Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced, along with my colleague Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the Seat Egress in Air Travel (SEAT) Act, which would direct the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish minimum seat size standards necessary to ensure the safety and health of airplane passengers. The bill would also require each airline to display the space available (size, width, and distance between rows) for each passenger on the airline website. The bill was introduced in the Senate today by Senator Richard Blumenthal, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senators Ed Markey and Bob Menendez. Consumers are tired of being squeezed. The average seat distance between rows of seats has dropped from 35 inches before airline deregulation in the 1970s to about 31 inches today. The average width of an airline seat has also shrunk from 18 inches to about 16\1/2\. This isn't just a matter of comfort. It is about safety and health. The FAA requires that planes be capable of rapid evacuation in case of emergency. Furthermore, doctors warn of deep vein thrombosis which can afflict passengers who don't move their legs enough on longer flights. Moreover, average seat sizes have been shrinking while the average size of Americans has been growing. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average man in 1960 weighed 166 pounds, and the average woman weighed 140 pounds. Now the average man is 196 pounds and the average woman is 166 pounds, and both are about an inch taller. This just doesn't make any sense. I hope that Congress will quickly act on this bill to direct the FAA to establish minimum seat size standards to protect the safety and health of airline passengers.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have introduced their healthcare plan. The President said it would be better and more cost effective than the Affordable Care Act and it would offer insurance to everybody. Well, if you believe that, you believe the President has got a secret plan to defeat ISIS which he was going to give us within 30 days, that there were thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering 9/11, and that President Obama was born in Kenya. It is not true. What the plan they have introduced is is something that will give the wealthy unbelievable tax breaks. The 400 wealthiest people in America will get tax breaks of $7 million apiece; and the Americans who earn $200,000 a year or less will get none of those breaks, but they will pay more for their insurance and get less for it. The fact is property taxes will go up as less and less people are covered by insurance and they go to emergency rooms for primary care; and as hospitals give more uncompensated care, they have to raise your insurance rates in public hospitals and raise your property taxes. The American Hospital Association has come out against this. The American Medical Association has come out against this. Next thing you know, the people living the lifestyles of the rich and famous at Mar-a- Lago will come out against it.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Tennessee lost one of its most outstanding citizens, a person who loved Tennessee as deeply, if not more deeply, than anyone. Douglas Selph Henry, Jr., who served in the Tennessee State Senate in the Tennessee State House, served longer than any person ever did in the Tennessee General Assembly--44 years. Senator Douglas Henry served 24 of those years with me. He was a gentleman, a scholar, a man who said he was a State man, as distinguished from a Federal man, and he was a public man, going to more events in Nashville in his district and for his community than anybody ever has. There was not an event that Douglas Henry wasn't there and helping to fund. He was a conservative Senator. We had differences on issues many times. But Senator Henry was a man who you could disagree with, and he was never disagreeable. He was truly a gentleman at all times and a credit to his State and a credit to politics and a credit to his family. He loved his wife, Lolly, who predeceased him, his five children, and his grandchildren. And though we differed on issues and he was pro- life, he cared about children after they were born, passed the mandatory child seatbelt law, and supported all types of education endeavors and endeavors to support mothers and young children. He was just a gentleman's gentleman. I was honored to spend time with him. It is a great loss to Tennessee. My thoughts go out to his family.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 25th Anniversary of the massacre of hundreds of people in the town of Khojaly in what was the largest killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians in the course of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Khojaly, which is located in the Nagorno- Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, was once home to 7,000 people. That was before Armenian armed forces descended on the town in a final attempt to take over the city on February 26, 1992. Armenian armed forces massacred over 600 unarmed people, including 106 women and 83 children, and left less than 2,000 survivors. Hundreds more became disabled due to their horrific injuries. More than one hundred children lost a parent and 25 children lost both parents. At least 8 families were completely killed. Even though a ceasefire went into effect over two decades ago, more than 20 percent of Azerbaijan's territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts, remain occupied and more than 1 million Azerbaijanis remain refugees unable to return to their home villages. Ongoing violence along the line of contact surrounding occupied Azerbaijani territory reinforces the urgency of robust American participation in the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe's (OSCE) Minsk Group as it works toward a peaceful resolution of the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. Azerbaijan is the only country that borders both Russia and Iran, and yet Azerbaijan has been a strong partner of the United States and its allies in security and energy matters. This cooperation has included: playing a leadership role in nonproliferation issues; providing troops to serve shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S. forces in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan; allowing transit of non-lethal equipment used by coalition forces through Azerbaijan to Afghanistan; construction of the Southern Gas Corridor from the Caspian Sea to Italy, thereby providing Europe with an alternative to Russian energy sources; and supplying 40 percent of Israel's oil. Azerbaijan also has a thriving Jewish community and has outstanding relations with Israel. I invite my colleagues to join me and our Azerbaijani friends in recognizing and remembering the horrible events that occurred during the Khojaly Massacre twenty-five years ago. As Azerbaijanis in all parts of the world commemorate the massacre and continue to grieve the loss of loved ones, let us commit ourselves to supporting non-violent efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and of reforms that promote peace and stability throughout the Southern Caucasus region.