No,
▶ 2:28:32Mr. Dogget Mr. Dogget. No, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. No, Mr. Larson.
▶ 2:28:44Mr. Larson, no. Mr. Davis,
▶ 2:28:48Mr. Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. No. Miss Su Miss Su. No. Miss Delen. Miss Delen. No. Miss Chu Miss Chu. No. Miss Moore. Miss Moore. No. Mr.
▶ 2:29:10Mr. Byer.
▶ 2:29:12Mr. Byer. No. Mr. Evans.
▶ 2:29:15Mr. Evans. No. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider, no. Mr. Petta,
▶ 2:29:24Mr. Petta, no.
▶ 2:29:26Mr. Gomez,
▶ 2:29:28Mr. Gomez, no. Mr. Horseford, Mr. Horford, no. Miss Plask. Mr. Swazy,
▶ 2:29:38Mr. Swazy, no.
▶ 2:29:42Mr. Buchanan.
▶ 2:29:45Mr. Schwikert.
▶ 2:29:49Mr. Schwikert. Yes, Mr. Arrington, Miss Vanine. Miss Vanine. Yes, Mr. Boille. Miss Plask. Chairman Smith.
▶ 2:30:19Chairman Smith. Yes. Clerk
▶ 2:30:49report.
▶ 2:30:50Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 24 and the nos are 17.
▶ 2:30:54There being 24 yeses and 17 nos, the motion to table is successful. Are there other amendments at the desk? Mr. Horseford is recognized.
▶ 2:31:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:31:14Mr. Kelly,
▶ 2:31:15Mr. Chairman, I preserve a point of
▶ 2:31:17Gentleman reserves a point of order. The sponsor will suspend while the amendment is being Mr. Horsesford, you may proceed.
▶ 2:31:45Thank you, Mr. 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 duespaying member of a union comes from a foreign national, the entire union's voice is The stopping foreign influence and election act will essentially gut workers from having their union able to represent them.
▶ 2:32:15That 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 15% of union membership is foreignb born. We are talking about immigrants and US-born who build and serve our country every single day.
▶ 2:32:41For some unions like the sheet metal or the steel workers or like lyuna, 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 protections, wages, and benefits. That is a choice no union should have to make.
▶ 2:33:10So, 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
▶ 2:33:33Gentleman yields back. Anyone wishing to strike the last word? Seeing none, question is on the adoption of the amendment. Those in favor say I.
▶ 2:33:49Those opposed, no. No.
▶ 2:33:52The amendment is not adopted.
▶ 2:33:55I ask for the yays and nays.
▶ 2:33:57I yay and nays are requested. Cler call the role.
▶ 2:34:02Mr. Buchanan.
▶ 2:34:06Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No
▶ 2:34:08Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. No, Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Schwikert. No, Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Le Hood. No. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus.
▶ 2:34:27Mr. Estus. No. Mr. Smucker.
▶ 2:34:31Mr. Smucker. No. Mr. Hearn.
▶ 2:34:34Mr. Hearn. No. Mrs. Miller. Dr. Murphy.
▶ 2:34:44Dr. Murphy. No. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. No. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stwie. Mr. Stwie. No. Miss. Tenny. Miss. Tenny. No. Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Moore.
▶ 2:35:05Mr. Moore. No. Miss Vanine. Miss Vanine. No. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. No. Miss Malotakus. Miss Maliaakus. No. Mr. Kerry.
▶ 2:35:22Mr. Kerry. No. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 2:35:26Mr. Yakam. No. Mr. Miller.
▶ 2:35:29Mr. Miller. No. Mr. Bean.
▶ 2:35:32Mr. Bean. No. Mr. Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran. No. Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil. Yes. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Dogit. Yes. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Davis.
▶ 2:35:52Mr. Davis. Yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. Yes. Miss Su. Miss Sul. Yes. Miss Delben. Miss Delben. Yes. Miss Chu.
▶ 2:36:05Miss Chu. Yes. Miss Moore.
▶ 2:36:08Miss Moore. Yes. Mr. Bole.
▶ 2:36:14Mr. Byer.
▶ 2:36:16Mr. Byer. Yes. Mr. Evans.
▶ 2:36:19Mr. Evans. Yes. Mr. Schneider.
▶ 2:36:22Mr. Schneider. Yes. Mr. Panetta. Mr. Gomez.
▶ 2:36:34Mr. Horseford. Mr. Horsford. Yes. Miss
▶ 2:36:41Mr. Swazy.
▶ 2:36:43Mr. Swazy. Yes. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Arrington. Mrs. Miller.
▶ 2:36:59Mrs. Miller. No, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Bole, Mr. Panetta, Mr.
▶ 2:37:16Gomez, Miss Plask Chairman
▶ 2:38:44Smith. Chairman Smith. No. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:39:10sorry. The clerk will report the role.
▶ 2:39:13Uh, Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 15 and the nos are 23.
▶ 2:39:19So, the yeses being 15 and the nos being 23, the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 2:39:28Are there any other amendments at the Okay. So, seeing none, where we go?
▶ 2:39:39The 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.
▶ 2:39:47In the opinion of the chair, the yeses have it. In the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
▶ 2:39:54Will now recognize Mr. Schwert for the purpose of offering a motion. Madam Chairwoman, I move that favorably report HR 9771 as amended to the House of
▶ 2:40:05The question is on the motion to favorably report HR 9771 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:40:12Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 2:40:22Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. Yes. Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Schwiker. Yes. Mr. Leood. Mr. Leood. Yes. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. Yes. Mr. Hearn. Mr. Hearn. Yes. Mrs. Miller.
▶ 2:40:52Dr. Murphy. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. Yes. Mr.
▶ 2:41:07Mr. Stwie. Mr. Stwie. Yes. Miss. Tenny. Miss. Tenny. Yes. Mrs. Fishbach.
▶ 2:41:15Mrs. Fishbach. Yes. Mr. Moore. Miss. Vanine. Miss. Miss Vanine. Yes. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. Yes. Miss Maliaakus. Miss Malotakus. Yes. Mr. Kerry.
▶ 2:41:41Mr. Yakam.
▶ 2:41:43Mr. Yakam. Yes. Mr. Miller.
▶ 2:41:47Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Bean.
▶ 2:41:50Mr. Bean. Yes. Mr. Moran.
▶ 2:41:53Mr. Moran. Yes. Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil. No. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Dogit. No. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. No. Mr. Larson. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis. No. Miss Sanchez. Miss S.
▶ 2:42:26Miss S. No. Miss Delen,
▶ 2:42:31Miss Delben, no.
▶ 2:42:33Miss Chu,
▶ 2:42:34Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore,
▶ 2:42:38Miss Moore, no. Mr. Boille, Mr. Byer,
▶ 2:42:44Mr. Byer, no. Mr. Evans,
▶ 2:42:48Mr. Evans, no. Mr. Schneider,
▶ 2:42:51no. Mr. Schneider, no. Mr. Petta,
▶ 2:42:55Mr. Petta, no. Mr. Gomez,
▶ 2:43:01Mr. Horseford, Mr. Horford, no. Miss Mr. Swazy,
▶ 2:43:10Mr. Swazy, no.
▶ 2:43:15Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 2:43:20Mr. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Yes. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus.
▶ 2:43:30Mr. Estus. Yes. Mrs. Miller.
