Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Arizona, Representative Ann Kirpatrick, for introducing H.R. 4416, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 161 Live Oak Street in Miami, Arizona, as the Staff Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza Post Office Building. Manuel Verdugo Mendoza was born in 1922 in Miami, Arizona. Manuel was known as a man who worked hard to provide for his family. He married his wife, Alice Gaona, in August 1942, and was drafted into the Army in November of that same year. Just this year, Manuel was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on October 4, 1944, in Italy. On that day, Staff Sergeant Mendoza is credited with breaking up a German counterattack of 200 troops. After World War II, Staff Sergeant Mendoza went on to serve with distinction in the Korean war before being honorably discharged in 1954. Staff Sergeant Mendoza passed away at the age of 79 in 2001. He was survived by his wife, two daughters, and a son. In addition to the Medal of Honor, he also received the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and a host of other honors and distinctions. We should pass this bill today to recognize Staff Sergeant Mendoza's service to our Nation and bravery in combat. With that, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the distinguished sponsor of the bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 3027, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 442 Miller Valley Road in Prescott, Arizona, as the Barry M. Goldwater Post Office. I think we are all aware of the remarkable service from the five-term Senator from Arizona, Barry Morris Goldwater. Senator Goldwater was born in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 2, 1909. In 1930, Senator Goldwater took over his family's business, and in 1934, he married Margaret ``Peggy'' Johnson, with whom he had four children. During World War II, Senator Goldwater served as a pilot and flew over the Himalayas to deliver supplies to the Republic of China in their fight against the Empire of Japan. Senator Goldwater was a man of courage. He was a dedicated public servant who spoke his mind, stood firm on his beliefs, and worked tirelessly for his constituents. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to honor Senator Goldwater and remember his legislative accomplishments, his skill in forging compromises, and his commitment to saying what he believed, so I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am very pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 3534, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 West Michigan Avenue in Jackson, Michigan, as the Officer James Bonneau Memorial Post Office. James Bonneau was a native of Canton, Michigan. He graduated with a degree in criminal justice from Eastern Michigan University in 2006. James graduated at the top of his class from Lansing Community College's Mid-Michigan Police Academy and subsequently joined the Jackson Police Department. On March 9, 2010, Officer Bonneau was following up on a domestic disturbance call when he was tragically shot and killed. Bonneau is survived by his parents, Marc and Amy Bonneau, as well as his fiancee, Rachael Maloney. Passing this bill will help recognize Officer Bonneau's police service as well as his dedication and commitment to his family, the police department, and his community. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Chairman Issa for all of his support. We couldn't have done it without him and his hard work on this issue. There is something that we are clearly bipartisan on, and that is making sure that whistleblowers are protected. It is so very, very important. It plays such a vital role. There is certain information that we would never get under any circumstances if it were not for them. If they are not protected or they feel threatened by exposing problems in government they will be harmed, that is not healthy for our government. It is not healthy for our country and certainly makes it almost impossible for us to reach the highest level of effectiveness and efficiency in our committee. I want to thank him and all the members of our committee. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Benghazi was a tragedy. We lost four brave Americans that night, and I extend my deepest sympathies to their families. In my opinion, we honor their memories best by bringing their killers to justice and by working in a bipartisan way to strengthen security for all U.S. personal overseas. As family members of Ambassador Stevens have stated, ``What Chris never would have accepted was the idea that his death would have been used for political purposes.'' Unfortunately, that is what House Republicans have been doing for the last year and a half. On April 23, 2013, the Republican chairmen of five different House committees issued a highly partisan staff report with absolutely no consultation or input from a single Democratic Member of the Congress of the United States of America. Their report included a reckless accusation that Secretary Clinton personally authorized security reductions in Benghazi. Chairman Issa then went on national television and said, Secretary Clinton ``outright denied security, in her signature, in a cable.'' When we located the cable, however, we discovered that the Republican report distorted the facts. The cable had only a printed stamp of Secretary Clinton's name, the same stamp that appears on hundreds of thousands of cables sent from the State Department every year. This report was issued under the direction of the Speaker. It was posted on his Web site, and it was prepared only for Members of the House Republican Conference. How is this a bipartisan search for the truth? House Republicans have also excluded Democratic Members from fact- finding delegations to Libya, in violation of the rules issued by the Speaker. How is that bipartisan? Democratic Members have been denied equal access to witnesses, and Republicans have selectively leaked documents and cherry-picked transcript excerpts without any official committee consideration. How is that bipartisan? Republicans