Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of John T. Fisher II, an unsung hero of the Civil Rights Movement. John T. was born on February 10, 1934 and became a community leader who spent his life working on racial equality in Memphis, Tennessee and around the world. John T. Fisher II earned his Bachelor of Science in Commerce from the University of Virginia. Afterwards he entered into Officer training with the U.S. Marine Corps. After serving two years as a Marine in Okinawa, Japan, he returned to Memphis and assumed the presidency of the John T. Fisher Motor Company which was founded by his grandfather in 1907 and was one of the original Chrysler franchises in the country. By 1968, John T. operated a highly successful car dealership and once sold a car to Elvis Presley. Even so, he risked his reputation by being one of the few white businessmen to support the sanitation strike that brought Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to Memphis. In the days after the assassination of Dr. King, John T. did not hesitate in trying to bring the Memphis community together. Working with clergy members and professionals of all races, he invited all members of the community, regardless of race, to join in a peace rally called ``Memphis Cares,'' which 6,000 people attended. Mr. Fisher's ethical and religious convictions took him to work with the Council of World Churches in Geneva, Switzerland where he worked with the Faith and Society Committee and the Finance Committee. His task was to lead the divestment of all World Council financial holdings in South African companies that supported apartheid. This work moved him across Europe where he attended seminars and coordinated meetings with the World Council and eventually was asked to be a delegate to the 5th Assembly of World Council of Churches in Nairobi, Kenya in 1975. In 2001, at age 67, John T. accepted a post at the Regional Medical Center at Memphis as Vice President for Development where he oversaw the MED Foundation. During his time there, he was credited with raising millions of dollars for the MED and was influential in building The Rehabilitation Hospital of Memphis (RHM). Today, RHM delivers comprehensive acute care, inpatient rehabilitation and outpatient treatment. RHM is a complement to the Elvis Presley Memorial Trauma Center, the Firefighters Regional Burn Center and serves the same five- state region in which the MED serves. John T. Fisher II remained deeply committed to the community. He served as Chapter's Warden and Bishop's Warden at St. Mary's Episcopal Cathedral, Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Board of Advisors at St. Mary's Episcopal School, and on the boards of the Memphis Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Memphis Arts Council, the Better Business Bureau, the Committee of Southern Churchmen, the Center for Urban Ministry, and the Wake Forest University Divinity School Board of Visitors. In addition to these responsibilities, he was a founding director of the Metropolitan Inter-Faith Association (MIFA). Today MIFA continues to unite the Memphis community and address the challenges of poverty by engaging the community to sustain the independence of seniors, transform the lives of families in crisis, and equip teens for success. John T. will be remembered for his many contributions and accomplishments. Those who knew him best will also remember him for his collection of ``words to live by,'' which he kept in his wallet to reference at any time and any place. Some of his favorite quotes were ``Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood,'' ``. . . Leadership is the willingness to state an opinion, the motivation to commit to a project, and the ability to make difficult choices . . .'' and ``quality is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort.'' He used these quotes to reflect upon vision, leadership and quality, all of which embodied his lifelong work. John T. Fisher II passed away on Friday, December 30, 2011, at 77 years of age. He is survived by his wife, Jean Carter Fisher, his three children: Jean Kelley Fisher, Suzannah Fisher Ragen, and John T. Fisher III, five grandchildren, his sister, Billie Fisher Carr Houghton and close mentor, Lewis Donelson of Memphis. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the many accomplishments and contributions of John T. Fisher II. His was a life well-lived.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of former Memphis State men's basketball coach and President of Hoops, L.P., Gene Bartow. Coach Bartow was born on August 8, 1930 in the tiny town of Browning, Missouri. Mr. Bartow graduated from Browning High School in 1948 and Northeast Missouri State College in 1952. After serving in the U.S. Army for two years, Mr. Bartow earned his master's degree from Washington University in St. Louis and did additional graduate work at the University of Southern California. Mr. Bartow began his coaching career at the high school-level before moving first to Central Missouri State University and later to Valparaiso University. In 1970, the Memphis State Tigers, who had posted a dismal 3 and 45 conference record since joining the highly regarded Missouri Valley Conference in 1967, hired Mr. Bartow as their head coach. The Tigers went 18-8 in Bartow's first season as head coach and made the National Invitational Tournament, NIT, the following year. Despite never having won an National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, tournament game, the Tigers reached the NCAA Championship Game in 1973, playing valiantly but ultimately falling to the John Wooden- coached and Bill Walton-led UCLA Bruins. That same year Bartow was voted NCAA Coach of the Year by his peers. Coach Bartow left Memphis State in 1974 to coach the Fighting Illini at the University of Illinois for one season before succeeding the revered John Wooden at UCLA in 1976. After amassing a 52-9 record and leading the UCLA Bruins to the Final Four all in just two seasons, he left for the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who had offered him complete control in building an athletic program as athletic director and head basketball coach. At the time, UAB had no teams in any sport. In just its second year of existence, Coach Bartow's UAB team made the NIT tournament; they followed it up with seven consecutive NCAA tournament appearances. Birmingham Southern athletic director Joe Dean, Jr. stated, ``Coach Bartow started an entire Division 1 athletic program from scratch, and by his fourth year he had the basketball program in the Elite Eight of the NCAA Tournament. No other school in the history of college athletics has done anything like that in such a short period of time.'' It is no wonder that he was dubbed ``The Father of UAB Athletics.'' Coach Bartow's storied 36-year coaching career produced 647 wins and 353 losses, and only two losing seasons. He was elected to 10 different Halls of Fame, including the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame, and he will be inducted into