Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Crowley for his work, his advocacy, and his willingness to make suggestions to improve this bill so we could enjoy unanimous support. We are in a very good situation on it. Let me just give you a little bit more color commentary, if I could, because I think it is important for us to recognize the role that we in this House play as a coequal branch of government pushing back on abuse when we see it in the executive branch, and this is part of our experience. So here is the back story: it occurred to us, Mr. Speaker, that these were certain cases--and I mentioned them a minute ago; I gave the names of these individuals a minute ago--that we had come to learn about. The IRS then subsequently changed their policy. But then it begs the question: What happens to the people, number one, that we don't know about who are still stuck in the system? So the IRS, in other words, said that we are not going to do this moving forward. What about the people that they had done this to? In other words, they had assets they had confiscated. So we ended up having another hearing, again, bipartisan. The result of that hearing, a result of a unanimous voice on the subcommittee itself, was that the IRS said: We are going to come up with a petition process. The IRS has written to 1,100 people involving approximately 700 cases, and they have heard back from 380 people so far who have said: You have wrongly taken this money. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you a quick story. It was a few months ago--I don't remember the exact date--but it was a few months ago when I asked for a briefing from the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service on these pending cases. I thought, Mr. Speaker, based on these hearings and so forth, that the meeting at my request was going to take 10 minutes and that the officials were going to come in and my question was: What is happening to the people who are caught in the middle of this? I thought they were going to come in and they would say, you know: Mr. Roskam, here is a list or whatever. We can't give you a list, but here is all disposed of. No, no, no, no. An hour and a half later, at the end of this discussion, I turned to the Department of Justice officials, Mr. Speaker, and I said: I am more afraid of you now than when I started this meeting. Do you want to know why I am afraid of you? Because you are acting in a completely obtuse manner. When I asked what happened to these people's money, the officials told me, Mr. Speaker, that the money had been absorbed into the Federal system. Let me repeat that. They said that the money had been absorbed into the Federal system--wrongly absorbed, but absorbed nevertheless. That this could come out of the mouth of someone who works for the Department of Justice I found to be completely absurd. I asked a simple question: What happens if my constituents owe a tax liability, don't pay the tax liability, and spend the money on something else? What do you do to them? And I answered the question: What you do to them is you put a lien on their house and you put them in prison, that is what you do. So don't you see, Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with? We have got to get to this situation, and we have got to get to making sure that power is used appropriately and it is not abused. I think this legislation that, again, is bipartisan, comes forward and it says it strikes the right balance, and if there is an underlying bad act--that is, an illegal activity--there is no one that is going to find any comfort in this bill; however, for the innocent folks who are not abusing this, they will find great comfort. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think Mr. Crowley made a great point, and that is there is a great temptation when the Federal Government comes after you--I would imagine, a great temptation--to cower to the intimidation. The government has a lot of power, and the government in this case figuratively reached out and grabbed these families by the throat and choked them and used power that was not correct to use against them, and it was unjust. It would have been an easy thing for these families to just sit back and take it and so forth, but they didn't do that. I think the fact that they didn't do that, Mr. Speaker, and they are willing to stand up and fight is a good foreshadowing of things to come. In other words, they told their story; Members of Congress heard their story, and we have been able to move and seek justice, not only changing underlying policies within the executive branch, but also changing an underlying statute. The other body has introduced this, and I am hopeful that it will be considered in an expeditious manner. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his support and advocacy. I urge passage of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor an innovator, entrepreneur, and business leader from the 6th District of Illinois. Bob Mariano has dedicated the last 49 years of his life to the grocery industry and on September 1st, he retired. After an iconic run as a leader in grocery retailing in Chicagoland, Bob has earned his rest and relaxation. Bob started his career in the grocery industry in 1967. At the ripe age of 17, he worked as a part-time deli clerk at Dominick's Finer Foods. He rose through the ranks, holding various roles including Senior Vice President, before being named President and CEO of Dominick's in 1995. Bob led Dominick's through an initial public offering in 1996 and its eventual sale in 1998. In 2010, equipped with years of expertise, Bob started a new venture--he opened his own grocery store. The first Mariano's opened in 2010 in Arlington Heights, bringing a new model of affordable, upscale groceries with a focus on in-store restaurants, sushi offerings, and other freshly prepared amenities. Since then Mariano's has had a mercurial rise, adding another 36 stores in just six short years. None of that would have been possible without Bob's expertise and vision. It is no surprise that other leaders in the grocery field praise his work. Chairman and CEO of the Kroger Co., Rodney McMullen, which recently bought Mariano's, stated, ``Bob is an innovator and his legacy in the grocery industry will be celebrated for many years to come. More importantly, Bob is a great friend to all of us here''. Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues please join me in congratulating Bob Mariano on an accomplished career and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Reece O'Connor, an exceptional and accomplished young man from the Sixth District of Illinois. Reece is a senior at Hinsdale Central High School and has not only earned the rank of Eagle Scout but has earned every single merit badge the Boy Scouts of America have to offer. This achievement represents many years of diligence and personal determination in support of the ideals of scouting. What makes this achievement even more impressive is the fact that Reece did not join Boy Scouts until the 7th grade. Even with the late start, Reece made it his goal to ``catch up'' to the rest of his scout mates--and ultimately he surpassed his goal. While the Scouts only offer 136 merit badges, he currently has 138 badges. The Boy Scouts frequently add new badges and retire old ones for special occasions; for example Reece earned several badges that were only offered during the Scouts' 100th anniversary. According to a spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America Reece's success is ``an extremely rare achievement.'' Reece's Eagle Scout project was also an impressive accomplishment. In 2013, the summer before he started high school, he organized a shoe drive and collected more than 1,000 pairs of shoes. These shoes were sent to people in Oklahoma displaced by tornadoes, and to refugees in Nicaragua and Rwanda. Reece is a testament to the Boy Scouts organization and all that it stands for. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Reece for his remarkable achievements.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 1-year anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the so-called Iran nuclear deal. President Obama made a series of promises to the American people. One was that Iran would cease its illicit nuclear activity. And yet, last week, Mr. Speaker, Germany reported that Iran has increased its illegal proliferation of nuclear technology. President Obama also promised that the nuclear deal would moderate Iran. In other words, there was a gentle, nice Iran that was waiting to come out, if only we would be more understanding. But in the past year, the Islamic Republic has launched nuclear ballistic missiles in violation of U.N. security resolutions, kidnapped U.S. sailors, shot rockets within 1,500 yards of U.S. Navy ships, and increased their support for terror regimes and terror groups, and remain the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. The President also stated that the U.S. sanctions regime would stay in place against Iran's terror activity while it was being lifted against the nuclear activity. But, instead, the U.S. has become Iran's negotiator in chief on the world stage and has rewarded companies that continue to support the Iranian National Guard Core and is devising ways to give Iran access to the U.S. financial system. One year after the President agreed to a dangerous nuclear deal, Iran continues to be a major adversary. Congress needs to highlight and spotlight Iran's malevolent activity. The good news is Congress is doing just that, Mr. Speaker. I am encouraged that the House will take up three very important pieces of legislation. It will deal with the heavy water bill. Think about this. Iran gets caught manufacturing heavy water. Rather than calling out the Iranian regime, in clear violation of the nuclear deal, what does the administration do? The administration says: Well, we are going to help Iran comply with the deal that they have just violated by using United States taxpayer money to buy the heavy water from Iran. You can't make this up. It is so absurd. We are only given excuses. We have got to focus in on what else is happening on this issue. Now, Boeing and Airbus have failed to understand the deep risks that come from doing business with Iran. These aren't necessarily risks for their bottom line. They are very willing to sell to a terrorist regime. But they are risks to freedom-loving people around the world. Both Airbus and Boeing want to do what? They want to sell a product that can be used for terrorism. They can use airlines for the purpose of moving things into illicit areas. We all know that Iran Air was sanctioned for ferrying weapons and troops to rogue regimes and terrorist groups. We know that Iran Air was implicated in North Korea's ballistic missile tests. And we also know that Iran systematically uses their commercial aircraft to transport weapons, troops, missiles, cash, and other supplies to terror groups. Mr. Speaker, on my left is a display. This is a computer printout that shows a flight from Tehran to Damascus last week. Now, think about this. This is the hubris of the Iranian regime: the Iranian Air Force flying a Boeing 747 in the middle of the night from Tehran to Damascus. Do we think that this is for commercial purposes? Of course, not. Did we think that this is for tourism? Of course, not. Do we think that they are flying baby formula or textbooks? Of course, not. What they are doing is a bad act, and we ought to not be complicit in this. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago, this House passed, on a bipartisan basis, limitations to the Financial Services Appropriations bill that would prevent this sale. And we did it by voice vote. What a voice vote means is that nobody substantially rose in opposition. Why? Because there is no real reason to rise because more and more people are recognizing that these types of sales should not go through. In response, the CEO of Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg, essentially said: Well, look, us selling to Iran is a good business opportunity to do business with the Iranians. And then he also said: Well, if Boeing can't sell, then nobody else should be able to sell. But did you notice something, Mr. Speaker, in those two comments? He didn't say: Look, we have got this under control. He didn't say: We are positive that nothing is going to be used for terrorism. He didn't say that this wouldn't jeopardize national security. He just said: If we can't do it, nobody should be able to do it. Look, I agree, if Boeing can't do it, nobody should be able to do it. It is well known that all of Boeing's competitors--Airbus of France, Bombardier of Canada, Embraer from Brazil, Comac from China--each of these companies sources at least 10 percent of their components from the United States. They require the same license that Boeing does. But that is not the point. What we need are iconic American companies following the lead of companies like Lockheed Martin--which has said they won't pursue this--Northrop Grumman, and others that haven't sullied their reputation. It is time for Congress to continue to do its good work.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, similar theme, this is a limitation amendment that would prohibit the administration from being involved in expediting the financing for the Boeing sale to Iran. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, we have an opportunity to do a good thing, and the good thing is this: to prohibit the Iranian regime from getting a product that is fungible militarily. One begins to ask oneself: What can that be, and how could the Congress be involved in that? It is very simple. There is a large American company, which is the Boeing Company, that is now seeking to do a deal, and the deal that they are seeking to do is to sell billions of dollars' worth of planes to the Iranians. Now, the Iranian regime--let's stipulate that everybody agrees--is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. When I say ``everybody,'' I mean everybody. Capitol Hill agrees; the administration agrees; the President says that is true; the Secretary of State says that is true. Yet they are on the verge of getting something that can be used for a military purpose. What is that? That is a Boeing plane. This is a tweet from May of this year when the Boeing Company tweeted this: ``These airplanes don't retire. They're getting another 20 years of life. See how. #freighters.'' That is exactly it. Boeing, in a moment of candor, overdisclosed one of the interesting things--and they are really attractive things--about their products. Why? Their products can be used as freighters. Their products can be used to transfer things on behalf of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, whom everybody acknowledges has been complicit in terror. This amendment is very simple, and it is very clear. It says that the Treasury Department cannot use money that is appropriated to license this deal. I urge its passage. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, the gentleman has conflated a number of issues, so let me explain and try to bring some clarity to this. There is, really, a false notion and a false narrative, which is to collapse the JCPOA--that is the nuclear deal--and the activity around Iran and the ability to sell. So what am I saying? The Iranians, under the JCPOA, are entitled to civilian aircraft, but it is to use for civilian purposes. Boeing, by their own admission, Mr. Chair, says this: ``Building on success: Boeing's commercial jetliners make an ideal platform for a variety of military derivative aircraft.'' Mr. Chair, this is Boeing's language from their own promotional materials. How about this? This is according to Boeing: ``Good news. Modifications can take 3 months to 2 years. It all depends on how much militarization they want to do.'' Don't you see the point, Mr. Chair? Don't you see the point? To give these types of planes to the Iranian regime, which is still the world's largest state sponsor of terror, is to give them a product that can be used for a military purpose. We are not talking about baby formula. We are not talking about licorice. We are not talking about sandals, for crying out loud. We are talking about aircraft that can be used. What can fit in a Boeing 747? This can fit in. It can fit 100 Shahab ballistic missiles or 15,000 rocket-propelled grenades or 25,000 AK-47 assault rifles. Let's not do this. Adopt this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, let me point out one other piece of literature. Again, this comes from the Boeing Company. This is from their Frontiers Magazine: ``Military derivatives front and center.'' This is a continuing problem. Look, this is in stark contrast, Mr. Chair, for a company like Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin has said they are not going to do business with the Iranians. God bless Lockheed Martin. They could be assembling helicopters--they could be doing all kinds of things--but they recognize that they ought not to be complicit in this adventure. It is also interesting to me to say that, a couple of minutes ago, my friend, the gentleman from New York, was echoing a criticism from the U.S. Chamber. The U.S. Chamber said this: ``Congress should avoid intervening in commercial contract agreements in instances such as these where national security matters are not involved.'' Okay. It is wrong on two counts. Number one, it is an assertion that this is a commercial deal. I am asserting that it is military, and that is true by definition. It is true by Boeing's own admission. Secondly, when do we defer to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for military and national security advice? This is a good amendment. It is targeted. It is thoughtful. I urge its passage. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for acknowledging that we are not nitpicking. Mr. Chair, let me just say this. Look, let's set aside every other country in the world. Let's come together, and let's agree on one thing. As for the world's largest state sponsor of terror that has been involved and complicit in killing thousands of Americans--the number one of the hit parade of evil regimes that are projecting terror and malevolence--let's agree not to give them more capacity. I urge the passage of this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Quickly, there is the nuclear deal over here. There is Iran, the terrorism regime, over here. What we are focusing on is the latter, the terrorism regime. This is a map. This is a map that was put together by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. It shows flights. A few weeks ago, an Airbus A300 aircraft belonging to Iran Air, which historically has been on the terrorist watch list by the way, took off from an airfield in southwestern Iran. The commercial jet left Abadan, a logistical hub for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and left for Syria. This is not a regularly scheduled flight. There is nobody with a straight face that can say these were tourists, this was commercial travel. Complete nonsense. This is illicit behavior. Let me show you one other slide. This is from yesterday, Mr. Chair. Iran's air force flew a Boeing 747 from Tehran to Damascus yesterday, and this is the documentation of it. Iran systemically uses commercial aircraft to spread death, destruction, and mayhem; and we can do something about it. So divorce in your mind, Mr. Chairman, the notion of the nuclear deal that the gentleman from New York was speaking about. It is completely separate. This is our ability to stop an iconic American company that has basically said: ``Well, look, somebody else is doing it.'' Let me ask you one question in closing, Mr. Chairman. When does history ever treat well the entity that said: ``I did this terrible thing because somebody else did it too''? I urge the adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to recognize the College of DuPage Engineering Club. For the second year in a row, the College of DuPage is one of only two community colleges invited to participate in the 2016 NASA Robotic Mining Competition held at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This year's NASA Robotic Mining competition features participants from 40 different colleges from across the country. The competition consists of undergraduate and graduate students who are required to design and construct a mining robot that could traverse the simulated Martian surface, collect samples of gravel, and place the samples into a bin. The members of the Engineering Club who participated in the recent NASA competition come from all corners of DuPage County and each member has a strong passion for engineering. It was necessary that the members to work together and rely on one another as they repeatedly tested their robot design to ensure the best possible strategy for the competition. The participant's hard work and long hours will prepare them for the rigors of engineering school and the lessons learned from the competition will serve them greatly in their future careers. Mr. Speaker and my distinguished colleagues in the House please join me in congratulating College of DuPage Engineering Club and wishing them the best of luck in the future.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Brady for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Just to put this into context, let's focus in on what we are really talking about. Every year, tax exempt 501(c) organizations fill out a form 990, and they send it to the IRS. So far, so good. It makes all the sense in the world. Public information. It is supposed to be public, and the public is able to review that. Under current law--actually, it is a rule; it is not a statute, it is a rule--501(c) organizations have to fill out Schedule B. Okay, what is Schedule B? Schedule B is donor information. This donor information is submitted to the IRS. But here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The IRS Commissioner has said: We don't think we need this actually. The person who is in charge of the tax exempt unit at the IRS has publicly said they are reviewing this. If all the other claims were true--I mean, I got carpal tunnel syndrome writing down all these things: hidden money, crisis in campaigns, codify secrecy, last safeguard against foreign influence. Put up the ramparts, Mr. Speaker. If all that was true, then why would the IRS Commissioner be saying these things, that they don't think they need Schedule B? And further, why wouldn't the White House just declaratively say they are going to veto it? But did you notice something, Mr. Speaker? The White House didn't say they would veto it. Why? This is a pretty good idea. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle at this point aren't persuaded that it is a good idea, but just because they are slow to the game doesn't mean it is not a good idea. So why is this a good idea? Here is why. The IRS in the past has demonstrated they have leaked this information. When did they do it? They leaked it in the case of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that was advocating for traditional marriage. They filed their Schedule Bs. Lo and behold, an IRS employee leaked it. Out it goes. You can imagine the donor harassment, the hassle, and so forth. So the IRS' hands in the past, Mr. Speaker, are not exactly clean when it comes to holding this information close. The National Governors Association also was similarly situated. All right, that is the first reason. The second reason is the IRS acknowledges that they don't need this to administer the Tax Code. They don't need it. What is their job? Their job is to administer the Tax Code. They don't need it to administer the Tax Code. Finally, we on the Subcommittee on Oversight and those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means know all too well that the IRS is very poorly equipped right now, Mr. Speaker, to deal with cybersecurity issues and identity theft issues. So my final point is this: the IRS has demonstrated an inability to hold this information in the past. They have demonstrated an inability to hold it in the future. And they don't need it. So if they don't need it, let's not give it to them. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, one quick point. The gentleman said that it was a practical tool for auditing, and yet there was a lawsuit recently where the attorney general of California tried to disclose the Schedule B information. The Federal judge who struck down the public disclosure pointed out that it had not been used in a single concrete instance, not one. And, in fact, the folks in California had not had this information submitted for 10 years before they even noticed that it was missing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York asked a provocative question. Here is why you don't want this type of capacity in the hands of the IRS, I would say, and it is this reason: there is a fundamental lack of trust. The IRS has run roughshod over people's freedoms in the past. The Commissioner himself has said: I don't need this information. We don't need this information. There are other entities--that is, the Federal Election Commission, the Bank Secrecy Act, and so forth--that are in place that are protections against foreign influence. But, basically, the IRS--and based on the work that the committee has done-- I would argue, we have seen where the IRS has not treated these things well. So go back to a case that is famous, a case from years ago, a case during the civil rights movement, where the NAACP was told: You have to disclose your donor information. How absurd. How ridiculous. How unconstitutional, in fact, that was. We are not at the same threshold, I would submit, as the NAACP case, but I would suggest that there is something untoward about an agency here--the Internal Revenue Service--that has what? Power to take things away, power to put people in prison. And you are giving them information that they have squandered and abused in that past.

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ROSKAM. Reclaiming my time, I agree. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) to give us more insight.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, did you notice something? Every one of the examples of the previous speakers were hypothetical, every one of them, drug dealers, drug traffickers, an ISIS strategy, as if ISIS is sitting around not cutting people's heads off and writing checks. How absurd. The notion that there is no documentation is a false claim. Of course people have to have documentation. Of course all of these organizations have to document. They have to maintain records. They are subject to audit. They are subject to investigation. But here is the point. We have been able to demonstrate actual harm to actual people who are actually subject to a capricious and vicious attack by their own government. That is the Internal Revenue Service, who turned their stare at them and intimidated them. That is a fact. This House voted on the criminal referral of Lois Lerner. This House has investigated, time and time and time again, to the point where our friends on the other side of the aisle have basically begged for mercy, said: Do we have to talk about the IRS anymore? Well, yes, we do because this is the group that has been the bad actor, Mr. Speaker, in the past. Let's realize who we are talking about. Now, I think it is very, very important for us to recognize that we have an opportunity to do something, and that is this: let's follow the lead of Commissioner Koskinen. If the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service thought, wow, ISIS is coming in here and they are coming over the ramparts and they are going to completely flood us, and we have got to watch out for ISIS and drug traffickers, why would Commissioner Koskinen say this: ``On your 990, you list donors''--and we are not about to try to change that. ``As a general matter, who gives to you should not matter as to what you're about to do.'' In other words, these things that the other side is saying are illegal, they are illegal. There is nothing in this that changes that. But there is a plot trap in their logic, Mr. Speaker, and it is this: the IRS, by their own admission, is not going through this on a systematic basis. They acknowledge that. They are not going through these Schedule B's on a systematic basis. They are not investigating them. So what happens? They are prohibited under the law, Mr. Speaker, from disclosing this information, under section 6103, that makes that disclosure a crime. Oh, it makes it a crime--unless they do it to some conservative group and it happens to be an accident. To give us more insight on this, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I think I am the last speaker on this side, so I am prepared to close, but I will defer to the gentleman from Michigan if he wants to wind it up. I reserve the balance of my time.