Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank everybody who has put effort into bringing this resolution to the floor. It is not difficult to stand up--or it shouldn't be difficult, and I don't think it is--to speak against anti-Semitism, but it is a little more difficult to have carved a niche in the United States Government and governments around the world as being a leader in fighting for human rights and against anti-Semitism; and that is what I have seen Congressman Chris Smith do. Congressman Smith is the chair of the Helsinki Commission, of which I am a proud member. I got to know Mr. Smith during the hearings we have had and the travels on the Helsinki Commission. Chris Smith is a super leader in looking out for people and minorities all over the world. So I thank him particularly for his efforts at spearheading this and being vigilant. It is so important. It is hard to fathom that we still have anti-Semitism in this world. It wasn't that long ago that the Holocaust occurred. We have got Holocaust museums and programs throughout different countries. We have had a lot of Holocaust museums and an understanding in Germany as well, but you have got skinheads and disciples of ISIL who continue to spread hate and venom. I know Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust, said that people who hate, hate everyone; and I know Elie Wiesel, who was a genius and a prophet, was right. So it is important that we stand up and that we share resources with our European allies to fight anti-Semitism and that this country remains a bulwark in fighting against anti-Semitism. We haven't always been that. We are today, and we will continue to be. I am proud to support this resolution. I thank the Members for bringing it, and I urge all Members to vote for it and pass it.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill I introduced today to remove J. Edgar Hoover's name from the Federal Bureau of Investigation building in Washington, DC. J. Edgar Hoover did terrible things when he served as FBI Director. His infamous ``COINTELPRO'' program harassed civil rights workers, political activists and homosexuals. He was downright abusive. His efforts to silence Martin Luther King, Jr. and out homosexuals working for the federal government were deplorable. It has been reported that, at one point, he even had a letter sent to Dr. King threatening to expose information about his private life. The letter appeared to suggest that Dr. King should kill himself to save himself from the embarrassment. The letter said, ``King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected or a specific reason, it has practical significant [sic]. You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.'' His treatment of homosexuals was no better. He called them ``sex deviates.'' He ordered the FBI to undertake extraordinary efforts to identify everyone who was even suspected of being homosexual in the federal government. There is a very good documentary about this by Michael Isikoff on Yahoo News entitled ``Uniquely Nasty: J. Edgar Hoover's war on gays''. I encourage my colleagues to see it. In 1951, Hoover issued a memo to top FBI officials saying that ``Each supervisor will be held personally responsible to underline in green pencil the names of individuals . . . who are alleged to be sex deviates.'' The FBI eventually collected more than 360,000 files on gays and lesbians. It has been reported that in 1952, Hoover outed a young campaign aide who was in line to be hired by President-elect Eisenhower. The young man, Arthur Vandenburgh, Jr., was the son of Republican U.S. Senator Arthur Vandenburgh. But that didn't matter. The young Vandenburgh was promptly rejected. And Hoover didn't even stop there. Years later, the FBI went on to out the young man to Confidential magazine, which then outed him publicly--reporting, ``Once upon a time there was a famous senator's son who had a limp wrist.'' J. Edgar Hoover was a terrible man. Even the FBI's own web site declares that his infamous COINTELPRO program was, ``rightly criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons.'' Yet, his name continues to adorn the FBI building in Washington, DC-- one of the most prominent buildings in our nation's capital. This is just wrong. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and remove his name from the FBI building.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I will perfunctorily reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being part of this bill, and thank you for your efforts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us today is good for national security, good for privacy, and good for business. It is unquestionably the right thing to do for our Nation's closest allies. Under current law, United States citizens are entitled to access and request a correction to personal records held by a Federal agency. If the agency denies access or fails to make a requested change or otherwise violates their privacy rights, then we may seek redress in Federal court. Under current law, these rights are conveyed only to United States citizens and not to the citizens of our closest allies, even though many European