the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame in May. UAB renamed its basketball arena the Bartow Arena in 1997. Gene Bartow was loved and revered by many for his contributions to the city of Memphis. University of Memphis basketball coach Josh Pastner commented, ``The best description I can give of Coach Bartow is he was as nice a human being and as good a human being as you'll find.'' George Lapides, former sports editor of the defunct Memphis Press-Scimitar and a longtime friend of Bartow, observed, ``When you consider what a gentleman Gene was, in addition to what he did for this city in the early '70s when this city was so racially divided after the assassination of [Dr.] Martin Luther King, Jr., he might be the top sports figure in Memphis history.'' His contribution to cancer research will continue, for each year the University of Memphis and UAB play the Gene Bartow Classic, which donates 2 dollars for every ticket sold to the Coach Gene Bartow Fund for Cancer Research. I will remember Gene Bartow as a class act, a gentleman and one of the finest people to ever grace our city. Mr. Barlow passed away on January 3, 2012 at 81 years of age. He is survived by his wife of 59 years, Ruth, daughter, Beth B. Long, sons Mark and Murry, brother, Russell and eight grandchildren. Beloved throughout the basketball world, Mr. Bartow is perhaps best remembered for his class, humility, integrity, and genuine love not just for his players but for every person he met. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life, contributions, and legacy of Gene Bartow. His was a life well-lived.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for the American people. There was an opportunity with the Democrats in the Senate and the Republicans in the Senate. Eighty-nine of them, including my senior Senator, Lamar Alexander, Senator Heller, a former colleague, a classmate in this class, Senator Lugar, Senators Collins, Snowe, and others came together. They said, We need to protect the American people, protect the opportunity to see doctors when you're on Medicare, get unemployment insurance and keep the tax breaks. They came together and said, Let's do it for 60 days. We can come back later and then we can work on it for the rest of the year. They knew what was possible within the time allotted to it. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side don't realize what time makes available. There is no possibility of the Senate coming back and having a conference committee. They are saying ``Bah, humbug'' to the compromise and the bipartisanship that we saw in the Senate. It's an unfortunate day for the American people, and I'm sorry for my folks who will not be able to get doctors to treat them, unemployment compensation, or a tax break.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. We've witnessed a shell game played here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Republicans talked about having voted for an extension of the unemployment compensation and for extending the payroll tax, but what they gave with the right hand they took from the left. They said, We give you this, but we cut your benefits to 59 weeks of your unemployment compensation. They all voted against the Affordable Care Act. So in this bill as well, if you have a preexisting condition, they want you not to get health care as you can today. If you're 26 years of age or younger, it would be that you can't get on your parents' insurance policies, which you can today because of the ACA. Also, the doughnut hole would be closed, which it is because of the ACA, but they're against that because they wanted to cut funds to put the America Cares Act into operation. The fact is that Senate Republicans and Democrats didn't vote for a 60-day extension. They voted for time to get together and do a 1-year extension. That's what we need. They had wiser heads. You saw a good reason not to have term limits. First-year Members are acting as if they know everything; and in a petulant way, they have jeopardized millions of Americans.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Judge H.T. Lockard, born Hosea T. Lockard on June 24, 1920. Judge Lockard was a civil rights leader, hero and pioneer who fought alongside giants to bring racial equality to Memphis, Tennessee and the surrounding area. He grew up on a small farm near Henning, Tennessee before deciding to attend LeMoyne College in Memphis in 1940. Prior to completing his studies at LeMoyne College, Mr. Lockard chose to postpone his education to serve his country in the Army Medical Corps during World War II which included three and half years in North Africa, Italy, France and Germany. After his discharge in 1945, he continued his studies at Sorbonne University in Paris before returning to LeMoyne where he attained his bachelor's degree in 1947. After finishing at LeMoyne, H.T. Lockard was not allowed to attend a Tennessee law school due to segregation. Undeterred by challenges he faced in Tennessee, he pursued his Juris Doctorate by attending Lincoln University Law School in St. Louis, Missouri where he graduated in 1950. While in law school, H.T. Lockard observed that conditions for African-Americans in St. Louis were far better than those in Tennessee. After much debate, he made the tough decision to move back to Memphis where he began practicing law and working with the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, to improve race relations in Memphis. Mr. Lockard once recalled how at a NAACP meeting, the topics of police brutality and segregation in public facilities were like music to his ears. He said, ``. . . Good music, because that's what I wanted to get involved in and help bring about the change . . . I was ready to roll up my sleeves and go and ready to tackle anything that needed to be tackled.'' In 1955, he assumed the presidency of the Memphis Branch of the NAACP and served in that position until 1958. H.T. Lockard headed up their legal committee and contributed to national efforts. During this time, H.T. Lockard was joined by Russell Sugarmon, Vasco and Maxine Smith, Jesse Turner, Billy Kyles and the late Benjamin Hooks and A.W. Willis. Together, these stalwarts of the civil rights movement fought for and won many victories including desegregating Memphis Street Railway Co., public buildings, restaurants and the University of Memphis, formerly Memphis State University. H.T. Lockard broke significant barriers and paved the way for future African-American politicians in Memphis. In 1964, Mr. Lockard became the first African-American to hold elective office in Shelby County by being elected to the Shelby County Quarterly Court, now known as the County Commission. He then became active in local African-American political clubs and played a key role behind the scenes as an advisor on civil rights issues to President Lyndon B. Johnson. H.T. Lockard was appointed to serve as Administrative Assistant to Tennessee Governor Buford Ellington from 1967-1971 thereby becoming the first African- American cabinet member in the State of Tennessee. In 