Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was attending a family funeral in Ohio on March 2, and was absent from the House floor during that day's five roll call votes on H.R. 1004.

Had I been present, I would have voted against both Jackson Lee amendments, in favor of the Farenthold amendment, against the motion to recommit, and in favor of final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to commend to the House the outstanding service of Keith H. Deters, who is retiring from the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio, after a distinguished 32- year career.

Keith began his time at JSMC as a quality engineer in 1982. For the last 12 years, he has served as plant manager--the longest tenured manager in the modern history of that facility, which is the only remaining heavy combat vehicle production plant on the continent. A hands-on manager, he noted that there has rarely been a day that he did not walk the production floor to interact with the plant's highly skilled workforce, to which he has always paid great tribute for the facility's success.

In the face of challenges to JSMC's future, Keith has been a tireless advocate of the plant and the vital role it plays in our nation's defense industrial base. Under his leadership, JSMC has diversified beyond its traditional Abrams tank refurbishment work for the Army, providing high-quality combat vehicles and other products to other branches of the military and to our international allies.

Keith has been instrumental in the success of Task Force LIMA (Linked in Mutual Alliance), established more than a decade ago to support and promote JSMC and Ohio's other defense facilities. He is well respected throughout our congressional delegation as a man of vision and an industry expert.

Mr. Speaker, the Lima community will gather at Lima's City Club on December 17 to celebrate Keith's many contributions and distinguished record of service. On behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I am proud to join in the accolades to him and offer my warmest congratulations on his retirement. He and his wife, Donna, have my best wishes as they enter a new chapter in their lives.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about accountability, accountability for Senior Executive Service people, people like Lois Lerner.

The ranking member of the committee who I have a great deal of respect for stated in his opening comments that he is nervous about this legislation because it might ``politicize senior government officials.'' Well, that is what we have now.

I mean, what could be more political than a high-ranking official at the Internal Revenue Service targeting people who disagreed with her political views? This is all about holding people accountable who do the very things the ranking member talked about.

We need this legislation because, Lord knows, the Justice Department is not doing their job. They are not holding anyone accountable. I mean, think about this fact pattern: you have got the FBI leaking to The Wall Street Journal in January of this year that no one is going to be prosecuted in the IRS scandal.

You have got the President's now famous remark on Super Bowl Sunday, on national television, where he says:

There is no corruption here, not even a smidgen.

Talk about prejudging the outcome of a case when you have the highest-ranking official in the executive branch, and, of course, we have now--we have known about for several months--the lead attorney at the Justice Department on this case, Barbara Bosserman, who gave $6,750 to the President's reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee; so, of course, we need something like this because the Justice Department isn't going to hold anyone to account.

Now, there is one bright spot, Mr. Speaker. This House in a bipartisan fashion told the Attorney General that we need a special prosecutor. Every single Republican voted for that measure. More importantly, 26 Democrats said, This is so egregious; this is so wrong. We not only need Mr. Walberg's legislation, but we need a special prosecutor in the Justice Department to hold people to account.

When I talk with folks back home--every single day I am out and about, they walk up to me. ``Someone needs to be held to account for systematically targeting our most fundamental right, our First Amendment right to speak out in a political fashion against our government. That was targeted, and people need to be held to account for it.''

That is why I applaud the gentleman from North Carolina for his work on the committee and the gentleman from Michigan for sponsoring this great piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday we marked the 45th anniversary of Ohio's native son Neil Armstrong taking what he famously called ``one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.''

Neil Armstrong was born in 1930 on a farm near Wapakoneta. He earned his student's pilot license at age 16, reached the rank of Eagle Scout, and graduated from Blume High School before enrolling at Purdue University on a Navy scholarship.

He was called to active duty by the Navy in 1949, serving as a naval aviator until 1952. He later served 17 years as an engineer, test pilot, astronaut, and administrator for NASA and its predecessor agency.

Despite his lifetime of service, he is best remembered for one day: July 20, 1969, when he capped a 240,000-mile journey through space, stepped off the ``Eagle,'' and became the first human to walk on the surface of the moon.

