Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for convening us for this Special Order today and for her very thoughtful comments. Today, I rise to voice my alarm about the rapid descent of our democracy into a dictatorship. While co-President Donald Trump focuses on expanding his business opportunities globally while ignoring his campaign promise to lower the cost of living for ordinary Americans, co-president Elon Musk has taken a wrecking ball to the Federal Government one agency at a time. Congress established the agencies that Musk is trying to delete, and it is only Congress, under our Constitution, not an unelected co- president, that has the constitutional authority to abolish a Federal agency. We still live in a democracy, which is government of, by, and for the people who have the right, the precious right, to vote for their leaders. We tell our constituents to vote. We tell them their votes and voices matter, that their choices shape the future of this country, but what does that mean when an unelected billionaire can waltz into our agencies and slash and burn the whole thing to the ground like a Taliban terrorist, threatening 2 million Federal employees to resign under false pretenses, putting other folks out of work, and stopping payments to small businesses and nonprofits while illegally putting in purchase orders for the State Department to spend $400 million in taxpayer money for Tesla pickup trucks? This level of corruption is shocking. Co-President Trump and the Republicans in Congress, all of whom have abrogated their legislative power to the king, have handed the keys to the Nation's Treasury to unelected co-president Elon Musk. Their actions are taking what we know as corruption to a whole new level. This is banana republic-style corruption at its ugliest. While the powerful play their games, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their billionaire buddies get richer while the cost of living goes up for everybody else. Every day, my constituents call me, worried and scared, asking how an unelected billionaire they never voted for is gutting the very resources they rely on to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. They see a man who wants billionaires like himself to pay nothing while hardworking Americans foot the bill. They see him kneecapping the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created to shield the people from scams, fraud, and corporate greed. They ask why someone with a long history of union-busting, worker abuse, and blatant disregard for labor laws is being allowed to scuttle the Department of Labor. They want to know why a billionaire businessman from South Africa, who holds no elective office, has been given unchecked access and influence over their most sensitive personal and financial information, their rights, and their future. Let me be clear: I am committed to ensuring that president Musk stops this attack on the American people. House and Senate Democrats will not stand by, like my Republican colleagues are doing, while Elon Musk hijacks our government. We will fight to protect the institutions that serve the people, not the privileged. That is what we must do to protect democracy and freedom. We will stand, and we will fight. With the American people roused in peaceful, nonviolent protests across the country, Mr. Speaker, we will win. This country belongs to the people, not to the billionaires.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. I am here on behalf of the House Labor Caucus, and I thank the gentleman for convening us today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our Nation's Federal workers, who are under a brutal and heartless assault by Elon Musk and his co-President, Donald Trump. A week ago, they sent the now-infamous fork-in-the-road email to 2 million Federal employees, trying to trick them into a quick decision to retire immediately and receive 8 months of severance pay, which is false, while threatening that if they refused to retire, their jobs might be eliminated. My brothers and sisters, don't fall for the okey doke. Don't retire. Stay on the job. Federal workers have rights that protect their jobs. Federal workers should not be intimidated into retirement. This country needs them to continue their work. They are professional and highly skilled people, and we know they work long hours, often under difficult circumstances. They do so because they believe in the importance of public service. We will not allow Elon Musk and Donald Trump to replace Federal workers with people who are willing to kiss Trump's ring rather than serve their country. Federal workers should stay the course and keep their eyes on the prize, and House Democrats have their backs. I thank the Federal workers for their service. Mr. Speaker, I point out that Elon Musk and President Trump are doing this with House and Senate Republicans letting it happen. Don't fall for the okey doke.