Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

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.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 974, the Boosting Rates of American Veteran Employment (BRAVE) Act. There is no question that post-9/11 veterans face a harsher economic reality than other Americans. Although in recent years the unemployment rate of post-9/11 veterans decreased since the double digit highs of 2011, the veteran unemployment rate among veterans remains higher than the national average. Those who have sacrificed most for our nation are often left behind or forgotten by businesses and employers when they return home. The transition from military to civilian life is a challenging one for many veterans, and we must address the harsh realities our veterans face when they attempt to reintegrate into the economy. As we consider the best ways to boost veteran employment in the 115th Congress, we must concentrate our efforts on what many major veterans organizations are urging us to do. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars have all argued that the Department of Veterans Affairs, when granting contracts, should give preference to businesses that employ a high concentration of veterans on a full-time basis. This is a common-sense proposal. Each year the Department of Veterans Affairs contracts tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on various goods and services. H.R. 974 would ensure that when awarding a contract for goods or services, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs give preference to businesses that employ full-time a high percentage of veterans. H.R. 974 would also grant the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to debar for five years from contracting with the Department those offerors who willfully mispresent the veteran status of their employees. This discourages potential businesses from over-reporting the percentage of veterans that make up their workforce. I believe that H.R. 974 would also have a ripple effect across other agencies in the government and ultimately help a countless number of veterans attain full-time employment. Today, there are an estimated 24,000 businesses that work on federal contracts and employ about 28 million workers in the process. In FY 2015, in my home state of Georgia, an estimated 50,000 workers were employed by Department of Defense contracts alone. In my opinion, H.R. 974 would spark other federal agencies to adopt similar provisions that would give preference to businesses that employ large concentrations of veterans on a full- time basis. I ask that my colleagues support this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support to H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act. Enacting the amendments outlined in this bill will provide a much needed update to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). ECPA paved the way for protecting the rapidly advancing field of electronic communications. Although this law made headway in assuring the privacy of the telecommunications of Americans, electronic communications have far outpaced the current regulation. The provisions of the Email Privacy Act reaffirm the rights granted Americans by the Fourth Amendment. Citizens should not be subjected to unlawful search and seizure of their private property. The communications of Americans are personal and private and must be treated as such by our government. H.R. 387, however, recognizes that circumstances may require law enforcement to move quickly and require access to electronic communications. Preserving law enforcement's ability to preserve records, to delay notification to subscribers that a warrant is out for their data, and by requiring timely responses to warrants reflects the security concerns expressed during the Judiciary Committee markup. Ensuring law enforcement has probable cause in order to access stored email, texts, and photos, while also providing the above exceptions and flexibility to the rule balancing the needs of law enforcement and public safety with the right to individual privacy. Calls for reform have come from both sides of the aisle. Upholding the Fourth Amendment is not a partisan issue and I am overjoyed to see my colleagues from both parties standing by this bill. Failing to pass the Email Privacy Act endangers the principal values of our Republic. Our constituents have entrusted us, not only as their Representatives, but as defenders of the Constitution and the rights of all Americans. The passage of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act will engender confidence in both law enforcement and privacy laws as Americans will know their emails will only be accessed if there is cause. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote Yes on the resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 57, which is another Republican proposal to erode the oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of Education. In 2015, Congress responded to the voice of the American people by passing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with bipartisan and bicameral support. This sweeping rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act gave states and local boards of education greater flexibility to implement plans to ensure student achievement, resource equity and greater accountability. I was happy to support the ESSA after seeking the advice of experienced educators and education stakeholders from Rockdale, DeKalb, and Gwinnett Counties, as well as throughout Georgia. H.J. Res 57, on the other hand, flies in the face of Congressional intent by gutting a key ESSA rule developed with, and supported by teachers, civil rights organizations, parents and states. H.J. Res 57 removes civil rights protections and blocks improvements to our nation's public education system by dismantling data-reporting requirements that ensure that the needs of underperforming groups in all subgroups are adequately supported. This includes African Americans, Latinos, and students with disabilities. The Administration and my Republican colleagues are playing political games that will ultimately harm taxpayers, teachers, and our nation's most disadvantaged students. During my time in Congress, I have worked to ensure that all students have access to a world-class education regardless of their background or zip code. I believe that all children deserve a quality education and that no child should ever fall between the cracks. I will continue fighting against republican attempts to divest funding from public education and reduce equal opportunity for all students.