Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the passing of a great Illinois businessman and philanthropist, Michael Heisley, Sr. who passed last Saturday at the age of 77. He was a classic American success story. In 1979, he mortgaged his house and took out a loan to buy a bankrupt industrial equipment company which he then turned around to become profitable. He purchased other Rust Belt manufacturing companies, including some in the 6th District of Illinois, and in the process turned his Heico Companies into one of the largest private companies in the Chicagoland area. He did not buy businesses to flip them, but to fix them and make them thriving enterprises once again. Mr. Heisley not only kept manufacturing jobs in the United States, he also brought jobs back to the United States. He was able to move the NBA's Vancouver Grizzlies to Memphis, Tennessee. Like the companies he fixed, he left the Grizzlies in far better shape than he found them. Mr. Heisley was a philanthropist who donated to numerous charities including: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, St. Patrick's Catholic School in St. Charles, his alma mater Georgetown University, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, in honor of his brother Joseph who served and his best friend Rocky who died in Vietnam. Mr. Heisley never lost track of his ties to St. Charles, IL his home of 35 years. He served on the St. Charles School Board and was a longtime parishioner at St. Patrick's in St. Charles. He is survived by his wife of more than fifty years Agnes, five children and 12 grandchildren. Mr. Speaker and my distinguished colleagues in the House, please join me in honoring Michael Heisley, his family, and his legacy of service and achievement.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sue Magner, an outstanding volunteer of AARP from Illinois. Recently, Sue was named the first ever winner of the AARP Director's Award for Distinguished Service. This award is given to an outstanding volunteer who consistently exceeds what is asked of them and provides exceptional service to the community. Sue Magner preforms many different activities as an AARP driver safety volunteer. She is an instructor, trainer, and VMIS data manager. During her time at AARP, Sue has jumped at the challenge of familiarizing new volunteers with computer systems knowledge and computer-based technology and is always looking for new methods on how best to teach incoming volunteers and optimize their experience. Sue's colleagues report that she is eager to answer any coworker's questions and does everything she is asked with a smile. Her kindness and ability to her help others is truly commendable. Through hard work and tireless dedication, Sue Magner has helped make a difference in countless lives. Mr. Speaker, and my distinguished colleagues of the House, please join me in congratulating Sue Magner on receiving this distinct honor and wishing her many future successes as she continues her work with AARP.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My home State is Illinois. The State of Illinois, Mr. Chairman, is a delightful place. It is the ``Land of Lincoln'' and the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, but it is a fiscal basket case. From a fiscal point of view, my home State is a national punch line, because one party--the other party--has dominated State government for years. For a decade, they have had the Governor's mansion. They have got majorities in both the Illinois House and the Illinois Senate. And what has happened? It has been avoidance behavior, Mr. Chairman. An unwillingness to take on serious issues. So what did the Democrats in Springfield, Illinois, do? They raised taxes. They didn't deal with the underlying fiscal problem. And what was the net result? The budget gap didn't close, higher than average unemployment, and more per capita debt than nearly any other State in the Union on the taxpayers of Illinois. All right. So what does that all that have to do with this? Springfield, Illinois, is a foreshadowing, Mr. Chairman, of what not to do. Basically, we need to look at the fiscal situation in Springfield, Illinois, and look at it like a big, big traffic signal that says, don't come here; don't go this route; don't take this pathway. Instead, go another direction. The direction that we need to go is the direction that the chairman has articulated, and that I think a majority is going to vote for tomorrow, and it is a pathway that says, let's look clearly at these difficulties. Let's articulate them clearly. Let's be clear-eyed about what they are, and let's make decisions. So what does this budget do? The budget repeals ObamaCare and makes way for a patient-centered approach on health care that our constituencies are calling out for. It says that we are going to empower States to make decisions. It says we are going to keep promises that are going to be made, not false promises, not telling folks that something is going to be there, and then just assuming that there is going to be some pixie dust that makes these problems go away. No, these problems are going to be dealt with, and they are going to be dealt with in a forthright manner. I think we are at an inflection point. I think the House is actually at an incredibly important stage right now, and we can go one of two pathways. One pathway we know, one pathway of more taxes, more spending, more avoidance, and not dealing with the underlying spending programs. This is not theoretical, Mr. Chairman. The State of Illinois has tried that, and it is a mess. It is a mess that becomes worse. The longer the State waits, the worse the options are. So what the chairman is saying is, let's not get to that point. We have got options. We have got time. We have got choices. We have got remedies, but we need to act now. So I urge favorable consideration of this budget.