1975, H.T. Lockard became a Criminal Court judge and served until 1994. Judge Lockard later served as a board member of the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis from 1989-1999. He gave much of his time to the Memphis Charter Commission, a non-partisan group that reviewed the city Charter and made recommendations for changes to be presented to the citizens of Memphis through voter referendums. Mr. Lockard was awarded the Benjamin L. Hooks Award by the Memphis Bar Foundation in 2010 in recognition of his lifelong commitment to social justice and his prominence on the national stage. Some of his closest colleagues and friends recounted his dedication to the civil rights movement while he was a lawyer and president of the NAACP. The late Vasco Smith, a former Shelby County Commissioner, said ``. . . Lockard was pretty much the whole show. He did an outstanding job, and he probably laid the foundation for a lot of things that happened later on.'' His wife, Maxine Smith, a former executive secretary of the Memphis Branch of the NAACP described him as the inner circle of the civil rights movement in Memphis. Former General Sessions Court Judge Russell Sugarmon commented on H.T. Lockard saying ``When he put his mind to something, he was a plow. He dug in and dug in and wouldn't let up . . . If Lockard was on the other side, you'd better be prepared.'' Judge Lockard was an exceptional judge, leader and gentleman. I had the pleasure of meeting him in 1970 when he and I supported Senator Stan Snodgrass for Tennessee governor. In addition to the legacy he leaves behind, I will remember Judge Lockard for his service to the community and his dedication to the bench. As an admirer of classic cars, I will also remember his convertible Thunderbird. Judge Hosea T. ``H.T.'' Lockard passed away on December 12, 2011 at 91 years of age. He leaves to memory his wife of 49 years, Ida Walker Lockard; three brothers, Emmitt Lockard, Albert Lockard Jr. and Lorenza Lockard; and one sister, Lydia Morgan. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Judge H.T. Lockard. Judge H.T. Lockard will be remembered by many. His was a life well lived.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I awoke this morning to unfortunate news. A friend of mine and one of the world's most brilliant writers and intellects, Christopher Hitchens, passed away yesterday. Christopher Hitchens was a brilliant man who was a writer and a provocateur. You may not have disagreed with him, you may not have agreed with him, but I think everybody knew that Christopher Hitchens was well-versed on the subject on which he spoke and could express it in a way unlike any other. I don't think there was a more erudite, knowledgeable individual on the face of this Earth. He has left us. To me, he was a good friend. He made my visit to Washington here easier. To his friends, he was loyal, gracious, and fun. To his foes, he was a feared enemy, a feared foe. The world was lucky for his being here, and I was lucky for my life intersecting with his. The world shall miss him, a life well lived. Rest in peace, my friend.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, today is the 220th anniversary of the passage of the Bill of Rights. It was declared Bill of Rights Day by Franklin Roosevelt back in the forties and it's an anniversary that's too often overlooked. Ken Paulsen, the President of the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tennessee, at Vanderbilt University's campus and the American Society of News Editors, recently wrote that the Bill of Rights is ``a document that guarantees core personal liberties, including freedom of expression and faith, a fair judicial process, the right to bear arms, and protection against unreasonable government seizures . . . yet almost no one takes time to reflect on the importance of December 15th and the anniversary of these fundamental freedoms,'' and particularly what they really are. That's why I wanted to come to the well today and spend a few minutes reflecting on this amazing document and the freedoms that we derive from it. It's easy to take our Bill of Rights for granted. Of course we have the right to speak our minds. We don't live in fear that the police will break down our doors without exigent circumstances or a warrant. It would be ridiculous to imagine a church of America to which we all must belong and to which we must worship according to its dictates; but you only need to look across the globe to the Arab Spring and elsewhere to see millions of people protesting and risking their lives just to have a taste of the freedoms we take for granted, and you realize how fortunate we are. When the Constitution was ratified, there were very few individual rights guaranteed. It was mostly about setting up the structure of government. But Thomas Jefferson and others argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect individuals from their government. Think about how wise the Founders were to ensure that the very government they were establishing would not encroach on certain fundamental liberties of the people. As Jefferson wrote in letter to James Madison, ``a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth.'' Since Jefferson was not part of that Constitutional Convention, James Madison took up the task of drafting a bill of rights. After much debate and compromise, 10 amendments were approved and added to the Constitution. Right at the very beginning, we find the bedrock of the Bill of Rights, the great five freedoms of the First Amendment: religion, freedom of speech, press, to peacefully assemble, and petition of government. Those are the most basic freedoms we have, but they're not always without controversy. From the so-called ``War on Christmas'' to government-led prayer in school, we continue to debate what the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause meant. And that is not new. Thomas Jefferson found himself deep in the war over religious liberty as well. In response to attacks that he was insufficiently religious, he wrote in a letter to Benjamin Rush, ``For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'' He went on to explain in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists that there is ``a wall of separation between church and State'' since ``religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God.'' But that does not put the issue to rest. We continue to wrestle with these issues today. But the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, is what enables us to work our differences out peacefully through the democratic process. We have the right to speak our mind without fear that the government will stifle dissent. We have the ability to hold our government accountable with a vibrant free press because an informed citizenry is what keeps democracy strong. And we have the right to protest when we're dissatisfied with our government. Whether it's actions by the Tea Party or the Occupy movements, the people are exercising their right to assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances. As