Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the well-being of the American people should never be used as a political bargaining chip, but that is exactly what House MAGA Republicans are doing. Yesterday, my friend Matt Gaetz, who appears to be the lead MAGA debt ceiling negotiator, let the cat out of the bag when he told us that most of his caucus: ``Don't feel like we should negotiate with our hostage.'' Who is the hostage that MAGA Republicans have tied to a chair and left in the basement while they leave to enjoy the holiday weekend? It is none other than the American people and our economy. Why are they doing it after voting three times for a clean debt ceiling under Donald Trump? Because they want to ruin the economy, blame it on President Biden, and pave the way to reelect their savior, Donald Trump. How despicable. We need five Republicans to sign the discharge petition so the House can vote on a clean debt ceiling bill and continue moving our Nation forward.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that this week I am reintroducing the FAIR Act, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act. Forced arbitration has been a concern of mine for some time because powerful corporations have stripped away Americans' right to have their day in court. These forced arbitration clauses are everywhere. Americans sign away their rights when they buy a cell phone or sign an employment contract. They are forced into arbitration, a private for-profit dispute resolution process that bans claimants from banding together and where the deck is stacked against the little guy. That is why I have been championing this legislation since 2007, and momentum has shifted in our favor. Just last year, President Biden signed a law invalidating forced arbitration clauses in disputes about workplace sexual harassment and assault. That is progress, but we have more work to do. We need to restore Americans' right to use the court system, and in doing so, reinvigorate important civil rights, employment, and consumer protections in this country.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce this week that I am reintroducing the FAIR Act: the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act. Forced arbitration has been a concern of mine for some time, and that is why I have always been in support of sponsoring this legislation which would strip away what powerful corporations have imposed upon consumers and workers. That is forced arbitration. These forced arbitration clauses are everywhere. Americans sign away their rights when they buy a cell phone or sign an employment contract. They are forced into arbitration, which is a private, for-profit dispute resolution process, and it bans claimants from banding together. The deck is always stacked against the little guy. That is why I have been championing this legislation since 2007. Momentum is shifting to our side. President Biden signed a law last year invalidating forced arbitration clauses. We have a lot of work to do, and we will continue that with the FAIR Act.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important topic that we are here tonight to discuss, the rightwing reactionary judiciary. I will start by reading a quote that was set out in an article written by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and published in The Washington Post back in June 2022. They cited President George Washington, our Nation's first President, in his 1796 Farewell Address, where he cautioned that American democracy was fragile. ``Cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government,'' he warned. He was warning us about what could happen to our democracy. The article that Woodward and Bernstein wrote in June 2022 was talking about the scandal that they broke back in the 1970s involving Republican President Richard Nixon and how he tried to subvert the electoral process by burglarizing the Democratic Party headquarters and, by espionage, sabotage, and false information, how he used that to arrive at his opponent in the general election, how he subverted the Democratic primary process to select the candidate that he wanted to run against, and he was successful. It was Woodward and Bernstein who revealed what is known as the Watergate scandal, which led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. In his wake, he left a game plan as to the weaknesses in our democracy that he was able to exploit. Then along comes Donald Trump. This is what the June 2022 article was about, how Trump took it to the next level, another Republican President. What Trump tried to do in subverting our electoral process was to actually subvert the electoral college count process, first by the fake electors scheme and then using them to force the Vice President to stop the count and send the fake electors and the electoral count back to the States so that he could win the election. When that failed, President Trump dispatched an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to actually stop the counting of the electoral votes. That is our history. It was the United States Supreme Court that stopped Richard Nixon, but if it had been Donald Trump and today, I am not sure that today's Supreme Court would have stopped Trump. Why? Because our Court has been captured by rightwing extremists. Our United States Supreme Court has been packed by Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell with extreme rightwing ideologues who are intent on taking us back into an archaic time in the Nation's history when women had no rights, Blacks had no rights, anyone other than White males in America had no rights, not equal