Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, an interesting thing happened when President Obama was elected in 2008: We basically had a national consensus about some elements of health care. What I mean by that is, most people recognized two things about our healthcare system that were flawed. First, they recognized that it was too expensive; and, second, they recognized that people with a preexisting condition should be included and not be excluded from an insurance pool. There was a great deal of consensus around that, and that is where the opportunity was for the Obama team to bring the country together around those two core things. Instead, they did something different. Instead, they went out on a highly partisan path, and that was to create ObamaCare. We were told that the bill had to be passed in order to understand what was in it, and so forth and so on. We are familiar with the false premises and the false claims and the false narratives about it. Do you remember this? We were told that if you liked your doctor, you got to keep your doctor. If you liked your insurance coverage, you got to keep your insurance coverage. Your insurance policies, the premiums per family were going to drop by over $2,000 a year. None of that turned out to be true. None of it. People lost their coverage. People lost their physicians. Their premiums have gone up. So now what has happened, there has been this effort, and the effort over the past several years has been met by some mockery from some who have said: Hey, your efforts to repeal ObamaCare, how many times are you going to do it? Do you know how many times we are going to do it? We are going to do it until it gets done. Now it is closer than ever. I have three constituents that I want to briefly mention to you. One is a fellow that I connected with on the phone last night. His name is Jay. Jay told me that, notwithstanding the false promises of ObamaCare, his insurance premiums for him and his daughter have skyrocketed to the point where the amount of anxiety that he was communicating to me on the phone was palpable. This is not somebody who is just upset about the direction that the country has gone under this false claim of ObamaCare. He is fearful of it, and he is anxious for his future and the future of his daughter. How about Diane? My other constituent is a 9-year breast cancer survivor who was told, if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor, until all of a sudden, her insurance policy, after ObamaCare, kicks her physician out of the group, and she doesn't have access to the doctor that had cared for her and kept her cancer-free for 9 years. How about the small-business owner who I met with on Monday in Kane County, Illinois, who said: Congressman, we would really like to expand our business; we want to open up a new location. It was a restaurant. If we do it--and we have done the math--it is going to cost us $150,000 a year in ObamaCare payments, and we can't afford to expand. Here is what we have got to do: We have got to repeal this thing, and we have got to replace it and get back to those two core themes that say, let's deal with the underlying cost drivers in health care that make it more expensive than people can afford--and we can do that--and let's deal with the preexisting condition question. We can do that through high-risk pools and other things that don't cost the trillions of ObamaCare. Now, there is an interesting thing that has been happening, and that is this: The story of ObamaCare is shifting. You ask, well, how is it shifting? It is shifting in this way: It is shifting because we have been told that there is no way to undo this. There is no way. It is basically orthodoxy in our country. It is an entitlement, which it is, and it is so deeply embedded that it is all a fait accompli. In other words, there is no way to undo this. For a long time, that appeared to be--although it wasn't true, it appeared to be true because the Senate blocked its passage. Now, as we know, the other body has actually preceded us in this and, through the reconciliation activity, we are now able to avoid the 60-vote threshold. A simple majority of United States Senators can join with a majority of the United States House of Representatives, which I would argue is reflecting a majority of the American public, to say: Get this thing off our backs. Let us flourish. Yeah, we can deal with these things. Yes, health care needs improving, but this thing on our backs is simply smothering us. So here is the opportunity. This will be on President Obama's desk. Will he veto it? Absolutely. It is the first time it has ever gotten on his desk before. What it says is this: that there is only one office between us and the repeal of ObamaCare. One office is between us and the repeal of ObamaCare, and that office changes next November. So in 11 months, there is every opportunity for us to see its repeal and, ultimately, its replacement.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your leadership. I just want to paint a picture for you and take you to a scene about a year ago now. It was a Sunday in Chicago. I was invited to be a speaker at the March for Life in downtown Chicago. I got to the speech a little bit early and nobody was there. I was looking around, and all I saw was a small gaggle of pro-abortion protesters. They looked quite pathetic, actually. There were not very many of them. They looked angry. They had signs that were quite ugly. I won't repeat the phrases that were on the signs. It was quite a pathetic sight. I was observing them, and I was kind of waiting for the event to happen. Then I heard something. I started to hear music, and it was a really good sound. I heard the music, and the music grew, and it became more dynamic and louder and louder and louder and more exciting. Then thousands of pro-lifers came around the corner. It was a sight to behold. These were young people. They had balloons. They had yellow and white balloons. They had beautiful posters of little babies. There was a joy to them. I looked at the contrast between these two images. You have got young, dynamic, vibrant, and joyful--and pathetic on the other side. I thought to myself that if I needed any convincing--I don't--I am convinced by the witness of these people. I choose to be with the joyful people. So now where are we in history? We are 43 years into this. We are 43 years into the scandal of Roe v. Wade, and yet we were told, the country was told, in 1973 when this decision came down, that this was all settled, that this was all done, and that there is nothing more to be done about it. It is Supreme Court doctrine, and those of you who are opponents, you need to get over your opposition and just move along, thank you. But there was something that was unsettling, not just about the juris prudence, but about the underlying moral claim upon which Roe v. Wade was built, and that was that it was built on a lie. The lie was that there is nothing significant in a mother's womb when she is pregnant. That, of course, is not just a lie, it is an absurdity. So what has happened over the past 43 years? Science is our friend. More people are coming to understand--even nonscientific people. They see the ultrasounds. You have heard testimony from people who say: That is a life; that is a baby; that is a person; that is a boy; that is a girl; and that is worthy of my defending that little child. So the scandal of the Planned Parenthood videos are actually a seminal moment, I think, in this great debate that is