elected officials, it's up to us to consider their causes while also protecting their rights. I remember back in 1993 when I was a Tennessee State senator, in one week I stood on the legislative plaza and I defended the Second Amendment urging the passage of Tennessee's right to carry bill, and the next week I was on the plaza supporting a woman's right to choose, which comes through the Ninth Amendment. No two people of either of those rallies were the same; they were indeed very different. But what they were advocating was both in the Bill of Rights, and both supported such and the Bill of Rights supported them. I have devoted much of my career to fighting for fairness in our criminal justice system. It's the Bill of Rights that builds fundamental fairness into that system, particularly the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. It guarantees that we'll have a reasonable bail, a fair chance to prove our innocence, have a lawyer, be able to question witnesses, and, if convicted, we won't be subject to torture or other cruel and unusual punishments. The Bill of Rights embodies the core values of this Nation: freedom, fairness, justice, and equality. We need to remember, though, that we have not always upheld those values. For example, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that we won't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But many of the same people who drafted the Bill of Rights and the Constitution owned slaves, treated them as property, and gave them no rights whatsoever. It took almost 100 years to abolish slavery and almost another 100 years to get beyond the Jim Crow laws that continued such. We must honor the Bill of Rights and respect it for what it has done and recognize it today. I thank Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and others who gave us the Bill of Rights; and I swore upon the altar of God, eternal hostility toward all forms of tyranny over the mind of man. We must always strive toward that ``more perfect union'' discussed in the preamble of the Constitution. That's why we should be thankful for the organizations that fight each day to defend the Bill of Rights and our freedoms. You may not always agree with them, but groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way, and the Freedom Forum, are on the front lines defending our rights, even when it means taking unpopular positions. Every day, we're touched by the Bill of Rights, but too often we fail to recognize its importance. I hope my colleagues, and all Americans, will take time today to think about the Bill of Rights and how lucky we are to live in a country that guarantees us the liberty and freedoms enshrined in that document.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans, I rise to question the necessity for consideration of H. Res. 306, urging the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian heritage and to return confiscated church properties, especially in light of recent developments undertaken by the Turkish government. The current government of Turkey has taken steps to deal with the issue of religious properties. By amending its Law on Foundations in August 2011, Turkey's statute has been improved and expanded, providing that the ``immovable properties, cemeteries and fountains'' of non-Muslim religious entities--referred to as community foundations in Turkey--recorded in Turkey's 1936 Declaration, and ``registered in the name of Turkish public institutions,'' will be returned to the entities upon request. Additionally, provisions are made for the Turkish Treasury or the Directorate General of Foundations to compensate non-Muslim entities for properties that are currently registered in the name of third parties. Accordingly, those communities for whom the law is applicable will be able to have their properties registered in their own names, or be compensated. In addition to this great step forward, Turkey has eased its citizenship requirements for Orthodox senior clergy, and in compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, returned to the Ecumenical Patriarchate its orphanage on the Princes' Islands. Praising the Turkish government on September 13, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, ``We have also seen Turkey take serious steps to improve the climate for religious tolerance. The Turkish government issued a decree in August that invited non-Muslims to reclaim churches and synagogues that were confiscated 75 years ago. I applaud Prime Minister Erdogan's very important commitment in doing so.'' H. Res 306 was first introduced on June 15, 2011, and does not recognize the developments on the ground since that time, nor does it take a regional approach to these questions. If Turkey is singled out, it should be for praise regarding progress that has been made.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Over the last 3 years, much progress has been made in an effort to recover from the economic fallout, the Great Recession that the President inherited from the previous administration. More needs to be done to stabilize our economy and create jobs for the millions of Americans still out of work. That progress may get derailed this week if the Republican majority refuses to extend tax cuts for 160 million Americans and unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans. You'd think congressional Republicans who routinely label Democrat as the ``party of taxes,'' which is something Oliver Wendell Holmes said was the price we pay for civilization, that's what taxes are, would eagerly support tax cuts for 160 million Americans; but they don't. I'm buffed. But you listen to the other side, they've got all kinds of reasons. They've got extensions. They've got all kinds of riders. The bottom line is it's a political fight to defeat the President of the United States. It's been their agenda since he was elected. Every day my Republican colleagues come to the House floor to call for lower taxes, particularly for the millionaires. They call them the job creators. Yet, when the time comes to support a Democratic payroll tax proposal that lowers taxes and creates jobs, Republican support is not found. Under the Democratic proposal, a family making $50,000 a year and struggling would save $1,500 next year. But this tax cut does more than put money in the pockets of more than 160 million hardworking Americans and ensure they won't see a tax increase. It also creates jobs. Mark Zandi, the previous Republican Presidential candidate John McCain's economic adviser, said that expanding the payroll tax cut for employees would create 750,000 jobs. Conversely, he said the failure to do so would cost a million jobs. But, apparently, tax breaks for those people, 160 million Americans, and creation of those jobs is not enough for my colleagues on the Republican side. They need more enticement to support a payroll cut. So what's the red meat that gets them to do this? They have to break their pledge. They made a pledge to America. They said they wouldn't put extraneous legislation together