Neil Armstrong died in 2012 at the age of 82, but the impact of his journey is still felt today--in rural Auglaize County, Ohio, and throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, we honor Neil Armstrong for his service and sacrifice-- this day and always.

Mr. Speaker, my scheduled flight into Washington yesterday was delayed significantly by bad weather. As a result, I was absent from the House floor during Wednesday's two rollcall votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both H. Res. 599 and H.R. 503.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Look, here is what we know: Lois Lerner was at the center of this scandal right from the get-go.

We know that she waived her Fifth Amendment rights on two separate occasions. She came in front of the committee, as the chairman pointed out, and made multiple factual statements. When you do that, when you make all kinds of assertions, you then don't get a chance to say: oh, now, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privileges.

She waived it a second time when she agreed to be interviewed by the Department of Justice. Think about that. She is willing to sit down with the people who can put her in jail, but she is not willing to answer our questions.

When you waive it in one proceeding, you can't exercise it somewhere else, according to the case law here in the District of Columbia.

Here is what we also know: John Koskinen, the new IRS Commissioner, says it may take as many as 2 years for him to get us all Lois Lerner's emails.

Most importantly, we know Lois Lerner and the Internal Revenue Service systematically targeted American citizens, systematically targeted groups for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Think about that for a second, Mr. Chairman. Think about your First Amendment rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech--and speech, in particular--that is political. To speak out against your government, your most fundamental right, that is what they targeted.

So to get to the truth, we need to use every tool we can to compel Ms. Lerner, the lady at the center of the scandal, to come forward and answer our questions so the American people can understand why their First Amendment rights were targeted because we know--we know the criminal investigation at the Department of Justice is a sham. They have already leaked to The Wall Street Journal. No one is going to be prosecuted.

They already had the head of the Executive Branch, the President of the United States, go on national television and say no corruption, not even a smidgeon; and the person leading the investigation is a maxed- out contributor to the President's campaign.

We know that is not going to work

The only route to the truth is through the House of Representatives and compelling Ms. Lerner to answer our questions. That is why this resolution is so important. That is why I am supporting it. That is why I hope my colleagues on the other side will support it as well. It is about this most fundamental right, and Ms. Lerner is at the center of the storm. We want her simply--simply--to answer the questions.

I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding and for all of his good work.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from Texas said in her opening statement that there has been no conclusion to the investigation. Yes, there has, and Ms. Lerner knows it.

Why do you think Ms. Lerner is willing to sit down with the Justice Department and answer their questions? She knows the fix is in. She knows it has already been prejudged and decided.

When the Department of Justice leaks to The Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be referred for prosecution, she knows she is just fine. The investigation is over. They are not doing it.

When the President, who is the highest elected official in this land, goes on national television and says there is nothing there, not even a smidgen, Ms. Lerner knows the fix is in.

Let's review the facts with a quick timeline. On May 10 of last year, Ms. Lerner goes in front of a bar association group here in town and, with a planted question, tells that group and tells the whole country that conservative groups were targeted for exercising their First Amendment free speech rights.

She did that before the inspector general's report was made public. It is unprecedented what she did, not only in her actions, but in her spilling the beans before the report was issued.

On May 13, we get the report from the inspector general that says, in fact, the targeting of conservative groups did take place at the IRS.

On May 14 of last year, the Attorney General launches a criminal investigation and says that what took place was outrageous and unacceptable, and the President of the United States says that what took place was inexcusable.

In June of last year, in the Judiciary Committee, we had then-FBI Director Mueller in front of the committee, and we asked him three simple questions: Who is the lead agent? How many agents have you assigned to the case? Have you talked to any of the victims?

This was a month into this. This was the biggest story in the country at the time, and the FBI Director's response was: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

There were seven written inquiries to Justice, asking: Can you tell us some basics about the investigation? Who is, in fact, leading it? Is it truly Barbara Bosserman, as we believe?

Everyone tells us--the witnesses we have interviewed: she is leading the investigation.