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the kind words that Chairman Goodlatte and my friend, Mr. Collins, have tossed my way. We do get along up here, amazingly enough. People think that we all just fight all the time and we have nothing no common. There are some big issues that do divide us, and that is why you have competitive elections with two parties and two different debates. But most folks up here get along, and are friends, and we do have legislation that we can work on, and this is one of those places where Mr. Collins and Mr. Goodlatte and other members of the Judiciary Committee worked with me and others to bring this bill to the floor. The Equal Access to Justice Act will allow Americans to recover attorneys' fees and costs when they win a lawsuit against the Federal Government. This will enable ordinary citizens, veterans, seniors, small business owners, advocates for clean air and clean water, et cetera, to fight unfair or illegal government actions without fear of having to pay court costs and without fear of having attorneys' fees that they otherwise might not be able to afford. The law has been a success. However, in 1995, an important reporting requirement was removed from the law, and it made it harder for the public to see how much money the government had awarded. Our bill, H.R. 1033, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, restores the law's tracking and reporting requirements of payments awarded so the American people can have access to this important information. It will do this by requiring the group called ACUS, an acronym, which we have too many of up here, but this one is the Administrative Conference of the United States, a highly respected nonpartisan agency which was greatly championed by Justice Scalia, to post in an online database the fees and costs awarded in these cases. The database would also include the number and nature of the claims involved. The availability of this information will help keep the public informed and help Congress to conduct better oversight. I thank my Judiciary Committee colleague, Doug Collins from Georgia, for his partnership on the bill. I would like to thank Representatives Schrader and Collin Peterson for their support for this bill on our side of the aisle, as well as Jason Chaffetz, Liz Cheney, Paul Gosar, and Raul Labrador on the Republican side, as well as Chairman Goodlatte. And I would like to recall the work of our former colleague, Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, who had this bill in the past, and we worked together to try to make it a bipartisan effort and pass it. She worked doggedly on the legislation for years, and I know that she will be pleased that we are building upon her efforts. And while she is no longer here, she is truly in a better place, Wyoming, I think it is, a nice place. I urge the House to pass the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act. And I was pleased the Cats won.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced, along with my colleagues Reps. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott, Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Tax Return Preparer Accountability Act of 2017, which would provide explicit authority for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to protect taxpayers from unscrupulous tax cheats masquerading as bona fide tax preparers. As we near April 15th, millions of taxpayers will pay someone to help them fill out their tax returns. Many of these tax preparers are honest and trustworthy. But, unfortunately, too many of them take advantage of their customers or help their customers engage in tax fraud themselves. In Memphis, my Congressional district, a company named Mo' Money Taxes was caught charging taxpayers deceptive and outrageous fees and cheating them out of their refunds. The company also helped some customers prepare fraudulent returns that claimed bogus deductions and cheated the public of needed tax revenue. Fortunately, the Department of Justice has shut down the tax preparer company but there are many businesses just like them cheating taxpayers and the government alike. The IRS issued rules in 2011 regulating the tax return preparer industry by requiring them to register with the IRS and meet certain education and testing standards. However, a federal court held that the IRS did not have the authority under existing law to issue these regulations and they could not come into effect. That's why I introduced the Tax Return Preparer Accountability Act because it's important that anyone who assists in filing federal taxes is sufficiently trained and maintain a certain level of professional conduct. I hope that Congress will quickly act on this bill to ensure that these dishonest business practices cannot continue, and protect the pocketbooks of middle-class families.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I had a town hall in Memphis on Saturday. We had over 1,000 people there, and over 10,000 people live streamed on Facebook. Many were concerned about Russia's influence with this administration. Something smells. It would be like a vegan going and talking about how much they were supporting the Beef and Dairy Council, or that Chick-fil-A cow going up and saying: Eat more chicken. There is something else to it. There is an ulterior motive. This President's love affair with Russia, his constant support for Russia and Putin--one of the most villainous leaders on the face of this Earth--spells a problem. We need to get to the bottom of it, and one way we will find out is through his taxes. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to release his income taxes to the American people. It is so important to us having confidence in his administration and to our government's ability to withstand an evil power, as Ronald Reagan called them.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act, a bill I introduced earlier today to help veterans gain skills for good paying jobs by reauthorizing the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP). The VRAP program, signed into law in 2011 and expired in March 2014, provided training for education that led to high demand occupations, including management, business and financial operations, protective service, construction and transportation among other careers. In the two years of the implementation of VRAP, the Department of Veterans Affairs approved over 126,000 applications, of which, 76,000 veterans enrolled in a training program. The Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act extends the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide rehabilitation and vocational benefits to members of the Armed Services with severe injuries or illnesses, extends rehabilitation programs for persons who have exhausted their rights to unemployment benefits under state law and reauthorizes collaborative veterans' training, mentoring and placement programs. This legislation builds on our vow to hire our nation's heroes by directing the Secretary of the VA to establish a Federal web-based employment portal containing information on Federal programs and activities concerning employment, unemployment and training programs that are geared towards veterans. This legislation also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to award grants to hire veterans as firefighters and law enforcement officers. Finally, the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act directs the heads of executive agencies to consider favorably as an evaluation factor for civilian and defense contracts at or above $25 million, a prospective contractor with a workforce of at least 5 percent veterans. The men and women who signed up to defend America and our values, whether they served during Vietnam or more recently in Iraq or Afghanistan, are owed our gratitude and our promise to support them as they transition to civilian life. I urge my colleagues to pass the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act to ensure that our heroes are afforded meaningful employment opportunities. This is a promise that we must keep.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early Voting Act, also known as the ``SIMPLE'' Voting Act for short. I introduced this bill earlier today. This is a scary time for voting rights. We are witnessing an assault on voting rights the likes of which our nation has not seen since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. The President is alleging, without evidence, that there is widespread voter fraud in our country. We know where this is heading. It is just the latest attempt to turn back the clock on voting rights since the Supreme Court overturned a key portion of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. In the name of protecting Americans from supposed in-person voter fraud, a fraud that is virtually non-existent, States have been enacting voter ID laws. The real reason for these laws, however, has been anything but election integrity. It has been about partisan politics and discrimination. But don't take my word for it. Take the words of legislators like the then-Pennsylvania House Majority Leader who boasted in 2012 that the state's newly enacted voter ID law would allow Mitt Romney to win his state. While speaking about his legislature's accomplishments, he said, ``Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done.'' Or take the more recent comments of a freshman Republican Wisconsin state representative last year who, while being interviewed about the 2016 election, said, ``And now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.'' Or take the word of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which said that new provisions of a voter ID law in North Carolina, ``target African Americans with almost surgical precision[.]'' According to the court, the law imposed cures for problems that did not exist, and ``Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State's true motivation.'' The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is sacred. Yet, sadly, we have an ugly history in this nation of efforts to limit people's ability to access this constitutional right. We need to make it easier for people to vote, not harder, and that is why I have introduced this bill today. If enacted, the SIMPLE Voting Act would require states to allow early voting for federal elections for at least two weeks prior to election day, and to the greatest extent possible ensure that polling locations are within walking distance of a stop on a public transportation route. It would also require that sufficient voting systems, poll workers and other election resources are provided, that wait times are fair and equitable for all voters across a state, and that no one be required to wait longer than one hour to cast a ballot at a polling place. None of this should be controversial. This is all common sense, or at least should be, to those who want to help more Americans to vote. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, today during National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, I introduced the Stop, Observe, Ask and Respond (SOAR) to Health and Wellness Act along with my colleagues Representatives Adam Kinzinger, Tony Cardenas and Ann Wagner. It is a companion to S. 1446, which was introduced by Senators Heidi Heitkamp and Susan Collins. This bipartisan bill supports efforts underway at the Department of Health and Human Services to combat human trafficking by directing the Secretary to establish a pilot program to be known as `Stop, Observe, Ask and Respond to Health and Wellness Training' to provide training on human trafficking to health care providers at all levels. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery that uses force, fraud or coercion to lure millions of men, women and children in countries around the world annually, including here in the United States. Human trafficking includes both sex and labor trafficking, and generates billions of dollars in profits each year, making it the second most profitable form of transnational crime behind drug trafficking. Recognizing the key indicators of human trafficking is the first step in identifying victims, providing life-saving help and bringing traffickers to justice. Human trafficking, however, is a hidden crime and victims rarely seek help because of cultural barriers or out of fear of their traffickers or law enforcement. While victims are often difficult to identify, a reported 68 percent of trafficking victims end up in a health care setting at some point while being exploited, including in clinics, emergency rooms and doctor's offices. Despite this, out of more than 5,680 hospitals in the country, only 60 have been identified as having a plan for treating patients who are victims of trafficking and 95 percent of emergency room personnel are not trained to treat trafficking victims. Our bill aims to ensure health care professionals are trained to identify and assist victims of human trafficking, and help close the gap in health care settings without plans for treating trafficking victims. I want to urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation so that health care professionals can better identify trafficking victims, provide victim centered care and help bring perpetrators of human trafficking to justice with the help of law enforcement as well as social and victims service agencies and organizations.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a time I never thought I would experience. I am a proud Member of the United States Congress, and I proudly took my oath to support the Constitution. In the last 10 days, we have seen alternative facts stated as something that has become part of America--right out of ``1984.'' This executive order, the administration says, is not directed to Muslims; yet it has a waiver for Christians and other minorities, which means it is directed at Muslims. It is unbelievable that they can put something on paper and then tell you not to believe what is on paper. This is a violation of the First Amendment; it is a violation of everything America is known for in its not discriminating on the basis of religion; and it is a shame that we have come to alternative facts, alternative Constitutions, and alternative mindsets. God bless the United States, and God save the United States.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, a bill I introduced earlier today. The President of the United States has said our elections are ``rigged.'' When it comes to the drawing of Congressional districts, he may well be right. In most states, districts are drawn by the state legislature, and as a result, whichever party controls the state legislature ends up drawing Congressional districts specifically designed to maximize the number of Congressional seats that party can win. In other words, the elected officials choose the voters, instead of the voters choosing the elected officials. If enacted, the John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act would fix this by requiring states to use bipartisan redistricting commissions to draw maps. No single party would get to control the process. Historically, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering to some extent or another. But that does not make it right. In a representative democracy, the people need to be able to freely and fairly choose their elected representatives. Unfortunately, that is not always happening. In 2012, Democrats received more than 1.1 million more votes across the country than Republicans for the House of Representatives, but because of the way the maps were drawn, Republicans won almost 54 percent of the House seats. In 2016, it has been estimated that Republicans won approximately 51 percent of the votes cast across the country for the House of Representatives, but won more than 55 percent of the House seats. This is not what the Founders envisioned. They designed the House of Representatives to be the Congressional chamber that most accurately reflects the views of the people. The failure of the House to more accurately reflect the will of the electorate is a formula for the electorate to lose faith in the institution. It makes people cynical and discourages them from participating. We can do better. A democracy is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. The playing field is supposed to be fair and competitive, not gerrymandered and monopolized. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and help restore some much needed faith in Congress.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the fact that after the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, the Eric Garner killing in Staten Island, and so many other, similar tragic events around the country, we still don't have reliable statistics about when, where and against whom law enforcement uses deadly force is shameful. Even FBI Director James Comey has said it is, ``ridiculous that [he] can't tell you how many people were shot by the police last week, last month, last year.'' If we are serious about addressing excessive force, we need to know the full scope of the problem. For example, how often is deadly force used? Are minorities disproportionately the victims? Could other, non- lethal measures have been taken? That is why today I am introducing the National Statistics on Deadly Force Transparency Act. It would require collection of this type of information. Although a provision of the 1994 Crime Bill requires the Attorney General to collect statistics on the use of excessive force, there is no enforcement mechanism and the federal government has been unable to gather data from many local police departments. Since excessive force can be difficult to define, this bill would be limited to just instances where deadly force is used. Specifically, this legislation would require any law enforcement agency receiving federal funds to provide data to the Department of Justice on when each instance of deadly force occurred, including the race and gender of both the victim and the officer involved. It would also require an explanation as to why law enforcement felt deadly force was justified and any non-lethal efforts that were taken before deadly force was used. The Department of Justice would make this data publicly available but would not disclose any personally identifying information. This is information the public should already have. The fact that we don't is absurd. I urge my colleagues to fix this problem and pass the Deadly Force Transparency Act without delay.