Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, ladies and gentlemen, with a heavy heart because today we had a secret grand jury finding in New York that resulted in no charges against the police officer who killed an unarmed man named Eric Garner, a man whom they accused of trying to sell some cigarettes. That man was approached by law enforcement on the streets of New York, and when approached, he said that he had not done anything wrong. He held his hands up in the hands up, don't shoot position, and they took him down while his hands were up and applied a choke hold, an illegal choke hold, and applied it until the man took his last breath. What did Eric Garner say 13 times before he died? What did he say 13 times before he died? He said, ``I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe.'' And he said that over and over again until he could not breathe. He took his last breath just like Michael Brown, accused of stealing some cigarettes--or cigars, excuse me--Michael Brown, accused of stealing some cigars, Eric Garner, accused of selling some cigarettes. I don't know when possession and/or sale of tobacco merited a death penalty in this country, but both of them, both of those cases involved tobacco products. Both of them involved men--Black men--with their hands up in the ``don't shoot'' position. Both of them were killed. Both cases were handled in a secret grand jury process. We don't know the names of the grand jurors, we don't know what went on in that grand jury room, although we do have the transcript in the Michael Brown case, and it shows that a lot of injustice was done in that grand jury room which resulted in an unjust no bill against the police officer involved in that case. We don't know what happened in the New York case, but we got a result, a no bill against that police officer who was caught on tape just like in the Rodney King case, all caught on tape, Eric Garner caught on tape, the killing, but still no justice done. Cameras are not the sole answer, it appears. It runs deeper than a camera. These are dark days, ladies and gentlemen, that we are living in today. The first African American President is treated like no other President has ever been treated before. Is this a symptom of the Obama backlash that is occurring in this country? Is there any connection between what we see happening in the streets of Ferguson and on the streets of New York, with what is going on with the dehumanization of the leader of the free world? First they said he was not a resident, not a citizen of this country. Then they said he was a Communist, a socialist. They accused him of being weak and indecisive as a President and not really having the intellectual capacity to be the President. Now they are saying he was a Muslim. Now they are saying that he is an emperor, a king, disregarding the Constitution. Where are we in America when it comes to Black males and how we treat them and how they end up faring in life? Is it our fault? Yes, we do have responsibility. We can always do better. But don't put your foot on my neck and tell me that it is my fault that your foot is on my neck. People are tired of seeing what is happening over and over again. A young, 12-year-old Black male with a BB gun at a park on the streets and a police car rolls up, a police officer gets out and immediately shoots the young man and kills him. Will that go to another secret grand jury process and have the same result as what we saw with Michael Brown and Eric Garner? It is happening throughout the streets of the Nation. I tell you, I have been gratified by the protesters. I have seen protesters out there. It has been Black and White protesters out there demonstrating peacefully being met with a militarized response. And I say that to say this, that I am going to paraphrase something that you will probably be familiar with: They first came for the gypsy, and I wasn't a gypsy, and I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew, and so I didn't say anything. Then they came for the women, and I wasn't a woman, and I didn't say anything. Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to say anything. Is that where we are headed in this country, ladies and gentlemen? Because there are all kinds of people out peacefully protesting, and that is what I advocate for, peaceful protests. Violence is not the way. Violence just produces more pain and agony. Violence is not the way. Nonviolence is the way that we must confront this because really, when you move past the fact that Black males are at the bottom of the totem pole, and we are the ones who bear the brunt, these who come to aid us are in the line of fire also. What happens to one of us happens to all of us. If not you now, then what happens tomorrow when you come to my assistance? So we all are our brother's keeper. Right now, we are operating under an economic philosophy in this country that only the strong survive. If you are weak, it is your fault, and I don't owe you anything. Don't ask me for nothing. You get yours. I got mine; you get yours. Don't worry about me. Don't ask me for nothing. That is the economic attitude that we have that we are trying to preserve and protect in this hallowed body here. It is called laissez- faire capitalism, and it is supported by the U.S. Supreme Court that has contorted itself in such ways so as to rule in ways that enable a corporation to become a person. When we have a corporation having a right to free speech and having unlimited funds and unlimited duration and we have a corporation that has a right to religious freedom, so that it can dictate to its employees their religious beliefs--it doesn't even make sense for a corporation to have a religious belief, but that is what our Supreme Court has found--and every other way that it can aid corporations to become richer. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and I don't owe you a thing--you are on your own. That is what they want us to believe, but it is time for people--for us to come together. It is all about economics. They put Blacks against Whites, poor Whites and poor Blacks against each other, and then they are going to the bank in the Brink's truck, and we are sitting, pointing fingers at ourselves, when we are all in the same boat together, the 99 percent--or the 47 percent, as one of our Presidential candidates most famously talked about in the last election. I am proudly one of those 47 percent, and I represent the 47 percent that is really the 99 percent. So this extrajudicial killing of Black men has to end. If not, then what is going to happen to you tomorrow? With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is not the kind of vehicle that you want to see cruising the streets of your neighborhood. This is not a police cruiser. And while walking the streets of your neighborhood, you don't want to see these kinds of military-garbed officers patrolling your neighborhood on routine patrol. When you militarize your police department, you get a militarized response to peaceful and lawful citizen protests. If you don't want to see the continued militarization of your police departments through the 1033 National Defense Authorization Act program, then support my legislation, the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 5478.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4, the so-called Jobs for America Act. It brings to mind occasions where, as a youth, my sister and I would go to my uncle's house in Cleveland. My uncle's wife would prepare a lot of food, and we would sit down and eat. The food would taste terrible. We had a couple of more days to be there, and so we hoped for the best. The next day, when we sat down at dinner, we had leftovers. This is what this bill reminds me of. It is a package of anti- consumer, anti-safety, anti-environment bills that the House has already passed. This omnibus legislation is emblematic of a Republican Party that lacks vision or direction for Americans that demand cooperation and leadership. This bill smacks of a new Republican leadership that is still on training wheels, unable to work across the aisle to deliver real solutions to grow the economy and create jobs; but what is new from a Republican Party that voted dozens and dozens of time to defund and defeat the Affordable Care Act, the same law that is helping American families by keeping millions of young people--be they recent college graduates looking for their first job or students still in school--on their parents' insurance and out of a cycle of unpayable medical debt? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time for the training wheels to come off so that this Chamber can, once again, do the work of the American people. There is a clear, unmistakable thirst in our country for cooperation, bipartisan solutions, and getting things done. The American people look to the House of Representatives for leadership, not one-sided messaging bills that this Chamber has already warmed up, served yesterday--it was bad--and, today, we are eating the leftovers. This Chamber has already considered and passed these bills, and they have no chance, no hope, of becoming law. The so-called Jobs for America Act includes a number of dangerous bills straight from the wish list of industrial polluters and unsafe manufacturers. This legislation will not create a single job. It exists only to minimize corporate accountability while maximizing the likelihood of dangerous, unsafe conditions in our homes, vehicles, workplaces, and throughout the environment. It is time to work together to forge real solutions, Mr. Speaker, not the same dangerous legislation that this Chamber has already passed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. What do you do when the wolf is in front of the door? Do you move back from the door and then kneel down and pray and hope that everything is okay? Or do you take some action? In this kind of situation, the wolf is not at the door yet, but the wolf is coming. The wolf has told you that he is coming. There is a lot of logic into taking preemptive measures to make sure that the wolf does not come to the door. I would rather have the fight there than have it here. The limited fight that we are going to do is the use of our air power, once we train what is called moderate Syrians--opposition. I don't know how that is going to turn out, but I do know that we have no choice but to do something. We must build up the ground forces over there with our partner nations to enter the fight on the ground. We support them. I support this resolution offered by the chairman of the HASC Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day. Today, the House is debating on a continuing resolution and also an amendment to that resolution which would authorize under title 10 the expenditure of $500 million to train moderate Syrian opposition forces. This is not an authorization for the use of military force. It is just simply for the limited purpose which I just stated, but I feel compelled to go a little bit further as to why it is necessary that we be in favor of that amendment to the CR as well as the CR itself. If we do nothing against the ISIL threat, if we choose to be isolationists and take a wait-and-see attitude, the chances are great that the situation will get worse. When it gets worse, that means ISIL gets more powerful. They have been on the run lately, and they have gotten more powerful now. I know people on the other side of the aisle will say that it is the President's fault that ISIL got this strong, but ISIL would not have gotten this strong had it not been for the instability that we created ourselves when we went into Iraq and went to war for an illegitimate purpose, and so we disrupted the stability in that region, and we are still recovering from it now. What do we do now? I would much rather have a President that is thoughtful, deliberate, careful, and moderate in terms of the use of military force than to have a trigger-happy, shoot first, ask questions later type of President. We have seen what that got us. Our President has taken a very reasonable, modest approach. We have not put massive amounts of armaments in Syria that could now be used against us. He was smart enough not to do that; but, now, we have the situation where, due to a number of forces outside of our control, ISIL has gotten bigger, has gotten more menacing, has gotten stronger, and it is a distant threat to our homeland, but it is a threat. What do you do when the wolf is barking out, saying, ``I'm coming to get you,'' what do you do?