countries offer our citizens similar rights overseas, probably somewhat like the Europeans give our folks moneys when they record a song and play it over there, but we don't. We should have that same reciprocity and fairness. H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act, will extend these core privacy protections to the citizens of certain foreign countries, those designated by the Attorney General as trusted allies. This small change to our laws will afford immediate benefits both at home and abroad. This act will facilitate information-sharing partnerships with law enforcement agencies across the globe. We know from experience that open lines of communication with our allies yield intelligence and save lives. The act will enable the U.S. and the European Union to complete an umbrella agreement to govern information sharing across the Atlantic for law enforcement and counterterrorism purposes. This agreement, which would include significant protections for individual privacy, would not go into effect until we have made these changes. Earlier this year a coalition of companies, trade associations, and civil rights organizations wrote to the leadership of both parties to outline the economic cost of ``a significant erosion of global public trust in both the U.S. Government and the U.S. technology sector.'' Their fears appear to have been well founded. Earlier this month, citing concerns about insufficient privacy safeguards in the United States, the European Court of Justice effectively suspended the safe harbor agreement that allows companies to move digital information across the Atlantic. Although there is far more work to be done to restore the agreement, I hope that our allies will take this legislation as a sign of good faith and recognize that a basic right to privacy extends beyond our borders and we will work to restore the public trust necessary for the continued success of U.S. industry overseas. The Judicial Redress Act is supported by the White House, the Department of Justice, and other Federal law enforcement agencies. It has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, Information Technology Industry Council, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and IBM, among others. At base, this bill is a measure of basic fairness. Our friends abroad should have some course of redress with respect to information that they provided to the U.S. Government in the first place. We all benefit when the information we share is accurate. Our partners in trade and security should have the ability to seek recourse when it is not. I thank Representative Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this issue, for his leadership on many issues, including sentencing reform, for his extreme knowledge of the world, and for sharing it with me on occasion. I thank Mr. Goodlatte for those same talents and achievements. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, these are very important bills--this bill and the next bill--to the women of this Nation and to the people in America because these are rights that are being under attack. There is this Born-Alive bill, which came to the floor through the Committee on Rules, and the next bill, which stops funding of Planned Parenthood, but they are all part of the same thing. They are the same bill. They are the same message. Because what we are doing here in this Congress is messaging, and the message is the Republican Party wants to defeat Roe v. Wade. They think that that was a bad bill and that it is wrong to have legalized, in America, for women to have choice. Most of the Democrats don't think that. Neither of these bills went through the committee process, which is really abhorrent. In fact, yesterday, we passed a bill about new and novel ideas, saying that you get sanctions, you would be sanctioned as a lawyer, if you brought some case that was frivolous and didn't really come through the proper procedures. If we had that kind of rule in Congress, these bills wouldn't be allowed to be on the floor, because they are supposed to go through committee where the public has notice, the public has an opportunity to have a witness. The majority side has three witnesses; the minority side has one witness. There is a discussion; there are questions; there are answers; there are statements; there is thought; there is input; there is due process; there is petitioning grievances. All of this has been abrogated--no due process, no regular order. These come straight to the floor because these are messaging bills for the American public. The Republican Party and parts of the Republican Party often say: We want our country back. What they want back is a country that is pre-1971, before Roe v. Wade. What they want is a country that is pre-Brown v. Board of Education. What they want is a country that is pre-Voting Rights Act, which has been limited by the Supreme Court and which has not been renewed by this Congress, nor has it gotten a vote. What they want is a country that is free of many of the immigrants who have come to this country and made it great, particularly from South America, the Caribbean--and that country is not going to come back. In