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, what this bill is about is taking women who can't afford to get an abortion and not allowing them to use taxpayer- funded money to get it. The assumption on the other side is they won't have money, because people who are in dire straits won't have money to get it, and therefore they will have these 2 million children they are talking about. What we are talking about--let's make it clear--is they are talking about poor women who they think can't afford to get to a doctor or to an abortion provider and force them to have children that they can't have because of economics. So women, poor women, do not forgive them for they know what they do. They are trying to put you at their mercy and make you have children because you are poor. If they get their ultimate desire--and that is the repeal of Roe v. Wade--then poor women will not be able to get an abortion, but wealthy women will. Trump said, yes, if they outlaw abortion, go to another State. Easy to say when you are a billionaire, but not a thing to say to the middle class and poor women of this country whom they want to force, through their economic disparities, to bear children.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 27th anniversary of ``Black January'' in Azerbaijan, a day that commemorates Azerbaijan's stand against Soviet soldiers for independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity over all lands under Azerbaijani jurisdiction, and freedom from communism and dictatorship. On the evening of January 19, 1990, the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet Presidium backed by then-President Mikhail Gorbachev declared a state of emergency in response to the growing national independence movement in Azerbaijan. In response to the Azeri people's stand against Soviet aggression, Soviet troops stormed the Azerbaijani capital city of Baku and indiscriminately fired on peaceful demonstrators, including women and children. That night, more than 130 people died with over 700 injured, 841 arrested and five going missing. While Soviet invaders attacked peaceful protestors, they also targeted critical infrastructure and workers. According to a report by Human Rights Watch entitled Black January in Azerbaijan, ``among the most heinous violations of human rights during the Baku incursion were the numerous attacks on medical personnel, ambulances and even hospitals.'' Additionally, the Soviet attack served as an act of intimidation for all then-Soviet countries with independence ambitions. The Human Rights Watch report concluded that, ``indeed the violence used by the Soviet Army on the night of January 19-20 constitutes an exercise in collective punishment. The punishment inflicted on Baku by Soviet soldiers may have been intended as a warning to nationalists, not only in Azerbaijan, but in other Republics of the Soviet Union.'' Azerbaijani citizens, however, refused to succumb to Soviet aggression. Instead, the invasion gave new life to their nationalism and fight for true independence. In the days after the invasion, thousands of Azerbaijanis surrounded Communist Party headquarters demanding the resignation of the republic's leadership, the Baku City Council demanded that Soviet troops withdraw from Azeri territories and the legislature in Azerbaijan threatened to call a referendum on secession unless Soviet troops were withdrawn within 48 hours. Soviet troops eventually withdrew and January 20th became known as ``the Day of the Nationwide Sorrow.'' It would not be for nearly two years, however, before Azerbaijan gained political control from the Soviet Union. In October 1991, Azerbaijan's parliament--the National Assembly--declared its independence. While Azerbaijan still faces challenges from its neighbors, today, Azerbaijan has developed into a thriving country with double-digit growth, in large part due to a freely elected president and parliament, and free market reforms led by the energy sector that helps support energy security in Israel and Europe. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the tragic events of Black January that precipitated the independent Republic of Azerbaijan and the fall of the USSR.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate, and I see the buzzwords that have been used about the repeal of the Affordable Care Act: ``patient-centered''--that sounds good--and ``against bureaucrats''--that sounds good. What they don't tell you is that it is for the insurance companies. They say it leaves it patient-centered and for the people to deal with it, not the government--because the people will have to deal with the insurance companies in the future. The people don't want to have to deal with insurance companies when their claims are denied, when they won't pay them, when they won't allow them to have certain procedures. That is what the American people are against. The Affordable Care Act was insurance reform on steroids. And you can't have all of the insurance reform on steroids without government action looking out for the people versus the insurance companies. They also don't tell you about rich people, who the other side is always concerned about, who could use tax credits and get a lot more money for their tax credits because they are at a higher tax rate than others. So, in essence, they are going to get more out of this. What we ought to be doing--it is what this alternative budget is about--is trying to create jobs, jobs for people in infrastructure, construction jobs for people out there in middle America. America used to be first in infrastructure, and now we are 28th in infrastructure. We need to have an infrastructure that gets goods to market and goods to the public for sale. That helps create jobs further. Jobs is what is important, and it is where America used to be first--in infrastructure jobs. America has always been last in health care. We were the only industrialized country in the world without a national healthcare policy, and the Republicans never wanted a national healthcare policy until now. So the Affordable Care Act did good because it woke the people up on the other side of the aisle to the fact that we needed to have a policy to make sure people got health care because they have never, ever cared about it. Teddy Roosevelt cared about it in their party. Richard Nixon cared about it in their party. Mitt Romney cared about it in their party. But they were mute. They didn't say a word about it. All of a sudden-- because they found something they thought is good. Two-thirds of the people in Tennessee like the Affordable Care Act. Don't repeal it. Pass this alternative budget and create jobs.