Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, today ends the first year of the 111th Congress, a Congress that's done much to try to preserve this country's economic security, improve its place among the nations of the world, worked against the global warming problems we have, and protect our planet. So much of what we've accomplished has been a group effort, and one of the people that's been a part of that group is Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida. I was privileged to sit next to Congressman Wexler in the Judiciary Committee. Congressman Wexler served 13 years in this House, and today he cast his last vote and walked off this floor. I watched him as he walked off. I was sad to see him leave because he was an outstanding Member of Congress like so many people are here who are dedicated to making this country better, working hard, speaking his opinion to try to make this country a better place. I'm proud to have served in this Congress and to have served with Robert Wexler. I'm proud to be a Member of this Congress, and I want to say to Robert Wexler, you've been an outstanding Congressman, and this Congress will miss you.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate Mr. Yarmuth bringing this resolution and his comments. I reserve my time.

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, indeed, Justice Brandeis had a great impact on this country, not only as a jurist, as we've mentioned, but as a lawyer. And one of his innovations was something called the Brandeis Brief, where not only were precedents used to make an argument but social data, factual data about changes in society to support the Court's positions. Brandeis was not alive at the time of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, one of the great decisions of our Supreme Court, but it was a Brandeis Brief argument that was used to win that case, for there was little law on the subject that was favorable, but there was much social analysis and facts that helped the Court make its decision that separate, in fact, was not equal, and that we needed a change in this country that we had in 1954 that we're continuing to experience today. Justice Brandeis had many quotes which were of great significance, one of which is inscribed in the walls of Congress, I think just beneath this Chamber on the first floor. If you look up towards the ceiling, The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. That quote, which is inscribed on the walls of Congress, is one that I've long thought about, and people making arguments that sometimes are well meant but they take away from the rights that people should have in this country and freedoms. Brandeis also said we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we can't have both. And that thought permeates much of what we debate in this Congress today and see as the differences in wealth grow greater and greater. Indeed, Georgia O'Keeffe, one of my favorite painters, and Warren Zevon, one of my favorite songwriters, singers and friends, would appreciate this resolution today, for the right to be alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man, was something Louis Brandeis espoused, as did O'Keeffe and Zevon. Justice Brandeis said the most political office is that of a private citizen. And I think we should all remember that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as many minutes as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) needs. Mr. Yarmuth is the genesis of this particular resolution. He hails from the same city that Justice Brandeis did and brings this to memorialize this man's great talents.

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution honors Louis D. Brandeis, one of America's greatest jurists and legal minds, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of his retirement from the United States Supreme Court. In any listing of great Supreme Court justices, Brandeis would have to be among one of the top three. Among his lasting accomplishments, he has greatly influenced constitutional jurisprudence, especially in the areas of labor relations, free speech, right to privacy, and women's suffrage. Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky, to Jewish parents who had emigrated from Europe, having come from Bohemia after the Bohemian Revolution trying to create Bohemia as an independent state in the 1850s. After graduating from Harvard Law School at age 20 with the highest grade average in the college's history, he embarked on a legal career in which he devoted so much of his time and energy to important social justice causes--often pro bono--that he became widely known as ``the people's lawyer.'' Indeed, he pioneered the pro bono legal tradition. In a ranking of lawyers in America, he would have to rank among the top 10, independent of his 23-year service on the United States Supreme Court. He was allowed to enter Harvard Law School even though he wasn't a high school graduate, and he graduated prior to the requisite age of 21 and he was given his degree by special resolution. His significant contributions are so numerous that it would be impossible to discuss them all, but I will mention a few. In 1890, he and his law partner, Samuel Warren, published an article in the Harvard Law Review entitled The Right to Privacy, which is credited with creating the foundation for that right in American constitutional law. Brandeis felt one of the most significant parts of the American experience was people's right to be left alone and that's where the right to privacy came into his thinking as he expressed it in his law work. He took on the life insurance industry and J.P. Morgan's railroad monopoly. He was a leading advocate for stronger labor protections. He was a strong advocate for States having the opportunity to go into new endeavors and said that the States were the laboratories of democracy; that we had a number of States--today 50, less when he was serving on the Supreme Court--but that each had the opportunity to try some particular new idea and see if it worked so the other States could rely on the work of that State to see whether it should expand and be used throughout the country. The laboratories of democracy were important as States, such as California, looked at medical marijuana and the other States could then learn, and that spread throughout 12 or 13 other States, but there was an opportunity to learn, rather than doing it all at one time and seeing if one policy fit the whole Nation. He was a chief economic adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, and helped develop the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. In 1916 President Wilson nominated him for the Supreme Court. He became the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, where he continued his work on great legal issues and left a lasting legacy in American jurisprudence. Unfortunately, in his confirmation hearing, anti-Semitism was one of the issues that came about and was raised in the Senate. But our country overcame that, and he became the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice. Through this resolution we recognize and celebrate the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court, and remember, with deep gratitude, his many contributions to our Nation's life and to the founding also of the State of Israel. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 905) recognizing the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Louis D. Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank Mr. Lungren for bringing this to us. It is important that the law students do have this opportunity and that the conflicts be real and not imagined. I would like to encourage a ``yes'' vote and would move that we pass the bill at this time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4194 would address an unfortunate consequence of current law that hinders participation by law students in pro bono clinics, which limits the provisions of these needed services to the community. It is appropriate that this resolution follow that of Justice Brandeis, who really was the father of pro bono work. Title 18, section U.S.C. 205 makes it a crime for a Federal Government employee to provide legal assistance to anyone bringing a case adverse to the United States or in bringing a case adverse to a substantial U.S. interest. Section 205(b) applies the same rule to employees of the District of Columbia. For law school students or legal clinic staff who hold government jobs, this criminalizes participation in a wide range of political programs, including those funded by the Federal Government. Law students or legal clinic staff who are full- or part-time government employees face criminal penalties if they participate in law school pro bono clinics that represent plaintiffs whose claims are adverse to the Federal or D.C. Governments. Yet this opportunity is important for students to learn their craft and become lawyers. This disqualifies the law students from participation in many service activities that benefit both the students and the wider community, among them juvenile justice clinics, death penalty appeal projects, advocacy programs on behalf of parents with special needs children, and low-income taxpayer clinics. This also has the perverse effect of forcing law students to choose between government service and community service. It also needlessly deprives government employees of a range of real-world educational experiences that would be particularly beneficial to them when they become lawyers. Just this year, this Congress passed the Edward Kennedy Service Act encouraging people to participate in public service, and this is another area where we should encourage it. This is a misguided choice to force on law students, for they should be able to have both government and community service and be encouraged to do so. This bill will stop the law from forcing them to have this conflict. Section 205 already contains an exemption that narrows the definition of ``conflict of interest'' to those instances of actual conflict: cases in which a government attorney substantially and personally participated as a government employee, and cases in which the employee's department or agency is currently directly participating. By applying this exemption to law students and legal clinic staff, the bill will eliminate the pernicious effects of section 205 while retaining its safeguards against true conflict of interest. Law students and legal clinic staff would be able to participate in law school clinics that are, by their nature, adverse to the Federal or D.C. Government while continuing to prohibit actual conflicts of interest involving specific parties. Law students and staff who choose government service would remain subject to governmental conflict of interest rules while also being permitted to enjoy the same clinical resources and opportunities as their peers. I commend our colleague Congressman Dan Lungren from California for his leadership on this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4194) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying law school students participating in legal clinics or externships from the application of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 of such title.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, we all start as a tabula rasa in all areas of life. Then we grow, and we have the opportunity to learn. In my fewer number of years here on Earth than the chairman, I have learned quite a bit about jazz myself. It has been my honor to have friends who have been involved in jazz in Memphis--particularly, the late Phineas Newborn, Jr., who was a great pianist, one of the great jazz pianists of all time. He was a Memphian, and he was known by jazz musicians all over the world as a great jazz pianist. Others have come from Memphis and have gone to New York, which is oftentimes where jazz is played. Marvin Stamm, a great flugelhorn player, performed with different orchestras throughout the country as a Memphian. He went to North Texas State University for his education where he got a degree in jazz band, which is one of the few places in the world, Mr. Smith's State, that has jazz band distinction. In New York, there are Bradley's, Village Vanguard and all of those wonderful places where you historically have been able to hear people like Art Blakey. I was able to see Max Roach in Baltimore once at a jazz festival. I am a fan of Charlie Parker's and of Miles Davis. They are great jazz musicians. I think all musicians respected Miles Davis as one of the greatest influences on their lives regardless of whether they were rockers or whether they were blues musicians or jazz performers. I thank the chairman for his appreciation of what is a uniquely American cultural achievement, one that the world holds dear and respects America for. The appreciation of jazz is an art form that is being lost to our students. It is one that needs to be taught in our schools and that needs to be maintained as a living and breathing expression of the American art industry.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, The New York Times and CBS released a poll recently that showed what the feelings are and the effects of unemployment on Americans. We've had 10 percent unemployment and many people that are long-term unemployed. The effects are devastating. People who are unemployed are more likely not to have health insurance and have difficulty and give up getting medical care. That costs the public later with emergency room visits and costs us more money. They have more problems with depression and anxiety, and yet can't afford medical treatment. Again, problems arise. They have lost their homes, neighborhoods suffer, crime increases, neighborhood values decrease. The loss of jobs has hurt millions of Americans and others because of the effects on the economy, on government, and on neighborhoods. But the people who have lost their jobs know why they have lost their jobs. Twenty-six percent specifically say the reason they've lost their jobs is because of President Bush and the policies that were brought about during the time he was President. That is obvious. The second largest group is Wall Street bankers. We need to help the unemployed. We need to find jobs.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I rise to offer the amendment to the body that is at the desk.

Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the gentleman for working with us on the amendment, and I'd like to yield as much time as he needs to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. COHEN. I would just like to thank again the gentleman from Alabama. I know it's difficult for him to work with us on this because he is the champion of the SEC, the Crimson Tide of Alabama. With that, I would like to urge passage of the amendment. I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Frank for working with me to include this language in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. This amendment would strip a provision permitting the Securities and Exchange Commission to delegate regulation of investment advisers to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. In its present form, the bill would give FINRA sweeping rule-making authority over investment advisers which has been under the sole domain of the governmental regulatory agencies. This far-reaching provision would extend FINRA's jurisdiction to Federally registered investment advisory firms that manage almost 80 percent of all advisory firms' assets under management. FINRA does not have the necessary expertise or experience with investment advisers or the Investment Advisers Act to do the job, and the SEC is best positioned to oversee the investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act. There is inherent conflict of interest in having a self-regulatory group that funds this agency and has always been on the side of broker dealers. We cannot afford to outsource key regulating functions to self-regulating organizations that act solely in the best interest of their clients. In a speech earlier this year, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar noted his opposition to establishing a self-regulatory organization for investment advisers because the ``SEC should not outsource its mission'' and because the SEC ``is the only securities regulator with the necessary experience in dealing with a principles-based regime.'' I'm concerned that the high level of investor protection provided under the Advisers Act fiduciary duty would be diminished if FINRA were to obtain the additional authority. We should not expend the authority of FINRA to the investment advisory profession. Again, I urge the passage of this amendment which would keep the SEC as the proper, independent regulator of investment advisers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will provide guidance and prevent abuse in the appointment of corporate monitors to implement deferred and nonprosecution agreements. Last Congress, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law led the charge against the