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and the complete dismantlement of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order. Among other worker protection benefits, President Obama's Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order prohibits Federal contractors from using forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts involving civil, sexual assault, and harassment disputes. It directs companies with Federal contracts of $1 million or more not to require their employees to enter into pre-dispute arbitration proceedings for disputes arising out of title VII of the Civil Rights Act or from sexual assault or harassment cases, except when valid contracts already exist. This existing order built upon existing policy that was successfully implemented at the Department of Defense, the largest Federal contracting agency, and it will help improve contractors' compliance with labor laws. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order required Federal contractors to give employees their day in court. By doing away with this order, the new administration is subjecting workers to forced arbitration, which is a private and fundamentally unfair process. Unlike the court system, which was developed through centuries of jurisprudence, forced arbitration does not provide important procedural guarantees of fairness and due process that are the hallmark of our courts. There are no requirements that witnesses testify under oath or affirmation, rules of evidence and procedure are not relied upon, the caselaw that has been developed over centuries is not used as precedent, and arbitration proceedings are often secretive, sealed, and there is no meaningful right to appeal. Behind closed doors and shrouded in secrecy, forced arbitration enables employers to conceal wrongdoing from the public and to undermine employee rights. Since 2007, I have championed the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, and civil rights cases. The executive order took us one step closer. Americans deserve better than private, unaccountable tribunals that adjudicate disputes, mostly in favor of the employer. Equal access to justice for all should not be an aspiration but a guarantee for all Americans. I ask my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 38, the resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule. I would like to express both my support of the Stream Protection Rule as well as my deep concern over the use of the Congressional Review Act to derail smart regulations that protect our citizens' health while simultaneously creating a precedent of recklessly obstructing federal rulemaking. The Stream Protection Rule is an effective and sensible regulation that has undergone years of development in order to compel big polluters and industry actors to responsibly dispose of dangerous waste so that our water supply and ecosystems remain free of toxic pollutants. The attempt to dismantle this rule will cause irreparable harm to clean drinking water sources for millions of Americans. The Stream Protection Rule provides Americans with an environmental monitoring system that assures the cleanliness of the water. The residents of the 4th District of Georgia, like many of the constituents of my colleagues, live alongside and depend upon rivers to be protected from harmful pollutants and toxic chemicals that are the product of mining and industrial run-off. Run-off from mining and industry sources contaminate stream water with various lethal toxins, including lead and arsenic. These pollutants not only impact the lives of people living in close proximity to the run-off sources of heavy pollutants, but all people who live downstream. The water protected by this rule is the same water consumed by our families, including children and the elderly. Those exposed to carcinogens in their water can suffer from birth defects, cancer, and even death. Clean and safe water is in the interest of all Americans, regardless of their income level or political party. It matters not whether a state is red or blue, access to clean water will always be necessary, and it should be mandatory. Clean water is a human right and this rule ensures our country can provide clean drinking water to its citizens. I ask my colleagues this question: if the Stream Protection Rule is overturned are you prepared to tell your constituents and their families that their water will be less safe to drink or use? I am not alone in my stance. More than 70 groups representing the interests of a wide-swath of American citizens have expressed their strong disapproval with this resolution. Two of these groups, the Savannah Riverkeeper and Altamaha Riverkeeper organizations, represent the environmental concerns of my home, the great state of Georgia. These groups along with dozens of others have expressed to our country's elected officials that a resolution of disapproval for the Steam Protection Rule would significantly jeopardize the well-being of millions of Americans. By subjecting the Stream Protection Rule to the Congressional Review Act, we set a dangerous precedent in delegitimizing federal rulemaking procedure, while we elevate the interests of corporations over the health and safety of our citizens. The health of our nation's children must supersede the maximization of profits. For the sake of the millions of Americans who rely on the safety regulations established by this rule, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote NO on the resolution. The citizens of our nation will thank you for putting their health first.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 58, the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations, or the FRIENDS Act. This bill requires the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to submit a report on how State and local programs affect the preparedness and protection of first responders. Congress and the American people need to know whether these programs consider circumstances that may affect a first responder's ability to respond to an event. In particular, the bill requires GAO to examine the degree to which State and local programs and policies consider the presence of a first responder's family in an area impacted by a terrorist attack, the availability of personal protective equipment for first responders, and the availability of home MedKits for first responders and their families for biological incident response. While we are asking GAO to examine State and local programs and policies, some of these programs and policies may be funded with Federal dollars. To that extent, Congress needs to know whether these federally funded programs and policies are as effective as possible to prepare and protect first responders. This month, the State of