Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of this legislation, Mr. Serrano of the great State of New York and the home of the Yankees and Frank Sinatra across the river. (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time and ask that we pass the bill.

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4862, introduced by Mr. Serrano of New York, will allow Members of Congress to administer the oath of allegiance to naturalizing U.S. citizens. The naturalization ceremony is a crucial landmark for immigrants. They have waited patiently to immigrate to the United States and have worked hard once they got here and have faithfully fulfilled all their obligations to this country that they have chosen to adopt as their home. In applying to become U.S. citizens, they have made the choice to become full participating members of our community. Currently, only judges or certain officials in the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, are allowed to administer the oath of allegiance at naturalization ceremonies. H.R. 4862 would allow Members of Congress to participate meaningfully in these solemn occasions by allowing them to administer the oath of allegiance at naturalization ceremonies. I have attended many. They are wonderful, heartfelt programs; and I think that the oath being given by a recognized public official such as a Member of Congress would mean much to the people that are becoming American citizens. The bill, as amended, clarifies the role of a Member of Congress, the naturalization process that will be limited to administering the oath of allegiance. Furthermore, it prohibits a Member of Congress from administering the oath of allegiance within 90 days of any election in which he or she is a candidate to prevent even the appearance of any possible undue influence upon the election. I commend our colleague, Jose Serrano, for his leadership in introducing this bill and thank Ranking Member Lamar Smith and Immigration Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren for their support of this measure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1614) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that law enforcement service dogs and their handlers perform a vital role in providing for our Nation's security and should be recognized for their service.

Mr. COHEN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to speak on behalf of man's best friend.

Mr. COHEN. I just want to thank Mr. Coble for bringing the bill. As I said, I know from where he comes. That was my first bill. I started as a police attorney, and I know about police dogs and about the bonds between policemen and their K-9 companions. They do a tremendous service, and they ought to be protected and respected. I ask that we vote in unanimous support of this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman who is the hero of the civil rights movement, a person who personally experienced the times of which we are speaking, who is, I believe, one of the founders of SNCC and a gentleman with whom we are privileged to serve and to know in America, who helped make America the country it is today and who is helping to move it forward to be the country that it needs to be, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. COHEN. I yield the gentlewoman as much time as she needs.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reflect on why we're here. Mr. Lewis and I brought this resolution because it's the 50th anniversary of SNCC. There were other civil rights organizations as well, the NAACP, there was the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, there was CORE, and there was SNCC. SNCC came about at a time when this country was ripe for change and helped really light the fire that ignited a Nation to see the injustices and bring about the change that came about in the sixties. When you think about what's happened in 50 years, that we're here on the floor of the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, honoring the founding of SNCC, an organization when it was founded and it was exercising its purposes, it was sneered and jeered and disdained by most people in America because they were upsetting America. They were bringing about change that people didn't understand and people resisted. And there were a lot of people that thought that the people involved in these organizations should be jailed, they were un- American, they were Communists, they were Socialists. That same rhetoric that you sometimes hear today you heard 50 years ago about these organizations that helped make America the more perfect Union it is, and to bring about the liberties that we really should enjoy, that Jefferson wrote about, but that were words on paper, not in practice. The people that were involved with SNCC and these civil rights organizations should be considered heroes and are heroes because they made America. They made America what it should be, the land of opportunity and justice and equality and liberty, and giving all people rights, which we didn't have. We had Jim Crow laws that were enforced by this Nation's laws, that Brown v. Board of Education changed. But before that, we had separate but equal, Plessy v. Ferguson, and it took the work of Thurgood Marshall and others to overturn that in the courts, and later to overturn it in these Halls of this Congress in 1965 and 1964, civil rights laws, civil rights laws that, unfortunately, caused the Democrats to lose their majorities and to lose their hold on the South because they did what was right for this country, and what that flag stands for and what this Nation stands for. So we're here today to honor the people and the organizations that at one time were sneered and disdained. But now we understand they were right. And sometimes you have to look back at history to understand who the heroes are and the direction this country goes in and where it should be. And so I respect Mr. Lewis. He was in the front line. He mentioned being arrested 24 times. He was beaten; he was hit. He was in the face of injustice in the picture of law and order, and stood up to it with a moral law that was higher than the law of the State of Alabama, and he made that law change. And so it's fitting, appropriate, and proper that we honor those heroes and the anniversary of that organization and that this United States Congress pass this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my staff, Ms. Reisha Phills, who worked with me on this resolution with Mr. Lewis, and I yield back the balance of my time and ask that we pass this resolution here tonight.