PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 330.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 9, 2025
No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act
This bill requires the Department of State to develop and implement a strategy to discourage foreign countries and nongovernmental organizations from providing financial or material support to the Taliban, including by using U.S.-provided foreign assistance to discourage countries and organizations from providing such support to the Taliban.
The State Department must report to Congress on (1) foreign countries and nongovernmental organizations that have provided financial or material support to the Taliban and U.S. efforts to oppose such support; (2) the strategy to discourage such support and a plan for the strategy's implementation; (3) U.S.-funded direct cash assistance programs in Afghanistan; and (4) the Afghan Fund, including Taliban influence over Da Afghanistan Bank (the Afghan central bank).
People & committees
Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 330.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Risch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Risch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2843-2844)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2843-2844)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 260.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2843-2845)
Mr. Burchett moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.260 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.260 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.260 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.260 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.