rights. This Court was packed with these rightwing extremist ideologues when Mitch McConnell refused to engage in the appointment and confirmation process for Merrick Garland 10 months before the Presidential election, announcing the theory that there is a new rule that, during an election year, we can't appoint a new Justice to the Supreme Court. That position, caused by the death of Scalia, was left vacant until such time as Republicans won the Senate and Donald Trump came into office and was able to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court that should have been a Justice appointed by President Obama. He got two more picks during his years, and he picked Federalist Society judges. He had made a campaign pledge to appoint them. These are Justices that come from a political organization, the Federalist Society, with political ideals and objectives. They have three new Justices appointed. They already had two that were on there, so now we have a supermajority, every one of which belongs to the Federalist Society and every one of which was selected by the Federalist Society for their seat. These Justices have a program that they are carrying out. It is the Republican playbook. One of the things they want to do is take away power from President Trump, not because of any lofty ideal but simply because it is President Biden who announced the policy. One of the things that is getting ready to happen is the Court is prepared to strike down student debt relief for millions of Americans, despite the fact that the clear language in the statute allows for the President to have that discretion. The Supreme Court will find a way, as the lower courts have done, to prevent the President, this President, from exercising that executive authority. It is another demonstration of why the public has lost confidence in the United States Supreme Court. With that loss of confidence in the Court comes a loss of confidence in the rule of law. Justice and the rule of law are bedrocks of our democracy. If the people lose confidence, it doesn't work. What is the solution to this dilemma that we face? I have a couple that I have proposed. One would expand this United States Supreme Court, unpack it. They say that you are trying to pack it, but no, we are trying to unpack it. They packed it. Republicans packed it. We are trying to unpack it. It is for the sake of our democracy that we need to pass legislation that unpacks the Court and expands it with four additional seats. Something else we need to do is that we have reached a point where lifetime tenure does not work anymore. We have Federalist Society Justices on the Court and Federalist Society judges throughout the Federal courts who have lifetime tenure. They are young. They can change our society for the next 30, 40, 50 years, so we have to have reform in our courts. We have to expand the ranks of the Federal district court judges, the Federal circuit court judges, and, yes, the United States Supreme Court. We need to add term limits to the United States Supreme Court so that there is a regular infusion of modernity and sensibility to the Court so that it does not grow old, stale, and stodgy. I have legislation that would create such a regimen of 18-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Last but not least, you would be surprised to know that, unlike other Federal court judges who are bound by a code of conduct, the Supreme Court Justices are not bound by a code of conduct. That is how you can have a situation where a Supreme Court Justice can have a wife that is taking money from interests with cases before the Court, putting that money in the pocketbook of that spouse which is enjoyed by her husband sitting on the Supreme Court. They don't have a code of ethics, so we need a code of conduct that is applicable to the Justices on the Supreme Court, and I have legislation that would provide for that, which needs to be passed as well. I know, Congresswoman Lee, that I have exhibited extreme wokeness today, and I apologize to this body for descending into wokeness, but I wouldn't really want to be any way other than woke.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the beginning, Tommy Dortch, like every other person born on this Earth, was endowed with certain unique talents. The mission we all have in living is to go forth and be fruitful with those talents. I am here today with my colleagues, and also with the family and church members and pastor of Tommy Dortch. They are in the gallery today. We are here to recognize the exceptionally talented Tommy Dortch and the fruits that we have enjoyed in his living. My colleagues have told you of Tommy's many accomplishments, and there is so much more that can be said about him. But with the little time I have, I want to leave you with this: Tommy Dortch is a man whose cup runneth over. At the end of each day, Tommy made sure that that cup was empty, not consuming its contents for himself, but in service to others. His example and legacy have and will continue to resonate profoundly, which is why he is so deserving of receiving the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for hosting this Special Order hour on behalf of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus under the leadership of Chairman Steve Horsford. Tonight, we are here to talk about a plague on America. It has to do with police violence toward Black people in this country. I am not talking about just White police officers but Black officers, also. We saw it with Tyre Nichols, where a group of five so-called elite crime suppression unit officers, who travel in unmarked cars and in plainclothes, were out