Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts said this is a missed opportunity. This is no missed opportunity. What we are witnessing is the seizing of an opportunity.

During the debate, our friends on the other side of the aisle, in 25 hours of markup last week, offered amendment after amendment after amendment. I think it was about 25 amendments.

Do you know what every one of the amendments did, Mr. Speaker? It restored the status quo. It put something back in, put another thing back in, defended something else, and so forth. There was no comprehensive offer of an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would have been transformational.

There is no exclusion here. We debated. We are now here, and for the first time since 1986, we are on the cusp of seizing an opportunity and having a transformational moment.

Here is the transformation:

When the Tax Code was last amended 30 years ago--think about it--the internet didn't exist as a commercial enterprise. Yes, it has fully developed, and we have got a Tax Code that was built for yesterday.

The global nature of supply chains were nowhere nearly as intricately interlinked, yet we have got a Tax Code that was built for yesterday.

The shared economy--Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, all of those things--didn't exist, yet we have got a Tax Code that was built for yesterday.

Who does the status quo benefit, Mr. Speaker? It benefits the few. It benefits the privileged. It benefits the folks at the top of the economic scale of things.

So what this is doing is proposing a very different approach. It says we are going to make the United States the most competitive jurisdiction in the world by giving business tax relief and welcoming back commercial enterprise and growth and prosperity and ingenuity and investment--that does what? It creates paychecks and it expands opportunities.

Kids graduated from college shouldn't have to grub around piecing together two jobs and living in their parents' basement. How absurd. We can do much better. We are the biggest, best economy in the world, and it is time we acted like it.

This is transformational. To lean back and away from this and say, oh, this Tax Code is a natural disaster; it is too big and too overwhelming and we can't deal with it is nonsense. We fundamentally reject that.

We are going to be measured in the future, Mr. Speaker, by this moment. I thank Chairman Brady for his leadership in creating this crescendo, because now is the time to act. Let's not defend the status quo. Let's move forward, and let's transform this economy.

Madam Speaker, the good news is that the good people of Georgia's 13th District median household income, family of four, at $80,000 would receive a $1,700 tax break.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), former treasurer of one of the largest counties in our country.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, the good news is it is not just $1,000 for the gentleman's district, it is $1,200.

Let's go right to this student issue. It was the Obama administration that proposed in the 2017 budget for the elimination of the student deduction. I think the sanctimonious need to just walk out of the Chamber.

The other thing is, at a tax rate of 15 percent, an annual $2,500 above-the-line deduction is a $375 tax break. We are proposing something far greater than that with doubling the standard deduction, lowering the rates and so forth.

Madam Speaker, let's just take the student deduction and chuck it in the garbage.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle need to make a decision: Do they want to lionize Ronald Reagan or criticize Ronald Reagan?

I will leave it to them to decide which.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Madam Speaker, as you know, the good news is, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 70 percent of the individual tax relief goes to families earning under $200,000, according to their publication on November 13.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Madam Speaker, the good news is it is not $1,200. It is not $1,700. It is $1,900 for the median household in California's Ninth District.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), a great friend of agriculture and a great friend of small business.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, if you are in California's 36th District and your median household income is $58,000, it looks like a tax cut of $1,090.

I am informed that our friends on the other side have more time, and my suggestion is that our friends use some of their time to get back in balance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there is a message for California's 43rd District, and that is a benefit of $1,395 if H.R. 1 is passed into law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to just do a quick, little cleanup.

There was a discussion a minute ago by the gentlewoman from Alabama where she was talking about teachers, for example. Let's get right to that. Teachers won't be harmed by shifting the status quo because what they are getting right now is a $250 deduction which is worth about $37 at the 15 percent tax rate, receipts that they have to keep all year long in an envelope and apply it at the end in terms of doing their taxes.

We say: Dump that. Let's get away from that. Let's double their standard deduction, lower their rates, and give them some real money.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the long and distinguished career of Barbara C. Higgens on the occasion of her retirement. After 19 years of dedication and commitment, she is stepping down as CEO of Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI).

