Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how many additional speakers my friend from Georgia foresees?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, I see that my dear colleague, Jim Langevin, has arrived. He is the sponsor of H.R. 439 which is the Future Farmers of America charter revision bill. He is the sponsor of that bill. He was on his way from the airport. His flight was delayed, but he is here now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, while I do not believe Federal prosecutors are neglecting the pursuit of serious criminals by bringing charges under Criminal Code provisions that H.R. 498 would repeal, this bill serves as an important reminder that Congress should be careful not to enact new criminal penalties when they are not warranted. We must resist overcriminalization, which fosters disrespect for the seriousness of the law and leads to collateral consequences for offenders that are often catastrophic to them and their ability to function in and contribute to their communities. It is my hope that, in this new Congress, we will be able to work on a bipartisan basis to expand our efforts to make our criminal justice system more fair and, thereby, also more effective. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night, there was a prime-time television speech from the Oval Office, which appealed to fear, prejudice, and anger. The argument was for a border wall by stereotyping and demonizing people coming to America seeking asylum, safety, and refuge from the violence caused by the war on drugs this administration is escalating in Central and South America. With provocative anecdotes about violence and fear-mongering rhetoric, he used the word ``illegal'' 12 times throughout the entire speech, which was undertaken amidst what is shaping up to be the longest government shutdown in the Nation's history. Never once did he mention the Federal workers who won't receive a paycheck this week--not once. His purpose was to create a state of anxiety about our national security in an effort to convince Republican Members of Congress and the American people to stay with him on his narcissistic quest for billions of dollars to build his big, beautiful wall that he promised Mexico would pay for, but now he is demanding that the American people pay for it. That doesn't add up, ladies and gentlemen. What is not understood is that we are not a country that cowers or bends in dread to a hostage taker. To quote President Truman: ``America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination, and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.'' The job at hand for this President right now, and for this Congress, is to reopen the government. Then we can all go to work to address skyrocketing drug prices and ensure affordable healthcare. For the people, we must go to work creating high-wage jobs and fixing our Nation's decaying infrastructure. For our children and our grandchildren, we must build a greener economy and prioritize protecting our planet. These are meaningful and worthy goals. Our job is not to waste billions on an ineffective border wall while spreading xenophobic lies. Numerous disingenuous statistics were used the other night to back up his claims of a crisis. Here are some statistics, based on facts, to clarify the falsehoods perpetuated on the American people in that Oval Office speech: One, the truth is that immigration from the southern border has significantly decreased in the last 10 years, disproving what was said. This gentleman wants us to think that this Nation is being overrun. In 2006, there were more than 1 million unauthorized immigrants apprehended at the southern border, but, in 2018, there were less than 400,000. Two, immigration does not strain our economy and public resources. In fact, immigrants added an estimated $2 trillion to the United States GDP in 2016. Additionally, unauthorized immigrants contributed significantly to Medicare and Social Security. From 2000 to 2011, they contributed $35.1 billion more to Medicare than they withdrew. Finally, of the 361,993 unauthorized immigrants apprehended by September of fiscal year 2018, less than 1 percent had a violent criminal record. Studies have also proven that immigrants do not increase local crime rates, and they are less likely to cause crime or be incarcerated as our citizens. President Trump's border wall concept was not created by law enforcement specialists, and his justification for wasting taxpayer money on a wall is not based on sound argument. This idea began where most of the President's ideas are born, and that is on the campaign trail. It is an idea unworthy of consideration from Congress. Our constituents and our country deserve better. Trump has built his political career by demonizing and stereotyping many different groups of people. His speech Tuesday night was no different. We, as Americans, cannot fall prey to his fear-mongering, and we cannot allow President Trump to hold Federal workers hostage. Let's go to work and reopen this government now.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today for our veterans and government employees out of work due to the Trump shutdown. On day one, House Democrats took steps to restore certainty to people's lives by passing a complete funding package to reopen the government. Now we are preparing further action to reopen government, so that we can meet the needs of the American people, protect our borders, and respect our workers. In fact, one of my constituents who works for the IRS and specializes in helping hurricane victims told me that he and his wife, who is also a Federal employee, both are affected by the shutdown, and they cannot pay this month's mortgage and their other bills. Madam Speaker, he worked 12 hours a day in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael. He was there for the people of Georgia. It is past time we reopen the government and be there for our Federal workers.