How many agents have you assigned? There were seven different inquiries with no responses from the Department of Justice.

On January 13 of this year, as I said earlier, the FBI leaks to The Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be referred for prosecution.

In February, the President says no corruption, not even a smidgen; then we learned Barbara Bosserman, a maxed-out contributor to the President's campaign, was leading the investigation.

Now, take that fact pattern, and apply it to the elements that the Attorney General looks at when you are deciding if you are going to have a special prosecutor. The chairman pointed out, in his opening statement, three elements the Code of Federal Regulations requires for the AG to appoint a special counsel.

It is when he determines these three things:

One, that a criminal investigation of a person or of a matter is warranted; of course, it is warranted. The AG already said it was. This is a big matter. This is a violation of people's First Amendment rights, and the Ways and Means Committee has already said Ms. Bosserman should be referred for prosecution.

The second element, that the investigation by the United States Attorneys' Office or by the litigating division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department; if we don't have a conflict of interest here, I don't know where we do.

The President has prejudged the outcome, the FBI has leaked to The Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be prosecuted, prejudging the outcome, and the lead investigator is a maxed-out contributor to the DNC and to the President's campaign.

Finally, the third element, that it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel; frankly, I would think the Attorney General would want this.

There are all kinds of Americans who think this thing is not being done in an impartial and fair manner. I would think the Attorney General would want to pick someone who is above reproach, that he would want to pick someone whom everyone agrees is going to do a fair job.

Why have this cloud hanging over the investigation that the person leading it gave $6,750 to the President's campaign? That is all this asks.

This should be something that the administration should want to do because it clears up, in people's minds all across this country, that we are going to get to the truth and that we are going to have a real investigation.

Never forget what took place here. This is so important. People's most fundamental right--your right to speak out and the First Amendment right to speak out against your government--was targeted.

That is why we need to get to the truth, and that is why we need a special counsel who will do a real investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just, in response to the ranking member, it is not 39 interviews; it is 40. We just did another one yesterday, and that is going to lead to another one because we learned information in that interview yesterday.

The minority staff has released parts of every single one of those depositions. We will release them all when we hear from Lois Lerner. We want to get to the truth. That is what this resolution is all about.

Here is what we did learn yesterday. In the 40th, Richard Pilger, from the Department of Justice said this:

In the fall of 2010, at the direction of the chief of the Public Integrity Section, Jack Smith, I contacted Lois Lerner at the IRS.

So we know now Justice and the IRS were working together back in 2010, all the more reason why we need to hear from Lois Lerner; and the only way to make that happen, the only way to get to the truth is through the House of Representatives using every tool we have to compel Ms. Lerner to come talk to us because we know the fix is in with the Justice Department's investigation.

The fix is in. We all know that. The only route to the truth on something as fundamental as your free speech rights--First Amendment rights to exercise speech in a political fashion--is through the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just say: When do you stop blaming the former President? For goodness' sake, we are in the fifth year of the Obama Presidency. Here is the problem. The first year of Ronald Reagan's second term, the growth rate, the economic growth rate, was 7\1/2\ percent. For goodness' sake. Ronald Reagan was able to turn things around that quickly. We are meandering along, bouncing along at a pathetic 2 percent growth rate. We could be so much better if we had the right policies in place and pass the right kind of budget and the right kind of vision for the country. That is the point the gentleman is making. Quit blaming George Bush. We are in the fifth year of the Obama Presidency. If you want to look to a comparison: the fifth year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, a 7\1/2\ percent growth rate.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, like I assume everyone who speaks on this amendment is going to do today. It is amazing the other party--everyone is opposed to it.

Here is what it does simply: you cut to the chase, it hollows out national defense, it raises trillions in new taxes over the next 10 years, add about $8 trillion to the national debt--from $17 trillion to approximately $25 trillion--it does all that, never, ever, ever getting to balance.

Sometimes, we talk about numbers. Here is why it matters. In the end, you think about what makes the country special, moms and dads making sacrifices, so their kids can have a life better than they did, that they can get to their goals.