with other legislation to pass a mass bill. It would circumvent the will of the people. They promised to advance major legislation one issue at a time, but Republicans violated this pledge this time by stuffing anti- environmental riders into a must-pass payroll tax bill. While cutting taxes for 160 million Americans seems like something Republicans would unequivocally support, the GOP leadership felt they had to violate that pledge and cram divisive riders into the bill to get support from people who want to put a potentially dangerous line in environmentally sensitive areas of pipeline that has shown repeatedly a failure to be done in an appropriate way, something that has been said would be a carbon bomb being set off and the end of the global warming fight. It would end the game. Despite their claims that the riders would create jobs and stimulate the economy, reality doesn't align with those arguments. The reality is they would destroy our economy, our environment, and the lives of thousands of Americans. The Boiler MACT provision in the bill would delay air toxin rules for at least 3\1/2\ years. That would result in 28,350 premature deaths, 17,000 heart attacks, nearly 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits, more than 1.2 million days of missed work, and 150,000 cases of asthma attacks. The health benefits of these regulations are estimated to save up to $67 billion and save all of those lives. It's astonishing the Republicans would consider delaying a public health rule that would prevent 8,000 premature deaths a year and save up to $67 billion, the sweetener that was needed to try to get these tax breaks for 160 million Americans. I urge my colleagues to see the folly of their ways and pull these harmful riders out of the bill, to stop their effort to just defeat President Obama, and do what's right for the American public--to create jobs and to help people on unemployment, which will stimulate our economy. In their Pledge to America, they describe what they called ``circumventing the will of the American people.'' That's what they're doing today. The will of the American people is not to have deaths and injuries, health and environmental policies destroyed, but to create jobs and to help people through this difficult recession. I would ask that we defeat this bill, come back, work together, and do what's right for the American people.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for the way he runs his committee. He is an outstanding chairman and a gentleman. And I appreciate the fact that in this bill, on which the gentleman from Virginia has given much of the argument that I, otherwise, would have made about its failings, that Mr. Smith did accept an amendment to take the possession charges out of it. So possession of drugs is not in it, and that was an improvement. But, nevertheless, one of the amendments that we did discuss in committee that still bothers me is that the activities could have been entirely legal in the country where they took place. Amsterdam or Holland--Holland is the country which I was thinking of--the Netherlands. And we discussed it in committee. Mr. Scott mentioned medical marijuana being legal in Canada as well as in Israel. But a lot of drugs are legal and transactions in Holland. And if two Americans talked on the phone about going to Holland and buying some marijuana and maybe trading it with somebody else in Holland where it would be legal, it would be a violation of the law in the United States based on this particular statute. And that's what's called an overly broad law, when it captures conduct that it really isn't intended to do. I don't think--and I hope that the people who voted for this didn't intend for it to criminalize speech when the actions in the country where the act took place were legal. I hope they wouldn't have been thinking that. And on the Judiciary Committee, in particular, we should be very, very circumscribed in what we pass because we're taking people's liberty from them. And ``liberty'' is one of the words inscribed up here, I think, in front of the panel. It is one of the things America holds so dear. This Thursday, we are going to be celebrating the 220th passage of the Bill of Rights. And the Bill of Rights gives people the freedom of speech and quite a few freedoms from government oppression and government activities. To suggest that this is a loophole, I think, is a mistake. I think it was not intended by this Congress to criminalize behavior, particularly behavior that was legal in the country where it took place. In the situation that the gentleman from Texas describes, where some people got together in Miami to discuss drugs from Colombia that were flown from Venezuela to France and purchased in the Netherlands, Italy, and elsewhere, I don't think that they were in Miami because they thought that was a loophole. I think they were in Miami because they liked Miami. And why wouldn't you? Miami is a great place. They weren't there because it was a loophole. They just happened to be there. And I don't think anybody foresaw that as being illegal conduct. They could have discussed that in Paris or in Caracas or anywhere else. They didn't facilitate the crime, per se. What they did was illegal in all those different countries, and they could have been prosecuted there. I would submit to you, also, that this Nation and this world almost came to its knees because of derivatives and financial instruments created here in the United States, created here--not just talked about on Wall Street. But it had a global effect because those derivatives affected banks in Europe and all around the world. And as we almost came to our knees because of the criminal activities of people making lots of money with greed, Gekko greed, other people around the world suffered as well economically. But we're not rushing here to criminalize talks between people in Washington and Wall Street and people in Paris about derivatives, about subprime loans, about ways to make money at the expense of poor people and possibly bring the world to its knees economically; that, we're not discussing. But we are discussing the possibility of putting people in jail for going to Amsterdam and talking about buying some marijuana. Something smells foul, and that's why I oppose the bill.