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1055, legislation affirming the United States' strong relationship with Liberia. Liberia gives us hope that if we are willing to face truth of our past there can be hope for unity after devastating divisions. It takes courage to honestly face your history and find ways to move forward as a country. We must commit to supporting and encouraging this burgeoning democracy. It has been an honor to work with my colleague Rep. Donovan. I am encouraged by his commitment to this cause. I am pleased to stand before you today to voice my unwavering support for H. Res. 1055 and ask for yours as well.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the H.R. 6545, the Violence Against Women Act. Today, more than ever, it is clear we as a nation must do more to protect our women and girls. The #MeToo movement has made it increasingly obvious that we are failing as a country to properly address and prevent sexual assault. Sexual violence is particularly prevalent among women of color, who are often times victims to an oppressive combination of racism and sexism. Statistics show that by the age of 18, approximately 40 percent of black women report coercive sexual contact, and that Native American women are almost two times as likely to be assaulted than their white peers. Today, I find it exceptionally important to stand as an ally to women, as Republicans attempt to push through a Supreme Court nominee who has been accused of sexual violence. I stand with my female colleagues and women across the country when I say--time's up. We must believe women and ensure our laws protect their safety and equality. I support the Violence Against Women Act and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the lead Democratic cosponsor of H.R. 6758, the SUCCESS Act. This bill takes the important step of extending for 8 more years the Patent and Trademark Office's authority to set its own fees. It is a timely bill, and it is a timely time that we are passing this bill, because the fee-setting authority for the USPTO expired on September 16 of 2018. This bill will allow the USPTO to have the ability to set the amount it charges for each of the services it provides to patent and trademark applicants. The ability to set its fees will also help the USPTO with its long- term planning. The fees are set to recover aggregate estimate costs of the patent and trademark operations, including all administrative costs. This bill would renew the USPTO's fee-setting authority consistent with the framework of the America Invents Act, which was enacted in 2011. Section 29 of the America Invents Act called for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to ``establish methods for studying the diversity of patent applicants, including those applicants who are minorities, women, or veterans.'' This bill directs the Director of the USPTO, in consultation with the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, to conduct a study on the number of patents annually applied for and obtained by U.S. women, minorities, and veterans. The study would provide recommendations to promote the participation of women and minorities in entrepreneurship and in the patent system. This data is necessary so Congress and the public can fully understand the demographic nature of the patent applicant pool. This study will be critical in developing policies to help underrepresented groups engage in entrepreneurial activities that are the backbone of our American economy. Women, racial minorities, and low-income individuals are significantly underrepresented in the innovation ecosystem. For example, the Institute for Women's Policy Research reported in 2016 less than 20 percent of U.S. patents listed one or more women as inventors, and under 8 percent listed a woman as the primary inventor. The exclusion of women, minorities, and other underserved communities is beneficial not just for inventors, but for the business sector as well. For these reasons, I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am again asking that my colleagues support this very commonsense bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of a great patriot, Representative Ron Dellums. My sincere condolences for their loss. It is my great honor to be here tonight to pay my respects to a man who was a true giant of this body, the United States House of Representatives, as well as in American life, a man who, I think we can all say with assurance, was one upon whose shoulders we all stand. Before we had the incomparable John Lewis and the inimitable Maxine Waters in Congress, there was Ron Dellums, who left us his distinct mark, not just on this august body, but the San Francisco Bay Area, the Nation, and the world. He left an indelible impression upon me as a Congressman. The greatest legacy that he left us, however, was his successor, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who carries on his legacy. For 10 years, I was honored and privileged to serve as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Ron Dellums' portrait hanging in the committee room was a constant reminder of the type of committee member who I aspired to be. ``If being an advocate of peace, justice, and humanity toward all human beings is radical, then I am glad to be called radical,'' he once said. I will repeat that: ``If being an advocate of peace, justice, and humanity toward all human beings is radical, then I am glad to be called radical.'' That is what Ron Dellums said. He further stated, ``And if it is radical to oppose the use of 70 percent of Federal moneys for destruction and war, then I am a radical.'' That quote, ladies and gentlemen, has stuck with me. It has guided me in my public service. Ron Dellums would never allow the powers that be, or the corrosive forces of Washington, D.C., to put him in a box. He never allowed labels to define who he was. Rightwing critics called him a Communist. But Ron shot back and described himself as a ``commie pinko, Afro- topped, bell-bottomed dude from Berkeley.'' He was a true Renaissance man. And