Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 889, the ``Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act.'' H.R. 889 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; the President has granted the work at issue immunity from seizure pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act; and 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. I would not support this bill if it did not contain a sufficient exception for claims arising from artwork stolen by the Nazis, their allies, and their affiliates. H.R. 889 has just such an exception, ensuring that victims of Nazi art theft continue to have the opportunity to pursue justice in court. This exception is appropriate in light of the sheer scale and the particularly concerted efforts of the Nazis to seize artwork and other cultural property from their victims. The particular sensitivity surrounding compensation for artwork stolen by the Nazis has been highlighted in recent months by the motion picture Woman in Gold, which tells the story of Maria Altmann. Mrs. Altmann's efforts to retrieve works by Gustav Klimt that the Nazis had taken from uncle in Austria in the 1930's led to an important Supreme Court decision that held that the expropriation exception applied to claims arising prior to the FSIA's enactment in 1976, which allowed Nazi-era victims to file suit for damages in federal court. It is also critical to note that the bill's sponsors worked with the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany to revise the Nazi-era exception to ensure that it was broad enough to be a meaningful exception. As a result, the Conference has stated, for itself and for the American Jewish Committee, that it will not oppose this bill. I also note that all of the FSIA's other exceptions to sovereign immunity remain available to potential plaintiffs with claims concerning the ownership of cultural property. In particular, I note that this bill does nothing to affect the attempts by Chabad to seek enforcement of its 2011 judgment against Russia, both because such judgment would pre-date the effective date of this bill and because it was not predicated on the loan of any artwork to the U.S., meaning that this bill would not effect that case even if it had been in effect in 2011. To the extent it may be necessary, I would encourage consideration of adding clarifying language that this bill does nothing to affect enforcement of an already-entered judgment. H.R. 889 is narrowly tailored to ensure that it provides for just enough immunity to encourage foreign states to lend their cultural property to American museums and universities for temporary exhibits and displays without protecting more than we intend to protect. I recognize that some people may instinctively recoil at the idea of any bill that grants any level of immunity to a foreign state when ownership of a work of art or other cultural object is at issue. But I would not support a bill that foreclosed all possibility of redress for such people. And, H.R. 889 does not do that. It simply ensures that works that have already been granted immunity from seizure by the President pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act are also immune from suits for damages, which is in keeping with the Act's purpose of encouraging foreign countries to lend their works to American institutions without fear of litigation based on the act of lending those works. I thank Representative Steve Chabot, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. for their leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 889, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act. This bill 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 three particularly important ingredients are present: one, that the 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; two, the President has granted the work at issue immunity from seizure pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act; and three, that the President's grant of immunity from seizure is published in the Federal Register. All three of those conditions must be met. The expropriation exception remains available to all claims concerning misappropriated cultural property to which these factual circumstances do not apply. I would not support this bill if it did not contain a sufficient exception for claims arising from artwork stolen by the Nazis, their allies, and their affiliates. H.R. 889 has such an exception, ensuring that victims of Nazi art theft continue to have the opportunity to pursue justice in court. This exception is appropriate and important in light of the sheer scale and the particularly concerted efforts of the Nazis to seize artwork and other cultural property from their victims. A movie that was directed and starred in by George Clooney called ``The Monuments Men'' brought to America's attention, really, the extreme depth to which the Nazis went to confiscate art, steal art, and try to keep it for their own uses and for the future of what they saw as a Nazi world. In that film, American soldiers were shown in extreme danger to themselves in great heroic acts to locate and save that artwork for generations to come. In fact, those particular survivors will be given a Congressional Gold Medal for their work. Another recent film, ``Woman in Gold,'' tells the story of Maria Altmann. It surrounds compensation for artwork stolen by the Nazis and has been highlighted recently in the theatres. Mrs. Altmann's effort to retrieve works by Gustav Klimt that the Nazis had taken from her uncle in Austria in the thirties led to an important Supreme Court decision that held that the expropriation exception applied to claims arising prior to the FSIA's enactment in 1976, which allowed Nazi-era victims to file suit for damages in Federal court. It is critical to note that the bill sponsors worked with the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany to revise the Nazi-era exception to ensure that it was broad enough to be a meaningful exception. As a result, the conference has stated, for itself and for the American Jewish community, that it will not oppose the bill. I also note that all of the FSIA's other exceptions to sovereign immunity remain available to potential plaintiffs with claims concerning the ownership of cultural property. In particular, I note this bill does nothing to affect the attempts of Chabad to seek enforcement of its 2011 judgment against Russia, both because such judgment would predate the effective date of this bill and because it was not predicated on the loan of any artwork to the U.S., meaning this bill would not have any effect in that case even if it had been in effect in 2011. To the extent it may be necessary, I would encourage consideration of adding clarifying language that this bill does nothing to affect enforcement of an already entered judgment. H.R. 89 is narrowly tailored to ensure that it provides for just enough immunity to encourage foreign states to lend their cultural property to American museums and universities, accordingly, then, to the American people, young people and older, for temporary exhibits and displays without protecting more than we intend to protect. The bill ensures that works that have already been granted immunity from seizure by the President, pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act, are also immune from suits for damages, which is in keeping with the act's purpose in encouraging foreign countries to lend their works to American institutions without fear of litigation based on the act of lending these works. In essence, if you believe in art, you like art, you think people should see art, and you like your museums, you ought to be for this bill. That is why I thank Representative Steve Chabot, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and Ranking Member John Conyers for their leadership on this issue and for allowing me to manage this time and be part of this initiative. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I would like to recognize Lafayette and Washington. The Hermione, the boat that brought Lafayette to Washington, a replica thereof, has just come to Virginia, and there is a recognition of that at Mount Vernon tonight. I think we should recognize their portraits here. They helped this country become free from the shackles of Great Britain and become the great country we are. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for providing the time, and I want to thank her for her good work. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this bipartisan bill, which is bipartisan. I signed on to this bill, I guess, with Representative Eshoo and maybe Representative Goodlatte, back in 2007 because it is my belief that the Internet is a necessity, and it is a necessity in minority communities who need that outreach to information, whether it is educational or commercial, to reach out and be a part of the society. Without the Internet, you can't do that. Now, the gentlewoman from Texas and my State, Tennessee, neither have an income tax, and therefore, our governments rely on taxes that tend to be regressive. I think Tennessee is the most regressive State in the country on its taxes, very high sales tax. And the local governments will reach out for anything they can find to tax to make up for the fact that our State doesn't have a progressive tax base. I want to protect my constituents against regressive taxes at all levels and protect them against taxes that might limit their potentiality of getting access to the World Wide Web and information they need. So I am proud to be a sponsor of this, to work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), with whom I have worked on so many bills together, trying to get the Delta Queen going back down the river and all these other things, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman on the Judiciary Committee. I thank them for their work and hope they will all vote for this in a bipartisan fashion. I hope the Senate will, as they did on the USA FREEDOM Act, follow the lead of the House and show that the House leads.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I am doing something I would rather not do. But the gentleman from Texas was so nice on my rape kit amendment, and we did save Texas and have Davy Crockett, a predecessor of mine, in Congress. I ask unanimous consent that my request for a recorded vote on the amendment I offered that the chair was against, that it be withdrawn, to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. This does not cut the DEA. It only reduces the amount of money it was increased by in the budget, and it was increased by something like $40 million in a $2 billion budget. It would take $10 million, which would make a big difference to Legal Services. Once the Rohrabacher-Cohen-Farr amendment passes, they won't be messing with States that have legalized medical marijuana, and it will give the DEA a lot more time to do the right things they need to do in northern Mexico and in other failed states; and as for the states that haven't failed, stay out of them. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate all of the work that Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Farr have done, and I am happy to join with them. Mr. Chairman, Justice Brandeis said the States are the laboratories of democracy. That is what they are doing here. Some of the arguments we have heard are ``Reefer Madness'' 2015. It is over. One of the gentlemen said children are doing marijuana at age 12. That will show you how good the laws are doing right now. If we had more money going into heroin and not marijuana, we could stop people from dying, and that is what we should be doing. Tell Montel Williams, who has MS, that marijuana doesn't work. Tell cancer patients that it doesn't help them with nausea. Tell people that it doesn't work. It works. It helps. It is the States.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We just had an amendment on the floor and the amendment took $25 million from Legal Services. I had several amendments to file, and they went from $5 million for legal services up to $35 million. So what I thought might be the equitable thing to do would be, instead of going with the $35 million, which would have just been half of the cut, take the $25 million that Mr. Pittenger wanted to take away from them, take it away from the amendment that would have been best, the $35 million increase, and go for a $10 million increase, which would, in essence, be Mr. Pittenger's amendment against the amendment which would be a best practices that I would have recommended increasing $35 million. This amendment would restore $10 million to the devastating cuts to Legal Services. Legal Services in 1995 was funded at $400 million. Just on inflationary dollars, today, that $400 million would be $600 million; yet, in this budget, Legal Services would be funded at $300 million, half of what it would be based on 1995 figures adjusted for inflation. We are proud of our legal system, and we are known for it all around the globe, but it can be complex. With all of the problems we have with the legal language, let alone just languages that we have in this Nation, it is too difficult for people to represent themselves in court. There is a saying: ``He who represents himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client.'' People need professional legal aid to get through the maze of the justice system. If you are poor in this country--and most people are--if you are uneducated--and many are--and scared when you go to court, you are not going to be able to successfully work against a private attorney on the other side. It just takes away from the whole idea of equal justice under the law. I talked earlier about domestic violence. There are ladies--and sometimes men--who need protective orders from abusive partners or seniors who have been victimized by fraudulent lenders as well. Legal assistance is vital to ensuring that these parties are treated fairly and are aware of their rights. That is why I am a champion of the Legal Services Corporation, which helps fund legal aid programs throughout the country. This bill, as I say, cuts $75 million, which would make many people in the Nation not have representation and unable to pursue justice. Nearly 50 percent of all eligible potential clients are turned away from legal services nationally, and it has hurt people all over this country. The attorneys do heroic work, and there are serious consequences for reducing the funding to these folks. Unless we ensure legal assistance, we effectively shut the courthouse doors to many who won't be able to protect their rights. The decrease would come from the DEA. Again, the DEA has had numerous, numerous problems with agents who have gone rogue and have done things that you shouldn't do anywhere, least of all when you are a DEA agent representing our country. The funding in the hands of Legal Services could change the lives of thousands of people who need legal representation. This amendment is $25 million less than what I would have like to have gotten with the $35 million amendment, but I will take that. If we can get the 10, hopefully, Mr. Pittenger will be happy with the 25 cut from the 35 that we should have gotten, in my opinion, on top to restore the 75 that we have lost. Representatives Quigley, Castor, Schrader, and Joe Kennedy have all helped on this. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would increase by $4 million the bill's funding for grants to address the backlog of sexual assault kits at law enforcement agencies. DNA analysis has been revolutionary in helping to catch criminals and prevent crimes from occurring because of DNA evidence. This evidence does us no good if it remains untested and sitting on a shelf in a lab somewhere. Despite progress over the last few years, and much progress most recently, there are still thousands of rape kits that remain untested-- potentially hundreds of thousands. That is potentially hundreds of thousands of victims whose assailants are never brought to justice left to prey on yet more women. Last year, my hometown paper, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, highlighted the tragic need to end this backlog once and for all. It described a serial rapist who was finally caught by police in 2012. He could have been stopped nearly a decade earlier if only his first victim's rape kit had been tested, but that kit wasn't, and, instead, he was able to attack five more women over the next 8 years. Missed opportunities like this happen all across our country every day. The trauma inflicted on victims of rape can be compounded when they know that their assailants run free while critical evidence goes untested. Fortunately, efforts are underway to reduce the backlog, and they are making a difference. In Memphis, our backlog reached more than 12,000, but police have now opened 488 investigations and issued 90 requests for indictment. But testing rape kits cost money, more than local law enforcement can afford. I appreciate the chairman's and the ranking member's commitment to eliminating the backlog and the funding that the committee has provided in the bill, but we need more. This amendment would increase by not quite 10 percent, an additional $4 million, and would take it from the Drug Enforcement Administration, a $2 billion agency that receives a $40 million increase in this bill. DEA would barely notice the difference. Moreover, DEA has been alarmingly irresponsible with money Congress has given it previously. An inspector general report recently found that DEA agents had ``sex parties'' with prostitutes funded by drug cartels in government-leased living quarters. And this followed an inspector general report that found the DEA paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for information from Amtrak that they could have obtained for free. I think the choice is clear: we should stand with victims of sexual assault. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. It is so important that these kits are tested, that the assailants are brought to justice, and that additional women are not attacked by what are known to be serial rapists who are out on the streets. I would like to say a thank you to my partner on this amendment, Representative Carolyn Maloney, who has been a tireless advocate on this issue as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman, particularly, and the ranking member as well, for their help and their hard work on getting the moneys passed and for helping on this amendment. These rapists don't know State lines, and they cross State lines, so it is most appropriate that the Federal Government help the locals in finding people that perform these dastardly acts all over our country. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fattah. I join with him in opposing this amendment. Legal Services is funded at $375 million this year. This budget cuts it $75 million to $300 million. That is a large cut. That is over 20 percent. It has been cut and cut and cut over the years. Nationally, 50 percent of all eligible potential clients are turned away from Legal Services because of a lack of funding. In my district in Memphis, they have lost $300,000, and the staff has been reduced from 50 to 38. Mr. Chairman, when we travel overseas, one of the things that almost every individual you meet up with tells us about America is, We envy your justice system. They envy our justice system because people have access to the courts to settle our differences. But if you are poor and/or uneducated and you don't have a lawyer, you don't have access, really, to the legal system; the other side will. If you are a domestic violence victim and you need an attorney and you don't have one, you are subject to further domestic violence. If you are a tenant in an apartment building and you are being run out, the apartment people are going to have attorneys and you won't, and you will be on the street. So we are talking about victims, domestic victims. We are talking about people being homeless. We are talking about individuals, American citizens, who won't have access to the courts, the envy of people around the world when they look at America, and we will be taking it away from them. I would ask the gentleman to find moneys for the FBI from somewhere else. The FBI helps bring about justice. But to take it away from an area that gives poor people of America justice--even though it does give money to the FBI to find criminals and hopefully bring justice to them on the criminal side, which is important--this is not the right place to take the money.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on May 18, 2015, my flight was delayed and I was unable to vote on H.R. 91. If present, I would have vote ``yea'' on H.R. 91.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this occasion to thank David Letterman for 33 years of late-night television and giving his genius to America. I want to thank him on behalf of my friend Warren Zevon for being the best friend his music ever had, and for helping so many other musicians get an opportunity to play for America; as a Memphian who attended the Andy Kaufman-Jerry Lawler match, for Dave giving Andy Kaufman the opportunity to give his zany sense of humor to America, and so many other comedians that he gave a forum to. Dave was in the Ed Sullivan Theater, but he should have been in the Steve Allen Theater, Ed's rival, because he was more like Steve Allen, the first late-night host. The ``Man on the Street'' interview with Steve Allen was like ``Stupid Pet Tricks.'' Dave Letterman was a genius. Tonight I will be watching his last show--we all will--the 6,028th. We will all watch it. Dave, don't stay away. Come back. We thank you for all you have given us.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, ``The Thrill is Gone.'' Legendary iconic guitar player and performer B.B. King passed away last night. B.B. King, born Riley B. King, born in the delta, lived a phenomenal life. He was born into poverty and was a sharecropper in Itta Bena, Mississippi. He moved to Memphis and went on WDIA radio, the first African American-owned station in America, and became a disc jockey, Beale Street Blues Boy. That is where he got his B.B. name. He went on to perform and learn on Beale Street, and he went on to be one of the great guitarists of all time. He taught a lot of guitarists how to play and was their mentor, somebody they looked up to. Memphis was his adopted hometown. A club in his name is there on Beale Street, B.B. King Blues Club. He was a very, very nice man and a talented individual who rose to get the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Kennedy Center Honors. His art will live on forever. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. COHEN

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

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

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, if people, I think, listen to this debate, they would see one thing clearly in that there is a difference on the two sides--a difference in perspective and a difference as to the facts. Some say that, clearly, the fetus feels pain. My data shows that the majority of medical opinion says that the fetus does not; and Dr. Anand, whom they cite--my research shows--has retracted his position and doesn't want to be involved in this debate, and he is an outlier. The bottom line is there are differences--differences as to the facts as well as to the opinions. What that should say to anybody who watches this debate, Madam Speaker, is this issue shouldn't be decided by politicians but by medical experts and by women with the people they trust--medical experts, not politicians--and by women with the advice of the people they trust. The truth of this debate came down to a lady from North Carolina who testified contrary to what she said in January. In January, she said the bill that came before this House was not a good bill and that it shouldn't come to the House. It was withdrawn because incest is incest, and it shouldn't be seen that people 18 and over couldn't get an abortion if they were victims of incest. This bill allows it. She has changed her position, and at the close of her statement, she said: I will not rest until abortion is illegal. That is what this is about. It is the beginning of the end of abortion at 20 weeks, at 17 weeks, at 12 weeks, at 1 week, at conception. This is an antiabortion bill. It is not about fetal pain. It is not about 20 weeks. That is what it is about. American women need to wake up. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

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