Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, first, because it provides much-needed funding, and second because it will correct a grave injustice affecting people in all of our districts. Auto manufacturers operating on taxpayer money are shutting down dealerships without any justification and without adequate compensation to the dealers. These closures are difficult for all communities but their effects are especially pronounced in minority communities. The closure of minority-owned dealerships cost 150,000 jobs in 2008 and will cost another quarter of a million jobs in 2009. Members of this body have worked for decades to support small business and minority-owned business. We should do everything we can to help them now.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act of 2009. I am joined in my efforts by the honorable Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers of Michigan. The purpose of this bill is to undo the harm to consumers posed by the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. In Leegin, the Supreme Court overturned 95 years of antitrust jurisprudence by reversing its 1911 decision in Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, Co., which had expressly prohibited agreements between manufacturers and distributors on a minimum retail price for their products. Under the precedent set by Leegin, manufacturers are free to pursue this type of anticompetitive price fixing. This bill would negate the Leegin decision by making any such agreements a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The philosophical foundation of our nation's antitrust policies is simple: competition benefits consumers. When competitors have no choice but to compete aggressively with one another, it is the customer who benefits from lower prices, better service, increased variety, etc. The Leegin decision runs contrary to that philosophy. Consumers do not benefit from price fixing. In his dissent in Leegin, Justice Breyer writes that even if only 10 percent of manufacturers implement minimum price fixing policies, the average annual shopping bill for a family of four would increase by between $750 and $1000 annually. In this time of economic hardship, preserving competition and delivering value to consumers is as important as it has ever been. Retail price competition is essential to promoting this country's culture of entrepreneurship. Small businesses often get their start by offering consumers something they're not getting from more established retailers. In the Internet space, this frequently involves selling goods available in retail locations at lower prices. Here again, where there is competition among retailers, the consumer wins. The Leegin decision undermines retail competition by making it possible to set a floor price on goods sold in every conceivable outlet. Thus, the retailer who operates with lower overhead or a better cost structure is prevented from passing those cost savings on to consumers. The Supreme Court decision gives manufacturers the cover to strong-arm discount merchants into sustaining artificially high retail prices. True, the Leegin decision doesn't make every such agreement legal; it simply removes the prohibition that made any such agreement illegal on its face. But, as practicing antitrust attorneys will tell you, the enormous evidentiary burdens that a plaintiff faces post- Leegin makes litigating such cases cost-prohibitive. The real-world effect, then, of Leegin is to make such agreements legal. The benefits of the Leegin decision are dubious. Supporters claim that the decision prevents the ``free riding'' problem, in which customers do their research at higher-priced bricks-and-mortar outlets but then purchase the product at a lower-priced online retailer. In this manner, the bricks-and-mortar outlet, which invested in the customer service, is denied the benefit of the sale; the online retailer thus ``free rides'' off of its competitor. But I question this presumption. My children will search out all of the information they can find on high-priced gadgets before going to a store to check them out. Sometimes they buy them on the spot if they don't want to wait for shipping. Which begs the question: who is free-riding off of whom? A second argument that crops up frequently is that minimum retail prices benefit new entrants. This is so reasonable-sounding that even supporters of the Dr. Miles decision will acknowledge it somewhat apologetically as an exception. But for the 95 years that Dr. Miles controlled, we saw innovation and new entry in every industry. Supporters of Leegin say that minimum retail prices give big retailers the security they need to take a chance on promoting a new product. But many of these concerns can be addressed contractually, in the form of contracts for services, contracts for buybacks, etc. There is no need to overturn settled antitrust law to accomplish indirectly what may be contracted for directly. The harms of minimum retail price fixing are real and proven. In 1937, Congress passed the Miller-Tydings Act to shield from the federal antitrust laws so-called state ``fair trade'' laws that permitted manufacturers to set minimum retail prices for their goods. The results were bad for competition and bad for consumers. Studies conducted by the DOJ found that minimum retail price fixing on average increased prices for the affected goods by between 18 and 27 percent, and that elimination of the practice would save consumers $1.2 billion. Congress responded by overturning Miller-Tydings with the passage of the Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 1975. In doing so, Congress examined and rejected various justifications for minimum retail price fixing, finding that the practice served little purpose other than to raise prices for consumers. The bill I introduce today takes a stand for the consumer. It challenges manufacturers to remain innovative and aggressive, and not rely on side agreements with retailers to guarantee their own profits at the expense of a working family's paycheck. The federal antitrust laws are not an administrative inconvenience, to be done away with when threatened by the challenges of the free market. They are the greatest protection consumers have against the dangers that corporate greed, left unchecked, can pose.