he was cool before Congress knew what cool was, a bell- bottomed cat from Berkeley. Who other than Ron Dellums could rise from the streets of Oakland to become a Congressman, a mayor, and one of the guiding forces behind a 14-year campaign against apartheid in South Africa that helped bring down that racist regime? Who else but Ron Dellums could help form the Congressional Black Caucus, and from his seat and chairmanship on the powerful House Armed Services Committee propose spending not for war and weapons, but instead for education, jobs, housing, healthcare, assistance to the poor, and programs to fight drug abuse? Ladies and gentlemen, Ron Dellums set the ultimate example for us today with the powerful message and legacy of being true to one's self, a man who stood tall for the people, and not just for the people of America. Ron stood for the people of the world. He was a unique and authentic human being, and his presence will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ron for his guidance and for his example that we can look to as a beacon as we make our way, moving our country forward during these turbulent times. The lessons we have learned from his example will serve us well as we continue the good fight for peace, justice, and humanity toward all human beings.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the historic retirement of broadcast pioneer and Atlanta, Georgia, treasure, Jocelyn Dorsey. She is really a national treasure. Jocelyn's list of achievements and accolades are too long for me to recite here, but needless to say, her groundbreaking 40-plus-year career has served as an inspiration to so many, and she has been a role model to so many of us, not just African Americans, but all Americans, all Georgians. So we tip our hats to her and wish her the best in her retirement. I understand that long-distance motorcycle trips may very well be in her future. I hope that she will keep us abreast of her exploits in the future. We will miss her but know that she will always be in our hearts, and we will always look forward to hearing about her life as she proceeds on. So I congratulate Jocelyn Dorsey for a job well done.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today President Trump went to a foreign country and criticized his own country, the United States of America, while bowing and scraping to a foreign dictator, Putin. Americans must ask this obvious question, and it is: Why does President Trump refuse to criticize Vladimir Putin about anything? It must be because Putin knows something about President Trump that President Trump doesn't want the rest of us to know. If that is true, then President Trump has put his own well-being and interests above those of the Nation. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of betrayal. His actions have betrayed the confidence and the trust of the American people and could be called treasonous. Sadly, Trump's supporters must look at themselves and think whether or not they were sold out by the dog whistle ``Make America Great Again.'' They must now realize that the President has subjected himself to domination by the leader of the international white nationalist movement, Vladimir Putin.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for the time today to address this august body. Let me first compliment the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a true legal scholar, a legal patriot, and a fighter for justice throughout her life. Mr. Speaker, I want to issue this quote to you: ``No President has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.'' Mr. Speaker, those were the first words spoken by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, introduced to the American people during President Trump's prime-time reality show announcement this past Monday night. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to voice my deep concerns regarding the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It is more than a little disquieting that the first thing to come from a newly named Supreme Court nominee's mouth was a demonstrably false statement claiming that the search to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was one of the most far-reaching and thorough in the history of the republic. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh from a preapproved list of prospective right-wing ideologue nominees prepared by the extremist Heritage Foundation, in consultation with the cultish right-wing Federalist Society, each of those nominees having been certified as having passed the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation litmus test on overturning Roe v. Wade and striking down critical protections in our current healthcare system. Just 10 days after Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, Judge Kavanaugh makes the absurd statement that no President has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination. We have come to expect knowing false Trumpian statements from the President's employees, his doctor, communications directors, his press secretaries, but not from a nominee for the branch of government designated to be a check on his administration. In just a few words, Judge Kavanaugh aligned himself with the likes of erstwhile press secretary Sean Spicer, who claimed that Trump's inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's. He put himself in the same league with the disgraced doctor who felt it necessary to tell the world the spurious claim that the President was the healthiest human being in world history. That a distinguished Federal appellate judge felt the need to debase himself with obvious untruths just moments after his nomination to the highest court in the land was announced should cause each and every one of us to fear that a Justice Kavanaugh would willingly prostrate himself before a demanding President if called upon to do so. Moreover, each and every one of us has good cause to believe that the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is a