Mike Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Goodlatte, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Conyers, Ms. Jackson Lee, and all of those who have spoken in support of this bill this morning, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. It is exactly as it has been described. It is an important moment for us, in a bipartisan consensus that we have reached, to protect our young athletes. It has been articulated well, the purpose behind the bill, and it is a proud moment for all of us as we stand for these young athletes to defend them as they perform and use their God-given talents that make our Nation so proud. So, without belaboring the point, Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend, again, Mrs. Brooks for introducing this important legislation, and I also urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments from the other side of the aisle in opposition to this legislation. Of course, they began by saying how much they support the men and women of law enforcement. But let's consider these arguments and decide for ourselves in closing here. First, we heard that the legislation is duplicative. It is not. In fact, it closes a loophole that currently exists in Federal law. There is currently no provision in our Federal law stating that the killing of a State or local law enforcement officer shall be an aggravating factor for capital punishment. Next, we heard that this legislation is unnecessary. It is not, unless you believe that State and local law enforcement officers are not somehow entitled to the same legal protections currently enjoyed by Federal officers. That is what this legislation would correct. A third argument we heard is that this is a messaging bill. It is clearly not that. Though it may be true that this provision would apply in a limited number of cases because the vast majority of capital cases are prosecuted at the State level, this bill inserts a provision in Federal law that will be vitally important in the cases where it would be applicable, such as in the Boston bombing. On that point, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have noted that Federal law already contains provisions to ensure criminals who carry out heinous acts such as the Boston terrorism attacks are dealt with appropriately. That is, of course, true, but saying that ignores the suffering of families of fallen police officers who have lost their lives rushing to aid after such an attack. It also ignores the sacrifice of law enforcement officers themselves, for example. Officer Sean Collier of the MIT Police Department is one example. He was murdered by the Tsarnaev brothers during their flight following their horrific act. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what these arguments reveal is simply that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this bill because it amends a Federal death penalty statute. We would point out, in response to the letter that was just entered into the Record, that we have received support letters that are already in the Record from numerous law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD, among many, many others across the country who believe that this is an appropriate step for us to take today. In light of all that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the arguments of the other side, to support the men and women who comprise the thin blue line between order and chaos in our society, and to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak on the floor today not only in support of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, but also in honor of all of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe. I am the son of a first responder myself. My father was critically injured and permanently disabled in the line of duty. I know these sacrifices very well. This country owes our law enforcement officers an extraordinary debt of gratitude for the many services they provide. Our Nation simply would not be what it is today were it not for the sacrifices of all those who take the oath to protect and to serve us. The Thin Blue Line Act is simple: It seeks to expand on certain penalties to also include the murder or targeting of a State or local law enforcement officer. Virtually every American--anyone of good conscience--is shocked and disgusted by the recent trend of our local law enforcement heroes being targeted for violent acts. I am sad to report that, in my home State of Louisiana, we have been named the most dangerous State in America for law enforcement officers. It is shocking. It is true. It saddens all of us. The Thin Blue Line Act is a commonsense response to this epidemic that we are seeing across the culture. We thank and we stand with our first responders back home in Louisiana and all across our Nation. Those dedicated public servants never question and never hesitate in the face of danger. As many people have analogized this, we consider them our sheepdogs. They protect our communities from the wolves of our society who prey upon the innocent. To honor those sacrifices, I am proud, today, to support this legislation on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly remind my colleague on the other side that this does not establish the death penalty for an attempted murder, as was just stated. There must be an underlying capital crime for which the defendant is convicted. That is what this bill does, and nothing more. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just rise, once again, to correct my colleague. It is an aggravating factor that is to be considered by a jury as one of many factors postconviction. So what you are saying is not 100 percent accurate. We can engage in semantics, but we will agree to disagree on that point. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to correct my colleague. I guess we can do this all day, but I do actually have a copy of the criminal code in front of me, and I would refer him to 18 U.S.C. section 3591(b)(2), where it lists very specifically and expressly that attempts to kill are listed in the sentence of death. I refer you to that provision, and it is not mandatory. The jury can determine whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, or in the absence of any mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factors alone justify a death sentence. So I feel that we are engaging in an exercise of semantics, but it is important that we don't misportray what this bill would accomplish and what it would do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are two important very brief points for correction. I respect the gentlewoman from Texas, but she just suggested to us that this would be a duplicative law; thus, unnecessary because, as she cited the Federal criminal code, she says that law enforcement officers are already covered by the law. However, I would refer her attention to 18 U.S.C. Section 3592(c)(14), and then subsection (d), where it clearly says in a capital letter, ``a Federal law enforcement officer.'' So it is important to note that the existing Federal law does not cover State and local officers, which this bill would and, thereby, is one of the things that necessitates this action. Also, I want to point out, respectfully, that that same criminal code--just one-page later in section 3593, also in title 18, subsection (f)--says: ``Special Precaution to Ensure Against Discrimination.'' We know that Federal law already provides that a jury must specifically find that a defendant's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or that of the victim, is not a factor in their decision. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 20, I attended a meeting at the White House to discuss important issues and policy to my home state with President Donald Trump. Because of this meeting I missed Roll Call vote 236 on H.J. Res. 99-- Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on passage.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 236.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, particularly for not recounting the events of that game. But we are here, Mr. Speaker, to talk about a very important issue to our country and to all of us. Prior to my election to Congress last December, for nearly 20 years, I practiced primarily in the arena of constitutional law. I had the great privilege of litigating often high-profile cases around the country, defending religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and traditional American values. I deeply revere our matchless Constitution, and I fought to defend its application according to its plain language and its original intent. I believe our Founding Fathers were divinely inspired to draft our extraordinary founding documents just as they did and to establish for us the framework of a free Republic. It has been the model for, and the envy of, the other nations of the world since its creation. America is different. America is exceptional. And we are, as the Gipper used to say, ``the shining city upon a hill,'' citing scripture, and ``the last, best hope of man on the Earth.'' For all their merits, however, even the original provisions of the Constitution are sometimes appropriate for modification by the people. The Founders understood this. They recognized that, in spite of their great wisdom, they could not foresee every future contingency and change in our society and our government. So they provided us an orderly process to amend our great Constitution. I am one who believes the time has come to end a term limits provision, precisely because the form and function of so many aspects of our Federal Government have evolved today into something the Founders could never have imagined two centuries ago. First, I believe the Founders assumed, I think they assumed that there would be a regular turnover of Federal officeholders. Why do we say that? Well, one of our seminal and foundational principles is the limitation and the separation of powers. It is one of the things that makes us unique in the way that we have set up our government. The Founders incorporated terms of service and staggered service in the U.S. Senate. Of course, they could have instituted term limits back then, but I think they believed that it was unnecessary. Look at the statistics of the Founders' era. The rate of reelection and return to Congress back then was roughly 50 percent. You just heard my learned colleague from Nebraska report to you here that the last election cycle, it is much, much higher. Now, in America, the rate of reelection and return to Congress is 97 percent. That is not something I think that the Founders would have ever imagined. Today, we also have fewer and fewer marginal districts. Incumbents often win by landslides because they have such huge advantages in terms of growing financial support, modern media exposure, and constituent service operations. Another modern phenomena is that studies show Members tend to support more and more government spending the longer they serve in Congress, and this is true across the political spectrum. That has created a real problem, because the Federal Government has grown so very large now as a result of all that spending. Its scope and power is just simply exponentially greater now than it was in the Founders' era. At the same time, accountability has gradually decreased over the years as the growing bureaucracy has developed