my State of Tennessee, the Republicans have filed a bill to declare the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage as illegal in Tennessee, nullification dripping from their lips, as George Wallace would say, in the courthouse door. It is the same thing today: Take our country back--no Hispanics, no women's choice, no civil rights, no voting rights, Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1950 America. And Dwight D. Eisenhower wasn't at fault. He tried to bring us forward. These bills are part of that same attack on the progress that we have made in America. They have not gone through the proper process, and they are attempts to change America in a way that would affect American women adversely. This bill has a definition of abortion that is new, shouldn't be done. I oppose both bills and the rule.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Thank you very much for the time, and thank you for scheduling this important hour, Special Order. Madam Speaker, this issue is extremely important to women, to men, to the Constitution, and to progress, and this week has been, unfortunately, very much an example of what the House has been doing throughout this session--messaging. We are about to have a shutdown of government because of Planned Parenthood, and the cost to our economy and to people for a shutdown of the Federal Government is astronomical. The last shutdown, which I think was in 2013--it might have been 2011--cost hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy. The stock market fell, people lost jobs, lost income, and lost services all because of Planned Parenthood. The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is an outstanding organization that serves women in this Nation, in my State, and in my city--mostly low-income women and a lot of women of color. There, they get their basic female healthcare services whether it is cervical cancer exams, breast cancer exams, sexually transmitted disease tests, family planning programs. It is not about abortion. A very small part of it is abortion. It is not called ``Planned Abortion.'' It is called ``Planned Parenthood.'' Madam Speaker, most people are in need of those services. To cut them out, as they talked about, and to give them to community health centers is not the answer. That doesn't work as it is going to disadvantage a lot of women. What we have had this week is a bill--the most recent bill--did anybody discuss the fact that this second bill didn't go to committee? I guess it is called the ``unborn baby bill,'' whatever it is. Has that been discussed?

Mr. COHEN. That is the amazing thing. This bill that has come up-- that will come up tomorrow, I guess--never went to committee. In fact, it was kind of just sprung on us on Monday, and they didn't even get the language straight until maybe Tuesday. Madam Speaker, in the Congress, we generally have committee meetings. You have a hearing on a bill almost always--that is what committees are for, is to have hearings--sometimes by a subcommittee and then, later, by a full committee--and a markup, sometimes by the subcommittee, always at least by the full committee. Then it goes to the Rules Committee, and then it comes to the floor. When this Congress came about, the majority party made a big deal about how they were going to come in and change the way things were done and how there was going to be regular order. Bills weren't going to be brought to the floor without any notice; committees would do their work; amendments would be offered; and people would get an opportunity to testify from the public. This bill was given no markup in committee, no hearing in committee, no opportunity for the public to voice any concerns as to whether they were for it or against it, and no Congresspeople on the committee had a chance to voice their concerns. In essence, it was sprung on the public. The bill will have a new definition of ``abortion''--unknown before in Federal law. That is a pretty major thing--with no hearing, no notice, no opportunity to address the issue, no opportunity to maybe bring in somebody who is an expert to say: You might have missed this. You might have missed that. This is the way it ought to be. No. Madam Speaker, this week in Congress, the Republican side has basically said: We don't want to hear from the public. We don't want to hear from doctors. We don't want to hear from women. We don't want to hear from them on another bill we had up today. We don't want to hear from judges on something that affects the Federal courts, where the judges, in reviewing it, voted by 85 percent ``bad idea''--no judges, no lawyers, no doctors, no women, no public--because that side of the House knows how to do everything. They know how to define ``abortion.'' They know how to run the courts. They know how to run women's lives. Choice and reproduction should be a decision between a woman, her family, her conscience, and her doctor, not what this side wants. What this side wants is to repeal Roe v. Wade. They want to do away with a woman's right to abortion. That is what this is about. They pick these other issues to talk about, but that is what they really want. If that happens, it