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has done a clever thing over these past years, and that is to redefine things. They redefined the word ``balance,'' not to mean the traditional understanding of ``balance,'' but they said, No, no, no. That really means long-term fiscal sustainability. That is the new definition of ``balance.'' They did the same thing on tax reform. The common understanding of ``tax reform'' is that you lower rates; you use loopholes to bring rates down; and you simplify the Code. Instead, they said, No. ``Tax reform,'' for us, means, yes, let's close loopholes, but let's use those closures to fuel more spending. The richest one I have heard so far is to hear a White House spokesman make the claim, basically, that a job is now a burden and that now, with ObamaCare, there are going to be over 2 million Americans who are shed from that burden, Mr. Speaker, and that they don't have to worry about working anymore because they have got this new health care plan. It is now finding itself coming true in this bill as well, and what the Obama administration has said is, We are just going to create a new definition of ``full-time work.'' Full-time work has meant 9 to 5. Full-time work has meant 40 hours a week. Not with ObamaCare. ObamaCare has now redefined it. It is a long pattern of redefinitions, and these redefinitions have led to failure. So here is the thing. We have got an opportunity to remedy this. We have got an opportunity to make it right. We have got an opportunity to recalibrate full-time work to what it has historically meant, and here is what the bottom line is: if we recalibrate it, we will get more work to the very people whom our opponents on the other side claim to speak for, and the irony is that their remedies mean less work for the very groups that they speak to advocate for. Mr. Speaker, we have got a chance today, and that is to support this bill, to do it quickly and to get us back to the normal definition of ``full-time work,'' which is 40 hours a week.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of H.R. 2548, the Electrify Africa Act, which will help enrich the lives of the some 589 million people who live in an electricity depleted part of Africa. This legislation will bring much needed support to a region that desperately needs it. As you are aware, 68 percent of the population in sub-Saharan Africa does not have access to electricity. This bill, if enacted, would establish a base of infrastructure from which economies can grow, improve health and education outcomes, and contribute to sustainable poverty reduction. I have visited Ghana and Liberia and seen firsthand the struggles that people deal with every day as they try to live a normal life. Power outages are a regular occurrence, while families may wait hours, days, or even weeks for electricity to be restored. A reliable electrical grid will help give businesses looking to make investments in Africa a greater degree of confidence in the infrastructure. The investments they make could help pull many out of poverty and hunger as local economies grow and people gain steady employment. There are not just economic benefits to consider, though. Electricity is also crucial to health outcomes. Certain medicines and vaccines require strict temperature regulation that is impossible to achieve without access to reliable electricity. Lifesaving devices and monitoring devices also require energy to function. An improved electrical infrastructure could also reduce the prevalence of illnesses like respiratory diseases that come from the use of harmful household fuels. On average, there are more than 3 million annual premature deaths from respiratory disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Shockingly, this number is higher than the annual number of deaths from HIV/AIDS and malaria. One final benefit I want to highlight is the educational improvement achievable as schools with a dependable source of energy can harness technology to educate the rapidly-growing youth population in Africa. In some countries, more than half of the population is under the age of 25. Quality education for this generation of young people could further contribute to dynamism and innovation in their countries' economies. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2548 will bring many positive opportunities to a continent that is in great need of assistance. I truly appreciate you and the committee giving this bill the attention it deserves. Electrifying Africa will not only create a brighter future for those who live in the region, but will also strengthen Africa's independence, promote continued economic development, and ensure the continent remains a vibrant source of art, culture, and history for generations to come.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing worse than gridlock, according to my predecessor, Congressman Henry Hyde. The worst thing than gridlock is the greased chute of government. It is ironic that the very administration that jammed through the Affordable Care Act, also known in the vernacular as ObamaCare, the very group that foisted that on the American public in the middle of the night, without much oversight, without much discussion, just jammed it all through, now has a new remedy as it relates to this newest problem, and that is, do it again. Do it again on another issue. We heard our friend from New Jersey posing a question, and he is misinformed. The nature of his question was somehow that the American public is paying for this, and yet, we had testimony that Mr. Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, asked this question of Mr. Barthold, who is the chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation. He asked this question--this is Dave Camp, chairman of the committee: Do these proposed regulations respond to some kind of revenue loss or some kind of tax avoidance scheme? Answer: Not that I am aware of, sir. These organizations are generally exempt, and a revenue loss has not been identified as the basis of these proposed regulations. So let's not kid ourselves. Here is the reality. The reality is that this stifles speech. This is from an administration that has been complicit in overseeing an Internal Revenue Service that has picked winners and losers, Mr. Speaker, has been able to say you get to participate in the public debate and you don't. We ought not do this. There have been over 100,000 comments on this proposed regulation. For those that want to participate and offer their own comment, Mr. Speaker, they can go to roskam.house.gov/ dontbesilenced to make sure that their voice is heard as well offering an official comment on this. One thing we do know: we know that an administration which has a tendency to over-respond, we know that an administration that has not much credibility, frankly, on being thoughtful and nimble as it comes to legislation, is not the administration that we should trust at this point in time with a rule of such incredible consequence when they have demonstrated no capacity to do right things in the past. I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I draw your attention to H.R. 2531, the Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive IRS Requests Act. Let me give you a quick summary, Mr. Speaker, of what the bill does. Let me give you an example that we heard in the Ways and Means Committee that prompted this. And I look forward to hearing from my colleague, Mr. Davis. The legislation establishes a new procedure for the IRS to follow when asking questions regarding three areas: religious, political, and social beliefs. And the following is the new procedure: the IRS can't ask those questions. They can't ask about religious, political, or social beliefs. And there are two exceptions. One is a question or set of questions that is approved by Congress by an enacted law; or, if the IRS Commissioner deems questions are important to aid in tax administration and submits a report to Congress, which must include the following and be approved by a joint resolution of Congress: State the specific questions that were authorized; Describe the class of taxpayers who will be asked the questions; Describe the circumstances surrounding the taxpayers being asked those questions. So where is this coming from? What is this all about? We heard testimony from six witnesses, Mr. Speaker, who came before the Ways and Means Committee as the IRS scandal was breaking. These six witnesses in particular I found to be compelling. I found them to be compelling for two reasons: Number one, they didn't give up on their country. When they were being targeted by the Federal Government, these witnesses kept faith and kept hope with the America that they knew existed, and they were not willing to feel overwhelmed even though the events were actually fairly overwhelming, being targeted by your Federal Government to say you can and cannot participate in the public square. That is one reason I admire them. The second reason, Mr. Speaker, was this. They came to Washington to do something about it. They engaged Congress. They engaged in the full committee. They gave compelling testimony. The testimony moved us. It moved me to introduce this bill. Here was the single, without question, most compelling witness who spoke that day, in my view. She represented a right-to-life group in Iowa. She told the story of being asked by the Internal Revenue Service in written interrogatories--in other words, pieces of paper with questions written down that come from the Internal Revenue Service to their little group--and the inquiry was, Tell us about your prayers. Tell us about your prayer meetings. What goes on at those? Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that our freedom to worship is our first freedom, and our freedom to worship is central to who we are. The long, powerful arm of the Federal Government is coming in and grabbing a little right-to-life group by the neck and shaking them around, saying, Write down what happens in your prayer meetings and write it down and sign your name, under penalty of perjury. That is exactly what those questions did. I was sobered by that. That was chastening testimony to hear that this agency, this agency of delegated authority from the people's House, has now used that and, I would argue, misused that. Why in the world does the Internal Revenue Service need to know about the prayer meetings of a pro-life group in Iowa? That is a shameful abuse and a shameful scandal that they even asked those questions. But what does it tell you? It tells you that there was a way of thinking, a culture, I would argue, at the Internal Revenue Service that said, We are empowered to do these things. Well, if that is what they think, let's correct that, shall we, Mr. Speaker? Let's say that they can't ask those questions. The questions about religion, your political beliefs, and about what your social beliefs are have nothing to do with what the Internal Revenue Service should be doing as it relates to tax administration. So these are very clear limitations. There are a couple of exceptions. But it is meant clearly to put the IRS back where they belong on the tax administration side and not deciding who gets to participate in the public square of debate and who doesn't. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague said enough is enough. I guess enough is enough if you are one of the ones that wasn't impacted. But if you were impacted by the IRS targeting, it had a jarring effect on you. And if we are going to move forward, if we are going to have the Internal Revenue Service have the respect that we need it to have, which it doesn't have right now, there is an overwhelming level of concern and consternation about how the IRS handled these things in the past and how they conducted themselves. The fact that the Internal Revenue Service has not been forthcoming pursuant to Chairman Camp's request for information is not in dispute. There is nobody here that is arguing the IRS has been completely forthcoming and given the chairman all the information he needs or that he has requested. No. They haven't been forthcoming, and that continues to be a real problem. I think it is important for us to recognize that the TIGTA report was an audit. It was not an investigation. An investigation is ongoing. So this notion that there is no knowledge or there is no indication of any sort of political influence, I think that there is a great deal of knowledge of political influence that was peddled and used here, and I think the facts bear it out. The scope of the audit that the gentleman was referring to was to focus on conservative targeting. The IG struck within the parameters of the audit. Far more conservative groups faced IRS scrutiny, they faced more questions, and were approved at a lower rate than progressive groups were. Numbers are very straightforward: 104 conservative groups experienced an average of 15 additional questions, only 46 percent of conservative applicants were approved, and 56 percent of groups are either waiting for a determination or have withdrawn in frustration. Now, that is messed up. If you are withdrawing because you can't get a straight answer, you are just feeling overwhelmed, who wins then? The Internal Revenue Service wins, and the taxpayer that wants to participate in the public debate loses. Compare that to seven progressive groups that were asked an average of just five additional questions. You know what, Mr. Speaker? Every one of those progressive groups was approved--100 percent of them were approved. We know now that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that are already operating as 501(c)(4)s, and at Washington, D.C.'s direction, not Cincinnati's initiative, at Washington, D.C.'s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, monitoring of the groups' activities, Web sites, and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning, and of the groups that the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent of those were conservative-leaning. So, this idea that this was, well, everybody is treated the same way, the facts don't bear that out, Mr. Speaker. I just want to draw attention to one particular group, a constituency that I represent, the West Suburban Patriots of DuPage County. They submitted their application for 501(c)(4) status in May of 2011. They received a letter from the IRS acknowledging their application. Nearly 4 months later they were told their application was ``in the pile.'' Over a year later, June of 2012, the West Suburban Patriots received a letter indicating that they had to answer a series of questions in an incredibly short timeframe. The questions were political, and demonstrated that the IRS scoured their Web site by demanding information that would be on their Members Only web page. Isn't that interesting? In July of 2012 they received a letter granting their 501(c)(4) status. Now, the West Suburban Patriots name and tax ID number were found on a list of ``political advocacy cases'' that the Exempt Organizations Office in D.C. made to track Tea Party cases, and USA Today received the confidential political advocacy list and made it public. Here is the point: this is not what the Internal Revenue Service should be doing. The Internal Revenue Service should be making proper inquiries, not asking about prayer meetings, not being passive aggressive, choosing winners and losers in the public square. This is an important piece of legislation. It reclaims authority that was once delegated and has been abused, and now needs to be reclaimed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2531) to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Mr. Davis for engaging in this debate and this discussion, and I think he is right. We are at a fork in the road. I would describe the fork in the road as the responsibility that we have in the House. Mr. Speaker, I would urge us to take this challenge, and that is to do everything that we can, in light of this information that has come to our attention, to make sure that the Internal Revenue Service is being limited, is not allowed to ask questions regarding religion or social questions or political questions, and that we can enjoy a day in the future when they enjoy our respect. With that, I urge passage the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2530, the Taxpayer Transparency and Efficient Audit Act, is a direct response to testimony and inquiries and news reports that the Ways and Means Committee and other interested Members of Congress have heard about as it relates to the IRS scandal. Part of the difficulty that American taxpayers have, Mr. Speaker, is that they feel that they are basically on their heels, that the Internal Revenue Service has all the power and has all the inertia and has all the momentum; and if you are a taxpayer and the IRS is coming after you, you feel as if, look, this is a one-way street, and they are able to target, and they are able to focus, and they are able to keep all this momentum and have us on our heels. This is an effort to correct this problem. Every time the IRS