Georgia received two Presidential disaster declarations from devastating tornados in districts neighboring my own. While these are not terrorist attacks, these tornados highlight the fact that first responders are often called upon to respond to events in their own communities where they and their loved ones live. Our heros immediately respond to the call of duty, even though they themselves or their loved ones may be impacted. Thus, it is important that State and local preparedness programs are designed and developed to consider all situations that may impact first responder preparedness. We must do everything we can to support our first responders who are often called upon to put their lives on the line to help others, even when their own families need them. So I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), for introducing this bill and for her diligent work on this issue. In response to my chairman's welcome, I would have to respond by saying I am just giddy about being a part of this subcommittee, and I look forward to working with him and his staff to make things good for America and for our future. I urge my colleagues to join in my support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's cold and callous refugee ban on travelers like the UK resident who holds an Iranian passport, was due to fly back to Glasgow via New York, and had her transit visa revoked.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend Mr. Young's amendment which establishes a 90-day compliance period for guidance documents when, in the underlying legislation, it makes clear that during any compliance period for guidance it is nonbinding. So I rise in opposition to this amendment which imposes an unnecessary and burdensome 90-day waiting period for agencies to issue guidance documents. Importantly, as a form of nonlegislative rule, guidance documents do not have the force of law and are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements. Section 104 of H.R. 5 already clarifies that these documents are not legally binding and may not be relied upon by an agency as legal grounds for agency action. This provision additionally requires agencies to make this document available to the public and provide a plain and prominent statement that the document is not legally binding. Given the requirements that already exist in current law and the additional requirements imposed by title I of this bill, it is difficult to ascertain why an additional 90-day compliance period for guidance that is not legally binding is warranted. Furthermore, in all cases, regulated entities have ample opportunity to challenge rules, including guidance, as ``arbitrary or capricious'' under the Administrative Procedure Act where an agency lacks statutory authority to issue the guidance or the guidance is otherwise legally unsound. Indeed, as Justice Elena Kagan noted in 2015 in Paralyzed Veterans v. Mortgage Bankers, the APA contains a variety of constraints on agency decisionmaking, the arbitrary and capricious standard being among the most notable. Accordingly, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Chaffetz amendment. This amendment establishes a deadline of 270 days-- a magical number of days--for some reason. There is no reason given for that being the number of days, but that is what they give to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, to issue guidelines pursuant to title I of this bill. Why 270 days? Well, I think I can answer that question. They know that OIRA is not equipped to sufficiently deal with regulations within that same amount of time period. We have had all this budget cutting going on. We have been attacking the Federal Government regulatory authorities throughout the entire 6 years that Republicans have been in control of this House. They have done 6 years' worth of hobbling OIRA, and now they are going to come forward and impose a 270-day requirement. That is like asking someone who you have handicapped to run in a relay race that you know they can't win. To begin with, I would note that OIRA, which typically has fewer than 50 employees, often serves as a bottleneck for the promulgation of economically significant rules, as reported last year by Public Citizen. Moreover, as a group of the Nation's leading administrative law scholars have noted that the Regulatory Accountability Act is ``unusually ambitious and crammed with details that are impossible to summarize,'' that will ``further ossify the rulemaking process with little offsetting benefits in the form of better rules.'' Many of these new procedures task OIRA with making numerous new determinations and expanded review of formal rulemaking. In addition, to hobbling over the last 6 years, and then imposing a deadline of an arbitrary and capricious number of days, you are going to heap additional requirements upon them without increasing their staff that you have already cut. Given the sheer breadth of these requirement, it may be difficult or impossible for OIRA to comply with the deadline imposed by this amendment, absent additional congressional appropriations, which, of course, they are not interested in. Accordingly, I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman. I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. I have a number of concerns with many provisions of this voluminous page, this 82-page bill. It has not gone through regular order, not one committee meeting. Congress just came into session last week. So we have got 50-plus new Members in this body who have not had one single day of an opportunity to pay any attention to learn what is in this bill. Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to force their folks to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I urge them to vote ``no'' and think about it. The reason they should think about it is because H.R. 5 is a destructive revision of the Administrative Procedure Act which fiendishly convolutes the agency rulemaking process through numerous analytical requirements. We call that gumming up the works. These requirements, which are largely opposed by the Nation's leading administrative law experts, would cause years of delays in the rulemaking process and deregulate entire industries through rulemaking avoidance by agencies. In addition to imposing over 60 new procedural requirements on regulatory protections, title I of H.R. 5 imposes a new super-mandate requiring that agencies adopt the least costly rule considered during the rulemaking that meets relevant statutory objectives and permits agencies to choose a more expensive option only if the additional benefits justify its additional costs. The AFL-CIO has observed that this provision would make protecting