into a sort of fourth branch of government. Over the past several decades, a growing class of nameless, faceless bureaucrats have been allowed to absorb and handle more and more of the authority and to handle more and more of the contentious and most consequential issues that face our Nation. The problem is the bureaucrats never have to face or answer to the voters. Many who have served in Congress for many decades have become part of what we now refer to as America's professional political class. Those Members have gradually become more detached, and some have fully lost touch with the real concerns of the citizens they represent. Due to the busy schedule here, Members of Congress now spend far more time in the beltway than they did in the founding era for certain. And one has to strive much harder now to be at home as often as necessary to keep in touch with the folks that all of us represent. For many, when they are here a long time, their ideals tend to grow old with time, their energy often wanes, and ideas naturally get stale. There is much to be said for fresh faces. In my home State of Louisiana, we instituted term limits in our State legislature several years ago. I had the honor of serving there for a short time before I came to Congress. And I can testify today, from my own experience, that the turnover process in the Louisiana legislature has been a very healthy thing for our State. There are new faces, new ideas, and new approaches to problems that have beset our State for generations. As in a State legislature, a term limited Member of Congress would be more willing to do a number of things, including act quickly to fix problems, rather than merely manage them or delegate broad powers to the executive branch and the bureaucracy. They would be more willing to question bureaucracies and the old-established programs. And I think they would naturally enjoy greater independence. Logic simply tells us that term limits would also allow for a greater diversity of people, ideas, and backgrounds in Congress, naturally evolving this legislative body into one that more closely reflects the people and the actual demographics of our Nation, as I think the Congress did in the Founders' era. Today, there is a real bipartisan disappointment about Congress and its dysfunction. Thankfully, our new President has taken determined steps toward addressing this issue. Some of these actions have already greatly upset Washington and the politically established. But these changes are important because the transparent and accessible government is the very basis of a democracy. This is why I have made this one of my top priorities while in Congress. I congratulate all of my colleagues who joined me in that resolve. I truly believe the future of our government and how it is run depends upon how we handle important issues like this. We need to look no further than our last Presidential election to see how out of touch the people believe that Washington can be. Polls say that between 75 and 80 percent of the American people right now support term limits for Congress, and I also believe that it is the right move for our Nation. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I think we have reached that point. Let's give the people a chance to decide this important matter. Let's go through the constitutional amendment process. Let's put it to a vote of the elected representatives of the people. And let us return to the ideals of accountability, selfless public service, and the model of the citizen legislator. I will continue to push for reforms in our government and combat corruption and D.C. cronyism as long as I am here. Our Founders intended our government was to be one of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Lincoln famously said. Imposing congressional term limits will help restore that foundational principle, and it will send a strong message to our children and future generations that America is still a country that puts national interests above personal agenda. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this to the floor tonight.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to commend the achievements of Lieutenant Colonel Steve ``Thirsty'' Smith for making United States Air Force history on March 3, 2017 by being the only currently serving member of the United States Air Force to reach 10,000 flying hours in a B-52 heavy bomber, officially labeled a B-52 Stratofortress, and contributing to the backbone of the manned strategic bomber force for the United States. Lt. Colonel Smith joined the United States Air Force after graduating from the ROTC program at the University of Mississippi. He continued on to graduate navigation school at Mather Air Force Base in 1985 where he earned his wings and received his first assignment for the B-52. As a navigator with the 93rd Bomb Squadron belonging to the 917th Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, Lt. Colonel Smith has distinguished himself as one of our nation's most experienced navigators. He spent seven years on active duty before becoming a reservist for over 20 years. He has flown 10,000 B-52 hours and 1,819 B-52 sorties including 496 combat hours and 42 combat sorties over the span of four different wars; Operations Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and Inherent Resolve. He was awarded the Air Medal in 1991 and the Aerial Achievement Medal in 2002 and 2004. His expertise with the B-52 played an instrumental role in modernizing the aircraft with a targeting pod that provides greater accuracy leading to more successful missions. Additionally, he has been an inspiration to many young navigators as a flight instructor, teaching over 180 young weapons systems officers at Barksdale Air Force Base in the same aircraft. Dating back to World War I, the 93rd Bomb Squadron has repeatedly distinguished itself in its contributions to the security of the United States during deployments around the world. This distinction has continued today with global demonstrations of strategic attack capabilities. Lt. Colonel Smith is greatly regarded throughout the Air Force and Louisiana communities and is known as a humble man who has selflessly given back to the country he loves so dearly. He has earned widespread respect for his continued commitment to serve in defense of our great nation. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is my pleasure to join a grateful community in saluting his outstanding achievements. My wife Kelly and I thank Lt. Colonel Smith for his dedicated services and wish him all the best for continued success in what is an already remarkable career.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, we are excited today about the renewal of the American spirit. One big step in that renewal is the repeal of ObamaCare. The ACA is failing and the American people are suffering because of it. Premiums have skyrocketed and healthcare decisions are no longer being made by patients and doctors but by out-of-touch Washington bureaucrats often motivated by their own self-interests. In my State of Louisiana alone, some insurance providers have projected rates to increase as much as 41 percent in 2017. There is nothing about that number that is affordable, and many are choosing to forego healthcare coverage altogether, rather than suffer under the weight of the new, increased costs. Some would suggest that a higher cost should imply a higher quality of care, but even that is not true under our current system. In many areas across the United States, ObamaCare has removed nearly all competition in the marketplace and has left consumers with only one or two providers to choose from, further removing patient choice from the process. Patient-centered care is critical to a productive healthcare system, and Republicans in Congress have been working tirelessly to create a plan that benefits all Americans. Quality, affordable health care is within our reach. Contrary to what many in the media would have you believe, we will not pull the rug out from under the American people. Our focus is protecting patients, and what we are offering is a real solution to the disaster that is ObamaCare.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank all these colleagues. We were anticipating remarks from Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Comer of Kentucky, Mr. Raskin of Maryland, and Mr. Lawson of Florida, but their schedules have suddenly taken them away this evening. Mr. Speaker, I will close. As you can see, our commitment to civility is sincere and important to each of us and, we believe, to the Congress and to our country. As we said at the outset here, there may never have been a more important time for a commitment like this. Perhaps it is appropriate that our hour happened to be assigned here on this Valentine's Day. I am reminded, as I close, of the biblical admonition given to us in Philippians, Chapter 2, Verses 3 through 4. It reads as follows: ``Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.'' Mr. Speaker, if we can do these things, we will do well by our exceptional Nation. I thank all of my esteemed colleagues for participating tonight and all those who signed this commitment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today a bipartisan group of 46 freshman Members of this 115th U.S. Congress, representing red and blue States from coast to coast, released a document that we have entitled the ``Commitment to Civility.'' This evening, I am grateful to be joined on the floor by 21 different leaders of our class, representing diverse districts in 15 different States across our great Nation to speak to this important and very timely issue. This commitment document was created in early January following our initial meetings together as a class. We discussed our mutual intent to serve the best interest of the country, and to return to statesmanship that was revered and modeled by the great leaders of our history. I drafted this document to memorialize our Members' agreement to, among other things, work towards restoring collegiality and civility in the Congress; encouraging more productive dialogue; and building consensus and strengthening the public's trust in America's institutions. This document is not intended in any way as a criticism of anyone else in any other Chamber or branch of the government. Rather, it represents the mutual commitments of the Members of our class that we have made among and between ourselves. As we teach our own children, we often have no control over what others may do, but we are ultimately responsible for our own actions. Personally, I want to say how encouraging it is to work with others from across the political spectrum who want to lead by example and work to restore civility in our public discourse. There may never have been a more important time for that very important effort. I am one who is regarded as probably being among the most conservative Members of the Congress, and I will never deviate from my core principles. However, I am mindful to always remember that while some of my colleagues and I may have very different ideas and core political philosophies, at the end of the day, we are all Americans and we are all made in the image of God; thus, we believe we should act accordingly. Before my esteemed colleagues come to share their thoughts on this important subject, I would like to introduce and read into the