Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my Democratic colleagues ready to work for all Americans. Unfortunately, this no-show Tea Party Republican Congress, which worked only 6 days during the entire month of January, is once again refusing to do its job. You see, at the end of February, taxes will increase for 160 million middle class Americans unless the Mitt Romney Tea Party Republicans drop their incessant demands to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires. I ask my Tea Party colleagues to stop holding the payroll tax cut hostage. We must protect unemployment insurance and fix the Medicare payment schedule so that seniors can see the doctor of their choice. It's time for this Tea Party brinksmanship to come to an end, for Republicans to come to work, and for this Congress to go to work for the American people, not just the millionaires and billionaires.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask this Tea Party Republican majority to do something to create jobs. Last week, the President presented a positive plan to create jobs, but all the American people hear from the Tea Party Republican Party is the same old no-jobs agenda from this no-show Republican Congress. The economy is improving, but there are still 14 million Americans without jobs. Yet the Republican Congress hardly even shows up for work. Congress met only 6 days of the month of January--6 days in 1 month. We need to come to work and pass President Obama's jobs plan, level the playing field, force the rich to pay their fair share of our Nation's debt, and put an end to rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, my friend from Georgia. What you've just said is that it's essentially a failure to act, to publish regulations or to promulgate regulations that would lead to the enactment of this CLASS Act, becomes a final agency action. In other words, failure to act becomes a final agency action which then enables an appeal or judicial review, the review being for the purposes, I suppose, of failing to follow the law, which would, of course, be in support of the underlying legislation, the CLASS Act. So I would argue that the regulation that you cite would actually enhance the ability of us to come to a reasonable way of financing this voluntary program.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to repealing the CLASS Act. You know, we all get old, or hopefully we will all get old and reach an elderly status, and we will then perhaps become physically unable to get around a whole lot and we may need to have some long-term care. Tea Partiers will need it. Occupy Wall Streeters will need it. Mitt Romney and his group of 15 percent taxpayers will need it. The only question is whether or not the 99ers and the Tea Partiers will be able to afford it. That is the only question. We're in the same boat. The CLASS Act was included in the health care law in order to help elderly and functionally disabled Americans purchase the services they need, which would enable them to continue living in their communities, as opposed to being forced into expensive private care which most of us can afford. So I understand that HHS had determined that the CLASS Act cannot be implemented as written based on financial considerations; but, ladies and gentlemen, that's no reason to throw out or to repeal this worthwhile initiative. We certainly need to improve it, but there's no need to repeal it. No matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, you cannot ignore that we need to improve access to long-term care. Approximately 10 million Americans are in need of long-term care, and this number is expected to increase to 15 million over the next decade. America is aging. In 2009, an estimated 62 million unpaid family caregivers provided $450 billion in care. At what cost to their jobs, to their family life with their children? In 2011, the average annual cost of a nursing home was $70,000. Who can afford that? The cost of long-term care is an unsustainable burden on family members who, while also holding a job and raising a family, struggled to provide their disabled or elderly relatives with the care that they need to continue living within their own communities. The CLASS Act is a voluntary program. It's no mandate. Don't get it twisted. There is no mandate, individual mandate for the CLASS Act. It's a voluntary program that relies on free market principles of responsibility and competition that my colleagues in the Republican Party claim to revere. There's no mandate in this program. It would allow families of all means to plan for a secure future where a long life or a disability does not lead to financial ruin. Take, for instance, one of my constituents, Linda Rawlins. Linda was the primary caregiver for her elderly mother until her recent passing. Linda told me that she supports the CLASS Act because millions of Americans just like her feel overwhelmed or face financial distress due to their roles as family caregivers who cannot receive any kind of assistance. Although Linda's mother received long-term care through a local senior assistance program that enabled her to continue living at home, Linda knows that not everyone is so lucky. Having access to long-term care services enabled Linda's mother to live independently with grace and with dignity. It allowed Linda to keep her job and helped relieve the emotional and financial strains placed on her and her family as she oversaw her mother's care. Linda and I feel like everyone should have that kind of support, and the CLASS Act is a good place to start. Repealing the CLASS Act without any attempt to improve it is a rash political move, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following proclamation, Whereas, Thirty-six years ago a virtuous woman of God accepted her calling to serve in the Educational System in DeKalb County, Georgia; and Whereas, Dr. Felicia Moss Mayfield began her educational career in teaching, she rose to the rank of Associate Superintendent for Student Support Services and has served the DeKalb County Public Schools System well and our community has been blessed through her service; and Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents as a Teacher, Educator, Administrator and Motivator, giving the citizens of Georgia a person of great worth, a fearless leader, a devoted scholar and a servant to all who wants to advance the lives of our youth; and Whereas, Dr. Mayfield is formally retiring from her educational career today, she will continue to promote education because she 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 Dr. Felicia Moss Mayfield on her retirement from the DeKalb County Public Schools System and to wish her well in her new endeavors; Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim December 16, 2011 as Dr. Felicia Moss Mayfield Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, This 16th day of December, 2011.