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, these bills are a group of bills that have been considered for many years and have passed on partisan votes in the House. What you do when you repeal regulations or make it harder to have regulations is you make it better for business, better for the Chamber crowd, better for the manufacturing folk. But there is always a cost for everything. I think it was Isaac Newton who said: ``For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.'' You take these regulations off, increase business, and make it easier; but there is an equal and opposite effect in that Newtonian law as the consumer of the products. Whether it is food and food safety, whether it is water safety and purity, whether it is air safety, whether it is toys and manufacturers' defects or automobiles and safety in transportation--it could be airplane transportation--there is always a side that loses; and the side that loses is that of the consumers and the folks who will be injured and/or killed because of lack of regulations. I don't know how much one life is worth. If it is mine or one of my loved ones or one of my constituents--I am getting a little political here--it is worth a lot, but it is worth a lot no matter who it is, and there are going to be lots of people who will not survive some of these regulations. There are going to be injuries in the workplace because regulations for safety aren't there. There will be food products that are defective because regulations aren't in place, and people will eat food that is not appropriate, not pure. I had an amendment I proposed here on civil rights, and I think civil rights is one of our most precious rights--one that has been neglected on many occasions. That amendment would have said that this would not affect any civil rights rules, but it was not put in order; but it includes people with disabilities. Those are areas in which we should have exempted and not had anything stop our steadfastness toward securing civil rights and securing opportunities for people with disabilities. I am against the bills. I am for the consumer. I think there might be a measured way to do this, but this is a heavy-handed way to do it, and the consumer loses.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I can live up to those words, but I certainly appreciate them. I was the ranking member on this committee, and I was chair at one point. We have had this bill over the years. It is indeed a monkey wrench or a monkey in the wrench, as John McCain might have said. It will mess up the entire system that we have of Congress passing laws, delegating, giving the executive the ability to enact them in ways that make them functional and appropriate and come up with the details that the Congress does not have enough expertise to do. The other side refers constantly to people that prepare these rules-- which take many, many years and have much, much input--as bureaucrats, as if it is some type of pejorative. Bureaucrats are government employees who have expertise in certain areas and who study an area and become so much more expert than we are on the subject that they can come up with fine-tuned laws that are checked and balanced to make sure that the laws are implemented in the way that Congress intends. If Congress doesn't like it, Congress can pass a bill by both House and Senate to repeal it. We have already got that possibility. Under this unique approach, either one of the houses of Congress can stop a regulation, a rule from going into effect because both Houses would have to approve a rule and the President would have to sign it before it could go into effect. That gives one House the ability to veto, basically, an executive action. It is the executive in our system that has the power to veto acts of the legislature and not vice versa. We can pass laws in a bicameral spirit, which is what our Constitution has, when the House and the Senate agree. But neither House, independently, is given any power to veto laws or legislation. This would break that and, I believe, be unconstitutional. That is why I oppose H.R. 26, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017. Indeed, the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act is most appropriate this year as we start, because in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, we are, indeed, going to have an executive in need of scrutiny. So I thank the Republicans for naming this bill appropriately because we are, indeed, in the times of an Executive in need of scrutiny. We need scrutiny over income tax returns that have been hidden from the public that might disclose conflicts of interest or loans from characters that might be considered oligarchs and have some type of an influence over our foreign policy and our domestic. We need an Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act that deals with these conflicts, with income taxes that haven't been released, with businesses in the District where people could go to hotels and curry favor with the Executive. Indeed, we do have an Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, so I appreciate the well-named bill that the Republicans have brought us and the awareness that, through this bill, they have seen that we need some concern about the Executive coming because he certainly needs scrutiny. This bill, though, is the