Since its founding in 1998, Ms. Higgens has nurtured and grown PMI's visibility and influence within the United States and abroad. Ms. Higgens revamped the organization from her kitchen table as its first employee. She went on to hire dedicated professional staff and significantly enhanced the association's advocacy, technical, water conservation, environmental, and trade initiatives. Today, PMI is the nation's leading plumbing manufacturing trade association representing 90 percent of all the plumbing fixtures and fittings sold in the United States.

Under her leadership, PMI has grown into an advocate for water- efficient products meeting high safety and performance standards. She was instrumental in the introduction and passage of a federal nationwide law to reduce lead in plumbing products, known as the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which was designed to safeguard all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating this special occasion and wishing Barbara Higgens every happiness in her well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, cruelty to animals is a scourge, and there is no worse example than animal fighting that is for so-called pleasure and definite profit.

I am pleased today to introduce the Parity in Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act, which is to close a loophole.

Animal fighting is prohibited in the United States, but it is allowed in some U.S. territories. This is important for us because what we have is a situation where animals are manipulated, drugged, and put into situations where their aggression is heightened. It is disgusting.

I am pleased to join with friends on the other side of the aisle-- Messrs. Blumenauer and Nolan--and Representatives on the Republican side--Messrs. Rodney Davis, Yoder, and Knight--to come together on a bipartisan basis to address this trouble. I ask for cosponsors.

Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to continue to yield time to my friend from the other side of the aisle. Just keep driving the expectations of any tax relief further and further into the ground, and I think people are going to be surprised and delighted with ultimately what the House ends up considering.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I am here. This is a prelude to tax reform. We vote on this. We then make it so that no single political party is able to deny a vote on tax reform, and both parties can come to the table and try and negotiate something that is thoughtful, because here is what we know: it is the current Tax Code that is benefiting people that everybody is scandalized that they are benefiting. It is the current Tax Code that allows corporations to lock trillions of dollars offshore. It is the current Tax Code that is really stifling and so difficult. And it is the current Tax Code that nobody can defend. There is not a single person on this floor that is going to say: Oh, the Internal Revenue Code? I love that, Mr. Speaker. Just leave it the way it is. It is a disaster, and nobody likes the IRS.

So rather than moaning and groaning and having posters and this and that, let's do this: let's dump the current Tax Code and let's have a transformational moment. Mr. Speaker, that is what our country and our constituents are yearning for, not old bumper stickers, not old shabby phrases from the past, but they are looking for us to lead and to bring people together, and that is what we are trying to do.

There is a meddlesome issue that affects my district as a high tax State, and it affects a lot of other folks, and that is how we deal with State and local tax deductibility. I am of the view that tax reform does not mean simply the redistribution of a tax liability from one part of the country to another, but it means tax relief for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we are looking for is to create middle class tax relief. And if the gentleman's expectations are that low, I think he is going to be pleased with what we ultimately are able to come up with.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote. I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I look forward to passing this resolution and moving forward to changing our Tax Code.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairwoman Black for yielding.

Imagine what our opinion would be of a movie review where the reviewer simply looked at a movie poster and then

wrote the review and came to a conclusion that they didn't like the movie. They didn't listen to the music. They didn't see the direction. They didn't see the pacing. They didn't see the acting. They didn't see the script. They didn't see the cinematography. They saw nothing other than a movie poster and they came to a conclusion.

We would dismiss that and we would say: How ridiculous. How absurd.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what the Tax Policy Center did this past week. They wrote a review of a proposal as it relates to tax reform, and they didn't have the details.

Why didn't they have the details?

Because many of these details don't exist.

Specifically, they wrote a review which was very pejorative, which the Wall Street Journal completely trashed. They made this finding, and they had no notion of what the income brackets are like in our proposed tax reform plan. They had no notion about the anti-abuse rules that the Ways and Means Committee is working through to make sure there is not an abusive situation as it relates to pass-through entities. They had no notion about some of the offshore protections that are being contemplated.