▶ 2:43:35Mrs. Miller. Yes. Dr. Murphy.
▶ 2:43:39Dr. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. Yes.
▶ 2:43:53Mr. Kerry.
▶ 2:43:54Mr. Carrie.
▶ 2:43:59Mr. Larson.
▶ 2:44:08Mr. Larson. No.
▶ 2:44:11Miss Sanchez.
▶ 2:44:13Miss Sanchez. No.
▶ 2:44:17Mr. Bole. Mr. Gomez, Miss Plask.
▶ 2:44:29Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith. Yes. The clerk will report the vote.
▶ 2:44:55Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 23 and the nos are 16.
▶ 2:44:59So there being uh 23 yeses and 16 nos. The motion is agreed to and HR 9771 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 HR 9771 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 HR 9721, the fiscal sponsorship transparency act introduced by Representative Smucker.
▶ 2:45:28Representative Smucker has been a leading voice for bringing more accountability and transparency to America's taxexempt 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, Mr. Smucker, for an opening statement.
▶ 2:45:50Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very grateful that the committee is considering this legislation uh HR 9721, 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 are operated responsibly and in good faith. They can help launch new organizations.
▶ 2:46:15that can support worthwhile community initiatives and allow charitable projects to operate under the guidance and oversight of an established taxexempt organization. This legislation recognizes and preserves that important role.
▶ 2:46:30However, the current lack of transparency surrounding some fiscal sponsorship arrange 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.
▶ 2:46:56That'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.
▶ 2:47:19The bill requires covered taxexempt organizations engaged in fiscal sponsorship arrangement to disclose basic information on their annual form 990. 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.
▶ 2:47:46They 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.
▶ 2:48:13They 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.
▶ 2:48:41Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
▶ 2:48:45I now recognize the ranking member from Massachusetts, Mr.
▶ 2:48:48Yield by time, Madam Chairman, to the gentleman from California, Mr. Thompson.
▶ 2:48:53Thank 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 taxexempt status.
▶ 2:49:10It 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.
▶ 2:49:38Fiscal sponsorship helps charitable work happen faster and more effectively. A great example is Energy Prep Help, a fiscal sponsored initiative based in Paluma, California in my district. It has helped seniors prepare for natural disasters like fires that happen in our area.
▶ 2:50:01Unfortunately, this bill risks doing just the opposite of ensuring our communities take care of one another. Instead of encouraging charitable innovation, it creates uncertainty.
▶ 2:50:14It 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.
▶ 2:50:42That 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.
▶ 2:51:03They 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 headon.
▶ 2:51:26But 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 uh improve public health, and launch innovative charitable programs.
▶ 2:51:53This 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.
▶ 2:52:07Thank you, committee.
▶ 2:52:09Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of HR 9721, the Fiscal Sponsorship Transparency Act of 2026. 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.
▶ 2:52:34I will now turn to Tom Bartold, the chief of staff of 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. Madam, Madame Chair, the committee members have before them two joint committee documents, JCX 3726 and JCX 4126, which describe the underlying legislation and the chairman uh woman's amendment in nature of a substitute.
▶ 2:53:04This legislation codifies a definition of fiscal sponsorship arrangement and uh expanded reporting of such arrangements undertaken by 501c organizations on form 990. The additional reporting would provide detail about the arrangements such as specifics regarding the activities funded through the fiscal sponsorship uh arrangement.
▶ 2:53:31The legislation also codifies the regulatory notion of an improper conduit arrangement. Uh as under present law, no charitable deduction is allowed to a person for a contribution made under uh an improper conduit arrangement.
▶ 2:53:49The legislation further imposes taxes of 20% on the value of the um improper conduit arrangement made by the organization and a tax of 5% on the value of the uh improper conduit arrange arrangement uh upon the man the organization's manager based upon the amount that was knowingly transferred by the organization.
▶ 2:54:17Failure 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 31st of 2027. 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 2027 through 2036.
▶ 2:54:47Uh that concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have.
▶ 2:54:52Thank you very much. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? The chair now recognizes Mr. Thompson.
▶ 2:54:59Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh Mr. Barthol, 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 250 LLC, which is a whollyowned entity of the National Park Foundation.
▶ 2:55:18On its website, the National Park Foundation states that it is responsible for providing quote fiscal oversight to ensure Freedom 250 LLC properly distributes and accounts for project funds end quote. The bill contains a special rule uh for disregarded entities. Would this make Freedom 250's arrangement with the National Park Foundation a fiscal sponsorship arrangement under this bill?
▶ 2:55:49Uh 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 really really depend on the exact nature of the agreement that has been made between the National Park Foundation and the Freedom 250 uh LLC but it is possible.
▶ 2:56:12Thank 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 a national park service for construction of the ballroom a fiscal sponsorship arrangement under this bill?
▶ 2:56:41Uh Mr. Thompson, as as with your uh prior question, uh possibly again uh would need further analysis. There's three parts to the definition of fiscal sponsorship. uh an arrangement and to answer that need to know in more detail the exact nature of the agreement that you just described.
▶ 2:57:01So if 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
▶ 2:57:15Uh yes, Mr. Thompson. under the uh proposed legislation uh the additional reporting on form 990 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.
▶ 2:57:36Thank you. Uh I think uh we should clarify the treatment of these and similar uh entities under this legislation. Uh, and I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 2:57:48Are there any other technical questions? Seeing none, does anyone wish to strike the last word? The chair now recognizes uh, Congressman Dogget from the great state of Texas for 5 minutes.
▶ 2:57:58Thank 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.
▶ 2:58:24uh millions that are struggling with paying the illegal Trump tariffs, the 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.
▶ 2:58:47But instead they chose uh instead of American affordability that what they would focus on today is giving Trump more weapons to maintain his regime and like authoritarians around the world uh to attack non-governmental organizations that he cannot control.
▶ 2:59:06And so what they've done today is to invent a new tax that can be imposed on non-governmental 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.
▶ 2:59:29The 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 sumearily 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.
▶ 2:59:54And they can decide whether a community organization has quote corrected And often after the administration says no, it can confiscate a donation. This isn't oversight. This is intimidation.
▶ 3:00:09That'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 the casualties will be some of the smallest, most local groups, a PTA, a youth league, a volunteer group that use a sponsor because they don't really want or cannot afford a back office.
▶ 3:00:33And 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 taxdeductible support under the wing of an established charity until it can stand on its own.
▶ 3:01:00This 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 250th celebration. How a small short-lived project shares one back office rather than building its own from scratch.
▶ 3:01:28This is not some clever loophole. It's been the law since at least the 1950s, and today it stewards more than $3 billion 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.
▶ 3:01:55It'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 Keys who's well known in this room. I think he's had his fingerprints on most every loophole Republicans have placed in our tax code over the last decades.
▶ 3:02:22I've fought with him unsparingly day after day. And yet, to his credit, though we disagree so severely about tax loopholes and special advantages, 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.
▶ 3:02:53This 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 [clears throat] back.
▶ 3:03:11Does anyone else wish to strike the last word? Recognize. The chair recognizes uh Mr. Byer from the great state of Virginia for five minutes.
▶ 3:03:18Madam 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 want to thank Congressman Daga for explaining how the fiscal sponsorships really work. Nonprofits and foundations support a number of critical roles in our society. Affordable housing, healthcare 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.