is going to be no different than alcohol prohibition in the twenties and marijuana today. Alcohol was illegal. So what happened? People got alcohol and they drank, but they drank because organized crime supplied it for them--no taxes, lots of organized crime, lots of killings between organized crime. Marijuana. Do people have problems getting marijuana? People don't have problems getting marijuana. It is everywhere. It was at George Bush's school. It is everywhere. It is not hard to get, but it gives the cartels a way to sell it. It happens. Madam Speaker, when abortion was illegal in this country, wealthy women could afford to go to Mexico or wherever it was legal and get abortions. Poor people went to get abortions, but they had to go to somebody who maybe didn't have a clean area in which to do the procedure or the experience or the ability. Poor women went to back alleys and oftentimes had health detriments because of it and sometimes lost their lives. So abortion is not going to be outlawed in this Congress, I don't think, but that is what they would like to do. Even if it is outlawed, it is still going to happen. If it happens, it is going to happen for the rich, and the poor are going to get the worst services. You can't take your morality and tell the American public, when they want some service, some opportunity, some freedom, that they can't have it, because they will find it. It will just be through a roundabout way. Madam Speaker, I thank Ms. Clark for having this Special Order. I am going to always support Roe v. Wade and support Planned Parenthood. It does a lot for the women in my district. As I said, it is one of the best organizations in our country, and I believe that. They help women with services they otherwise couldn't get. In a lot of States like mine, where the Affordable Care Act has not been extended through the expansion of Medicaid, it is even more difficult for poor women to get medical services and even life-saving services. So thank you. We will continue to message and continue to fight and hope the American public realizes that what is going on here is shutting them out--no voice, no message--simply activity.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I respect Mr. Smith and understand what he is saying about judges wanting to control their own courtrooms and control the system, but they have the expertise. The bar association is not the judges. The bar association is against this, too. So you have got the bar association and the Judicial Conference, both of which are conservative organizations, against it. In the study, yes, some of those folks might not have been there in 1983 to 1993, but they still knew what the rule was and they were able to study and they were able to understand things. They weren't there when cases were filed. They didn't know the facts of the case. They learned. They have got minds that are capable of absorbing information, analyzing it, synthesizing it, and coming to decisions. You didn't have to be alive when slavery was around to know slavery was bad. You didn't have to be on the bench from 1983 to 1993 to know that rule 11 was working and that this bill which brings back that old rule would be a failure. So I think there is deference you should give to the bar association and to the Judicial Conference, both of which have come out against this. There are motions for summary judgment. They talk as if there is no way to get rid of a frivolous lawsuit. If you bring a frivolous lawsuit, you are going to get a motion for summary judgment. A court can order that. It can find a motion to dismiss. You don't even have to go into discovery. The courts are the ones that suffer the most. You said that, sure, sometimes the defendants do from defending these cases, but the courts have to put up with it. The courts don't want frivolous litigation at all. They probably are one of the first groups that don't want frivolous litigation. I know some people that serve in this Congress who have been judges. They are outstanding men. They understand how important judges are and that their opinions should be revered and respected.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say that sometimes I see Mr. Rohrabacher and I think about the fact that we have traveled some together. One of the things I have learned on those travels is the thing people in foreign countries appreciate most about the United States of America is our justice system, the fact that you have got a system where you go in and get a case heard. That is one of the things that is best about our country. What this is about is taking power from judges and giving financial incentives. The defendants have got the heavy pockets, and it will end up squeezing plaintiffs from bringing actions. If they are so frivolous, the judges will dismiss them on summary judgments or motions to dismiss. The judges can still have sanctions and damages, but just not have all power taken from them. And there are other rules where they can have sanctions if you are just messing with discovery and violating the rules. I just think this is going to help close our courts, and that is not the right way to go, particularly on Constitution Day. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, I would submit the rule of construction is not the same thing as if the committee would have accepted the amendment offered that said specifically civil rights laws would not be affected by this because you could still offer a rule 11 under this. It just says nothing in this action will be construed to borrow or impede the assertion. It doesn't borrow or impede the assertion of a new claim, but it doesn't say the court cannot find a rule 11 violation and then the mandatory imposition of costs would take place. It doesn't do what you are submitting, I would suggest. The bottom line is the court felt that this wasn't necessary. The court said, in all those cases he talked about that seem so absurd--I don't understand--and particularly as lawyer--why a lawyer would waste his time doing it because there is no chance of success and no chance of remuneration in cases like that. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), who can explain easily and in a very facile fashion why those arguments are not good.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was duly impressed with the statement and position of my chairman, but I find it hard to believe it is on this bill because this bill is not a bill that should be passed. This bill is an affront to the judges of this country, to the Judicial Conference, and to the American Bar Association. The American Bar Association, a conservative organization, has come out against it. The Judicial Conference, made up of predominantly appellate judges, headed by Chief Justice Roberts--mostly of Republican-appointed judges--came out against it because it is not necessary. It will clog the courts with unnecessary litigation, cost money, and make it more difficult to get your cases disposed of. It is just unnecessary. Indeed, it would amend rule 11, but in such a way that it could have a serious deleterious effect on civil rights claims as well as to increase the volume and cost of litigation. If this House were a court and not a legislative body, rule 11 sanctions could apply here. These concerns are not hypothetical. They are based on actual experience. From 1983 to 1993, there was a version of rule 11 that this law would reinstate. So all you have to do and all any legislative body ought to do is go back and look at what happened in history. These rules were in effect from 1983 to 1993, taking a judge's discretion away. Judges can order sanctions. They can make sure that those cases that were brought up about reading a phone book and having a wreck are out, gone. They can do that. This takes their discretion away, and they have got to give costs and compensation to the other side's lawyers. And then there are hearings and all of that stuff. Presently, the court has discretion, and there is a 21-day safe harbor provision where an attorney can withdraw or correct any alleged submissions that were wrong. This requires the courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs. It does not leave it to the discretion of the court. Currently, such awards are entirely at the court's discretion, and they are limited to deterrence purposes, not for the compensation of lawyers. Simply put, H.R. 758 will have a deleterious impact on the administration of justice for these reasons: First, civil rights. Think about Brown v. Board of Education. When it came before the court, it was a novel case, and a judge in certain places, especially in the South in 1954, might have said: Sorry, lawyer. You are out of here. The judge would have had no option under this but to grant costs against the attorney who brought the case, Mr. Marshall, and we might not have ever had Brown v. Board of Education. Civil rights cases comprise 11 percent of Federal cases filed, but more than 22 percent of the cases in which sanctions have been imposed for civil rights cases. H.R. 758 would restore this problem. Just imagine that result. There are other cases that are similar. The legal arguments in landmark cases where certain novel arguments are made that are not based on then-existing law would be affected. Litigation would be prolonged and may be too expensive to continue. Secondly, H.R. 758 will also substantially increase the amount, cost, and intensity of litigation. Experts in civil procedure are virtually unanimous on this point. By making sanctions mandatory and having no safe harbor, the 1983 rule spawned a ``cottage industry'' of litigation. There were financial incentives to file rule 11s. Prior to the 1983 rule taking effect--this really gets me--there had been only 19 rule 11 proceedings over the course of 45 years, but in the decade that this rule was in effect, which this bill wants to reinstate, there were 7,000 proceedings in 10 years--11 in 45 years and 7,000 in 10 years. So we are talking about a lot of litigation and clogging up of the courts. One-third of all Federal lawsuits were burdened by these satellite litigations that came about because of this rule. It strips the judiciary of discretion, and it utterly ignores the thorough process by which the Federal court rules are usually amended. H.R. 758 overrides this judicial