Let's avoid the hyperbole. Let's avoid the hackneyed, old, tired, and faded bumper sticker that says that any kind of pro-growth tax reform is a sop to the rich. It is complete nonsense.

I think the proof will be in a tax reform proposal that this House hopefully will be considering in the coming weeks and months that will bring buoyancy, optimism, and a real opportunity for us to take advantage of a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a Tax Code that nobody can defend and nobody likes. But let's get real and evaluate real numbers and not just look at posters and bumper stickers.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment No. 190, which would help prevent companies from weaponizing the Iranian regime and help stop the flow of troops and armaments to Assad's murderous regime.

This amendment would prohibit the Office of Foreign Assets Control from authorizing the sale of aircraft to Iran.

Western companies are in the process of trying to sell dozens of planes to Iran Air--that is Iran's flagship carrier--and other Iranian airlines with deep ties to hostile Iranian actors.

Iran's aviation sector, led by Iran Air, has a long history of illicitly transporting militants, weapons, and explosives on commercial aircraft to terror groups and rogue regimes. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--the IRGC--and Iran's Ministry of Defense use commercial aircraft to directly support Iran's campaign of terror around the Middle East.

In recent years, both before the Iran nuclear deal and after, Iranian airlines have served as a lifeline to the Assad regime, transporting weapons and troops to the embattled dictator. Iran Air was recently designated by the U.S. Treasury for such activity. Numerous Iranian airlines remain sanctioned.

Last year, while speaking on the floor in support of these same amendments, which passed the floor, I had on display this map beside me exhibiting the route of an Iran Air flight in the middle of the night from an IRGC hub to war-torn Damascus. This midnight flight was unscheduled and flew on a routine Iranian arms supply path to Syria. Hundreds of these flights are documented, showing a sophisticated Iranian arms supply system using commercial jets.

On display now is even more compelling evidence of Iran Air's nefarious activity. These recently taken photos display Iran-backed Afghani militiamen flying Iran Air to Syria. You can see these same militiamen holding AK-47s on the ground in the Syrian war zone and prepping heavy artillery. These fighters are reported to be part of an IRGC training Afghan Shiite militia actively fighting for the Assad regime. Iran Air and the IRGC transport these jihadis to Syria to fight for a dictator responsible for the deaths of almost a half a million people, Mr. Chairman.

Until Iran ceases using commercial aircraft to support terrorists and war criminals, Western companies ought not be allowed to sell Iranian airlines more aircraft that they can use to fuel Assad's brutal war.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, my friend from Oregon acknowledges that there are bad people doing bad things in Iran. Well, let's not help them. Let's not be complicit.

And as to the candlelight vigils, none of the mullahs, none of the leadership, were involved in candlelight vigils for the United States. These are the people that are chanting and provoking: Death to America.

This does no violence to those who were supporters of the JCPOA. They like it. This has no impact on it whatsoever. Furthermore, it doesn't put American companies at any other disadvantage than other companies have. In other words, the two big players here are Airbus and Boeing, neither of whom, if we are successful with this amendment, would be able to sell into that marketplace. Why? Because Airbus has the same level of technology, they get caught up in the same net that we do.

We have got to ask the question: Do we step back and say, ``Wow. It is just complicated and it is overwhelming, and, inshallah, let's do nothing''?

No. Let's lean in. Let's make a decision. Let's be articulate and let's say that we are choosing not to be complicit with what we know is outrageous, and that is the use of commercial aircraft supporting the world's largest state sponsor of terror. This is fairly intuitive. The House has come together on these issues in the past.

Mr. Chair, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the previous amendment debated. Specifically, it would prohibit the Office of Foreign Assets Control from authorizing U.S. financial institutions-- that is the distinction--from financing aircraft and sales to Iran.

