Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, you are with American people-- farmers, ranchers, landowners, just regular, ordinary people--or you are with the Big Business corporations that are seeking to rape and pillage, on occasion, the land without any drawback of having to be taken into the courthouse to deal with what they have done or with what they are about to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Congressman McDermott pointed to this picture in today's edition of The Washington Post. This is during the daylight. It is outside. It is in China. I have been over there about four times, and I can relate to this picture in case nobody has been over there. Anybody who has been over there knows how the environment, the air quality, and people's health are impacted by the lack of regulations that have existed over in China. They have an acute air pollution problem. The fact is we don't have air pollution like that here in America because we have had regulations promulgated by agencies like the EPA, particularly the EPA, that have resulted in, yes, some increased costs to Americans, but the result of that cost is air quality that does not look like this. This is worth paying for, and the people will continue to pay. We will continue to pay. I mean, life is not free. It is true, though, that, with companies making so much money these days due to the misbalance in the economy, people are being squeezed. I hate to ask people to pay more, but I myself cannot live just based on the price that businesses have to pay to make sure that they are not polluting our environment. They should pay, and we have to pay our fair share, too. The question is: Are we going to be able to save our planet from countries that don't have regulations? We are going in the opposite direction here. We are talking about doing away with the EPA. Why is it that the first thing my friends on the other side of the aisle and all of their Presidential candidates talk about is getting rid of the EPA? There is a reason for that. The reason is that they want to protect the ability of polluters to just pollute at will and to continue to make all of the money at the expense of people's health, with our paying them exorbitant amounts for the energy that they are creating. When are we going to do something about this? If not now, then when? If it is not America that is leading, then who? They talk about President Obama going to Paris. There are 185 nations being represented in Paris that are working on this problem, which is a profound problem not just for America, but for the world. We all live in this same ship together, and we have got to take care of it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose S.J. Res. 23 and 24, which constitute the latest salvo by my friends on the other side of the aisle attacking our Nation's commitment to cut carbon pollution and slow climate change. Now, I do realize that some of us really don't care whether or not mankind's actions contribute to climate change. Some of us really don't care. Some of us don't care to consider that 95 percent of scientists recognize that it is man's activities that are contributing to the astronomical rate of climate change that is occurring that has the potential to render our planet uninhabitable by human beings. You can laugh, you can smile, you can joke, but 95 percent of the scientists agree that if we continue along the same path that we are continuing along, it is the demise of humankind itself that is the end result. Now, some say you can adapt. Well, what we should be adapting to is the reality of the fact that we can change this. We can make things better for our children. That is why 195 progressive-thinking leaders of 195 countries represented in Paris today--right now, as we speak-- are working on this very profound issue that affects humankind. And what are we here in Congress doing? We are trying to scuttle the plans that have been made by this country to try to reduce carbon pollution. We are trying to scuttle it. We are using the argument that it is too costly to the big businesses that are already making billions. Don't you know that, regardless of the cost to the big businesses, they are going to transfer those costs on down to you and me? Well, I think the health of our babies, the health of our elderly, and our own health is something that most Americans are willing to pay for. We have got to have leadership in this Congress. We can't allow ourselves to put our heads in the sand and let climate change just rape and pillage the world. 195 world leaders say that we can't do that. That is what they are working on now, today, and we should be supporting that effort. Unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction here in this particular body by trying to kill it. I don't know whether or not that is because President Obama represents this country. He has been the most mistreated President during my lifetime, certainly. I don't know whether or not it is the hatred for him that causes people to deny science. But whatever it is, let's get off of it. Let's do the right thing, and let's oppose these two resolutions.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of my amendment to H.R. 22. Minimum insurance requirements for trucks have remained the same since the 1980s. Currently, it is $750,000. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed. For example, hospital care for traumatically brain-injured people can average $8,000 per day. Minimum insurance does not realistically account for multivehicle accidents where $750,000 must be divided among all of the injured parties. FMCSA is currently undergoing rulemaking to evaluate current insurance requirements. Congress should not delay or derail this effort. Section 5501 conditions the agency's rulemaking upon its completion of detailed studies that must be completed in consultation with industry stakeholders. This amendment strikes language that is designed to delay and ultimately derail this long-overdue rulemaking. When a person suffers life-threatening injuries due to the negligence of a motor carrier, the cost of long-term care and the loss of his or her livelihood often is pushed to the background. For families that undergo this ordeal, it often comes as a surprise that, despite a congressional mandate in the 1980s, minimum insurance requirements for interstate truckers and bus carriers have remained unchanged. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 specifically set out to ensure public safety by requiring insurance premiums to be updated regularly. A similar bill, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, was passed for the segment of the industry transporting passengers interstate. While the minimum insurance levels in 1985 for general freight carriers and small-bus operators was $750,000 and $1.5 million respectively, with higher liability limits for carriers of hazardous materials and large bus carriers, the intent of Congress was to increase the minimums regularly to keep pace with inflation. In April of this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration released a report to Congress that examined the adequacy of the current financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers. The conclusion was clear: Today the cost of injuries and fatalities arising from crashes far exceed the minimum insurance levels interstate operators are required to carry. As a result, victims are often not appropriately compensated for their injuries. Language in section 5501 is an attempt to stop or at the very least delay this long-overdue FMCSA rulemaking in its tracks by taking away the resources necessary for the agency to evaluate appropriate levels of financial responsibility for the motor carrier industry. FMCSA rulemaking is necessary because current insurance limits do not adequately cover crashes primarily because of increased medical costs. To be on par with medical consumer price index inflation, the liability limit for general freight carriers today would be $4.4 million, calculated from the 1980 passage date of the Motor Carrier Act, and around $6.5 million for small-bus operators. Moreover, the April FMCSA report found that, in real terms, insurance premiums have actually decreased for the same level of coverage since the 1980s. The result is that thousands of crash victims are left without the financial resources to pay medical bills or restore the quality of life that he or she enjoyed before the trucking or bus accident, that despite the fact that insurance premiums have gone down. In many cases, the burden of healthcare costs are passed on to taxpayers, as Medicare and Medicaid shoulder millions of dollars of medical care each year due to inadequately insured carriers. We must keep the trucking industry accountable for safety by supporting this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and title 61 of the underlying bill, which adopts the text of S. 280, the Federal Permitting Improvement Act. Before addressing my substantive concerns, I have serious procedural objections to the inclusion of title 61 in a transportation funding bill. S. 280, the Federal Permitting Improvement Act, was attached to the transportation bill on the Senate floor through a manager's amendment offered by Senate Majority Leader McConnell. It was adopted without adequate debate in an expedited process just days before the August recess. The bill has not been introduced in the House. Neither the House nor the Senate has had a hearing on the text of this bill, which involves a nuanced area of the law with broad implications for public health and safety. Moving to the substance of title 61, this bill is a misguided attempt to restrict public input and challenges in the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Over 40 years, NEPA has saved time, money, and protected the environment, all while providing a framework for wide-ranging input from all affected interests when a Federal agency conducts an environmental review of a proposed project. Title 61 of H.R. 22 discards this commonsense approach by severely curtailing the public's right to challenge permitting decisions in several ways. First, title 61 restricts challenges of major Federal projects to only parties who file comments within the bill's 45- to 60-day window. The bill requires that these comments must be sufficiently detailed to put the lead agency on notice of the issue on which the party seeks judicial review. In other words, a party would have to litigate the issue in the 45- to 60-day comment period--an extremely tall order for the public. Second, title 61 requires that courts consider the potential for significant job losses and other economic harms in considering whether to enjoin a project that has been challenged. The bill further requires that courts presume that these harms are irreparable, even if they aren't, tilting the outcome in favor of private interests and away from the public's interest in health, safety, and the environment. This is a radical departure from our laws and would have the practical effect of allowing a project to proceed even where there is ongoing litigation. Indeed, by the time a court determines that a project violates the law, a project could already be completed. Third, under current law, the public has 6 years to bring claims arising under most Federal laws, which provides for citizens to discover latent harms of projects. Title 61 only provides for 2 years for challenges to the Nation's most complex projects requiring a Federal permit. Madam Chairman, title 61 presents a false choice between funding transportation projects and accepting bad legislation without debate or proper