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2965, to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes. I would like to thank my colleague Representative Jason Altmire from Pennsylvania for introducing this important piece of legislation. I support this legislation because it increases the support of small businesses which are the lifeblood of the American economy. This legislation extends the previous termination date for SBIR and STTR programs to 2011, allowing more businesses to participate. It extends the authority to all agencies to develop programs supporting the commercialization of SBIR-funded research and increases the provision of funds to assist small businesses in rural areas. Importantly, it also provides for the special consideration of historically underrepresented groups, including small businesses operated by women, minorities, and service-disabled veterans. Though I support this legislation, I have concerns over the provision extending eligibility of the SBIR and STTR programs to Venture Capital Operating Companies. The Small Business Administration defines small VCOCs as firms with annual earnings below $6.5 million, effectively identifying large businesses as small businsesses under the text of this legislation. Furthermore, the bill does not include limits for the level VCOC participation, failing to safeguard the overcrowding of small businesses within the SBIR and STTR programs. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office have recommended such safeguards be included in this legislation, yet the text remains unchanged. I have always been a supporter of small businesses and I am the sponsor of the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act, which would ensure that small businesses can take full advantage of federal contracting opportunities. Although H.R. 2965 fails to include the safeguards necessary to protect small businesses, I believe it is a step in the right direction. Small businesses represent 99 percent of employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees, and comprise 97 percent of identified exporters. In the state of Georgia, the more than 860,000 small businesses employ more than 3.6 million workers. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of enhancing small business innovation, small businesses research, employment, and the economy by supporting this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in May 2005 the congressional leadership appointed a task force to study the contributions of enslaved African Americans to the construction of this great edifice, our United States Capitol. The task force was also asked to recommend appropriate steps to recognize their contribution. In support of that effort, the architectural historian to the Architect of the Capitol produced a report on the contributions of slave laborers to the Capitol's construction. During the 110th Congress the Committee on House Administration conducted a hearing to receive recommendations of the task force, chaired by the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague and mentor, Congressman John Lewis. The task force devoted considerable time and effort to reviewing the Architect's report on the use of slaves during the Capitol's construction and developing recommendations. Mr. Speaker, Americans now living cannot remove the stain of our Nation's past, but we can admit our forebears' sin. We must acknowledge the sacrifices of those Americans who, without choice, worked to build a government that kept them in bondage. The task force's report recommended a number of steps to do what we can. Several of their recommendations, including the naming of Emancipation Hall in the new Capitol Visitor Center, have already been completed. The placement of a marker in Emancipation Hall requires further legislative action as embodied in this resolution. This resolution will provide for the installation of a marker by the Architect of the Capitol, under the supervision of the House Administration Committee and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. As the resolution contemplates, the committees will make every effort to use some of the original, slave-quarried stones. These stones were removed from the Capitol during previous renovations and are held in storage. I urge all Members to support the resolution, which proposes a fitting commemoration of slave laborers' contribution to this temple of democracy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 5 minutes to the Honorable Congressman from Georgia and sponsor of this resolution, John Lewis.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 135) directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen. I am proud to report, Mr. Speaker, that she has distinguished herself as one of the foremost experts on the issue of health care in this Congress where she has served for the past 14 years. And so it is my great pleasure to introduce my friend and member of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, which has taken primary jurisdiction of the issue of health care reform.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, I would want to commend the conscience of the Congress, the Honorable Congressman from the great State of Georgia and the great city of Atlanta. I would like to commend him for taking on this measure and proceeding with it to conclusion. And I want to congratulate you, sir, for this and for all of the things you will continue to do to make sure that everyone's contribution throughout the history of this great country is recognized.