Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 725, the so-called Innocent Party Protection Act of 2017. This cynically misnamed bill is a Republican Party effort to coddle and protect their corporate wrongdoing supporters by making it harder for injured victims to sue the corporation in State court. A more accurate name for the Innocent Party Protection Act actually would be the Corporate Wrongdoer Protection Act. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, this bill is my Republican friends' attempt to--it is clear whom they are working for. They refer to corporate wrongdoers as innocent parties. If some day you or your loved one are injured or harmed due to the negligence or intentional act of others, you have the option to sue in State or Federal court based on the residence of the wrongdoers. However, if your case should be removed to Federal court upon a motion by one of the defendants, as a plaintiff, there are grounds upon which you could have the case remanded back to the State court. Republicans want to call this fraudulent joinder. However, a decision to sue all of the wrongdoers in your State court is not fraud. Instead, it is a legal practice dating back over 100 years which provides balance and prevents more powerful interests from choosing which court the case can be heard. They want to stack the deck. For example, if it was your grandmother who was physically neglected or sexually assaulted at a nursing home, you would not only seek criminal charges against the wrongdoer, but you would want to file a lawsuit against both the individual attacker and the company that negligently hired, trained, or failed to adequately supervise the perpetrator under their employ. By the way, it is becoming increasingly common for nursing homes to be owned by large conglomerates or out-of-State hedge funds. Under current law, you have the right to sue in State court, but rather than going all the way to Federal court in the State the corporation is based, you have the option to stay near your home in State court. H.R. 725 would do away with that option by giving the corporate wrongdoer the ability to keep the case in Federal court, thus unfairly increasing the burden on innocent victims and making it less likely for the smaller party to sue in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 985, a monster of a bill, combining the anticonsumer Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and the antivictim Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act. H.R. 985 has the same goals and objectives as the bill that just slithered out of this body just a few moments ago, the so-called Innocent Party Protection Act, which more appropriately should be called, the Corporate Wrongdoer Protection Act. H.R. 985 is part of a wave of anticonsumer corporate wrongdoer protection bills being considered this week by this Republican- controlled Congress. The purpose of these bills is to protect and insulate big corporations from being held accountable when they rob, hurt, and maim everyday Americans struggling to make it here in America. As a former and long-term Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I would like to first remind this body of Susan Vento and Judy Van Ness, brave widows, who joined us during the Judiciary Committee markup of the FACT Act and shared with us the heartbreak asbestos exposure has caused their families. Susan is the widow of our late colleague, Congressman Bruce Vento. Judy's husband, Richard, was a Navy veteran, who served this country with distinction. Both men saw their lives tragically cut short--Bruce at 60 and Richard at 62--both by mesothelioma. Georgia is ranked 23rd in the Nation for mesothelioma and asbestos- caused deaths, in part due to the large number of military operations, facilities, and military industrial complex projects throughout the State. Virtually every ship commissioned by the U.S. Navy between World War II and the Korean war contained several tons of asbestos in the engine room insulation, fireproof doors, and miles of pipes. While the military discontinued asbestos products around 1980, hundreds of military and civilian installations were left with asbestos in the flooring and ceiling tiles, cement foundations, as well as in thousands of military vehicles. After defending our freedom abroad, many veterans returned to the civilian workforce where they were further exposed to asbestos, people such as Richard Van Ness, who suffered asbestos exposure while on a Navy destroyer and during his career as a union pipefitter. Unfortunately, veterans like Richard comprise over 30 percent of all asbestos-caused mesothelioma deaths, despite making up only 8 percent of the Nation's population. Eighteen veterans' groups, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, AMVETS, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, these organizations have expressed their strong opposition to this bill. I include a letter from them in the Record. February 14, 2017. Re Veterans Service Organization oppose the ``Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act''. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, and I would ask my colleagues to join me and the distinguished members of those 18 veterans' organizations and oppose this bill.