consideration that would potentially have disastrous effects on the public's right to challenge Federal permitting decisions in court. This is yet another pro- corporate, anti-safety provision designed by the donor class to restrict access to the courts by the common people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, this is a bad amendment that hurts the public interest, and for that reason I would ask that my colleagues vote along with me to disapprove of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, today we are debating yet another Republican bill restricting access to the courts to only those with deep pockets. H.R. 1937 continues the alarming trend of Republican- sponsored legislation that proposes to limit the average American's access to the courts so businesses that line the pockets of these politicians with campaign contributions can continue to profit. Misleadingly disguised as a bill stimulating the increased production of strategic minerals, this legislation is actually about shielding the mining industry's poor environmental practices from accountability to victims while simultaneously disenfranchising mining-impacted communities. H.R. 1937 allows regulators to exempt mining projects from the Equal Access to Justice Act, EAJA. The EAJA allows average Americans access to legal representation to protect their communities. Without EAJA, impacted communities cannot afford lawyers, much less the litany of scientific and technical experts needed to mount a serious challenge to a multinational mining company. This exemption cripples the ability of those concerned with environmental protection to seek representation and redress in the courts. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and preserve justice for all.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of commonsense legislation. Common sense means the use of good judgment in making decisions. Common sense is passing legislation that will keep our airports safe. It is frightening that in 2015 it is legal in America to openly carry a fully loaded semiautomatic weapon with a high-capacity magazine strapped to your chest and parade through your local TSA-protected airport. This is precisely what happened at Atlanta's Hartsfield- Jackson Airport, the world's busiest airport. In June, I introduced the Airport Security Act of 2015, which would make it illegal to carry loaded guns onto airport property--openly or concealed--unless properly packed for shipment, and with an exception provided to law enforcement. The Homeland Security Committee has been proactive in passing legislation that preserves transportation safety in this session. I urge that committee to review my legislation to keep our airports safe, and vote to move this legislation to the floor. It is just common sense.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple. It protects the right of the public to comment. This amendment reads: ``Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall have the effect of changing or limiting any law or regulation that requires or provides for public comment or public participation in an agency decision making process.'' Now, yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the Pope, right here in this very room, called on each of us to pursue a common good, which he told us requires a courageous and responsible effort. And certainly, if we are going to protect the common good, it requires that we protect the right of the public to comment on projects that have an adverse impact on our precious environment, right there where they live. This amendment would restore the right of any member of the public to comment on construction projects that may have an environmental impact; and because of that, I don't expect any opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Like a number of well-respected environmental groups, I oppose H.R. 348, the so-called RAPID Act, which threatens public health and safety by putting a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of private sector businesses in the project approval process. It is yet another antiregulatory measure whose only design is to grease the wheels of the approval process of projects that are environmentally sensitive. Aside from creating duplicative and costly requirements that pertain to certain types of projects, the RAPID Act would also limit the right of the public to comment on these projects. This bill does that in two ways: first, by reducing opportunities for public input, and secondly, by fast-tracking the approval process through arbitrary deadlines. Through an open, flexible, and timely process, NEPA empowers the public to weigh in on decisions. That means that the local farmer who owns land that would be affected by a Federal construction project-- let's say a nasty pipeline like Keystone--it ensures that that local farmer would have the ability and would stand on local footing with the construction industry and with the Federal Government. My amendment is vital to ensuring that the RAPID Act does not shut the public out of the process. I am sure that all minds agree that that is reasonable. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond. First, in the narrowed circumstances in which an agency may supplement an environmental impact statement under the bill, the lead agency ``may'' solicit comments from agencies and the public for not more than 30 days beginning on the date of the publication of the supplement. CEQ regulations require an agency to provide for a 45-day public review and comment period, although there is also a provision in the CEQ regulations that allows CEQ to approve alternative procedures for supplemental EISs if circumstances warrant a deviation from the normal process. Secondly, under the bill, each participating agency is to limit its comments on a project to areas within the authority and expertise of the agency and identify statutory authority for their comments. It specifically prohibits the lead agency from acting upon, responding to or including any document that is ``outside of the authority and expertise of the commenting participating agency.'' This is inconsistent with the CEQ regulations, which allow all agencies--whether local, tribal, State, or Federal--to comment on any substantive issue relative to the NEPA analysis, just as all members of the public should be able to do. So, finally, I would just point out that, if we are talking about efficiency and if we are talking about the common good, it does the public no good to cut out public comment from this process. If we can agree on that, then we can agree that this amendment is a good one. With that, I ask for its approval. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Chairman Goodlatte, bemoaned the fact that, over the last 64 straight months of job growth under the Obama administration, wages have remained stagnant. That is true except for the wages of the top 10 percent, and specifically the top 1 percent, which have gone through the roof despite what he calls overregulation. We continue to have the problem of income disparity that Pope Francis mentioned today. It is unrelated to this issue of regulations which are there to protect people. They, in fact, protect people and they protect our environment. We have had a speaker today come in and talk about a dredging project that was delayed because of NEPA, but, actually, the truth of the matter is that that project was delayed due to lack of funding. Funding for the project was only authorized last year. While the Republicans in Congress sit around and talk about how much the regulatory agencies study and study and study, what we do in Congress is simply ignore the funding needs for infrastructure in this country, which is what that dredging project was all about. I have got a project down in Georgia, the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, which was estimated to cost $652 million to complete. But prior to the passage of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act last year, the Federal Government had only provided $1.28 million--$1.28 million--less than 1 percent.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let's take it back to the year 2011 with the Ryan Budget Control Act, which imposed sequestration on the Federal Government, cutting both defense and nondefense spending 10 percent across the board. We can't have it both ways. If we are not going to fund, we have to admit that that is the reason these projects are not getting done. Don't blame it on NEPA.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 348, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act, or the RAPID Act. But if I had my druthers, I would change it to the ``Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Diversion Act,'' or RAPID Act. I would say that it is a diversion because we have got important work to do in this Chamber, Mr. Chair. Everybody knows that we are approaching the end of the fiscal year. It will be here in 6 short days. During this whole month of September--we are at September 24 today-- we have had a total of 8 legislative days during this month, knowing that we are coming up to the end of the fiscal year and we need to pass a spending bill to keep the government open and operating. We have been knowing this. We spent 6 weeks in August, from July to September, a total of about 6 weeks at home lounging while the Nation's business in Washington, D.C., went undone. We have spent a total of 8 legislative days out of the 24 days in September doing everything other than addressing the looming issue, which is the coming, or impending, government shutdown. Now, we are here today. We just took one vote. This is the first legislative day of this week. We have got one business day left. The first legislative day, after hearing from the Pope, we have just had our last vote for the day. It was our one and only vote for the day, and it was to rename a post office. We are coming up on the government shutdown, and what are we dealing with? Instead of dealing with the Nation's finances, we are dealing with this RAPID Act, which, as I said, is a diversion from the real duty that we need to be taking care of today. H.R. 348, the RAPID Act, is a misguided attempt to sow widespread confusion and delay in the review and permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. For over 40 years, the approval process for projects under NEPA has saved time, money, and protected the environment, which the Pope spoke of our need to protect today. In fact, since NEPA was enacted, the U.S. economy has not contracted. It has actually tripled in size from just over $5 trillion to more than $16 trillion. Among other things, NEPA requires agencies to prepare a detailed environmental review for proposals relating to ``major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'' NEPA's purpose is to provide a framework for wide-ranging input from all affected interests when a Federal agency conducts an environmental review of a proposed project. H.R. 348, the so-called RAPID Act, upends this review process in three ways: First, H.R. 348 carves out a separate environmental review process for construction projects. Currently, NEPA applies to a broad range of Federal projects, including hunting permits, land management plans, military base realignment and closure activities, and treaties. In contrast, H.R. 348 only applies to a subset of these Federal projects, creating more regulatory complexity in the permitting system, not less. Second, section (c) of the RAPID Act allows any project sponsor to prepare an environmental document in lieu of such analysis by the lead agency. It is not difficult to imagine the shortcomings