Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentlelady. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). As he is approaching the microphone, let me just make one point, and that is something that Mr. Davis just highlighted. Sanctions are working. Sanctions have brought the Iranians to the table. So think of it this way. You have got a hold of a pit bull. You have got it. It is a very dangerous animal and it is ferocious, and if you let go of it, it may come and attack you. Why in the world, if you have got it under control or under some semblance of control, would you say, ``You know what? Let's loosen our grip and try this again''? It doesn't make any sense. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for his insight and for his perspective and for his admonition for action. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, it is an amazing thing to think about how aggressive Iran has been without a nuclear weapon. It is a worldwide sponsor of terror, incredibly aggressive, and going after and making threats about the Strait of Hormuz and so forth. Can you even imagine what it would be like as a nation if it had a nuclear threat behind it? It would change the dynamic entirely. I think one of the weaknesses of the administration's proposed deal is this: it puts the imprimatur of approval on enrichment. Up until now, it has been American policy that says, You can't enrich. You have no right to a nuclear capability. And let's be frank. There is nobody with a straight face that is saying that the Iranians have any interest in pursuing nuclear technology because of an interest in global warming. This is not an energy pursuit at all. It is clearly a pursuit to manipulate the world stage toward their ends that are oftentimes driven by terror. One of the great advocates of a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship and one of the great advocates of a strong U.S. foreign policy is the gentlelady from Florida, former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, to whom I now yield.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, we have had a discussion tonight that has been incredibly robust. It has been bipartisan. We have had insight from members of the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, Members who have had a long-term interest in Middle Eastern affairs and American military affairs, all of whom, Mr. Speaker, have a clear view of history. A clear view of history says let's look back at past activities as the best indicator of what the future is going to be like. In summary, Mr. Speaker, what we know is this. That the administration has struck a bad deal, maybe for all the right reasons, but they have struck a bad deal. It is the responsibility of Congress not to put its imprimatur of support on a bad deal, but to act as a coequal branch of government and say, We ought not do this. We have got to recognize the weakness of it. We have got to recognize the long-term consequences of it, and we have got to hold this administration accountable. I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mrs. Walorski. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann), a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the President said something interesting when describing the attempt of his administration to have an impact, and when describing his frustration with the Federal Government, he described it this way. He said, It is cumbersome, complicated, and outdated. Well, isn't that an interesting revelation? Isn't that a stark contrast with the private sector? Wouldn't it have been helpful if the President had recognized that during the entire debate on ObamaCare, because here is the irony, and it is a dark, sad irony, and it is this. I have a constituent named Diane whose coverage has jumped from $368 a month, and it has almost doubled. She was told her coverage is gone, based on ObamaCare, and she is being migrated into a new system. This is an 11-year breast cancer survivor that liked her coverage and no longer has it. She doesn't want an administrative remedy. She wants a legislative remedy. She has confidence in this House to get it done, not the White House to get it done. We need to do this work. We need to pass the Upton bill today.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, my constituents are asking a simple question, and the question they are asking the White House is: Can you hear us now, and do you understand this frustration that we feel? I have got a constituent, Mr. Speaker, Diane, who got this letter from her insurance, Medicare, with these couple of sentences: Effective January 1, all plans must be compliant with the new health care law; therefore, the insurance company plan you have now will no longer be available after December 31. What happened to Diane? A plan that she liked, a plan that she was satisfied with as an 11-year cancer survivor, a plan that she could afford now was taken away based on ObamaCare, and she was ``migrated'' into ObamaCare, and her premium was nearly doubling. What does Diane have to say about President Obama's offer to fix this? She said this: I want to see legislation passed to fix this problem, legislation I can trust. I don't want an administrative trust. I don't trust that to anyone. We need to fix this. We need to pass this legislation.

Mr. ROSKAM

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2769, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. I am.