looking for crime. They jump out on folks. They jumped out on Tyre Nichols. Tyre Nichols was on his way over to his mother's house for dinner, but he never made it. You all saw it on TV, where he was pulled over. The police were going at 100 miles an hour on him: Get out of the car. Get out of the car. They had guns drawn: Get on your stomach. He complied. Because of the culture of policing with these crime suppression units and other units of police agencies across the country, he was frightened--I was frightened--and he ran. He almost made it to his mother's house, but they caught up with him, and the rest you saw with your own eyes. You can believe your lying eyes about what you saw: a horrific beating. You also could hear what was happening in the background as the officers were talking to each other, planning on how they were going to adjust their reports to all be consistent about this guy being on drugs: He must have been on this, that, and the other. He wouldn't comply. He wouldn't put his hands behind him. Just talking to each other throughout the whole thing. This is a part of a culture, and it is something that has to be rooted out. It is happening all over the country. In my neck of the woods, in DeKalb County, in March 2015, Air Force veteran Anthony Hill was fatally shot. Anthony had been to Afghanistan. His mother didn't want him to go, but he went to serve his country. When he came back, he was different. He suffered from mental illness, bipolar. In March 2015, shortly after the situation with Michael Brown in Ferguson, Anthony Hill is out in his apartment complex running around naked as a jaybird, swinging from canopies, knocking on doors. The neighbors knew him. They called the police. They called 911. They wanted some help to come for him. Instead, a police officer showed up. When Anthony Hill did not stop coming toward the officer, he didn't tase him. He didn't hit him with his nightstick. The officer pulled out his 9-millimeter and shot Anthony twice and killed him. Anthony was his mother's only son, her youngest child. He killed him. He was naked as a jaybird. Then, he said in his report that the guy came at him and hit him, and that is why he fired. The jury found otherwise. The officer was indicted for murder, but the jury didn't convict him for murder. They convicted him for aggravated assault and for lying, filing a false statement about what happened. It took the jury 6 days to get to the point where they could convict him of anything. He was looking at 30 years at that point, but the judge had mercy on him and gave him 20 to do 12 for taking a man's life. That is how it goes throughout America. Everybody has sympathy. I have abundant sympathy. I love my men and women in blue, but the culture in policing has to change. We saw why it needs to change with Tyre Nichols. My colleagues are going to speak about other examples of why it needs to change. I have given you mine. I have taken enough of your time, but I will just leave you with this: We need to make police reform a priority. It is time to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. We did it in the House two or three times last session. It went to the Senate, and it couldn't get across the finish line. We need the Senate to abandon the filibuster rule. Let's get some legislation passed. Let's get voting rights passed. Let's get police reform passed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California. Those are some very important insights from the West Coast. We pray that America does not make those same decisions in the other States. I am grateful for principled leadership out of California here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 11, which would create a select committee on China. The only reason why we are creating this select committee on China is because extremist MAGA Republicans in last week's circular firing squad election for Speaker, the Speaker had to promise to allow creation of this committee. We have watched China rise. We know their activities. We know what kind of competition they pose to our economy, national security, intellectual property, human rights, all of these issues. We know where we stand with China, and each of those issues are covered by committees of jurisdiction that exist right now. Any investigation that is done can be done through the existing committees. So why are we creating this committee? I fear that it is to create a platform to unleash anti-Asian hate and division. This committee should not be used as an open invitation to engage and traffic in blatantly xenophobic anti-Asian rhetoric that we know historically results in violence against the Asian people in this country. That is the reason why I oppose the creation of this select committee.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, the insurrection protection committee, which Speaker McCarthy, the 21st century McCarthyism, had to agree to last week in order to gain the Speakership. MAGA extremist Republicans forced, as a consequence of getting their vote, the Speaker to promise to create this select committee. Donald Trump had his hands in it. Donald Trump had his hands in it last week. During this circular firing squad, he was calling the shots, and this will benefit him. This insurrection protection committee is set up to insulate the ex- President, along with various MAGA Republicans who are still serving here in the House and who are under investigation. It is here to protect them from that investigation. It is here to disrupt the flow of justice in this country. This is a dangerous, extreme committee that is put in the hands of a group of people who even defied congressional subpoenas and refused to come to testify before the January 6th Committee. Now they are trying to interfere with the Justice Department deliberations on whether or not they should be accused and charged with committing criminal offenses in the lead up to, on January 6, and thereafter. This is a very dangerous piece of legislation. MAGA Republicans are behind it, led by the head election denier in this country, who, by the way, instituted something down in Brazil this weekend. It is a worldwide affair. This is dangerous. We must stop it. Vote ``no'' on H. Res. 12.