Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it would add yet another onerous and unnecessary burden on agencies and will further stifle agency rulemaking. Among other things, the REINS Act requires that an agency issuing a rule submit reports to Congress and the GAO containing a list of related regulatory actions intended to implement the same statutory provision or regulatory objective as the rule at issue, together with the individual and aggregate economic effects of those actions. This amendment would add to that list actions taken, or that will be taken, by Federal agencies other than the agency issuing the rule to meet the same objectives. Such a requirement means that an agency issuing a rule would now be obliged to survey the vast panoply of Federal agencies to determine what other actions are being taken by other agencies before it could issue a rule. Congress did not create agencies, Mr. Chairman, to keep tabs on other agencies. This amendment would only serve to divert already limited agency resources away from protecting the American people. This amendment is just a further effort to derail rulemaking. It's placing another burden on already limited agency resources and is really just busy work. So for those reasons I rise in opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which is very simple: it would exclude from this bill any rule that would result in net job growth. I ask that my colleagues support this commonsense amendment to promote job growth and help to strengthen the middle class. After all, the stated purpose of the REINS Act is to grow the economy and create jobs, isn't that correct? Although this bill purports to grow the economy and create jobs, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill's myopic focus on gumming up the regulatory process will not create a single job. It will, however, result in the loss of much-needed rules that protect the health, safety, and well-being of the men, women, and children of America. I have profound concerns about the REINS Act. What would be its impact on air and water quality? This bill would undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public interest. It is a continuation of the majority's anti-middle class, pro-big business, anti-regulatory approach to governing. The majority continues to rely on debunked partisan studies. Thee studies presuppose that regulations have harmful effects on job growth. Far from it. There is ample bipartisan evidence in support of the opposite conclusion. Regulations ensure that the water we consume, the air that we breathe, the places where we work and where our kids go to school are safe. Regulations ensure fairness in the workplace and in the marketplace. Regulations are necessary to protect the have-nots from the haves; whereas the REINS Act protects the haves from the have-nots. Nevertheless, the House Republican leadership continues like an out- of-control freight train to drive its reckless deregulatory agenda through Congress. This deregulatory train wreck threatens to send us back in time to the early 1900s, when there was no minimum wage, no workplace protections, and no limits on Wall Street. If Republican leadership truly believed in growing the economy and creating jobs we would have come together with a grand bargain a long time ago. We could have agreed to a mix of spending cuts and tax reforms to address the government's long-term debt. We could have prevented the mindless austerity of sequestration which threatens our still-fragile economic recovery. Instead, this Tea Party Congress could not even muster the will to vote to fund the transportation bill yesterday. This is yet another example of a ``do-nothing'' Congress under the leadership of an anti-middle class Republican leadership. Americans have a right to expect that their elected legislators will enact laws that help create jobs, like doing something about sequestration. My colleague, Mr. Hal Rogers, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, hit the nail on the head yesterday when he said, and I quote: ``Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.'' American workers continue to face hurdles to providing for their families, and I'm gravely concerned about the effects of sequestration on my home State of Georgia. Last month, furloughs began for most civilian Defense Department employees at Robins Air Force Base and other military bases across Georgia. This won't just affect the hardworking people at the base, like firefighters; it will also have a substantial impact on the local economies. As retired General Robert McMahon reports, the furloughs which began last week will take $50 million out of the economy around the Robins Air Force Base alone. Multiply that with the economic catastrophe across other military bases in Georgia and throughout the country, and you begin to understand the truly caustic effects of sequestration on small businesses and on the economy. But instead of working together to come to a bipartisan solution to the sequestration fiasco, this Congress is continuing an agenda to make life worse for American families. I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to promote job creation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, ObamaCare is resulting in 30 to 40 million people having access to the health care system, and that's not going to create any jobs? When you're bringing that many people into the health care system, that's going to kill jobs? How many more doctors will be needed? Maybe 20,000 will be needed to accommodate and treat those people. How many nurses and medical care practitioners will we need to train in order to accommodate the growth in the health industry that ObamaCare brings about? We have to use our common sense. ObamaCare is not going to result in job loss.