▶ 3:03:49They're also our society's third 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 timelmited initiatives. My great concern is that this bill doesn't match the current use of fiscal sponsorships.
▶ 3:04:17It 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 for 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.
▶ 3:04:45A 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 den definitions remain vague, organizations are vulnerable to subjective enforcement and severe tax penalties before treasury regulations are finalized.
▶ 3:05:06And 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.
▶ 3:05:33I worry as written that could inadvertently forced taxexempt charities to report on routine internal programs, grants or standard restricted funding You know, I've been on a lot of nonprofit boards over the years and usually Americans are very critical of organizations that spend their contribution money more on administrative side than rather than just doing direct service that helps people. But this bill is going to do exactly the opposite.
▶ 3:05:58is going to force lots more administrative side work and 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 going to leave communities without important fiscally sponsored projects and I confess this bill feels to me more politically motivated
▶ 3:06:29to 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 it imposes harsh regulatory burdens and penalties on tens of thousands of community-based charities. Madam chair, I yield back.
▶ 3:06:48Thank you very much. Are there any other um um um statements? No.
▶ 3:06:54Oh, the chair now recognizes uh Mr. Smunker for 5 minutes.
▶ 3:06:58Thank 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 good work and are operating as they should. But there are clearly um that we've heard in hearings here where that is not the case.
▶ 3:07:27Um, and all we're asking simply is for more transparency about uh where those dollars um are going, how taxpayer dollars or contributors who are giving their dollars um to charitable, they're 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.
▶ 3:07:53So, 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.
▶ 3:08:24And that would be done well before the bill goes into effect. Remember the effective date um is not until uh December 31st of 2027 which will provide uh time for Treasury guidance and also stake uh stakeholder input as is the case with many bills before any of these obligations take effect. So as I said that's a that's a fair point that but that will be addressed um as the rule making for this uh bill takes place.
▶ 3:08:53So 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?
▶ 3:09:05Mr. Thompson.
▶ 3:09:06The chair recognizes Mr. Thompson for five minutes.
▶ 3:09:08Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 3:09:12Madam Chair,
▶ 3:09:15I reserve a point of order.
▶ 3:09:16The clerk will distribute the amendment and I ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes.
▶ 3:09:53All right, the gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes to speak on his amendment.
▶ 3:09:58Thank 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 sponsorship 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.
▶ 3:10:27Right now, a section 501c3 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.
▶ 3:10:54enter into the public record or would like to enter into the public record uh this uh uh statement that I
▶ 3:11:03Thank you.
▶ 3:11:04Without 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.
▶ 3:11:31If the majority truly believes 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.
▶ 3:11:57If this bill is really about restoring public confidence, then let's start with the project in the president's backyard. The American people deserve to know who's financing a $400 million White House ballroom. They deserve to know whether anyone seeking influence or anyone seeking access is helping to fund it.
▶ 3:12:21and they deserve to know before Congress starts imposing new transparency requirements on every other nonprofit 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.
▶ 3:12:52Thank you very much. Um, does anyone wish to start the last word? All right. Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Thompson. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:13:14Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. No. Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Schwiker. No.
▶ 3:13:44Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. No. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. No. Mr. Hearn. Mr. Hearn. No. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. No. Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy.
▶ 3:14:14No, Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. No, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stwie. Mr. Stwie. No, Miss Tenny. Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Moore.
▶ 3:14:53Mr. Moore. No. Miss Vanine. Miss Vanine. No. Mr. Mr. Fenstra. No. Miss Mottoakis. Miss Miatakus. No. Mr. Carrie. No.
▶ 3:15:11Mr. Carrie. No Mr. Yakam.
▶ 3:15:14Mr. Yakam. No Mr. Miller.
▶ 3:15:17Mr. Miller. No Mr. Bean.
▶ 3:15:21Mr. Bean. No. Mr. Moran. Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil. Yes. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr.
▶ 3:15:52Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Davis.
▶ 3:15:56Mr. Davis. Yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. Yes. Miss Su. Miss Delen. Miss Delen. Yes. Miss Chu. Miss Chu. Yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore. Yes. Mr. Bole.
▶ 3:16:17Mr. Byer.
▶ 3:16:18Mr. Byer.
▶ 3:16:19Yes. Mr. Evans.
▶ 3:16:21Mr. Evans. Yes. Mr. Schneider.
▶ 3:16:24Mr. Schneider. Yes. Mr. Petta. Mr. Gomez.
▶ 3:16:32Mr. Gomez. Yes. Mr. Horford. Mr. Horford. Yes. Miss Plask. Mr. Swazy.
▶ 3:16:43Mr. Swazy. Yes. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 3:16:52Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No. Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Le Hood. No. Mr. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Miss. Miss Tenny. Miss Tenny. No.
▶ 3:17:18Mr. Moran.
▶ 3:17:19Mr. Moran. No. Mr. Dogget. Miss Su. Miss Su. Yes. Mr. Boille. Mr. Petta. Miss Plask. Chairman Smith.
▶ 3:17:52Chairman Smith. No.
▶ 3:18:14The clerk will report the vote.
▶ 3:18:15Madam chair, the yeses are 15 and the nos are 23.
▶ 3:18:19The yeses being 15, the nos being 23. The agree the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments to the amendment?
▶ 3:18:29Seeing 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.
▶ 3:18:38Those opposed? No.
▶ 3:18:39In 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 Mr. Estes for the purpose of offering a motion.
▶ 3:18:48Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee favorably report HR 9721 as amended to the House of Representatives.
▶ 3:18:54The question is on the motion to favorably report HR 9721 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:19:01Mr. Buchanan.
▶ 3:19:05Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 3:19:09Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. Yes. Mr.
▶ 3:19:14Mr. Schwikert. Yes. Mr. Mr. Leood, Mr. Arrington,
▶ 3:19:27Mr. Estus,
▶ 3:19:28Mr. Estus. Yes,
▶ 3:19:31Mr. Smucker.
▶ 3:19:36Mr. Hearn.
▶ 3:19:41Mr. Smucker. Yes. Mr. Hearn. Yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. Yes. Dr. Murphy.
▶ 3:20:00Dr. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff. Yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stwie. Mr. Stwie. Yes. Miss Tenny. Miss Tenny. Yes, Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. Yes, Mr. Moore. Miss Vanine. Miss Vanine. Yes, Mr.
▶ 3:20:32Miss Maliaakis. Miss Malotakus. Yes. Mr. Kerry. Mr. Kerry. Yes. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 3:20:40Mr. Yakam. Yes. Mr. Miller. Mr. Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Bean.
▶ 3:20:47Mr. Bean. Yes. Mr. Moran.
▶ 3:20:50Mr. Moran. Yes. Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil. No. Mr. Dogget.
▶ 3:20:59Mr. Thompson.
▶ 3:21:00Mr. Thompson. No. Mr. Larson.
▶ 3:21:03Mr. Larson. No. Mr. Davis.
▶ 3:21:07Mr. Davis. No. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. No. Miss Su. Miss Su, no. Miss Albenet M. Albenet, no. Miss Chu,
▶ 3:21:18Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore. Miss Moore. No. Mr. Bole. Mr. Byer.
▶ 3:21:31Mr. Byer. No. Mr. Evans.
▶ 3:21:35Mr. Evans. No. Mr. Schneider.