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 135, the resolution directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol, and for other purposes. I would like to thank my colleague and fellow Georgian, Representative John Lewis for introducing this important piece of legislation, as well as the co-sponsors. I stand in support of this resolution because it recognizes the important contributions that African-American slaves have made to the establishment of this country, particularly the Capitol Building, which is the foundation of our country's government. It is in this very building where the biggest decisions of our country are made. Therefore, we can all imagine how important this structure really is to the wellbeing of our nation. It has almost been 150 years since the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified, which officially abolished slavery was passed within these same walls. It is in due time that slaves be recognized for the back breaking labor that they endured while building this great building that we now stand in. If it was not for the crucial intervention of Philip Reid, an African-American slave foundry worker, the Statue of Freedom that sits on top of the Capitol Dome may not have existed. Reid figured out how to separate the 5-piece plaster model for casting when all others workers failed to figure out how this could be done. The true purpose of this resolution is to draw recognition to the past, so that we can move on to a better future of race relations in America. There is no better time than now, than on the coat tails of one of the most historic presidential elections in United States history. By no means is this resolution erasing or justifying slavery. Instead it shows America and the world the positive progression that our nation is making in its journey to ensure that all people be treated equally. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 476, celebrating the 30th anniversary of June as ``Black Music Month''. I would like to thank my colleague Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee for introducing this important piece of legislation, as well as the co-sponsors. I stand in support of this resolution because it is continuing to recognize the importance that black music has played in American culture. Many American made genres of music such as jazz, blues, gospel, rock and roll, and the rhythm and blues owe their existence to the contribution of black musicians in the past. Georgians such as Tenor Richard Hayes, born in 1887 to former slaves, was one of the most important African-American tenors performing in classical music during the first part of the 20th century. Hayes was one of the highest paid musicians of his time breaking down color barriers for other black classical performers such as Paul Robeson, Leontyne Price, William Dawson, William Grant Still, and even Duke Ellington. As well as other native Georgia artists like Ray Charles, one of the main creators of ``soul music'', who is well known for his unique version of ``America the Beautiful''. Charles' rendition of ``Georgia on My Mind'' was proclaimed the state song on April 24, 1979. This resolution aims to continue to stress the importance of recognizing June as Black Music Month as it was formally declared in 1979. Celebrating the phenomenal work of black composers, musicians, producers, writers, and singers during one month of the year is the least that we can do to pay tribute to contributions that they have made in shaping the musical art forms that we enjoy today. Celebrating and observing the 30th anniversary of June as ``Black Music Month'' is something that I encourage all Americans to do. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 142, supporting National Men's Health Week. I would like to thank my colleague Representative Elijah Cummings from Maryland for introducing this important piece of legislation, as well as its many co-sponsors. I stand in support of this legislation because it highlights the importance of increasing attention to personal health. Men in the United States are disproportionately affected by health issues. These issues are particularly acute within minority populations. In the state of Georgia, these disparities are especially evident. African-American men have a life expectancy of 64 years while Caucasian men have a life expectancy of 73, both of which are dwarfed by the nearly 79 years of life expected from Caucasian women. Georgia has a tragic death rate of 79.2 for African-American men with prostate cancer compared to 28.8 among Caucasian men. These issues impact not only men's personal wellbeing but radiate throughout our families, our businesses, and our society. Indeed, health has an impact on America's economic well-being. Recent statistics indicate that more than half of the elderly widows now living in poverty were not poor before the death of their husbands. Many of the issues affecting men's health are treatable and manageable if caught early, but women are 100 percent more likely than men to visit a doctor for annual exams and preventive services. There is a Spanish proverb that says, ``A man too busy to take care of his health is like a mechanic too busy to take care of his tools.'' Men throughout the United States owe it to their loved ones to take better care of their health. Increasing men's health will improve families' fullness and will help ensure healthy living at all levels: social, economic, and political. To quote President Obama, ``children who grow up without a father are five-times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison . . . We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child--it's the courage to raise one.'' Part of that responsibility is caring for your health. Eat healthier, perform self-exams, visit your doctor, and get screened. We owe it to ourselves and our families. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this call for increased awareness and self- responsibility for men's health.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Caribbean- American Heritage Month. As has been pointed out, there have been tremendous accomplishments made by our friends from the Caribbean, and it's only just that we recognize them today for the achievements that they have procured not just for folks of Caribbean descent but also for all Americans. There have been great contributions, and there will continue to be great contributions. Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this Congress we have a number of folks from the Caribbean, including my good friend and colleague Donna Christensen, whose quest has been on health care for the time that she has been in office. And she is getting ready to have her dreams realized with a good start that we're going to do on health care. Then, not to leave anyone out, but I do want to recognize my colleague and class member Yvette Clarke, who, as a staunch advocate for small businesses, is poised to do great things on behalf of small businesses, and I admire her for what she has done already and what she will do in the future.