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in response, I would point out that with respect to interrelated regulations, different regulatory authorities have different regulatory objectives. And so, to require that one agency survey the other to see whether or not there are any similar or the same objectives, with no power or authority to decide to do away with a particular regulation, based on an objective that is no longer suitable, I think, is not something that this amendment allows for; and it's also something that agencies themselves are not equipped to do. I agree that we need to have some mechanism whereby regulatory regulations can be looked at, modified, strengthened or weakened or done away with at any particular time. But this anti-regulatory legislation and this amendment will not accomplish that. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment presupposes that regulations depress job creation. To the contrary, there's no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. The majority's own witness at one of our hearings clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think thank, stated in his prepared remarks that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates.'' Also, he stated that ``the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.'' Nonetheless, I appreciate that this amendment recognizes that regulations could create jobs. I am, however, concerned about this amendment because it would add to the analytical burdens of agencies a speculative assessment of jobs added and lost and how many of those jobs would be added or lost to the public and private sectors. To the extent that regulations have anything to do with jobs, H.R. 367 proponents should overwhelmingly support my amendment, which is upcoming, which simply exempts from H.R. 367's congressional approval mechanism all rules that OMB determines would result in net job creation. This way, job creating rules would not effectively be vetoed, which would be the precise result under H.R. 367. Also, instead of trying to make Congress a superadministrative agency, what we should be doing is considering actual job creation legislation. We also should be talking about how to help middle class families who are struggling financially. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus, I want to urge my colleagues not to bury their heads in the sand. Wake up. Climate change is real, and it's already affecting the Earth in profound ways. The scientific consensus is clear: human activity is causing our planet to warm to dangerous levels. Scientists agree that higher temperatures are raising sea levels and driving severe weather patterns that threaten our economy and our way of life. Unpredictable and destructive weather patterns are making it harder for farmers to grow crops, while rising sea levels threaten our coastal cities and beaches from sea to shining sea. Here in Congress, the majority refuses to even acknowledge that we have a problem, while the rest of the world seems to understand that it's the moral imperative of our time. I urge my colleagues to put politics aside, listen to the science, and come together and begin to help prevent the worst effects of climate change.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the plight of Mahdi Abu Dheeb. Mahdi Abu Dheeb is the founder of the Bahrain Teachers Association and was arrested after taking part in pro- democracy protests in 2011. For this so-called crime, he was tortured and sentenced to 5 years in prison by a military court. As a member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, I call for the immediate release of Abu Dheeb and all of the prisoners of conscience. Mahdi Abu Dheeb is a nonviolent activist imprisoned for his beliefs. His release would send a message that the Bahraini government cares about freedom, prosperity, and justice for all of its citizens.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to appeal for immediate action. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. My dear colleagues, casting a ballot is our most sacred right. We have a moral duty to come together and rewrite this law in order to protect this precious right to vote. Though we have made great progress, racial discrimination and racial profiling continue to plague our society. The need for the Voting Rights Act is just as necessary today as it was in 1965. On Nelson Mandela's 95th birthday, I am reminded that the human race has come a long way, but we must continue to make the impossible possible. I urge my colleagues to come together to update the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases poverty in America.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. To begin with, this amendment creates a major obstacle for parties such as States, municipalities, local entities, and nonprofit organizations from challenging unsound licensing decisions in the courts. It does this by requiring the losing side in these disputes to pay the legal costs, not just of the prevailing party, but for every intervening party as well. Just imagine what this would mean. How could a local beach community risk bringing an action knowing that it may have to pay for its own legal costs, let alone the legal costs of all of the parties in the case, which could include some of the Nation's largest oil and gas producers. Without question, this draconian cost-shifting regime will have a chilling effect on the right of individuals, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations to challenge licensing decisions that could have devastating effects on their communities. Sure, the provision allows the losing party to argue that its position was substantially justified or that special circumstances make such an award unjust, but even meeting that standard could require extensive litigation. This savings provision offers the tiniest of fig leafs. It is clear that the real intent of this provision is to ensure that only the wealthiest members of society will be able to litigate these issues. Second, this amendment is not necessary. Current law already authorizes a Federal court to sanction a party for filing frivolous actions or for engaging in wrongful conduct. Federal rule of Civil Procedure 11 deems every pleading, motion, and any other paper filed by a party in a Federal proceeding to be a certification by such party: that it is not being presented for an improper purpose; that the claims and legal contentions asserted in