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I suppose that's an endorsement of the bill. It took a while. The ranking member took us on a journey, and I appreciate the journey, but I think what the ranking member said is that he actually supports H.R. 2769, and I appreciate that. I think one of the things that may have been persuasive to the ranking member, which was persuasive to me, is that part of the report--the summary from the inspector general--in which the inspector general, after reviewing all of this, says that procedures at the time of the conference did not require IRS management to track and report actual conference costs. In other words, the IRS wasn't holding to a standard that it holds you to, Mr. Speaker, and your constituents or the ranking member's constituents or my constituents, because, when my constituents go to the IRS and when they say, ``Well, I don't have my receipts,'' or ``I don't have `this' or I don't have `that,' '' they get a cold, glassy- eyed stare from the Internal Revenue Service and no mercy from the Internal Revenue Service. So I am delighted and I am encouraged, and I very much appreciate the ranking member's pointing out the progress that the IRS has made and the other areas where the IRS needs to go. Just let me briefly draw the body's attention to what these nine actual recommendations are. After all, this is not climbing Mount Everest, but they are pretty solid, commonsense recommendations: It requires the IRS' Chief Financial Officer to verify that appropriate information is being tracked to ensure actual costs of the conferences can be established and audited. That's what I referenced a minute ago; It implements a policy to determine whether training sessions held at the conference qualify for continuing professional education credits for CPA employees; It sets standards for the site of a conference. The report recommends against nongovernmental facilities unless the benefits will offset increased expenditures and spending will not be seen as unnecessary by the public; It implements procedures to identify when nongovernment event planners are used, how much they are paid and how they are being selected; It directs the Chief Financial Officer to establish standards regarding planning trips for conferences; It outlines the necessity for produced videos at conferences in response to the claim that the IRS spent over $50,000 on video skits; It sets standards on whether hotel room upgrades should be allowed; It requires the submission of W-2 tax forms for local IRS employees who were reimbursed for staying overnight at conferences--just a little irony there if you're tracking with me, Mr. Speaker; Finally, it recommends that the CFO establish procedures to determine the necessity of an exhibitor's hall, promotional items, and other significant costs. Common sense. Thoughtful. It's meant to restore the public's confidence in the Internal Revenue Service, and it is my hope that it is widely supported on both sides of the aisle today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2769 offers the House an opportunity to go back to our constituents who are asking this question when we are out and about at home: What in the world is the House of Representatives doing about the IRS scandals? There is a series of scandals that we've heard about that we've heard testimony from in both the Ways and Means Committee, on which I and the ranking member serve, and also the Government Oversight Committee--and my suspicion is maybe some other committees of the House. But when our constituents say, What in the world are you doing?, this bill that we are discussing is part of that remedy. Here is one of the things that we have come to learn, Mr. Speaker: We've come to learn that the Inspector General, the Treasury Inspector General for tax administration, did an audit; and in the course of the audit discovered that there were funds that were being misused in the context of conferences. Some of them were conferences that looked at, even in the most favorable light, even if you were looking at it in the most favorable light from an IRS point of view, were clearly gratuitous and an abuse and overspending. Some of this had to do with videos that were videos of parodies of the television show ``Star Trek'' and, actually, I think a bunch of nonsense. Some of it had to do with the purchasing of trinkets. Some of it had to do with overspending. So the Inspector General very clearly said, Look, there has to be a remedy here. What the House is proposing in consideration of this bill is that all of these IRS conferences have to stop--hit the pause button on all of them--until the recommendations of the Inspector General are met. When the Inspector General then reports to Congress that those recommendations that would stop the nonsense have been fulfilled under a new set of criteria, the IRS says that they've met these, the Inspector General certifies it, then the conferences can go on. I think it's thoughtful. I think it has been approached on a bipartisan basis. I have been very encouraged by the spirit with which the Democrats and Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee have worked together to investigate and inquire of the IRS but not just looking through the rearview mirror. Looking through the rearview mirror, yes, but also saying: What did we learn? How do we prospectively make sure that these things don't happen again? With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2769) to impose a moratorium on conferences held by the Internal Revenue Service, as amended.