blatant attempt by President Trump to dominate the judiciary. A President with the power and the predisposition to place his heavy hand on the delicate scales of justice would inevitably lead our dear Nation to the precipice of a constitutional crisis. That is why it is of such concern to me that nominee Kavanaugh felt it necessary to flatter this insecure President during their prime time reality show at the White House last week. In Washington, we talk a lot about the balance of powers, but at home, in Georgia, we feel it. We feel the 5-4 Shelby decision striking down important parts of the Voting Rights Act. We feel Roe v. Wade guaranteeing women the right to choose. We feel Citizens United. And we feel Brown v. Board of Education. We recall the power of the courts to decide so much more than individual cases. We have seen its ability to change the course of history. When one considers the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, we know firsthand that the U.S. Supreme Court can turn the American Dream into the American nightmare. Without digressing, I must point out that to conclude that a sycophantic debut is where Judge Kavanaugh's problems begin and end would be dangerously naive. The briefest of examinations of his record reveals numerous positions contrary to the values held by most Americans. He has opposed EPA protections, workers' rights, consumer protections, and the right to choose. And his personal statements call to question his ability to be an independent check on the President, such as his declarations that investigations of presidents should be deferred while that president is in office, and his opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal charges. These statements should be particularly troubling for all Americans, as the Supreme Court may soon be called upon to consider whether President Trump can be subpoenaed to appear before a Federal grand jury, or whether a sitting president can be indicted. Our democracy will need an unbiased and principled Supreme Court functioning at its finest, with due respect for the rule of law, when that time comes, and a justice who has prejudged, as Judge Kavanaugh has, would jeopardize that responsibility. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court appointment from a president who is under the cloud of investigation for conspiracy to violate the law and the obstruction of that investigation. Judge Kavanaugh's statements clearly make him suspect, and his confirmation would undermine the credibility of the Nation's highest court and impugn that court's ability to protect public confidence in the rule of law. With this cloud hanging over Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, it is necessary that the Senate refrain and keep with its tradition and follow the McConnell rule. Elections are less than 4 months away and we should allow the American people to speak at the ballot box before the Senate is asked to confirm a nominee for the highest court in the land. The delay would help ensure that Justice Kennedy's replacement is free from suspicion and bias and the inability to appreciate balance of powers concerns. Judge Kavanaugh has gone beyond his clear proclivity for being an activist judge out of line with the rest of the country. He has revealed himself to be beholden to another branch of government, which would imperil our Constitution's delicate balance of powers. Americans deserve a United States Supreme Court justice who is up to the task of protecting the rule of law without fear or favor, and, unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh's appointment is ill-considered, ill- timed, and should not move forward.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which is a Republican attempt to delay and derail the Mueller investigation. Mr. Speaker, what we have today is a Republican President who is under criminal investigation. We have a Republican-led House of Representatives that is doing its best as a cult following for the President to help him thwart the investigation, help him stop the investigation. So what this is all about today is to pass a resolution that would result in the Justice Department, which is conducting the investigation of the President, to turn over documents that go to the heart of the investigation. Now, why do they want the Department of Justice to turn that documentation over to them? Well, so that it can be leaked, leaked to FOX News, get back to the President, and then the President will be in a much better position to do what he does when it comes to being investigated criminally. And what it all adds up to, ladies and gentlemen, is politics trumping justice. You never investigate an investigation that is ongoing. You wait until that investigation is over, then you judge the investigation as to whether or not it was fair. So everything that the Republicans are doing here today is against justice; it is against the rule of law; it is against the Constitution; and it is against the America that we all hold dear. This is a stretching, a warping of the power of the legislative branch. They are seeking to use their power to put their heavy thumb and hand on the scale of justice. I heard one of my colleagues say that justice should be blind, and, yes, Lady Justice does have a blindfold on so that she cannot see. What these Republicans are trying to do today, ladies and gentlemen, is to remove the blindfold on Lady Justice to let Lady Justice reveal an injustice, to let this President use Lady Justice, as he has used women in the past, to take away the sanctity of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, this is hurtful to our Nation. I would ask my colleagues on the other side to please think about what they are doing.