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 4199. You don't get to pick the horse after that horse has already won the race, but that is exactly what my Republican colleagues are seeking to do today. S. 4199 was bipartisan until just over a month ago. It was a bill that I was proud to support, and it is one that I have been fighting for because there is no question that we need more Federal judgeships. We have been fighting this battle for years. We haven't been able to pass a comprehensive bill on judgeships in over three decades because my friends on the other side of the aisle want to strangle the judicial system and privatize it, want to do forced arbitration, and want to clog up the courts. Then, when my colleagues do get a chance to appoint judges to the court, and Justices, Republicans appoint rightwing extreme ideologues to the bench. When we look at the appointments that Donald Trump has announced so far, people like Stephen Miller, Matt Gaetz, Robert Kennedy, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel, it is clear that Trump has said and has acted in ways to pervert the justice system. Mr. Speaker, S. 4199 would give this incoming President 25 appointments to the Federal judiciary of extreme rightwing ideologues. It is just not something that is appropriate for us to support at this particular time, given his track record. Mr. Speaker, we could have passed this bill before the lameduck session. In fact, that was what the intent was. It was to pass this legislation before the next President was known. That was why the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Since the Senate passed the bill before the election, they adhered to the precept that we would pass this without knowing who the incoming President would be. The Senate did its job. It held up to its end of the bargain and sent this bill to us way back in August, before the election. When S. 4199 arrived in the House, Republican leadership injected politics right back into the bill. The majority tried to do a McConnell-type move here. My colleagues refused to bring the bill up before the election, despite our pleadings that this bill must pass in September to avoid politics and honor the agreement on the unknown next President, just as the Senate did. Mr. Speaker, it is not about honoring the agreement or fairness, but it is about guaranteeing an outcome that will be in the majority's favor. We stand here today knowing who the next President will be. That means that one party now will have a significant advantage under this bill. This is the exact outcome we intended to avoid. It is because of that broken promise that I can no longer support this bill. I do not take this position lightly. Our judiciary is in dire need of independent judges who will make reasoned decisions based on the law, but if Republicans think giving 25 more district court seats to Trump is going to fix the problem, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are sadly mistaken. Bringing this bill to the floor after the election isn't fair and is not right, and this is rigging the game in the majority's favor. It makes it political. It brings McConnell into the House. I can't, in good conscience, support this bill, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same. It has been a pleasure working hard with my Republican colleague (Mr. Tiffany). Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7326, which makes a number of technical amendments to title 5 of the U.S. Code, while making no substantive changes. I support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7316, which makes a number of technical amendments to title 54 of the United States Code, while making no substantive changes. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9151. This legislation would create a task force within the Department of Justice to increase the prosecution of trade-related crimes. Although DOJ already has dedicated personnel to enforce laws protecting Americans from illegal products, limited funding prevents prosecutors from doing more. Americans are protected from trade crimes by a patchwork of national security laws, including the Tariff Act of 1930, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and many others. These studies protect against a wide variety of crimes that impact the health, safety, and financial security of Americans, from the importation of counterfeit goods to the commission of trade secret theft through economic espionage. We have all heard stories about the most egregious cases: exploding counterfeit batteries that cause e-cigarettes to maim users, computer chips equipped with spyware in our product stream that endanger military secrets, handbags made with forced Uyghur labor passed off as fair-trade materials. These are terrible outcomes with clear victims, and United States law enforcement should ensure these cases never happen again. Other trade crimes may not have a clear victim or a defined perpetrator, but they are equally pernicious. For example, cyber intrusions can risk a company's trade secrets without their knowledge. They may never become aware of the data leak, but a foreign competitor can use the intellectual property to unfairly compete with the targeted company. Counterfeit products that look identical to a brand's trademark can cause irreparable damage to a small business or designer. Victims can suffer reputational damage, lose the opportunity to break into a specific market, and otherwise lose revenue that would have gone to them. The deluge of counterfeits and the unique way trade crimes are perpetrated have made it increasingly difficult for prosecutors at the Department of Justice to enforce our laws. H.R. 9151 would help the government prevent trade loss by creating a task force to identify, investigate, and prosecute crimes that hurt Americans in every industry. This legislation has been a bipartisan effort, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the select committee on China, the Appropriations Committee, and the Judiciary Committee for creating carefully negotiated legislation that, if properly funded, would help the Department of Justice better pursue their objectives. Without such funding, however, the myriad investigators, prosecutors, and support