Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Bourbon is part of our religious practices?

Mr. COHEN. Wine. So make wine legal. How about bourbon and scotch and vodka and gin?

Mr. COHEN. The Department of Justice is correct to respect the laws of the States and to put an understanding that heroin and crack and cocaine and meth and prescription drugs are drugs that really cause the evils we have and the problems we have in society, that make people commit crimes to feed their habits. Marijuana does not make people commit crime. It makes them overeat. It doesn't make them commit crimes. And that is why we need to prioritize the resources we have in this country toward those drugs that really cause problems to others. I commend the Department of Justice for their discretion. They haven't gone as far as they should. And the laboratories of democracy, the States, as Louis Brandeis called them, are doing a great service to this country, in Colorado and Washington, to see how it works. They are bringing in millions and millions of dollars. Violent crime has gone down in Colorado. There have not been the problems alleged to have occurred in other areas. And we can wait and see how those States' experiments go. And the Department of Justice is allowing the experiment to go on for other States' benefits. And I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. COHEN. So should we make alcohol illegal again, that exercise in prohibition that was brought by this Congress, that was proved to be such a failure, that it was repealed later on? Should we make alcohol illegal because kids might get it? I submit to you, if you want to do that, you be the leader.

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, this is a very logical amendment that I hope will be accepted. What this does is it takes a program that the Department of Justice announced last week, that I have been encouraging the President and the Attorney General to engage in, and that is to expand the clemency department in the Department of Justice, so that individuals who are unjustly incarcerated can appropriately be recommended to the President for commutations and/or pardons. This Congress passed the fairness in sentencing law a few years ago. The President signed it in 2010, and it corrected what we found were errors in the judgment of this Congress in the way it incarcerated people and the distinctions of cocaine and crack and found that it had a disparate impact and an illogical impact on African Americans, that cocaine and crack are basically the same drug. For years, it was a 100 to 1 ratio in the quantity, working against what was considered a drug more likely to be used by African Americans than Caucasians. The fact is that each drug is equal in its pernicious effects on society, and that 100 to 1 ratio was wrong. We changed it to 18 to 1. It should be equal, but we changed it to 18 to 1. Accordingly, for the first time probably in the history of this body and maybe any legislative body, sentences were reduced, which means that the public policy of the United States of America is now that those people are being unjustly incarcerated. It was only passed in a prospective and not a retroactive fashion, which it should have been, because public policy shows they are being unjustly incarcerated. The President has seen the need to have more commutations and pardons. It costs us $30,000 a year to incarcerate an individual, and if people are in there on sentences that are void against public policy, they should be released. They should have a commutation when they have served their time according to the law that has existed in this country from 2010 to the present. It would reunite them with their families, get them back into society, and save the public the cost of incarcerating them. So what this particular amendment would do is take just $2 million from the Bureau of Prisons, which has a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Their budget is $7 billion, with a $121 million increase. It would take $2 million from the Bureau of Prisons which is one three-hundred-fiftieth of what the Bureau of Prisons gets, to put that money, not into the Bureau that would have these people where they are incarcerated unjustly, but to give the money to the Department of Justice, where they can ascertain which individuals should appropriately be recommended for commutations and save money for society and reunite people with their loved ones and give them freedom--freedom, which is so important--and liberty. Now, I know some of the amendments have been talked about and they said: well, we don't want to put any of the people in the Bureau of Prisons at risk. I would submit to you that by taking $2 million from the Bureau of Prisons and allowing more people to be recommended for commutations, there would be less people in prison, less need for those personnel, and less likely of having any problems. Beyond that, the Bureau of Prisons would see to it that $2 million didn't come from areas where prison guards would be endangered. They could take that from personnel. They could take it from management. They could take it from administration. They could take it even from the areas where the prisoners get their clothing or their food or whatever they get. I assure you that $2 million will not jeopardize a single member of the Bureau of Prisons, but it will give people freedom and liberty, at $30,000 a year for the taxpayers. So I would hope that we could approve this, give this newly invigorated Department of Justice office for commutations $23 million to hire more attorneys to make sure they make the right decisions and they make plentiful decisions to give people liberty and save the taxpayers money. I would ask for a positive vote, and thank you for the opportunity to present this amendment.