underway, because what you have noticed is there are not very many people that were defending the Planned Parenthood videos. Even people that purport to be pro-choice basically said: I didn't sign up for that. But yet that is exactly what abortion is. The Planned Parenthood videos took the mask off of the scandal of abortion and said that when you dehumanize, when you say something doesn't matter, then you can do anything you want to it. That is the scandal of the Planned Parenthood videos. So what is happening now is that there is a growing recognition among Americans--many of whom probably haven't thought much about this question for a long, long time--but now the provocative nature of those videos forces them to have to deal with this and reconciling their own understanding of science, their own deep feelings, and their humanity with the recognition of what is the nature of this thing that is going on? They say: Do you know what? I think I am leaning toward the pro- life side. We clearly see this in the data. Younger voters are much more pro- life. Why is that? They recognize the truth of the science, and they understand the nature of the humanity, and they understand spiritually, actually, what is going on. I was sent to Congress by a lot of pro-life people. I was sent to Congress by pro-life people that placed their confidence in me. I am here to thank them, to bear witness, and to encourage them as they go out for the March for Life in Chicago or the March for Life in Washington or the March for Life anywhere. I say thanks be to God for these people who have been faithful and true regardless of what the world has said about them. History will exonerate the pro-life movement. Mr. Smith, I thank you for your time and your faithfulness.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady. Not long ago, the Internal Revenue Service reached out its long arm and decided to try and get between donors and 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations. The IRS did something that was really provocative. What they said was--they created a false impression, and they sent letters to donors that had a chilling effect and said: We know that you made this contribution, but we think we may have a tax liability for you there. You can imagine how this had a shuddering effect all throughout these areas. And lest people think that this is a left-right issue, it is not. Left and right were both under a great deal of threat here. So I am really pleased that in this extenders package is something that has had broad bipartisan support and bicameral support and support from both the political left and the political right, and that is to say that gifts to 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations should be tax exempt, and the IRS ought not be manipulating and intimidating and so forth. So, Mr. Speaker, what this does is it makes sure that the IRS is boxed in and that there is no gift tax liability. I strongly support this package, and I thank Chairman Brady.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Brady. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren wrote an opinion piece that got my attention, and he described the waves of attempts to wipe Israel off the map. He said the first wave was military, and we know how that worked: Israel's enemies worked together, and they were not successful in defeating Israel back in 1948. The second wave was a wave of terror. That is still ongoing, but that wave has not been successful. Yet there is a third wave, and the third wave is, actually, more insidious. The third wave is a movement called the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. It is an attempt to take away Israel's legitimacy, to hold Israel to a standard to which no other country in the world is held. So let's not kid ourselves that this is an attempt to drive Israel to the negotiating table--this movement, that is. It is an attempt to wipe Israel off the map. It is the smart, long move for the haters of Israel. But, today, in this bill, the House is saying we stand with Israel. We stand with Israel, and we are pushing back. We are making it the official policy of the United States, along with the Trade Promotion Authority Act, which says we are going to push back against state- sponsored BDS activities. There is good work here. Mr. Speaker, there are many times when people ask: Can't people get along in Congress? The answer is, yes, we can. This is strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, and it does two things in particular that I want to bring your attention to: Number one, it works to protect American companies from foreign lawsuits, which is incredibly important because of our strong commercial relationship with the Israelis. Secondly, it has a reporting requirement, so it makes the administration more mindful, and we are going to have more information. I thank Congressman Vargas, who was a coauthor with me in some of the underlying legislation that was adopted by Chairman Brady and others. I thank all of the conferees.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I introduced H. Con. Res. 100, a bipartisan resolution that reaffirms the rights of the 50 States to maintain economic sanctions against Iran. The Iran Sanctions Act of 2010 encourages and authorizes States to maintain such sanctions, which play a powerful role in preventing U.S. dollars from funding Iran's illicit activity, including its support for terrorism, human rights violations, and imprisonment of innocent Americans. Thirty States, to date, Mr. Speaker, have imposed sanctions against Iran. Both Democrats and Republicans have worked at the State and local level to enact laws to ensure that State assets are not invested in and State contracts are not awarded to companies that do business with Iran. As long as Iran continues its outrageous activity abroad, it is our right and it is our duty to make sure that we are not complicit in funding its terrorism, its human rights abuses, and its other activity that is contrary to the U.S. national interests and global stability. Now, there is some ambiguity and some confusion about State sanctions that are authorized under the so-called Iran deal of this year. This legislation clarifies, it puts an exclamation point, and it reaffirms the legal right of States to maintain these sanctions as enacted into law under the 2010 statute until Iran ends its support of terrorism and reverses its abhorrent human rights violations. Please join my colleagues Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, Representative Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas, Representative Brad Sherman of California, and Representative Lee Zeldin of New York, along with me, in this effort to ensure that the right of States to maintain these important sanctions against Iran prevails. We can ensure that States have this right and this authority from preventing their resources from funding Iranian terrorism and human rights abuses.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Brady, and I thank Chairman Price for bringing this to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity to get some awful things off the back of the American public. We heard the gentleman from Washington admonishing the House, but I invite the House. I don't look at this as an admonition. This is an invitation. Look, we can get rid of the individual and the employer mandates; the medical device tax; the Cadillac tax; the prevention and fraud health fund, which is a slush fund for the Obama team; auto enrollment; and we can get Planned Parenthood squared away. What is not to love about that? It is a great opportunity all the way around. I think we should invite the American public and we should invite clear-thinking Democrats to do the same thing. There is another opportunity as well. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to a piece of legislation that over 100 Republicans have cosponsored, the Special Inspector General for Monitoring the Affordable Care Act, that is, SIGMA, H.R. 2400. One of the criticisms that we have heard is that there is no individual inspector general that can look over the whole broad spectrum of ObamaCare. What we need to do is to get one entity that can look at the same thing, that can look at it all in its entirety. This worked as it relates to Afghanistan reconstruction. It worked on Iraq reconstruction. It worked on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It is an opportunity for us to have a holistic review of all of these things and save billions of taxpayer dollars. I commend Chairman Price and his work and would appreciate very much an ``aye'' vote on this reconciliation effort.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 557, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize Alea Williams, an outstanding young woman from the 6th District of Illinois who was recently honored with the prestigious Gold Award from the Girl Scouts of America. The Gold Award honors young women who are leaders in their community and represents the highest achievement a Girl Scout can reach. Alea, a resident from my hometown of Wheaton, has a passion for helping those in need. She has acted on this passion by working with the Ronald McDonald House in Hines, Illinois where she helped renovate bedrooms for families who stay at the non for profit while their children are receiving medical care. During her time with the Ronald McDonald House, Alea spent more than 80 hours and raised more than $3,000 to complete the project for her Gold Award. According to the Girl Scouts of America, only 5.4% of eligible Scouts achieve the Gold Award. It is rare to see the level of commitment and determination Alea has exemplified through her volunteer efforts. Along with her studies and extracurricular activities, Alea maintained her involvement in Girl Scouts achieving the Bronze and Silver award before reaching the final capstone, the Gold Award and graduating from Girl Scouts. Mr. Speaker and my fellow colleagues, please join me in congratulating Alea Williams on her outstanding accomplishments and wishing her the very best of luck as she continues to strive to be a leader and a role model in her community.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, my heart is heavy with this debate. My heart becomes very heavy when I hear the descriptions of this awful procedure. My heart becomes even heavier, Madam Speaker, when I listen to the twisted logic and the distortions of people who find themselves implicitly defending this. President Obama has said that he will veto this because it is related to abortion services. Yet, Mr. Nadler moments ago said this has nothing to do with abortion, that everybody agrees that these babies are born and deserve the protections of the law. He says, basically, it is a sideshow. It is either one or the other, Madam Speaker, and they don't get to argue it both ways. But I think we ought to be able to agree on this, that we are talking about people who are born, who are breathing, whose hearts are pumping, whose fingers are twitching, who have full feeling and deserve every benefit of the doubt and every protection of the law.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Ryan. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leader just recalled the invocation, that of invoking God's presence, and she said that we had prayed for wisdom, and she called us to act humbly. So the question is: Are we willing to submit ourselves to the collective wisdom of a majority of this body and to a majority of the other body? I would suggest a majority of this body and a majority of the other body think this is a bad idea. She also admonished us that we should listen and learn. It is not a bad idea, so let's listen to what is in the bill, itself. The bill, itself, gives $150 billion in sanctions relief to the Iranian Government. The question is: What do we expect with $150 billion? Is it all going to go to pave roads? Is it going to go to build schools in Tehran? Is it going to fix water systems? I do not think so, and neither does President Obama. Listen to his own words. This is Barack Obama: Let's stipulate that some of the money will flow to activities that we object to. We have no illusions about the Iranian Government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard. Listen to National Security Adviser Susan Rice when she says: We should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for all kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now. Let's listen to those words. They are clear. They are obvious. So now think in terms of percentages of $150 billion. Is it going to be half? Is it going to be a quarter? Is it going to be 10 percent? Is it going to be 1 percent--1 percent of that money--$1.5 billion? Doing what--funding Hamas? funding Hezbollah? killing Americans? Let's listen and let's learn. Now, my friend from New York said this is definitely the policy of the United States. Definitely. It is a fait accompli. There is really no reason to have this debate and this discussion. It is all over according to his world view. I don't buy it. I don't buy that for a second. I am not going to lay down here and let the President of the United States run roughshod in his probably--let's think about it. Is this just a bad idea, or is this the worst bill ever? the worst idea ever? I think it wins the ``worst idea ever'' award. Mr. Speaker, it was a week ago when it was crazy talk as to the idea that the President of the United States had standing, and it was crazy talk a week ago that the House of Representatives had standing in the courts. Now, do you know what the courts have said? The House has standing. So, as to the notion that this is all done and that this is just a settled case, it is not. I think we have got to be very, very clear about what is going on, and we need to listen, and we need to learn, and we need to vote ``no.''

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Sessions. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Kerry came and gave a briefing to a closed session of Congress. Part of it was open for discussion. He said something provocative at the end. He said, ``Folks, what is the alternative?'' And I said to him in a question and answer session, ``You know, Mr. Secretary, for 2 years, the administration has been telling us that no deal is better than a bad deal. And if no deal is better than a bad deal, that means that there was an alternative.'' Secretary Kerry, during that same briefing, said that he walked away from the deal three times with the Iranians. And I said, ``Secretary, when you walked away from the deal, that means that there was an alternative. So the administration does not get to argue today, Mr. Speaker, to this Congress or to the American people that there is no alternative. There is an alternative. And this House is prepared to offer alternatives. I appreciate Chairman Sessions. I appreciate the Rules Committee bringing forth this package of bills that we can begin to discuss getting us out from underneath a disastrous deal.