Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues in this do-nothing Congress to take politics out of the post office. The post office was explicitly authorized in article I, section 8, clause 7 of the United States Constitution. It began its operations on July 26, 1775, and Ben Franklin was appointed the first Postmaster General. That's a long time ago. It has a legal obligation to serve everyone, regardless of geography, and at a uniform cost with uniform services. And it has exclusive access to boxes that are marked ``U.S. Postal'' or ``U.S. Post Office.'' And it also competes with private package delivery services. In 2006, Congress forced the United States Postal Service to pre-fund 100 percent of retiree insurance premiums. No other company, public or private, is forced to comply with such an unnecessary and destructive policy. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans cited declining mail volumes and a growing labor force as the primary reasons why the 2006 legislation was necessary. Yet 2005, 2006, and 2007 were the highest volume years in U.S. Postal Service history. In fact, 2006 was the highest volume year ever. Mr. Speaker, the real motivation behind the 2006 legislation was to break the back of a public sector union and privatize the mailing industry. Why else would Congress alter an entity that hasn't taken a dime of United States taxpayers' money in 30 years? According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Postal Service was self-supporting since 1971, using postage sales to fund operations. The Postal Service was so profitable that it returned money to the Treasury every single year, while providing free services to the visually impaired and persons overseas. If the Postal Service was a private corporation, or if it had been a private corporation at that time, my colleagues across the aisle would have hailed it as the model of economic success and sung its praises from sea to shining sea. Since the pre-funding mandate of 2006, however, the Postal Service has nearly crumbled under the weight of its pension costs. How does an organization that had robust profits for 30 years, leading up to the 2006 legislation, suddenly start running deficits and lose $25 billion between 2007 and 2011? How did the U.S. Postal Service go from no debt in 2006 to over $13 billion in debt today? Many of my colleagues on the other side have well-connected friends who advocate for Postal Service privatization. I'm here to connect the dots for the American people. Instead of wasting time today, this do-nothing Congress should vote to stop the damage inflicted upon the United States Postal Service by passing H.R. 1351. This bipartisan postal reform bill protects the hardworking employees of the Postal Service. The U.S. Postal Service was not in danger of becoming insolvent until Congress decided to meddle in its affairs. It's hypocritically inconsistent for my friends on the other side of the aisle to talk about government being the problem, while they don't acknowledge that they created a big problem for the post office. It is hypocritical. Mr. Speaker, the Postal Service already missed a $5.5 billion payment in August. Congress must act before the post office defaults on another payment later this month. Instead of scheduling political votes that highlight our differences, let's stop the madness and do what is in the best interest of the American people, the economy, and communities across the Nation. The Postal Service employs 700,000 of our fellow citizens, over 17,000 of whom are from my State of Georgia. One-third are military veterans who deliver 212 billion pieces of mail to over 144 million locations. This is the middle class that's doing this. If privatization advocates like the Koch brothers get their wish, the Postal Service will slowly be destroyed, causing good jobs to be lost and allowing companies to raise prices of delivery. Taking action to strengthen the Postal Service's finances is not just good for the letter carriers and postmasters; it's also good for business. There is $1.3 trillion in mailing industry proceeds out there that support 7 million private sector jobs. The time to act, ladies and gentlemen, is now.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to cut taxes for Americans, average Americans, the middle class and rebuild our infrastructure. Unfortunately, after wasting the last 2 years and after spending the entire month of August at home without making even the slightest effort to fix the Nation's economy, the Tea Party Republicans plan to adjourn next week for another 6 weeks after being here for 8 days. Instead of going on vacation, why don't we fix the Nation's business? Why don't we handle the business that we have to take care of? We act like petulant children around here. These Tea Party Republicans stick to their obstinate demand to cut taxes for millionaires and turn Medicare into a voucher program. We can't afford to continue to handle our business like this. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for Congress to get to work. I think we should stay here and not leave for another 6 weeks, leaving the Nation's business hanging.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In 2009, The New York Times described the practice of overcollection as significant and systemic. Any counterterrorism measure must have a solid constitutional footing and respect the privacy and the civil liberties of American citizens. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 5-year reauthorization.