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures the draconian class action rules created by H.R. 985 do not apply to cases alleging fraud. Corporate malfeasance and fraudulent practices are an ongoing problem facing American consumers. We saw this firsthand with the recent Wells Fargo case. In response to the company creating over 2 million phony bank and credit card accounts, thousands of account holders certified as a class to hold Wells Fargo accountable in court. However, under H.R. 985's new requirements, this class action would have been stopped dead in its tracks at the certification phase. This is because the bill does not clearly define exactly how similar the scope and how similar the type of injury a class member must suffer. Since each individual Wells Fargo account holder endured varying degrees of financial harm from the company's unauthorized actions, it is unclear if the victims would be considered a class under these new rules. The Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal is another example of a fraud case that would be at risk under these new rules. The German company defrauded thousands of consumers by selling cars that did not meet EPA emissions standards. The cars were, instead, fitted with illegal defeat software, which allowed them to pass routine emissions tests while still producing up to 35 times the legal limits of nitrogen oxides. A new MIT study found that the excess emissions generated by these cars between 2008 and 2015 will cause 1,200 premature deaths in Europe and 60 in the United States. This is in addition to the thousands of consumers who faced financial loss because they owned these defective vehicles that they could not trade in or sell. As part of the class action settlement, consumers were able to recoup their losses through a buyback program. As currently drafted, H.R. 985 would have made such a settlement unlikely because of the restrictions on cases involving financial injuries. Finally, we have the notorious and infamous Trump University class action. Class certification was granted for the thousands of students who were hurt by the President's allegedly fraudulent for-profit scheme. Over 7,000 students were eligible for the class action because they were cheated into thinking they would become the next big real estate mogul. Instead, students lost thousands of dollars and wasted valuable time at this joke of a school. To avoid any admission of wrongdoing or face an embarrassing trial, the President and the now-defunct Trump University opted for a $25 million settlement. Because of the impossible certification requirements in H.R. 985, it is safe to assume that Trump University's lawyers would have had a field day dismantling this class action from the very beginning of the litigation. Earlier this week, it was reported in The New York Times that one of the students is opting out of the settlement, and if this bill passes, the risk will be that the class action could fall apart to the benefit of President Trump. Knowing how litigious our President is, this outcome is highly likely, as H.R. 985 applies not just to future cases but, suspiciously, pending ones as well--an almost unheard of clause to include in legislation. We cannot allow corporations, whether foreign or domestic, whether controlled by an unnamed board or by the President of the United States, to defraud consumers without facing accountability. My amendment looks to protect Americans in such cases and allows them to move forward in the courts as part of a class action. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1301, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2017. Although this bill should have been finished five months ago, I appreciate and respect the bicameral and bipartisan collaboration which ultimately made this bill possible. For years I have advocated for and helped secure funding in the NDAA for Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs). I am therefore delighted to see that the final bill provides $33,572,000 for HBCUs, a $10 million increase over President Obama's budget request. The funds made available through a competitive grant program will be used to improve research initiatives and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at HBCUs. My home state of Georgia hosts countless servicemen and women, who are our military's most important asset. These servicemembers are located on multiple military bases across Georgia, including but not limited to Fort Benning (home to over 120,000 active duty personnel and other personnel), Dobbins Air Reserve Base (through which more than 14,000 flight operations take place every year), Fort Stewart (home to the 3rd Infantry Division), and Kings Bay Submarine Base (home to the Ballistic Missile nuclear submarines of the US Navy Atlantic Fleet and which plays a key role in our strategic nuclear triad). These and other bases across Georgia are essential to our national security and I've long argued that there should be no additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds for Dobbins and other military bases in my home state. I am grateful to see that the new bill prohibits funding to propose, plan for, or execute a new BRAC round. This bill will also benefit Georgia's industry. The F-35 Lightning II program provides the US Air Force (USAF), US Navy (USN), US Marine Corps (USMC), and a multitude of key allies with an affordable, fifth generation, stealth strike-fighter. The F-35 program also supports, directly and indirectly, countless of high-skilled jobs across Georgia, including hundreds of jobs at the Marietta plant in Cobb County, Georgia. Last year I supported the FY2017 budget request and urged procuring at a minimum an additional five F-35As and two F-35Cs. Such investments, in my view, are critical to restoring the budget cuts and the previously planned production ramp rate. I am delighted that this bill appropriates $11 billion (an estimated $1 billion more than requested) for the procurement of 74 new F-35 planes, including 48 F-35s for the