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following proclamation. Whereas, one hundred years ago a virtuous woman of God, Curtis Lucille was born in Lawrenceville, Georgia on January 7, 1912 to Frank and Gussy Hutchins; and Whereas, she was raised up at Macedonia Baptist Church in Gwinnett County, Georgia, and she married Mr. John W. Sanders and she had one son, Mr. Porter Lucas, Jr., and one daughter, Ms. Lizzie Ruth Flanigan and eleven grandchildren; and Whereas, this phenomenal Proverbs 31 woman has shared her time and talents as a Wife, Mother and Motivator, becoming a Georgia citizen of great worth, a fearless leader and a servant to all by always advancing the lives of others; and Whereas, Mrs. Sanders has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted to God and credits it all to the Will of God; and Whereas, Mrs. Sanders along with her family and friends are celebrating this day a remarkable milestone, her 100th Birthday, we pause to acknowledge a woman who is a cornerstone in Lithonia, DeKalb County, Georgia; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Mrs. Sanders on her birthday and to wish her well and recognize her for an exemplary life which is an inspiration to all; Now Therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim January 7, 2012, as Mrs. Curtis Lucille Sanders Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 7th day of January, 2011.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well done, my good and faithful servants. That must be what the Koch brothers and the corporate Tea Party backers are saying. Their Republican Party in the House has for the whole year been able to stave off any fairness by protecting their millionaires and billionaires from being denied tax breaks. Here we are at the end of the session, and they leave having not allowed this body to vote on the bipartisan agreement that the Senate reached with the House leadership's consent--an agreement that passed 89-10--and they went home. So we won't get a chance to vote on that package. They refused to let us do so. That's the story that we end with. That's the bottom line, and that's the way it is.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded of a commercial that has been in heavy rotation lately. It's a Christmas commercial, Santa Claus with a backache and a pain remedy being offered to him after he climbs down the chimney. Y'all are probably familiar with that. The first shot is Santa trying to work at his headquarters up in the North Pole putting gifts together; and he's just got a bad backache, has probably got a headache too. And his elves are kind of looking at him concerned as he works dutifully on a job that only he can do. Then they show him as he trudges across a roof about to go down the chimney, and he's holding his back. And then when he gets down the chimney, they show him standing over by the Christmas tree. The homeowner is kind of watching from a different room, and he sees Santa struggling with this backache. So he then goes to get some pain medicine. And while Santa is presumably unpacking the gifts and putting them under the tree and everything, then he turns around, and there is a glass of water and pain medicine right there for Santa. Then all of a sudden, the music becomes lively, and Santa perks up and goes on about his business. That kind of reminds me of the headache that the citizens, the middle class have had over the last year, a headache and a backache; but there's nobody there to offer them any pain medication. Instead, this Tea Party-controlled House Republican Party looks at them and just laughs. And then they leave. After getting as much as they can out of those middle class citizens, they leave. They don't even offer a drink or pain medication. They just leave. That's what we've done today. Not in the spirit of Christmas, not in the spirit of Chanukah, not in the spirit of mankind; but in the spirit of the Koch brothers. And ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the Koch brothers, who you've heard me talk about before. The Koch brothers are a secretive brother-brother combination, two brothers. They inherited their fortune from their daddy. They earned it the hard way. And they have turned their daddy's business--once he passed on, they've continued this business and built it into something like a $100 billion-a-year company. And they are billionaires. Both of the brothers are multi-billionaires, multi-multi-billionaires. They've got a lot of money. A lot of their business is involved with energy-related concerns. In fact, they own refineries, oil refineries. They own terminals where that oil is brought to for processing. Those trucks and pipelines, they are all involved in the energy business. They stood to get quite a bit of a return on their investment in the 2010 elections wherein, through their organization, Americans for Prosperity, they financed what is called the Tea Party, which is supposed to be a grassroots group but, actually, it is a corporate-driven animal, and the financing for that animal comes from the Koch brothers and their Americans for Prosperity organization. They spent about $45 million in the 2010 election just running negative ads against Democrats. They spent that money without having to account for whom their contributors were. So we don't know who the contributors are to those secret organizations that were unleashed to taint people's opinions about their Representatives and candidates for office. And as a result of this Tea Party ruse that was perpetrated on the people, the Koch brothers ended up in control of Congress using the Tea Party as a front or as a costume, if you will, taking many justifiably angry American citizens down a deceptive