▶ 3:21:38Mr. Schneider. No. Mr. Petta. Mr. Gomez.
▶ 3:21:46Mr. Gomez. No. Mr. Horsesford. Mr. Horford. No. Miss Plask. Mr. Swazy. Mr. S Swazy. No. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 3:22:10Mr. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Yes. Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Leood. Yes. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. Yes. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. Yes. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Boille. Mr. Petta.
▶ 3:22:42Miss Plask. Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith. Yes.
▶ 3:23:04The clerk will report the vote.
▶ 3:23:06Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 23 and the nos are 15. There being 23 yeses and 15 nos, the motion is agreed to and HR 9721 is amended as ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to HR 9721 and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views.
▶ 3:23:29Our last order of business is HR 9722, the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of 2026, 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.
▶ 3:23:57Representative 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, Mr. Moore, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this markup 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.
▶ 3:24:25I'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.
▶ 3:24:51And 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.
▶ 3:25:17So to provide some context, the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bosto versus Clayton County held that title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
▶ 3:25:32Justice Gorsuch majority his 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 just that justice Gorsuch details is what this bill aims to fix.
▶ 3:26:00There 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 taxexempt status. Unfortunately, previous administrations have abused this power uh and they made as they made these kinds of decisions. The Obama administration's IRS singled out conservative groups with extensive delays and questioning.
▶ 3:26:24The Biden administration denied taxexempt 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 casebyase litigation or shifting administrative interpretations, this bill creates clear enforcable standards that end the debate before it begins.
▶ 3:26:51This 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. With that, I yield back.
▶ 3:27:16I now recognize a ranking member.
▶ 3:27:18Just talk for a second. I was uh prepared to point out that uh the gentleman from Texas was on the House floor and I was going to 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, [laughter] 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.
▶ 3:27:48Thank you, Mr. chairman for your understanding. Over 40 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.
▶ 3:28:15The 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.
▶ 3:28:42Nor need such a belief be a central tenant 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.
▶ 3:29:13Similarly, six years ago, the Supreme Court held that firing a person for being gay or transgender, constitutes illegal discrimination. But this legislation would protect the taxexempt 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 roadmap around the non-discrimination laws of multiple states and cities across our country.
▶ 3:29:40One of the many reasons that I respect my colleague from Utah uh who offers this amendment is because he had the courage as one of 47 House 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.
▶ 3:30:04He 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.
▶ 3:30:31We 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.
▶ 3:31:01It 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 the sponsor really has in mind. By exempting practices concerning marriage, all of them from the public policy test. He covers child marriage.
▶ 3:31:24Right now, Andy Biggs, the Republican nominee for governor of Arizona, is being questioned about his previous action as state senate president in killing a 2013 bill the Arizona House had approved to reign in a police force that had become the enforcement arm of a sect that forced girls into underage marriage. That'd be covered and excused by this bill.
▶ 3:31:46Uh, the tax court in 2010 made a decision that denied taxexempt status to an organization whose stated purpose was to discriminate, 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.
▶ 3:32:10This bill strips this tool away for anything relabeled as a religious belief about sexuality, handling the worst actions, actors imaginable, a roadmap 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.
▶ 3:32:31I believe that this particular misguided bill represents a permanent taxpayer-f funed 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.
▶ 3:32:45The committee will now proceed to consideration of HR 9722, the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of 2026. 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.
▶ 3:33:14I will now turn to Tom Bartold, chief of staff for the joint committee on taxation to provide a technical description of the amendment and 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.
▶ 3:33:28Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents, JCX 38-26 and JCX which describe the underlying legislation and the chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 3:33:42As was noted under common uh law public policy, the common law public policy doctrine, an organization's not organized or operated for an exempt purpose if a purpose of the organization is contrary to fundamental public policy or is illegal.
▶ 3:34:00The proposal before the committee today would establish that a religious belief or practice concerning marriage or concerning sexuality or concerning gender genu gender identity is not inconsistent with law or with fundamental public policy. The uh uh this provision would be effective for tax years beginning after December 31st of 2025.
▶ 3:34:28So effective as of uh the current year, the chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute has made grammatical corrections changing plural nouns to 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 2027 through 2036. Uh that concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have. Thank you.
▶ 3:34:57Are there technical questions in to the amendment and the nature of the substitute? I recognize Miss Chu from California.
▶ 3:35:05This bill would prohibit the IRS from treating a religious organization's beliefs or practices concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity as inconsistent with law or public policy for purposes of determining taxexempt 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.
▶ 3:35:30This is an extraordinarily broad exception that could preserve federal tax benefits for organizations espousing deeply harmful or discriminatory beliefs. So, Mr. Bar told I'd like to better understand just how broad these protections are.
▶ 3:35:48As 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 taxexempt status. Is that correct?
▶ 3:36:08Uh, that is correct, Miss Chu. So, I'd like to ask about a few examples. If an organization's religious belief on marriage is that 10-year-old children should marry adults, would this disqualify the organization from taxexempt status?
▶ 3:36:26The organization would not appear to be disqualified. Uh, but remember, Miss Chu, there is a broader context for the organization. a charitable organization must be organized and operate uh under the laws of particular state. Uh and so the bill addresses IRS determinations. It does not directly affect state law.
▶ 3:36:48And so an organization that might pro uh promote this uh may well not be able to be incorporated in the state just as a threshold matter.
▶ 3:36:57Uh in other words, the answer is no. It would not uh
▶ 3:37:02as as a general matter, it does not appear to be automatically disqualified.
▶ 3:37:06Okay. What if an organization's religious belief on marriage includes and pro promotes polygamy? Would this disqualify it from tax exempt status?
▶ 3:37:16Uh again, uh as a general matter would not appear to understand the answer is the same. No. What if an organization's religious belief on marriage discrimination it it discriminates against interracial marriage? Would this disqualify it from tax exempt status?
▶ 3:37:36Uh again, as a general matter, not dis not disqualified.
▶ 3:37:40Yeah. 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 uh again, I would say as a general matter would not be disqualified. There is the broad answer is no.
▶ 3:38:06Under 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 taxexempt status? Again, Mchu, getting beyond what would be legal under under the state's law, the IR and IRS determination would would not be defining what uh practice is.
▶ 3:38:32The answer is no practice.
▶ 3:38:34What if an organization's religious belief on sexuality advocates for decriminalizing child pornography? Would this disqualify it from taxexempt Uh again, this legislation uh addresses what uh how the IRS treats a religious belief or practice.
▶ 3:38:56I should note in the case of 501c3 organizations, you still have to meet the general tax exempt purposes, one of which is protection of well, one of which is the protection is similarly no. What if an organization's religious belief on sexuality advocates for beastiality? Would that disqualify it from tax exempt
▶ 3:39:20Uh, again, would not appear to be disqualif uh disqualified.
▶ 3:39:24Yeah. Well, thank you, Mr. Barto. 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.
▶ 3:39:50Are there additional technical questions? Miss Moore,
▶ 3:39:56thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Mr. Bartold, I want to follow up on an answer that you gave Miss Chu. You said that um that states would have to follow that practices would have to be um done in context of whatever state law was. Seven only 17 states have declared child marriages illegal.