USAF, 18 F-35Bs for the USMC, and eight F-35As for the USN. This bill also provides funding for research and development and modifications to existing aircraft. This will help the United States to continue decreasing aircraft flyaway costs and to field capabilities necessary to meet global threats in the 21st century. Marietta is well-lcnown for being the place where the C-130 Hercules was first designed. Since the C-130 was first produced in Georgia in 1956 it has become our military's primary cargo and personnel transport plane. Over the past six decades more than 2,500 C-130s have been sold in the United States and 60 countries. Various variants of the C-130s are used for many types of missions, including airlift support, Attic ice resupply, medical missions, firefighting, natural disaster relief missions, and humanitarian relief missions in the United States and abroad. One such variant, the C-130J, is the most modem military tactical transport plane in service today, and is used by the USAF, USMC, US Coast Guard (USCG), and 16 international customers. Last year I recommended for the procurement of three additional G-130Js, one USCG HC-130J to continue USCG fleet recapitalization, and supported language directing the USAF to develop a C-130J recapitalization plan for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. This bill appropriates $1.3 billion for 17 C, KC, HC and MC-130J aircraft consistent with my recommendations, supporting jobs and industry in Georgia and contributing to our country's security. Last year I also supported continued funding for the AH-64 Apache Helicopter and UH-60M Black Hawk Helicopter programs, both of which are important to Georgia's industry. It is great to see that this bill makes $1.1 billion ($330 million above the budget request) for 72 new UH-60M multiuse Black Hawks for the Army and National Guard. The bill also provides over $1 billion of funding for new Apache attack helicopters and upgrades to 52 existing aircraft. The upgrades will include modifications that will protect against friendly-fire incidents, thereby protecting servicemembers that operate these world- class helicopters. The 116th Air Control Wing, a unit of Georgia's Air National Guard which is stationed at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the only Air National Guard unit that operates the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTAR). Last year this Georgia-based unit contributed personnel and resources to assist with debris clearance in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew. JSTARS are essential for this Georgia-based unit and last year I supported funding recapitalization of the program. I am delighted to see that this bill, in line with the budget request, makes $128,019,000 available for the next generation of JSTARS. This bill also makes funding available for nationwide defense programs that are critical to our national security. For example, following Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the FY2015 Defense Authorization prohibited using the Russian-built RD-180 rocket engine except when a waiver is granted on the basis of national security or cost considerations. Russia's interference in our elections in 2016 only increases the importance of decreasing our dependence on that country, especially when it involves issues critical to our national security. It is great to see that this bill appropriates $1.3 billion for the US Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, which will help xs retire the use of Russian-made engines as quickly as possible. Last year I also supported President Obama's budget request for a variety of defense programs including the C-5 Galaxy Modernization, CH- 53K Heavy Lift Replacement, Combat Rescue Helicopter Program, F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lighting II (Joint Strike Fighter), MH-60R/S Naval Hawk Helicopter Programs, Advanced Pilot Training, and UH-1N Replacement Programs. By and large, this bill funds these programs at or close to the amount in the previous President's budget request. Mr. Speaker, having previously served on the House Armed Services' Committee and for years pushed for greater investment in HBCUs, I am delighted to see that this bill provides a much higher number than was included in the budget request. I believe that this funding will be well-used and will yield high returns on our investment. I am delighted that military bases in Georgia, which are critical to our national security, are immune from closure, and that this bill continues to provide funding for servicemembers who are based in and programs produced in Georgia, both of which contribute to making our armed forces first-class.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since November's election, it seems that there have been a rise in incidents of hate crimes in this country. This wave of hate crimes has spread fear and anxiety in communities of different faiths, ethnicities, and cultures across this country. On Tuesday, multiple Jewish community centers, schools, and organizations across the Nation, including in Atlanta, received anonymous bomb threats. This follows a wave of over 120 threats against Jewish community centers across America as well as the senseless desecration of graves at Jewish cemeteries countrywide. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that these are not unrelated incidents of juvenile delinquents. This is rank, organized anti-Semitic activity. It is systematic and organized activity meant to terrorize Jews in America. This comes at a time when Islamophobia is taking root and spreading across America. Mosques are being burned to the ground, Muslim children are being bullied at school, and Muslim women are subjected to having attackers snatching their hijabs from their heads as they walk the streets. The President's Muslim ban is payback on the pledge he made to his supporters during the campaign. Meanwhile, in February, a 32-year-old Indian man was shot and killed, another was wounded, and a third man who intervened was shot and wounded by a gunman shouting ``Get out of my country.'' Again, on March 3, a Sikh man was shot in Seattle by an attacker yelling, ``Go back to your country.'' At that time, the attacker had a mask on. During these incidents, our President has remained uncharacteristically silent on these attacks. His silence comes after his anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, and anti-Obama campaign sparked American White nationalists to feel emboldened. This is a dangerous and slippery slope that we are on, ladies and gentlemen. It must end, and it must end now. As Dr. King once said: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' We must protect all communities that have come under assault. Today I introduce the Reaffirming DHS' Commitment to Countering All Forms of Violent Extremism Act of 2017 to ensure that countering violent extremism funds within the Department of Homeland Security are used to tackle the rise of rightwing extremism, which threatens the safety of us all here in America.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss another glaring and scandalous drama involving President Trump's conflict of interest that has been lost in the shuffle of the President's nightly tweets and the daily Russian revelations. I would like to talk about the Old Post Office Building down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue. The General Services Administration solicited proposals for redevelopment of the Old Post Office Building in 2011, selected The Trump Organization in 2012, and signed a 60-year lease in 2013 to redevelop the building. For the first time in U.S. history, a sitting President now operates and profits from a private business in a taxpayer-owned Federal building. The Old Post Office Building lease agreement explicitly prohibits any elected official of the U.S. Government from serving as a lessee or from profiting under the lease. Before the President took office, career officials at GSA confirmed that the prohibition on elected officials benefiting from the lease is a categorical ban on any elected official, including the President, being a party to or benefiting from the lease. The prohibition not allowing elected officials to benefit from GSA leases exists because of the outsized influence elected officials, especially the President, have over the funding and management of GSA. President Trump has violated the very terms of the lease agreement that his company entered into with the United States Government for the Trump International Hotel the very moment that he took the oath of office to become President of the United States of America. Soon, President Trump will appoint the administrator who serves at the pleasure of the President. That same administrator will be responsible for administering and managing the lease where the guy who signs his paycheck is the guy who benefits from the lease. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic conflict of interest. To try to hide this conflict, President Trump has announced a so- called divestment plan that has two of his adult children responsible for negotiating with the GSA on behalf of daddy. If you think daddy's kids won't make sure that daddy is happy with the administrator and if you think that the administrator won't make sure that the kids are happy with him, then you would be the one who would buy some oceanfront property in Chicago. Essentially, the President controls the man exercising judgment on his lease. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has repeatedly written to the GSA trying to get more information about this glaring problem, but we have not received a substantial response. On March 7, 2017, Ranking Member Peter DeFazio and I wrote to the GSA Inspector General requesting that they examine administration and management of the Old Post Office Building lease. Congress needs an independent investigation to determine how and when GSA plans to resolve this breach of the lease and eliminate this conflict of interest, how GSA is shielding the career officials working through this conflict, and whether GSA is receiving fair market value for any amendments to the lease. This lease has already been amended five times, without any congressional oversight. There is also the elephant in the room as to whether this Trump hotel business is violating the U.S. Constitution. It is unclear whether payments by foreign governments to the Trump International Hotel provide evidence of a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. There are also serious allegations of whether foreign diplomats are steering business toward the Trump International Hotel. Could it be that Putin has already made arrangements to rent the presidential penthouse suite in the Trump Hotel for $10 million a year for the next 4 years? Or perhaps he has paid $100 million for an option to lease the Grand Ballroom at the Trump Hotel over the next 4 years. The American people need and deserve answers to these very important questions. President Trump and GSA need to come clean and address these conflict of interest issues in a transparent fashion that protects the interests of the American taxpayers.