path--Americans who are not happy with the shift in the income disparity in this country. They call them the Tea Partiers, the Tea Party movement. Those people, they look at government and they say that it's government that is too big. What they really mean is that government is not working for me. And then we have the 99 percent crowd, the Occupy Wall Street faction. That group has arisen based on income inequality, and they blame the corporations, the millionaires and the billionaires, for income inequality. And, actually, ladies and gentlemen, both sides have something that is legitimate about their concerns. But it all boils down to money; and the money comes from the Koch brothers, the Koch brothers through their Americans for Prosperity. They're the ones who brought thousands of people from the heartland on buses to Washington, D.C., during the health care debate to demonstrate against something that was in their own interest, their ability to access the health care system. They tricked the people and then financed them to come here. They put them on first-class buses, brought them down here. And we all knew that that was not spontaneous. That was preplanned and orchestrated. As a result of that movement, they were able to take over the House of Representatives, calling themselves Tea Partiers. They took over the House of Representatives. This is all pursuant, if you will, and I'm getting ready to get into some trouble here, but I don't know if any of you all are familiar with Lewis Powell, former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. Back in 1971, I believe, Lewis Powell was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Nixon. He was a business lawyer out of Richmond, Virginia, sat on 11 or 12 different corporate boards. He was friends with people in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. After he was appointed but before he was confirmed, he wrote a memo to his good friend, who was the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at that time, and that document, which is known as the Powell Memo or the Powell manifesto, was addressed to his friend Eugene Sydnor who was the director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That memo is dated August 23, 1971, just 2 short months before Powell was nominated, so I misspoke. This memo was written before he was nominated by President Nixon for a seat on the Supreme Court. No prior judicial experience, no prior litigation experience, just a corporate lawyer appointed and confirmed for the Supreme Court. And, unfortunately, this memo did not come out, did not become public knowledge until at some point after his confirmation. It was actually revealed to Jack Anderson, who was a liberal syndicated columnist whose column appeared in, among other publications, The Washington Post. He was an investigative reporter with a brilliant journalistic quality that is lacking in our journalists, our so-called journalists of today. But anyway, this Lewis Powell Memo, which he wrote to Eugene Sydnor, director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was written for the purpose of getting the Chamber of Commerce to understand that the free market system and capitalism were under attack and that the businesses in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were aiding and abetting those attacks on capitalism. He went on to talk about blacks out demonstrating and the more thoughtful blacks, the more well-spoken blacks, speaking against capitalism, the capitalist system. He talked about Ralph Nader suing large corporations based on people getting injured in cars that were not manufactured sufficiently. He talked about Ralph Nader suing the drug companies for adulterated drugs or for drugs that did not do what they said that they were going to do, these kinds of things. He talked about William Kunstler, a famous civil rights lawyer. Lewis Powell, after expressing himself on how these kinds of things are now happening in society--and by the way, that was right during the Vietnam War period, the civil rights era. And he talked about where are we going, what do we need to do to save our free market system. He advocated to the chamber members, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce members, that each one of them should have a vice president of corporate affairs so that that person could have a job that did nothing but protect the corporate interests. And he also recommended that various think tanks be established like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. He said we need to have something different, we need to hear some different voices other than the Brookings Institution and other institutions of fact-gathering. And so they did those things. Up came the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and a bunch of other rightwing--not fair and balanced--but rightwing organizations calling themselves think tanks. Then we have corporate money being put into the university system to produce the kind of thought that would be protective of the status quo. And so they began to demand a voice in the academic arena. It's all propaganda that they started putting out there. And they've been doing this, ladies and gentlemen, since 1971, 40 years. It has produced a result culminating in the 2010 election cycle, where they were able to put their hands firmly around the throat of democracy and strangle it. They are doing that today through the folks whom they have elected. Those are the Tea Party Republicans. So, now, what have those Tea Party Republicans done this past year since they have been in office? They've been up to quite a bit. They have been up to quite a bit, none of which is good for America. It's been destructive for the people, the regular working people, of this country and the poor people. What have we seen that they have done? They opposed a debt ceiling increase by misleading the public into thinking that it was more spending, as opposed to authorization for what we have already spent, to borrow that money. They played games. As a result of their failure to do what had been done on a regular basis for decades--increasing the debt ceiling--it resulted in a devaluing of this Nation's credit rating, making the cost of borrowing go up. Now I know some of you say, well, we don't need to be borrowing any money, but I'll tell