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes or such time as I may consume, whichever comes first. I rise in support of H.R. 1264, which designates the property between the United States courthouse and the Ed Jones Federal Building in Jackson, Tennessee, as the M.D. Anderson Plaza. Ed Jones was the Congressman who preceded Mr. Fincher in that district, who preceded Mr. Tanner. He had the slogan, ``Ed Jones--the heart of the district with the district at his heart.'' Quite a fine man. This bill also authorizes the placement of a historical marker and a statue on the grounds recognizing the achievements and the philanthropic good deeds of M.D. Anderson. Born in 1873 in Jackson, Mr. Anderson, who was known as M.D. Anderson, was a successful businessman, farmer, and philanthropist. He went to college in Memphis--smart man he was to go to Memphis. It was then called Southern Baptist, but I believe it became Union, then Jackson, Tennessee. After he was in Memphis and had that opportunity, he moved back to Jackson and went to work in his family-owned business--a good choice. He went into the cotton business with his older brother, Frank, and with Frank's brothers-in-law, and they became the largest cotton company in the world, according to Fortune magazine in 1945. In 1936 M.D. Anderson created a charitable foundation that bore his name and funded it with an initial investment of $300,000--a considerable amount of money at that time, not a bad amount of money today. After his death, the trustees of M.D. Anderson's estate directed an additional $19 million towards his foundation, which helped create M.D. Anderson's lasting legacy by providing seed funds for the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, which is one of the world's leaders in cancer research and treatments. Thankfully, people I know have had the opportunity to be treated there. It's a great clinic, and it's the best place to go if you've got cancer and have that opportunity to be treated by the world's greatest professionals there in Houston. M.D. Anderson is considered to be the father of the institution, and because the charitable foundation matched the initial State funds for a Texas-based cancer research and treatment center, he is given that appellation. His charitable foundation has also funded and supported libraries and college buildings, including ones at Lambuth College in Jackson, now known as the Lambuth University of Memphis. It has funded planetariums also in the city of Jackson and in his adopted hometown of Houston, Texas. Given his lasting and significant contributions to his community and, really, to the world, with the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, which is the finest cancer clinic, I suspect, in the world, it's fitting that we honor his commitment by giving the plaza between the two Federal buildings his name. Some might question our taking the time of this Congress, on this floor, to do this when we have so many things going on, but this is the type of activity that will, hopefully, inspire others to use their good fortune and/or good works to help others who are in situations as dire as having cancer. M.D. Anderson did that. So it's a commendable piece of legislation, and I'm happy that Mr. Fincher brought to it the floor. I'm happy to support it, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1264 in memorializing this gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. The DEA can use its emergency powers to temporarily schedule these substances while letting the scientific process play out. Let's put science first and politics second. Let's defeat this bill. If we put science first and politics second, maybe we won't be in single figures in the public's mind as an organization that they support as an institution. Part of the 9 percent level is because we do things sometimes in a rush to judgment and politics and the issue du jour rather than allowing the scientific process and doing what is logically best for our Nation to prevail. I urge the defeat of this bill.

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for yielding the time. I rise in opposition to this particular bill. It's not that I am, indeed, in favor of any of the particular drugs that are here; but just like Mrs. Adams, my colleague from Florida mentioned, the State of Florida has already criminalized it, as many States have, and it's really a State issue. It seems interesting. When the subject du jour comes up, the item of the day, there is a rush to action and a rush to forget States' rights. There is a desire on gun bills to overlook the States and to have a Federal law on the interstate shipment of guns or on the interstate transportation of guns by people with permits. In this situation, drugs that should be criminalized are criminalized at the State level, but all of a sudden we're doing it more at the Federal level. This bill would place more than 40 chemical compounds on Schedule I, the most punitive and restrictive schedule, without any independent scientific evidence that doing so is necessary or warranted. It is a rush to legislate before we know all the facts. This bill essentially bans these substances without any study whatsoever. I've read the press reports of young people who have been harmed by these substances and by others, and I'm very sympathetic as that's certainly wrong; but we shouldn't legislate on the basis of anecdotal evidence. It's typical of the ``shoot first and ask questions later'' approach that we have taken to drug policy in this country for decades. Our national drug policy should be driven by science, not politics. We've already gotten a well-deserved reputation here as a do-nothing Congress; but bills like this and our attitudes towards clean air, clean water, global climate change, and other environmental issues have made this the no-respect-for-science Congress as well. The DEA has already taken steps to temporarily place certain synthetic substances on Schedule I while it conducts a review. If there is an emergency that requires temporarily scheduling the other substances in this bill, the DEA can review them and do that just as well. But we shouldn't circumvent the process established in law. I don't think this is a responsible way to legislate. I know the sponsors of this bill know about the emergency review process because the bill doubles the length of time a bill can be put on emergency review on a schedule from 18 months to 3 years; it doubles it. Yet there's been no hearings or evidence that 18 months was insufficient, none whatsoever. It was just a knee-jerk way to respond to the issue du jour. This is a very serious issue and deserves serious study and consideration before we act, as all bills before Congress should. I fear that this bill continues the misguided policies that we've created towards drugs in this country. Just look at our experience with marijuana, which Congress placed on Schedule I in 1970. According to the criteria of the Controlled Substances Act, it supposedly has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. Let's put aside for a minute the question of whether it has a potential for abuse. Certainly there's a lot of evidence that it does not. But I think thousands of people who depend on marijuana to treat the effects of such diseases as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis would take issue with the notion that it has no medical use, and 15 or so States have legalized it for medical use. It increases appetite and eases pain in a way that has helped countless people in the last stages of life. But we treat our approach to drugs as a law enforcement matter, not a scientific matter, and we've placed marijuana in Schedule I, the most restrictive schedule. Meanwhile, the scientific community is urging that we reschedule marijuana so we can