staff envisioned for the task force will never be hired. You cannot increase trade crime enforcement without increasing the number of prosecutors working on the issue, and you cannot increase the number of staff handling trade crimes without more funding. Over and over again, I have heard my colleagues across the aisle call for Congress to defund agencies across the Federal Government, especially the Department of Justice, yet in the same breath they ask them to do more to protect Americans. You cannot withhold funding from agencies that keep us safe and then act surprised when they do not have enough people to do the job. I sincerely hope we commit dedicated appropriations to this program and all aspects of DOJ in the days and months ahead. I support this legislation, and I support funding this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' when it comes to a vote. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Over the last year, the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet has held multiple bipartisan subcommittee hearings regarding the IP and trade crimes threat posed by the Chinese Government. Witnesses have testified about the flood of trade crimes and the inability of our government's limited resources to prevent, detect, and prosecute violations of the law. This legislation, if adequately funded, would help address these concerns. It is a small step in the right direction, but it will be a significant step nonetheless, so long as we complete the puzzle by properly funding the program through the appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 9151, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3960. This legislation makes a minor technical change to give the Patent and Trademark Office the flexibility to decide when to penalize patent applicants for false certifications of eligibility for fee reductions. When Congress passed the Unleashing American Innovators Act as part of the government funding package for fiscal year 2023, we did so with the intention of making patents no longer the sport of kings but an opportunity for inventors to make a decent living. Innovators should not have to work for a Big Tech company, major manufacturer, or any other powerhouse of industry to be able to file a patent, but that is exactly what often happens. Financial hurdles associated with obtaining and owning a patent, from hiring a lawyer to searching for prior art, to paying standard application fees, can prevent individuals from seeking patents for their inventions. Barriers to entry like these hurt everyone, but above all they hurt women, veterans, and minorities who often do not have the resources to go it alone. The result is that fewer ideas make it out there into the American innovation space. All of our talent becomes siloed in just a few companies and in just a few industries, and prospective creators shelve their ideas for another day. The Unleashing American Innovators Act sought to disrupt the current state of play by making a series of good-government changes to the way the USPTO works, including by increasing the discount on fees for small and micro entities and by imposing penalties for making fraudulent certifications to obtain a discount. However, I am sure many out there will be shocked to learn that Congress sometimes makes mistakes, and in creating these new fee waivers and associated penalties for trying to abuse said waivers, we neglected to consider that applicants can make honest mistakes in their applications. If innovators are too afraid to apply for financial exemptions because penalties for honest mistakes can lose them a chance at a patent, then all of our improvements may as well simply not exist. S. 3960 would correct this minor error. Under this legislative fix, a USPTO director would no longer be forced to fine a good-faith actor who erroneously asserts that they are entitled to a fee reduction for small- or micro-entity status. By allowing for honest mistakes in the application process, this technical fix will ensure that everyone has a seat at the table. I thank the chairman of the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee, Mr. Issa, for introducing the House version of this legislation, which I was proud to join along with Congresswoman Ross. I thank Ms. Ross for leading the Unleashing American Innovators Act. This legislation has already passed the Senate, and I encourage all Members to support it so that we can send it to the President's desk. Madam Speaker, in closing, failing to account for good-faith mistakes harms the exact same people the Unleashing American Innovators Act sought to help. Individuals and entities that can barely afford filing fees certainly do not have the financial resources to weather a hefty fine. Moreover, unlike large entities, the prospect of losing a patent associated with an erroneous application could very well mean losing everything. Smaller entities, therefore, are the most likely to avoid the risk of applying for the very programs that exist to help them. This legislation will ensure that the USPTO director will no longer be forced to fine inventors who make honest mistakes when they apply for a patent, ensuring that the people we were trying to help in creating the program are not chilled from participation. Again, I support this legislation, I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7177, which would amend title 28 of the United States Code to consolidate certain divisions in the Northern District of Alabama. By reducing the divisions of the Northern District of Alabama from seven to five and reorganizing