you, I don't know of many people able to go in and purchase a house for cash. You go get a mortgage. I don't know many people who are able to go buy a car with cash. No, you get some financing. This capitalist system that they're trying so hard to protect--and I'm a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. But I believe in fairness also. I don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. I believe in capitalism that works for everybody, that's fair. In their endeavor to protect that laissez-faire corporation, laissez- faire economics, they have damaged the ability of this government to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare--the general welfare, not the welfare of the millionaires and billionaires-- but the general welfare, the 99 percent. What have these Tea Party Republicans done for the 99 percent? Well, they made it more difficult for their government to borrow money. Some of you say that's good. I say that when you have money, when you need to borrow money in order to prime the pump of your economy, then you should borrow the money, prime the pump of the economy, build up your economic engine, pay off the debt and move forward. That's the way that we have always done it. That's the way that America rose, if you will. We're not in any danger of not being able to pay back our debt. It was a manufactured crisis. So 50 million jobs, ladies and gentlemen, have been lost largely out of the private sector based on these cutbacks, these mindless cutbacks. Seniors have been threatened with a change in Medicare into a voucher system as proposed by the Budget Committee chairman. These things have not been good for the working people of this country. The cuts in the Paul Ryan House GOP budget are inhumane and merciless. They have been quite dutiful in doing the business of the Koch Brothers. They haven't been doing any business on behalf of the 99 percenters. The Ryan budget, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which set arbitrary spending caps and required a balanced budget amendment which would lock in an unfair tax code and tax rate and tax system, would just lock it in forever, requiring a three-fifths vote in order to actually raise taxes, not to mention just the failure to look at a fundamental new direction for our Tax Code. No, they are maintaining the status quo because that's what the Koch Brothers want. They love all of those loopholes, tax credits, and exemptions that are built into the Tax Code just to benefit them and a couple of their worthy, wealthy friends. They have sought to remove the ability of the federal agencies like the EPA and the FDA from being able to regulate and make sure that we have safe products, we have safe air and water, food and drugs. They have fought and passed legislation to remove those regulations and to hamper the ability of these federal agencies to produce other regulations as the need arises. Short-sighted. It was all to benefit the Koch brothers and their friends. The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011, a waste of time that prevents the EPA from regulating farm dust even though the EPA has said that it does not plan to regulate farm dust. The North American-Made Energy Security Act, which would purport to force the President to approve the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone pipeline, by the way, there's a terminal owned by the Koch brothers, one of their corporate subsidiaries located at the beginning of this pipeline up in Canada, Alberta, Canada. And then along the proposed route of the pipeline are other Koch brothers refineries that will profit as a result of the tar sands, oil sands coming out of Canada through the U.S. all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. And then what will happen at the Gulf of Mexico, that oil will be shipped over to China, not any of it available to Americans for our energy use. It's all going overseas to the highest bidder. And that's a fact. The Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011, which would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was a part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulations, they've sought to water that down. And then in the Senate, the Republicans have prevented a head of that agency from being confirmed. They have fought the payroll tax cuts and the extension of unemployment insurance to the long-term unemployed. They have fought that with great vigor. They held those items hostage, by the way, last year at this time just so that they could get a 2-year extension on the Bush tax cuts, which benefit the top 1 percent. And I must congratulate the Members of the House, the Tea Party Republicans, who have batted 100 percent in insuring that not one tax increase for millionaires and billionaires was able to pass through this House. But easily, though, they can walk away from a tax cut for the middle class. They just did it today. Instead of allowing us to vote on a Senate bill, which was approved over there in a bipartisan way--89 of 100 Senators voted ``yes,'' 10 voted ``no.'' That's almost a 90 percent bipartisan bill that the Senate passed. Now, it's not the best bill--a 2-month extension of unemployment insurance, a 2-month extension of the payroll tax cut for the middle class, a 2-month extension of what's called the ``doc fix.'' But the doctors, at the end of the year, who treat Medicare patients are scheduled to receive a 27 percent reduction in the amount of their reimbursements paid by the government. And the Republicans here in the House refused to allow us to vote on that Senate bipartisan bill which, as they say, kicks the can down the road; but it does extend the opportunity to reach a longer term agreement by 60 days. But instead, what we have is the Republicans here in Congress, the Tea Party Republicans, refusing to let us vote on the Senate proposal. And then they, instead of announcing that we're leaving town now, they don't intend to come back, they're gone. If you go to the airport right now, you'll see them lined up--many of them with hats on trying to shield themselves from the glare of public attention--making their way back home. You will find them at the airport right now. And they don't want to come back. We could have had this done, ladies and gentlemen. We could have all left this Chamber