the pleadings are warranted by existing law; and that the factual contentions made in the pleading have evidentiary support. And should the court find that any of those requirements have been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction, including requiring the offending party to pay all of the prevailing party's reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses arising from the violation. In addition, the court, under certain circumstances, may also impose monetary sanctions against a party who violates rule 11. So, in sum, this amendment is simply not necessary. Third, this amendment is not only an affront to the independence of the Federal judiciary, but it could seriously disrupt the ability of the courts to meet its obligations to litigants in other pending matters. The amendment does this by setting hard-and-fast deadlines that ignore the complexities of the individual case or the court's schedule. And it requires the court to prioritize these actions over all other pending matters before the court. Not surprisingly, the Judicial Conference of the U.S. has long opposed legislative efforts to impose specific deadlines and mandate that certain actions be prioritized over others for some very important reasons. By imposing rigid deadlines, measures such as this amendment undermine the effective civil case management and unduly hamper the court's discretion in managing and prioritizing its case docket. Each case should be considered on its own merits without the imposition of artificial deadlines. Worse yet, this amendment specifically provides that if the district court fails to meet this deadline, the case must be dismissed with prejudice and terminates all rights relating to cause or claim. Just imagine how a defendant could use this provision to its advantage by running the clock through delaying tactics such as employing a multiplicity of procedures and time-consuming discovery demands. This amendment is anti-justice. It must be opposed. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday June 20, 2013, during a rapid succession of two-minute votes, I mistakenly voted `aye' for rollcall No. 281. This amendment seeks to dismantle the U.S. sugar program, which has operated successfully for decades at no cost to taxpayers, and provides a stable supply of sugar for Americans at affordable prices. Doing away with the U.S. sugar program would cost thousands of jobs, destabilize the U.S. sugar supply, and would not result in a discernible change in the price of sugar for Americans. The price of sugar continues to drop, and is currently at its lowest level in a decades. Passage of this amendment does nothing to decrease the price of sugar, and will only assist companies to offshore jobs, cut labor and health care costs, and leave American farmers penniless. Supporters of this amendment complain about high prices for sugar. Yet restaurants give sugar away and that one can buy a five-pound bag of sugar for almost nothing. This amendment will do nothing to create a free market for sugar and will only subject the U.S. to distorted world sugar markets that will cost farmers their livelihoods and American jobs.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Barbara Lee. Thank you, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for what you bring to the table to this Congress. And on behalf of your constituents, one of whom is me, during the week, as I'm a D.C. resident. I mean, I'm a D.C. native; I had to move to Georgia before I could come to Congress. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Safe Climate Caucus, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I'd like to take a moment to discuss two major implications of climate change for the Department of Defense. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles and missions that the Department undertakes. It may have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to greater competition for more limited and critical life-sustaining resources like food and water. While the effects of climate change alone do not cause conflict, they may act as accelerants of instability or conflict in parts of the world. Second, the Department will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on its facilities and infrastructure. With that, after pointing out that we're spending $3 billion on an east coast missile defense system which is totally unnecessary, I will yield back.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you. I am very happy to participate in this Special Order, especially with the esteemed women who are here-- yourself, Barbara Lee, and Rosa DeLauro, a person of great justice and passion who represents truth and righteousness and tries to do the right thing and fights for those who need a voice to fight for them. I appreciate you, Rosa, for being here and for everything that you do. Barbara Lee--I've said it before--you are just a tremendous patriot, a wonderful person with a heart of gold, but with a fist of steel when it comes to what you believe in. I deeply respect and honor both of those women. Today, in a Judiciary Committee meeting in which we were engaged in the war on women--another abortion bill--I happened to notice that on the other side of the aisle there were no women on the panel. In fact, I discovered, to my horror, that there are no women on the Judiciary Committee, period, and here we are in the year 2013. On this side of the aisle, we've got some great women, like Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, Barbara Lee from California and so many others--Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I can just name them forever, and I just appreciate being able to serve with them. I'll tell you that I'm not always out doing a lot of shopping, but I had to go shopping today because I decided to take what we call the food stamp challenge. It mandates that we go out and that we spend no more than $31.50 for one-week's worth of food. I'm just coming back from the local Safeway. Maybe I shouldn't give that name out because I might have gotten a better deal at Publix--I don't know--but I went to Safeway, and here is my