It is the same reasons. It is all the same facts. It is fairly straightforward.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

Mr. Chairman, to close, as to the argument about ideological riders, this is the Article I branch. It is the prerogative of the House of Representatives and the Congress to speak and decide how money is to be spent.

As to the notion that, the accusation that this breaches the JCPOA, as much of a critic as I am of that deal, this doesn't breach it. So it is in compliance with it.

The notion of jobs is an interesting one, and it kind of creates a moral quandary until, Mr. Chairman, you balance out these two things: jobs versus lives. Is that really a question here? Aren't lives more important than jobs? Isn't it an interesting thing that several Members of the Washington State delegation where Boeing, in particular, is headquartered have actively written to the leadership of the Boeing Company saying, don't do this, essentially, and don't put our employees in the moral quandary of having to move forward on this?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, how would we be feeling if the debate were happening in 1938 in this country, and the question was: Are we going to loan money to some commercial operation that can be used by the regime in Hamburg, Germany, for example? We would be scandalized by it.

We need to recognize with a sense of clarity where we are in history. We ought not to be complicit with this. This House can make a great deal of difference in the future of this fight.

Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of this amendment, the adoption of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of United States Navy Petty Officer Charles Nathan Findley and his service to our nation. On August 20th of this year, Petty Officer Findley was killed after a collision between the USS John S. McCain and a merchant vessel in waters near Singapore and Malaysia.

Respected by his fellow officers, Findley served as an electronics technician first class in the Navy. His friends and family will remember his love of rebuilding cars, Japanese culture, and foreign travel. Findley was a father and husband, leaving behind an 8-year-old daughter, 6-year-old son, and his beloved wife Riho.

His contributions as a Petty Officer for the United States Navy and his sacrifice to our nation serves as a reminder to us all that our freedom exists because of the dedication of brave individuals such as Charles. Our country is at a loss without his loyal service.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Petty Officer Charles Nathan Findley and his distinguished service to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in recognition of the long and distinguished service of Scott Franzgrote on the occasion of his retirement. On September 29th of this year, Mr. Franzgrote will conclude his loyal service as Fire Chief of the Rolling Meadows Fire Department.

Chief Franzgrote has served the community for a total of 27 years, including the last six years as Fire Chief of the Rolling Meadows Fire Department. Since joining the department in 1990, his extraordinary leadership has earned him great respect among colleagues and members of the community.

During his tenure, Chief Franzgrote led a consolidation effort for services with the Palatine and Palatine Rural fire departments. The ``Rural Palatine Meadows'' initiative has led to shared equipment, standardized training, streamlined responses to incidents, and has already saved the city of Rolling Meadows hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in celebrating this special occasion and wishing Chief Franzgrote every happiness in the well-deserved respite of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Becky McDowell for being selected to participate in the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) 4th Annual National Summer Teacher's Institute on Innovation and Intellectual Property (NSTI).

The NSTI is a week-long program designed to provide teachers with a comprehensive understanding of intellectual property, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The USPTO reviewed over 500 applicants for the program and accepted only 44 participants, highlighting Ms. McDowell's unique qualifications.

Representing the schools of Roslyn Road, Barbara Rose, North Barrington, and Sunny Hill Schools in Wauconda, Illinois, Ms. McDowell worked with a group of fellow teachers to come up with their own invention. Ms. McDowell's group invented an animal care app where owners could update key information about their pets for use by kennels and animal caregivers to ensure the safety and well-being of pets.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in recognizing Ms. Becky McDowell for her outstanding service, and congratulate her on being selected to participate in the United States Patent and Trademark Office's 4th Annual National Summer Teacher's Institute on Innovation and Intellectual Property.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Amy Schwartz for being named a 2017 Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators (PIAEE) honorable mention recipient.

The PIAEE recognizes elementary school teachers who employ innovative approaches to environmental education and use the environment as a context for learning for their students. The PIAEE reviewed hundreds of applicants for the award and selected only 12 recipients, highlighting Ms. Schwartz's unique qualifications.