shares a taxpayer's information, the IRS, under this bill, must send a disclosure letter to the taxpayer within 30 days of the disclosure, except in cases where it would be detrimental to an ongoing criminal investigation or to national security. Whenever the IRS receives correspondence from a taxpayer, the IRS must substantively respond within 30 days, and the response can't simply be a pat on the head and an acknowledgment letter but a substantive reply. Finally, the bill creates the goal that audits should be completed within 1 year. If not, the IRS must send an explanation to the taxpayer as to why it took too long. In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is to put the IRS on notice that they have got an obligation to operate within certain timeframes, which is a 30-day substantive response; to finish an audit in a year and, if you can't finish it in a year, have a good explanation as to why; and then also to make sure that, if information is being disclosed to someone outside the IRS--again, outside the context of a criminal investigation or of a national security incident--the IRS has to disclose that to the taxpayer. Now, you might be thinking, Wow, what in the world? That is against the law already, and this information shouldn't be shared outside the Internal Revenue Service. You would be right in thinking that. The problem is we heard testimony--and it was very compelling testimony, Mr. Speaker--from a witness down in Texas, who described this experience. Her name was Catherine Engelbrecht, and she was the founder of an organization called True the Vote. This is somebody who decided to participate in public life, who decided to get organized and have a group. Lo and behold, over a period of time, once she decided that she was going to petition the Federal Government for status for her group True the Vote to be involved in election issues and ballot integrity issues, all of a sudden, she finds herself the subject of a great deal of interest from other elements of the Federal Government that have nothing to do with the tax inquiry. According to my information, she had 15 different visits from four different Federal agencies. We may never get to the bottom of where it came from--where the leak took place--what was the theory behind it and how all of that came to pass, but we know this: we know that we can do something about it. We know that we can put limitations on the Internal Revenue Service that create a duty and an obligation and a legal sanction around which the IRS has to operate that says you cannot disclose this information and that, if this information is disclosed, you have a duty to let the taxpayer know. Clearly, what we are trying to do with this legislation is to limit the Internal Revenue Service, not from collecting taxes, not from enforcing the law, not from doing the things that they are tasked and created by this body to do, but, instead, to do it in a limited fashion, to be wise, not to be abusive, not to be lording power over taxpayers. When it all comes down to it, let's not forget this: we have a system of taxation that is based on--what? It is based on voluntary compliance. The Federal Government does not have the ability to go about and do all of this enforcement. So a voluntary tax compliance system is presumed. What does that mean? That means that the taxpayer has to have confidence that the tax- paying institution, itself, has integrity. As we know, that integrity is seriously in question, so I urge the favorable consideration of H.R. 2530. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are accused now of wanting to have it both ways. I suppose we are guilty as charged. We have an expectation that the Internal Revenue Service is going to work well with the resources that they have been appropriated and be able to be responsive to inquiries, but it is an important distinction because we are saying that the IRS has to respond at the same level at which they demand responses from the taxpayer. So, when you get a letter at home from the Internal Revenue Service, there is nobody who is cavalier about that. What happens? You look at that. My constituents look at that. The business owners in my district--the small businesses in my district--look at something from the Internal Revenue Service, and they say, Stop the presses. Wow, we have got to stop everything. The IRS is coming in, and we have got to deal with this. Get on top of it. Yet we are told that the Internal Revenue Service cannot be held to that same standard, to that same level of responsiveness that the IRS demands from American citizens--demands with the ability to fine, demands with the ability to imprison if necessary, demands with the ability to take your property away through the force of liens. I think the IRS can handle it. I think the IRS is now recognizing, hey, there is something that is going on, and the American public is recognizing that what has actually happened is that they have delegated a great deal of authority to the Internal Revenue Service. With the way our Founders created our system, Mr. Speaker, now these citizens are saying, We want to reclaim the authority. Why? Because the authority has been abused. You are going to be limited, Internal Revenue Service, based on this legislation and other legislation because you abused this. This is not about the poor. This is not about the elderly. This is not about the disabled. Those arguments are not very persuasive. This is about the limitation of the long arm of the Federal Government being able to hold you to account and my constituents to account to a standard that they are unwilling to live by themselves. That is just wrong. So do we want it both ways? Yes, we do. We want the Internal Revenue Service to be wise with the money that has been allocated to them, and we want them to be forthcoming and helpful when it comes to responding in the same way to which they have been responded. Now, my distinguished colleague from Illinois has mentioned the consternation and hand-wringing that has come upon the Internal Revenue Service. Here is a fairly simple remedy, Mr. Speaker: The Internal Revenue Service can be forthcoming. They can say, Here is the information, to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, that you have requested. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has requested documentation, particularly about Lois Lerner, who is at the heart of this investigation. Has the Internal Revenue Service been forthcoming to give Lois Lerner's emails? The answer is ``no.'' It is difficult. It is one excuse after another. ``We are looking.'' ``We are searching.'' It is all of these sorts of ``the dog ate my homework'' responses. Here is the simple remedy: If it has taken too much time, if it is that big of a problem, if it is taking all of this energy that they want to devote to helping taxpayers that, instead, they are spending devoting to defending themselves in an investigation, save a lot of time--print out the emails, and send them to Chairman Dave Camp. That is how they can save time, and that is how they can save money. By golly, we have got to get to a point where this agency is under control and is doing the right thing by those who have entrusted them with a great deal of authority. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) for his willingness to come and debate this issue. I appreciate his admonition about Frederick Douglass and that whole notion that we need to pay for what we get, and I think that that is a good word on which to end. In other words, the American public has an expectation that they are going to get something, and they are paying for it. They are paying for it in taxes that, in some cases, are confiscatory--a very, very high tax burden--and they are voluntarily complying with the Tax Code. And toward that end, they have the expectation that they are going to be treated courteously, that they are going to be treated with respect, and that they are not going to be subsequently targeted by some other Federal agency completely unrelated to their inquiring. So I urge the passage of H.R. 2530, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2530) to improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, as amended.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, the American Studies Association did a shameful thing. They decided to call an academic boycott of one nation, and that is the State of Israel. Think about that. They looked over every other country of the world and they said basically by omission: Oh, you're fine, and you're fine, and you're fine. It doesn't matter what is happening there or what is happening there, but we are going to go after one country, Israel, and we are going to call upon a boycott. The former Israeli Ambassador, Michael Oren, after that happened, he asked this question: Will Congress stand up for academic freedom? And the answer is, yes. I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, to join with 134 colleagues, myself included, to send a letter to the American Studies Association to admonish them on what is clearly an anti-Semitic effort on their part. I know that is a very harsh thing for me to say, but there is no other way to describe it. It is anti-Semitic. I intend to move forward in the coming weeks to offer legislation called the Protect Academic Freedom Act which will prevent these campaigns by prohibiting Federal funds to universities that boycott Israeli academic institutions. Said another way, these organizations are clearly free to do what they want to do under the First Amendment, but the American taxpayer doesn't have to subsidize it. The American taxpayer doesn't have to be complicit in it, and the American taxpayer doesn't have to play any part in it. In fact, what we are doing on a bipartisan basis is calling for Congress to defend academic freedom because we recognize that academic freedom is at the very root of our own freedom.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my colleagues from Georgia and Illinois for their work on this matter. It is incredibly important; and, as Ms. Ros-Lehtinen mentioned a minute ago, the challenges that Israel are facing are incredibly significant. The challenges are moving very, very quickly, Mr. Speaker. There is a storm cloud that is brewing; and rather than waiting to recalibrate, this bill says let's evaluate how Israel is doing in terms of a qualitative military advantage and edge more frequently. As we know, if Israel is strong in the Middle East, good things happen. If Israel is weak in the Middle East, good things don't happen. We have an opportunity now for the House to stand with Israel. As mentioned before by Mr. Collins a minute ago, it is not just for Israel's sake; but it is clearly in the best interest of the United States. There is one democratic ally in the Middle East, and that is the State of Israel. It is incumbent upon us as a co-equal branch of government to encourage the administration to do the right thing, not just from Israel's point of view but from the long-term strategic interest of the United States. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I am pleased that it is being brought under the leadership of Chairman Royce and his committee to the House floor. I urge its passage.

Mr. ROSKAM

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

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

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

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).