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Memphian and NBA star Lorenzen Wright. Mr. Wright was born in Memphis, Tennessee and attended the historic Booker T. Washington High School. After graduating, he attended the University of Memphis where he helped lead the team to the ``Sweet Sixteen'' in the 1995 NCAA tournament. While there, he was selected Third Team All-American by the Associated Press and earned the nickname ``The Howl'' because of his tendency to yell after exciting plays. In 1996, after playing two seasons for the Memphis Tigers, Mr. Wright entered the NBA draft and was selected 7th overall by the Los Angeles Clippers. After three seasons with the Clippers, he played for the Atlanta Hawks for two years before returning home to play for the newly relocated Memphis Grizzlies in 2001. For Lorenzen Wright, playing for his hometown team at the professional level gave him a chance to play alongside some of the best athletes for the city he loved. During his tenure with the Grizzlies, he became an emotional leader of the team, bringing passion and dedication to each and every game. Friend and former NBA star Penny Hardaway recalled the fans' love for Lorenzen and how ``he attacked the game every single night.'' After five seasons with the Memphis Grizzlies, he was traded back to the Atlanta Hawks and has since played for the Sacramento Kings and most recently the Cleveland Cavaliers until his retirement in 2009. Off the basketball court, Lorenzen Wright was a devoted family man and a loyal friend. He is survived by six children, Lorenzen Jr., Loren, twins Lamar and Shamar, Lawson and Sofia, his parents Herb Wright and Deborah Marion and a host of family and friends. Lorenzen Wright's passing is a great loss to our city and the basketball world. I will miss him as a friend and appreciate all he did for Memphis.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, yesterday in Memphis, Tennessee, a tragedy was discovered that has affected our city and its professional sports world, a great basketball player and Memphian, Lorenzen Wright, was found murdered. Lorenzen Wright was a 14-year NBA star who played 5 years with the Memphis Grizzlies, and before that, 2 years with the University of Memphis, taking our team to the Great Eight in Kansas City, and before that, in high school at Booker T. Washington. Lorenzen Wright was a family man. He was loved in Memphis, he was an outstanding citizen who cared about young people, he loved his children, and the city grieves for him today. It is a great loss to our city and to the basketball world. I miss Lorenzen Wright as a friend. I appreciate all he did for my city.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1566) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the pioneering of college students whose determination and nonviolent resistance led to the desegregation of lunch counters and places of public accommodation over a 5-year period.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, better known as SNCC, one of the organizations that served as the very foundation of the civil rights movement, the movement that brought America closer to its purpose, its established goals in the Declaration of Independence, which we had been striving to achieve and are still striving to achieve, as a place where there is equal opportunity for all people. It was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee that was responsible for conceptualizing and implementing the sit-in movement. College students came together in the name of justice and equality to desegregate lunch counters and other public places through nonviolent demonstrations. I recently read a copy of the Smithsonian magazine in which there was an article about the sit-in movement. There was an interview with Joseph McNeil, one of the four students from North Carolina A&T who participated in the sit-ins at Woolworth's department store in 1960. While studying engineering physics at North Carolina A&T, Mr. McNeil would take the bus from New York to North Carolina and personally experience the shift in his status as he went from north to south. As an African American, he saw the differences in America traveling those distances, differences that should not have been allowed. He is quoted in the article saying, ``In Philadelphia, I could eat anywhere in the bus station. By Maryland, that had changed.'' And in the Greyhound depot in Richmond, Virginia, McNeil couldn't buy a hot dog at a food counter reserved for whites. He further explained, ``I was still the same person, but I was treated differently. To face this kind of experience and not challenge it meant we were part of the problem.'' Well, the problem was America, and America needed changing. SNCC was one of the groups that came forth to change America and see that Thomas Jefferson's words weren't just words on paper as they were established in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence, but the practice of America, and that all men were created equal and had those inalienable rights. In honor of those students' heroic efforts, I would like to make three observations regarding their actions and their implications. First, these sit-ins and other forms of nonviolent protests changed the climate and character of our country forever. As a direct result of SNCC sit-ins, protests, and boycotts, cities around the country, the South in particular, began to integrate their businesses in 1960, and thereafter, paving the way for the entire country to do so. SNCC's work was not limited to integration of places of public accommodation. SNCC worked with the NAACP to achieve the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation not only at places of public accommodation, but also in schools, in hiring, and in voting registration. Shortly thereafter, in the wake of these achievements, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Second, despite SNCC's plethora of victories, their work was not easy, uncontroversial, or even safe. Those dedicated students faced clubs, tear gas, and high-pressure fire hoses at peaceful marches. Many faced harassment and beatings from racial dissenters, and many were arrested and even jailed despite their nonviolence. Some lost their lives. These challenges posed by opposition did not stop SNCC. They continued to march, sit in, boycott, and to raise awareness for equal treatment and opportunities regardless of race--all shown on television--raising America's consciousness in seeing that morality was the future of this country. For example, in Louisiana, student protesters were expelled from schools and were barred from the State's public colleges and universities. After the State barred these students from receiving the education they deserved, their peers boycotted classes for years. The sit-in movement spanned across many States, including my State of Tennessee. The Nashville sit-in movement led to its being the first major city to begin the desegregation of its public facilities on May 10 of 1960. In Memphis, students from Le Moyne College and Owen Junior College also organized sit-ins at the main public library and local department stores. Lastly, as I reflect on these important changes of the students that the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee brought about in our country to bring it closer to the democratic ideals on which it was founded, I cannot help but be reminded of how far our country still has to go to achieve the goals that were set out in the Declaration of Independence. Glaring inequality still exists in education, housing, health, marriage, and other civil rights. America still has a distance to go. It is critical that we look to the accomplishments of the SNCC as an inspiration to work harder for civil rights that have not yet been met and not as a pacifier to convince ourselves that we truly live up to the name ``free country.'' With that said, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the sit-in movement that it sparked, which really sparked the justice movement in our Nation, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to reflect on the fact that this bill probably couldn't have gotten as far as it had without the outstanding work of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). The gentleman from Massachusetts has been an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee for many years, contributed much to First Amendment rights, and participated as the vice chairman of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee this year, an invaluable role that he actively engaged in. On this bill in particular, he was very instrumental in its passage. I thank him for his service on this particular bill and in general. All the publishers and the authors also should know that the gentleman from Massachusetts was very involved in this bill. With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Earlier this Congress, I introduced, together with Congressman Darrell Issa, H.R. 2765, to protect Americans' First Amendment rights against the threat posed by libel tourism, a new term in our vocabulary. The House passed that bill by voice vote under suspension of the rules. The 110th Congress had also passed that bill in this House as well. Last week, the Senate passed, by unanimous consent, an amended version of H.R. 2765, named the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, or SPEECH. We consider the Senate version today. Libel tourism is the name given to the practice of doing an end-run around the First Amendment by suing American authors and publishers for defamation in the courts of certain foreign countries with defamation laws that don't accord the same respect to free speech values as we do. Britain is a nation that particularly is a situs for these actions. While we generally share a proud common law legal tradition with the United Kingdom, it is also true that the United Kingdom has laws that disfavor speech critical of public officials and public figures, contrary to our own constitutional tradition. As a result, the United Kingdom has become the favorite destination for libel tourists. British defamation laws lack the constitutionally mandated speech- protective elements of U.S. law. For example, in contrast to U.S. law, British law presumes the defendant is wrong and places the burden on the defendant to prove the truth of her allegedly defamatory statement. This feature of British law has brought condemnation, not only from American defenders of free speech, but also from the United Nations, and even from some members of the British Parliament. In addition to Britain's substantive defamation law, features of Britain's procedural law tend to facilitate libel tourism, especially when it comes to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defamation defendant. Under their more expansive standard, British courts have been quick to take jurisdiction over an American defendant whose book, magazine or newspaper, though principally, or even exclusively, distributed in the United States, reaches even just a handful of readers in the United Kingdom, or whose Internet site, though based in the United States, is visited by someone in the UK. Particular concerns have been raised that, as a result of British courts' expansive exercise of jurisdiction in libel cases, the Internet has rendered American authors and publishers especially vulnerable to libel suits in Britain. As one commentator has described the situation: ``In the Internet age, the British libel laws can bite you no matter where you live.'' The Senate amendment to H.R. 2765 builds on the version of my bill that passed the House earlier this Congress, maintaining its core elements. Like the original bill, the Senate language prohibits U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with the First Amendment or do not comport with our due process requirements. The Senate language also continues to prohibit the enforcement of a foreign defamation judgment against an interactive computer service if the claim of the party opposing enforcement in the judgment is inconsistent with section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that libel tourists do not attempt to chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer service, rather than the actual author of the offending statement. In such circumstances, the service provider would likely take down the allegedly offending material rather than face a lawsuit. Providing immunity removes this unhealthy incentive to take down material under improper pressure. The Senate language enhances an existing attorneys' fee provision so that a court would now be required, absent exceptional circumstances, to award attorneys' fees to the party resisting enforcement of the foreign judgement if that party prevails. That provision was added in committee this year to put more teeth in the bill. The purpose of the provision is to dissuade libel tourists from putting American authors and publishers through the burden and expense of defending a meritless enforcement action and to compensate authors and publishers when they are forced to do so. The most significant change made by the Senate, which I support, is the addition of a declaratory judgment remedy for a U.S.-based author or publisher who is the target of a foreign defamation judgment. This provision would allow the U.S.