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2768, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2768 is entitled the ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2013.'' What it does is address a fundamental question. There was an ambiguity, apparently, Mr. Speaker, in the testimony that you heard in the Ways and Means Committee and that the ranking member heard in the Ways and Means Committee and in some other testimony that we've heard from the other body, which is this: Who is responsible for having an understanding of what's going on at the Internal Revenue Service? Who is responsible for the missteps and the mishaps and so forth? There was a theme that we heard from a couple of folks who you would have thought would have said that the responsibility was theirs, but they weren't really willing to take the responsibility. Here is what I mean by that. There currently exists 10 enumerated rights in the statute, and let me just quickly run through these. It's important that we look at this as a foundation upon which we have an expectation that the Internal Revenue Service is operating: Taxpayers have the right to be informed, the right to be assisted, the right to be heard, the right to pay no more than the correct amount of tax, the right of appeal, the right of certainty, the right of privacy, the right of confidentiality, the right to representation, and the right to a fair and just tax system. That's current law, but here is where parts of things get lost in the shuffle in that, apparently, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service doesn't view that as that person's responsibility to make sure, A, that the Commissioner knows it and, B, that other employees know it. So what we are doing today, what we are proposing to the House today, is to put this in a place in the statute that unambiguously says that this is the responsibility of the Commissioner's. I alluded to a couple of quotes before, and I want to walk through them with you just briefly and put it in this context: What we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, are fundamental rights that are foundational and that the Congress has put into the Internal Revenue Code to make sure that taxpayers are protected. This is settled ground. This is common knowledge. This is a general understanding. There is no new ground. Nobody is hunting out ahead of the pack here. This is a very solid doctrine, these 10 enumerated rights. The former Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Douglas Shulman, said before the Finance Committee in the other body on May 21: I certainly am not personally responsible for creating a list that had inappropriate criteria on it. What I know, with the full facts that are out, is from the inspector general's report, which doesn't say I'm responsible for that. With that said, this happened on my watch, and I very much regret that it happened on my watch. He also said this: I had a partial set of facts, and I knew that the inspector general was going to be looking into it, and I knew that it was going to be stopped. Sitting there then and sitting here today, I think I made the right decision, which is to let the inspector general get to the bottom of it, chase down all the facts, and then make his findings public. We heard, in the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Speaker, from the former Acting Commissioner, Steven Miller. He said this: I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection. The listing described in the report, while intolerable, was a mistake and was not an act of partisanship. Can you imagine how we would all be feeling if somebody came and there was an officer of the law who said, Well, I know I'm supposed to read Miranda rights. I know that's what the law says. I know it's settled doctrine. I know that that's what a defendant expects. But I was busy. I had a heavy workload. So I chose not to Mirandize the defendant. I just figured I didn't have enough time. There are so many things that are going on in this IRS story, there are so many components and elements of it, much of this is actually things that we have yet to learn. I think we're marveling every day at new facts that are coming out, and I think the House has been very disciplined, frankly, in letting the facts speak for themselves. But there is a fact, and here it is: there is ambiguity about who is in charge at the IRS; there is ambiguity about who is responsible at the IRS. And when the IRS commissioners, both of these recent appointees-- not the current one, but both recent appointees--have the sense of, Well, the responsibility belongs here and the responsibility belongs there, I think it is incumbent on the House to say, No, the responsibility for this lies with the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and that's what the plain language of this bill does. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2768) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that a duty of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is to ensure that Internal Revenue Service employees are familiar with and act in accord with certain taxpayer rights, as amended.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman. Let's talk about burdens--the burden of listening to the President of the United States, Madam Speaker, on June 7 of this year say that this bill is working the way it's supposed to. No, it's not. Then, within the twinkling of an eye, the White House has to say, Oh, it's not working the way it's supposed to. We need to have this delayed for a year. Let's talk about the burden of signing a tax return form under penalties of perjury and all of that burden that presses down with the force of the law when you make a misrepresentation and when you're trying to follow up on 200 pages of an individual mandate, and people don't know if they're on foot or on horseback on this thing. That's a burden. That's a burden that the country can't sustain, and that's the burden that we can relieve by voting ``aye.''