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5949, which, without benefit of one oversight hearing by the full Judiciary Committee during the 112th Congress, wants to, for 5 long years, reauthorize expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without important modifications that are necessary to safeguard the civil liberties and the privacy rights of American citizens. Although H.R. 5949 is designed to defend the United States against international terrorism and other threats, it has been reported that FISA has resulted in the illegal surveillance of untold numbers of American citizens through data accumulation, also known as overcollection of voice and data communications. Overcollection occurs when the voice and data of American citizens is collected incidentally to the collection of communications of foreigners. What happens to the data and voice communications of Americans that is incidentally collected without a warrant? What happens to it? What happens to the private voice and data of Americans when it's minimized? These are critical questions, and they deserve critical answers. But as I've said, we've not had one oversight hearing in the full Judiciary Committee on this issue. We've just simply had a markup of this reauthorization bill. These, and other questions, deserve answers. The Fourth Amendment would ordinarily protect the communications of American citizens. It prohibits unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures of the communications of American citizens, including warrantless eavesdropping and snooping. But under H.R. 5949, no warrant or showing of probable cause exists where information is overcollected.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following proclamation. Whereas, twenty-nine years ago a virtuous woman of God accepted her calling to serve in the Government of the United States of America; and Whereas, Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn began her career service with two years in the United States Marine Corps and since 1987, has served in the United States Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA) retiring today as an Economic Development Assistant; and Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents in both military and civilian service giving the citizens of our District a friend to help those in need, a fearless leader and a servant to all who wants to insure that the system works for everyone; and Whereas, Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn is a cornerstone in our community that has enhanced the lives of thousands for the betterment of our District and Nation; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn on her retirement and to wish her well in her new endeavors; Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim July 31, 2012 as Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn Day in the 4th Congressional District. Proclaimed, this 31st day of July, 2012.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, July 31, 2012 was the date of the primary election in Georgia, and I regret that I was absent from votes on that day. However, I would like to make clear my position on the bills that received recorded votes: (1) S. 679--Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011--I would have voted ``aye.'' (2) H.R. 828--Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2011, as amended--I would have voted ``nay'' on this bill that singles out middle class federal workers. (3) H.R. 3803--District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--I would have voted ``nay,'' against this misguided bill that continues the majority's disrespect for the District of Columbia and all American women. I am pleased that this bill failed to pass the House.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I present the following U.S. Citizen of Distinction. Whereas, our lives have been touched by the life of this one woman . . . who has given of herself to her community, church and family; and Whereas, Mrs. Fannie Sheridan's spirit is present in DeKalb County, Georgia for all to see, being a mother, a community worker, neighbor and friend; and Whereas, this giant of a woman was born in Eufula, Alabama to Maceo and Loftie Tennelle on October 12, 1925, she has been on the move ever since as a woman of God, touching lives in Alabama, Chicago, Illinois, Gary, Indiana and Decatur, Georgia; and Whereas, this remarkable woman gave of herself, her time, her talent and her life; she never asked for fame or fortune just fairness for the people, she was our quiet storm, a spark that starts a flame; and Whereas, Mrs. Fannie Sheridan led by doing behind the scenes, she encouraged all those around her who wanted to make a difference, be it her family, her elected officials, her neighbors and her church members at Saint Philip AME Church; she was a virtuous woman, a woman of great integrity who remained true to the uplifting of her community and our district; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to bestow a Congressional Recognition on Mrs. Fannie Sheridan for her leadership, friendship and service to all of the citizens throughout the Nation; a citizen of great worth and so noted distinction; Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby attest to the 112th Congress that Mrs. Fannie Sheridan of Decatur, DeKalb County, Georgia is deemed worthy and deserving of this ``Congressional Recognition'': Mrs. Fannie Sheridan, U.S. Citizen of Distinction in the Fourth Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 13th day of July, 2012.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I present the following U.S. Citizen of Distinction. Whereas, our lives have been touched by the life of this one woman . . . who has given of herself to her country, family and community; and Whereas, Ms. Teryle L. Berry served six (6) years in the United States Navy, she was an educator, community advocate and business owner; and Whereas, Ms. Berry gave of her time and talent to uplift those in need by demonstrating unwavering commitment to serving the citizens of her community, her family and her country; and Whereas, she was a mother, a daughter, a sister and a friend; she was a woman of great integrity who remained true to the uplifting and service to our district; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia recognizes Ms. Teryle L. Berry as a citizen of great worth and so noted distinction; Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby attest to the 112th Congress that Ms. Teryle L. Berry is deemed worthy and deserving of this ``Congressional Honor'' by declaring Ms. Teryle L. Berry U.S. Citizen of Distinction in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 14th day of July, 2012.