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to stop the free flow of excess Defense Department military weapons and equipment to local law enforcement. Our neighborhoods need to be protected, but Americans oppose blurring the line between the police and military. When law enforcement uses military MRAPs on Main Street, that changes the relationship with the public. Our country is not a war zone, and it should not feel like one. That is why Representative Raul Labrador and myself are introducing the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. This is a commonsense and bipartisan bill to reform the Department of Defense 1033 program to stop the free flow of this equipment from foreign battlefields directly to the streets of America. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, tonight, I rise to urge the House to adopt H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial and bipartisan piece of legislation. I was proud to introduce this bill in partnership with my colleague and fellow Georgian, Congressman Austin Scott. My bill has the support of both of Georgia's Republican U.S. Senators and 77 bipartisan Members of the House of Representatives. This is an important piece of legislation for the people of Georgia's Fourth Congressional District, whom I represent, but also for the thousands of heroes who fought tirelessly during the civil rights movement for equality in the South and throughout the country. The West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act authorizes the Department of the Interior to conduct a study of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, to determine if it meets the requirements to become part of our Nation's park system. According to the National Park Service, the site may be considered for designation as a national park if it is associated with significant events and people in our Nation's history and contributes to the understanding of these historic events and figures. During the civil rights movement, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church served as the headquarters for many civil rights workers and organizers. It was the site of many important leadership meetings and doubled as a school for nonviolent protests during initiatives such as the Voter Education Project and the Freedom Summer of 1964. It was also a spiritual refuge for the countless men and women who devoted their lives to the cause. Rev. Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., the church's pastor, was the best friend and a partner of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He helped lead the bus boycotts after Rosa Parks famously refused to give up her seat. Rev. Dr. Abernathy, Sr. assumed his position at the church at Dr. King's urging following the success of the Freedom Rides. He was the pastor at West Hunter Street Baptist Church until his death in 1990. Passage of this bill will allow the Department of Interior to assess how to more fully preserve and honor the contributions of all who played significant roles in advancing freedom and human rights, including the Rev. Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr. I urge the House to remember the pivotal nature of the civil rights movement. When considering this bill, think of what the movement meant to our Nation and to the world. As Dr. King said, the struggle for civil rights ``lifted our Nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.'' In addition to broad bipartisan support in the House, this bill enjoys the support of a number of prominent organizations, including the Coalition for the People's Agenda, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio and Subcommittee Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for their support of this bill, and I thank them for moving this bill through the Natural Resources Committee. Again, I want to thank my colleague and homeboy, Austin Scott, for his work on this. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to urge this Do-Nothing Congress to acknowledge the dangers and the reality of climate change. This week we got startling news that once again is falling on deaf ears here in the House of Representatives. The World Meteorological Organization announced that atmospheric carbon levels reached a record high in 2013. And the Audubon Society found that nearly half of all bird species in North America--but, unfortunately, not including the ostrich--are at risk of severe population decline due to climate change. But despite the clear and present danger to the species, the ostrich-like Members of this body have their heads buried in the sand of denial. We can no longer ignore the science. The time to act is now. I support the President's decision to reduce carbon emissions, and I urge my Republican colleagues to take their heads out of the sand so that together we can address this global threat.