With this kind of vision and this kind of budget, this kind of plan for where we are going to go, it will make it that much tougher for young people to get the opportunities they need to experience the American Dream.

That is why it is so important. All those policies that the ranking member mentioned in his opening statement, they are in this budget. This is not a political stunt. This is just putting up what the President says is actually going to make the country better. We know it is going to make the country worse. We are offering a chance for the Democrats to stand up and defend this, and they won't.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. It is same old, same old; cut national defense, raise taxes, add to the debt, never ever balance, and continue to create this environment that is not conducive to economic growth.

Again, as I said to the minority whip in an earlier debate, in the fifth year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, we were growing at 7\1/2\ percent. Here, we are in the fifth year of the Obama Presidency, meandering along, bumping along at 2 percent growth rate, that is the problem.

This budget will continue that same poor economic performance, and that is why we should vote against it.

I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I join my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) in drawing attention to an event that is set to unfold on April 17 at USA Wrestling's National Open in Las Vegas, where Mr. Peter J. Wirs is set to become what I am told is the oldest person ever to step onto an international freestyle wrestling mat for his very first competitive match.

I was fortunate to be involved in the sport of wrestling from an early age. I know from personal experience just how much dedication and discipline the sport requires. When my teammates and I wrestled, we faced certain challenges, but the challenges Pete Wirs faces next month are far different: He is 59 years old, has suffered a heart attack and two strokes, and has diabetes.

While my colleague from Pennsylvania spoke about the importance of Mr. Wirs overcoming diabetes to wrestle, I would also note the corollary: He chose wrestling as the sport to overcome diabetes.

Wrestling is demanding. Who wins and who loses is decided solely by the two individuals squaring off on the mat. People have different opinions about what percent of training is physical and what percent is mental, but everyone agrees that wrestling is an incredibly demanding sport, both physically and emotionally.

Former Speaker Dennis Hastert, a former wrestling coach, often commented on the courage, discipline, and perseverance that wrestling demands. Paraphrasing the old introduction to ABC's Wide World of Sports, wrestling demonstrates the ``thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.''

That will be very important to remember on April 17, when Pete Wirs steps onto the mat. From one wrestler to another and one public official to another, I wish him the best of luck.

Mr. Speaker, you may remember that the International Olympic Committee's executive board voted last year to expel wrestling from the Summer Games. Thanks to the outcry from ordinary citizens from across America and around the world, the IOC General Assembly ultimately reversed the board's decision and reinstated the sport. But this decision gives wrestling only a temporary reprieve. It is still on probation, with its status in the future facing further challenges.

Our country should celebrate the thousands of amateur athletes who train for and compete in the sport of wrestling. Today, I am honored to commend Pete Wirs and all who rise to the challenge.

Mr. Speaker, the independent contractor said they were unable to adequately test the confidentiality and integrity of the system. They said no complete end-to-end testing was done. The chief information security officer recommended not launching it, her boss refused to sign the authority to operate, and they launched it anyway. They knew, the administration knew this Web site wasn't ready; they launched it anyway. The whole country now knows it wasn't ready. They launched it anyway, put millions of people's personal information at risk, and they did it for political reasons.

Now all we are asking--all we are asking--is when there is a breach, when there is a problem, at least tell the American citizens. You already launched a Web site for political reasons that you knew wasn't ready, put millions of Americans' personal information at risk. You already did that. Now we are saying, if there is a problem, at least tell them. That is all this bill does.

And what does the administration say? We are going to veto that bill if it happens.

You have got to be kidding me. You have got to be kidding me. That is all this is about.

So I want to commend Mr. Pitts, the committee, and those individuals who put work into this. It is a good piece of legislation, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame will hold a ceremony in Columbus next week to mark the induction of its 2013 class. I am honored to commend to the House one of these inductees: the late John F. ``Jack'' Kuffner of St. Marys, who served as an aerographer in the United States Navy from 1946 to 1948.