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 127, recognizing the significance of National Caribbean-American Heritage Month. I would like to thank my colleague Representative Barbara Lee from California for introducing this important piece of legislation, as well as its many other co-sponsors. I stand in support of this legislation because it recognizes the profound role that Caribbean-Americans have played in the development of this great country. Social scientists call the United States of America ``the Melting Pot'' because of the vast number of cultures, races, ethnicities, skills, talents, and ideas that come together to make this experiment in democracy work. Caribbean-Americans are integral to that process. Slave laborers brought to the United States from the Caribbean laid the foundation for this country in its earliest days. Today, millions of Carribean-Americans have immigrated to the United States on their own accord, bringing with them their vibrant culture and firm ideals. From beginning the Department of the Treasury and breaking color barriers to changing the sound of Salsa and the Harlem Renaissance, our nation's history is steeply ingrained with the contributions of Caribbean-Americans. Caribbean nations are important neighbors and partners within the global community, playing a vital role in the pursuit of peace and prosperity throughout the world. Caribbean- American poet Claude McKay once said, ``Nations, like plants and human beings, grow. And if the development is thwarted they are dwarfed and overshadowed.'' The United States owes a great deal of its development to the Caribbean, its people, and its culture. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation recognizing the significance of National Caribbean-American Heritage Month.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3114) to authorize the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to use funds made available under the Trademark Act of 1946 for patent operations in order to avoid furloughs and reductions-in-force, and for other purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill will help the Patent and Trademark Office retain educated and trained employees who face the possibility of furlough and reduction in force due to the current economic downturn. It is with great urgency that I bring this bill to the floor today. We have recently been informed by the Department of Commerce and the Patent and Trademark Office that the current downtrend in patent fee revenues could lead to employee furlough. The USPTO is a user-fee funded organization, and the downturn in the economy has led to a steep drop in revenues. USPTO management has already shaved over $120 million from its current budget through various cost savings; however, June's receipts show that those cuts may not be sufficient. A budget shortfall is a very real possibility, which could necessitate furloughs and, if severe enough, a reduction in force. Now is not the time to impede the essential economic stimulating activity at the Patent Office. Now more than ever, we need to foster innovation to help the U.S. economy rebound. This century has seen an explosion in the number of patent applications filed, and even though the PTO has hired over 1,000 examiners each year for the past several years, this explosion has led to a current inventory of about 1.2 million pending applications. That is 1.2 million potential patents that could provide the foundation for new businesses and new jobs. Because of this backlog, inventors are waiting an average of 32 months to get their patents approved, and in some areas, such as communications and computer-related technologies, the wait is much longer. This backlog means a delay in the creation of new products or startup companies that would generate new jobs and research and development investment. Now is not the time to exacerbate this problem. Furloughing employees will only increase the backlog and the consequent delays. In order to help the USPTO get through the next year, we have identified an approximately $60 million surplus in the trademark operation at the USPTO. The bill we are considering today would permit the Director of the USPTO to use a portion of that surplus to prevent the furlough of USPTO employees. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, this is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Any trademark money used for patent operations will be recovered by a surcharge on the patent fees paid by those who benefit from the efforts of the patent workforce. I think it is pretty shameful that throughout the years we have not fully funded the number of employees that this agency needs to fulfill its mandate and so now in the 111th Congress we are seeking to use this lull period, if you will, because the number of applications will pick up, but we can use this period with our employees, our current employees, to put a dent in those 1.2 million applications that exist currently that are on file. This inefficiency in government with respect to the Patent and Trademark Office stifles commercial activity, and it just doesn't make any sense for the agency to not have been funded to begin with and staffed with an adequate amount of employees to meet the demand. It is our understanding, Mr. Speaker, that with the Department of Commerce and the USPTO agreement, that the money raised by the surcharge will be used to pay the trademark operation for the money borrowed from it. The surcharge will be no more and no less than what is needed to repay the loan. This bill is a limited and temporary exception to the statutory fence built around trademark fees. It will last only until June 30 of next year and requires that all fees used for patent payroll purposes will be recovered through surcharges on the patent operation. And it ensures, Mr. Speaker, that furloughs or reduction-in-force will not occur in the trademark operation as a consequence of the patent operations needs. This bill will ensure that we retain the highly qualified and experienced patent examiners that helped innovators protect important technological gains, and we certainly need to do all that we can, now especially, to make it more efficient for those who would create new products in this rapidly changing environment that will lead to jobs for our citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I know some people in this esteemed Chamber would consider all of the hoopla surrounding the death of Michael Jackson to be unnecessary. I know that some people consider this to not be important. But that's to them. There are a lot of people out here whom Michael Jackson brought together. Despite any kinds of allegations, which I consider to be false in terms of child molestation and that kind of thing, despite all of that, we have to look at the good things that Michael did. I know there are some generations that preceded mine that have no idea about the music of Michael Jackson because they never listened, and they don't know the international aspects of what he did. They don't know that he was a fundraiser for worthy causes. The only thing they know about him is ``child molester,'' and nothing could be further from the truth. The man was never found guilty of child molestation. He paid a settlement, but that had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. So I just want us to be very Christian.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. He lied about it, and he admitted that he was in fact guilty of the sexual abuse. So this is what we call a slam dunk. There is no reason for this judge to remain on the bench. He should have resigned, but he didn't have the decency to do that, so now we must do what we must do. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the impeachment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not a happy day anytime we have to take this type of solemn action. I first want to thank my chairman, the Honorable John Conyers from Michigan, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, for his promptness and his diligence in bringing this matter to us as soon as humanly possible. And we're at this point now because of the chairman. I also want to recognize our colleague Mr. Adam Schiff who, having been entrusted by the leadership to bring this to the floor, has performed admirably. And I lastly want to thank Ms. Cathy McBroom and Ms. Donna Wilkerson. These are the two ladies that took the covers off of this egregious behavior by Judge Kent. The integrity of our judiciary is fundamental to the functioning of our legal system. Judge Samuel Kent's egregious behavior leaves no doubt that he is not fit to remain a judge. Can you imagine having to go to work every day, having to go back to your job after a weekend, and you know that at any time or any day that you could be subjected to sexual misconduct by your boss? And you have a great Federal job, you need your job for your family, so you just endure it for year after year after year, until it gets to a point where you have to file a complaint and subject all of your personal affairs to the Nation. It took a lot of courage for them to do that, and I appreciate that. I want to apologize on behalf of all males for them having to go through that. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a situation where the judge has committed sexual abuse repeatedly. He has lied about it. He has pleaded guilty to the felony charge of obstruction.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 403, which will increase support for our veterans by providing them with housing benefits. I thank my colleague Representative Al Green for introducing this important legislation, as well as the many cosponsors for their support. I thank Arthur D. Sidney for his assistance on this matter. I stand in support of this legislation because it assists those men and women who have sacrificed so much for this country. This bill will establish a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In doing so, the office will ensure that veterans and their families that are most in need will receive housing benefits and get them off the streets. The office will build upon the existing infrastructure already in place among public and private institutions by granting housing vouchers, providing public housing, and coordinating efforts across HUD programs and activities. Nearly a quarter of the homeless population in the United States is comprised of veterans and their families. The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and clients found that 18% of homeless male veterans participating in homeless assistance programs reported that their latest episode of homelessness lasted 3 months or less, compared to 28% of their male nonveteran counterparts. This disproportionate burden on the men and women that have served in the Armed Forces is a grave injustice. We must continue working to increase support for our veterans in recognition of their ultimate sacrifice-- risking their lives to serve this great country. Please join me in supporting our veterans by voting for this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2661, the ``Court Security Enhancement Act of 2009.'' I would like to thank my colleague Representative Louie Gohmert for introducing this important piece of legislation, as well as the cosponsors. I stand in support of this legislation because it adds a simple amendment to title 18 of the United States Code, which will make a huge impact on the protection and safety of individuals performing certain official duties in the courts. This amendment will prohibit the public disclosure of certain personal information of federal judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, witnesses, or family members of these individuals. The bill will also clarify and eliminate an inconsistency that was unintentionally created by the Court Security Improvement Act, which pertained to the requirements for a Senior District Court Judge's participation in court governance. But most importantly this amendment will increase the penalty for those who violate Section 119(a) of title 18, from a maximum of five years to a maximum of ten years. As a lawyer and a former county Magistrate Judge, as well as a Georgia State Court Judge, I hold this bill very dear to my heart. There is no time more important than the present, especially considering the recent hate crimes, like the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, that have occurred throughout the country. The United States Judiciary System stands to seek justice for all, so those who are opposed to equality for all Americans usually take their anger and hate out on innocent people. Therefore, it is only fair that there be maximum protection yielded to those who devote their careers to preserving and enforcing the founding principles of our forefathers.