-based party against whom a foreign defamation judgment is entered to seek a declaratory judgment in Federal court, finding that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States under one of the grounds listed in the bill. The declaratory judgment remedy provides an added measure of protection for the free speech rights of American authors and publishers. Last Thursday, The New York Times hailed the passage of this bill by the Senate, where it was sponsored by Senator Leahy, as a great move forward for First Amendment rights that are so important to our American way of life. I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, the members of the Judiciary Committee, and the cosponsors of this bill for their support. And I greatly thank Senators Patrick Leahy, Jeff Sessions and Arlen Specter for their longstanding and committed leadership on this issue. And I should say particularly, Senator Leahy, such a gentleman, in moving this bill forward. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. [From The New York Times, July 22, 2010] A Victory for Writing It is a rare achievement these days for the Senate to pass anything of real substance by a unanimous vote. But an important bill that protects Americans from the whims of foreign libel judgments was passed earlier this week by unanimous consent. Once it passes the House and is signed into law, it will provide a safeguard to authors and publishers threatened with ruinous foreign judgments. In the United States, a plaintiff alleging libel must prove that a statement is false and defamatory, and public figures have to show that a writer acted with actual malice in making a false statement. But these protections, rooted in the First Amendment, do not exist in places like Britain, Australia and Singapore, where the burden is often on the author, once accused of libel, to show that a statement is true. To sidestep American protections, subjects of books have sued publishers and authors in British courts where they have a better chance of winning. The practice, known as libel tourism, counts on a system in which American courts will enforce British fines and penalties. The bill passed by the Senate on Monday would prohibit American courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments if the judgments are inconsistent with First Amendment protections. In other words, if a British court finds that an American author has committed libel but has not conducted the trial with the same legal standards as an American court, the judgment against the author would be void in the United States. Americans who are found overseas to have committed libel can also sue in federal court to have that judgment found to be ``repugnant to the Constitution'' or American law. These kinds of cases have come up far too often. One of the best known examples was that of Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a 2003 book called ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed-- and How to Stop It,'' that accused a Saudi businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, of providing financial support to Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. After Mr. Mahfouz sued for libel in Britain--a charge that Ms. Ehrenfeld refused to defend--a British judge ordered her to pay K10,000 each to Mr. Mahfouz and his two sons, and more than K100,000 in legal costs, a total equaling about $230,000 at the time. She refused to pay, and the case led the New York State Legislature to pass a bill similar to the Speech Act in 2008. The House has already passed a similar bill and is expected shortly to support the version approved by the Senate, giving authors in the rest of the country the same protections that exist in New York. The next step is for the new British government to take the hint and follow through on the promise it made earlier this month to review and overhaul its libel laws. No one in either country wins if writers cannot express themselves freely. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. 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. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that this bill comes to a conclusion. We passed this in the 110th Congress, we couldn't get the Senate to agree on the language, and we did it in this Congress. It was a victory for writing, said the New York Times, a rare achievement for the Senate to pass this particular bill by a unanimous vote. It was an important bill that protects Americans from the whims of foreign libel judgments. This bill will safeguard authors and publishers threatened with ruinous foreign judgments. These particular First Amendment rights have been jeopardized in places like Britain, Australia and Singapore where the burden was shifted. So it is important, as the New York Times suggested in what is an outstanding editorial endorsing and praising the passage of this bill, mentioning Ms. Rachel Ehrenfeld who wrote a 2003 book ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop It,'' where she was the object of a libel tourism action by an individual that got a judgment against her which was improper. She has been a very active and important citizen in seeing that this bill was passed along with the publishers over the years. It's important that we pass this. The New York Times editorial was so complete, it only failed to mention Mr. Delahunt's role in the passage of the bill. I wish it would have. With that, I would ask for the unanimous passage of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2765) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, you listen to the rhetoric in this hall and you hear a lot of talk from the folks on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, about the deficit. It's very simple. There are two ways you deal with the deficit. Number one, you reduce spending or, number two, you increase income, and the way you increase income is you have more tax revenue. The two biggest ways you can get more tax revenue is taxing the most wealthy people in the country who can afford it. The Republicans don't want to eliminate the tax cuts to the upper 1 and 2 percent of the population, people making over $250,000 a year, and they don't want require that to be a PAYGO. They just want those people to keep getting those tax breaks that were reduced 8 years ago. They're concerned about the inheritance tax, people that might inherit over $3.5 million a person. They're concerned about them. That's who they're concerned about, not middle class families who got the largest tax cut in history with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that not a Republican voted for. It was a Democratic bill, and the balanced budget under the Clinton years, all Democrats, a balanced budget. So if you want to reduce deficits, you need to support the Democrats who do the hard lifting and see that we have revenue as well as responsible spending.