independence by removing the discretion to impose sanctions and to determine which sanctions might be appropriate. It circumvents the painstakingly thorough Rules Enabling Act process that Congress itself established 80 years ago. The 1993 amendments to rule 11 have been a tremendous success. That is what this would throw out. As documented by the Judicial Conference of the United States, these amendments resulted in a ``marked decline in rule 11 satellite litigation without any noticeable increase in frivolous filings.'' H.R. 758, however, would undo this. That is why the American Bar Association and the Judicial Conference oppose it. It is also opposed by the Alliance for Justice, the Center for Justice & Democracy, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, and Public Citizen. This is a deeply flawed bill that addresses a nonexistent problem. We have this bill, and we have a bill on abortion. It seems like today's actions in Congress are Shakespearean, first, ``kill the lawyers,'' but, this time, it is ``kill the judges.'' The other one is ``kill the doctors.'' Congress knows the answer. We can tell the judges what they need to do because they are not doing it, and we will tell the doctors what they need to do, and we will tell the women what they need to do. Unfortunately, that is what we have come down to, a bad bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Mr. Smith, as I do for Mr. Goodlatte, but I would submit that the rule of construction, nothing in this act or an amendment made by this act, shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws or under the Constitution of the United States. That is the same thing as the committee having--if they would have accepted the amendment that we offered to specifically exempt civil rights laws. That was not accepted.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I just want to go back to the Judicial Conference of the United States and their committee on rules of practice and procedure, which came out against this. They were just against it totally. In a letter signed by Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Judge David Campbell, they said it is going to cost money, going to impede justice, and is not necessary. Now, we have heard this is common sense and all these frivolous cases and how absurd it is and how wrong it is and how terrible it is. Well, the two judges that wrote this letter to Mr. Goodlatte and said that this was unnecessary, that we should just keep the rule we have got, that the rule that we are adopting was an error in 1983 to 1993, it cost a lot of money in frivolous litigation, satellite lawsuits, explosion of satellite litigation, and it just didn't work. Judge Sutton was appointed to the bench by President Bush after clerking for Justices Scalia and Powell. I would assume that if you were appointed by President Bush, approved by the United States Senate, and you clerked for Justices Scalia and Powell, you are not some kind of a big supporter of frivolous lawsuits in the plaintiffs' bar. The other gentleman is Judge Campbell from Arizona, also appointed by President Bush. They were pretty adamant that this was a bad idea. They took some surveys, and 80-some-odd percent of folks said it was a bad idea. The bar association said it was a bad idea. The bar association had a group of 200 lawyers, litigants, judges, and academics who participated in the 2010 conference at Duke University Law School convened by the advisory committee to search for ways to address the problem. Not one of the 200 people proposed a return to the 1983 version. So 200 lawyers, litigants, judges, and academics met, and none of them suggested this type of bill. The Judicial Conference, headed up by two people appointed by President Bush, conservative judges, said this is a very bad idea. The bar association says it is a terrible idea. Yet we are to come here and think that Congress has got the best idea, better than all these specialists. That is one of the things that is wrong with this Congress. People realize that we are not respecting logic, expertise, and history. In their letter, the judges said that this was a return to previous attempts to amend this rule, that it would eliminate this provision adopted in 1993, and their concerns that they expressed here mirrored the views expressed by the Judicial Conference in 2004 when the Republicans, I believe, had both Houses, the House and Senate, but they certainly had the House. In 2005, this bill came up, and they came out against it. The Republicans had the House and maybe the Senate, I don't know. The bill came up again in 2011 and 2013. So this bill has been here in 2004, 2005, 2011, and 2013, and the Judicial Conference, the judges, the lawyers, and the experts almost two to one have said it is a bad idea. I know it is throwback Thursday, but that is no reason to bring this bill forward. I find it hard to be against my good friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. Goodlatte. They are fine gentlemen. Mr. Rohrabacher was here. He is my buddy. But it is a bad bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), who was a distinguished barrister before becoming a Congressman.