▶ 3:40:22So if there is a state that doesn't have a law uh against child marriages then um the example that Miss Chu gave a 10-year-old and this has been we have had 10 year olds being married off to much older men that would not be disqualifying uh under this bill. Is that is that Well, uh, Ms.
▶ 3:40:47Moore, again, the bill uh, IRS determinations of tax exempt status under 501c3, and it precludes the IRS from considering certain religious beliefs or practices in that determination.
▶ 3:41:04under in the case you mentioned uh another aspect of being qualified organization in under 501c3 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.
▶ 3:41:30It 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? All
▶ 3:41:42I think that's great, Mr. Bartol, and I don't want to 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 501c3 status that you have that's that that the church or organization has performed marriages to a 10-year-old.
▶ 3:42:06Uh 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 10 years old. the IRS would be preluding precluded for using that as a pretext for taking away their status. Is that am I correct?
▶ 3:42:24I I think if we've determined that that's a reli uh a valid religious practice, however that might be
▶ 3:42:31Yeah. I'm just thinking of cases like with Warren GIFs and so forth that
▶ 3:42:35married off kids 12 years old and so forth who are in jail now. this would
▶ 3:42:44Well, it remember it does not change state law. If a person was put in jail for that purpose, this this is really only about states organizing 501c3 status. So, so the 43 or 33 states that allow child marriage, um, then they would be able to continue that practice under this provision
▶ 3:43:08and and
▶ 3:43:09not be penalized with regard to their their 501c3 status
▶ 3:43:14if an organization ad uh if that was part of its purpose. Uh, what you've stated is correct, Miss Moore.
▶ 3:43:20Thank you so much, sir, and I yield Are there additional technical Mr. Dog?
▶ 3:43:28So, if I understand your answers, if Mr. Epstein had used a nonprofit 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 it claimed it was part of a religious practice.
▶ 3:43:50Well, Mr. Dog, I'd like I'd like to go back to the precept again disagree taking it assessing only the religious practice aspect of it, right?
▶ 3:44:03Yes. 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 Mr. 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
▶ 3:44:23that'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 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 interconnects. I yield back.
▶ 3:44:50Additional technical questions. Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Mr. Moore is recognized to strike the last word.
▶ 3:45:01Thank you, Chairman. I'll just reiterate, Mr. Barto, I appreciate your um clear responses on this. this doesn't take away even the even the examples and I and I get why we want to you know share a bunch of really absurd examples and and things like that but 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 that doesn't do anything with respect to that
▶ 3:45:31this is um a very narrowly uh this bill forecloses is 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 toolkit, including the operational test, illegality doctrine, the private endurement rules that the IRS would use against any organization actually facilitating unlawful marriages.
▶ 3:46:01regardless of that religious framing involved. We can come up with a lot of u you know examples that are going to catch a headline or 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 make all that stuff illegal things that you even brought up. What it does, it narrowly defines this and is not going to force a a religion to to to go against its beliefs.
▶ 3:46:25And 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 and not related and and touched in this in any way. And I appreciate I appreciate the dialogue, but I want to at least reiterate the legality that makes all that stuff illegal is is still fully in place and enforceable. And I yield back. Mr.
▶ 3:46:55Davis.
▶ 3:46:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by HR 9722, the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of 2026.
▶ 3:47:14While the bill's title promises its substance, however, delivers the exact opposite, compromising the fundamental protections and fair treatment of millions of In fact, as drafted, this bill would sanction unfairness and discrimination by religious by amending section 501 of the Internal
▶ 3:47:45Revenue Code of 1986. to add that a religious belief or practice concerning sexuality, or gender identity should not be treated as being inconsistent with law or public policy.
▶ 3:48:07The bill would also stipulate that a belief shall not fail to be treated as a religious belief merely because such belief is not compelled by or central to a system of religion.
▶ 3:48:25In other words, HR 9722 essentially permits taxexempt religious that exercise or practice child or polygamous marriage that prohibit interracial or samesex marriage or that condone sexual behaviors such as child pornography to exist.
▶ 3:48:51For this reason and others, I absolutely cannot support this harmful bill. A bill that basically dismantles decades of hard one civil rights and erodess the fundamental principles of equal opportunity and equal The bill before us in its current form is opposed by the Congressional Equality Caucus, Human
▶ 3:49:22Rights 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.
▶ 3:49:39The measure creates a different standard for taxexempt 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 Moreover, the bill permits religious organizations to discriminate, including against interracial
▶ 3:50:09couples and still receive taxexempt status. This is unacceptable, unamerican, and unconstitutional. Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value and religious exemptions already exist on the books for both federal non-discrimination laws and when appropriate the Constitution.
▶ 3:50:35Therefore, I contend that this bill does more harm than good and should be 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 30% of their income for rent.
▶ 3:51:02In Illinois, we're seeing family farm bankruptcies surge by 55% and long-term unemployment is Therefore, I would urge that we advancing this bill as it establishes a dangerous and lasting loophole in our civil rights protections and nondiscrimination laws related to sexual
▶ 3:51:33orientation, gender identity, and marriage. It is not good for America. Therefore, I would urge that we not pass it, and I yield back, Mr.
▶ 3:51:50Uh, are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Miss Mour,
▶ 3:51:57thank you so much, Mr. 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 Dr. Davis, Dr. Chu about child marriage, which is unhealthy for women.
▶ 3:52:25Um, if you're 14 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.
▶ 3:52:46Um, if there were a state that allowed child marriages, and of course there are 33 that do, then then the IRS would uh be mum with regard to taking away that status. I I just want to say um sex is not for children and 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.
▶ 3:53:17It 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 both directions uh American citizens and citizens of other countries in order to facilitate some man's
▶ 3:53:48immigration 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 know, it is not rare.
▶ 3:54:09Unfortunately, these child marriages, data show that between 2000 and 2018, more than 300,000 under the age of 18 were married in the US. some as young as 10 and and married of course to older men.
▶ 3:54:28Um I remember once when the when the um uh when we had an audit of why Milwaukee continued to appear on the list of outwed 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.
▶ 3:54:50It's because kids I personally know of girls who've had babies at age 12, 13 and of course 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 12 and 30. It is unfortunately not rare.
▶ 3:55:14And 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.
▶ 3:55:31Uh but I would hope that we would u establish a national commission to combat child marriage to study, evaluate and a report on eliminating child marriage in the US providing states that have already ended child marriage with increased violence against women act grant funding.
▶ 3:55:52establish 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.
▶ 3:56:17Um 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 uh mention, I am also going I'm going to be offering an amendment um to prevent child marriages.
▶ 3:56:41And I'm also going to 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, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
▶ 3:57:01Additional members wish to strike the last word. Miss Fishbach.
▶ 3:57:05Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. I yield my time to Mr. Moore. Thank you to the gentleman 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.
▶ 3:57:29Nothing in this legislation changes a a a sentence, a word, a letter with with regards to this already being a crime. Um, child pornography is a federal crime. The Supreme Court held unanimously in New York versus Ferour that it receives no constitutional protection whatsoever. We all know that, right? Um, these situations are are brought up.
▶ 3:57:55Look, 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 attended churching. They they attend churches. They don't want um this to be weaponized.
▶ 3:58:24churches in our nation that educate kids, that provide um philanthropic efforts beyond what our government has the capacity to do are given taxexempt status. This benefits our nation. This benefits uh it's an it's a nonpartisan issue, right?
