mr. johnson-now you call him pop pop for the last 20, 30 years-he's in recovery, and you never knew it. i often share that, for me, i've had many people, even while working here say, "i can't believe you ever used drugs or alcohol." and i laugh because you know i say i can provide you with a list of people who 5 years ago would say they couldn't believe that i'd ever be in recovery. so pro act does a lot of work in breaking down a stigma to show that recovery is possible, that recovery happens; even having a place like this in the community shows that there is a place where recovery happens, rather than just a place where people can go buy drugs or alcohol. not saying that therapy is not important, i'm not saying that recovery through an outside entity is not important, because truly they are a basis. but when we come out of those places, when we try to establish our lives, there are barriers there, there are boundaries there, and sometimes we need the help to get past those boundaries. and pro act is definitely been the help for me to get past some of those boundaries, yes. pam, recove

mr. johnson knocked on the door. you may have figured it out by now. to us, he was still the great dark man. a mythical man or object to desire. it was probably why we jumped to attention. jesus. tucking the incriminating evidence. wait. let this go down first. >> why? i don't know. seems rude. ben widened his eyes at me. did you learn that from miss manners. i hid myself. this probably made me look grand. that somehow seemed preferable. men opened the door. he was standing there. i'm sorry fellows. come on in. our visitor shot a quick glance. can we get you something to drink? remaining seated. there's a soda machine. no thanks. did you have a hard time finding us. i'm michael i said. finally standing. this is ben. he shook our hands. i'm patrees. i am worried that it might make me squirm. i found it hospitable. that it put he more at easy. we're glad you came. patrice smiled. ben caught my guy. he began to rearrange the forskin. it seemed to swell. when he removed it, he said, i open it's okay. i'm sort of a kiss pig. no problem. as i caught my breat

mr. johnson? >> mr. chairman, senator mccain, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. by now, you have had the opportunity to read the report have co-ampe and i authored. we hope it speaks for itself. our basic assessment is that our military can make this change, provided we do so in an orderly and reasonable manner, in accord with the recommendations for implementation we offer in our report. this morning, i would like to take a moment to talk to you not in my capacity as co-author of this report, but as the lawyer of the defense department. i want to repeat and elaborate upon what secretary gates and and mullen have said, and ask that the congress not leave our military state on this issue in the hands of the courts. i offer no view about the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell," or a prediction about the outcome of the litigation that is under way. but regardless of how you feel about "don't ask, don't tell," or gays serving openly in the military, the fact that there is increased litigation in the courts on matters of gay-rights is undeniable. since 2003, when th

mr. johnson? >> mr. chaman, senator mccain, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. by now, you have had the opportunity to read the report have co-pe and i authored. we hope it speaks for itself. our basic assessment is that our military can make this change, provided we do so in an orderly and reasonable manner, in accord with the rommendations for implementation we offer in our report. this morning, i would like to take a moment to talk to you not in my capacity as co-author of this report, but as the lawyer of the defense department. i want to repeat and elaborate upon what secretary gates and and mullen have said, and ask that the congress not leave our military state on this issue in the hands of the courts. i offer no view about the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell," or a prediction about the outcome of the litigation that is under way. but regardless of how you feel about "don't ask, don't tell," or gays serving openly in the military, the fact that there is increased litigation in the courts on matters of gay-rights is undeniable. since 2003, when the su

mr. johnson. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. by now, you've had the opportunity to read the report that general ham and i have co author. we hope the report speaks for itself. our basic assessment is that our military can make this change provided we do so in an orderly and reasonable manner in accord with the recommendations for implementation we offer in our report. this morning on like to take a moment to talk to you not in my capacity as co author of this report but as the lawyer for the defense department. i want to repeat an elaborate upon was secretary dates and admiral mullen have said and asked that the congress not leave our military fate on this issue in the hands of the courts. i offered no view about the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell." regardless of how you feel about the law, or gays serving openly in the military, the fact that there is increase litigation in the courts on matters of gay rights is undeniable. since 2003, when the supreme court decided lawrence the verses of texas, the courts have become inc

i turn now to my good friend, the chairman of the courts subcommittee, hank johnson of georgia. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this very important hearing. thank you panelist for burying through it. before i ask a few questions, i would like to respectfully remind my colleagues that the wikileaks organization and mr. gillian assange are publishers. now if they can be shown that they in some way aided and abetted in the perpetration or commission of a crime or if they were parties to a crime, then they could be subject to prosecution. buds, the justice department has yet to come forward with an indictment and, until and unless an indictment is issued, and until there is a trial, or an indictment, then mr. assange is entitled to a presumption of innocence by law, and his guilt would have to be proved -- they would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before that cloak of innocents, that presumption of innocence could be removed from him. so, first i would like to just settle us down and let us look at the situation through that lens. we do have constitutional rightt to speak freely

mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to turn to the chair of the subcommittee on courts in the house judiciary committee, himself a former magistrate, hank johnson, and i recognize him for one minute and 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm grateful and proud that my bill, h.r. 5281, the removal clarification act of 2010, is the vehicle through which the dream act comes to the floor today. my bill will enable federal officials to remove cases filed against them to federal court in accordance with the spirit and intent of the federal officer removal statute. and by attaching the dream act to this noncontroversial, bipartisan bill we are able to expedite the process. i'm also proud to support the dream act. this bipartisan legislation addresses the tragedy young undocumented people face when, through no fault of their own, their lack of legal status may prevent them from attending college, joining the military, or working legally in the united states. in my home state of georgia, there are 74,000 undocumented young people who could potentially benef

i turn now to my good friend, the chairman of the courts subcommittee, hank johnson of georgia. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this very important hearing. thank you panelist for burying through it. before i ask a few questions, i would like to respectfully remind my colleagues that the wikileaks organization and mr. gillian assange are publishers. now if they can be shown that they in some way aided and abetted in the perpetration or commission of a crime or if they were parties to a crime, then they could be subject to prosecution. buds, the justice department has yet to come forward with an indictment and, until and unless an indictment is issued, and until there is a trial, or an indictment, then mr. assange is entitled to a presumption of innocence by law, and his guilt would have to be proved -- they would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before that cloak of innocents, that presumption of innocence could be removed from him. so, first i would like to just settle us down and let us look at the situation through that lens. we do have constitutional rightt to speak freely

now, not next year. thank you and i endorse this bill very strongly. thank you for the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. johnson: i continue to yield. the speaker pro tempore: continues to yield his time. the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. mr. courtney: here's the reality today of rising prices for america's seniors and retired veterans. from october, 2009, to october, 20 10, the following commodities which consume the lion's share of senior household budgets, home heating oil up 13%, prescription drug prices 3.9%, medical care 3.6%. despite relentless increases, the labor department's formula spit out a 0% cola because the cost of things it counts like flat screen tv's, personal computers and recreation activities went down. for seniors and veterans dependent on social security and v.a. pentagons, the latest flat screen television and personal computers aren't high on their shopping list. congress needs to intervene for the benefit of seniors and retired veterans by passing this mash for emergency help with the real world budgets of

i turn now to my good friend, the chairman of the courts subcommittee, hank johnson of georgia. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this very important hearing. thank you panelist for burying through it. before i ask a few questions, i would like to respectfully remind my colleagues that the wikileaks organization and mr. gillian assange are publishers. now if they can be shown that they in some way aided and abetted in the perpetration or commission of a crime or if they were parties to a crime, then they could be subject to prosecution. buds, the justice department has yet to come forward with an indictment and, until and unless an indictment is issued, and until there is a trial, or an indictment, then mr. assange is entitled to a presumption of innocence by law, and his guilt would have to be proved -- they would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before that cloak of innocents, that presumption of innocence could be removed from him. so, first i would like to just settle us down and let us look at the situation through that lens. we do have constitutional rightt to speak freely

now hear from representative schiff in opposition to the motions. representative schiff? mr. schiff: mr. president, members of the senate and representative schiff, i'm joined by bob goodlatte, sensenbrenner and hank johnson as well as our counsel alan bar and and kristen konar. when the impeachment trial began in this case, some weeks ago, we acknowledged the historic significance of an impeachment proceeding and how rarely they're undertaken. this is for good reason. the overwhelming majority of men and women appointed to the bench have great integrity and uphold the trust that the public places in them. very seldom does someone corrupt get nominated to the bench. when a problem is discovered during the confirmation process, most withdraw from further consideration or their confirmation is denied. it is a very rare -- it is very rare that a corrupt official is nominated and his corruption escapes discovery until after he is appointed, but it does happen. it happened here with the appointment of g. thomas porteous who is not only a corrupt state judge, but would become a corrupt federal judge as well. by means of the impeachment and removal process the framers of the constitution sought protect the insti

now, mr. kowalski, would you please began. >> representative johnson, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us here today to testify on issues relating to the foreclosure crisis. i am and attorney in florida and a member of the association for consumer advocates. i would like to make a few clear points and follow-ups to the regulator's testimony of the last hearing. first, the manufacture of significant documents for signet -- for submission to the courts is not a recent practice by the servicing industry. it is widespread and long- standing. the use of robo-signers, where an individual subnets testimony under oath in the way of an affidavit. that is relied upon by the courts where the individual has no personal knowledge whatsoever. it is not a recent practice by the servicing industry. these abuses are not the work of a few individuals or eight road, outsourced servicer. the systemic use of manufactured documents and false affidavits is a business model. it has been the business model of the servicing industry for years. i have been an attorney in florida for 20 years, starting i