of allowing corporations, which seek to maximize shareholder value, to sit in the driver's seat on environmental policy. In fact, that is why we have such environmental degradation today. During a legislative hearing on H.R. 348, Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate for Public Citizen, compared section (c) to ``asking big banks to determine the costs and benefits of new Wall Street reform rules, or big energy companies to determine the costs and benefits of new climate change or air pollution measures.'' The inherent conflict of interest built into this section reveals the bill's clear design to allow project sponsors to manipulate the NEPA permit approval process to the greatest extent possible. It is clear that not only does this Republican bill task the fox with guarding the henhouse, it would also have him install the chicken wire as well. Finally, under section (i) of H.R. 348, if an agency fails to meet the unrealistic deadlines mandated by H.R. 348, the bill would automatically green-light a Federal construction project, regardless of whether or not the agency has thoroughly reviewed the project's risks. Even if I were to set aside these concerns, it is difficult for me to look past the complete lack of empirical data supporting the premise of the RAPID Act, which is that agency compliance with NEPA is the cause of delays in approving permits. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported in 2012 that project approval delays based on environmental requirements are not caused by NEPA, but ``are more often tied to local/State and project- specific factors, primarily local/State agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope.'' Similarly, Dinah Bear, who served as the general counsel for the White House Council on Environmental Quality which oversees NEPA's implementation, for over 20 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations, testified in the 112th Congress that most delays in the environmental review process are not the result of NEPA, but due to other factors entirely unrelated to NEPA. In other words, the RAPID Act does nothing to address the lack of adequate funds allocated to Federal construction projects or State- based barriers to the timely completion of construction projects, which are two of the most common delays and have nothing to do with regulatory permits under NEPA. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, this year, Pastor McKenzie Jones is celebrating twenty (20) years in pastoral leadership at Zoe Baptist Church where he has provided stellar leadership to the church and community; and Whereas, Pastor Jones under the guidance of God has pioneered and sustained Zoe Baptist Church as an instrument in our community that uplifts the spiritual, physical and mental welfare of our citizens; and Whereas, this remarkable and tenacious man of God has given hope to the hopeless and is a beacon of light to those in need; and Whereas, Pastor Jones is a spiritual warrior, a man of compassion, a fearless leader and a servant to all, but most of all a visionary who has shared not only with his Church, but with our state and the nation his passion to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Pastor McKenzie Jones, as he celebrates this milestone in pastoral leadership; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim August 30, 2015 as Pastor McKenzie Jones Day in the 4th Congressional District. Proclaimed, this 30th day of August, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, our lives have been touched by the life of this one woman, who gave of herself in order for others to stand; and Whereas, Dr. Mary Sanders' work is present in DeKalb County, Georgia for all to see, where she was an unwavering advocate for the youth as an educator; a community leader who worked tirelessly for the rights of our citizens in our district; and as a civic leader who volunteered as a Poll Officer in Gwinnett County, Georgia ensuring that the right to vote was administered to all that wanted to exercise their right; and Whereas, this remarkable woman gave of herself, her time, her talent and her life; never asking for fame or fortune but only to uplift those in need; and Whereas, Dr. Mary Sanders led by working behind the scenes, as well as front and center for the state of Georgia, DeKalb County NAACP, the Georgia Perimeter College Retirees Association Book Club, her beloved church, Antioch-Lithonia Baptist Church, and for her beloved Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.; and Whereas, this virtuous Proverbs 31 woman was a wife, a mother, a sister, a daughter and a friend; she was a warrior, a matriarch, and a woman of great integrity; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to bestow a Congressional recognition on Dr. Mary Sanders for her leadership, friendship and service to all of the citizens in Georgia and throughout the Nation; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby attest to the 114th Congress that Dr. Mary Sanders of DeKalb County, Georgia is deemed worthy and deserving of this ``Congressional Honor''. Dr. Mary Sanders, U.S. Citizen of Distinction in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 10th day of August, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, Sixty-five years ago on August 19, 1950 a tenacious man of God was born in Macon, Georgia; and Whereas, Mr. Marion Jordan, served in the United States Military, worked for over forty years as a consummate professional in the insurance industry, and has devoted countless hours towards the betterment of his community; and Whereas, Mr. Jordan has shared his time and talents as a family man, sailor, and mentor to many, giving the citizens of the United States an admired leader and person of great worth. A servant to all advancing the lives of others, through his service to