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, as we near the midnight hour, as Wilson Pickett would say: In the midnight hour, we drift off to ``Reefer Madness'' type of logic. We saw ``Reefer Madness'' in the thirties, and it has come back to Congress here 80-some-odd years later. The fact is we are not talking about marijuana for children. Children shouldn't be doing marijuana, nor should they be smoking tobacco, nor should they be drinking beer or alcohol. We are talking about adults, and we are talking about: Should adults who are behaving according to the laws in the States in which they live--and the States passed certain laws in Colorado and Washington concerning legalization, and in 20-some-odd States and the District of Columbia passed medical marijuana laws. Should those people who abide by the laws of the State, the laws that are closest to them, that some on the other side of the aisle would regularly say we should defer to the States and we should let the States set the policies for everybody--we do that on a lot of things, but we sometimes don't do it on these particular issues. The fact that people are being incarcerated in great numbers and losing their liberty and having a scarlet ``M'' put on their chest that denies them public housing on occasions, denies them scholarships, and denies them opportunities to work is wrong. Even if you take the arguments that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle makes, if you accept them, it still doesn't fit the punishment, the lifetime scarlet letter that you put on an individual.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this past week, the city of Memphis lost one of its greatest sons and leaders, Reverend Frank McRae. Reverend McRae was a Memphian who took urban ministry to a new position in the city of Memphis. Before Dr. King was assassinated April 4, 1968, he marched with the sanitation workers and Dr. King. After Dr. King was assassinated, he led a group of ministers to city hall to urge the mayor to settle the strife. He knew that the church needed to do good deeds and help people in a changing South and a changing America, and he helped found Friends for Life that dealt with people with HIV and AIDS. He helped found the Memphis Interfaith Association that provided food and clothing to people in need. And he turned his church into a place where they had soup kitchens and pantries, rather than a church of the most blessed and most privileged. He was a great man who made Memphis the ``city of good abode,'' as it is well known. He will be greatly missed. He leaves his wife, two children, and three stepchildren. I am fortunate to have known Frank McRae, and Memphis is fortunate he came our way.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, there is a special occasion in Memphis the month of May, and it is a celebration known as Memphis in May. The weather is great and the people have wonderful festivals. We had a music festival the first weekend, and this past weekend, the World Championship Barbecue Contest. There is no place in the world, even if my colleagues from North Carolina and Texas think so, that has real great American barbecue other than Memphis, Tennessee, and the champions were crowned there. Next weekend is the Sunset Symphony, which is the crowning jewel of the Memphis in May activities. The symphony will play on the river, and they will play the ``1812 Overture,'' play ``Old Man River,'' and have fireworks and a great aerial show. It is a great time to visit Memphis. It is a great time to experience Memphis. We honor a foreign country each year. This year it is the Republic of Panama. I congratulate Memphis in May on many years of bringing people together and extending the culture of the world to the city of Memphis and Memphis to the world as well.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. I rise in strong support of the Monuments Men Recognition Act. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her work on this bill, Ms. Granger, and for her kind thoughts and expressions of appreciation. It was a great honor to work with her and the gentleman from Massachusetts on this particular bill. I also had the opportunity to have some interchange with Robert Edsel, and not a finer gentleman and American is there. He wrote the original book that kind of talked about the Monuments Men, and he also, I guess, had something to do with the movie with George Clooney. That helped to bring a measure of fame to these brave men and women, but the United States Congress should go further and bring this official honor to them for their work in preserving our cultural heritage. Over the last few years since I have been in Congress, and my first term was 2007, the Monuments Men seemed to be a continual presence in my service. In 2007, my first year, I was proud to support a resolution honoring them. In a ceremony on the Senate side that I went to, I had the fortune to meet Mr. Edsel, who told their story, but also to meet a few of the surviving Monuments Men. Then I saw the movie this past year and my admiration and interest in what they had done, their courage and their contribution to the world's culture was deepened. I