Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Memphian, saxophonist, manager and promoter Cato Walker III. Mr. Walker has been on the music scene in Memphis for many decades and was a huge proponent in the revitalization of Memphis's Beale Street. He also served as the longtime vice president of development at Performa Entertainment Real Estate. Cato Walker III was a beloved member of the Memphis music community. Mr. Walker came from a very musically talented and well-known family, and he and his family have contributed so much to the musical community. His father, Cato Walker, Jr. was B.B. King's original road manager in the 1950s while his beloved mother, Polly Walker, confirmed all show bookings and travel arrangements. Cato Walker III, continuing his family's legacy with B.B. King, became the band leader and road manager during the late 1970s. He also later worked with Lou Rawls, The Barkays and J. Blackfoot. Mr. Walker has influenced future musicians through his work by teaching recording at the Kansas Vocational Technical Center and as an adjunct professor at Memphis State University. Through running his own record label, Strick 9, he helped advance the musical careers of many contemporary Memphis musicians, including Academy Award winning group Three 6 Mafia. Cato Walker has touched the lives of many and influenced a great variety of musicians from the 1970s to today. Mr. Walker will be remembered forever in the heart of not just his family and friends, but also Memphians and musicians everywhere. He is survived by his wife, VanEsta Walker, two sons, Tondtrict Dixon, and Dietrich Dixon, stepson, Ahmed Jenkins, stepdaughter, Angela Cunningham, and sisters, Lora Walker, Thelma Brim and Joanna Brown. His was a life well lived.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Chairman Upton's dirty air act. In 2007, the Supreme Court issued the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, directing the EPA to examine greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the public health. EPA conducted a highly credible, peer-reviewed scientific analysis under the Bush EPA and the Obama EPA, both concluding that greenhouse gases harm our health. This was not a political analysis; it was a scientific analysis. But that has not stopped the chairman from trying to legislatively undermine scientific fact. According to the EPA, President Nixon's Clean Air Act will prevent 230,000 premature deaths and result in $2 trillion in economic benefits in 2020. But, Chairman Upton has decided, with much help from corporate polluters' lobbyists, that the fiscal and physical well-being of the American people are less important than Big Oil's importance and Big Oil's billion dollar bottom line next quarter. The bottom line for America is that undermining EPA science will cost trillions.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the majority has now been in power for 10 weeks and has yet to offer a plan for job creation. Instead, they have chosen to ignore the warnings of economists from across the political spectrum and are promoting a continuing resolution that threatens to derail and reverse our Nation's recovery. Instead of slashing programs that are vital to job creation and economic growth, we need to carefully examine the budget and eliminate all wasteful spending. That is why I am introducing the Surface Transportation Earmark Recision, Savings and Accountability Act of 2011, and I'd ask for bipartisan support on this. This legislation will reduce the deficit by $584 million by rescinding unspent funds authorized by Federal transportation projects requested by Members of Congress that date back to 1978. Instead of eliminating research at the National Institutes of Health or eliminating funding to protect our air and water, let's focus on elimination of wasteful, unnecessary spending. I encourage you to work with me to include this language in the continuing resolution.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is located in Memphis, Tennessee. It is, according to U.S. News and World Report, the world's greatest children's and catastrophic illness research hospital. The Republican budget that passed this House talks about a lot of issues, but it cuts $2.5 billion from the President's requests for the National Institute of Health, $2.5 billion less than the President recommends, and a $1.6 billion cut from last year. For the children and the adults and everyone who has cancer and needs a cure, which they are finding with the help of the NIH and St. Jude and other research hospitals, that's a death sentence. People will die. If there is a place the Republicans should not cut, Mr. Speaker, it's at NIH grants to find cures for cancer, for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, for diabetes, for heart disease. I ask you for the living Americans to not cut grants to the National Institute of Health and let us have lives that go further than they otherwise would because of these crippling, catastrophic illnesses.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I want to thank Ranking Member Rahall for the time. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2011. Last Friday, I was in Millington, Tennessee and I joined with Chairman Mica and Mr. Fincher on a transportation bill listening session. Chairman Mica went all across the country listening to folks on the needs of transportation. We heard from all kinds of folks saying how important this is for the future of our country, getting goods to market, and improving our infrastructure. The listening session focused on those needs of a new surface transportation authorization. And while this legislation is just another extension of SAFETEA-LU, it is important that we act quickly and extend the surface transportation authorization before it expires on Friday. My hope is that H.R. 662 will be the final short-term extension Congress uses to extend SAFETEA-LU because this country needs a comprehensive, long-term surface transportation authorization. Chairman Mica has promised everybody on the tour that we're not going to have more extensions, that we're going to pass a bill just like we did with the FAA reauthorization. Seven extensions was enough. We need to move this country forward and get those programs started. By continuing to extend SAFETEA-LU and not passing a new authorization, Congress has created uncertainty in the transportation sector which has limited the ability to invest in a crumbling infrastructure network. The importance of immediate passage cannot be emphasized enough. Not only will reauthorization create millions of quality jobs--jobs that are needed by Americans now and that have been neglected thus far in Congress--and provide States and MPOs a known, dedicated funding stream, but it will also address the dire need for investment in the Nation's transportation system. In the 2012 Department of Transportation budget proposal, President Obama lays out a bold vision for a surface transportation authorization. The President understands the United States will not maintain its mantle as the greatest Nation in the world without an intermodal transportation system that enables America to compete in the 21st century global economy. To that end, the President has called for a $556 billion, 6-year surface transportation authorization that includes a $50 billion ``up front'' economic boost to jump-start job creation. Jobs. As the President said in his State of the Union, now is not the time to stand pat. This is why I believe we need to pass a surface transportation bill that increases revenue, makes a significant investment in maintaining existing infrastructure, and spurs development of innovative infrastructure networks such as high-speed rail and aerotropolis transportation systems. I appreciate Chairman Mica including aerotropolis language in the FAA reauthorization bill and look forward to seeing that same language included in the surface transportation reauthorization act which was discussed in Memphis. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, ``We must win the future, not eat it.'' I look forward to working with Chairman Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, and Ranking Members Rahall and DeFazio in seeing that we pass a comprehensive surface transportation authorization that strengthens our infrastructure, spurs innovation, creates jobs, ensures safety and wins the future. We are winners.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, by recklessly slashing more than $60 billion from the budget, the Republican majority is trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Yes, fiscal. Sometimes we in politics have problems with pronunciations, and sometimes we have problems with concepts. There are two ``fiscals.'' There is the ``fiscal'' dealing with dollars, F-I-S-C-A-L, and there is the ``physical,'' P-H-Y-S-I-C- A-L. They are trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Within the $60 billion, there are certainly some cuts that should be made that would be cost effective, and there are other cuts that weren't made that should have been made from the Defense Department, farm subsidies and other places. Many of the programs that were cut or that were severely underfunded are programs that have a significant financial return. In fact, many of these underfunded or eliminated programs actually save the government far more money than they cost. Penny wise and pound foolish. So the Republican claims that they are saving the Federal Government more than $60 billion is simply untrue. Yes, they are eliminating $60 billion from the budget, but in reality they are increasing the deficit in other areas that do not appear in the budget--or certainly not this year. As Paul Krugman would say: Eat the future or lose the future. They're not concerned about the future. It's about today; and if it's the future, it's the 2012 election. The problem is that the Republicans' so-called ``budget hawks'' fail to look at this holistically. The only costs they see are numbers on a page that they want to hold up as talking points. This slide shows some of the cuts. The Food and Drug Administration received funding $241 million below 2010 and $400 million below the administration's 2011 budget request. That's the Food and Drug Administration. Remember thalidomide babies? Remember Fen-Phen? Remember the problems with meat, chicken, poultry, and spinach? Food Safety and Inspection Service: It makes cuts of $88 million below the 2010 funding levels and $107 million below the administration's 2011 budget request. The National Institutes of Health: Cuts appropriations for the NIH by $1.6 billion below FY 2010 and $2.5 billion below the President's budget. You know the National Institutes of Health--they're trying to find cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes and cancer. Oh, let's cut them by $1.6 billion. Clean drinking water: The Republican bill slashes the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent. EPA: The bill includes an undesignated $300 million recision to EPA. Medicare: Cuts appropriations for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by $458 million below fiscal year 2010 and $634 million below the President's budget request. However, what they failed to consider are the benefits associated with these costs, many of which generally exceed the cost. And by failing to consider money saved, the Republicans are increasing the deficit and increasing cost. Nowhere is this failure in fiscal policy more apparent than when it comes to the physical health of the American people. The Republican's continuing resolution will increase the deficit dramatically as a result of unseen health care costs associated with the degradation of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Now the physical impact of the Republican cuts. The FDA: $241 million. The Republican majority is working to undo this historic improvement and reduce food safety by cutting FDA's food safety programs by about $241 million. In the United States, an estimated 76 million people get sick each year with food-borne illnesses and 5,000 die, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All of the medical costs and economic losses associated with food-borne illnesses add up to a staggering price of $152 billion, says the Pew Charitable Trusts. By slashing funding from the FDA's food safety programs, more and more people will get sick, and the $152 billion annual pricetag is going to climb even higher. That doesn't sound like a responsible physical or fiscal policy to me. Clean water: Although more than 70 percent of the Earth is covered in water, only about 1 percent of all the water on the planet is safe to drink. H.R. 1 will reduce that 1 percent by allowing major corporations and developers to pump toxins into our water, and by failing to invest in the necessary infrastructure to maintain, treat, and deliver safe drinking water. It reduces the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent, a program that leverages significant private finances by providing low and no-interest loans to States to fund drinking water infrastructure improvement projects. Leaking pipes and deteriorating mains lead to costly bacteria contamination and cause chronic health problems to thousands of Americans. As you can see, the physical health of our Nation is being threatened, not just the fiscal health. We need to be concerned about the physical health of our children and be concerned about how the long-term effects of this will be.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, by recklessly slashing more than $60 billion from the budget, the majority is trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility. They claim that $60 billion in cuts creates $60 billion in savings and deficit reduction. But this claim is simply untrue, for many of the underfunded or eliminated programs actually save the government far more money than they cost. These cuts are penny wise but pound foolish. By eliminating funding for these cost saving programs, the majority is not reducing spending; they are increasing it. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, the majority's cuts are designed to eat the future by cutting spending in a way that undermines the nation's health and long-term prospects. Nowhere is this failure in fiscal policy more apparent than when it comes to the physical health of the American people. H.R. 1 cuts $60 billion in Fiscal Year 2011 spending, but it increases the deficit dramatically as a result of unseen healthcare costs associated with the degradation of the food we eat, water we drink, and air we breathe. Moreover, H.R. 1 slashes the National Institute of Health's funding for research to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and cancer. I believe that it is morally objectionable to leverage our physical health for perceived short-term fiscal and political health. But that is exactly what H.R. 1 does. It allows the majority to fulfill a political promise made during the last campaign. But in doing so, the majority is undermining the long-term health of our citizens and our country by: Cutting funds for the Food and Drug Administration by $241 million below 2010 and $400 million below the Administration's 2011 budget request. Cutting funds for the Food Safety and Inspection Service by $88 million below 2010 funding levels and $107 million below the Administration's 2011 budget request. Cutting appropriations for the National Institutes of Health by $1.6 billion below FY 2010 and $2.5 billion below the President's budget. Cutting funds for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent. Cutting funds for the Environmental Protection Agency by $3 billion, a nearly 30 percent cut from spending in 2010 and the largest percentage cut in EPA's overall budget in 30 years. Cutting appropriations for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by $458 million below FY 2010 and $634 million below the President's budget request. These fiscal cuts have severe physical impacts on the American people and jeopardize the health and well-being of our children. H.R. 1 cuts funding for the Food and Drug Administration's ability to test and regulate medical drugs. It is counterintuitive to think that drugs that people take to cure illnesses may actually create more health problems than they solve. But that is an unfortunate experience that many Americans know all too well. For instance, thousands of Americans took the weight loss drug Fen-phen only to find out years later that it caused severe heart problems and had killed people who had taken the drug for only a short period. The sad truth is that Fen-phen is only one example of a drug that did not undergo the necessary FDA testing and scrutiny, and H.R. 1 will ensure that many more medical drugs receive similar inadequate levels of review. Cutting spending for testing and regulating drugs does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future. I believe it is important for parents to be confident that the food they feed their children is making them healthier and not killing them. Unfortunately that is not the case. In the last year alone, we have had food recalls for spinach, peanuts, chicken, eggs, and dozens of other foods. It was not long ago that millions of Americans were combing through their pantries throwing away anything containing peanut butter. This feverish action was a result of a salmonella contamination that claimed the lives of 8 individuals and poisoned more than 500 Americans in 43 states, half of which were children. And it was only a few years ago that E. coli in spinach was responsible for 5 deaths and more than 200 hospitalizations. The American people deserve better. They deserve the peace of mind of knowing the food they eat and feed their children is safe. But by slashing millions of dollars for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, H.R. 1 denies the American people that peace of mind. In 2010 alone, an estimated 76 million people got sick with foodborne illness and 5,000 individuals died because of the food they ate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cutting spending that would prevent many of these deaths and illnesses is not fiscally or physically responsible. It is eating our future. The irony of H.R. 1 is that not only does it make the American people sicker, but it dramatically cuts funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop cures for diseases, instances of which will increase as a result of H.R. 1's attack on safe food, water, and air. The NIH conducts cutting edge research to cure the diseases that plague millions of Americans, from infants to seniors. Nearly every American has watched a friend or loved one fight Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or cancer or has fought one of these life-threatening battles first-hand. For years, Congress has provided NIH the necessary tools to help people win these battles. But H.R. 1 stops NIH in its tracks by cutting funding for research that would save American lives. That does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future. Although more than 70 percent of the earth is covered in water, only about 1 percent of all the water on the planet is safe to drink. H.R. 1 would reduce that 1 percent by allowing major corporations and developers to pump toxins into our water and by failing to invest in the necessary infrastructure to maintain, treat, and deliver safe drinking water. H.R. 1 reduces the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent, a program that provides low and no-interest loans to states to fund drinking water infrastructure improvement projects. Already too many Americans are suffering from lead poisoning and chronic diarrhea as a result of antiquated infrastructure. We cannot afford to exacerbate the rate of these serious health threats by cutting funding to maintain and repair our water infrastructure. Doing so, does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future. H.R. 1 eliminates several million dollars of funding for EPA to implement revised standards for the amount of mercury, lead, and other toxic air pollutants that cement plants across the country can emit into the air we breathe. These revised standards will safeguard the American people from breathing air that will harm their brains, hearts, lungs, and livers. But H.R. 1 strips EPA of any funding to implement this life-saving standard. Mercury and lead target the developing brains of children and can cause devastating brain damage and death. Millions of American children already suffer from debilitating asthma and brain damage as a result of the dirty air they breathe. H.R. 1 does not try to clean the air; it makes the air even dirtier and exposes more children to air that will impact their health for the rest of their life or in some cases kill them. According to EPA, these standards will save more than 2,500 lives a year and prevent 50,000 new cases of asthma and respiratory symptoms. But H.R. 1 cuts these funds. That does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future. H.R. 1 will also increase the number of individuals