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, did you notice something? Did you notice that, for the past 2 years, the President of the United States has said that if we were going to have a deal, it was going to be based on full disclosure? Mr. Speaker, the President said that we were going to know all of the information. And the State Department submitted to the Congress a document that said: Here is all the information. But after that, Mr. Speaker, you know what we found out? There are two secret deals. There are two secret side deals, side arrangements, that we have not seen. Now, think about it. There are two alternatives: either this is sacrosanct between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranian Government and no one is allowed to see it under the law--no one absolutely; it is totally confidential--or it is not. Now, how can it be, Mr. Speaker, that some elements of the administration have been briefed on those documents but they have not been disclosed to Congress and they have not been disclosed to the American public? How can that be? I will tell you how it can be. Because this is absurd. The administration has not disclosed material information. And so why are we here today? Why is Chairman Royce managing this time? Why are we contemplating this resolution that is brought forth by Congressman Pompeo and Congressman Zeldin? It is to say this: Administration, you have not complied. Therefore, Corker-Cardin has not been invoked. Therefore, the House is not going to vote on this nefarious deal. This is an awful deal, Mr. Speaker, and it should be wholeheartedly rejected with all urgency. I urge the passage of this resolution to make it very clear that we are not going to be complicit. We are not going to be complicit, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to be midwives and bring into the world this awful thing. We won't be complicit.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas Rule IX of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that a question of the privileges of the House ``shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only''; Whereas the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (in this preamble referred to as the ``Review Act'') was passed by the Senate on May 7, 2015, by a vote of 98-1; Whereas the House of Representatives passed the Review Act on May 14, 2015, by a vote of 400-25; Whereas the Review Act was signed by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2015, becoming Public Law No. 114-17; Whereas section 135(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act) states, ``Not later than 5 calendar days after reaching an agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership--(A) the agreement, as defined in subsection (h)(1), including all related materials and annexes''; Whereas section 135(h)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act) states, ``The term `agreement' means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future''; Whereas on July 14, 2015, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in this preamble referred to as the ``IAEA'') and the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran signed the ``Roadmap for the Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program'', which refers to two ``separate arrangements'' between the IAEA and Iran; Whereas the first of these separate arrangements seeks to clarify and resolve longstanding questions about the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program, including those identified in the IAEA Director General's report to the Board of Governors, designated ``GOV/ 2011/65''; Whereas section G(38) of that report states, ``Since 2002, the [IAEA] has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the [IAEA] has regularly received new information''; Whereas the Roadmap describes the second of these separate arrangements as an effort to resolve outstanding issues regarding the military facility at Parchin; Whereas in his November 29, 2012, report to the Board of Governors, the Director General of the IAEA stated, ``As you will recall, the [IAEA] has information indicating that Iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel at the Parchin site in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments. Despite repeated requests, Iran has still not granted the [IAEA] access to the Parchin site. Satellite imagery shows that extensive activities, including the removal and replacement of considerable quantities of earth, have taken place at this location. I am concerned that these activities will have seriously undermined the [IAEA's] ability to undertake effective verification. I reiterate my request that Iran, without further delay, provide access to that location and substantive answers to the [IAEA's] detailed questions regarding the Parchin site''; Whereas an August 20, 2015, report by the Associated Press includes draft text of the Parchin separate agreement, which details a process by which Iran will provide photographs, videos, soil samples, and other materials in lieu of giving the IAEA access to the Parchin site; Whereas Dr. Olli Heinonen, a 27-year veteran of the IAEA and its former Deputy Director General and chief inspector, stated, ``Much of the current concerns arise from the reported arrangements worked out between the IAEA and Iran in the side documents to address PMD [possible military dimension] issues. If the reporting is accurate, these procedures appear to be risky, departing significantly from well- established and proven safeguards practices. At a broader level, if verification standards have been diluted for Parchin (or elsewhere) and limits imposed, the ramification is significant as it will affect the IAEA's ability to draw definitive conclusions with the requisite level of assurances and without undue hampering of the verification process''; Whereas the self inspection and verification by Iran of its own nuclear weapons-related activities performed at the Parchin military facility are inadequate and incapable of demonstrating Iran's compliance with safeguards against nuclear weapons development, as established by the IAEA or the international nuclear agreement with Iran; Whereas on July 14, 2015, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and Germany) and Iran announced that the parties had agreed to a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; Whereas section C(13) of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action requires Iran's parliament and president to implement the Additional Protocol to Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA; Whereas section C(14) of the agreed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action requires Iran to fully implement the ``Roadmap for Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program'', which was agreed to with the IAEA; Whereas the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is necessarily predicated on and interdependent with the two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran, all of which are mutually reinforcing and indivisible; Whereas State Department spokesman John Kirby issued a public statement on July 19, 2015, stating that ``today the State Department transmitted to Congress the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its annexes, and related materials. These documents include the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report, as required under the law. Therefore, Day One of the 60-day review period begins