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, our job as legislators is to listen to each other and find common ground, to compromise for the good of the American people. Today, Trump Republicans are trying to do comprehensive immigration reform without any committee hearings with Democrats, with no consultation. This is a spectacle trying to pass legislation on such an important subject in such a haphazard and slipshod manner. Congress can certainly do better than this, and the American people deserve better than this. Never again should these Trump Republicans ever claim that they adhere to regular order. The integrity of our process in this House depends upon careful consideration of bills through regular order so that only thoughtful legislation is passed. In our consideration of important legislation, the debate and the ability to compromise are essential. Sadly, I fear that we have lost the ability to engage in honest debate and we have lost the will to compromise. Though the ability to compromise is important, we Democrats can't agree to lock up children in cages. We can't agree to a bill that leaves Dreamers behind. Compromise does not allow us to turn our backs on asylum seekers or to stop family immigration or to kill the diversity visa program or waste billions of dollars building Trump's border wall. This bill does all those things. We have a national crisis on our hands, and as we speak, 2,300 children have been torn away from the arms of their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, and it is our job to remedy this disgrace and reunite these families. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to support the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act. A bipartisan solution is out there, but clearly this bill is not it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as I speak, the Trump Republicans wrestle another child from the arms of a refugee parent at our southern border, but I still rise today to honor World Refugee Day. Every year, thousands of refugees journey to the United States of America in search of safety, be it from human rights violations, warfare, natural disasters, or the war on drugs. We pride ourselves on being a nation of immigrants. I am proud that Clarkston, Georgia, known as the Ellis Island of the South, is in my district. But Trump Republicans have lain waste to our custom of welcoming asylum seekers as they commit the inhumane practice of separating children from their parents at the border. America is weakened in the eyes of the world, and separating families is our national shame. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the Keep Families Together Act. Congress must act now on this important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the primary sponsor of H.R. 1960, a bill originally introduced by Representative Slaughter of New York, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that this body oppose H.R. 2152, which is a classic piece of legislation which poses itself as a solution, but it is in search of a problem. The solution has very ominous consequences for minorities and poor people, and infringes on the constitutional rights of citizens, that they should be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty when they participate in these pretrial release services. When I was a magistrate court judge in DeKalb County, Georgia, over a period of 12 years, starting in 1989 to a time about 5 years before I came to Congress, it was my duty to commit people to pretrial services. Everybody knows how it works, everybody knows who is eligible, and everybody knows that it is a roaring success. There are no problems with pretrial services, which help poor people and basically minorities, who tend to be disproportionately caught up in the criminal justice system. It helps people who can't afford to make a money bail to be able to get out of jail with some minimal supervision as they await disposition of the charges against them. It is a simple program administered by State and local authorities around the country. It works. There is no question about it. There is no need for any Federal supervision or oversight of these programs. What H.R. 2152 would do would be to require local governments who receive DOJ funding for pretrial services to send a report to the DOJ, the Jeff Sessions DOJ, detailing the personally identifiable information on those defendants participating in alternative bail/ pretrial release programs, which are typically utilized by those who can't afford money bail. Sending this information to the DOJ will create a permanent record of the defendants who are awaiting trial, and that data will remain in a Federal database, even if the charges against the accused are dropped or the accused is found innocent. Pretrial service programs are critical in protecting those who are unable to post bond during their pretrial stages, and this legislation would disproportionately impact minorities and poor people. The presumption of innocence is one of the most sacred elements of our criminal justice system and a pillar of many modern-day criminal justice operations in modern society throughout the world. H.R. 2152 threatens this right to a presumption of innocence. Pretrial service programs are critical, and poor people and minorities should not be penalized by being permanently marked in a Federal database, and for that reason I ask my colleagues to not approve this solution in desperate search for a problem with ominous implications for poor and minority people.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Buddy Carter for yielding to me. For the record, I want it to be known that it was he who called me yesterday to find out what color suit and tie I was going to wear. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Georgian and a great American, former Georgia Governor and U.S. Senator Zell Miller, who died at the age of 86 in March. He was a north Georgia mountain boy of humble beginnings, who was raised by a single parent after his daddy died when he was just 2 weeks old. He was raised in a house that his momma built with her own hands. Former Presidents, Governors, and dignitaries from all over the country and the world have honored Mr. Miller, who launched the State's HOPE Scholarship and led Georgia into the 21st century. He was a true statesman, who served Georgia and his country as, first, a United States Marine, then as mayor of Young Harris, later serving as a State senator, thereafter as Lieutenant Governor, and then as Governor, and finally as United States Senator. Zell Miller dedicated his life to public service. He was a man physically compact and a bit short, but he walked tall and he walked strong, and he left a towering legacy. A small town mountain boy from the little town of Young Harris, Zell Miller made a big impact on the affairs of Georgia and, indeed, the affairs of the Nation. Zell Miller left a huge impact on Georgia's judicial system. He literally changed the face of the State bench. I include in the Record an article I found of particular interest from the Fulton County Daily Report, dated March 23, 2018, by managing editor Jonathan Ringel. The article is entitled, ``The Late Zell Miller Diversified the Bench.'' The Late Zell Miller Diversified the Bench (By Jonathan Ringel, March 23, 2018) The news today that former Georgia governor and U.S. senator Zell Miller has died at age 86 prompts us to look back on the mark he left on Georgia's legal system--that of being the first governor to appoint a large number of minorities and women to judgeships. As a staff reporter here, I wrote the following article, which was published Dec. 28, 1998, a few days before the end of his eight-year tenure as governor. The Zell Miller Legacy: Diversity on the Bench When he leaves office next month, Gov. Zell Miller will have appointed 37 percent of Georgia's 287 trial and appellate court judges. Those numbers include four of the 10 judges now on the state Court of Appeals and five of the seven state Supreme Court justices. Moreover, Miller changed the face of the state's bench, carrying out his pledge to concentrate on diversity. Twenty-five of Miller's appointments have been black. Forty-two have been women. Eleven have been both, meaning he has added 56 black and female judges to the bench in eight years. According to Miller's office, Gov. Joe Frank Harris made 76 judicial appointments in his eight years before Miller. They included 10 black and 11 women, totaling 18 black and female judges. Even before hearing those numbers, attorneys and court watchers say diversifying the bench will be Miller's legacy to the law of Georgia. ``That's a major impact,'' says former Attorney General Michael J. Bowers of the judicial statistics. Criminal-defense lawyer John R. Martin, a harsh critic of Miller when it comes to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, calls Miller's diversifying the bench ``remarkable.`` ``That is amazing,'' says Paula J. Frederick, immediate past president of the Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys. Miller looks at his role in diversifying the bench as ironic. Appointing judges, he says, was ``the one aspect of being governor I had never thought about'' throughout 16 years of being lieutenant governor. He says he had lots of plans on taking office--such as starting the lottery-funded HOPE scholarship, but being a nonlawyer, ``I had not thought about the judiciary.'' That changed when he took office in 1991, because, along with the keys to the Governor's Mansion, Miller inherited a tricky piece of litigation. In 1988, state Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs had filed a voting rights suit against the state. They attacked the picking of judges in circuitwide at-large elections, claiming the system was discriminatory because blacks typically were outvoted by the white majority and that most judges were therefore white. Brooks v. State Board of Elections, No. CV288-146 (S.D. Ga., filed July 13, 1988). They also alleged that, since 1964, the state should have been submitting laws creating new judgeships for review by the U.S. Justice Department, under the federal Voting Rights Act. On the review issue, a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Savannah agreed with the Brooks plaintiffs. So when Miller took office, the Justice Department was holding in limbo 48 established judgeships and other judgeships created since the litigation began. ``There was a cloud hanging over the judiciary,'' recalls Troutman Sanders partner Norman L. Underwood, a former Court of Appeals judge. Miller asked Underwood to head the Judicial Nominating Commission, which since the days of Gov. Jimmy Carter had screened judicial applicants and recommended shortlists to the governor. Miller reconstituted the commission, saying he wanted to open up the process for minorities and women. He eliminated four of the five guaranteed slots for representatives of the bar, leaving only the one for the current bar president as an ex-officio member. Miller allowed the speaker of the House and the lieutenant governor to pick one nonlawyer each for the commission, and he added the attorney general. The rest of the picks--three lawyers and two nonlawyers-- remained Miller's. According to Miller's 1991 executive order, the commission must always include one woman and one member who is Black, Hispanic, Asian-Pacific American, Native American or Asian- Indian American (Daily Report, Feb 13, 1991). ``The loss of the bar seats was a bit of a disappointment,'' says Albany litigator William E. Cannon Jr., the current bar president, who disagrees with Brooks' argument at the time that the bar's majority control of the commission perpetuated a ``good of boy network.