politicization of United States Attorneys' Offices in the last Administration. Additionally, both last year and this year, the Subcommittee held hearings on deferred and nonprosecution agreements in criminal cases against corporate defendants, and the selection of corporate monitors to implement those agreements. Those hearings, as well as recent press articles, revealed the need for guidelines to govern the appointment of corporate monitors in these cases. The Government's use of deferred and nonprosecution agreements as a prosecutorial tool with respect to corporate defendants has grown exponentially in recent years. Unfortunately, the selection and use of corporate monitors to implement those agreements has been tainted by a disturbing lack of guidance, and even more troubling indications of abuse. In one case, a former U.S. Attorney--Christopher Christie--selected former Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve as a corporate monitor, for which Mr. Ashcroft collected fees of up to $52 million. The circumstances surrounding his appointment and service as a monitor were not made public at the time of his selection and other than the hearings the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee held on the issue--no provision was ever made for oversight or accountability concerning Mr. Ashcroft's selection or performance as a monitor. To prevent such reckless abuse from taking place in the future, I have introduced legislation that will prohibit United States attorneys and assistant United States attorneys from acting as or working for corporate monitors for specified periods after their service with the Government terminates. This legislation will provide accountability, transparency, and uniformity in the appointment of corporate monitors to implement deferred and nonprosecution agreements. Public trust and confidence are essential elements of an effective justice system--our laws and their enforcement must not only be fair, but they must also be perceived as fair. The perception of unfairness and favoritism undermines governmental authority in the justice process. My legislation will help restore fairness and rebuild trust in our public process.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank the people I have worked with on this amendment, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Frank, Mr. Sarbanes. The fact is that Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 is one of the more important pieces that we have in our portfolio to protect consumers against corporate fraud and corporate corruption. When it was passed it was passed by an overwhelming majority, almost unanimous, in this House. Over the years it hasn't been implemented completely, but now it needs to be implemented, for small companies, $75 million or less, as well as the large companies where it has already been implemented. As Mr. Sarbanes said, the loss to investors from small companies is just as important and potent to them as the loss from large companies. We have so many investors that will be at risk if there are not proper accounting procedures and safeguards for the American public. As Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the SEC said, Overturning the most pro-investor legislation in the past 25 years is deeply disturbing. Those who vote against investor protections in Sarbanes- Oxley will bear the investors' mark of Cain. Take it if you choose it. I submit you shouldn't support the amendment.

Mr. COHEN

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 939) extending condolences to the families of Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owens, and Officer Greg Richards.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as the gentleman shall consume to Mr. Smith from the State of Washington.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I join with my friend from Texas in urging that we pass this resolution and that we do mourn these brave officers who lost their lives and stand with the people of Lakewood, Washington. But I would also ask us to think about what happened, why these people lost their lives. And we may never know, but we do know that the person who killed them should have been behind bars. He was a criminal who was released from prison in Arkansas through executive clemency. And while there are certainly people who committed victimless crimes who are unnecessarily kept for long periods of times in incarceration and should have clemency or some type of executive relief, people who commit crimes of violence, as this person did, they should not be released unless there are some extra circumstances that are beyond anybody's thought that it was appropriate. This gentleman was not reformed. He committed other crimes. He still should have been in jail. And you've got to think about mental health. The man was a criminal, but he was also mentally ill. He had delusions that he was some type of religious figure. And we've got to think about the mental health laws that we have up here and the opportunity to fund mental health institutions and to get mental health so that people can be treated before they commit some act out of a delusional aspect of their disease. So there are a lot of other areas we need to look into as we mourn these officers and remember 9/11 and the fire people and the police people who were killed there. And we've got to remember the issues with guns and how this man got access to a gun to commit this crime. So there are other issues that need to be looked at. I join all the Members of the House and ask that we pass H. Res. 939 and join in morning the loss of these four fine law enforcement officers, but also that we continue our research into the causes of this heinous crime.