tomorrow, Monday, July 20''; Whereas section 135(c)(1)(E) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act) states, ``it is critically important that Congress have the opportunity, in an orderly and deliberative manner, to consider and, as appropriate, take action affecting the statutory sanctions regime imposed by Congress'', thereby providing the right to the House collectively, and the Members of the House individually in their representative capacities, to review the Iran nuclear agreement, as defined in section 135(h)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, in order to determine what action, if any, to take; Whereas section 135(h)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act) specifically requires the President to provide Congress with the text of ``side agreements'' and ``related agreements'', including those agreements ``between Iran and any other parties''; Whereas the State Department's transmission to Congress did not include the text or materials relating to the two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran and was therefore incomplete as a matter of law; Whereas on July 21, 2015, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and Ranking Member Ben Cardin sent a bipartisan letter to the State Department requesting the actual text of the two separate agreements between the IAEA and Iran; Whereas on July 22, 2015, Congressman Mike Pompeo and Senator Tom Cotton, along with the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate, sent a letter to the President requesting the text of the two separate agreements between the IAEA and Iran; Whereas on August 4, 2015, Congressman Pompeo sent a further letter to the President, co-signed by the House Majority Leader and 92 other Members of the House, requesting the President to provide the text of the two separate agreements between the IAEA and Iran; Whereas contrary to the law and these requests, the President did not provide the text of the separate agreements to Congress or any of its Members; Whereas on July 22, 2015, State Department spokesman John Kirby stated, ``There's no side deals. There's no secret deals between Iran and the IAEA that the P5+1 has not been briefed on in detail''; Whereas in an August 5, 2015, letter to Members of Congress, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield contradicted this claim, saying, ``The Roadmap refers to two `separate agreements' between the IAEA and Iran. Within the IAEA system, such arrangements related to safeguards procedures and inspection activities are confidential and are not released to other member states''; Whereas on July 28, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in responding to the statement that National Security Advisor Susan Rice has seen the actual text of the two side agreements, ``I don't believe Susan Rice, National Security Advisor, has seen it''; Whereas responding further to whether he has seen the actual text, Secretary Kerry said, ``No, I haven't seen it, I've been briefed on it''; Whereas on July 29, 2015, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz stated, ``I, personally, have not seen those documents''; Whereas on July 31, 2015, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated, ``Our negotiators were briefed on the contents of that agreement'' (a reference to the side agreements); Whereas being briefed second- or third-hand, including by Obama Administration officials who themselves have not read the actual text of the side agreements, is akin to a game of telephone and is not the same thing as allowing Members of Congress to read the actual text of the agreements; Whereas the congressional review period prescribed in section 135(b) of Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act) to review the Iran nuclear agreement begins only ``if an agreement, including all materials required to be transmitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a)(1)'' is transmitted by the President to the Congress for review; Whereas on July 14, 2015, President Obama stated, ``This deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification'' ; Whereas it is impossible for the President, Congress, and the American people to consider and determine whether to support or oppose an Iran nuclear agreement without reviewing key inspection and verification details contained in the text of the two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran; Whereas the determination by the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives, acting as an Officer of the House, that the President has transmitted to Congress the agreement and related materials as required by law, and therefore to begin counting the elapsing of the congressional review period beginning on July 20, 2015, deprives the House collectively and the Members of the House individually in their representative capacities, of the right to the review the Iran nuclear agreement; Whereas the Congressional Record for the legislative day of July 27, 2015, is incorrect, listing under the heading ``Executive Communications'' the following entry: ``A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a letter and attachments satisfying all requirements of Sec. 135(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-17), as received July 19, 2015; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means''; Whereas the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a resolution of disapproval of the Iran nuclear agreement as soon as September 9, 2015, a procedure provided for under section 135(e)(4) of the of Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act); Whereas such a vote is injurious to the integrity of the proceedings of the House as it violates the process provided under section 135 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act), which is contingent upon both the President's transmittal of the Iran nuclear agreement and all related documents, including side agreements, and the observance of the congressional review period provided in such section 135; Whereas in her August 5, 2015, letter to Members of Congress, Assistant Secretary of State Frifield inaccurately stated, ``The United States does not have a right to demand these [side agreement] documents from the IAEA''; Whereas Dr. Heinonen, the former Deputy Director General and chief inspector of the IAEA stated, ``According to the IAEA rules and practices, such documents could be made available to the members of the IAEA Board''; Whereas Dr. Heinonen further stated, ``The issue of confidentiality is an important matter for the IAEA. However, it should not be used as a blanket to stop legitimate questions, particularly regarding verification methods at Parchin. Historically, the IAEA has not viewed such issues as confidential. The IAEA and its member states have disclosed much more detailed facility-specific approaches at regular safeguards symposia. Additionally, in 2007 the IAEA Iran Work Plan addressing outstanding issues, accumulated over several years, was made available to all IAEA member states, and the Board also received a 2012 document from Iran related to very specific PMD [possible military dimensions] questions, which happened while the IAEA was negotiating with Iran for greater clarity and access''; Whereas part I, section 5 of IAEA Information Circular 153 provides that ``specific information relating to such implementation [of measures to safeguard nuclear materials] in the State may be given to the Board of Governors and to such Agency staff members as require such