worst of corporate special interest because it will give corporate special interests the opportunity to override rules that take effect unless both Houses pass them. It is difficult enough for this House and the Senate to get legislation passed in the days that we often give to legislation, but to have both Houses have to agree, in which case if you can't, it is, in essence, a pocket veto, and it doesn't even have to be scheduled for a vote because the House would have to positively pass and the Senate positively pass. So if the Speaker doesn't want to do it, the Speaker can pocket veto the regulation. It doesn't even have to be scheduled. This is not draining the swamp. It will heighten the influence of corporate lobbyists in Congress where they can come to the Speaker and ask that agency rules they don't like that might protect the lives of children because they are regulations dealing with toys that seem to possibly be defective, or automobiles where they need safety devices, or other consumer protections that interfere with business interests-- business is good and important, but sometimes businesses do things that are injurious to the public. To give this opportunity to stop rules and regulations from going into effect that protect the public is wrong. It was suggested maybe it will help the economy, but at what cost? What is one life worth--or several lives--if lives are lost because safety regulations are not approved by this House and the Senate, or one or the other, and then don't go into effect? As I mentioned, this is seriously constitutionally defective.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member mentioned Justice Scalia. I will mention Chief Justice John Roberts who criticized nearly identical legislation in the 1980s when he was a White House lawyer because it would ``hobble agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules'' such that it would ``seem to impose excessive burdens on regulatory agencies.'' That was John Roberts. Some of the underlying facts given were about the economy. No matter what you say, President Obama has been effective on the economy. We saved the housing market. We saved this country from the Great Recession. We brought about recovery. That is not something we should disparage but we should praise. The stock market has gone up to record highs. Unemployment is down. Jobs are up. The automobile industry has been saved. I ask Members to reject this bill because it is unconstitutional. It will cost lives of American citizens because safety regulations won't be passed.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a constitutional amendment I introduced today to eliminate the electoral college and provide for the direct election of our nation's President and Vice President. As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said, ``I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might well as require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.'' For the second time in recent memory, and for the fifth time in our history, the national popular vote winner will not become President because of the electoral college. This has happened twice to candidates from Tennessee: Al Gore and Andrew Jackson. The reason is because the electoral college, established to prevent an uninformed citizenry from directly electing our nation's President, no longer fits our nation's needs. When the Founders established the electoral college it was in an era of limited nationwide communication. The electoral structure was premised on a theory that citizens would have a better chance of knowing about electors from their home states than about presidential candidates from out-of-state. Electors were supposed to be people of good judgment who were trusted with picking a qualified President and Vice President on behalf of the people. They held the responsibility of choosing a President because it was believed that the general public could not be properly informed of the candidates and the values each held. That notion--that citizens should be prevented from directly electing the President--is antithetical to our understanding of democracy today, and our electoral process has not evolved to match our abilities to communicate, collect information, and make informed decisions about candidates. The development of mass media and the internet has made information about presidential candidates easily accessible to U.S. citizens across the country and around the world. The people no longer need the buffer of the electoral college to be knowledgeable about and decide who will be president. Today, citizens have a far better chance of knowing about out-of-state presidential candidates than knowing about presidential electors from their home states. Most people do not even know who their electors are. While our ability to communicate has evolved so has the electoral college, but not in a positive way. Electors are now little more than rubber stamps who are chosen based on their political parties and who represent the interests of those political parties, rather than representing the people. Most states legally bind their electors to vote for whomever wins that state's popular vote, so electors can no longer exercise individual judgment when selecting a candidate. In our country, ``We the People,'' are supposed to determine who represents us in elective office. Yet, we use an anachronistic process for choosing who will hold the highest offices in the land. It is time for us to fix this, and that is why I have introduced this amendment today. Since our nation first adopted our Constitution, ``We the People,'' have amended it repeatedly to expand the opportunity for citizens to directly elect our leaders: The 15th Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens to vote, regardless of race. The 19th Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens to vote, regardless of gender. The 26th Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens 18 years of age and older to vote, regardless of age. And the 17th Amendment empowers citizens to directly elect U.S. Senators. We need to amend our Constitution to empower citizens to directly elect the President and the Vice President of the United States. Working together, I know we can make our electoral college fit the world we live in today, and make our Constitution better reflect the ``more perfect Union'' to which it aspires.