bill. It is for $29.76. I went through the supermarket, trying to find a week's worth of food that could get me through. Pardon me for my choice of food, but I had to go back to my standard Quaker Oats oatmeal. I'm trying to be healthy. I can use this for breakfast or for dinner, but I got these for breakfast, my Homestyle waffles. They already have butter in them, so I didn't have to buy the butter. I did have to come up, of course, with some sugar-free syrup. I got that. I was pleased to find Oscar Mayer bacon on sale--two for $5 and, I think it was, 99 cents. I got these two of the Oscar Mayer bacon. I didn't mean to get the maple, I meant to get the regular. Anyway--boom--that was $5, $6. I bought some milk, and I did splurge on some tea. I'm sorry. I splurged on some tea, but I did get some hot dogs and topped them off with some romaine noodles. I used to eat those a lot when I was in college, too. So I have 6 of those in there and 10 of these in here. Then to splurge I also bought some bananas. That all ended up costing $29.76. I actually had an over-ring because I bought two heads of broccoli. Do we call those ``heads'' of broccoli? But two things of broccoli, I bought those. Those ran me over, so I had to go through the indignity of standing there while the cashier called for an over-ring. They had to come over there and fix that and redo the whole thing with people in line behind me and everything, and with people trying to get in and out of the store. They would have looked at me even more funny if I'd had food stamps to make the purchase, and they would have wondered why was I eating Oscar Mayer bacon. This is what I'm going to be eating for the next 7 days starting tomorrow. It's going to be a challenge. I certainly will not be eating three meals a day. I will eat in the morning, and then I will eat in the evening. So between this meat, these starches, that fruit--and this is a starch here, with no greens--I think they had greens at Safeway, but there are some places--they call them food deserts--in the central cities where there is no supermarket, where there are no fresh fruits, even if I'd had the money to buy them. Nonetheless, this is not the most healthy of diets, but it will keep the hunger pangs away, I believe, for a week. If I were a child who was living on this and going to school every day, I'm not sure how angry or depressed or how, really, ready to learn I would be. This is reality, so I am looking forward to participating in this. I understand you've done it now for a number of years, Barbara. This will be my first year. I can't say that I've been looking forward to it, but I have been getting ready for it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 243, the rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2216, the Fiscal Year 2014 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and H.R. 2217, the Fiscal Year 2014 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act because it deems the draconian and harmful Ryan budget as law. We should be using this opportunity to pass a budget, in consultation with the Senate, which will get the economy back on the right track in this new fiscal year. I stand before you today to express my opposition to the Ryan budget and thereby my opposition to the rule that deems this budget passed. The Ryan budget is an economic catastrophe of this Tea Party majority's choosing. Support for this rule, and by default the Ryan budget, is support for deep cuts to programs that help needy Americans as well as for infrastructure programs that put people to work and help our businesses thrive. Under the Ryan Budget, draconian limits will be placed upon Food Stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which would be an enormous detriment to those in poverty. According to the National Poverty Center, in 2010, 15.1 percent of Americans lived in poverty, the highest rate of poverty since 1993. In the last year, the number of Georgians on food stamps has risen to 1.9 million, almost 20 percent of the population. A vote for this rule and the Ryan budget would be a choice to slow our economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that choice. I cannot choose to cut Head Start for parents who cannot afford daycare or end Medicare as we know it for seniors. I have heard the complaints from Republicans about the need for a budget, which is why this rule is so disappointing. Mr. Speaker, there are people in Georgia's Fourth District, and here at the steps of the Capitol living on the streets, desperate for food and shelter; yet, Tea Party Republicans are willing to exacerbate the situation by snatching away the programs that help the poor get back on their feet. Do not allow this Tea Party Congress to ``deem'' the Ryan budget as law, ignoring regular order, and cutting benefits for those Americans who need them the most. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Rule.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. Con. Res. 16, legislation authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for the unveiling of a statue of Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was an historic figure, whose work and legacy continues to improve lives and help us form a more perfect union. The battle he valiantly led in the 19th century for equal rights and dignity has yielded great results and his sage advice to agitate at every turn continues to inspire men and women into action. With each passing generation the march toward freedom and equal opportunity is moving closer to full realization thanks in part to the actions of Frederick Douglass. I have had the pleasure of meeting Nettie Washington Douglass, the great, great granddaughter of Frederick Douglass, who chairs the Frederick Douglass Foundation, and continues the difficult work he started. I proudly joined with her in urging President Obama to issue posthumously the Presidential Medal of Freedom and I am proud to support this resolution to properly recognize this great man and all that he has given to our country.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

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