▶ 3:58:43And 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.
▶ 3:59:11Um, 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.
▶ 3:59:20Mr. Chair, I yield back.
▶ 3:59:23Additional members wish to strike the last word. Mr. Doggin,
▶ 3:59:26religious freedom is so fundamental to this country. It's what brought people here to America over 250 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.
▶ 3:59:49and 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.
▶ 4:00:08I 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.
▶ 4:00:33uh to use terms to prohibit basically to tell the Internet 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 Miss Moore has pointed out, child marriage is not against the law in multiple states.
▶ 4:01:03Uh, but this bill will say the Internal Revenue Service should turn the other way if it's viewed as contrary to public practice. And I'm not aware of any federal law on child marriage. The same is true of some of the other practices that were concerned about here. Uh, it also raises a question of with these dangers from this overly expansive bill, what value is there in it?
▶ 4:01:29Unless 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.
▶ 4:01:58So, I hope we can look at further with reference to amendments, but that ultimately uh this bill probably can't be fixed and should be uh not approved by the committee today. Thank you.
▶ 4:02:10Well, Mr. Dog, yield.
▶ 4:02:11I yield.
▶ 4:02:12Um I just want to refute a point that the author of this bill just stated. He said that there are laws against child There are laws against child marriage, against polygamy, incest. But I want to read into the record a section of the bill which contradicts what you have just said.
▶ 4:02:40It 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.
▶ 4:03:03That 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.
▶ 4:03:34Therefore, 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 even the author has realized that that is in what this bill does.
▶ 4:03:58Thi 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 that is here in the actual text of the bill.
▶ 4:04:29I think that is why you are seeing such fervent push back from this side of the aisle. I see my Mr. Dogget'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.
▶ 4:04:44I'll recognize you after I after Mr. Kelly's five minutes.
▶ 4:04:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Mr. Moore, I didn't realize what your purpose of proposing this legislation entailed. I 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 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.
▶ 4:05:19and 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, Mr. 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.
▶ 4:05:50I 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 try to we try to find something wrong.
▶ 4:06:08I I it's uh it's just beyond my wildest imagination that when I ran for office back in 2010, 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 want to thank my friends on the other side for pointing out just how nefarious this piece of legislation is. Uh shocking shocking that you would try to hide something like that, Mr. Moore. Of all the time I've known you, I know your what you what you stand for. I know what your family stands for.
▶ 4:06:38I 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're attempting to do in this piece of legislation. Now, having said all that, I also want to take just a moment before action of today started. I had a chance to talk to Mr. Barold and I've always been impressed with Mr. Barold and his team. Mr. Barthold has been doing this for 38 years.
▶ 4:07:03um sometime when you have an opportunity to sit down and put together your journals, uh it's going to be interesting to see your perception of it. But for you to give 38 years of your life, for your team to give up time that they could be doing else other things, but I I guarantee you if you ever were looking for 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.
▶ 4:07:29Um, I guess this is what our form of government allows though. This debate, if you want to 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.
▶ 4:07:59uh you didn't understand that depending on who was in office uh we turned inflation into affordability. We doubledigit 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 the street of Hormuz is the reason uh that President Trump is doing this and and we forget about the previous administration and we shut down the Keystone pipeline. That didn't require any military action, but we did it.
▶ 4:08:26And that's when the prices of gasoline were the highest they've ever been. Okay. So, convenient loss of memory is okay. Uh, but the American people I I and I really hope 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 say, "Oh, how dare you say that? How dare you say that?" And 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.
▶ 4:08:55And I think that this is a great example of what makes the American people think that 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 party back and forth battering each other. So Mr. Moore, I want to tell you I emphatically am going to support what you put together because I know why you do it and I know your heart. I know your faith. I know your family. I know you. And um but I guess it goes with the territory right now.
▶ 4:09:25We 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 Mr. 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. 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. But I've watched so many things. By the way, uh the Epstein uh situation actually was ignored for the previous four years.
▶ 4:09:54Apparently, it just bubbled it up to the top. Maybe because somebody thought they could get some time on the front steps of the capital to talk about it. But um the facts are the facts and in this case, the facts go on your side, Mr. Moore. A great piece of legislation. I support you heartily.
▶ 4:10:09Thanks, Miss Sanchez.
▶ 4:10:10Yeah. Um perhaps Mr. Kelly was absent when I started my remarks, which said, "I impug no ill intent by the author of this legislation. I didn't make personal attacks against Mr. 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.
▶ 4:10:38And if there's any accusation that I have made today against Mr. or more. It's that the language is overly broad and it was sloppily drafted. It is way over broad. It says that concerning marriage, sexuality or gender identity that a religious belief or practice concerning marriage sexuality or gender shall not be treated as being inconsistent with the law or public policy.
▶ 4:11:08I have this is a policy debate. This is not politics. I'm not bringing the prior administration into this or the straight of 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.
▶ 4:11:30If 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, beastiality, those would not be inconsistent with the law or with public policy, which means they would not be illegal.
▶ 4:11:59So 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.
▶ 4:12:23Maybe 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 That is the crux of why we are shocked that the bill was brought forward and not discussed further or or or not drafted in a more narrow scope.
▶ 4:12:51Again, 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 Well, let those words sink in for just a because it means that if you are a religion that believes in polygamy
▶ 4:13:22or believes in child brides, child incest, beastiality, 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.
▶ 4:13:50That means we are allowing certain organizations who have practices that are against the to maintain their tax exempt status to to maintain the benefit of not having to pay taxes to the federal government.
▶ 4:14:07I 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 [clears throat] uh to, you know, to allow to to to go forward with without, you know, with with while maintaining
▶ 4:14:37benefits 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.
▶ 4:14:53I guess I have no takers on anybody diving deep on that language and and and having a counterargument as to as to why these illegal practices under this section, as long as they're a religious belief of practice, are not treated as if they are illegal. And my time has run out, so I will yield back. Miss Chu,
▶ 4:15:20the 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?
▶ 4:15:39I raised, shouldn't a 10-year-old child marrying an adult qualify this organization to be removed from taxexempt status? Well, you know what? 33 states permit child marriage and there is no federal minimum. And let's talk about interracial marriage. interracial marriage is allowed in all 50 states.
▶ 4:16:10And 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 taxexempt status. And let's talk about jailing LGBTQ Actually, that's against the law. It's a federal law that they should not be jailed just based on being LGBTQ plus.
▶ 4:16:40And 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 taxexempt status. Even in for beastiality, there is actually one state for which that is still legal.
▶ 4:17:03And yet there, if an organization's belief on sexuality advocates for beastiality, they could still maintain their taxexempt status. So rather than simply protecting religious liberty, this bill would prevent the IRS from considering some of the most egregious backwards in discussing practices inconsistent with long-standing public public policy when determining eligibility for valuable federal
▶ 4:17:33tax benefits. This is not right and that's why we must defeat this Are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, we will move to amendments. Are are there any amendments uh to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
▶ 4:17:56Miss Sanchez.
▶ 4:17:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 4:17:59Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:18:01Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
▶ 4:18:03A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentle lady suspend while the amendment is distributed?
▶ 4:18:32My 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.
▶ 4:18:52It 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 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.