in hospitals and doctors' offices as a result of illnesses related to polluted air, dirty water, and bacteria-filled food. And the kicker is that H.R. 1 will make these medical trips more expensive for these individuals and for the government. By eliminating funding for critical components of the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans will not have access to affordable insurance to cover their respiratory medications to remedy the polluted air they breathe. Parents will have to pay out of pocket-- if they can pay at all--for the treatment their children receive thanks to the E. coli in the hamburger they had for dinner. And seniors will no longer have access to free preventative care visits, which are imperative to detect possible ailments caused by inhaling harmful toxins with every breath. Worse than any of these medical costs is the heartache associated with the tens of thousands of deaths that will occur as a result of the dirtier air, water, and food every American will be consuming thanks to H.R. 1. It is clear that the American people will not be able to afford these costs, so this financial burden will continue to increase our deficit. That does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy. It is eating our future. The Republican majority is touting H.R. 1 as a fiscally responsible budget. Sure it looks nice on paper when you take the $60 billion dollars in cuts as $60 billions in savings. But by looking a bit deeper into the programs being cut, one can recognize that many of these cuts will end up costing the federal government billions of dollars. Not to mention that H.R. 1 will reduce the physical health and wellness of millions of Americans. I urge the majority to go back to the drawing board and create a truly cost-saving budget that looks at cost holistically. I encourage them to create a budget that not only restores the fiscal health of this nation but the physical health as well. And I strongly recommend that we develop a budget that wins the future rather than eats it.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, today is the last day of Black History Month, a month when we reflect back on African Americans who have contributed so much to our country and our world. One man whose life encapsulates the African American struggle was Thurgood Marshall. George Stevens produced a play called ``Thurgood'' at the Kennedy Center. The play has been put to film on HBO. I think it's still available on HBO; at least on demand. It is the story of a man who was committed to justice. Through the NAACP, he argued Brown v. Board of Education, the most significant civil rights case, maybe the most significant Supreme Court case of all time. He became the first African American solicitor general in this country and the first African American Supreme Court justice and served honorably on that court. He was a man that never forgot where he came from. His responsibility and duty to see that he carried on justice and the fights that he carried with him as an attorney and on the court to see that social justice and America became the country that was promised in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence but had not become except through Supreme Court rulings. Thank God for Thurgood Marshall. I urge everybody to watch George Stevens' production on HBO and learn about this great man's life.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate jazz saxophonist Kirk Whalum for receiving the 2011 Grammy Award from The Recording Academy for Best Gospel Song. The award winning song, ``It's What I Do,'' is from his album, The Gospel According to Jazz Chapter III. Kirk Whalum, a Memphian, is the son of the late Reverend Kenneth Whalum, Sr., and Dr. Rosie Whalum. The Whalum family is known for their musical, spiritual and community involvement in the Memphis area. In addition to receiving the Grammy Award, Mr. Whalum was named the President and Chief Financial Officer of the Memphis-based Soulsville Foundation in April of 2010. Mr. Whalum has been part of the music community for many years, and it is great to see him be recognized for his tremendous talents. Over the years, he has received multiple Grammy nominations and has won many other awards. He has received two Dove Award nominations, a NAACP Image Awards nomination and has won two Stellar Awards. In addition to his awards, Mr. Whalum has worked with impressive musical artists including Barbara Streisand, Al Jarreau, Luther Vandross, Larry Carlton, Quincy Jones and Whitney Houston. Kirk Whalum and the Whalum family are no strangers when it comes to community service and musical talent. His father was a prominent minister at Memphis's Olivet Baptist Church and also served two terms on the Memphis City Council. Kirk Whalum's brother, Reverend Kenneth Whalum, Jr., took over their father's post at the Memphis church and is also the father of recognized saxophonist, Kenneth T. Whalum III. Kevin Whalum, the third Whalum brother, is known for his talents as a jazz vocalist. Kirk Whalum's uncle, Hugh ``Peanuts'' Whalum, is a recognized singer, composer and multi-instrumentalist. Kirk Whalum is a true ambassador of the city of Memphis. He is doing great things with his new post at the Soulsville Foundation, which oversees the Stax Museum of American Soul Music, the Stax Music Academy and The Soulsville Charter School. Through the Soulsville Foundation, he is able to further enrich the musical talents of the youth in Memphis and serve as a mentor to budding musicians. His dedication to music and musical talent has led him to receive not only many awards but has earned him much deserved accolades from the music community. Mister Speaker, I ask the House to join me in congratulating Kirk Whalum for receiving the 2011 Grammy Award for Best Gospel Song.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 19th anniversary of the Khojaly massacre by Armenian forces on February 25-26, 1992 in the town of Khojaly in the Nagorno Karabagh region of Azerbaijan. Khojaly, now under the occupation of Armenian forces, was the site of the largest killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians. Khojaly, once the home to 7,000 people, was completely destroyed. Six hundred thirteen people were killed, of which 106 were women, 83 were children and 56 were purported to have been killed with extreme cruelty and torture. In addition, 1,275 people were taken hostage, 150 went missing and 487 people became disabled. Also in the records maintained, 76 of the victims were teenagers, 8 families were wiped out and 25 children lost both of their parents while 130 lost one of their parents. According to Human Rights Watch and other international observers, the Armenian armed forces were reportedly aided by the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment. At the time, Newsweek magazine reported: ''Azerbaijan was a charnel house again last week: a place of mourning refugees and dozens of mangled corpses dragged to a makeshift morgue behind the mosque. They were ordinary Azerbaijani men, women and children of Khojaly, a small village in war-torn Nagorno-Karabakh overrun by Armenian forces on 25- 26 February. Many were killed at close range while trying to flee; some had their faces mutilated, others were scalped.'' As part of the Khojaly population that tried to escape, they encountered violent ambushes that led to abuses, torture, mutilation and death. The Russian organization, Memorial, stated that 200 Azerbaijani corpses were brought from Khojaly to Agdam within four days. Time magazine published the following description: ``While the details are argued, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly 2 weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of deaths--the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians have been slaughtered, most of them women and children--is unknown.'' The extent of the cruelty of this massacre against women, children and the elderly was unfathomable. Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan is a strong ally of the United States in an important and complex region of the world. I ask my colleagues to join me and our Azerbaijani friends in commemorating the tragedy that occurred in the town of Khojaly.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate as we look at the 150 years back in history and we look at the Civil War. And as we look back at the Civil War, some people reenacting it as if it was a good event, we look at kind of a retreat in history here tonight. It was 1965 when Griswold v. Connecticut, the 7-2 Supreme Court decision, said Planned Parenthood could not be prohibited by the government from giving contraceptive advice to married people, and we have come a long ways since then in terms of liberty. And I am kind of surprised as we get here in 2011 and we look at this House, and part of this House which claims to be so concerned about liberty and individual freedoms and individual rights is more hung up on the Tenth Amendment and something to do with States and Federals, rather than the Ninth Amendment and the penumbra right that gives women and individuals the right to make certain decisions. We have got a group over there really concerned about earmarks, yet what this is I would submit is not a bill of attainder; it is a reverse earmark, because you are saying who we can't give money to. And the logic I have heard from my friend from Georgia was that because even though we have the Hyde amendment which says Planned Parenthood can't use Federal funds for abortion because they do other Planned Parenthood activities, helping with HIV-AIDS screening, helping with cervical and breast cancer exams and treatments and other birth control-type activities other than abortion, because they do abortion too, this helps contribute in the milieu of their overall funding. With that logic, we wouldn't fund any hospital, any health clinic or any doctor that any part of their practice or any part of their operation has anything to do with abortion because the funds get commingled and it helps contribute to their ability to provide abortion. So the bottom line is this isn't is about Planned Parenthood. It is not the reverse earmarks that it is, that it picks out only Planned Parenthood, including Planned Parenthood in Memphis, Tennessee, that provides health care to over 5,000 women a year, low-income women a year who need information about how to plan their families other than just abstinence, that we know from Alaska to Florida has failed. This is an effort to take away from people an individual choice and to require and make the government, this government, this Congress, Big Government, the decider of individuals' lives rather than giving them some choice. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I could spend my time talking about the cuts to the Low Income Heating and Energy Program, LIHEAP, and that's important because there are many people in my district suffering through the worst winter in Memphis' recent history and one of the worst winters in the country's history that need help with their utility bills more than ever. And that's, I think, an awful thing when people are suffering from the inability to pay their utility bills that we're cutting LIHEAP. I could talk about what we're doing to law enforcement, cutting the COPS program that puts police on the street and helps local government put new policemen on the street to protect our people, and cuts to State law enforcement spending. I could talk about the many calls and letters I've gotten from people concerned about title X cuts that will affect 5,500 in my community, women that won't be able to get family planning services, which include cancer screenings, annual exams in my city. I could talk about cuts to NPR, cuts to the National Institutes of Health, where they're looking for cures for cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes and other illnesses that affect our populace which we need to cure as soon as possible. Or cuts to the FDA, $241 million to keep our food safe and preserve public health. Or cuts to Social Security and Medicaid. A gentleman stopped me Saturday and said, please, you tell the people in Washington, don't mess with our Social Security and Medicaid, but there are great cuts there as well. Or the $18 billion cut to transportation--and Memphis is a transportation hub with rails and roadways and runways and river transportation, and $18 billion in cuts to transportation is going to hurt the growth of our economy and sending goods to market. I could talk about any of those items. I could talk about the cuts to legal services and the fact that more and more people need legal services in these economic times. The housing crisis hasn't left us, and people need representation. I could talk about cuts to education in historically black colleges and universities and Head Start programs. How are we going to compete, which we are not doing well in science and math, with the Chinese and the Indians if we cut these programs? I could talk about any and all those programs. But one thing I want to do is I want to read a column called ``Eat the Future,'' and Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, wrote this. So I just think it's worthy to listen and have it heard on this floor what Mr. Krugman said yesterday, Nobel Prize-winning economist. ``On Friday, House Republicans unveiled their proposal for immediate cuts in Federal spending. Characteristically, they failed to accompany the release with a catchy slogan. So I'd like to propose one: Eat the Future. ``I'll explain in a minute. First, let's talk about the dilemma the GOP faces. ``Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave them a mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of us believe that the elections were less about spending than they were about persistent high unemployment, but whatever. The key point to understand is that while many voters say that they want lower spending, press the issue a bit further and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on other people. ``That's the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research Center, in which Americans were asked whether they favored higher or lower spending in a variety of areas. It turns out that they want more, not less, spending on most things, including education and Medicare. They're evenly divided about spending on aid to the unemployed and-- surprise--defense. ``The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid, which most Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large share of the Federal budget. ``Pew also asked people how they would like to see the States close their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either education or health care, the main expenses States face? No. Do they favor tax increases? No. The only deficit-reduction measure with significant support was cuts in public-employee pensions--and even there the public was evenly divided. ``The moral is clear. Republicans don't have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic. ``How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear in mind that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to take care of. They don't have the time or the incentive to study the Federal budget, let alone State budgets . . . So they rely on what they hear from seemingly authoritative figures. ``And what they've been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is their hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for vast armies of useless bureaucrats--payroll is only 5 percent of Federal spending''-- and others. The bottom line is they've been hearing lies about the Federal budget. They've been hearing lies about the Federal bureaucracy. PolitiFact said that the biggest lie in 2009 was death panels. In 2010, it was government takeover of health care. If the Republicans get PolitiFact's Lie of the Year this year, they will get the Irving Thalberg lifetime achievement award. I hope they don't get it.

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

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the State Department is in the process of determining whether it should grant a Presidential permit for the construction of TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline, which could deliver up to 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day from Alberta, Canada--over 2,000 miles--to refineries on the U.S. gulf coast. The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline will put communities along its path at unnecessary risk by using conventional technology to carry a blend of raw tar sand oil called diluted bitumen. Diluted bitumen is more corrosive and more likely to cause pipeline leaks than conventional oil. Already the Keystone I Pipeline, which came online just 6 months ago, has experienced seven leaks, and that is for a pipeline that TransCanada claims is the ``safest ever built.'' Considering the significant dangers of piping bitumen, I find it troubling that the pipeline's route goes directly through the Ogallala Aquifer in the Midwest, which provides clean drinking and irrigation water to most of America's heartland. Despite the dangers of tar sands oil, U.S. regulators do not delineate between this new product and standard petroleum. We need new regulations. We need to put on hold the planned tar sands pipeline Keystone XL.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I'm pleased to offer this amendment, of which many members of the Judiciary Committee have worked on behalf of legal services in the past. Many members of the Judiciary Committee have championed legal services over the years, none greater than Bobby Scott, who's been a member of the committee for some time, and the current ranking member, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Jackson Lee and others. Legal services is so important to giving people representation, and this amendment will restore $70 million that's being cut from the Legal Services Corporation. That's 17\1/2\ percent of the money legal services got in the past. Legal services is already woefully underfunded. If you look at the funding they've gotten over the last 30 years and prorate it, they've been behind in funds for a long time, and we've tried to make that up in the past years. Right now they turn away half of all eligible clients who seek assistance. Slashing these funds would make it even worse. And the fact is, in these dire economic times, some of the worst we've seen, although they're getting better, more and more people need legal services. The housing crisis is not over with, and one of the major areas they work with is people who are having problems with foreclosures because of unscrupulous loans that they've been given, and there will be more and more people losing their homes or potentially losing their homes needing legal services. And if they don't have legal representation and they lose those homes, neighborhoods are hurt, individuals are hurt, and that is a major cost on the economy. The executive director of Memphis Area Legal Services, Harrison McIver, said the cuts would be devastating to Memphis Area Legal Services, and it would be devastating to their capacity to remain an effective advocate and resource for low-income individuals with all the civil legal problems that they may have. It would require laying off at least five attorneys and taking 725 fewer cases. Memphis Area Legal Services, as other legal service clinics, help victims of domestic violence, as well as with protective orders from abusive partners, as well as assisting folks with foreclosures and elderly people who have been victimized by predatory lenders. Think about how many victims of domestic abuse will be in danger without access to the courts, how many families will become homeless without this foreclosure assistance, and how many seniors would fall prey to predatory loans without legal help. How many of our vulnerable citizens will have the courthouse door closed in their face? The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that legal services is more needed in dire economic times than at any other time. And I understand the majority's positions about saying they were elected to make cuts. They weren't elected to make cruel cuts that hurt the most vulnerable people in situations that aren't of their own making, and who fall prey to predatory lenders or abusive spouses or people who prey on seniors in abusive ways. This is targeting the most vulnerable people in our society. I realize that there isn't an offset on this, and I realize the reason Mr. Wolf has made his point. I understand, too, somewhat, and feel a little bit of kinship with the Roman gladiators who, when they went into the field of combat, told the emperor that, We who are about to die salute you. And knowing kind of what the situation is, I also understand that ave imperartor moriture te salutant. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COHEN. Willie Sutton would love it if the cops weren't trying to protect the banks--that would be great--but the cops are important. Mr. Chairman, my first job out of law school was as an attorney for the Memphis Police Department. One of the first things I learned is that the best deterrent to crime is patrol, and patrol is policemen on the beat. That is the most effective way to reduce crime. When you have high unemployment, when you have a great recession like we've experienced with high unemployment, crime naturally does go up. When you have crime go up, you need more cops to protect property and individuals and lives. This COPS program has been successful. It was successful in the 1990s, and we saw a tremendous decrease in crime. As Mr. Weiner pointed out--and I praise him for being a champion of this for so many years-- this has been an effective program that has saved lives and property, that has kept insurance rates down, and that has kept order and liberty in our country. Willie Sutton would not be for this amendment. He'd like to see the cops off the streets, away from the banks, away from the widows, away from the children, away from everybody who is in the arms of a potential crime, in the way of a potential crime, and that's something we shouldn't have in this country. The cost to get rid of this program would be tremendous. The fact is the COPS program saves money, and this amendment zeros out the COPS program. It isn't a simple change in eliminating some of the moneys. It eliminates the program, and that's a mistake. Local police are struggling with shrinking budgets. Tax rates are down as people have spent less money, so we don't have the money to support our police and to keep our law enforcement at the levels they should be. To cut police and law enforcement is a mistake, a serious mistake that's going to cost the American people. You can't put it down in dollars and cents. Lives will be lost. Property will be lost. Insurance rates will go up. This is one place among others, but particularly here, they're the first line of defense. Of the police powers of the State, the first one is safety. There are other areas where you could save money. If you want to keep the budget and cut it, there are a lot of defense programs that could be cut. There are defense programs that are not effectively keeping us safe from foreign problems or from foreign adversaries, but our streets in every city in this Nation and every hamlet has the need for police. To cut this COPS program is simply irresponsible, and it disregards the American public's regard and need for safety on the streets and for safety in their communities. We should support our police and make our streets safer. I would ask that we support this amendment. I would ask that the people on the other side understand that law enforcement is a primary concern of government and that a reduction of this program or the elimination of this program will cost the American public dearly, and lives will be lost. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, last night in Los Angeles, California, the Grammy Awards took place, and I am proud that one of my Memphis constituents, Kirk Whalum, received a Grammy. I am also proud that a special award was given to Al Bell who had been the head of Stax Records. But even further, there was a tribute to Solomon Burke, one of the great singers of all time. The tribute was done by Mick Jagger. Nobody can quite do anything like Mick Jagger. But it was fitting that Mick Jagger did Solomon Burke, because Solomon Burke in the 1960s was one of the first African Americans to do Bob Dylan, and Bob Dylan was there, too. And then Eminem got the best rap song. So it was a good, spirited night at the Grammys of biracial, cultural cooperation and understanding and love.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the ranking member for the time. Madam Speaker, my subcommittee, Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, has had hearings on these bills, the REINS Act, as well as the regulatory reform bills that have been proposed. The REINS Act would require all measures that have a cost of $100 million or more, before their regulations go into effect, within 70 days of the promulgation of those regulations, they would have to be approved by a positive vote of this House and our equal House, the Senate, and signed by the President before they go into effect. The reality, Madam Speaker, is this would stifle government and stifle growth, because, as we have seen, the Senate has difficulty doing much of anything within 70 days. In fact, it had difficulty doing much in 2 years. And to ask the Senate, where any one Senator can put down a slip on a judicial nomination or hold up legislation if they so choose unless they get what they desire and want, the last vestige in reality that we have in this county of ``don't ask, don't tell''--don't ask the Senator what they want and don't tell what they got--all of these regulations would be at the whim and caprice of any one individual Senator. That is not what the American public wants. The American public wants the government to work. They want the House and Senate to work. They don't want the system in the Senate where one Senator can kill almost anything, to where ``Senator No'' can stop the government from actively promoting the general health, welfare, and safety of the American public. Now, the REINS Act wasn't needed, apparently, during the time that George Bush was President, and yet there were more regulations and rules during that time than there have been during President Obama's time as President. It is interesting to note that my colleagues on the other side understood the separation of powers doctrine and the fact that article II allows the executive to carry out and administer the laws, and they should be able to do so. But once President Obama came into office and there was financial services reform--the financial services reform we needed, because without regulations the financial services sector almost took this country into another Great Depression. They did take us into a Great Recession, costing us jobs and jobs and jobs and jobs. The high unemployment rate is the result of the lack of regulation in the housing industry, in the financial service industry, where those two worked together to almost bring down this Nation's economy and the world's economy to where we had a day when President Bush brought us the TARP to save our economy. And in a bipartisan fashion we passed the TARP that Secretary Paulson told us we had to pass because we were on the brink, as President Bush also said, of financial collapse. Yes, financial collapse because of the lack of regulation. And yet in this Congress, the 112th, we're being asked to say that no regulations would take effect unless the House, and the Senate--that body known not for its alacrity but for its ``deliberateness''--would have to act and possibly pass something within 70 days. Health care legislation; regulations couldn't go into effect to keep young people on their parents' insurance until they're 26 unless the Senate acted within 70 days. Preexisting conditions would continue to be an impediment for children to get insurance and to be