today with our heads held high knowing that there won't be a tax increase as of January 1 for 160 million Americans. We would have known that those 2.2 million long-term unemployed individuals would have their benefits extended. We would have known that the 47 million seniors on Medicare here in the United States would have the ability to access the same doctor that they have utilized because that doc fix didn't go into effect, the 27 percent decrease. That's going to cause doctors to be unable, financially, to treat those patients. So it raises the possibility that people will have to be reassigned to another doctor. And then, because so many doctors will opt out of treating Medicare, then that means the doctors who do treat them have a larger clientele, patient base, and can't be as effective as if they could just simply practice medicine in a way that was not volume oriented. So these are not things that I feel good about in terms of being able to leave today. But my Republican friends got up and inferred--actually told you that the reason why they were leaving is because it's not a 12-month extension of a tax cut. And you know, I know and the American people know that that's not true. And they argued that with righteous indignation, one after the other. It's like they have gotten to the point where now they believe this stuff themselves. But don't you be fooled, ladies and gentlemen. Don't be hoodwinked. Don't be misled. We've got elections coming up in 2012. The mantra of the opposition to President Obama has been: We're going to do everything we can to make him a one-term president. They announced that on the day of his inauguration. They have stuck to it, and they are concerned because, despite all of that obstructionism, the economy has started to get a little better. They're concerned about that, and so they want to impose as much harm and pain on middle class people as they can to try to keep them confused about what is actually happening in their lives. Is it the Koch brothers and unbridled laissez faire free market activity that's harming them or is it government? Well, to the extent that government is in bed with folks like the Koch brothers, yeah, government is the problem. But there are some good people out here. Not everybody is involved with the Koch brothers, is bought and sold off to the Koch brothers. Not everybody. Not everybody has been influenced under the Lewis Powell manifesto that has been put into operation and has resulted in where we are today with people in the streets demanding equity. This is a serious situation that we're in, ladies and gentlemen. It's for the heart and soul of our country. And there are many good people out here in Congress who want to do the right thing by way of the people. But then you've got a group of extremists in here calling themselves Tea Partiers, who are controlling the flow of everything, and it's not to your benefit. Now, I don't normally come up and participate in these 1-hour dissertations. This is the first one I've done ever by myself. But I thought I would do so today because I really--it's on my heart to make sure that we set the record straight before the end of this year and that you at least have a voice that's crying a different tune than the righteous indignation of those who I have to again congratulate this year, the Tea Party Republicans. They batted 100 percent. Not one penny of taxes for their Koch brothers friends, millionaires and billionaires. But yet they leave and cost each middle class taxpayer, on average, about $1,000, which will go into effect on January 1 because they would not let this body vote on the Senate bipartisan compromise bill. They don't like compromise; they don't want bipartisanship--it's our way or you take the highway--and that's the way that it's been this past year. All of the manufactured crises, the debt ceiling, the will we be able to keep the government operating, government shutdowns, we've had about three of those this year. And then they leave out of here saying that a 2-month extension of tax cuts for the middle class won't do anything; it can't be done. I heard one--the fourth highest ranking Republican in this body lamented that a 2-month extension of the unemployment insurance for the long-term uninsured would burden the payroll software companies. They're more worried about the burden of an accounting fix that could be done with a couple of strokes on the computer. They're worried about that burden on the corporations that prepare the payroll checks and information like that. They provide payment for their corporate customers. He's worried about them, but he's not worried about the very people who will lose, who'll end up paying $1,000 more. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. He doesn't care about those who are struggling to stay in the middle class, depending on their unemployment insurance which will get cut off, whacked off come January 1. Somebody else today on the Tea Party side said that we are--this is a game of poker that we're playing right now. How ridiculous. Are any of you out there playing poker? Do you have anything to play poker with? You're trying to buy Christmas gifts out here. They say that this payroll tax cut and the unemployment insurance and the doc fix can't be implemented within 2 months, but those things are--we're just maintaining the status quo. There's nothing to implement. Why can't we let it go for another 2 months and give it another--give ourselves another opportunity to negotiate a fair and balanced bipartisan piece of legislation that the President can sign, like what they did in the Senate? Why can't we do that? Well, I submit to you that they're not really interested in the middle class. That's clear, because if they were, they would not have left today. Some of them, unwittingly, are pawns in this master plan that was set out in the Lewis Powell Memo, and I'd advise you to go to the Internet and look it up--L-E-W-I-S, Lewis Powell. And you will read that, and you will see how effective his plan has been carried out, and how close we are to the hopes and dreams of middle class Americans being strangled due to their public policy being controlled by those corporations, not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of the rich, powerful and the corporations, which our U.S. Supreme