workers and the public secondary. Limiting costs and impacts on business and corporations is the prime purpose of this legislation. There is little doubt that this proposal will compromise public health, workplace safety, and environmental protections. Agencies will be forced to make penny-wise and pound-foolish decisions. It costs more to remedy an environmental or financial calamity than it would be to protect the public from the calamity occurring in the first place, which the underlying regulation would do, but they don't want regulations. This is unbelievable. Title II of the bill abolishes judicial deference to agencies' reasoned statutory interpretations, which has been a hallmark of judicial review for more than three decades. Talk about judicial restraint and not legislating from the bench. That is what the Supreme Court in its Chevron rule has emphasized over the last three decades. In addition to incentivizing judicial activism by generalist courts, which could engage in rulemaking from the bench by making policy decisions rather than strictly interpreting the law, this provision will also make the regulatory system more costly and time-consuming because it would require agencies to take even more time to promulgate critical protections that the court ultimately decides on its own through its ability to legislate from the bench that it doesn't like. This is nonsense. It is hypocritical. Title III of the bill further paralyzes agency rulemaking through unworkable, complex requirements, while endowing the hallowed Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy with broad authority to act as the gatekeeper of our Nation's entire regulatory system. As the Center for Progressive Reform reported in a 2013 report, this entity, this Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, exists in an unchecked capacity to funnel ``special interest pressure into agency rulemakings, even though such interests have already had ample opportunity to comment on proposed regulations.'' So in other words, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy is a back door wide open to corporate interests seeking to come in and undermine the regulatory authority of an agency. At a time when there has been much talking and tweeting about draining the swamp, this measure would function as a green light to special interests to manipulate the regulatory system in their favor. Moreover, my Republican colleagues' repeated claims that this measure will create regulation by representation, or clawback authority from the executive branch, that argument is fundamentally undermined by the fact that this bill consolidates the role of a subagency, the Small Business Administration, in such an opaque and reckless manner.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that my friends on the other side of the aisle, in their quest to satisfy the big businesses that fund these campaigns, don't like regulations that protect the health, safety, and well-being of Americans, including children, including the elderly, the weak, the sick. They are trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act; trying to kill those regulations; trying to kill regulations on Dodd-Frank, which is protecting people from financial ruin by Wall Street barons. This is an incessant march toward a deregulatory environment. We can't let it continue unabated. We must protest. We must speak out. We must do the right thing to protect the people of this country. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully claim the time in opposition.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would prohibit Federal agencies from making any public communications that would promote a pending regulatory action. We can all agree that the rulemaking process should be transparent, flexible, and accountable to the public. But rather than achieve this goal, my colleagues' amendment would decrease transparency in the rulemaking process and burden agency rulemaking with little corresponding benefits to the public. A variety of statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act and agency specific statutes, already prescribe the method that agencies may communicate to the public with regard to proposed rules. Agencies should, and indeed are required by law to, communicate why rules are beneficial to the public. For example, in 2014, the Department of Defense proposed a rule to protect servicemembers and their families from predatory lending schemes. In a press release discussing the rule, the Defense Department highlighted the benefits of the rule such as ``this proposed rule would better protect Active Duty servicemembers and their families from excessive debt.'' This plain language explanation of the proposed rule would be flatly prohibited by this amendment. Indeed, there is little that an agency could discuss about a pending rule that would not be considered to be promoting the rule within the meaning of this amendment. In the context of the proposed deregulation actions, in 2003, Bush administration officials posed with chainsaws and scissors next to a stack of papers to promote efforts to cut red tape. It is doubtful that this form of public communication would be permissible under this amendment. By the way, to see the Bush administration officials with a chainsaw and scissors going at regulations reminds me of what we are doing here today. In the context of a veto threat of a similar antiregulatory proposal last Congress, the Obama administration stated that similar requirements would prevent agencies from efficiently performing their statutory responsibilities and potentially lead to a less informed public. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gerald Connolly wanted it to be known for the record that agency employees are already barred under appropriations bills from engaging in publicity or propaganda. Agency employees are specifically barred from engaging in substantial grass-roots lobbying campaigns when those campaigns are aimed at encouraging members of the public to pressure Members of Congress to support administration or department legislative or appropriations proposals. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it is already covered in current law, so why do we need this amendment? Well, it is a messaging piece to be able to say to the listening audience that we support small business. Well, gosh, I think we have answered that question here on this side whether or not they really do support small business. It is clear they support big business, and that is what this amendment is going to help facilitate without adding to the overall bill. For that reason, I ask that we oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.