some Alabama counties within those divisions, this bill reallocates the judicial docket across the district, ensuring that the 2.8 million residents of the Northern District of Alabama have access to a speedy judicial system. When a courthouse closes, we may not hear about it here in our Nation's Capital, but the people who live and work in those judicial districts are intimately aware of the deleterious effect of courthouse closures on their community: Office workers lose their jobs. Other nearby courthouses become overcrowded, and thousands of people are left wondering if our judicial system will still work for them when they need it most. That is exactly what is happening in the Northern District of Alabama. After courthouses closed, the district itself requested these changes, which were elevated to Congress by the Judicial Conference of the United States earlier this year. These changes prescribed in this legislation are not meaningless, technical edits. Moving some Alabama counties to different judicial divisions would make a world of difference to the people who live and work in those communities. About 59 percent of the population of Alabama lives in the Northern District, which includes 31 of the State's 67 counties, and 2 of the State's most populous cities, Birmingham and Huntsville. Since so many Americans rely on the Northern District of Alabama to access our courthouse doors, the judicial system there must be able to spread a large volume of cases across its different divisions. This is not a question of apportionment. Our country cannot have a flourishing justice system when residents are unduly burdened in their attempts to access it. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representatives from Alabama, especially the sponsor, Congressman Strong, for introducing this legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purposes of closing. Madam Speaker, by reallocating the judicial docket across the district, this bill ensures that 2.8 million residents of the Northern District of Alabama have access to a speedy judicial system. In a Nation such as ours, where the population is constantly evolving, our judicial system must be responsive to the needs of residents no matter where they live. Constituents in different divisions of the Northern District of Alabama deserve a courthouse that is geographically convenient so that they do not have to drive hours away from home to access the American judicial system. Responding to the needs of these residents is a small step in the right direction toward making our judicial system work for everyone, not just those who are fortunate enough to live close to a Federal courthouse in a metropolis. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the bill and send it to the Senate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8666, which would amend title 28 of the United States Code to authorize holding court in the Central Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello. Adding two additional places to hold court in the Central Division of Utah would help ameliorate the consequential barriers to jury service and court attendance faced by the Federal courts in southeastern Utah. Moab and Monticello are geographically remote, making it difficult for Americans in those communities to readily exercise their Seventh Amendment rights. We are here today because it makes no sense that litigants should incur dramatically increased travel time and administrative costs to seek justice just because someone lives far from the nearest big city. Every day, the ratio of Federal judges to Americans decreases as our population continues to increase. That means that every day our constituents are a little less protected by the United States court system than they were the day before. Legislation like this bill will help alleviate the burdens of our court system, and it is widely popular on both sides of the aisle. That is no small feat. Congress first organized Utah as one judicial district in 1894 with one authorized judgeship. The State's steady growth prompted Congress to add four additional judgeships over the last 100-plus years and to increase the number of places to hold court in Utah. We are at another such inflection point today. This bill before us has been requested by the local Federal district, as well as the Judicial Conference, to meet this moment. Small steps, such as passing this bill today, are positive moves in the right direction to help the people of Utah gain equal access to justice. I thank Congresswoman Maloy and Congressman Curtis for sponsoring this legislation to improve the lives of the residents of Utah, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, Americans deserve accessible courts close to their homes. There is no reason litigants should incur dramatically increased travel time and administrative costs to seek justice just because someone lives far from the nearest large city. Adding two additional places to hold court in the Central Division of Utah would make the system just a little bit fairer for the people who live there. Madam Speaker, for that reason, I urge all Members to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 9563, the Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2024, is targeted legislation to eliminate a loophole in U.S. law that could allow Russian companies to take advantage of Americans in the United States Federal court system. Under the Biden-Harris administration, the United States has sanctioned thousands of Russians and Russian entities. Agencies across our government, including but not