Representing Edison Middle School in Wheaton, Illinois, Ms. Schwartz coordinated a project in which student, faculty, parents and Wheaton Park District staff worked together to transform an area behind the Edison Middle School into a native tallgrass prairie. Students complemented this hands-on project with a field trip to Fermilab, a local physics laboratory, to learn more about energy and ecosystems.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in recognizing Ms. Amy Schwartz for her outstanding service and congratulate her being named a 2017 PIAEE honorable mention recipient.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you a quick story. Andrew Clyde served three combat tours in Iraq, after which he returned home and opened a store in Georgia. Mr. Clyde had an insurance policy that only covered up to $10,000 in off-premised losses. So like any reasonable person, he never brought more than $10,000 in cash with him when he was making his nightly deposits.

Do you know what happened next?

The Internal Revenue Service noticed that he was depositing just under $10,000 in cash regularly, so they took all of his cash. That is $950,000.

If you are like most people, you are confused when you first hear about this. As it turns out, Mr. Clyde was in violation of a Federal law known as structuring, which is the intentional avoidance of Federal reporting requirements by staying below $10,000 in cash deposits. This law was intended to catch large-scale criminal enterprises, mobsters, terrorists, and human traffickers, not veterans like Mr. Clyde.

When structuring is believed to have occurred, the IRS can use its civil asset forfeiture authority to seize funds in question and force the owner to prove that the money was earned legally.

Well, in this instance, Andrew Clyde earned the money legally and had a legitimate reason for depositing less than $10,000. So you would assume that Mr. Clyde would have ended this with the IRS talking to him and then saying: Oh, we made a mistake. Clearly you are not a mobster or a terrorist. Thank you for your service. Here is your life savings back.

But, no, that is not what happened, Mr. Chairman. That is not how the story ended.

Instead, the IRS threatened him with criminal structuring charges until he agreed to settle with the agency and give them $50,000, after he had already spent $100,000 in legal fees. He lost $150,000 simply because he wanted to make sure that his cash deposits were low enough to be insured. If that sounds messed up to you, Mr. Chairman, that is because it is.

Now, here is the good news. The House recently passed, unanimously, H.R. 1843, the RESPECT Act. This bill prohibits the IRS from seizing funds from individuals, unless there is a probable cause that the money was earned illegally or connected to an illegal activity. But there is still the problem of those people who are already victims of this abuse by our government in civil asset forfeiture.

Now, since we began our bipartisan investigation of the IRS's civil asset forfeiture practices a couple of years ago, the IRS has apologized for past behavior, which is good; they worked quickly to reach out to possible victims, which is good; and they subsequently responded to the 454 petitions that they received. As of March 1, the IRS returned over $6 million in seized funds. Good news. So far so good.

But the plot continues, and here is where we are right now. It turns out that a majority of the petitions were actually referred to the Department of Justice. The IRS referred the DOJ 255 cases, and has recommended that the DOJ return $16 million to taxpayers whom they do not suspect of being conducted in any way to illegal activity. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has not been nearly as interested in correcting these past wrongdoings.

As of July, the Department of Justice responded only to 73 of the outstanding 255 cases. This is completely unacceptable. The Federal Government took legally earned money from taxpayers, and the Department of Justice hasn't given the majority of these people a response, including Andrew Clyde.

The Roskam-Neal amendment, offered by myself and Mr. Neal, the ranking member from Massachusetts on the Ways and Means Committee, is very simple. It simply says this: No one in the relevant section of the Department of Justice can get a performance bonus until they finish reviewing the backlog of cases that the IRS has sent them. We are not asking the Department of Justice to do anything extraordinary, Mr. Chairman. We are simply asking them to do their job. And until they do their job, the bare minimum that taxpayers can expect is that we at least don't reward these people with bonuses.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.

I thank the chairman for his assurance and his hard work on this. I am confident that this will be resolved.