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight the crucial work of nurses in America. Few individuals touch the lives of others in the manner in which nurses commit to aiding their patients. This is one of the many reasons that we honor and celebrate our nation's nurses during this week of National Nurses Week Unique from almost any other profession, nurses join us in some of life's most exciting milestones as well as some of its most challenging seasons. Nurses share in the joyous moment of a newborn's cries to assisting our grandparents as they transition into their golden years. Nurses help clean up our children's first schoolyard scrapes and tumbles just as they help our Nation's homeless when they fall off their feet. This commitment to patient care dates back to Florence Nightingale. The archetype of modern nursing, Nightingale demonstrated both commitment and compassion to the fallen soldiers of the British Crimean War. It was this paradigm that helped reduce the death rate of the Crimean War by two-thirds. As a result of this patient-centric model of aid, patient advocacy and hospital administration have both adapted into what we are familiar with and thankful for today. That is why Nursing Appreciation Week is celebrated during the week of May 12, Nightingale's birthday. There are more nurses than any other workers in the health profession. However, when nursing staffs decrease, individual patient attention decreases as well. This can lead to medical complications and increased hospital stay increase. It is not only a single nurse that encourages patient recovery; it is a team of nurses that play a pivotal role in patient wellness. In the upcoming years while the American healthcare system undergoes substantial changes, we will depend on nurses more than ever when seeking healthcare. Nurses will serve alongside their colleagues in discovering the next steps in innovative care models as we transition to the next chapter in patient care. I would encourage all of my fellow members to remember this week next time they visit a hospital or take their child to the doctor; remember to thank your nurse as well.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for National Teacher Appreciation Day. I would like to thank Ms. Lillian Anderson who gave me my first exposure to government with a 4th grade class history project on the State of Illinois at Ben Franklin School in Glen Ellyn. I still have the folder with the assignment featured in my district office to remind me of why I entered public service. Unfortunately, Ms. Anderson passed away a few years ago but I am reminded of her invaluable contributions to the community every time I am back home. We often take our teachers for granted. We drop our children off at school or send them to the bus stop and pick them up at the end of the day, but the job of our nation's teachers is hardly 9-5. It starts well before the children arrive and continues long after they leave. We forget that the job involves countless hours of preparation; weekends spent shopping for supplies, and most importantly working with our students to help them become the next generation of authors, doctors, young professionals, and yes, even teachers. I encourage everyone to take time at their next parent teacher conference or other interaction with you children's teacher to take a moment and thank them for all the hard work they are doing to prepare the next generation.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished public servant from the 6th District of Illinois. Nanci Vanderweel has dedicated her life to her community and has worked tirelessly to help the less fortunate. She serves as a role model for us all and as proof that one dedicated person can change the lives of many. In 1971 Nanci was elected as the first female Trustee for Elk Grove Village. A position that many would view as an impressive career finale, Nanci saw as a good starting point. She went on to become a Trustee for the Elk Grove Township where she currently serves as the Supervisor, after again becoming the first woman selected for the position. In addition she serves as the President of the Supervisor's Division of the Township Officials of Cook County. While working full time for her community, Nanci found the time to be the Chairman of the Cook County Public Aid Committee; Chairman of the Judiciary, Planning and Zoning Committee for Elk Grove Village; she started the Elk Grove Village Community Blood Drive Program; is a Charter Member of the Friends of Harper College; served as the President of the Board of Directors for the Northwest Community Services; became a member of the United Way Needs Assessment Committee; a Unit Chair for the Salvation Army; and she chaired the referendum to assist ambulance accessibility on the I-290 interchange at Biesterfield Road. As if that was not enough, Nanci published a book on the History of Elk Grove Township and even started the first free library in the township, for which she received the Governor's Hometown Award. Through hard work and no small amount of perseverance, Nanci Vanderweel has helped countless people and tremendously improved her community. Distinguished Members, please join me in congratulating Nanci Vanderweel on an accomplished life, and wishing her happiness and peace in her well-earned retirement.