knowledge''; Whereas Article VI of the Statute of the IAEA authorizes the Board of Governors of the IAEA to direct the work of the IAEA, including in safeguarding nuclear materials and ensuring the peaceful ends of a participating member state's nuclear program; Whereas Rule 18 of the Rules of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, entitled ``Circulation of Documents of Particular Importance'', establishes procedures by which member states of the IAEA Board of Governors may access relevant documents related to their duties; Whereas the United States serves on the Board of Governors of the IAEA and has both the need and the authority to access the actual text of the two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran; Whereas on July 30, 2015, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, speaking on behalf of the President of the United States, stated, ``I will acknowledge that I don't know exactly what the requirements are of the Iran Review Act, so I'm not sure exactly what that means [Congress is] asking for''; Whereas on April 6, 2015, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated, ``[W]e do believe that Congress should play their rightful role in terms of ultimately deciding whether or not the sanctions that Congress passed into law should be removed''; Whereas on April 7, 2015, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest further stated, ``[M]embers of Congress should consider the agreement and decide whether or not the President has achieved his stated objective of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, shutting down every pathway they have and making them cooperate with the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country's nuclear program''; Whereas the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was negotiated and agreed to by the Obama Administration, fails to accomplish those objectives; Whereas any recognition by the House of Representatives of the transmittal by the President of an Iran nuclear agreement that does not include all of the materials required by law, including the text of the 2 side agreements agreed to between the IAEA and Iran, violates the rights of the Members of the House individually in their representative capacity, impeding their ability to make a fully informed decision on how to vote on behalf of their constituents, as conceived and provided for in the enactment of the Review Act; Whereas Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has labeled Iran the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism; Whereas the Web site WhiteHouse.gov states that Iran currently has a 2-3 month breakout time to build a nuclear bomb; Whereas legislative action on an Iran nuclear agreement is one of the most important issues that will ever come before the House, as it directly affects the safety and security of the Members of the House and their constituents; Whereas the taking of legislative action without reasonable consideration and knowledge damages the reputation and credibility of the House collectively and its Members individually in their representative capacities; and Whereas the President's failure to follow a law that he signed is an affront to the dignity of the House and cannot be ignored: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) reaffirms its legal right to obtain all materials, including the full text of all side agreements, comprising the Iran nuclear agreement, as defined in section 135(h)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as enacted by section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (in this section referred to as the ``Review Act''), which was signed into law by President Obama; (2) directs the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives not to recognize, for purposes of determining the dates of the congressional review period prescribed in section 135(b) of Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act), any agreement and related documents submitted by the President that do not include the actual text of the two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran; (3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Officers of the House to correct Executive Communication numbered 2207, appearing on page 5522 in the Congressional Record of the legislative day of July 27, 2015, to state the following: ``A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a letter and attachments which does not satisfy all requirements of Sec. 135(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114- 17), as received July 19, 2015; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means''; (4) instructs the Speaker of the House of Representatives to dispatch without delay a notification to the President, on behalf of the whole House, entitled ``Failure to Follow the Law'' and stating that-- (A) the President's transmittal of that agreement to the House is incomplete as a matter of law; (B) consequently, the congressional review period provided in section 135 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as enacted by section 2 of the Review Act) has not begun; and (C) pursuant to section 135(b)(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as so enacted), until the end of the congressional review period, ``the President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to an agreement described in subsection (a)''; (5) instructs the Speaker of the House of Representatives, on behalf of the whole House, to return the agreement and related materials provided in the President's transmission of July 19, 2015, in order that the President may provide a full and complete transmission of all materials required by law, including the text of side agreements; and (6) instructs the Speaker to take such actions as may be necessary to provide an appropriate remedy to ensure that the integrity of the legislative process is protected and to report his actions and recommendations to the House. And, Mr. Speaker, if you didn't catch it, I am happy to repeat it.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the East Dundee Fire Protection District on their 125th anniversary celebration. Throughout the year, the community will gather to recognize the heroic firefighters and paramedics who have proudly and faithfully served their community. In 1890, the department's first year of service, firefighters responded to 25 calls while protecting the residents living in the area. Today, the fire protection district boasts a 2 million dollar budget, responds to over 1,350 calls, and covers over 10,000 residents from the Fox River to the Arboretum in South Barrington. Throughout their history, the East Dundee Fire Department has seen its ranks swell with family members. Max Freeman, the district's first fire chief, served with his brother Earl in the 1950's and another fire chief, Eugene Rakow, served as chief until 1986, when his son Mark took his place until late 2009. The thirty men and women of the East Dundee Fire Protection District risk their lives daily to protect the surrounding community. Their bravery and courage are deserving of our recognition and admiration. Please join me in celebrating this special occasion and the long years of service and commitment that it represents.