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I like Ed Whitfield a lot. A lot of us did. He was a great guy. It was wrong, what happened, the way he was forced out because a majority of this House wanted a vote on that and it could be put in this regulation and it would go. Tobacco regulations, toys, protections for children, all potentially in jeopardy, as well as other regulations protecting four-legged friends. I can imagine when this comes up and the decision is made which bills to put into this omnibus bill, you are going to have lots of lobbyists coming and wanting the bills that affect them adversely, their industry is put in it, and you are going to have fundraisers right around it. It is going to be a fundraising trough for the Republicans to use and bidding basically on who wants to have their regulation put in our bill and have it nullified. The nullification acts back in the 1830s with John Calhoun are back, not the midnight judges of President Adams.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and chairman in the past, my chairman. This bill has come up over many years when I served on this subcommittee and was the ranking member and the chair at one time. Mr. Issa suggested it might only be six or seven regulations. If that was the case, they could take them individually. There is a process where regulations can be brought before the House, in the Congressional Review Act, and each one studied individually, and the House could overrule them. I can't fathom that they are bringing this bill for just six regulations which they could do individually. But even then, that is wrong to put them all together. We know what is going to happen is they are going to pass. They are going to pass the House. Whether they pass the Senate is another issue. These are not midnight regulations. These are regulations that go back to last June. So the term ``midnight regulations'' is a misnomer. To say that these are just decisions made by bureaucrats, you would think bureaucrats were something out of a medical dictionary that was highly contagious. Bureaucrats could also be called experts, specialists, dedicated government officials. There are people who study these issues that, to be implemented, need to be fine-tuned to fit into society, sometimes to protect consumers, sometimes to protect commerce, and it takes years and years and years, often, for these regulations to take effect. Some of them protect animals--the soring industry. A great majority of this House was in favor of a bill to protect walking horses, but it didn't get a vote because there were some people in this House that were against it and against it so much that they worked to get one of the finest Members I have served with, Ed Whitfield, out of this House. That was despicable. I suspect that same power that might have had that effect could bring that type of regulation up to be nullified. I would fear that, and I would find it wrong in the spirit of Ed Whitfield and fairness.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the work Mr. Conyers, the ranking member, has done on this bill; Mr. Goodlatte, the chairman and the sponsor; and Mr. Nadler, our Democratic colead. I rise in support of H.R. 6130, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016. H.R. 6130 creates a new 6-year Federal statute of limitations for civil claims filed in Federal or State court to allow a claimant to recover artwork and other cultural property that was stolen, seized, sold under duress, or otherwise lost as a result of Nazi persecution during the period from January 1, 1933, to December 31, 1945. The bill provides that this limitation period begins upon a claimant's ``actual discovery'' of the identity and location of the art that was unlawfully lost, and information or facts sufficient to indicate that the claimant has a possessory interest in the art. In addition, the bill specifies that this new limitations period applies to cases filed prior to December 31, 2026. Finally, the bill's provisions sunset on January 1, 2027. The new Federal limitations period established by H.R. 6130 is necessary because State statutes of limitations often bar claims if they are not filed within some specified number of years from the date of the loss. For Holocaust-era claims concerning stolen art, this means that most statutes of limitations would bar cases even before victims are able to have actual knowledge of whether their art or other cultural property had been stolen by the Nazis and been located and still was present. Importantly, H.R. 6130 restores the claims that were barred by existing State statutes of limitations by deeming the bill's date of enactment as the moment of ``actual discovery'' for purposes of triggering the bill's new 6-year limitations period. This critical legislation reinforces longstanding American policy, encouraging restitution for victims of the Nazi government or its allies and agents, including with respect to Nazi-confiscated or looted art. As recently as this morning, a feature article was in The New York Times: ``Jewish Dealer's Heirs File Suit Over Art in Bavarian State Collection.'' Indeed, that case is about the facts, but it shows that there are still active cases where it has been discovered that there was art that was owned by Jewish people that was taken by others and put in the hands of the Nazis, and there is an issue about whether or not there is a right to recovery. This would guarantee that those people who discover art--and this art was discovered some person's house that had been hidden for years in a person's house behind walls, and all of this valuable art that had been stolen and hidden was only discovered about 3 years ago--that the rightful owners, or heirs to the owners, would have a right in American courts to pursue justice. In recognition of the Nazi government's deliberate campaign to steal artwork and other cultural property from its victims, H.R. 6130 rightfully ensures victims are given a chance to have their day in court to pursue justice. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 36 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the carrier of the spirit of Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.