▶ 4:19:21That is why my amendment would ensure that discriminatory organizations have no right to maintain taxexempt status. Not only does the underlying bill greenlight discrimination, it also greenlights 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.
▶ 4:19:47It is so broad that it could make room for fringe religious organizations that support child marriage to operate under a taxexempt 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.
▶ 4:20:16If the debates thus far has proven anything, if this bill passes out of committee unmended, it will gle green light discrimination from organizations that are meant to protect and educate I would remind every member on this day that they have LGBTQ constituents and every member on this deis has constituents in interracial marriages.
▶ 4:20:42I 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.
▶ 4:20:54Does 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
▶ 4:21:07Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 4:21:18Mr. Kelly.
▶ 4:21:20Mr. Kelly. No. Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Schwikert. No. Mr. Le Hood.
▶ 4:21:31Mr. Le Hood. No. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. No Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. No Mr. Hearn. No
▶ 4:21:45Mr. Hearn. No Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. No Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy. No. Mr.
▶ 4:21:56Mr. Kustoff. No. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
▶ 4:22:05Mr. Stwie.
▶ 4:22:06Mr. Stwie. No. [snorts] Miss Tenny. Miss Tenny. No. Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Miss. Van Dyene. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. No. Miss Miss Maliaakus. No. Mr. Kerry.
▶ 4:22:33Mr. Kerry. No. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 4:22:36Mr. Yakam. No, Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller. No, Mr. Bean.
▶ 4:22:47Mr. Moran.
▶ 4:22:54It's Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil. Yes. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Dogget. Yes. Mr. Thompson. Hi.
▶ 4:23:08Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Davis.
▶ 4:23:15Mr. Davis. Yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. Yes. Miss Su. Miss Delen. Miss Delenet. Yes. Miss Chu. Miss Chu. Yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore. Yes. Mr. Bole. Mr. Byer.
▶ 4:23:40Mr. Byer. Yes. Mr. Evans.
▶ 4:23:43Mr. Evans. Yes. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Petta. Mr. Petta. Yes. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez. Yes. Mr. Horsford. Mr. Horford. Yes. Miss Plask. Mr. Swazy.
▶ 4:24:06Mr. Swazy. Yes. Mr. Buchanan.
▶ 4:24:14Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
▶ 4:24:17Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No. Mr. Arrington.
▶ 4:24:25Mr. Fitzpatrick. Miss Vanine. Miss Vanine. No. Mr. Bean.
▶ 4:24:34Mr. Bean. No. Mr. Moran, Miss Su, Mr. Bole, Mr. Schneider, Miss Plask.
▶ 4:24:54Chairman Smith.
▶ 4:24:55Chairman Smith. No. Clerk will report the vote.
▶ 4:25:16Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 15 and the nos are 22.
▶ 4:25:19There being 15 yeses and 22 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?
▶ 4:25:26Miss Moore.
▶ 4:25:29Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
▶ 4:25:31A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentle lady suspend while the amendment is distributed? Thank you. Lady may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I can see that the committee rejected uh a very good amendment um a few seconds ago, but this one is very very narrow.
▶ 4:25:58It just says this amendment would provide that this bill does not apply to religious beliefs or practices that promote child Um I again want to Mr. Moore's notion that these are 10 year olds getting married, children being married to older men is uh these are isolated uh incidences. They are not.
▶ 4:26:26I'm not talking about uh uh R. Kelly and Aaliyah. 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 14 and fresh out of foster care when my parent decided to marry me off to a 43y old to avoid his prosecution.
▶ 4:26:55you 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.
▶ 4:27:18And that is why she has said that she supports my bill that I've just introduced, the Child Marriage Prevention Act of 2026. And I am just stunned that everybody won't agree with me. As I have indicated in my further in my u uh in um previous dialogues that child marriage is harmful to women.
▶ 4:27:42You know, it it it is accompanied by domestic violence and brutality, giving birth at a very early age, um forcing women to abdicate their ability to go to school, uh and and to be able to come financially independent.
▶ 4:28:04Um, and not only is it a problem for American women, 300,000 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.
▶ 4:28:28There there is one account that I have here where a woman was 8 years old pinned down to the bed to get her ear pierced as a part of a ceremony uh before she became a bride. Uh this is not a joke. This is not abstract and it is not unfortunately um just something that happens every once in a while.
▶ 4:28:56Uh, 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 uh triggered by sexual assault.
▶ 4:29:20I'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 17 states that we have already had to prevent child marriages.
▶ 4:29:47But the other 33, 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 16. No, 10. 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.
▶ 4:30:16Additional 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 role. Mr. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. No. Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Schwikert. No. Mr. Le Hood.
▶ 4:30:42Mr. Leood. No. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. No. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. No. Mr. Hearn.
▶ 4:30:55Mr. Hearn. No. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. No. Dr. Murphy.
▶ 4:31:04Mr. Kustoff.
▶ 4:31:06Mr. Kustoff.
▶ 4:31:09No. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Mr. Stwie. Miss Tenny. Miss Tenny. No. Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Miss. Van. Miss. Van. No. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra.
▶ 4:31:39No. Miss Miss Malletakus. No. Mr. Kerry, Mr. Yakam, Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean,
▶ 4:32:00yes, no.
▶ 4:32:02Mr. Bean, no. Mr. Moran,
▶ 4:32:11Mr. Neil,
▶ 4:32:12Mr. Neil.
▶ 4:32:13Yes. Mr. Dogget. Mr. Dogget. Yes. Mr.
▶ 4:32:19Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Larson.
▶ 4:32:23Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Davis.
▶ 4:32:26Mr. Davis. Yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. Yes. Miss Su. Miss Delen. Miss Alben. Yes. Miss Chu.
▶ 4:32:40Miss Chu. Yes. Miss Moore.
▶ 4:32:43Miss Moore. Yes. Mr. Boille.
▶ 4:32:46Mr. Boille. Yes. Mr. Byer.
▶ 4:32:49Mr. Byer. Yes. Mr. Evans.
▶ 4:32:53Mr. Evans. Yes. Mr. Schneider.
▶ 4:32:58Mr. Petta. Mr. Petta. Yes. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horford. Mr. Horford. Yes, Miss Plask Mr. Swazy
▶ 4:33:17Mr. Swisy. Yes, Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No, Mr. Dr. Murphy,
▶ 4:33:38Mr. Mr. Fitzpatrick,
▶ 4:33:41Mr. Stewie.
▶ 4:33:53Mr. Stwie is not recorded.
▶ 4:33:55Mr. Stwie,
▶ 4:33:59Mr. Kerry,
▶ 4:34:00Mr. Kerry, no.
▶ 4:34:03Mr. Yakam,
▶ 4:34:04Mr. Yakam, no.
▶ 4:34:07Mr. Mr. Moran, Miss Su, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Gomez,
▶ 4:34:20Mr. Gomez. Yes, Miss Plask.
▶ 4:34:28How is Dr. Murphy recorded?
▶ 4:34:30Dr. Murphy is not recorded.
▶ 4:34:32Dr. Murphy, no. Chairman Smith,
▶ 4:34:38Chairman Smith, no.
▶ 4:34:46The clerk will report the vote.
▶ 4:34:57Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 16 and the nos are 22.