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 375, which names the Federal building and U.S. courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee, after the late Senator Fred Thompson. Senator Thompson had a long and extraordinary career in many roles that included actor, lobbyist, private attorney, and radio show host. But he is best known and respected not for his hawking of reverse mortgages but for being an assistant U.S. attorney, a congressional staffer, and, lastly, a U.S. Senator representing the State of Tennessee. Senator Thompson was a graduate of Memphis State University and Vanderbilt Law School. Senator Thompson got his start in public life in 1967, when he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Nashville, Tennessee. During his time in that office, he met U.S. Senator Howard Baker from Tennessee who became a lifelong mentor to Senator Thompson. After managing Senator Baker's successful U.S. Senate campaign in 1972, Senator Thompson moved to Washington, D.C., where he was appointed counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee investigating the Watergate break- in and famously helped shape the direction and tone of those hearings. I think that he will be known as one who helped Senator Baker in formulating that age-old, timeless question: ``What did President Nixon know, and when did he know it?'' It is ironic that today, Mr. Speaker, people are asking about our current President, President Trump: What did he know, and when did he know it? I will tell you, President Trump stood right there at the rostrum of the House last week and said that the Republican health insurance plan would have insurance for everybody, the insurance would be far less expensive and far better than what we have today. But we see now that that was incorrect, as the Republicans have, on a Monday, I guess at some point before the day ended, introduced their repeal bill of the Affordable Care Act. We are here talking about Senator Thompson today, but I just can't help asking: When did President Trump know that the Republican plan was going to throw 20 million people off of the Affordable Care Act depriving them of insurance? When did he know that? What did he know about this plan? Because not a whole lot of people around here knew of the plan until it was released because it was shrouded in secrecy, and it was released and a hearing scheduled to mark it up, to mark up the legislation with no hearings taking place on the underlying legislation. So no CBO score, no congressional hearings about it, introducing it in a cloud shrouded in secrecy, and, boom, it is dropped on the American people at a time when you are trying to distract attention from other questions about what President Trump knew about Russia, Russian hacking, and those kinds of questions. What did he know about the GSA hotel that the taxpayers own that he is leasing and now he is the lessor and the lessee of that hotel that belongs to the American people? What did he know and when did he know it? Those are questions that the American people have. We intend to get down to the bottom of it on this side. I hope that we will have some help on the other side. I do want to say that I support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people would be horrified to learn that of the 30 million people who were able to attain health insurance coverage and access to the healthcare system as a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act, many of those, a substantial number of those, will be thrown off of the rolls and deprived of the ability to have access to the healthcare system because of this new replacement bill that has been filed, which, as I said before, has not been scored. We don't know how much the Medicare solvency issue is going to cost. We don't know how much it is going to cost. We don't know how much it is going to cost the taxpayers. We don't know how many people will lose their jobs because, after all, it stands to reason if you are serving 30 million more people, that means you have brought a whole lot of people into the healthcare delivery business, people who are working, people who have jobs, people who have husbands, wives, parents, and children who are depending on them for support, and you are going to tell them that their jobs are at risk. Yes, they are, with this new law that has been half-baked introduced and fast-tracked to become law without people really knowing about it. This is something that people need to know about, people need to get out and exclaim their opposition to because it is going to hurt a lot of people. The way that this bill changes the Affordable Care Act is it makes it unaffordable for most Americans to be able to afford the insurance that they have gained as a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act. The premium subsidies are recalculated. Instead of based on a sliding scale which is an indication of need, this Republican plan is going to replace that and calculate the amount of the premium subsidy based on age. Now, what does that do, especially when you consider that some elderly people are more well-heeled than others? They can afford insurance, and they can afford to front the policy cost in return for the tax subsidy that they get. But what does that do to the younger people? So it is good news for some older people who are well-heeled. They will be helped by this Republican plan. But the average wage earner is going to be hurt--the younger people--because it is going to be more expensive for them. But then I have some bad news for the elderly people, also. Insurance companies under this new plan will be able to charge the elderly five times more than they will charge a younger person. That differential had been abolished in the Affordable Care Act, but the Republicans are bringing it back. Who is going to pay? It is going to be those same elderly people. You put it in one hand, and you take it out of the other. All of the elderly people in America, regardless of how much money you earn, should be concerned about that. Prioritizing health savings accounts over these premium subsidies is going to provide a great big tax cut to the wealthy. You can't get away from that. It is going to hurt the working people of this country. It is going to be a tax giveaway to the wealthy. I am sad to hear and to see this plan, and all of you should be, also. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), my friend.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just can't get out of my mind, Mr. Speaker, those words of President Trump that everybody would have insurance and that it would be far less expensive and far better than what we have today. The Republicans have campaigned incessantly for the last 7 years on repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act, which they derisively referred to as ObamaCare. We are going to repeal it and we are going to replace it on day one is what they all said. And here we are at day 45, something like that, and we have had nothing but one scandal after another; but we have finally now gotten to the House Republicans revealing what they have shrouded in secrecy for so long over the last 7 years. It sputters out without much ado, trying to sneak it in, trying to keep it undercover so that the American people won't realize what is being done to them. I can tell you that what is being done under those covers is not worthy of my comment descriptively at this time, but I will say that it is an illicit, illegitimate situation that is taking place because you are taking from a group of people who are in need and you are giving more to individuals who have and who don't need. In this country we are all in the same boat together. That is what the Affordable Care Act did. It was an aspiration for health care for everyone. It wasn't perfect. It is not a perfect bill. It needs some repairs done, if you will, some enhancements. We have never had the cooperation from the other side of the aisle to do anything to enhance that foundation that was already laid. Nobody can argue with the fact that 30 million people who did not have health care access and now having it is a bad thing. Nobody can argue that. They could argue that: Well, the way that it was done was bad. They say that we rushed it through without any input from them, but there were literally dozens of public hearings and markups. The bill, all 1,000 pages, was available for everyone to be able to read. They talk about reading the bill. Well, there are so many bills coming through right now that they don't want people to take the time to read them. That is why they introduce them late in the day and then they schedule markups for them without even putting them in front of the committee for a hearing. No airing out of the bill and what it does. Why are they holding this and hiding it from the American people? It is because they are trying to get away with something that is going to be bad for the people. That is why. They knew that their changes, their repeal and replacement bill, if properly vetted, if the American people had an opportunity to learn what is in it, they knew it would not be popular. That is why they hid it from the public. That is why they are not having any hearings on it. They just want to proceed straight to a markup; pass it out of the committee; put it on the floor of the House; pass it out of the House with little debate; send it over to the Senate for a rubber stamp, they hope; and then on to President Trump, who, as I said, when did he know that this bill that he was going to be presented with perhaps did not provide coverage for everybody and was not far better in coverage than the Affordable Care Act? When was it that he learned that? The American people want to know a whole lot. There is a whole lot to investigate about President Trump and his campaign. There is a whole lot to investigate about this repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act with an inferior product, one that is slanted to the rich and hurts the working people of this country. Then it guts the Medicaid program, which millions and millions of people depend on to keep grandma and granddaddy and momma and daddy at the nursing home. Medicaid helps to make nursing home care affordable. But under this healthcare repeal legislation that the Republicans have filed, they are going to cut Medicaid. They are going to use the expansion of the Medicaid program which enabled 10 million people to gain coverage that they could not afford, and they are going to cut that. At the same time, they are going to cut the other part of the Medicaid program which provides for people to be able to have their loved ones properly cared for at the nursing home, instead of down in the basement or upstairs in the spare bedroom. So, get ready, ladies and gentlemen, for that inevitability if this legislation passes. Get ready for your loved ones to have no place to go, no nursing home facility to take care of them, because they will not be able to afford it and you will not be able to afford it. Who will suffer most? Momma and daddy and granddaddy and grandma. They are the ones that get the care that is so needed for the elderly. So in this bill, where they are going to cut 20 million people off the healthcare rolls, they are going to cut momma and daddy from the nursing home by cutting the Medicaid program and turning it into a block grant program and turning it over to