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I've got a cell phone somewhere around here. Here it is. I'm going to ask: Is this a tracking device or is there somebody in this device who is taking my photographs? my videos? my treasured personal stuff like that--my address book? What is this? It is something that we need to be smart about. Smart government policies should ensure our data isn't improperly collected, sold, and exploited; but what we've learned from SOPA is that we tried to shove legislation down the public's throat, and we failed. We learned we'd better consult the folks who use the Internet before we regulate it. That's why, last week, I launched AppRights.us. Using the Web and social media, we are asking what smart policy looks like before we write a bill. We are using the Internet to make sure we don't break the Internet. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues and the public to visit AppRights.us and to send their thoughts and concerns. Tell Congress how we can do a better job of securing your privacy.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will introduce today the Verifying Official Totals for Elections Act, also known as the VOTE Act. Electronic voting machines are vulnerable to poor design and tampering, and there is currently no way to verify the accuracy of an electronic vote count. The VOTE Act will ensure the integrity of our voting machines system by requiring any software used in an electronic voting system for any Federal election to be deposited in the National Software Reference Library. Depositing the software in the National Software Reference Library will allow the software to be available for review in the event of an election contest or recount. The VOTE Act is definitely needed. We are 97 days away from a crucial election and, according to a recent report, half the States have inadequate post-audit election procedures for electronic voting machines. It also found that a quarter of States have post-audit election procedures that need improvement. Further, the report found that in every national election in the past decade, computerized voting systems have failed, machines did not start or failed in the middle of voting, memory cards could not read, and votes were mistallied. I'm sure that you all who are computer literate out there have had a computer and you were working on it and suddenly it froze up. In order to unfreeze it, you had to reboot it, and in the process, you lost all of your data that you were working on; or some of you may have had the misfortune of a computer hard drive just freezing up on you and just crashing, and you had to take it somewhere and try to retrieve your data off of that hard drive, and it cost a whole lot of money. You may have even manipulated your child's computer to prevent access to a dangerous Web site; or somebody may have installed, unbeknownst to you, some software on your laptop computer that you carry around so that one can keep track of your whereabouts. These are the kinds of things that we must be concerned about as far as our electronic voting machines--their accuracy and the fact that they can be manipulated. There have been several e-voting inaccuracies since 2006, including prominent controversies in South Carolina, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The VOTE Act provides peace of mind. It does so by requiring that the source code, or the blueprint, of the e-voting system be stored in the National Software Reference Library, which will allow auditors to compare that code with the actual machine to determine if there has been any improper activity. This is an urgent problem, and the VOTE Act is the solution. The right to vote is fundamental to our democratic process, and it is protected by the Constitution of the United States. The right to vote is protected by more constitutional amendments--the First, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th--than is any other right we enjoy as Americans. Thus, it is vital to ensure the integrity of that vote. We must do everything in our power to ensure that every American who casts a vote in the upcoming election is counted. I thank Common Cause, Florida Voting, VerifiedVoting.org, and the North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting for endorsing this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support the VOTE Act, and I invite Members from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to cosponsor this bill. Protecting the vote and the integrity of the voting process is not a partisan issue, but an issue that is important to all citizens and vital to the strength of America.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, what about Wall Street regulations? We would not be able to come to an agreement on that.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no way, with the many regulations that need to be promulgated and put into effect, that we would be able to do that here in Congress instead of letting the stakeholders, the business community, and the regulatory agencies work things out. There's no way that we're going to be able to handle that in Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. I really enjoy the fact that we share a common border, and we have worked together to try to traverse that border and come to a consensus on issues that affect the people of our districts. And I think that's exactly what this Congress should be about but, unfortunately, due to an obstructionist strategy, we've not been successful.