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Carpentersville Fire Department on their centennial anniversary celebration. On September 19th, the community will gather to recognize the heroic firefighters and paramedics who have proudly and faithfully served the families and businesses of Carpentersville and the surrounding area. In October of 1914, an ordinance was created by the village of Carpentersville to establish a volunteer fire department and on February 23rd, 1915 the Carpentersville Fire Department assembled for its first meeting in the village hall. A long cry from the one call it received in 1915, the Carpentersville Fire Department responded to 3,518 calls in 2014. However, their mission to protect the quality of life of those they serve has been the same since its founding. The men and women who comprise the Carpentersville Fire Department risk their lives daily to protect their communities. Their bravery and courage deserve of our recognition. Please join me in celebrating this special occasion and the long years of service and commitment that it represents.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Lakewood Fire Department for 100 years of loyal service to the community. Throughout the year, the City of Lakewood will recognize the heroic firefighters and paramedics who have proudly and faithfully served the families and businesses in their community. Fire Chief Ralph Webster and the men and women of Lakewood Fire Department reflect the pride and tradition of excellence that exists throughout the fire protection community. They risk their lives in service to the community and their bravery and courage deserve our recognition. Please join me in celebrating this special occasion and the long years of service and commitment that it represents.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 469 my flight was delayed due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 468. My flight was delayed due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 467, my flight was delayed due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida asked a rhetorical question. He said: Why spend precious time on this? And here is the reply: Because our constituents' time is precious. Our constituents' time in trying to comply with regulations is precious. Before I get there, let me just give you a little bit of a history, Mr. Speaker, about my understanding of the genesis of the REINS Act. It is interesting from a process point of view and a substance point of view. From a process point of view, my understanding is that this came out of a townhall meeting that was hosted and sponsored by our former colleague, Congressman Geoff Davis from Kentucky. He gathered a group of people together and, as I understand the story, one of the constituents raised his hand and he posed this question. He said: Congressman, how is it possible that the Environmental Protection Agency is contemplating a rule that is so controversial it couldn't pass Congress? How is that even conceivable under our governance structure that unelected bureaucrats are able to accomplish something that the elected Representatives of the people have said ``no'' to? Congressman Davis in a very thoughtful way began to take that in. Out of it, he began to work with other people and put together the REINS Act, Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, that says this. It says that over the years, one of the weaknesses of Congress is that this institution has delegated too much responsibility to executive agencies. That is at the base of what we are talking about. This is an issue of delegated authority. And since it was Congress' mistake in terms of atrophying its authority over a period of time, the remedy then falls on Congress to reclaim that authority. So the gentleman from Georgia is proposing that we support this rule around H.R. 427, and it says this: If there is a regulation that has more than a $100 million impact on the economy, then that regulation ought not be foisted on the economy without discussion and approval by elected Representatives in Congress. Now, there is a straw man argument that is out there as it relates to this. I haven't heard it on the floor today, but I might hear it if we continue to listen to the debate, particularly during the amendment process and so forth. Here is the straw man argument. The straw man argument is: If you are in favor of the REINS Act, then you don't want any regulations whatsoever. You want the Wild West, where only the strong survive. That is a straw man. That is ridiculous. What the REINS Act says is, if you are going to have a regulation, it ought to be thoughtful, it ought to be well structured, it ought to be well debated, and it ought not be a bureaucrat sitting on the seventh floor of a gray building on Independence Avenue that is pursuing an agenda--and haven't we seen plenty of that, by the way--pursuing an agenda, an agenda that couldn't pass this place, an agenda that 218 Members of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate are not going to support, but an agenda that a bureaucrat with a political agenda and so forth is trying to move forward. Now, these numbers are staggering. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the annual cost of complying with government regulations is $1.8 trillion. Think about the downward pressure of that. What the gentleman from Georgia is saying--and other supporters of this--is let's take President Obama's admonition to the Congress and his admonition to the public, and let's take those words at face value. This is what the President said in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. He said that overregulation ``stifles innovation'' and has a ``chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' Absolutely, that is true. That statement is true. President Obama said in his State of the Union address that same week that the op-ed was published in The Wall Street Journal, January 2011, ``To reduce barriers to growth and investment . . . when we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on business, we will fix them.'' Okay. Great news. We have got the remedy. We have got the way to fix that. I will tell you, I represent a constituency, Mr. Speaker, in suburban Chicago, as you know, and so, with frequency, I am out talking to businesses, getting in there. I represent a lot of manufacturers. I represent a lot of financial services companies. I represent a lot of food production, transportation, insurance, and other things. When you talk to folks and ask them what the nature of the challenge is, they will tell you. But what is interesting is the consistency of the feeling of pressure that they feel as it relates to a regulatory burden. So the good news is we can do something about that, and the good news is we can vote ``aye'' on the rule and we can vote ``aye'' on H.R. 427, the REINS Act.