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 as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida, the Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 744, the Stopping Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity Theft Act, has laudable goals of addressing the growing problem of tax return identity theft. Unfortunately, in seeking to address one problem, the bill creates another one. Last Congress, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing at which we learned how individuals are victimized by those who file false returns using the names and Social Security numbers of the victims. When someone has had a false return filed in their name, they often have to engage in an arduous process of setting the record straight with the IRS and obtaining a refund they may be due. In other instances, perpetrators sometimes benefit by falsely claiming that a deceased child of another is a dependent on their own forms. Parents of the deceased children are then subjected to the additional grief and burden of clearing things up with the IRS. As a longstanding advocate of personal privacy and personal privacy rights, I am particularly concerned about these schemes which violate the privacy of individuals in addition to imposing financial burdens. Clearly, we need to do more to combat this type of crime. Accordingly, I support the approach in section 2 of the bill, which encourages the Department of Justice, using task forces, to bring its resources to bear on the problem of tax return identity theft. Increased effort in investigating and prosecuting these crimes is certainly necessary, and Congress should work to provide additional resources to support our agents and prosecutors. Unfortunately, another provision in the bill raises serious concerns by expanding mandatory minimum sentencing. The bill amends both the basic identity theft statute and the aggravated identity theft statute so that organizations, and not just individuals, may be covered as victims. Expanding the scope of victims under the aggravated identity theft statute, thus, also expands the scope of mandatory penalties under the statute, section 1028A of title 18. The penalty for aggravated identity theft is a mandatory term of imprisonment of 2 years or, for an offense related to terrorism, 5 years. While I oppose this expansion of the mandatory minimum sentences, I do not oppose the imposition of appropriate sentences for this offense as warranted under the circumstances of each case. With respect to the proposed expansion of the coverage of the aggravated identity theft statute to organizations, Congressman Bobby Scott, ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, offered an amendment at markup to narrowly prevent application of mandatory sentences to the expansion, but instead allow for even higher sentences for those offenses, but at the judges' discretion. As a result, judges would have the flexibility to impose even greater sentences, when warranted, but they would not be required to impose mandatory minimums. Unfortunately, the amendment was not adopted, leaving H.R. 744 with a serious flaw that violates sound sentencing policy. Mandatory minimums have been studied extensively and have been found to distort rational sentencing systems to discriminate against minorities, to waste the taxpayers' money, and to often violate common sense. Even if everyone involved in a case--from arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and victim--believes that the mandatory minimum would be an unjust sentence for a particular defendant in a case, it still must be imposed. Mandatory minimum sentences, sometimes based merely on the name of the crime, unwisely remove sentencing discretion from the judge. Regardless of the role of the offender in the particular crime, the offender's record or lack thereof, or the facts and circumstances of the case, the judge has no choice but to impose the mandatory minimum set by legislators long before the crime has been committed. Such a policy is unjust and unwarranted. The expansion of mandatory minimum sentencing in this bill is, therefore, problematic. For these reasons, I cannot support this well-intentioned but flawed bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, In the 1800's, the Carreker-Jones Family began with their oldest known family members in Talbotton, Talbot County, Georgia; since that time, they have blessed us with descendants across the country who have helped to shape and mold our nation; and Whereas, today we honor all of the matriarchs and patriarchs, who are pillars of strength for the Carreker-Jones family; and Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we are honored to have many members of the Carreker-Jones family who are some of our most productive citizens; and Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions in the world, we take pride in knowing that families such as the Carreker-Jones family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other, honor one another and to pass along history to each other by meeting at this year's family reunion in Washington, DC; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Carreker-Jones Family; Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim, July 25, 2014 as The Carreker-Jones Family Reunion Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 25th day of July, 2014.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, reaching the age of 85 years is a remarkable milestone; and Whereas, Ms. Hattie Crews was born on August 18, 1929 in Effingham, South Carolina and is celebrating that milestone; and Whereas, Ms. Crews has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted to God and credits it all to the Will of God; and Whereas, Ms. Crews is celebrating her 85th Birthday with her family members, church members and friends here in Georgia, she celebrates a life of blessings; as a Mother, Grandmother, Great Grandmother, friend, a servant and a leader; and Whereas, the Lord has been her Shepherd throughout her life and she prays daily and is leading by example a blessed life; an advocate, faithful matriarch and a community leader; and Whereas, we are honored that she is celebrating the milestone of her 85th birthday in Georgia; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Hattie Crews for an exemplary life which is an inspiration to all, now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim August 18, 2014 as Ms. Hattie Crews Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 18th day of August, 2014.