Mr. Chairman, I have got to tell you that the discussions that this House has made on a bipartisan basis with the Department of Justice have been obtuse and they have been ridiculous. I have been embarrassed by the interactions that I have had with senior staff members at the Department of Justice on this issue.

The Ways and Means Subcommittee has been scandalized by this, and we are going to do something about it. So here, today, we are rising on both sides of the aisle to bring remedy, rescue, and restoration to our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1843) to amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from carrying out seizures relating to a structuring transaction unless the property to be seized derived from an illegal source or the funds were structured for the purpose of concealing the violation of another criminal law or regulation, to require notice and a post-seizure hearing for such seizures, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for H.R. 1843, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if a person deposits $10,000 or more into a financial institution, that institution must submit a currency transaction report to the Treasury Department. Avoiding this reporting requirement by purposefully staying below the $10,000 limit is a Federal crime known as structuring.

Structuring was made illegal in 1986 to prevent large-scale criminal enterprises, terrorists, and money launderers from hiding their illegally earned money from authorities by consistently depositing just shy of that

$10,000 limit. This makes complete sense.

When structuring is believed to have occurred, the Internal Revenue Service can use its civil asset forfeiture authority to seize funds and force the owner of the funds to prove that they were obtained legally. Let me tell you, I am not laying awake at night, and neither are my colleagues here, worrying about terrorists and mobsters not being able to get access to their money. So far, so good. The law makes sense.

But now let me tell you about somebody who had their money seized by the IRS. Andrew Clyde served three combat tours in Iraq, and then he came home and opened a store in Georgia.

Mr. Clyde had an insurance policy that only covered up to $10,000 in off-premise losses. So, like any reasonable person, Mr. Clyde never brought more than $10,000 in cash with him when he made his nightly deposits. The IRS seized $950,000 from him.

Now, just marinate in that for a minute, Mr. Speaker. Imagine trying to run your business, and one day the Federal Government comes in and takes away all of your money. You don't know why, but it is just gone. You would assume that the IRS would then talk to Mr. Clyde, hear his rationale, and say: Well, it is my mistake. You are clearly not a mobster or a terrorist. Thank you for your service. Here is your life savings back.

But that is not what happened. Instead, the IRS threatened him with criminal structuring charges until he agreed to settle with the agency, and gave them $50,000, after he had spent nearly $100,000 in legal fees.

Andrew Clyde lost $150,000 simply because he wanted to make sure that his cash deposits were low enough to be insured.

We are here today to make sure this never happens again. The RESPECT Act makes commonsense changes to civil asset forfeiture practices. First and foremost, the IRS would have to show probable cause that the funds they are seizing were derived from or connected to an illegal source.

Additionally, it would provide protections for taxpayers whose money was taken, requiring a hearing within 30 days of the money being seized. These commonsense steps prevent the Federal Government from acting with impunity and harassing the very citizens that they are supposed to protect.

I want to thank a number of individuals for their work on this legislation. I would like to thank John Lewis, the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee. I want to thank my lead sponsor, Joe Crowley, the lead Democrat on this legislation. I want to thank Mr. Neal for his leadership, and I want to thank Chairman Brady.

We have been at this for a long time. We first started investigating this issue at an Oversight Subcommittee hearing in February of 2015, and we made some progress. IRS Commissioner Koskinen apologized to the victims of this practice on behalf of his agency. In fact, a year later, he changed the IRS procedures to restrict the use of civil asset forfeiture cases in which the money was earned illegally, a commonsense decision that we will codify with this legislation.

I am also heartened to say that in March of this year, the IRS finished its process of reviewing all 454 contested cases that occurred before the rule change. The agency either returned or recommended that the Department of Justice return approximately 80 percent of those funds. The IRS returned over $6 million to honest Americans who were victims of this government overreach.