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a member of my staff, Joshua Smith, who was recently diagnosed with a rare form of cancer known as chordoma. Classified as a rare cancer of the spine and skull, chordoma is diagnosed in thousands of people worldwide every year, about 300 of whom live in the United States. In honor of Josh and others diagnosed every year, I introduced a resolution last week to help shine a light on the need for more research and awareness of this kind of cancer which is very rare. Thankfully, Josh is recovering and back at work, but his illness serves as an important reminder of the need to bolster research and funding to combat cancers of all kinds. Fighting cancers, particularly rare forms like chordoma, can and should bring us together, Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues for their support for this resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, The DBE Gross Receipts amendment removes the transportation-specific average annual gross receipts limit in favor of the Small Business Administration's governmentwide small business size standards under the North American Industry Classification System. The Small Business Administration's governmentwide small business size standards are a more accurate and consistent measure of small business size, and better achieve the objectives of the disadvantaged business enterprise program. This change also conforms the size standards applicable to disadvantaged business enterprises that compete for business in federally assisted surface transportation markets across the United States to those currently applicable to disadvantaged business enterprises that compete for Federal Aviation Administration-assisted work, which have been subject only to the Small Business Administration's governmentwide size standards since a similar change was enacted in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 2018.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, how free are we as Americans if we are holed up in our homes, shell-shocked by gun violence? We should not have to live like that. We shouldn't have to live tormented by the need to buy yet another gun more powerful than the one our neighbor purchased last week. That is not freedom. Our kids deserve better. The old and tired NRA Republican Party philosophy, which is the only way to stop a bad guy is a good guy with a gun, has not and will not work. In Uvalde, 19 good guys with guns didn't stop the killer of 19 school kids and two teachers. We have done it the Republican way for far too long now, and for the sake of the kids, it is time to do something different. Today, the good guys in the House will stand up to the NRA and pass the commonsense Protecting Our Kids Act.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I missed one vote on April 6, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 118.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time today to speak on the FAIR Act, and I ask my fellow colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. My colleagues and I on the other side of the aisle will disagree on much, but on one thing we can all agree, and that is the Constitution of the United States of America is a great document. At the beginning of that document is the preamble, and the first 17 words of the preamble read as follows: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice,'' and then it goes on. But you can see at the very top, the ideal of the Founders was to establish justice in this country. So they went about the Constitution by giving power to the legislative branch in Article I, to the executive branch in Article Number II, and to the judicial branch, the Court system, to establish justice in Article III. And then, in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution where the Bill of Rights for we, the people, gave us our individual rights, with the exception of Amendment 10, which gives the States all powers not reserved to the Federal Government. So the Bill of Rights, in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, it guarantees the right to a jury trial, a trial by a jury of one's peers for any civil case where the amount in controversy exceeds $20 or more. That is still the law in this country. That is our Constitution. But the Supreme Court has seen fit to erode our freedoms insofar as a right to a jury trial by allowing corporations, employers, to take away that right from people. That is forced arbitration. Gretchen Carlson, with FOX News, when she came forward with her claims that she was fired because she resisted the demands of Roger Ailes to have sex with him, and she filed a civil rights action, she was met with the bar of a forced arbitration clause in the employment agreement that she signed. I was so happy, Madam Speaker, to attend a bill signing ceremony a couple of weeks ago at the White House where my colleague, Cheri Bustos' legislation, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act was signed into law. We need to go further. We just heard, within the last couple of weeks, of former coach Brian Flores of the Miami Dolphins, who filed a lawsuit against the Miami Dolphins and a couple of other clubs, as well as the NFL, alleging that he had been discriminated against racially. He had been denied hiring opportunities and retention and compensation. He filed a complaint. He is met by the NFL with an arbitration clause. If it is good enough for sexual assault and sexual harassment cases, constitutional rights, those rights, that same ability needs to enure to those who have been aggrieved by racial discrimination and other types of discrimination. And consumers need to be allowed to assert their Seventh Amendment right when it comes to a dispute with a shop owner or shopkeeper.