went back and I looked at my book, and I saw Mr. Edsel's card and a letter he had sent me after we had spoken, and I called him and said I wanted to help. Then I contacted Ms. Granger and went to work to help line up sponsors for this particular bill. The mass genocide carried out by Hitler and the Nazis is incomparable and their crimes unimaginable. We think of concentration camps and mass killings, but their efforts to destroy cultural artifacts was an extension of that tragedy and that horror. It is important to remember that Hitler didn't want to just annihilate the Jews and other disfavored populations; he wanted to erase all traces of these people from the planet. That included their so-called ``degenerate'' art. Art which I saw in the book included some of the great artists of all time. I think it was Toulouse-Lautrec maybe had a coloring of how he did his colors. Hitler thought that it was degenerate because the grass was blue and the sky was green, and he thought for some reason that was degenerate. Well, it was art. Fortunately, the Monuments Men had the foresight and heroism to prevent them from being successful. As we recognize the Monuments Men, it is a good time to reflect on what art means to us in our lives. Art shines a spotlight on who we are and who we wish to be and how we want to be remembered. When we destroy it, we destroy an essential part of ourselves, our culture, and our society, and we destroy that for future generations to learn of us. The Monuments Men did more than just preserve these paintings that could hang in a museum; they preserved our heritage, and for that we are forever grateful. With only five members of the Monuments Men alive today, we should act quickly to give them the honor and recognition they richly deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I thank Ms. Granger and Mr. Capuano for their leadership.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and achievements of life-long Memphian Chandra Diane Champion-Walker, who passed away Wednesday, March 19, 2014. Chandra Champion-Walker was born on December 30, 1959, and was the first-born daughter of Dr. Charles and Carolyn Bailey Champion, the owners of Champion's Pharmacy and Herb Store on Elvis Presley Boulevard in Memphis, Tennessee. She attended Father Bertrand Elementary School and graduated from Memphis Catholic High School in 1977. She furthered her education by attending Memphis State University, Talladega College and Lemoyne-Owen College, where she graduated in 1983 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Business Administration. Following in the footsteps of her family, Chandra became a Certified Pharmacy Technician and joined the family business in delivering pharmaceutical and alternative medicines to the people of Memphis. Her father, Dr. Champion, a renowned herbal pharmacist, referred to her as his ``Rock'' and has received many prestigious awards with her by his side. These include the Bowl of Hygeia Award for outstanding community service by a pharmacist and the 1987 Pharmacist of the Year Award. Chandra proved to be a woman capable of showing endless love and affection for all people who entered her life. She was a selfless giver and was always willing to help a friend in need. It was said that she always thought about how to take care of and make things better for others--never about how to take advantage of any situation for her own gain. Such compassion for others is rare among people and all who knew her are fortunate to have been able to call her a friend. Chandra Diane Champion-Walker leaves behind her husband, Jeffrey Lind Walker; her children, Charles Edwin Champion and Jessica Michelle- Lynne Walker; her parents, Carolyn Bailey and Dr. Charles Champion; her adoptive grandmother, Bernice Sullen; two sisters, Dr. Charita ``Ricky'' Champion Brookins and Dr. Carol ``Cookie'' Champion; one niece, Rikki Charee Brookins, and many other loving friends and family throughout Memphis. She was eulogized at Mt. Olive Cathedral C.M.E. Church in Memphis, which she joined as a young child. The city of Memphis has lost a beloved member of the community and the difference she made each and every day will be remembered. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Chandra Diane Champion-Walker. Hers was a life well-lived.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 13 individuals who broke the barrier of segregation in the Memphis City Schools on October 3, 1961. Formally known as the ``Memphis 13,'' these trailblazers of integration were the first African-American students to be enrolled in the all-white Memphis City Schools system at a time when institutional desegregation was widely criticized. The challenges and accomplishments of these courageous Memphians have been recognized across the country thanks to the work of University of Memphis Law Professor Daniel Kiel in his 2011 documentary, ``The Memphis 13.'' Almost 53 years ago, 13 first-grade students bravely entered the doors of Bruce, Gordon, Rozelle and Springdale Elementary Schools. These students, Sheila Malone Conway, E.C. Freeman Fentress, Alvin Freeman, Deborah Holt, Dwania Kyles, Sharon Malone, Pamela Mayes, Jacqueline Moore, Joyce