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, in 1963, President Kennedy, who served in this Chamber, spoke at American University about preventing nuclear war and that to do so it was necessary to deal with our most feared and distrusted enemy at the time, the Soviet Union, as mistrusted and evil in the eyes of Americans then as Iran is today. As you recall, Prime Minister Khrushchev boldly stated, ``We will bury you.'' President Kennedy understood, though, that in negotiations with an enemy, ``We must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or nuclear war.'' President Obama, along with the other five nations at the negotiating table in Vienna, confronted the same reality. When President Reagan engaged in detente with the Soviet Union, he also was negotiating with our most feared and distrusted enemy. In negotiations with Iran, it has been the same for President Obama as it was for President Kennedy in negotiating with the Soviet Union. Both President Kennedy and President Obama had the same goals as America has had for over a half a century, and that is to prevent nuclear war. And to do so, it has been necessary to deal with an untrusted foe. I have listened to my constituents. I have been privy to many classified briefings. I have spoken personally to President Obama and Secretary Kerry. I have met with officials in Vienna at the headquarters of the IAEA and with diplomats and officials from Europe and Asia and considered the opinions of renowned physicists and military generals. Over those past several weeks and months, I have often thought about President Kennedy's eloquent words at American University in August of '63 when he said that, in the final analysis, ``We all inhabit the same small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.'' The same holds true today. I support this agreement based upon the information I have gleaned from the aforementioned individuals and groups and with the understanding there is no more important mission than preventing nuclear war. Mr. Speaker, our people and our planet are in the balance. I am convinced this is the most effective way that Iran will not build a nuclear weapon.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 2015, my flight was delayed and I was unable to vote on S. 1482, H.R. 1656 and H.R. 2770. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1482, ``yea'' on H.R. 1656, and ``yea'' on H.R. 2770.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the city of Memphis lost one of its most outstanding citizens on Sunday evening. D'Army Bailey, who had served as a judge in circuit court for nearly two decades, was a national figure, recognized for such in The New York Times yesterday with a very large and meaningful obituary. D'Army Bailey was singularly responsible for the creation of the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. There was a time when the Lorraine Motel, which is the site of the National Civil Rights Museum and the site of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination, was going to be foreclosed and possibly demolished; but D'Army Bailey, then an attorney, saw that as wrong and knew that the National Civil Rights Museum should be built at the site of the assassination of Dr. King and that site should be preserved for generations for people to learn about civil rights and learn about Dr. King. He got together, Mr. Speaker, and raised money from individuals and the city of Memphis and was able to save the Lorraine from foreclosure demolition. He then put together the idea of the city, the county, and the State governments funding the beginnings of a national civil rights museum. There was private funding as well, but it was the initial work of D'Army Bailey coming to Nashville, where I was a State senator, and working to get Governor McWherter and the State legislature on board and then the city of Memphis and the county of Shelby. Now, there is a phoenix, having risen from the ashes, a great civil rights museum in Memphis, Tennessee; and there is one man who had the idea and refused to see the site destroyed and sought out the funding when people said it couldn't happen and made sure it happened. That was Judge D'Army Bailey--Judge D'Army Bailey. He was recognized because he spoke truth to power, and he spoke truth to power in Baton Rouge during the civil rights movement; in Berkeley when Berkeley was an evolving center of thought and questioning of values and where he was the city councilman; and on Beale Street, where he brought students to Memphis to march with Dr. King. Mr. Speaker, D'Army Bailey was a respected figure in the city of Memphis. He crossed all boundaries in the city, economic and racial, and all because of his gigantic intellect. Many Members in the House have asked me about his passing. He had an effect on this country and an effect on our city. His was a life well lived, and he will be missed.