our country in the U.S. Navy and being the ideal husband, father and grandfather; and Whereas, Mr. Jordan has been blessed with a long, healthy, happy life, devoted to God, family and community; and Whereas, Mr. Jordan along with his family and friends are celebrating this day a remarkable milestone, his 65th Birthday, we pause to acknowledge a man who is a cornerstone in his professional industry; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside these days to honor and recognize Mr. Jordan on his birthday and to wish him well and recognize him for an exemplary life which is an inspiration to all; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim August 19, 2015 as Mr. Marion Jordan Day, in Georgia's 4th Congressional District. Proclaimed, this 19th day of August, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, the Stewart-Roney family lineage has blessed us with descendants that have helped to shape our nation; and Whereas, the Stewart-Roney Family has produced many well respected citizens, and the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Stewart-Roney family are pillars of strength that have touched the lives of many; and Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we are honored to have members of the Stewart-Roney family for they are some of our most honorable citizens in our District; and Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions in the world and we take pride in knowing that families such as the Stewart-Roney family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other, honor one another and to pass along history to each other through their family reunion in DeKalb County, Georgia; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Stewart-Roney family; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim July 17, 2015 as Stewart-Roney Family Reunion Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 17th day of July, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, one hundred years ago a virtuous woman of God, Nettie J. Ford was born in Midway, Alabama on August 4, 1915 to Mr. Hanson and Mrs. Lottie Ford; and Whereas, she was raised up in Midway, Alabama and married Rev. Aaron Robbins in 1932 and their union has blessed our district and nation with fourteen children and a host of grand, great and great-great grandchildren; and Whereas, this phenomenal Proverbs 31 woman has shared her time and talents as a wife, mother and friend, becoming a Georgia citizen of great worth, a fearless leader and a servant to all by always advancing the lives of others; and Whereas, Mrs. Robbins has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted to God and credits it all to the Will of God; and Whereas, Mrs. Robbins is celebrating a remarkable milestone, her 100th Birthday; her family and friends are pausing to acknowledge a woman who has been revered by many and a pillar of her community; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and extend well wishes to Mrs. Robbins on her birthday and recognize her for an exemplary life that has been an inspiration to all; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim August 4, 2015 as Mrs. Nettie J. Robbins Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 4th day of August, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, Mr. Wilbert V. Paynes is celebrating forty-two (42) years of serving others in the United States Army Corps of Engineers. He currently serves as Director of the United States Army Corps of Engineers Deep Draft Navigation Planning Center of Expertise and as Chief for the Planning and Policy Division for the South Atlantic Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers located in Atlanta, Georgia; and Whereas, Mr. Paynes retires this year as a Director for the United States Corps of Engineers; wherein under his guidance as a Director, he has provided stellar leadership on an international level and has enhanced the lives of many in the Southeastern United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and Whereas, this remarkable and tenacious man is an ambassador of goodwill; he has managed projects, educated colleagues, and directed several major water resource feasibility studies; and Whereas, Mr. Paynes is a man of compassion, a fearless leader, a servant to all and a visionary who has shared his time and talent to promote the best in Civil Engineering on behalf of the United States Corps of Engineers; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Mr. Wilbert V. Paynes as he celebrates forty-two years in service and to salute him as he retires from the United States Corps of Engineers; A true Man of Excellence; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim October 2, 2015 as Mr. Wilbert V. Paynes Day in the 4th Congressional District. Proclaimed, this 2nd day of October, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, twenty-seven years ago a virtuous woman of God accepted her calling to serve in the Internal Revenue Service in Atlanta, Georgia; and Whereas, Ms. Felecia B. Prince began her career with the I.R.S. as a Taxpayer Telephone Operator in 1988 and today retires as a Revenue Officer; and Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents, giving the citizens of our District a friend to help those in need, a fearless leader and a servant to all who wants to insure that the system works for everyone; and Whereas, Ms. Felecia B. Prince is a cornerstone in our community that has enhanced the lives of thousands for the betterment of our District and Nation; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Felecia B. Prince on her retirement from the Internal Revenue Service and to wish her well in her new endeavors; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim July 31, 2015 as Ms. Felecia B. Prince Day in the 4th Congressional District. Proclaimed, this 31st day of July, 2015.