Bell White, Leandrew Wiggins, Clarence Williams, Harry Williams and Michael Willis (Menelik Fombi), were some of America's bravest civil rights' activists, even at such young ages. At a time when the nation was witnessing widespread segregation and animosity towards African-Americans who desired equal opportunities, these young civil rights leaders and their families made a choice to take a step towards equality for all. Before the momentous actions of the ``Memphis 13,'' Memphis City Schools had never before afforded African-American students the opportunity to receive a fair and full education. This pioneering instance of school integration went forth with little public discussion or advanced news attention. Because of the heartfelt work of Professor Daniel Kiel and his documentary, the stories of these children, who dared to receive an equal education in a desegregated school system, are now being heard by communities throughout the country. As a strong believer in the importance of education, I cannot thank enough the ``Memphis 13'' for blazing the trail for other African- American students to receive the education they deserve and Daniel Kiel for telling their story. The selfless actions by the ``Memphis 13'' paved a way for students to receive an equal education in Memphis and across the nation. The difference that these legends made will always be remembered and celebrated by the city of Memphis. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring the ``Memphis 13.''

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2919, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, also known as the Longworth 1004 Act. This bipartisan legislation makes a modest, but important improvement to the Equal Access to Justice Act, also known as EAJA. That Act, which was enacted in 1980, allows parties, under certain circumstances, to be awarded attorneys' fees and court costs when they prevail in litigation against the United States. EAJA enables ordinary citizens, such as veterans, senior citizens, and advocates for clean air and clean water, to fight unfair or illegal government actions without fear of the court costs involved. Over the years, the Act has succeeded, but since 1995, when certain reporting requirements were eliminated, we have had no reliable data on how much money the government has awarded in these proceedings. The public has a right to know how taxpayer funds are used, and Congress ought to be able to assess the impact and effectiveness of EAJA. To address this failing, H.R. 2919 would require the Administrative Conference of the United States, or ACUS, a highly respected nonpartisan agency, to prepare an annual report for Congress on the fees and costs awarded in these cases. The reports would also include the number and nature of the claims involved. The Conference would also be required to establish a publicly accessible, searchable database with this information, as well as the case name, the agency involved, and the basis of the award. I am very pleased to sponsor this bill along with the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), who has done a great job bringing this to this floor, shepherding it through to, hopefully, passage and becoming law. We have worked on a bipartisan basis to address this issue. H.R. 2919 represents a compromise with respect to a broader bill related to EAJA which Mrs. Lummis previously introduced. It is an excellent example of what happens when there is bipartisan cooperation. This legislation will promote greater transparency with respect to our government and provide valuable information for Congress and our citizens. It exemplifies the bipartisan cooperation we are capable of in this Chamber. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is nice to see a Tennessean in the chair. James Knox Polk might have been the last one who was more permanent as Speaker of the House. Yes, it is good to see you. To my friend, Mr. Chabot, it is an honor to rise and to cosponsor this bill with you and with Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Conyers. Madam Speaker, I do rise in support of H.R. 4292, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act, also known as the FCEJIC Act. This makes a modest, but important amendment to the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Specifically, it ensures that foreign states are immune from suits for damages concerning the ownership of cultural property when that property is in the United States pursuant to an agreement between the foreign state and the U.S. or a U.S.-based cultural or educational institution, when the President has granted the work at issue immunity from seizure pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act, and when the President's grant of immunity from seizure is published in the Federal Register. The expropriation exception remains available to all claims concerning misappropriated cultural property to which these factual circumstances do not apply. Additionally, H.R. 4292 ensures that the expropriation exception remains available for all Nazi-era claims. This is appropriate in light of the particularly concerted effort of the Nazis to seize artwork and other cultural property from citizens at that time, victims of the Holocaust and others. There have been quite a few movies recently about some of the people in our armed services who helped rescue some of that artwork, which is to be commended, and it really brought out the horrific things in that area that the Nazis did. They did so many horrific things, but they just wanted to destroy all culture, so any artwork that might be part of those claims would still be available. With this finely and narrowly tailored amendment, we will have more opportunities to see art from Europe and from around the world. It is important to have exchanges of culture, so that people around the world understand the other cultures and so that it maybe makes the planet a little more safe. I support the bill as I understand that it still makes available redress for those who committed acts of expropriation during the Nazi era. I thank Mr. Chabot, who is my friend and who has done a great job, and we hope to keep the river flowing and the Delta Queen alive. I thank the Judiciary Committee chairman, Bob Goodlatte, and our ranking member, the esteemed John Conyers, for their leadership. I urge the House to pass the bill, and I would like to offer for the Record a letter from the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, which speaks for itself, and for the American Jewish Congress in their stating that they would not oppose the passage of this bill. Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Inc. New York, NY, December 19, 2013. Mr. Timothy Rub, President, Association of Art Museum Directors, The George D. Widener Director and CEO, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, PA. Dear Mr. Rub, Anita Difanis has now sent us the language of the most recent draft of the immunity bill (the ``Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act'') that the AAMD is asking be introduced to the Congress. We have reviewed the points that concerned us, namely those in regard to Nazi Era claims. While we are not persuaded of the need for this special legislation, we have no objection to it. The American Jewish Committee concurs with this view. Sincerely yours, Greg Schneider, Executive Vice-President.

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

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, in closing, I just want to comment that Mr. Goodlatte's committee has now produced this bill and the next bill, the Lummis-Cohen bill, and we came together to work against sex trafficking last week. So the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Mr. Goodlatte, is starting to produce a lot of good, bipartisan legislation. I commend him for that work, and I hope we see more of it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman said was a one-size-fits- all answer. The fact is, when I first spoke on a similar amendment about the DEA and marijuana, it was about a gentleman named Oral James Mitchell, Jr., a Navy SEAL who served this country in Vietnam and died in 1996 of pancreatic cancer. He violated the law in 1996 in the State of Maryland because he used marijuana to ease his nausea. Also, as his mother said: It is the only thing that allows Oral to smile and to eat. He didn't like the Marinol. He said it didn't do as much good as smoking marijuana. When we are talking about somebody who has cancer and wants to use marijuana to improve the condition they are in and suffering from the nausea--and there is a lot of evidence that it is better than Marinol-- then we don't have to worry about the situations that the doctor mentioned about possibly causing somebody heart disease over a period of years, which we know tobacco does and it is sold all around and legal. We are talking about saving people pain, and we are talking about a VA doctor being able to distinguish between allowing somebody who might be in the last months or years of life and alleviating their pain with one of the best agents known to man to do that, rather than a situation where somebody might be young. We don't have that many veterans who are as young as the AMA study discussed and their ability to think. That was talking about kids who were teenagers. They are not veterans. I would submit that there are times the doctor should have discretion. We are not talking about the doctor dispensing marijuana. We are talking about a directive from the Federal Government prohibiting the doctor from saying: I think like Dr. Fleming, and I don't think that you should use marijuana, I don't think you should go to another physician if you could afford it outside the VA system and try to get him to give you a directive to where you can go and get marijuana. This prohibits the VA doctor from allowing Dr. Fleming, if he worked at the VA, to tell his patient not to do it. The VA doctor should be able to speak the truth. This is censorship by our Federal Government--a directive--which I think most of the people on the other side of the aisle have certainly been against Federal Government influence in medical policies and have done all they can to stop the Federal Government from influencing medical decisions. Here is a situation where you are saying the doctor should be censored. There