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, today is a proud day in the State of South Carolina and should be a proud day throughout the South in the United States of America, for the South Carolina legislature, under the direction of their Governor, took down the Confederate flag that flew on their capitol. It should be a proud day for all, for the South is much more than the flag, and the South has much to be proud of. But the flag symbolizes things that are not something the South should not be proud of. Patterson Hood, a member of a band called Drive-by Truckers, wrote a song called The Southern Thing and has a commentary in The New York Times Magazine this week, expressing why he hates hatred and sees the flag as divisive and why it should come down. It was the right thing to do. And the Mississippi State flag should come down, which has the rebel flag as part of its insignia and is in the halls of the Congress. That flag, as has been asked by Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Leader Pelosi, should also come down. Signs of treason, signs of hate, signs of racism have no place in the United States of America's halls of Congress and should come down.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of the observance of Juneteenth in the United States. Even though the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln in September 1862, it was not until June 19, 1865 that Union Soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger announced to the last slaves in Galveston, Texas, that they were free. This year also marks the 22nd annual Juneteenth Urban Music Festival in Memphis, Tennessee. To commemorate this day in our history and the contributions of African-Americans to our nation, the 2015 Juneteenth Urban Music Festival theme is: ``Celebrating 150 Years with Music.'' American music has long embodied influences of African culture, since the dark years of slavery when African instruments such as the banjo were introduced to America. Overtime, African Americans developed their own musical style on southern plantations that is now heard in nearly every genre of music, including gospel, blues, bluegrass, jazz, country and rock and roll. This is the true history of American music. The year's theme is an especially fitting one as Memphis has a rich musical history filled with contributions by African Americans. Memphis is home to Royal Studios, which was founded in 1957 and is one of the oldest recording studios in the world. Such talents as former owner and Memphian Willie Mitchell, Bobby Blue Bland, Ann Peebles, and Al Green have recorded hits at the studio. Most recently, the studio became the recording home of the 2015 Billboard Hot 100 chart topper, Uptown Funk, which held the number one spot for fourteen weeks. Memphis is also home to Stax Records, which is renowned for producing the sounds of Isaac Hayes, Booker T. & the M.G.'s, Otis Redding, Rufus and Carla Thomas, Mavis Staples, the Staple Singers, Lalah Hathaway, Albert King, the Bar-Kays and many more. Other well-known musicians to come out of Memphis include B.B. King, W.C. Handy, Ruby Wilson, Aretha Franklin, Kirk and Kenneth Whalum and the Oscar-winning rap group, Three 6 Mafia. The 2015 Juneteenth Urban Music Festival will honor Memphis' own, the Bar-Kays, with a Legendary Award. With their beginnings at Stax producing backup music for other Stax artists, the Bar-Kays found their own voice and have been credited for creating ``Black Rock,'' which is now known as ``Funk,'' and have recorded 29 albums, of which five went gold and one went platinum, as well as 20 top ten singles. Some include: ``Shake Your Rump To The Funk,'' ``Hit and Run,'' ``Freakshow On The Dance Floor,'' ``Move Your Boogie Body,'' and ``Soul Finger,'' which was used in the 1985 movie, Spies Like Us, the 2007 comedy, Superbad, and the 2012 remake of Sparkle. Last year, the Bar-Kays celebrated 50 years in the music industry and their music continues to be an inspiration to artists worldwide. Mr. Speaker, this is a time to reflect upon the end of slavery in America and to recognize the many influences of African American citizens. It is in this spirit that I ask my colleagues to join me in observing our nation's 150th anniversary of Juneteenth and the 22nd celebrations in Memphis.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, last week the International Air Transport Association recommended a new guideline that would reduce the size of carry-on luggage. The new carry-on size limit is 21 percent smaller than the size currently permitted by most major domestic airlines. Eight major international carriers have already adopted the new size limits, and the trade association is suggesting more airlines will be adopting it soon. If implemented by our domestic carriers, this will force consumers to spend more on checked baggage fees and/or purchase new luggage to meet this new guideline. Enough is enough. Airline passengers are tired of getting squeezed by airlines, both physically and fiscally. The seats are smaller, the legroom is less, the prices are more, and the profits are more. That is why I introduced the Carry-on Freedom Act. The bill would prohibit airlines who charge for checked baggage from reducing the size of carry-on baggage from the current size standards and would protect consumers from even more cost to travel. I urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and pass the Carry-on Freedom Act.