the States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What happened 43, 44 years ago during the Watergate hearings with that seminal question that everyone keeps asking, ``What did the President know, and when did he know it?'' and in the words of Yogi Berra: ``It's deja vu all over again.'' People are asking that question today, and it rings more loudly today than it did back then in 1973, 1974, ``What did the President know, and when did he know it?'' about a lot of issues. But this issue of the Affordable Care Act and whether or not you are going to repeal it and replace it with something better or you are going to repeal and replace it with something worse, what did the President know, and when did he know it? Because it is clear now to everybody who has had the opportunity to look at this offering that the Republicans have put forward, you are going to be worse off today than you were when the Affordable Care Act was implemented because 20 million of the 30 million people who are on coverage now will be off coverage if this thing passes. This Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2017, which was introduced by my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Norton, which I am so pleased to be a cosponsor of, is a bill from a mother herself who knows the needs of other mothers. This is bipartisan. I am so happy that this bill is passing today, but I will tell you, I can't help but think of the 20 million people who are going to lose their coverage. A lot of those people are women and children, even some babies. They are going to lose coverage because the Republicans are kicking them off under their plan. They will be a healthy part of that 20 million people who lose their coverage. It is unfair. It is not right. It is un- American. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my friend, opposes the bill because the CBO scoring process, which came up with a no-cost estimate for this bill, the contention is that that CBO study was insufficient. Well, I am sure that my colleague and friend from South Carolina will agree with me that with no CBO scoring for this congressional Republican healthcare repeal bill that they have put forward, then we are certainly not in a position to proceed further with a fast-track legislating process, as this bill seems to be on. They are going to mark it up with no hearings. When we were dealing with the Affordable Care Act, we held 79 hearings over 2 years, heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, and posted the bill online for 30 days. The CBO scoring actually showed that this bill was going to save money, as opposed to cost. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague from South Carolina to be in opposition to his own party's healthcare repeal bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the kind gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), my friend.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was looking at my congressional calendar, and I noticed that this year we are working in Washington, D.C., more than we have under the past 5 years of the rein of the Republicans. We have been the most do-nothingest Congresses on record for many years, and so this year we will be working. But I am baffled as to whether or not it is because the Republicans don't want to go home and face their constituents in a townhall meeting about the Affordable Care Act repeal bill that they have filed. We will be here in session now for another 4 weeks before the public has a chance to hear from their Representative when they return home for an extended time. But on the flip side, that gives everybody time to prepare for those upcoming townhall meetings which need to be held to explain what they are trying to do to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my friend.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have one more point that I needed to make about this abolition, this abolishment of the Affordable Care Act plan that has been submitted. A foundation of their plan is the demise of the individual mandate that requires people to purchase insurance, so they are claiming that that is a matter of freedom. Well, the fact is that when everyone is required to have insurance, it reduces the cost for everyone else. So it was a cost-saving measure that has worked with the rise in premiums being at the lowest level in decades. The affordable care has worked to cut the cost of health care. But what they are doing when they abolish that individual mandate is they are also going to penalize people who decide to drop their coverage and pick it up later. Or if you miss one payment because you missed work, missed a paycheck or something like that, you missed 1 month and have to reinstate, then you are going to pay a 30 percent penalty on your insurance. That is highway robbery. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1174, the Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2017, introduced by my good friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act. This ill-advised bill would require agencies to undertake a regulatory cut-go process to repeal rules identified by the Commission, with little to no consideration of the benefits, prior to issuing any new rule. The SCRUB Act's regulatory cut-go procedures are unsafe, dangerous, and would tie the hands of agencies responding to public health crises requiring timely regulatory responses. In fact, this bill lacks any mechanism for consideration of public health and safety, thus leaving no option for agencies to issue emergency rules to protect the public and environment from imminent harm. The bill's proponents may claim that the title I of the H.R. 1155 would allow the Commission to consider whether the costs of the bill are not justified by the benefit to society. But as witnesses testified during the Judiciary Committee's consideration of a previous version of this bill, the catch-all language of subsection (h)(2)(I) would allow the Commission to completely disregard any benefit of regulation. In both Republican and Democratic administrations, the benefits of our system of regulatory protections have made our country safer, stronger, healthier, and cleaner. While consideration of the costs of regulations is important, there is overwhelming consensus that the benefits of regulation vastly exceed the costs. The Government Accountability Office has observed that these benefits ``include, among other things, ensuring that workplaces, air travel, foods, and drugs are safe; that the nation's air, water and land are not polluted; and that the appropriate amount of taxes is collected.'' This evidence overwhelmingly refutes the assertion that regulatory costs are burdensome, eliminate jobs, or harm our economic competitiveness. We should be empowering our agencies, not hindering them, to take the steps needed to protect our environment, consumer products, public health, and safety. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I hosted a community listening session where my fellow citizens and I listened to the personal experiences of Muslims, refugees, and other immigrants in the aftermath of the President's Muslim/immigrant ban and ICE dragnet crackdown on Latinos. It was a safe place for Muslims, refugees, and immigrants to come and share their experiences, values, and love for this country, and it provided an opportunity for us to embrace our fellow citizens in love. We insist that these valuable members of our community and their children be able to live without fear, and to thrive. Unlike the Muslim/immigrant ban, the people of Georgia's Fourth Congressional District welcomed those of all backgrounds and religions and those fleeing persecution and facing war and bloodshed. Trump's immigration executive order is contrary to our values and dangerous to our security. Americans who respect the Constitution must oppose these kinds of acts, the injustice they represent, and the suffering that they impose upon the innocent.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 42. I think most Americans are tired of hearing about what President Obama did or didn't do while, at the same time, it seems like it has been years since we had his stable leadership and we have been proceeding under the chaos of the current administration. It seems like much longer than 25 days. But I will tell you, the campaign is over. It was a long campaign. Throughout the entire campaign, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, House and Senate, and we had the President who was a Democrat. So the Republicans complained that they weren't able to do anything and they needed a Republican President. Now they have a Republican President, and what have they done during this last 25 days in terms of a jobs bill? Not one, not one job created in the last 25 days. If the public goes back and looks over the calendar of proceedings for this body, they will find that it has simply been one regulatory bill after another, to change a regulation that was set during the Obama administration. That is all we have been doing over the last 3- plus weeks is trying to reverse regulations--not one affirmative bill that establishes one job. So what are they doing? They are kind of dancing for the American people, while the House burns, while the President is conducting foreign policy at Mar-a-Lago, in the open air, to impress all of his well-heeled friends that have paid $100,000 and now have to pay $200,000 to join his club, while we should be overseeing the operations of the Trump Hotel and who is paying millions of dollars to reserve banquet facilities in that taxpayer-owned location.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Those are the issues that the American people certainly would be interested in knowing, what is happening with their property. But instead of creating a jobs bill, what we are dealing with here is a measure that would repeal a Department of Labor rule that limits which unemployment compensation applicants can be tested for drugs. Supporters of this resolution are suggesting that there is a nexus between losing your job and being unemployed and illicit drug abuse. However, there is no evidence that suggests higher drug use among unemployed workers compared to the general population; though I will concede that it has been a time-honored tradition that when you lose your job, you go down to the local bar and drown in a glass of beer. But nobody is talking about disabusing alcohol abuse with this legislation--no alcohol testing, just drug testing. Why? It is because they want to get at a certain group of people who they want to deprive of the ability to receive the unemployment compensation that they have paid in and earned. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to take away the financial security for people who have the least. That is the only thing they have, and you are going to take it away from them and make them pay for the drug test, too. It is ridiculous. We should be considering legislation that would create jobs and address economic disparities, but instead, we are looking to roll back provisions that undergird the financial security of the most vulnerable among us. I would ask that my colleagues oppose this H.J. Res. 42 and get on with the business that matters most to the American people.