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And so, what we have seen with the U.S. Supreme Court is they have allowed corporations to have rights under our Constitution. Nowhere in it is there a section for corporations. Let's restore freedom to the people of this country as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution that we all live under. It is a constitutional right that, when there is a dispute, a party should be able to take that dispute to court and have a jury trial, and no forced contract should deprive that person of that constitutional right. That is what the FAIR Act will do. It will render unenforceable, after the act is signed into law, unenforceable, any pre-dispute forced arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and in employment agreements, and also in civil rights cases, causes of action and also antitrust actions.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak, and I want to commend my colleague, Representative Cheri Bustos, for introducing this very important legislation. It is a travesty of justice for a woman to be subjected to sexual harassment and even sexual assault on the job. Oftentimes, it takes place in a job setting where there is a culture of sexual harassment and sexual assault. And when these women find after they have been assaulted that they are barred from going to court because somehow they have been hoodwinked into a forced arbitration agreement with their employer, they are surprised because at that point they have been assaulted for a second time because when they go into arbitration you often find that the deck is stacked against the victim in favor of the perpetrator. This legislation gets at that problem by making those kinds of agreements unenforceable. I fully support this legislation. I would ask all of my colleagues to support it. It is good, commonsense legislation. Justice is all that is asked for.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, my amendment would help strengthen cybersecurity, improve American competitiveness, and contribute to a more diverse workplace by creating the David Satcher Cybersecurity Education Grant Program which gives the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology, also known as NIST, the authority to make grants to historically Black colleges and universities and also minority-serving institutions and schools that serve large numbers of Pell Grant receiving students. It would help these students promote cybersecurity education and research. Madam Speaker, we must include more women and minorities so we are maximizing all the tech talent our country has to offer. We are engaged in a cyber war, and we need all hands on deck. HBCUs are doing some of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced work in our Nation, and we should tap into and fully support those institutions to help us win this cyber war. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment when it comes up. I would also recognize the fact that, as I have listened to the debate today on this very important topic, from my friends on the other side of the aisle I have heard a lot of Asian bashing. It is quite dangerous for us to go down that path, stoking the passions of people against other people. This is not about other people. This is about what America can do to put itself in a position to protect its supply chains and to make things in America and restore the greatness that this country has. Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to refrain from the constant bashing of Asian people because it translates into real time. I mean, it has a real detrimental effect to our brothers and sisters who may not look like some but they are people, too. They are Americans as well. So we should not demonize an entire people just to score cheap political points.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5720, which I hope will be only the first in a series of reforms from this body to assist our courts in maintaining the appearance of impartiality, which is so essential to the judicial function. Perhaps more than any other branch, the judiciary relies on the public's perception of its rectitude, its rejection of bias, and its commitment to fairness as a necessary predicate to the accomplishment of its work. The more the public trusts our judges, the more willing the public is to accept their judgments. Alexander Hamilton wrote that judges do not have armies to enforce. They do not have appropriations to encourage. They have only their impeccable reasoning and their unimpeachable objective, which together ensure acceptance of their decisions. That is why after The Wall Street Journal's investigative reporting revealed widespread failures in the judiciary's compliance with a straightforward conflict of interest statute, my Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee promptly held a hearing to examine why those failures occurred and what we could do to