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, in the mid-1800s, Martin Gilchrist migrated from Churchville, West Virginia to Jefferson County, Mississippi and shortly after the Civil War, he married the love of his life; the union of Martin Gilchrist and Gracie Nettles Gilchrist began the Gilchrist family in Jefferson County, Mississippi, which has blessed us with descendants that have helped to shape our nation; and Whereas, the Gilchrist family has produced many well-respected citizens and five of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the family were born to Martin and Gracie Gilchrist. The children were Martin, Geoid, Joanna, Evalene and Marie all of whom served as pillars of strength for the Gilchrist family; and Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we are honored to have members of the Gilchrist family, including Ms. Doretha McGlory one of our most beloved citizens in our District; and Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions in the world, we take pride in knowing that families such as the Gilchrist family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other, honor one another and to pass along history to each other by meeting at this year's 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 Gilchrist family in our District; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim July 11, 2014 as Gilchrist Family Reunion Day in the 4th Congressional District. Proclaimed, this 11th day of July, 2014.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, in the mid 1800's, the Maultsby Family settled in Bladen County, North Carolina; since that time, they have blessed us with descendants across the country who have helped to shape and mold our nation; and Whereas, today we honor all of the matriarchs and patriarchs, who are pillars of strength for the Maultsby family; and Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we are honored to have many members of the Maultsby family who are some of our most productive citizens such as Ms. Marilyn Pruitt and Mr. Jerome Maultsby; and Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions in the world, we take pride in knowing that families such as the Maultsby family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other, honor one another and to pass along history to each other by meeting at this year's family reunion in Georgia's Fourth Congressional District; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Maultsby Family; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim, July 25, 2014 as The Maultsby Family Reunion Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 25th day of July, 2014.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, In the late 1700's, the Lewis Saxon Shubert family began with their oldest known family ancestor Amy Sharpe in Burke County, Georgia; since that time, they have blessed us with descendants across the country who have helped to shape and mold our nation; and Whereas, today we honor all of the matriarchs and patriarchs, who are pillars of strength for the Lewis Saxon Shubert family; and Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we are honored to have many members of the Lewis Saxon Shubert family who are some of our most productive citizens; and Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions in the world, we take pride in knowing that families such as the Lewis Saxon Shubert family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other, honor one another and to pass along history to each other by meeting at this year's family reunion in Atlanta, Georgia; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Lewis Saxon Shubert family; Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim, July 20, 2014 as The Lewis Saxon Shubert Family Reunion Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 20th day of July, 2014.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this month marks the fortieth anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, a private, non-profit corporation established by Congress to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans. Since 1974, LSC has been on the frontlines of providing civil legal aid for low-income Americans. By funding legal aid in hundreds of offices across the country, LSC has made a critical difference in the lives of countless Americans. Whether helping homeowners prevent foreclosures, fighting for veterans and workers' rights to receive the benefits they have duly earned, or helping mothers obtain child support or protection from abuse, LSC has provided funding for legal aid attorneys to protect the safety, security, and health of our most vulnerable citizens through qualified counsel. Alarmingly, more than fifty percent of eligible clients seeking assistance are turned away due to a lack of program resources. Equal justice for all is not just an aspiration; it is a guarantee to every American regardless of race, gender, socio-economic status, and creed. We can do better, and we must do better. On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation, and I call on my colleagues to protect its program resources.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 4315, the so-called ``Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act,'' which is an overt assault on the Endangered Species Act designed to weaken its protections and guarantee the likelihood of extinction for wildlife, plants, and fish. The Endangered Species Act is one of the Nation's most important environmental laws. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon over forty years ago, the Endangered Species Act continues to serves as an effective tool for protecting our wildlife, plants, and fish from the brink of extinction. To ensure enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, Congress empowered citizens to bring enforcement actions to hold parties accountable for violating the law or to compel the government to protect endangered species. Importantly, the law does not provide for rewards of damages for the citizen bringing the suit. Rather, the Endangered Species Act allows for courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees to parties that substantially prevail on the merits. Congress has long recognized the importance of encouraging citizens to bring meritorious claims under the Endangered Species Act that they would otherwise abandon due to the financial costs of hiring competent counsel. Many other federal statutes contain similar enforcement mechanisms that encourage citizens to act as a private attorney general. The Supreme Court has likewise observed in numerous contexts that if private citizens are to enforce laws against ``those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.'' Contrary to the stated goal of H.R. 4315 to ``standardize the awarding of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties against the federal government,'' this legislation is a thinly-disguised effort to prohibit litigation by citizens and public-interest groups. By eliminating the possibility of reasonable attorneys' fees, this bill creates yet another hurdle that will make it more difficult to find competent legal representation to enforce complex environmental laws. Reasonable attorneys' fees are particularly appropriate for complex and highly specialized adjudications involving environmental law. Environmental groups are almost uniformly non-profit organizations. Many file lawsuits for injunctive relief to enforce laws and protect the public health. But as a result of this bill, many of these organizations will be deterred from bringing such actions if they cannot recover attorneys' fees. For these reasons, a broad coalition of interest groups--including Alliance for Justice, Public Citizen, American Association for Justice, Sierra Club, and dozens of other environmental, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations--oppose H.R. 4315. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5230 ``the Supplemental Appropriations to Address the Southwest Border Crisis.'' This partisan bill does nothing to address the humanitarian crisis at the border. Instead this bill undermines due process protections for children who have been victims of trafficking, torture, and persecution. It is shameful Republicans are using this crisis to advance their own agenda. In doing so, Republicans are jeopardizing children's lives, and hypocritically reversing their position on a law they once supported. With this bill, Republican Hypocrisy has been taken to another level. Yesterday, I met President and Vice-President of the National Association of immigration Judges, who said no current protections and due process for these children should be changed. Republicans should listen to them. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a cochairman of the State Medicaid Expansion Caucus, I rise this morning to talk about how important expanding Medicaid is for my State and for every State in this great Nation. It gives me great pride to be in the well of the House this morning speaking on the topic of expanding the Medicaid program today, the 49th anniversary of the date when the legislation creating the Medicaid antipoverty program was signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. More than 30 Members of Congress have joined the State Medicaid Expansion Caucus because we know that opening the way to health care for the poor is good, it is righteous, it is just, it is merciful. It is the right thing to do because, according to Matthew 25:40: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. And for those who have not a care about the poor, then you should know also that expanding Medicaid to more poor people will stimulate the economy by creating jobs in the burgeoning health care and other ancillary industries. More jobs mean more spending, which leads to more profits. For those of you who are only concerned about your bottom line, then you should also know: Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done.--Proverbs 19:17. The stimulation of economies is exactly what expanding Medicaid has accomplished in the 27 States that have expanded eligibility. It is exactly what will happen in every recalcitrant State when their political leaders finally come to their senses and choose to accept the Federal funds to expand their Medicaid systems, the funds having already been paid into the system by their own taxpayers. So 27 States, a majority of the States of this great country, looked at the facts and made the choice to help their people be healthier and therefore lead more productive lives. Expanding Medicaid in those States provided health care coverage to approximately 10.5 million people who otherwise would not have had it, according to Families USA. Despite the politics, this is a bipartisan issue, as we see when Republican Governors in Arizona and Ohio, for example, expanded Medicaid. As a result of their action, almost a million people will have access to affordable health care. States led by Republicans and Democrats that expanded Medicaid should be commended for their actions. In California, almost 3 million people have benefited by getting access to health care when their State expanded Medicaid. These are