Court now says are people in the Citizens United decision. I watched one of the Justices shaking his head during the President's State of the Union address where he directed comments about the Citizens United decision. I watched that Justice shaking his head ``no.'' I wonder if he would shake his head ``no'' today as the President pointed out exactly what would happen as a result of that corporate influence gaining unfettered access to our public policymaking apparatus, our democracy. So we're under attack, middle class people. It's time for us to stand up, to get educated about what's going on out here. And the fact that there's no need to be angry with your neighbor because they are African American, or the neighbor over there is gay, or this one over here, I don't know if they are an illegal alien or not, so we've got to do away with them. And abortion--we end up dividing ourselves based on the public relations game plan that is put forward to influence us. And we fall for it. And so then we get divided and blaming ourselves instead of directing our attention to those who continue to drive their Brinks trucks hour after hour into the bank. So it's time for us to wake up, ladies and gentlemen. It's time for us to get smart. It's time for us to put aside our dislikes based on how somebody looks, and it's time for us to unite and take this country back. I want to thank you all for listening to me today. I feel better after closing the year with setting things in a proper format, and I look forward to us being able to come back next year and do some things that will benefit regular working people in this country and try to shift the imbalance of wealth back into one where all people are able to prosper in this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a unique position in Congress in that I serve both on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. The House Armed Services Committee is charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of America from external threats. The Judiciary Committee is charged with the awesome responsibility of protecting the rights of Americans to live freely and protecting that from internal threats. I know that my service on the Armed Services Committee has been good, and I appreciate the bipartisanship with which our chairman and the ranking member addressed the issues for keeping America safe from external threat. I must commend you for, at very difficult times, in reaching this particular product. However, I rise in opposition to this defense authorization bill reached in conference committee because it does disturb the rights that Americans have come to enjoy under our Constitution. We have sworn to uphold our Constitution of the United States of America regardless of which committee you serve on. Yet we're about to give our seal of approval to a bill that gives the military the authority to hold American citizens captured abroad on suspicion of terrorism, and to hold them indefinitely without trial. This is a codification of an unfortunate Supreme Court ruling that is wrong, and it gives that ruling statutory legitimacy. Mr. Speaker, we must reject indefinite detention of Americans and defend the Constitution. An American arrested abroad could be subject to indefinite detention abroad, and that's wrong. No matter how you spin it, it's wrong. It's unjust, it's Orwellian, and it's not who we are. As Americans, we don't put Americans in jail indefinitely without trial no matter how heinous the accusations against them. This is not what we are about. This is not who we are. It's against our values as Americans, and for this reason, I cannot support the bill. The bill also makes the military, not civilian law enforcement authorities, responsible for custody and prosecution in the military courts of foreign terrorist suspects apprehended within the United States. This provision disrespects and demoralizes our law enforcement officers and prosecutors who are responsible for protecting our national security using the United States criminal justice system and process, which has been effectively used repeatedly to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate for long stints individuals who are convicted of terrorism. Imagine you're an FBI agent or a Federal prosecutor with a tremendous record finding, arresting, convicting, locking up terrorists. Now you're told to step aside so that the military can do your job for you. The military is a machine of war, not a law enforcement agency.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you. That's why the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the head of the Justice Department's National Security division, and the Secretary of Defense himself oppose this provision. More than 400 terrorists have been convicted in our civilian courts. Only a handful of cases have been brought before military tribunals, and not all of them have been successful. If it ain't broke, ladies and gentlemen, don't fix it. Terrorism is a crime, and our law enforcement authorities, our prosecutors, our judges are more than up to the task. This bill ties the hands of law enforcement, militarizes counterterrorism on our own soil, and makes us less safe. Mr. Speaker, our constituents sent us here to provide for the common defense, yes, but they also sent us here to safeguard their liberty. So I ask my colleagues to think long and hard about this vote, and I ask the staffers watching this on C-SPAN to think long and hard before making their recommendations. Reject indefinite detention, empower civilian law enforcement, and defend the Constitution.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In response, no, I've never operated a business on Wall Street, and I'm not really concerned about Wall Street as Wall Street has been getting all of the breaks. This party, the Tea Party Republicans, seem hellbent on shifting everything in their direction. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to support my amendment to this dangerous bill, the REINS Act. My amendment is simple. It would exempt any rule that the Office of Management and Budget determines would promote job growth from the bill's congressional approval requirement, which is very cumbersome. The Republican majority claims that job growth is its top priority, and if that's the case, then my Republican friends should support this amendment. In reality, we all know this bill will not create a single job, and as part of the majority's anti-regulatory agenda, will make it virtually impossible to implement rules for our health and safety. This bill does not fine-tune the regulatory process, as the Republicans say. It will do nothing but make the regulatory process more bureaucratic and impose unnecessary hurdles for the agencies seeking to enact rules that protect our health and safety. The majority has a scare tactic--that is that regulations kill jobs, and that's nothing but a myth. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, which describes itself as the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses, does a regular survey of small businesses. And it found that the single most important problem facing small businesses is poor sales, not regulations. The REINS Act would delay, if not halt, regulations that are necessary for the health and safety of our constituents. Further, the bill would slow down regulations that may actually foster job growth. Thus, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are truly concerned about job growth, I would encourage them to support this amendment. I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment because the regulations that will help put unemployed Americans back to work should take effect without unnecessary delay. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. This bill will make it impossible to implement critical new regulations that will place some restraints on the excesses of the business community, and I ask that it be defeated.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so- called REINS Act. It's a demonstration of the reign of terror that the Tea Party-Grover Norquist Republican Party has exacted on Americans insofar as their health and safety are concerned, and in terms of their ability as small businesses to compete with Wall Street and Big Business. You see, this is a Christmas gift. It's a gift to those who installed this Tea Party reign in Congress, and this Tea Party reign, the Republicans in Congress, are doing everything they're supposed to do. This is the anti-regulatory bill, as the chairman said, that is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills. In fact, these 25, 26 bills that have been misnamed ``jobs bills'' that the Republicans have passed are nothing more than anti-regulatory legislation, sprinkled with a little antiabortion legislation in there--with not one job to be created. You're just simply kowtowing to the wishes of those who line your pockets with gold in order for you to get elected. This anti-regulatory legislation is turning the clock back on progress in America. We want to turn it all over to Big Business. This is what the Wall Street occupation is all about. This is what the Tea Party is all about.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, mister ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to passage of H.R. 2471. This bill will make it easy for video producers to be able to sell to others information that consumers may feel is private. Now, I, myself, don't want folks to know that I have ordered up ``Debbie Does Dallas.'' I may not mind if they know that I ordered up ``J. Edgar,'' but I don't want them to know that I ordered ``Good Girls Gone Bad.'' And on behalf of Judge Robert Bork, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be able to uncover the fact that he's been ordering up relentlessly the film ``Bad Boys of Summer.'' We have a right to privacy, and that right should not just be given away without adequate knowledge on behalf of the consumer what they're giving away. This bill has proceeded to the suspension calendar without any kind of hearing before the Judiciary Committee on whether or not the bill should be marked up or not. We have not heard from experts. We don't know what kind of waiver by Internet, we don't know the mechanics of that waiver. We don't know how easy it will be to waive your right. It could be as easy as waiving your right to a jury trial in a cell phone contract. For those reasons, I ask that this bill be denied.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1021, the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act of 2011, sponsored by my good friend Representative Smith of Texas, who is also the chair of the Judiciary Committee, which I am pleased to serve on. I would point out how ironic it is because we are now in the 336th day of this reign of the Tea Party Republican Party, which is unalterably linked with the notorious Grover Norquist and his tax pledge, his pledge to not raise taxes. We're getting ready, Mr. Speaker, to get to the end of this year, and we still have 160 million Americans at risk of suffering a tax increase, $1,000 a person on average. I don't know how many millions of dollars that would take out of consumers' pockets. And I don't hear Grover Norquist or the Tea Party Republicans crying about that. If it's the middle class, the working people tax increase, it's okay. If it is the top 1 percent making over a million bucks a year, then ``you can't touch this.'' Well, I think the American people know that it's ``hammer time'' out here. It's time for there to be justice and fairness for all under the law. And it's ironic we need these bankruptcy court judges' tenures to be extended, as this Act would allow, because there's going to be more bankruptcies filed. Just $1,000 can push a person over the edge in terms of their solvency. People are now just living paycheck to paycheck, hand-to- mouth, trying to determine whether or not we're going to pay the light bill or whether or not we're going to get the medication that we need in order to be healthy. People are deciding whether or not to pay the gas bill or whether or not they're going to be able to eat more than ramen noodles every night for the month. So $1,000 means a lot. It may not mean a lot to a millionaire, one of those top 1 percent that my Tea Party Republican friends so heartily support, but it will hurt the little man and woman and their families, especially at Christmas time. At a time when the corporate chieftains are getting their bonuses, multimillion-dollar bonuses based on increased profits, we're still left on December 6 with people being worried about whether or not they're going to suffer a tax increase on January 1. So let's not impose an average $1,000--actually, $1,500; let's not impose the threat of a $1,500 tax increase on the middle class and working people by failing to do what we should have done much earlier. There's no reason why we have not done this, why we have not expanded the payroll tax cut that was enacted last year. Let's keep that $1,500 in the pockets of the average middle class family. Let's try to keep down the need for people to go into bankruptcy court. Let's at some point let it expire, the number of bankruptcy court judges temporarily serving.