An attorney for more than a half century, Mr. Kuffner served the people of Auglaize County as assistant prosecuting attorney and later as prosecuting attorney. He was subsequently elected to the Auglaize County Common Pleas Court, receiving the Ohio Supreme Court's Award for Superior Judicial Service. Judge Kuffner was past president of the Auglaize County Bar Association, an honorary

lifetime member of the Ohio State Bar Association, and a 50-year member of the American Bar Association.

Judge Kuffner's devotion to community service provides us with an outstanding model of civic participation. President of the local Jaycees and member of the Fraternal Order of Eagles Lodge 767, he was a charter member of the St. Marys Kiwanis Club, founded in 1956. He received Mason of the Year honors in 2008 and was a 50-year member of Mercer Lodge No. 121. A life member of VFW Post 9289 and American Legion Post 323, he also held numerous offices through the years at Zion Lutheran Church in St. Marys.

Mr. Speaker, selection for the Hall of Fame is a high honor accorded to no more than 20 Ohioans each year. To be considered for induction, individuals must not only serve the nation honorably in the military, but also reflect the high value of service to others in their post- military careers.

I am pleased to join in the accolades for Judge Jack Kuffner and his inestimable record of service as he is inducted posthumously into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a brave young Ohio soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this great country, Army Staff Sergeant Sonny C. Zimmerman.

Sonny graduated from Waynesfield-Goshen High School in 2005 and served his first tour in Afghanistan 2006. His fellow soldiers knew him as a leader and spoke freely of the times he helped them, stood up for them, and sacrificed for them.

Chaplain Brian Fruchey mentioned how Sonny always said, ``I have to bring my guys home,'' and noted that he always put himself last.

Sonny Zimmerman was a decorated hero who served with courage and honor. He died on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, in Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife, Morgan; daughter, Riley; parents, Chris and Michelle; stepfather, David; two sisters; and other loving family.

I was touched to see how many of Sonny's friends, family, and neighbors came together in his hometown of Waynesfield to honor his life and sacrifice.

He volunteered to serve. He loved the Army, loved his country, and fought to promote freedom. For this, each and every American owes him and his family a debt of gratitude.

Sonny Zimmerman will be deeply missed, but the strength of his character and the courage he demonstrated through his service will live on.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during last night's three rollcall votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 876, H.R. 253, and H.R. 862.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank you for your leadership on this most fundamental, most basic of issues.

You think about the folks who started this place, this experiment in freedom we call America. In Europe they said you have to practice your faith a certain way. And they said, No, we don't, and we're willing to risk it all. We'll get on a boat and risk everything and practice our faith the way we think the good Lord wants us to. And they did. They risked everything to come here for that fundamental principle.

This experiment in freedom we call America, the greatest nation in history, was founded on that simple, yet basic and profound principle.

The document that started it all--it's probably been talked about, I haven't been here for the whole hour--but the document that started it all, the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights.

The document that started this experiment in freedom started with this simple concept that there is a Creator, and that's where we derive our rights from. Not gifts from government, not grants from government, but gifts from the Creator. Gifts from God. And here's why this is so important: because this attack on this basic and most fundamental principle is not isolated.

Think about what we are witnessing in this country today regarding so many of your liberties. Start with the one we are talking about tonight, the most basic, your First Amendment right to practice your faith the way you think the good Lord wants you to. There is an attack on our First Amendment religious liberty rights. But there

is also a First Amendment attack on freedom of the press. We now know that what this Justice Department did relative to Mr. Rosen, First Amendment attack on freedom of the press. There is a violation, an attack on your First Amendment rights to free speech, political speech, as evidenced by the IRS issue. There are attacks on your Second Amendment rights. And as we just learned this past week, potentially your Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

So this is critical because this is the issue that started it all, but it's also critical when viewed in context, when viewed in the overall attack on freedom, the overall attack on the Constitution, the overall attack on the Bill of Rights. And that's why I applaud the gentleman from Nebraska for his leadership, and as he well said, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) on the other side of the aisle, who understands these basic principles and basic freedoms, and how central they are to the American experience and to what we call the United States of America.