continue to conduct important research and make it available to those in need. Recently, the California Medical Association called for cannabis to be legalized and regulated, primarily so that scientists can gain access to it and conduct further research. They advocated wider clinical research with accountable and quality- controlled production of cannabis. None of this can happen with the tight restrictions we've placed on cannabis. That's exactly the situation we may find ourselves in with the substances named in this bill. I know that licenses are available for research in the Schedule I drugs, but there's no reason to make researchers go through such hoops. It is nearly as easy to get permission to do research on a Schedule I drug as it would be to go to the Vatican and ask for a grant to study birth control. We don't know what medical benefits these substances may contain and we don't know the true risk they pose. Perhaps they belong in a lower schedule. And Schedule II would certainly deter young people from using them and others and set a penalty stage. But we have no idea. We just decided to throw the book and make it Schedule I. Perhaps they shouldn't be scheduled at all. I suspect they should be scheduled, maybe Schedule II. But the scientists should decide this and not politicians. We have no basis to believe they belong in Schedule I. Haven't we learned from this Nation's 40-year experiment with the war on drugs? Prohibition does not work. It is an expensive and counterproductive policy that fills up our prisons and places a mark on our citizens that can make jobs, housing, and education nearly impossible to obtain. We should focus our efforts on educating young people about the substances and continue to do research about their benefits and risks. Instead of basing our drug policy on science, we are letting it be driven by politics. This bill continues that trend, and regrettably I must urge its defeat. We need to send this bill back to committee and take a careful, considerable review so that we can have Congress make this decision on a scientific basis with help from the scientists.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the people of Morocco for the free and fair Parliamentary election that took place on November 25, 2011. Participation rates were 20 percent higher than the previous election held in 2007. The Justice and Development Party (PJD), a moderate Islamist party, secured the largest number of seats in the new Parliament. Morocco's King Mohammed VI, in line with the new constitution, has already tasked the leader of the PJD, as Head of Government, to form a new coalition government. This election marks the first time the Moroccan people have gone to the polls within the framework of the new constitution. With this election, Morocco has crossed yet another major milestone in its democratic progress. I extend my warm wishes to the King of Morocco for his leadership and the Moroccan people for their achievements so far and hope they continue on the path of reform and progress.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time, but I don't appreciate the relocation. I am from Tennessee, the Volunteer State, and from Memphis, in particular. But it is appropriate, I guess, that we be a little confused with States because listening to the debate on the floor, it's obvious we're a little confused about history and Presidents, too, for President Obama has been Bush-whacked here on the floor of the House. It's not the Obama economy, it's the Bush economy that President Obama saved from going into the second Great Depression that this country would have suffered in 100 years, saved it from depression with great actions at a time of bipartisan action that helped save this country from the Great Depression that it was otherwise looking at. I think we need to commend President Obama and not Bush-whack him when we get the chance here in the partisan discussions. This bill that has been brought up, H.R. 10, the REINS Act, would rein in government. It would rein in the opportunity for regulations that are promulgated by experts in our agencies, experts who have years of expertise in subject matters, in order to come up with rules and regulations to implement the laws that we pass. Now, I am proud to be a Member of the United States Congress. I know that we have good men and women in this House and that most of the people are very good men and women. But right now, Congress has a 9 percent approval rating. This bill would tell the American public that it should take the expertise of the people who are in the agencies and in the administration and turn it over to the 435 Members of Congress-- 535 when including those in the Senate--the least approved government body that exists. On the one hand, they decry Congress, and their candidate Mr. Perry wants us to work half time, but this bill would make us the super- regulatory commission. We would have to approve every regulation by a positive vote in the House and by a positive vote in the Senate. We would have to do it and have the President sign it within 70 days of promulgation. We'd only have every other Thursday to do this, and we'd only have debate of 30 minutes on each side. So you'd take the least respected body of government in the entire United States of America-- maybe of the entire world--and give it a very limited amount of time to make all of the rules and regulations for the biggest government in the world. Talk about clean air. We wouldn't have it. You'd have more dirty rain. The REINS Act--it should be called the Acid Rain Act. It's raining outside. It's raining prevarications, fabrications, and canards upon us, none of which are appropriate for this body or for the American people. We've had several bills dealing with regulation in this session, all of which basically tend to emasculate government. These bills take away the people's rights to clean air, clean water, safe products, and to occupational safety and health hazard protection, all of which are almost second nature to the American public. I'd ask us to defeat this bill and to protect our environment and our workers.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and am glad to be the Hoyt Wilhelm of the Judiciary Committee and to relieve the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Conyers. S. 1639, the Senate version of H.R. 2369, is a bipartisan bill which makes a minor change to the Federal charter of the American Legion. The American Legion, as we all know, is the Nation's largest veterans service organization, which was chartered after World War I, by Congress in 1919. S. 1639, introduced by Senator Tester of Montana, a distinguished Member of the Senate, is the Senate companion of the bill introduced by the distinguished Representative and former defensive back from the Florida State Seminoles, Representative Altmire of Pennsylvania, who introduced H.R. 2369. He did a phenomenal job of getting 432 cosponsors--433 if including himself in the sponsorship. He can't be a cosponsor because he is ``the'' sponsor, which might make this the easiest suspension vote we've ever taken. The change made by this bill simply reaffirms the organization's structure, which grants broad autonomy to the departments and posts throughout the country. While this is not a major change to the existing charter, it will help the American Legion carry out changes to the membership renewal process that were adopted by resolution at its national convention last year. Senator Tester and Representative Altmire are responding to a call from the American Legion. I am proud to join with them, as just about everybody else is in this House; and I support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. I now yield 3 minutes and 7 seconds to the gentleman who represents the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), an alumnus of Florida State University, who lost to the University of Tennessee in the national championship football game that I attended in Phoenix.