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Martina Correia, who passed away recently from breast cancer. Martina was a courageous and inspiring woman who proved what President Obama has often said, ``In the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.'' For decades, Martina fought for human rights in defense of her brother, who was sentenced to death based on unreliable eyewitness testimony that was later recanted. Martina's brother, Troy Anthony Davis, was on death row for 20 years until his execution this year. Thanks to Martina, people rallied around Troy's case and began to really think about how it is that a society such as ours can execute a potentially innocent man. Inspired by Martina, a diverse array of men and women in the United States and from around the world, people like Amnesty International's Laura Moye; NAACP President Ben Jealous; Reverend Raphael Warnock, pastor of the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church where the reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once pastored; British MP Alistair Carmichael; former President Jimmy Carter; Pope Benedict XVIth; and a large group of other distinguished leaders from around the world whose names are too numerous for me to recognize at this time. These folks banded together to fight for Troy Anthony Davis' life. From her humble roots in Georgia, Martina led this international campaign to save her brother and prove his innocence. Martina advocated for justice and fought to save her brother's life. And in so doing, she became a death penalty abolitionist in the movement to move America to renounce and abolish the death penalty, whereupon America could finally join the ranks of the other industrialized nations of the world that have barred the use of this barbaric form of punishment. She became an international human rights advocate, and it will, in part, be due to her efforts that we will one day cheer the abolition of the death penalty in this country. I will remember and thank Martina when we reach that milestone in our development as a Nation and as a people. Martina fought this battle for her brother while fighting her own battle with breast cancer. You see, she was diagnosed with breast cancer 11 years ago, and at that time, she was given 6 months to live. She beat the odds and fought to stay alive so that she could fight for her brother. Before her diagnosis, Martina was a nurse, and she was also a veteran who served her country in the 1992 Gulf war. Martina's illness eventually forced her to stop working for a living, but she continued to advocate for what was important to her. In addition to her work on behalf of her brother, Martina also was a leader of the National Black Leadership Initiative on Cancer, where she advocated for a cure. Her mother, Virginia Davis, died in April 2011 shortly after her son, Troy Anthony Davis, suffered defeat on his appeal. Martina is survived by one son, Antone De'Juan Davis-Correia; two sisters, Kimberly and Ebony Davis; and one brother, Lester Davis. It was an honor for me to know Martina and an honor for me to meet her mother and an honor for me to meet her brother. I'm comforted in knowing that she will reunite with her dear mother and with her brother, Troy, as their lives are linked for all eternity. Strong and fearless, fighting to the very end without giving up or giving in, she fought a great fight. And now it's time to rest for a little bit, Martina. You rest in peace. But rest knowing that the movement to abolish the death penalty will continue, and with your example at the top of our minds, we will never give up until the job is done.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, reaching the age of 93 years is a remarkable milestone; and Whereas, Mrs. Mary Lee Spencer was born on August 28, 1918 and is celebrating that milestone; and Whereas, Mrs. Spencer has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted to God and credits it all to the Will of God; and Whereas, Mrs. Spencer is celebrating her 93rd Birthday with her family members, church members and friends here in DeKalb County, Georgia on August 28, 2011; and Whereas, the Lord has been her Shepherd throughout her life and she prays daily and is leading by example a blessed life; and Whereas, we are honored that she is celebrating the milestone of her 93rd birthday in the 4th District of Georgia; and Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside this day to honor and recognize Mrs. Mary Lee Spencer for an exemplary life which is an inspiration to all, Now Therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim August 28, 2011 as Mrs. Mary Lee Spencer in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. Proclaimed, this 28th day of August, 2011.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act. Instead of creating jobs, the Tea Party Republicans are assaulting the very regulations that keep us safe and promote fairness to consumers. I'm disturbed by this assault on regulations that protect health, safety, and well-being, and the financial well-being of 99 percent of Americans. This majority, the Tea Party Republicans who, having been elected as a result of all of the secret money received from the Wall Street corporations during the 2008 elections, beyond any reasonable doubt are now clearly doing the bidding of these Wall Street corporate interests. They're doing the bidding of them by this kind of legislation that would remove the kinds of regulations that protect the health, safety, and well-being of 99 percent of the American people. It's not fair. It's not right. No jobs are being created. This bill is a travesty.

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