▶ 4:35:00There being 16 yeses and 22 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments? Miss Moore is recognized for a second
▶ 4:35:09Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
▶ 4:35:11A point of order has been reserved. Uh will the gentle lady suspend while the amendment is distributed? You can proceed. Miss Moore.
▶ 4:35:30Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This is a really straightforward amendment that would prohibit female genital 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.
▶ 4:35:53Unlike 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 uh is unhealthy. Uh it is harmful to women and is harmful to society as a whole. 41 states in the United States have criminalized female genital mutilation.
▶ 4:36:23That 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 1996, it has been a federal crime. In 2013, Congress amended the federal law to strengthen it. And again in 2021 when Congress enacted the strengthening the opposition to female genital mutilation, the stop FGM act that prohibits female genital mutilation of minors.
▶ 4:36:53It was the work of our late colleague, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. The legislation established clear statutory definition of F FGM and made it a federal crime to perform to attempt to perform to conspire to 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.
▶ 4:37:24The law passed the House Assembly 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.
▶ 4:37:45According to a 20 2023 report of from the US Department of Justice, as many of women and girls living in the United States may have experienced FGM uh or cutting in their countries of origin or may potentially over u practically undergo this practice in the future.
▶ 4:38:10When I was in the state senate, I was one of the persons I offered uh the bill that made it illegal in Wisconsin because we had female genital u mutilation occurring in our state. And over 230 million women today are estimated to be survivors of female genital mutilation.
▶ 4:38:34While girls are onethird less likely to be subject to to female uh genital mutilation than they were 30 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.
▶ 4:39:00When I was in the Gambia and who who was I in the Gambia with members of this When I was in the Gambia, as you recall, we traveled overseas on a bipartisan codel to reaffirm to the elected officials in the Gambia their need to keep a ban on female genital mutilation in place.
▶ 4:39:25We should not be hypocrites today because this bill will 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.
▶ 4:39:52Uh, 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, it won't upend your bill totally.
▶ 4:40:12I 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, Mr. Moore. I yel back. Additional members wish to strike the last word on the
▶ 4:40:32Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Miss Moore. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 4:40:37Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. No. Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Leood. Mr. Leood. No. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. No. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker. No. Mr. Hearn.
▶ 4:41:05Mr. Hearn. No. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. No Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy. No, Mr. Kustoff.
▶ 4:41:15Mr. Kustoff. No, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stwie. Mr. Stwie. No. Miss Tenny. Mr. Tenny. No. Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Miss. Vanine. Miss Vanine. No. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Finstra. No. Miss Maliaakis. Miss Malotakus. No. Mr.
▶ 4:41:46Mr. Kerry. No. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 4:41:49Mr. Yakam. No. Mr. Miller.
▶ 4:41:53Mr. Miller. Nope.
▶ 4:41:55Mr. Mr. Bean.
▶ 4:41:57Mr. Bean. No. Mr. Moran.
▶ 4:42:04Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil. Yes. Mr. Dogit. Mr. Dogget. Yes. Mr. Thompson.
▶ 4:42:13Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Larson.
▶ 4:42:16Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Davis.
▶ 4:42:19Mr. Davis. Yes. Miss Sanchez.
▶ 4:42:23Miss Sanchez. Yes. Miss Su.
▶ 4:42:29Miss Delen.
▶ 4:42:31Miss Delben. Yes. Miss Chu.
▶ 4:42:34Miss Chu. Yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore. Yes, Mr. Boille.
▶ 4:42:40Mr. Boille. Yes, Mr. Byer.
▶ 4:42:43Mr. Byer. Yes, Mr. Evans.
▶ 4:42:47Mr. Evans. Yes, Mr. Schneider.
▶ 4:42:52Mr. Petta. Mr. Petta. Yes. Mr. Gomez.
▶ 4:42:56Mr. Gomez. Yes. Mr. Horzford. Mr. Horford. Yes. Miss Plask.
▶ 4:43:04Mr. Swazy.
▶ 4:43:06Mr. Swazy. Yes, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Schwiker. Mr. Schwikert. No, Mr. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Moran, Miss Su, Mr. Schneider. Miss Plask.
▶ 4:43:37Chairman Smith.
▶ 4:43:38Chairman Smith. No.
▶ 4:43:48The clerk will report the vote.
▶ 4:43:50Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 16 and the nos are 22.
▶ 4:43:53There being 16 yeses and 22 nos, 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 I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 4:44:11In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Smith for the purpose of offering a motion.
▶ 4:44:21Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee favorably report HR 9722 as amended to the House of Representatives. The question is on the motion to favorably report HR 9722 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 4:44:33Mr. Buchanan.
▶ 4:44:36Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. Yes. Mr. Schwikert. Mr. Schwikert. Yes. Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Arrington. [snorts] Mr. Estus. Mr. Estus. Yes, Mr. Smucker, Mr. Smucker. Yes, Mr. Hearn.
▶ 4:45:02Mr. Hearn. Yes, Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Miller. Yes, Dr. Murphy.
▶ 4:45:08Dr. Murphy. Yes, Mr. Kustoff.
▶ 4:45:11Mr. Kustoff. Yes, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stwie.
▶ 4:45:17Mr. Stwie. Yes. Miss Tenny.
▶ 4:45:21Miss Tenny. Yes. Mrs. Fishbach.
▶ 4:45:24Mrs. Fishbach. Yes, Mr. Moore.
▶ 4:45:28Mr. Moore. Yes, Miss Vanine.
▶ 4:45:35Mr. Fenstra.
▶ 4:45:37Mr. Fenstra. Yes, Miss Malotakus. Miss Malotakus. Yes. Mr. Kerry.
▶ 4:45:44Mr. Kerry. Yes. Mr. Yakam.
▶ 4:45:51Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Bean.
▶ 4:45:55Yes. Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran, Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neil, Mr. Neil, no. Mr. Dogit Mr. Dogit, no. Mr. Thompson Mr. Thompson, no. Mr.
▶ 4:46:17Mr. Larson, no. Mr. Davis, Mr. Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez. No. Miss
▶ 4:46:27Miss Su. No. Miss Denny. No. Miss Chu. Miss Chu. No. Miss Moore.
▶ 4:46:36Miss Moore. No. Mr. Bole. No.
▶ 4:46:39Mr. Boille. No. Mr. Byer. Mr. Byer. No. Mr. Evans.
▶ 4:46:45Mr. Evans. No. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Mr. Petta. Mr. Petta. No. Mr. Gomez.
▶ 4:46:56Mr. Gomez. No. Mr. Horsford.
▶ 4:47:04Miss Plask.
▶ 4:47:08Mr. Swazy.
▶ 4:47:10Mr. Swazy. No. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Le Hood. Mr. Leood.
▶ 4:47:23Mr. Leood. Yes. Mr. Arrington.
▶ 4:47:32Mr. Fitzpatrick.
▶ 4:47:34Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes. Miss Vanine.
▶ 4:47:41Mr. Yakam.
▶ 4:47:43Mr. Yakam. Yes.
▶ 4:47:47Mr. Schneider. Mr. Horseford, Miss Plask.
▶ 4:47:58Chairman Smith,
▶ 4:47:59Chairman Smith, yes.
▶ 4:48:04The clerk will report the vote.
▶ 4:48:14Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 23 and the nos are 16. There being 23 yeses and 16 nos, the motion is agreed to and HR 9722 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to HR and that members have two additional days to file with the with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. There being no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned.