Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The economic elites who are the patrons of many of my friends across the aisle believe in trickle-down economics, which George Herbert Walker Bush termed to be ``voodoo economics.'' My friends believe that when you put a quarter in the pocket of a rich man, there is a hole in that pocket and the quarter trickles down and falls out into nickles and dimes and is distributed to the waiting working class people of the country. They believe that is how the economy works: give the rich the money, let them operate in an unregulated environment, and then somehow, magically, the economy trickles down to those waiting at the bottom of the scale waiting for some kind of a handout. That is not how our economy works. It works from the ground up. It works with people going to work, making a decent wage, delivering services for a period of time--8 hours a day, that is a regulation; 40 hours a week, that is a regulation. We didn't used to have those during times when people were predominantly poor, and the Nation was poor as a result; but due to these regulations like the minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, the health and safety regulations on the job, we were able to build a middle class in this country that sustained us up until the time when Ronald Reagan won the Presidency and established the current climate of trickle-down economics. We have seen during that time what has happened is the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. The working poor have had less to work with and the middle class has been squeezed so that there are not as many working middle class people as there were once before. So the REINS Act is a gift to the economic elites who have had their way with the economy for the last 40 years. They want to stab the heart of the American economy now by passing this act, the REINS Act, which would not deregulate, but it would stop all future regulations from coming to the fore. That is something that America does not need. So I am going to urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to oppose this legislation and oppose voodoo economics, oppose trickle-down economics. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would except from H.R. 427 all rules that the Office of Management and Budget determines would result in net job creation. As with many other deregulatory bills we have considered this Congress, the proponents of H.R. 427 argue that it will grow the economy, create jobs, and increase America's competitiveness internationally. But we cannot pretend that this politicized legislation is about economic growth or American prosperity. As I have noted during the consideration of each of the antiregulatory bills that we have considered in the 114th Congress, there is simply no credible evidence in support of the majority's reiteration of ``job-killing'' regulations undermining economic growth--zero. The tired rhetoric that my Republican colleagues have repeated again and again since the passage of the REINS Act in 2011 has not changed in light of the changing facts on the ground. The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that unemployment has fallen to 5.3 percent. While there is more work to do to grow the economy and help our Nation's middle class, there have been 64 straight months of private sector job growth. That is 12.8 million private sector jobs created amidst a regulatory environment that is proworker, proenvironment, propublic health and prosafety, and proinnovation. And to those who would brush aside these strong employment figures, the Department of Labor also reported last week that claims for unemployment benefits have dropped to the lowest levels in over 40 years, the lowest level since November of 1973. Do these numbers mean that the major rules adopted during the Obama administration have decreased employment, grown the economy, or contributed to the drop in unemployment benefit claims? While I would submit that regulations have a positive effect on sustainable economic growth, the reality is that there is little correlation between regulations and the economy. Don't just take my word for it; take the word of the San Francisco and New York Federal Reserve Banks, which found zero correlation between employment and regulation. Take the word of Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush administrations, who strongly refuted the claim that regulations undermine the economy or job growth, explaining that Republicans ``assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring. No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self- evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.'' Take the word of the Washington Post, which gave ``two Pinnochios'' to industry estimates of the costs of regulations earlier this year. Take the word of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which debunked claims that regulations have a trillion dollar cost to the economy. Mr. Chairman, we need real solutions to help real people, not yet another thinly veiled handout to large corporations and the economic elite. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to oppose H.R. 427. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1656, the Secret Service Improvements Act, will assist the Secret Service with its critical mission of protecting the President and Vice President and other dignitaries as well as with its investigative role in protecting our Nation's financial infrastructure against criminal threats. This important bill was introduced by the bipartisan leadership of the Judiciary Committee: Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member John Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee. H.R. 1656 was developed to address shortcomings related to the Secret Service that have come to light in recent years. Unfortunately, the image of this once revered agency has been tarnished both because of the misbehavior of agents and of the performance issues that have resulted in security lapses. Last fall, the Judiciary Committee held an important oversight hearing to review the operation of this vitally important agency. Then-Acting Director Joseph Clancy, who has since taken on the job on a more permanent basis, came before the committee to discuss the mission of the agency and issues relating to recent lapses in security that could have jeopardized the individuals the agency is sworn to protect. In particular, the committee engaged in a frank discussion about the unacceptable incident last September in which a man was able to jump over the White House's fence, run past Secret Service officers, and enter the White House. We learned that, while there were performance errors made by some of the officers that day, the protective mission of the Secret Service has been jeopardized largely because the agency has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. Personnel levels are unacceptably low; the long hours on duty leave little time for training; equipment and technological systems are not upgraded or integrated sufficiently; and the culture of the agency has suffered from poor leadership. These conclusions were confirmed and expanded upon by the review panel established by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in the wake of the White House's intrusion last year. H.R. 1656 was introduced to address several categories of these challenges to the mission of the Secret Service: leadership, resources, training, authorities, and personal conduct: With respect to leadership, the bill requires the position of Director of the Secret Service to be confirmed by the Senate after the Presidential nomination; With respect to resources, the bill authorizes the hiring of additional personnel and requires a review of the agency's use of technology, an area of concern based on past security lapses; With respect to training, the bill requires more training for agents and Uniformed Division officers, and it also authorizes the construction of better training facilities; With respect to authorities, the bill allows the agency to investigate threats against former Vice Presidents in the same way it investigates threats against former Presidents; With respect to personal conduct, the bill establishes an Ethics Program Office that will emphasize the need for agency personnel to conduct themselves according to established ethical standards. The goal of this bill is to prevent future security lapses similar to what the agency has experienced in recent years and to protect against even more sophisticated threats that could result in far more harm. This is a strong, bipartisan bill that, I hope, will soon become law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would, at this time, like to thank my chairman, Bob Goodlatte, of the Judiciary Committee, for his expeditious bringing of this legislation to the committee and now to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1482, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015, would extend an exemption to the Federal antitrust laws that permits some of our Nation's most prestigious colleges and universities to agree to admit students on a need-blind basis and award financial aid to students with the most demonstrated need. I am pleased to serve as the lead Democratic cosponsor of the House companion to this bipartisan legislation. S. 1482 allows colleges and universities that admit students on a need-blind basis to collaborate on the formula they use to determine how much families can pay for college. This exemption was first enacted in 1992, and since then, Congress has reauthorized it four times without opposition, most recently in 2008. In addition to allowing collaboration on a common formula for calculating an applicant's ability to pay for college, the exemption also allows academic institutions to agree to award aid only on the basis of financial need. In other words, this exemption ensures that the most qualified students may attend some of our Nation's most prestigious schools, regardless of family income. This is especially important for low- income students, who should not be forced to choose between academic institutions on the basis of financial need or financial aid alone. While I think we could do more to empower students through better funding of higher education, this legislation is critical to preserving a level playing field for students at these institutions through a need-blind admissions process. The 568 Presidents' Group, a coalition of 23 prestigious colleges and universities that support need-based financial aid, strongly supports this bill. In a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, the 568 Presidents' Group stated that the exemption allows institutions to maximize the allocation of financial aid to ``ensure that those funds are targeted to benefit the students with the greatest financial need and to reduce or, in some cases, eliminate debt loads on graduation.'' Similarly, the presidents of Duke and Cornell have written in support of this legislation, stating that the exemption ``makes a real difference for our students'' and is essential to developing the ``best practices to calculate institutional aid awards.'' We should move quickly to adopt this legislation and ensure that this important exemption does not expire. In closing, I thank my colleague Congressman Lamar Smith, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his steadfast leadership on this bill since the 105th Congress and during this Congress. I also thank my Senate colleagues, Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley, for their leadership on the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support S. 1482, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I came to the floor and said it felt like open season on Black men in America. People around the country agree that the police killings undermine the efforts of good police and break the trust between police and their communities. Black women and girls face the same threats and many more. Unsettling video of a police officer in Texas manhandling an unarmed 15-year-old girl in a bathing suit served as a wake-up call to all of us. The arrest and death of Sandra Bland reminds us that the fight for equal justice under the law continues. Black women also face a unique and, too often, unreported violence: sexual assault. In Oklahoma, an officer is on trial for sexually assaulting eight Black women. Tragically, this story is not unique. The challenges Black men face are real, but I was humbled to learn how unequal justice affects Black women. Black women are the fastest growing prison population, and their stories must be told if we are going to break this trend. Mr. Speaker, it is open season on all Americans.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Southern strategy was and is a Republican strategy of gaining political support for its political candidates by appealing to regional and racial tensions in this country based on the history of slavery, the history of the Civil War, racism, and segregation. That is a history that is indefensible, and so is the Confederate battle flag which represents those attitudes. I call upon my fellow colleagues in the Republican Party to denounce this Southern strategy once and for all and to do what it takes to affirm the tide of this country, which is to do away with that symbol of oppression and racial animist, the Confederate battle flag. Let's remove that flag from our national cemeteries, from our Park Service, places of purchasing memorabilia.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, impartial justice and access to the courts is a right guaranteed to every citizen in this country. Across the street from this Chamber, Lady Justice sits blindfolded on the steps of the Supreme Court so we can all be reminded that justice should be blind. Today, we are debating yet another Republican bill restricting access to the courts to only those with deep pockets. H.R. 2647 continues the alarming trend of Republican-sponsored legislation that proposes to limit the average American's access to the courts so polluters that line the pockets of politicians with campaign contributions can continue to profit. H.R. 2647 requires that a citizen post a bond prior to challenging the United States Government's forest management activities. This bond must cover all the defendant's anticipated cost, expenses, and attorney's fees to be paid if the defendant prevails. In the rare occasion plaintiffs are successful, they will only be able to recover the amount posted in the bond and only if they win exactly on all counts. The government, however, does not have to cover any of the plaintiff's costs. Requiring the posting of a bond that could be as costly as tens of thousands of dollars undermines citizen access to the courts when a party believes the government failed to follow the law. The individual consumer, nonprofit organizations, small business, or public interest groups do not have the financial ability to challenge large corporations or, more often, the Federal Government which citizens believe is harming their communities or environment. By allowing citizens to recover their reasonable legal fees when they file suit and win in court, you encourage Americans to participate in public discourse and to hold the government accountable. Rollbacks to judicial review and imposition of attorney's fees upon plaintiffs, along with legislative interference with key judicial powers contemplated in H.R. 2647, cripple the ability of those concerned with environmental protection to seek representation and redress in the courts. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation: Whereas, Thirty five years ago a virtuous woman of God accepted her calling to serve as a teacher, administrator and principal; and Whereas, Ms. Phyllis E. Daniel has enhanced the academic curriculum of Public Schools in DeKalb County, Georgia and has increased the good will of the schools in my district. Her work resonates throughout the community and she has created a legacy for students through scholarships and servitude; and Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents as a friend, a fearless leader and a servant to ensure that all students receive the best education and skills to become outstanding leaders of our communities and nation; and Whereas, Ms. Phyllis E. Daniel is a cornerstone in our community who has enhanced the lives of thousands for the betterment of my District and our Nation; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Phyllis E. Daniel on her retirement and to wish her well in her new endeavors; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim May 26, 2015 as Ms. Phyllis E. Daniel Day in the 4th Congressional District. Proclaimed, this 26th day of May, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and thank Jim Tudor with the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores who is retiring this week after 29 years of outstanding service to the people of Georgia. Jim and his wife Sandra Tudor have 4 children, James, Kelly, Bobby & Bill, and 5 grandchildren. In addition to working for 29 years on behalf of Georgia consumers at the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores, Jim worked for 7-Eleven for nine years and served his country as a member of the U.S. Army for two years. An active member of my community, Jim donated his time through the Covington Rotary and previously the South Dekalb Rotary. Over the years Jim has received a number of awards, including the Liberty Award from Brown & Williamson in 2000 and various Pigeon Awards from The Pigeon Committee--a group of fellow lobbyists for the State of Georgia. Jim was recognized by James Magazine as one of the Top Ten Lobbyists or Trade Organizations for 3 straight years: 2012-2013-2014. He gives back to his community and has been extremely active with Georgia Youth Assembly, the YMCA, and various other youth groups as a mentor and leader. Upon retirement, Jim and Sandra plan to roam the countryside in their retro-style 2015 Mellow Yellow Winnebago. I wish Jim, Sandra, and the entire Tudor family lots of happiness as they embark on this new adventure.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation: Whereas, the arrival of John Dominy and his two sons Tom Ball and Abraham McCormick to America in 1830 began the McCormick family lineage which has blessed us with descendants that have helped to shape our nation; and Whereas, the McCormick Family has produced many well respected citizens, and the patriarchs and matriarchs of the McCormick family are pillars of strength that have touched the lives of many; and Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we are honored to have members of the McCormick family for they are some of our most honorable citizens in our District; and Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions in the world and we take pride in knowing that families such as the McCormick family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other, honor one another and to pass along history to each other through their family reunion in DeKalb County, Georgia; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize the McCormick family; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim August 1, 2015 as McCormick Family Reunion Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 1st day of August, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation: Whereas, reaching the age of 90 years is a remarkable milestone; and Whereas, Ms. Gladys Opelousas was born on August 30, 1925 in Marks, Mississippi and today she is celebrating reaching that milestone of reaching 90 years of age; and Whereas, Ms. Opelousas has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted to God and credits it all to the Will of God; she is a devoted aunt and sister that blesses the lives of others with her kindness and charm; and Whereas, Ms. Opelousas is celebrating her 90th Birthday with family members and friends in Chicago, Illinois; and Whereas, she celebrates a life of blessings and through her goodwill, communities across the nation have been enhanced; and Whereas, the Lord has been her Shepherd throughout 90 years and she is leading by example a blessed life by serving as a faithful matriarch to her family and a precious jewel to our nation; and Whereas, we are honored that she is celebrating the milestone of her birthday today with family that hail from the 4th District of Georgia; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Gladys Opelousas for an exemplary life which is an inspiration to all; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim August 30, 2015 as Ms. Gladys Opelousas Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 15th day of August, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation: Whereas, Ms. Carrie Mae Pace-Williams Thompson was born on December 10, 1920 in Taliaferro County, Georgia and this year she is celebrating a remarkable milestone reaching 95 years of age; and Whereas, Ms. Pace-Williams Thompson has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted to God and credits it all to the Will of God; she is a strong woman of God and a sister in the Hall Order of Eastern Stars; and Whereas, Ms. Pace-Williams Thompson is celebrating her 95th Birthday with family members at this year's Pace-Williams Family Reunion in Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Whereas, she celebrates a life of blessings as a Mother, Grandmother, Great Grandmother, Great-Great Grandmother, friend, community servant and leader; and Whereas, the Lord has been her Shepherd throughout her 95 years and she prays daily and leads by example serving as an advocate, faithful matriarch and a community leader; and Whereas, we are honored that she is celebrating her birthday today with family and friends giving generations of loved ones the opportunity to give thanks and display their love for the blessings that God has bestowed upon the Pace-Williams family; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Pace-Williams Thompson for an exemplary life which is an inspiration to all; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim June 26th and December 10th, 2015 as Ms. Carrie Mae Pace-Williams Thompson Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 26th day of June, 2015.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank before its charter expires on June 30. In fiscal year 2014 alone, the Ex-Im Bank supported $27.4 billion worth of U.S. exports, with $10.7 billion of that total representing exports from small businesses. Additionally, 90 percent of all Ex-Im transactions directly supported small business and more than 163,000 American jobs. That is why 180 Democrats signed a discharge petition to force a vote on this important issue. Despite this data, some Republicans wrongly think the Ex-Im Bank represents crony capitalism that should be ended. For those Members, I will leave you with this: Men lie, women lie, but numbers don't lie. Reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's airports are economic and cultural engines that drive our local, State, and national economy. They are the front door for many of our communities. Unfortunately, they are also a known target for those seeking to incite fear. Two weeks ago, a man entered the world's busiest airport in Atlanta, Georgia, carrying a loaded AR-15 automatic weapon with an extended capacity 100-round magazine. He did so only to make a point, and that was to show that he was legally able to carry his firearm in the airport. Mr. Speaker, actions like this, which follow shootings at airports in Los Angeles and Houston, undermine public security in the same way as yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Today, I will introduce legislation to prohibit the carrying of loaded weapons in our Nation's airports. The Airport Security Act is a commonsense bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in keeping the traveling public safe.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, sheriff's departments and local police departments are local peace officers. They enforce the law and maintain peace and order. Ideally, they are members of the communities in which they serve. The Department of Defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes distort the relationship between police and their communities by providing over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local police, including armored vehicles and military grade weapons. Police who patrol the streets and neighborhoods in armored MRAPs, while armed to the hilt, can easily lose sight of their role, which is to protect and serve, and, instead, take on the mindset of a paramilitary occupation force. The routine showing of military authority on our streets creates mistrust that only further deepens the divide between law enforcement and the people they are sworn to protect and serve. My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the transfer of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, or MRAPs--for free--straight from the Department of Defense to local law enforcement agencies. This amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law enforcement agencies and police should not have. Instead, it is about whether this Congress should purchase MRAPs for fighting wars abroad and then allow the Department of Defense to give that equipment away to civilian law enforcement here at home, for free, to use on the streets of America. Local governments, in consultation with the law enforcement agencies they oversee, should decide what types of equipment their law enforcement agencies can acquire. Law enforcement agencies should not unilaterally make that decision independent of civilian authority. The local governments can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary for use by the agencies under their control through their local budgeting process, and they can seek financial assistance to purchase necessary equipment from Federal grant programs. This amendment doesn't touch grant money or the State's or local government's freedom to purchase the equipment it needs. The local budget process and application for Federal grant programs involve making choices based on need and funding, while the 1033 program is an unregulated pipeline of free equipment directly from the Pentagon to the law enforcement agency. When the equipment is free and in plentiful supply and civilian authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple: Why not accept free equipment? Why not obtain equipment based on desire rather than need? However, if acquiring the equipment required the use of local funds or involved applying for grant money, the decision would be more deliberative and inclusive of civilian authority. Other factors would be considered, including whether there is a need for such equipment, how the equipment would be used, and whether the community consents to being policed with such equipment. This amendment simply shuts off the pipeline of military equipment from the battlefield to our main streets. This amendment forces us to consider whether MRAPs, designed and purchased for battle in the Iraqi desert, are suitable for our local police. It forces us to consider whether an ordinary American citizen would truly feel comfortable in approaching an officer for help if the officer were behind the wheel of a 15-ton armored vehicle that had just been returned from combat in Afghanistan. This amendment would end the transfer of these armored vehicles to school systems and to universities across the country. Are our children so unruly that order can only be maintained with the use of an MRAP? Unless this amendment passes, a vote for the underlying bill will ultimately fund the purchase of MRAPs, which will, one day, be transferred back home for use against our constituents. The consequences are too dangerous to continue this indiscriminate flow of weaponry to the streets of this Nation. I urge support for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, on May 28, 2014, narcotics agents, assisted by members of the Habersham County, Georgia, Special Response Team, executed a no-knock search warrant on a home on a quiet street. Officers terrified the sleeping family but did not find any drugs when they entered the home. During the raid, a 2-year-old child, baby Bou Bou, was badly burned when the officers tossed a flash-bang grenade into his playpen which was located in a darkened room. The officers justified their actions by saying that their intelligence indicated that there would be no children present. Mr. Chairman, as an editorial in The Washington Post noted: ``A flash-bang grenade is an explosive device that emits a deafening boom and a blinding flash of light. It is designed to temporarily stun the occupants of a building so that the armed men who deployed it can clear the building. It is an instrument of war.'' My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the transfer of flash-bang grenades from the Department of Defense to local law enforcement. The Department of Defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes distort the relationship between the police and the communities they serve by allocating over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local police, including flash-bang grenades. Nothing in current law prevents the military from giving police, including school and university police departments, flash-bang grenades. Allowing this loophole to exist puts our communities at risk of increasing militarization. Mr. Chairman, while we have real tensions across the country, our police and their communities are not at war. Funneling free military equipment to the police, however, helps to further deepen the divide in our communities. The same Washington Post article I mentioned earlier cited over a dozen incidents in recent years where police injured themselves or others while using flash-bang grenades. This amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law enforcement agencies should or should not have. Instead, it is about whether this Congress should purchase flash-bang grenades for fighting wars abroad and then allow these flash-bang grenades to be transferred by the Department of Defense back to local law enforcement agencies for use here at home. Local governments, in consultation with law enforcement agencies that they oversee, should decide what types of equipment the law enforcement agencies can acquire. Law enforcement agencies should not unilaterally make that decision independent of civilian authority. The local government can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary for use by the agencies under their control through the local budgeting process, and they can also seek financial assistance through Federal grants. This amendment doesn't touch grant money or State or local governments' freedom to purchase the equipment they need. The local budget process and Federal grant programs involve making choices based on need and funding. The 1033 program is an unregulated pipeline of free equipment directly from the Pentagon to the law enforcement agency. When the equipment is free and is plentiful and civilian authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple: why not accept free gifts of military equipment. However, if acquiring this equipment militarizes our police departments beyond comprehension, what kind of community policing are we actually performing? Or are we just simply occupying? This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very common sense. We should consider whether or not we want our country to move in this direction of militarization, and we certainly need our civilian authorities to be involved in that process. So the consequences are too dangerous to keep proliferating this weaponry on our streets, and I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

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