treated. Lifetime caps would continue to exist because we couldn't get regulations approved within 70 days. The fact is, it's the executive's responsibility to carry out the laws that the Congress passes, that Congress is not the Executive. And because Barack Obama is President is no reason to change what the Founding Fathers set up as a great document, with three separate and equal branches of government being challenged now. The REINS Act would go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted. It would go back on the Constitution, which we spent time reading on this floor--the entire Constitution--that included article II, the powers of the executive, an equal branch of government to the legislature. And the REINS Act would say that the Constitution doesn't matter; that the Congress, the legislative branch that is supposed to pass the laws, will also be a part of executing the laws. I hold the Constitution in high regard and don't believe we should shred it because we want to have an opportunity to slow up financial regulations passed as part of the Dodd-Frank bill and health care for the American public. The whole idea of this review of regulations that we've gotten and this discussion on this floor of the House has taken this House to a place where the American public doesn't watch the Congress make laws and make improvements to create jobs and to improve the welfare of the American public, but it makes it a debating society, because we already have the power to review rules, and we do it in the Judiciary Committee and we do it in all committees. But now we're going to have reality television; and C-SPAN, instead of watching us pass laws, is going to watch us discuss what we already have been doing, always do, and are supposed to do, which is review regulations and have oversight but not veto over the executive. So, Madam Speaker, it is with great regret that I participate in this debate because this debate is not a part of a law and an action and a bill to improve the American public but simply a political show. And with all due respect to the chairman of the committee and the members who have brought this legislation, it violates the Constitution, which we read. That shouldn't have been a show. That should have been something we held deeply to our hearts. This violates the Constitution and the powers of article II.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, in 1970, our air was so polluted that breathing was literally a public health threat. Recognizing that need to give Americans clean air, Republican President Richard Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act. In its 40-year history, the Clean Air Act has saved the United States trillions of dollars by keeping Americans out of hospitals, in schools, and in the workforce. The nonpartisan American Lung Association estimates that in 2010 alone it saved over 160,000 lives. But despite saving 160,000 lives and trillions of dollars in the last 40 years, the Republican majority claims this legislation is destroying the American economy. They believe that act must be repealed so Big Oil and corporate polluters can no longer be held responsible for destroying our air and endangering public health. If Republican efforts to repeal the EPA's Clean Air Act authority are successful, we will return to a time when every breath you take will endanger your life. History disproves Republican claims and illustrates that the Clean Air Act saves lives, creates jobs, and saves the government tens of trillions of dollars. But, apparently, these facts that Richard Nixon understood do not matter.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I am going to cite two Republicans who give good reasons to oppose this legislation and keep health care reform. One of the new Republicans, when he didn't think he was going to get his insurance immediately, said, ``What am I, not supposed to have health care? It's a practicality. I'm not going to become a burden for the State because I don't have health care, and God forbid I get into an accident and I can't afford the operation. That can happen to anyone.'' He succinctly summed up the reason why everyone should have the same opportunities as Members of Congress have to have health care. But more importantly, in a more intentional way, one of the most revered doctors in the world, former Republican majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, said yesterday that he urged the Republicans to drop the charade and build on the legislation. He said if he would have been here, he would have voted for the bill. And it was important to consider the bill the ``law of the land'' and move on from there. ``It is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future efforts to make the system better for the patient and the family will be based.'' And that is a fact. It has strong elements. I support Dr. Frist.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Well, thank you. Today, when I came on the floor, Ms. Slaughter--one of the senior Members of this Congress, an outstanding Member and the former chairperson of the Rules Committee, now the ranking member--told me of a Member on the other side, a Member in her fourth term--I guess it was in the Rules Committee, but it might have been on the floor--who expressed for the first time astonishment, amazement, that the insurance provided for Members of Congress was subsidized by the Federal Government. She had no idea it was subsidized. She hasn't read the bill. She doesn't even know what her policy is and what her benefits are. The fact is people should want for others what they want for themselves. I don't have Federal congressional insurance--I don't have it--but nearly everybody else in this Chamber does. Yet they don't want their constituents to have it. Now that's hypocrisy.

Mr. COHEN. Sir, I appreciate your leading this. You have been an outstanding Member; and your first vote, I think, was for this bill. You have a lot of experience of this issue. You were commissioner of insurance, if I am correct, of the largest State in the country, California. So you have knowledge here. Mr. Pallone worked very hard on this bill, too, as I did; but Mr. Pallone was in a senior position. As I think back on the passage of this bill, I remember a lot of criticism; and the other side and the people who were critical said we didn't take enough time to pass the bill. We only took a year, a year and a half to pass the bill. And they are going to take 2 days to repeal it. Take enough time? Where are the people who think we should take enough time for the legislative process to work, to have hearings, to have thoughtful discussion, to have analysis of expert opinion today? Two days and it is going to be voted on, and that's it. And the old mantra which we heard from so many people, ``read the bill.'' And yet so many people think it is a government takeover of health care. I say to them: read the bill. And people who think Congresspeople are going to get something special, we get the same as everybody else. Read the bill.