have also been doing something worse. They have been using the deaths of these four Americans for political campaign fundraising. I call on the Speaker of the House to end that process right now. For example, on February 17, Chairman Issa traveled to New Hampshire to attend a political fundraiser, where he spoke about Benghazi. He suggested during his speech that our military's response on the night of the attacks was deficient because Secretary Clinton ordered Defense Secretary Panetta to ``stand down.'' That was a shocking accusation, and he had absolutely no evidence--none--to support it. In my opinion, his statements were reprehensible not only to the Secretary of State but to our brave men and women in uniform. And so today, we are here to consider a resolution to create another partisan committee to investigate what the Speaker and his five chairmen have already been investigating. With all due respect, if the Republicans want to fix the problems with their partisan investigation, they need more than just a new chairman. They need a new approach. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), and I am glad that he said that fundraising should not be done on the deaths of these four people, and I hope that the Republican Conference will finally agree with that. We are better than that. They need a new approach, one that is truly bipartisan, and one that seeks the facts before drawing conclusions, rather than the other way around.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we are talking about the constitutional rights of a United States citizen, and we do not have the right to remain silent, as Members of Congress, if those rights are being trampled on. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished leader.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just shy of 1 year ago, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported the IRS had used inappropriate criteria to review applicants for tax-exempt status. The very same day, Chairman Issa went on national TV, before he received a single document or interviewed a single witness, and said the following: ``This was the targeting of the President's political enemies effectively, and lies about it during the election year.'' Republicans have spent the past year trying to prove these allegations. The IRS has spent more than $14 million responding to Congress and has produced more than a half a million pages of documents. We have interviewed 39 witnesses, 40 witnesses, IRS witnesses, Treasury Department employees; and after all of that, we have not found any evidence of White House involvement or political motivation. Yesterday, I issued a report with key portions from the nearly 40 interviews conducted by the committee to date; and these were witnesses, Mr. Speaker, called by the majority. These interviews showed, definitively, that there was no evidence of any White House direction or political bias; instead they describe in detail how the inappropriate terms were first developed and how there was inadequate guidance on how to process the application. Now, let me be clear that I am not defending Ms. Lerner. I wanted to hear what she had to say. I have questions about why she was unaware of the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after they were created. I want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to Congress, but I could not vote to violate an individual's Fifth Amendment rights, just because I want to hear what she has to say. A much greater principle is at stake here today, the sanctity of the Fifth Amendment rights for all citizens of the United States of America; and I will not walk a path that has been tread by Senator McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. In this case, a vote for contempt not only would endanger the rights of American citizens, but it would be a pointless and costly exercise. When Senator McCarthy pursued a similar case, the judge dismissed it. The Supreme Court has said that a witness does not waive her rights by professing her innocence. In addition, more than 30 independent experts have now come forward to conclude that Chairman Issa botched the contempt procedure by not giving Ms. Lerner the proper warnings at the March 5 hearing, when he rushed to cut off my microphone and adjourn the hearing before any Democrat had the chance to utter a syllable. For instance, Stan Brand, who served as the House Counsel from 1976 to 1983, concluded that Chairman Issa's actions were ``fatal to any subsequent prosecution.'' The experts who came forward are from all across the country and all across the political spectrum. J. Richard Broughton, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and a law professor, concluded that Ms. Lerner ``would likely have a defense to any ensuing criminal prosecution for contempt pursuant to the existing Supreme Court precedent.'' I didn't say that. The Republican National Lawyers Association member said that. Rather than squandering our valuable resources, pursuing a contempt vote that more than 30 independent experts have concluded will fail in court, we should release the nearly 40 transcripts, in their entirety, that have not yet been made public and allow all Americans to read the unvarnished facts for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as Professor Green of Fordham University has said, it is explicit that a person does not waive a Fifth Amendment right by answering questions outside of a formal setting or by making statements that were not under oath, when he referred to the issue of her making statements to the Justice Department. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier), a member of our committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman who just spoke, even the IG found that Lois Lerner did not learn about these inappropriate terms until about a year afterwards, the IG that was appointed by a Republican President. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I close, I want to remind all of my colleagues, several references have been made to the oath that we take every 2 years in this Chamber. Every 2 years we stand in this Chamber and we say: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the first words we say. It is interesting that at the beginning of that swearing in is that we will defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Yesterday we had a very interesting argument in rules when one of the members of the Rules Committee questioned whether when one becomes a public employee, whether they then lose their rights as an American citizen. It is clear that those rights do stand, no matter whether you are a public servant or whether you are a janitor at some coffee shop. We are in a situation today where we need to be very clear what is happening. Not since McCarthy has this been tried, that is the stripping away of an American citizen's constitutional right not to incriminate themselves and then holding them in contempt criminally. McCarthy. We are better than that. We are so much better. The idea that somebody can come in after their lawyer has sent a letter in saying they are going to take the Fifth, then the lawyer comes in, sits behind them while they take the Fifth, then the person says they are taking the Fifth, and then suddenly when they say, ``I declare my innocence,'' we say, ``Gotcha.'' The Supreme Court has said this is not a gotcha moment. It is not about that. The Supreme Court has said these rights, no matter how much we may not like the person who we are talking about, no matter how much we may think they are hiding, they have rights. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make sure that they vote against this, because this is about generations yet unborn, how they will view us during our watch. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would say to the gentleman that is leaving the floor now who just spoke: the arguments do matter. This is still the United States of America. We still have constitutional rights, which we declare we will uphold every 2 years. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, we are. Mr. Speaker, about how much time do I have?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the motion to refer this matter back to committee. Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that the waiver of Fifth Amendment rights is ``not lightly to be inferred.'' That is exactly what happened when the Oversight Committee held a party line vote finding that Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privilege without holding even one hearing with one legal expert. Experts who have reviewed the record before the committee conclude that Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights by declaring her innocence. Now, more than 30 independent legal experts have also come forward to conclude that the chairman, Chairman Issa, botched the contempt procedure when he abruptly ended our committee hearing and cut off my microphone before any Democratic members had a chance to utter a single syllable. In other words, these experts say a judge will likely throw this case out of court. Let me be clear that I am not defending Lois Lerner's mismanagement at the IRS; but as a Member of Congress, I have sworn, like my colleagues, to protect every citizen's rights under the Constitution of the United States of America, and I do not take that obligation lightly. I believe that it is irresponsible to move forward today without ever having held a single hearing to hear from a single legal expert on this constitutional question. I asked for this hearing more than 9 months ago, but my request was rejected, so this motion would require the Oversight Committee to do what it should have done a long time ago. This motion also would direct the committee to release publicly the full transcripts from all the interviews of the IRS and Treasury employees that our committee staff conducted during the investigation. These 39 transcripts show that there is no evidence of any White House involvement or any political motivation in the IRS' review of these tax-exempt applicants. I remind the Speaker that these 39 witnesses are witnesses that were called by the majority. They are the ones who sat down with a bipartisan group of employees from the majority and the minority and went through the questioning. Instead, these interviews show exactly how the employees in Cincinnati first developed the inappropriate criteria. They tell the story. They tell the story. They show how Lois Lerner failed to discover these criteria for more than a year and that, when she learned of them, she immediately ordered them to stop being used. In June of last year, Chairman Issa promised on national television that, at some point, he would release all of the transcripts. That needs to be done sooner, rather than later; but the chairman has repeatedly blocked my efforts to do so, even with his own redactions. You may hear him say that he does not want to release transcripts now because they would provide a roadmap to our questions to future witnesses. I can understand that. I have made the same arguments myself on many occasions. With all due respect, he crossed that bridge a long, long, long time ago. He has released selected excerpts from these transcripts on more than a dozen occasions, and he has allowed reporters to come into his committee offices to review some transcripts in their entirety. It is time to put out the whole story, so the American people can read the facts for themselves, instead of just cherry-picking pieces leaked to further a political narrative. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am prepared to close. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to hide. We need to release the transcripts, and just as significantly, we need to hear from the experts. This is a very, very serious issue, and I think that Members of Congress deserve to have the expertise presented before them, so that they can make a judgment. A lot of our Members are laypersons, and I think that it is only appropriate, under these circumstances, that they be given this opportunity. I would ask the Members to vote in favor of my motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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