`` Underwood says there might have been a perception the prior commissions were not focused on diversity. That said, the first commission, including three black members and one woman, went about its work. Later that year, two seats opened up on DeKalb Superior Court, which had no black members. Faced with mixed race and gender shortlists sent by the commission, Miller chose Michael E. Hancock, then chief Judge in DeKalb Recorder's Court, and DeKalb State Court Judge Linda Warren Hunter, who were both African-American. Considering that more than 40 percent of DeKalb County is black but the Superior Court had no black judges, Underwood says, ``I think the governor just sensed that's unacceptable.'' Miller won't discuss any specific decisions. But he says his first appointments of minorities and women encouraged more of each group to apply. Other factors were at work, as well. Frederick, a deputy counsel to the state bar who made a shortlist for a state court position, notes that women and minorities have graduated from law school in much greater numbers over the years, adding to the available pool for Miller. In addition, the Brooks case loomed over Miller's picks throughout most of his administration. In June 1992, after six weeks of negotiations prompted by U.S. District Court Judge Anthony A. Alaimo, Miller and Brooks hammered out a historic settlement. (Daily Report, June 19, 1992) To end the case, Miller agreed to appoint 30 black judges and adopt the so-called ``Missouri plan of judicial selection, in which judges are appointed and then undergo periodic retention elections. But in March 1994, U.S. District Court Judge B. Avant Edenfield of Savannah refused to approve the settlement, ruling that Attorney General Mike Bowers lacked the authority to make such sweeping changes to the state's judicial election system and that the requirement to appoint black judges would violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Daily Report, March 9, 1994) Brooks appealed unsuccessfully for three years, finally dismissing the case last year. (Daily Report, June 23, 1997) Robert J. Proctor, who has brought numerous legal challenges to affirmative action policies around the state and opposed the Brooks settlement, says, ``I think Gov. Miller implemented the settlement anyway.'' Miller came close, appointing 25 black judges. While about 28 percent of Georgia is black, 20 percent of Miller's appointees were black and 33 percent of his appointees have been female. Brooks says, ``I think there's greater trust in the judicial system now.'' Clayton County District Attorney Robert E. Keller says, ``The bench must represent a cross-section of society,'' and credits Miller for his appointments. But Proctor, a past chairman of the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation, says judges should not be picked on the basis of race or gender. ``That whole concept is just abhorrent to me,'' Proctor says. He adds that Miller's picks do not represent the proportions of the number of black or female lawyers in the state. The state bar keeps records only on gender, says spokeswoman Jennifer Davis. She says 28 percent of the 29,523 members of the Georgia bar are women. Miller responds, ``I don't think I've done anything in my eight years as governor that pleased Bob Proctor.'' (Not true, says Proctor, who calls Miller's second term ``taxpayer-friendly.'') Miller adds, ``You don't choose anybody because they're a female or a minority,'' noting that there were many times lawyers who were considered front-runners for posts because they were women or minorities did not get the job. Besides, he adds, ``I only got very qualified individuals on the shortlists.'' Underwood recalls an opening in a circuit that stretched 90 miles from one end to the other. Miller picked a lawyer who lived in the part of the circuit where there wasn't a judge, and Underwood speculates, ``In that case, the factor on the governor's mind was geography.'' Fulton Superior Court Judge Cynthia D. Wright was Miller's executive counsel for his first term. She says, ``When you appoint a judge, you have to factor in a whole lot of subjective qualities.'' ``It is not an objective process.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Zell Miller was the first Governor to appoint a significant number of minorities and women to the Georgia bench. Zell Miller should be remembered for actually desegregating Georgia's courts. As the Daily Report article outlines, by the time Zell Miller left the Governorship in December of 1998, he had appointed 37 percent of Georgia's 287 trial and appellate court judges. Those numbers include 4 of the 10 judges on the State court of appeals, and 5 of the 7 State supreme court justices. Zell Miller appointed an African American female as the first African American to ever serve on the Georgia Supreme Court. Twenty-five of Governor Miller's appointments were African Americans; 42 of his judicial appointments were women; 11 were African American women, meaning he added 56 Black and female judges to the bench in his 8 years. It is a fact that Zell Miller appointed more African Americans to judgeships in Georgia than all previous Georgia Governors combined. In addition, Governor Zell Miller appointed an African American to serve as Georgia's Attorney General, making that African American the first African American State attorney general in the Nation. It is a remarkable record for any Governor, let alone one from the Deep South. One of the first counties where he began to diversify the bench is my home circuit, the Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit. As Governor, Zell Miller appointed as State labor commissioner the first African American to ever hold a nonjudicial constitutional office in Georgia, and Zell Miller appointed more African Americans to more State boards than any other Georgia Governor. As executive secretary for Governor Lester Maddox from 1968 to 1971, Zell Miller was credited with exerting a moderating influence on Governor Maddox, a segregationist, and spurring him to appoint Blacks to his administration, which he did. As Governor, Zell Miller led an unsuccessful effort back in 1993 to remove the Confederate battle emblem from the State flag, and he pushed legislation providing more money for public schools and scholarships for high school students. In fact, Governor Miller raised teacher pay in Georgia by 6 percent for 4 successive years--4 successive years, 6 percent each year. By the time he stepped down after his second term of Governor, Zell Miller was one of the most popular politicians in Georgia's history, leaving office with an astounding 85 percent approval rating. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia's First Congressional District, my friend, Buddy Carter, for inviting me here this evening to provide a few remarks about the passing of this Georgia lion, Zell Miller, who did a lot of good for our State and for our people, and I truly appreciate him for that.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This bill would shore up long-term funding for critical FAA programs and authorize additional disaster program funding for areas like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which are still struggling to bounce back after the 2017 hurricane season. I am proud to be a cosponsor of a recently adopted amendment, which will help ensure the safety of the national airspace by prohibiting individuals from operating unmanned aircraft systems that are equipped or armed with a dangerous weapon. In July of 2015, lawmakers and the public began to express concerns over the weaponization of drone technology after a college student built a drone capable of firing live armnunition from a mounted .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun. More recently, at least one state legislature has proposed legislation to allow the use of weaponized drones by local and national law enforcement, which is something that concerns me greatly. This amendment addresses these concerns by explicitly prohibiting the operation of a weaponized drone in the national airspace and by imposing a penalty of up to $25,000 for each violation. I am pleased to have worked with Rep. Burgess on this common-sense, bi-partisan amendment and applaud my colleagues for adopting. I urge all Members to support the underlying bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5086, the ``Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act.'' Congressman Lipinski's legislation makes crucial investments in business literacy by requiring the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop an I- Corps course to support commercialization-ready innovation companies. The I-Corps program helps scientists and engineers to extend their focus beyond the university laboratory and accelerates the economic and societal benefits of NSF-funded basic-research projects that are ready to move toward commercialization. Once a team completes an I-Corp course and wants to introduce their product to the markets, they're left to form and develop a business plan without any prior training or knowledge. However, not all scientists and engineers have the proper educational background to create and run a successful business and many fail in the early stages. In. response, the NSF created ``I-Corp Go'' to teach business skills that are essential and fundamental to a company's success. After the program's initial success, H.R. 5086 was introduced to make it a permanent addition to the I-Corp program. As a representative of Atlanta, a place where hundreds of small businesses seek to compete with large corporations, this legislation is near and dear to my heart. H.R. 5086 will provide constituents in my district and new innovators with access to high quality educational opportunities and I support this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 447, the Justice for Uncompensated Survivor Today (JUST) Act of 2017. This legislation directs the Department of State to report annually on progress certain European states have made to restore land and possessions stolen during the Holocaust, with the intent of encouraging justice worldwide for Holocaust victims. Eight years ago, forty-six countries vowed in the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues to facilitate the return of property and possessions stolen from Holocaust Victims. Regrettably, not every country has expediently honored their promises to support the restoration of stolen items and address the claims of survivors. This bipartisan legislation will use the United States' considerable international influence to encourage all participating states to create and implement policies that will quickly restore the possessions that were taken from the Jewish citizens of Europe. The victims of the Holocaust experienced immeasurable and unimaginable suffering, and I am committed to providing all possible assistance in restoring what was stolen from them. S. 447 is an excellent tool to ensure the process of returning items and property is more efficient and it encourages all members of the Terezin Declaration to act with the urgency they agreed to eight years ago.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4681 the No Assistance for Assad Act. This legislation limits U.S. assistance for regions of Syria controlled by Bashar al-Assad and Russian forces. H.R. 4681 states that we will not provide early recovery, reconstruction, stabilization or aid in parts of Syria controlled by Bashar Assad or associated forces. The conflict in Syria is intensely complicated and the Syrian people are suffering. However, we cannot keep providing support for a regime that is poisoning its own people and ravaging the region with irreparable wounds. The U.S. has provided over $7 billion in aid and plays an essential role in clearing unexploded ordnance in Syria--a service that all sides on the conflict depend upon. H.R. 4681 will put critical pressure on Assad's forces and his allies by limiting this service to regions controlled by U.S. allies and forces fighting for freedom from Assad's tyranny. Concrete and powerful steps must be taken to move towards a resolution and H.R. 4681 is a good step in restoring order in the region. Providing aid worldwide is a critical element ofthe United States position as an international voice for Democracy and peace. However, we cannot assist a regime that attacks its own people with chemical weapons, and we cannot support Assad by cleaning up his mess. H.R. 4681 will force Assad to face the consequences of his actions and I support this legislation.