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4078, the so-called Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. This mother of all anti-regulation bills is actually a repackaging of a noxious potpourri of previously introduced bills that would make it virtually impossible for the executive branch and its agencies to protect the American public. This bill would block the issuance of regulations regardless of how vital they are to safeguarding the public's health. They want to eliminate regulations that keep our workers safe and which would rein in the excesses of Wall Street. Why? So that they can please their crony capitalist brothers, the Koch brothers, and also their crony capitalist friends in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They want to keep them happy. Instead of creating jobs, the Tea Party Republicans are assaulting the very regulations that ensure that we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink; regulations that protect our children from unsafe products like toys, like clothing and bedding, baby food, regulations that protect seniors from adulterated medicines and unsafe substances that they use. They essentially want to create so many barriers and obstacles to the promulgation of regulations that it's virtually impossible to do so. They want to keep these Federal agencies from doing their job, which is to protect the health, safety, and well-being of this country. This isn't red tape reduction, folks. This is a philosophy of putting profits over people. The House is in session for 6 more days prior to our August break. After that, we have maybe about 10 legislative days left before the end of the year. What have we accomplished in this Congress? Bills like this. And we've voted to rescind and repeal ObamaCare over and over again. We're now up to number 34 votes on that. What do we have pending here? We have the Bush tax cuts, which we all agree that we should keep in place for the middle class; but because we don't agree to extend them for the Koch brothers and the other crony capitalists that this party represents, they're not willing to get that done. They don't want to do the payroll tax cuts, the tax extenders, the AMT patch, unemployment benefits, the doc fix, and sequestration. All of this remains to be wrapped up within the next 10 days or so, plus 6, the next 2 weeks of legislative activity. So to think that this legislation would be effective in bringing reasonable regulations through this Congress, is absurd. We should be creating jobs legislatively. We should be helping veterans adjust to civilian life. We should be taking measures to impact the ongoing taking of homes of individuals in foreclosure. There is so much that we should be doing instead of appeasing our crony capitalist friends. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this fundamentally flawed bill. Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would amend the bill's definition of ``significant regulatory action'' to exclude any regulation or guidance that is intended to protect the privacy of Americans. With the increasing opportunities for governmental and private organizations to obtain, maintain, and disseminate sensitive, private information on citizens, it is critical that we not prevent or delay the implementation of government regulations designed to protect the privacy of this information for several reasons. First, the government routinely collects almost every type of personal information about individuals and stores it in its databases. It may maintain this information for stated periods of time or permanently, and the government may share it with State agencies under certain circumstances. The concern, Mr. Chairman, is that such information has itself become a commodity with financial value, subject to abuse by those who seek to sell it for financial gain or for criminal purposes, such as identity theft. Unfortunately, several Federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, have lost the personal information of millions of Americans. For example, in 2006, the personal information for more than 26 million veterans and 2.2 million current military servicemembers was stolen from a Department of Veterans Affairs employee's home after he had taken the data home without authorization. Second, thanks to the largely unfettered use of Social Security numbers and the availability of other personally identifiable information through technological advances, data security breaches appear to be occurring with greater frequency, in government and the private sector. In both of those arenas, we see these data breaches occurring. In turn, identity theft has swiftly evolved into one of the most prolific crimes in the United States. Unregulated, those who have it would seek to sell it and abuse it. And there are businesses which exist for the purpose of collecting as much personal information as possible about individuals so that they can put together profiles that they can then sell. Finally, the protection of Americans' privacy is not a Democratic or Republican issue. Indeed, it is one of the few that those on opposite ends of the political spectrum have long embraced. Who can dispute the need to protect the privacy of patients' health information? The Department of Health and Human Services has been tasked by Congress to implement new regulations to give patients more control over their own health records. In addition, HHS is proposing new rules to protect Americans from discrimination based on their genetic information. Yet, H.R. 4078 would stop these regulations from going into effect because the bill has only limited exceptions that would be generally inapplicable to privacy protection regulations. Likewise, the bill's waiver provisions are generally unworkable. My amendment corrects this shortcoming by including in the bill an exception for regulations that protect the privacy of Americans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not designed to pave the way for any specific regulation. It is intended generally to prevent the delay in issuing regulations that will protect the privacy of our citizens. Privacy considerations should be at the forefront of our concerns, not treated as secondary inconvenience. Whether or not a specific issue is one ripe for regulation is properly considered as part of the regulatory process, which carefully considers all interests. To delay privacy regulations, as this bill would do, is to short- circuit the appropriately careful issuance of regulations needed to keep the personal behavior and personal information of our citizens safe from unwanted surveillance or exploitation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Congressman Conyers on this amendment.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my heartfelt sorrow and condolences to the victims and their families and the community of Aurora, Colorado, a great tragedy. Words are inadequate to describe it. And it's certainly a reminder to everyone that no time is promised to any of us. And we never know what will happen in the next second or the next minute or the next hour and certainly the next day. So we give praise that we were able to wake up this morning, come to the floor of the House and talk about an issue that is going to take a lot of time to heal. But while we are healing, we have work to do in this Congress. You see, the assault weapons ban, in place for 10 years, expired in 2004. And after the expiration of the assault weapons ban, it's been open season. Now, I know that there are people who hold the Second Amendment dear. And it is established clearly in law that citizens have a right to bear arms. Beyond that, the Constitution is silent. So it leaves it up to us to address issues concerning the reasonable regulation of that right. Should we not have any regulations, or should we have regulations that are reasonable? Now, I just heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about the numerous bills that we will be considering this week having to do with stopping regulation in its tracks in all areas, whether or not it be child safety, food, drugs, car safety, whether or not it be air, water, food, drugs. I have heard talk that regulations stop jobs from being created. That is one that I disagree with; but nevertheless, we will be considering it today. But there are some regulations governing the affairs of people that are reasonable, and that includes restrictions on who can bear arms and what kind of arms they can bear. To say that we should have no regulations on weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, to me is unwise. I don't understand why someone who has a gun in their home for protection needs to have a magazine that is capable of rapid fire, a hundred rounds in a couple of minutes or in a minute. I don't understand why someone needs that kind of firepower to protect their home. I know people love to go hunting. I, myself, will one day have the opportunity to do that. I have never done it before, but I respect those who wait until hunting season begins on their particular prey of choice. They exercise that right and get a lot of joy and satisfaction out of it, and also bring home some food. I can't disagree with that, and we do need to cull our deer population and other populations. We have reasonable regulations on that. But you don't need an AK-47 to go deer hunting. My 5 minutes went by very quickly, but I think you all understand what I'm saying.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, the bill we are considering today isn't about ensuring our supply of ``strategic and critical minerals.'' This bill is about deregulating the mining industry and the pipeline industry. It's misnamed. It should be renamed the Koch Brothers Mining and Pipeline Deregulatory Act of 2012. It's consistent with everything that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been about during this 112th Congress. It's been about deregulation; it's been about tax breaks for the wealthy; and it's been about cutting the ability of the government to do what it needs to do. While they're cutting the ability of the Federal agencies to assess the propriety of these kinds of activities--mining and gas line production--while they are cutting the ability to do that, they are reducing the time within which the remaining assets of the various agencies have to do the work that they are supposed to do. I'll tell you, it's important that we assess the environmental impact of various proposals on our environment, but my colleagues on the other side don't care about the environment. Almost a year ago, the Natural Resources Committee produced H.R. 2011, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act, a bipartisan bill that actually did address supply vulnerabilities for truly strategic and critical minerals policy. I was proud to work with Ranking Member Markey and Chairman Hastings to coauthor that legislation, and it was passed unanimously by their committee. That bill, H.R. 2011, would have passed this body with broad bipartisan support and would probably have passed the Senate, too. It could have been a rare glimpse of actual governance in this totally politicized Tea Party House of Representatives. Unfortunately, I understand that bill was obstructed by Republican leadership. I wonder why. Could it be the Koch brothers? Things go better with Coke. Could it be because the mining industry instructed them to attack environmental regulations instead? Did someone get a phone call from Rush Limbaugh with instructions?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. The overall scheme of this bill----

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Rather than bringing the bipartisan H.R. 2011, here we have a wolf in sheep's clothing, a bill that purports to serve our national security interests but, in truth, just seeks to undermine environmental regulations that protect the health and well- being of Americans throughout this great country. It's just another episode in a long saga of misleadingly named Republican legislation, bills that claim to help the country, but really just help the special interests. What a shame.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. The overall scheme of this bill is to take away----

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You asked me a question and I'm going to answer it.