limited to the United States Treasury, the Department of Commerce, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control have worked to make foreign aggression unaffordable for the Russian war machine. Sanctioned Russian entities, for the most part, have little recourse. A Russian company, for example, cannot physically force U.S. software companies to license platforms or provide them with IT services. In some limited situations, however, sanctioned Russian entities could bring suit in the United States Federal court system. The legislation before us today would close that loophole. H.R. 9563 amends title 28 of the United States Code to ensure that U.S. individuals cannot be sued for good faith efforts to comply with U.S. sanctions and export controls. Good faith compliance can include refusal to perform on a purchase contract, the revocation of software credentials, or the freezing of funds of a sanctioned entity, to name a few. For example, under this provision, a Russian diamond mine could not sue an American company in Federal court for refusing to honor an importation contract because the U.S. issued diamond sanctions in March 2022. Our businesses here at home should not be open to liability for complying with the law, but that is exactly what happened to J.P. Morgan earlier this year. Throughout 2024, J.P. Morgan has been embroiled in U.S. and Russian lawsuits with Russian bank VTB for complying with U.S. sanctions related to the war in Ukraine. I recognize there are some in this country who have praised Russia for its aggression, who have suggested that we should no longer provide aid to our ally Ukraine. As Russia's war continues unabated, however, it is important we remember that Russia's aggression is a destabilizing force in the region. An emboldened Russia, bolstered by North Korean military aid, represents a clear threat to the United States' interests abroad and to our NATO allies. We should not reward their behavior by letting them take advantage of U.S. companies in our courts. Madam Speaker, I thank my friends, Congressman Hunt and Congressman Ivey, for their work on this bill. I am glad to join them as a cosponsor in this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 9563. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey), my friend.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, Russian companies should not be able to use U.S. Federal law to punish U.S. entities for good faith compliance with American sanctions. H.R. 9563 would ensure that Russia and Russian entities cannot exploit loopholes in our laws to punish United States businesses. Because of the ongoing threat posed by Russia, U.S. sanctions are as important today as they were when the war began nearly 3 years ago. Making compliance easier on American companies is an important way to ensure the U.S. remains strong in its resolve to defend and support Ukraine. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities the House gives the House Committee on the Judiciary is to oversee the revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. Keeping track of the new laws Congress passes every session is a formidable challenge, but it is an essential part of maintaining the rule of law in our country. It is a role we take seriously on the House Committee on the Judiciary. I thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this legislation to the floor on a bipartisan basis today to further this important duty. The body of Federal law is so large and complex at this point that it would be almost completely unmanageable without the United States Code. Currently consisting of 54 titles, the code compiles the general and permanent laws of the United States into coherent subject areas. This makes our Federal laws accessible both to the government officials who work to fairly administer them and to the private citizens who seek the benefits or relief the laws provide them. To date, 27 of these 54 titles have been enacted into ``positive law,'' which means the text of these titles is itself the law while the remaining titles are ``non-positive,'' meaning they organize Federal statutes for users' convenience but do not themselves have the force of law. The painstaking and vital work of maintaining and updating the code falls to the expert lawyers working under the supervision of the House in the Office of the Law Revision Counsel. We owe a great debt to these attorneys who ably carry out their statutory mandate ``to develop and keep current an official and positive codification of the laws of the United States,'' while maintaining strict impartiality as to legislative policy. H.R. 7324 is the first of five bills that we are taking up today that make conforming changes to statutes that have been impacted by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel's positive law codification efforts while making no change in the meaning or effect of any existing laws. This legislation will help ensure that the code is an authoritative, accurate, and accessible source of Federal law, and I thank the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint) for introducing the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7341, which makes a number of technical amendments to title 49 of the U.S. Code while making no substantive changes. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 7339, which makes a number of technical amendments to title 51 of the United States Code, while making no substantive changes. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), for introducing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).