help the judiciary avoid making them in the future. I am pleased that Representative Ross and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative Issa, immediately advanced a bill designed specifically to rectify this systemic problem, and I am proud to support it. This bill provides the judiciary with much-needed tools to ensure not only its actual objectivity but the appearance of actual objectivity, both of which are critical to ensure the continued vitality of the judiciary. It also welcomes the public, the press, and the parties to lawsuits into the process for ensuring judicial impartiality by making records of judges' financial interests publicly available and freely available. This interbranch cooperation, as the Constitution intends, is what is needed at this time. Congress needs the courts because justice is the foundation of our democracy. The courts need Congress to furnish them with the statutory tools necessary to ensure that justice satisfies the appearance of justice. Our courts and our country will be better for the passage of this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the anniversary of this important day in American history, November 1, 1965. On that day, the Interstate Commerce Commission ruled that segregation on interstate buses and facilities was illegal. This ruling came after months of protests and arrests of the Freedom Riders on public transit. The Freedom Riders, made up of Black and White, male and female, young and old, united to show the Nation that we are all equal. I had the honor of serving in Congress alongside one of the original Freedom Riders, my good friend and our colleague, the late Congressman John Lewis. To honor his legacy and commitment to ending racial segregation, I reintroduced H.R. 1348, to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Freedom Riders in recognition of their unique contribution to civil rights. I strongly encourage my congressional colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1348. This year marks the 65th anniversary of the Freedom Riders, and it is past time that we recognize their courage and contributions.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bipartisan amendment to end the Defense Department's militarization of police departments across the Nation. I think we can all agree that community confidence in law enforcement is at an all-time low, and a huge factor in this loss of confidence is the militarization of our police departments across the Nation. This trend has been exacerbated by the 1033 program that creates a pipeline to transfer surplus military weapons from war zones directly to domestic law enforcement agencies. These law enforcement agencies, without consent of the civilian authorities, obtain military grade weaponry directly from the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is the civilian authorities who should decide whether such equipment is needed, not the law enforcement agencies themselves. The approval of city councils, county commissions, and other civilian authorities is bypassed under the 1033 program, and this amendment would fix that. It would stop law enforcement agencies from acquiring military-grade weaponry without the consent of the governed. They oftentimes have no need for these weapons of war, nor are they trained as to how and when to use the equipment, but a requirement in the 1033 program mandates that the acquired equipment be placed into use within 12 months of acquisition. This mandate has resulted in the misuse of the equipment and abuse of civilians against whom it was used. The result has been communities alienated and a loss of confidence in law enforcement. Momentum is building toward reform of the 1033 program. American communities are not and should not be turned into battlefields, and people in those communities should not be looked at as enemy combatants. The ending of the war in Afghanistan makes it even more important than ever that we close down this pipeline of military-grade weapons from foreign war zones to the streets of our Nation. Over 17,000 pieces of military equipment have been declared excess or surplus and sent to the Defense Logistics Agency for distribution on our streets. The time is now to act, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a small law enforcement agency being able to order massive amounts of military equipment directly from the battlefields of this country and to do it without consent of the governed is wrong, and that is what this amendment will get at. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, rather than defund police, this amendment restores civilian authority over law enforcement. And I will submit to you that a small law enforcement agency doesn't need a military-grade tank to rescue stranded individuals due to a hurricane or something like that, some kind of a natural disaster. You don't need a military tank to do that. And no law enforcement agency should be able to order that equipment directly from the battlefield without the consent of the governed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a large metropolitan law enforcement agency with the consent of the governed has the ability to purchase whatever equipment they need, but the bottom line is the civilian authorities get to decide, and the taxpayers pay for it. But there should not be a supply line directly from the battlefield to a local law enforcement agency without consent of the governed and with the governed having to bear the cost of unnecessary equipment, as well as its misuse that contributes to the decline and confidence in law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.