is a lot of evidence that medical cannabis helps, but particularly with nausea. I know the Chair knows people in east Tennessee, as I know in Memphis, who have contacted me and asked me to allow them to be able to get medical marijuana. They can't do it in Tennessee yet. They would like to do it in Tennessee at the veterans' hospitals, but where it is legal in the State, the doctor should not be muzzled and censored. This Congress should be in favor of the freedom of speech and in favor of the doctor being able to use their best efforts to help their patients and exercise their Hippocratic oath to do what they think is best, which may be to say no. I yield to Mr. Blumenauer to add to this discussion because he was exactly right. This doesn't say anything about dispensing marijuana. It doesn't say you are for marijuana. It simply says you allow the VA doctor to exercise their judgment.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider the nomination by President Obama of Ms. Sheryl Lipman to be a district court judge in the Western District of Tennessee. Yesterday, with less than 60 votes, cloture was lifted in the Senate. Ms. Lipman will assuredly be confirmed by the Senate today. She is an outstanding jurist whom I recommended to the President. She was counsel to the University of Memphis, an esteemed attorney in private practice, and the executive director of Diversity Memphis, a group that brings people together. She was recommended by a bipartisan group of ad hoc lawyers in Memphis as the highest-qualified person seeking the position. She will serve the district well. I commend President Obama for his nomination, and I thank Senators Alexander and Corker for their bipartisanship in voting for the lifting of cloture, voting for her today, and helping this nomination come about.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding, and I appreciate the whip for bringing this hour to the attention of Members of Congress and the opportunity to speak on this historic 20th anniversary of this slaughter. I had the opportunity to visit Rwanda in the company of one of the great men who served in this House, Congressman Donald Payne of New Jersey. Congressman Payne had made several trips to Rwanda and several trips to Africa. We visited the memorial there to the victims, which is a very special place in the world, burial spots and flowers and plaques and the museum company there, too. It made a great impression on me, and it would make a great impression on anybody. One thing that came out of the trip was my realization that today, in Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis get along and that what was horrific 20 years ago, in one of the most horrific ethnic cleansings--or attempted ethnic cleansings and hate, atrocities, murders, over time, the Rwandan people have overcome them. The distinctions are no longer present, and the people do get along. Obviously, because of the horrific situation, there is an imbalance in the populations, and I am sure there are still some memories; but we do need to learn, as I am sure has been said, about when we turn to thinking of other people as different because we are all the same. There was a time a little after this, I think it was about 1999, when I was at Union Station. President Clinton was there, and we had some time to talk, and he related how the Human Genome Project that Dr. Francis Collins--now the head of the NIH--was heading up and how that we are all 99.96 percent the same, and we are. He mentioned the Hutus and the Tutsis and how they were just so, so, so, so, so alike, but the minor differences that were visible caused them to have this awful, awful, horrific genocide. It pained President Clinton. Whip Hoyer mentioned that this is something that he brought up before, that it was a mistake while he was President not to intervene. It was right after the difficulty that we had in Mogadishu with the helicopter and the way the American soldiers were killed and horrifically treated in the streets of Mogadishu by the Somali groups there. It was a reticence to get involved in another situation in Africa, and it is a tight line sometimes to determine when you go in and when you don't. Well, the President made a mistake there, as he has admitted over the years. If we look at other situations that might present themselves to us, as Members of Congress, we have to realize the United States of America has a special place in the world. We are the only country that has the ability to see that mankind doesn't engage in horrific genocides again, so when the opportunity for the United States to get involved and prevent a slaughter, prevent a genocide, the United States has a responsibility. Inasmuch as it is difficult after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to commit our troops to action when situations like Rwanda present themselves, it is incumbent upon us, I think, to support--whoever is the President--in taking the proper actions to preserve humanity. So I thank Whip Hoyer for calling for this hour and Mr. Cleaver for leading it, and I just wanted to add my thoughts and my reflections after having visited Rwanda with a great Member of Congress, Donald Payne.