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding time. I am pleased to see that we are taking up this 2-year extension of the independence at home demonstration project, which expired on May 1. I first got interested in this because of a constituent, Dr. Thomas Cornwell from Wheaton, Illinois. He is actually a visionary. He was way ahead of his time on this effort to reach out to patients at home. He is the president of the American Academy of Home Care Physicians and chairman and chief medical officer of the Home Centered Care Institute. He has been really passionate about this idea of trying to reach people where they are. Since the founding of his home care practice in 1997, Mr. Speaker, he has personally made over 30,000 house calls. So he knows intimately the difference that a home care option makes in the lives of individuals with multiple chronic conditions and the savings that it can bring to the healthcare system to treat these people at home rather than at the hospital. So what he has been able to do is to say, look, this is better for the patient and it is better for the system, so let's pursue this and let's move it further along. That is exactly what the independence at home demonstration brings to Medicare. It focuses on reducing costs where the needs are the highest and improving care where the needs are the greatest. It provides home-based care to medical enrollees with two or more chronic conditions who are within the 5 to 25 percent of beneficiaries that account for nearly 80 percent of all Medicare spending. Of the 34 Medicare home care demonstrations over the past 20 years, the IAH is decidedly different, requiring that doctors meet fiscally responsible conditions of participation. Here is what they have got to do: they have to return a minimum savings of at least 5 percent to Medicare; they have to produce good outcomes; and they have to pass patient and caregiver satisfaction ratings. It even provides an additional incentive by allowing successful patient participants to share in any savings that generate from Medicare above that 5 percent mark on an 80/20 basis. So think about that; everybody comes out ahead on this. And it is working. In June, CMS reported that IAH saved over $25 million in its first performance year. That is an average of over $3,000 for each of the 8,400 beneficiaries that participated in the demonstration. In other words, have you heard, have you talked about, have you contemplated anything that is like this? In other words, you have got happier patients, and they are saving money at $3,000 a person. What is not to love about this? We have several lessons from this that have been artfully crafted into the demonstration itself. It requires participants to save taxpayer money by avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations, ER visits, and nursing home admissions. It protects the viability of the Medicare Program, provides quality health care for those most in need, and benefits providers by giving them the flexibility they need to care for their patients and share in the savings they produce. For those reasons, I strongly support passage of this, and I thank Chairman Ryan for his support.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Tony Iovinelli on his recent 40th anniversary at Turano Baking Company, a nationwide leader in baked products. Tony started his career at Turano at the ripe old age of 16, in an ominous-sounding set of circumstances. You see, Mr. Speaker, Tony was dating the owner's daughter-in-law, and a job he had lined up at a printing company fell through. But contrary to the stories fathers tell the boyfriends of their daughters, this is not a story that has a bad ending. It is a story that has a good ending. Over many years, Tony and the Turano family have worked together and supported each other and ultimately achieved a remarkable thing, and that is the growth of a small-time family business into a leading national brand. For Tony, it all started during high school, when he began working after class cleaning the bakery. In the summers, he would work full- time, cleaning and helping out in the packaging department. After graduating high school, he went on to attend a local college, where he was able to continue working at the bakery in the evenings. As his years at the bakery piled up, Tony took on more senior roles. He became shipping supervisor. After expressing an interest in learning the production side of the business, and through a lot of hard work and dedication, Tony was eventually promoted to plant manager, supervising the day-to-day operations of Turano's Berwyn, Illinois production facility. For 40 years, Tony has worked in many roles at the bakery. As he wistfully recalls, ``I came for the summer and never left.'' In Tony's 40 years of service, Turano has grown tremendously. Long gone are the days of the original 1,000 square foot facility. Turano has established new product lines, expanded into new plants in Bolingbrook, IL, Villa Rica, GA, and Orlando, FL. They now offer delivery across the United States. In today's economy, it is easy to overlook the significance of a successful, 40 year long career with one employer. But I want the House to pause for a moment and reflect on the incredible loyalty and commitment Tony's journey shows. And by the way, after 40 years, he's still going strong. Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Tony Iovinelli on his remarkable 40 years of service at Turano Baking Company and wishing him every success for the years to come.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we ought not bet against Ukraine and Georgia. I recently returned from a bipartisan delegation of the House Democracy Partnership that visited Ukraine and Georgia over the Fourth of July recess. Our purpose was to reflect this body to those parliamentary bodies in Ukraine and Georgia. I--and I know the other members of the House Democracy Partnership-- came away with a feeling of encouragement and a feeling of gratitude for the tenacity and very seriousness with which the Ukrainians and the Georgians are pursuing freedom. These are two nations that desperately want to be in the orbit of the West. They desperately want to be a part of the EU; they desperately want to be a part of NATO, and they are doing everything they can to stiff-arm and push back from the aggression of Vladimir Putin. They need our help; they need our encouragement, and they need our support. It is said that there are some who look at this as the front line of the rising voices against authoritarianism, and I think that is true. We have got to do everything we can in this body not only to provide the economic support and other support that these countries need, but also to do everything we can to push the administration to do the right thing as well.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Chairman Upton. Mr. Chairman, my DISARM Act is part of this H.R. 6 Cures Act, and I thank Chairman Upton and his staff for including it. It is a focal point of a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle as it relates to antibiotics. Mr. Chairman, there is an incredible health threat that has manifested itself interestingly and sadly in two important ways near my constituency in the Chicago area. Back in December of 2013, 44 patients at Lutheran General Hospital cultured positive for CRE, which is known as the nightmare bacteria. To put this in perspective, previously, only 96 cases had been reported to the CDC before. Nearby, in Algonquin, Illinois, two cases of an ostensibly drug-resistant tuberculosis were also diagnosed. Now, according to the CDC, 23,000 patients die annually from this. What the DISARM Act does--which is embedded in Cures, H.R. 6--is it gets researchers and scientists back in the business of antibiotic research and development by modernizing how Medicare views treatments for infections that are considered to be unmet medical needs. It reimburses target antibiotics at cost to ensure a functioning marketplace where the right treatment is used at the right time for the right patient helping to reinvigorate the pipeline of drugs and development, and it is a critical piece of the drug resistance puzzle. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of Cures, H.R. 6, and I thank Chairman Upton.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 365, my flight was delayed due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''