just some of the success stories. The Federal Government will cover 100 percent of the costs of expanding Medicaid today, and 90 percent of the cost for the duration of the program in every State. Expanding Medicaid will bring billions of Federal tax dollars back into States that will help develop the health care infrastructure and improve the economy. It will also help low-income Americans access health care. We must remember that the people who will benefit from expanding Medicaid are no less deserving of health care than anyone else. In my home State of Georgia, expanding Medicaid would mean access to health care for 684,000 poor people, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute estimates that expanding Medicaid will bring $65 billion in new economic activity to Georgia over 10 years, which will support more than 56,000 new jobs throughout the State. My Governor reacted to this news by signing a bill eliminating his own authority to expand Medicaid. I can't think of a time that a chief executive has willingly given away some of his authority. We know why Governors and State legislators are choosing to deny access to health care for their people. It is politics, pure and simple. I am here today to urge every State to expand Medicaid. I urge my colleagues and those watching at home to contact their Governor and their State legislator in support of expanding Medicaid.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about the issue of impeachment; and in connection with that topic, I would use as my text the song some of us may remember by Janet Jackson, ``What Have You Done for Me Lately?'' That is what we should ask the House Republicans: What have you done for me lately? Well, I will tell you what Congress has been doing. Congress has been wasting your time and your tax dollars. At a time when Congress should be working on the issues that matter most to the pockets and pocketbooks of America's citizens, instead we have, for the last 3 weeks, been wasting taxpayer time and money. During that 3-week period, over $800 billion in tax cuts have been awarded to the rich people of this country. And guess what. The Republicans have once again violated their own rule and failed to find an offset in the budget to pay for this gift to the wealthy. This means that Republicans have just added--just like that--almost $1 trillion to the Nation's debt. What have you done for me lately? This session of Congress, the 113th Congress, which threatens to go down in history as the least productive Congress in the history of this great Nation, this Congress has produced a government shutdown, which cost the American people $24-plus billion. And we have spent in this House of Representatives $79-plus million shuffling paper and voting 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And how much is it going to cost the American taxpayers when the Republicans embark upon this effort to impeach President Obama? How much will it cost? Well, they won't let you know that. I will tell you, shutting down the government and repealing ObamaCare did not work, so we just wasted money. The Republicans came up empty-handed. So what are they doing now? In fact, working people should ask their Representatives during this upcoming 5-week August recess which we have worked so hard to earn, you should ask your Representative: What have you done for me lately? Congress has spent the last 3 weeks preparing to impeach President Obama. You see, over the past 3 weeks, the Republicans in the House have been talking up and taking legislative action, at the same time mounting a FOX TV and hate-radio campaign in support of their effort to file a lawsuit against the President of the United States. Now, is this lawsuit simply an attempt to mollify and pacify those Republicans who have turned up the volume on the drumbeat towards impeachment, or, more cynically, is this lawsuit a precursor to the filing of articles of impeachment so they can remove this twice-elected President from office prior to the end of his term? Either way, it does not look good for America if, in November, voters put Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress. Just like the government shutdown, cooler heads will not prevail. Ted Cruz and the other Tea Party Republicans who were so willing to drive America off the fiscal cliff will not hesitate to do what has never been done throughout the course of our history, and that is to pull off a coup. So the lawsuit against President Obama should be looked upon as being synonymous with impeachment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, as cochair of the State Medicaid Expansion Caucus, I rise this morning to talk about how important expanding Medicaid is for my State and for the country. First, I want to thank my good friend from North Carolina, Congressman G.K. Butterfield, for agreeing to cochair this caucus. He is the driving force behind Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act. There are few people in Congress who understand this issue as well as G.K. does, and it means a lot that he would agree to work on this issue with me. I am also proud that 33 Members of Congress have joined the State Medicaid Expansion Caucus. We want to have an ongoing conversation about why it is so critical that every State expand Medicaid. Medicaid expansion is a choice that States can make because of the Supreme Court's ruling. However, when the Court struck down the requirement and gave States the choice to expand Medicaid, it did not strike the facts that make Medicaid expansion the correct budgetary, economic, health, and, yes, moral choice. Twenty-seven States, a majority of the States of this great country, looked at the facts and made the choice to help their people become healthier and therefore better able to lead productive lives. Expanding Medicaid in those States provided health