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant from the Sixth Congressional District of Illinois, Mayor Larry Hartwig of Addison. In May, he will conclude his loyal service as Mayor after four terms. As a resident of the Village of Addison for over 40 years, Mr. Hartwig has served as a model citizen. He first entered public office in 1987 as Village Trustee, and in 1995, he was appointed Interim Mayor of Addison where he was elected thereafter. During his tenure as Mayor, Mr. Hartwig has been an exemplary leader and public servant. After retiring as Principal of Wood Dale Junior High School, he devoted more time to other areas of service, including the DuPage Water Commission and the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus. His noble leadership led him to serve as President of the DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference and as Chairman of the Conference's Legislative Committee. Mayor Hartwig has represented his community well and has been a strong voice for the Village of Addison throughout his time in office. His long service to the people of Addison and to DuPage County is truly commendable. Although retiring as Mayor, Addison will continue to benefit from his involvement as a member of the community. Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Mayor Hartwig on 26 years of public service and in wishing him all the best for the days ahead.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to announce that over 100 colleagues have joined together on both sides of the aisle to send a letter to President Obama commending his trip to Israel and also asking him to use it as an opportunity to continue to put the imprimatur of the administration on a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship. We also urge the President to continue to make sure that all options are on the table as it relates to Iran and their nuclear ambitions and that we should continue to adopt a policy of prevention and not containment. Similarly, we said that we need to protect Israel's Qualitative Military Edge and Israel's inherent right to defend itself, and also recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process can only be achieved and advanced through direct negotiations without preconditions. Finally, we said that the President must maintain foreign aid to Israel, as well as funding for Iron Dome and other Israeli-made antimissile defense systems. In a nutshell, we've urged the President to use this as a time to highlight our relationship with the Nation of Israel because it makes all the sense in the world, and it's a foundation upon which prosperity can happen.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Look, we were admonished a minute ago in the well of the House about the shame of things, and I think we can all accept admonition that we, as a Congress, need to do better. But part of doing better, part of creating a bipartisan bill, is showing up to do the work. So when the minority chooses to walk out of a proceeding, while that's their prerogative, it doesn't create the environment for bipartisanship. Enough said. We're also told that there's shame and disappointment in not working, and I would assume that that shame and disappointment goes back to the previous majority, Mr. Chairman, who failed to do this work. Now, that's living in the rearview mirror, and enough of that. So the question is: How do we move forward? How do we take bipartisan or, actually, more importantly, nonpartisan advice from the Government Accounting Office which has looked at the status quo and made a couple of points? They've said the status quo is a failure. The status quo isn't syncing up job creation opportunities, that is, job training, with where the actual jobs are. Or said another way, we've got a status quo that's good for job trainers, but it's not good for the people that we all claim to speak for, that is, those who are unemployed and need a skill. So we were also told a minute ago that, and I think the word was, a majority of those who were involved somehow are opposed to the GOP plan. I'm getting data that shows that there's dozens of groups--and I'm sure it's on the Ed and Workforce Web site--that are supporting this. So here's the question: Do we listen to the GAO? Do we say we're not going to defend the status quo, we're not going to bulk up with more bureaucracy, but, instead, at a time when everybody recognized that resources are limited, we're going to consolidate, be smart, be clever about how we're doing things in order to get this done? And I think the failure, with all due respect, of the Democratic substitute is that it creates six new programs as opposed to consolidating and putting all of these savings, I might add, back into the very job training program that we're all trying to defend. So I accept admonition where admonition is due, but I think we're a little bit reluctant to say there's not a bipartisan opportunity when part of being bipartisan is making sure that we show up for that opportunity. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.