While the IRS returned over $6 million, they have also recommended that the Department of Justice return a whopping $16 million. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice still has a long way to go in tackling the backlog of undecided cases. We will be addressing this issue with an amendment in the upcoming appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, Americans deserve a government that they can trust. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation to prevent future victims of abusive civil asset forfeiture practices, and fight for those who have been affected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, we have no remaining speakers on this side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think Mr. Crowley and Mr. Neal hit the nail on the head, as did Mr. Collins.

Let me just sort of sum up then. This is a story about a citizen, a citizen who is scandalized by the Federal Government that is there to protect the citizen, and the citizen said: Do you know what? This doesn't seem right to me. You don't get to do this.

You can imagine what it was like for these people who got caught up in this and were told by IRS agents and Department of Justice lawyers the nature of that intimidation and how heavy-handed and aggressive that is. Yet these people said: No, no, no. That is not right. That is not the way this country is supposed to work.

So they brought it to people's attention, and, Mr. Speaker, people on both sides of the aisle were scandalized by what they heard about this and were troubled by it and said: We can do something about it.

So as a result of this, you have got something that is moving through. Look, it is a tumultuous time in our public life, and there are many deep divisions within this House and across the country about all kinds of issues. But do you know what? Nobody is here defending the status quo of how these people were treated.

So the institution worked. The institution heard what was going on, and now people have come together on both sides of the aisle to move forward on this basis.

I want to echo Mr. Neal's admonition to the Department of Justice. It is not good enough for the Department of Justice to go into a passive- aggressive mode and to say: Well, we are just going to wait these people out.

That is not good enough. We need to make sure that the Department of Justice is acting forthrightly, is reviewing these cases, and is moving them with dispatch.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neal, and Chairman Brady. I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1697, as his name was added in error.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor FONA International, Inc., a company located in Geneva, Illinois, which was recently named the number one small/medium workplace in Chicago by Fortune magazine and consulting firm Great Place to Work.

At FONA International, Inc. 97 percent of employees say they are proud of their workplace, have been offered training or development to further themselves professionally, and have access to a special and unique benefit system.

This was only possible due to the leadership of Joe and Mary Slawek. Since FONA International's founding in 1987 the Slaweks has been the driving force behind its exceptional corporate culture which stresses retaining and recognizing its employees. The Slaweks have championed innovative programs and initiatives which have earned their company a spot on the National Association for Business Resources' list of Chicago's 101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work for.

FONA International, Inc. is currently celebrating 30 years creating and producing flavors for the largest food, beverage, and nutrition companies in the world. Their excellent work over the years has made them an industry leader and they have even been awarded the 2016 Food Quality and Safety Award by Food Quality and Safety magazine.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in congratulating FONA International, Inc. on being named the number one workplace in Chicagoland and for their legacy of achievement. FONA International Inc. is a company that truly cares not only for their customers, but also for their employees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant from Crystal Lake, Illinois, Dr. Gary Oberg. Dr. Oberg has been a school board member for the past 30 years and this past April he concluded his service to Crystal Lake School District 155.

Since joining the board in 1985, Dr. Oberg has seen 36,000 students graduate from Community High School District 155, worked with six superintendents, and witnessed the transition from blackboards and overhead projectors to tablets and high-tech whiteboards.

During his tenure, Dr. Oberg has been an exemplary leader and public servant. Dr. Oberg played a key role in building Prairie Ridge High School. While on the Building and Grounds Committee during that time, he helped incorporate principles of good environmental practices in its construction. He also oversaw the expansion of educational programs and schools including Cary-Grove High School's D and E wings, media center, and fine arts center, expansions at Crystal Lake South in 2003 and 2006, and the opening of Haber Oaks alternative high school in 2008.

Dr. Oberg has represented his community well and has been a strong voice for the City of Crystal Lake throughout his time in office. His long service to the students and families of Crystal Lake and to McHenry County is truly commendable. Although he is retiring, Crystal Lake will continue to benefit from his involvement as a member of the community.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in congratulating Dr. Gary Oberg on 32 years of public service and in wishing him all the best for the days ahead.