coverage to approximately 10.5 million people who otherwise wouldn't have had it, according to Families USA. Despite the political winds that swirl around the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion should be a bipartisan issue. The Republican Governor of Arizona, for instance, pushed her State legislature to expand Medicaid because Governor Brewer and her allies knew that expansion would allow the program to help 300,000 low-income Arizonans who otherwise would not have had health coverage. In Ohio, that State's Republican Governor expanded Medicaid, grounding the move in his faith and his belief that Ohioans should benefit from their Federal tax dollars. Because of the Governor's action, Ohio will see $13 billion from the Federal Government over the next 7 years to cover those newly eligible Medicaid recipients, and approximately 366,000 Ohio residents are thus eligible for coverage beginning this year. According to some estimates, as many as 789,000 people will ultimately benefit from the Governor's decision. In California, almost 3 million people have benefited by getting access to health care when that State expanded Medicaid. These are just a few of the success stories. The Federal Government will cover 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid during the first 3 years, and 90 percent of the cost for the duration of the program in every State. Like in Ohio, this investment will bring billions of Federal tax dollars back into the State, which will help States develop their health care infrastructures and, thus, improve those States' economies. It will also help low- income Americans access our health care system. We must remember that the people who will benefit from expanding Medicaid are no less deserving of health care than anyone else. According to a recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report, States that have expanded Medicaid have seen 17 percent more people enrolled in the Medicaid and CHIP programs. Those are children across the country who now have the option for a healthier life. Unfortunately, millions of low-income Americans are being denied health care by their State legislators and Governors. They are being punished for being poor and for living where they do. The New York Times recently ran a story entitled, ``In Texarkana, Uninsured and on the Wrong Side of a State Line.'' It describes the harsh realities for those who live on the wrong side of the State line. The author wrote: Texarkana is perhaps the starkest example of how President Obama's health care law is altering the economic geography of the country. The poor living in the Arkansas half of the town won access to a government benefit worth thousands of dollars annually, yet nothing changed for those on the Texas side of the State line. In my home State of Georgia, expanding Medicaid would mean access to health care for 684,000 people, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. My Governor reacted to this news by signing a bill eliminating his authority to expand Medicaid. I can't think of anything better than the State of Georgia going ahead and insuring our people with Medicaid.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore this country and the world to direct our attention to the kidnappings of more than 300 young Nigerian women in May and of another eight girls just yesterday. The leader of the Nigerian Islamist group, Boko Haram, who claims responsibility for the kidnappings, has referred to these young women as ``slaves'' and has threatened to sell them like chattel. These deplorable actions can only be stopped by bringing the full weight of international condemnation and law enforcement to bear on those responsible and the ideology that they exploit. We must find the perpetrators and combat their backward ideas in the court of public opinion. Every child has an absolute right to receive an education in a safe and protected environment. We must redouble our efforts to better the lives of people around the world who may be too poor and too isolated to protect themselves. These girls could have been our daughters, our sisters, our nieces, or our friends.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke about the flood of unaccompanied minors crossing our borders to escape drug and gang violence caused by America's war on drugs. Today I want to speak about the effect of that drug war on young people trapped in the inner cities of America on this side of the border. Take Chicago, for instance: 58 shot, 14 killed over the July Fourth weekend; most involved drugs, if not all. Politicians cracked down on drug crime in the eighties and nineties, but look at the impact that it has had. It is a failed war on drugs that has become a war on urban youth. Many boys on the streets of Chicago or Atlanta can barely cross the street without bullets streaking past their heads. The war on drugs and its impact on our youth needs to end now.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of passage of immigration reform, but I also want to talk about the humanitarian disaster that continues to unfold on the Nation's southern borders. Tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors are fleeing to America from the drug war raging in the streets of the cities and towns where they live, in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Those children fortunate enough to survive the treacherous journey to America are not illegals. They are children who need America's mercy and our humanitarian assistance. Immediate deportation without a chance for a fair hearing on their refugee status is morally repugnant and just plain wrong. This week, the President requested over $3 billion to deal with this crisis that is a direct consequence of the drug war which America is waging south of the border. Congress must act. America should act as the Good Samaritan.