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, the other day the Postmaster General said that first class mail wasn't going to be first class anymore; it wasn't going to be overnight; it might be 2 or 3 days. Because of the problems we have with making the post office financially sufficient, there are ways they could accomplish this, and I've got a bill that allows them to go into other services to expand their revenue base, and there's also about $5 billion that's an issue concerning payments into a health fund that could be resolved. The post office is almost as American as apple pie. A lot of people will switch to using the Internet to pay their bills and they'll never go back to the post office. I'm afraid that what's been recommended is penny-wise and pound-foolish, and a great American institution that serves many rural people and others without a lot of connectivity and fortune will suffer. I wish the Postmaster General will reconsider his action. I have a ``Dear Colleague'' being circulated. I hope people will sign on and that we will save the U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 1541, the Senate version of H.R. 2815, is another bipartisan bill to revise the Federal charter of the Blue Star Mothers of America. The revisions implemented by the legislation once again reflect minor changes recently made to the organization's membership eligibility requirements. The Blue Star Mothers of America, representing the mothers of military servicemen and -women, has been a federally chartered organization since 1960. The existing charter restricts member in three ways: A, members must be birth mothers, adoptive mothers, or certain stepmothers; B, members must be U.S. citizens currently living in the country; and C, the corresponding serviceman or -woman must be currently serving in the Armed Forces or must have served in World War II or the Korean War. Last year, at the organization's national convention, the group adopted a resolution expanding these eligibility criteria. A conforming amendment to the Federal charter is needed in order make these changes operable. S. 1541, the Senate bill, was introduced by Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado. Its House companion was introduced by Representative Scott Tipton, also of Colorado. The legislation makes three minor revisions to the organization's charter: First, to expand the membership eligibility requirements to include foster mothers, grandmothers, female legal guardians, and all stepmothers; Second, it expands membership to U.S. citizens living abroad; Third, it expands eligibility to servicemen and -women who served in prior conflicts other than World War II and the Korean War. Our men and women in the military need all the support we can offer, so I applaud this effort by the Blue Star Mothers to provide the circle of support that the organization can provide. They do much to remember our servicepeople, and I appreciate their efforts. I support these changes, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the life of John Colbert, better known as J. Blackfoot, a great soul singer and entertainer from the city of Memphis, Tennessee. J. Blackfoot was a special talent known for his unique vocal style. Born in Greenville, Mississippi, his family moved to Memphis when he was two. Colbert earned the nickname ``Blackfoot'' as a child because he would run barefoot through his neighborhood. J. Blackfoot began his music career after meeting Johnny Bragg, founder of the 1950s-era music group ``Prisonaires.'' Together they recorded a ``behind-the-walls'' hit for Sun Records, after which J. Blackfoot embarked on a solo venture under his birth name. Strongly pursuing his love for music, he eventually found himself at Stax Records under the tutelage of songwriter/producer, David Porter. In the late 1960s, J. Blackfoot auditioned at Stax Records where David Porter and his song writing partner, Isaac Hayes, initially wrote many solo songs for him to perform. When the R&B duo Sam and Dave left Stax, Porter and Hayes decided to fill the stylistic void. They paired J. Blackfoot with Norman West, Anita Lewis and Shelbra Bennett to create the ``Soul Children.'' They put out 7 albums over their decade long career and released 15 R&B hits. In 1983, J. Blackfoot began a successful solo career, scoring many chart successes in both the U.S. and the U.K. He released several hit songs, including ``Taxi'' from the 1983 album City Slicker, which was perhaps his biggest solo career single. Over the last two decades, J. Blackfoot continued to record dozens of solo albums, performed at Stax- related events and reformed the ``Soul Children.'' J. Blackfoot passed away on November 30, 2011 at 65 years of age. Memphis, known for its rich musical heritage, mourns the loss of one of its unique voices. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring the contributions J. Blackfoot made to the music community. As an artist and music maker, his was a life well lived.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. David J. Cohn, a small business owner and philanthropist from Forrest City, Arkansas who passed away on November 26. Mr. Cohn was a proud member of Temple Israel in Memphis, whose compassion and devotion to helping the less fortunate was well-known to those who knew him. Mr. Cohn was born September 30, 1955, in Memphis, Tennessee. He was the proud owner and operator of Forest City Grocery Company and Tobacco Superstore, until illness forced him to spend less time at work. He was also a member of the Arkansas Oil Marketers Association, Retail Tobacco Dealers of America, the Associated Wholesale Grocers and served as President of the Forrest City Country Club. Despite his obligations to his business and to his organizations, Mr. Cohn found time to give back to his community through charity and supporting local universities' athletic programs. Mr. Cohn was a philanthropist and gave to many causes in Forrest City. He established endowments with the St. Francis Community Foundation including the David Cohn ``Wishes'' Endowment which grants wishes to those most in need as well as many nonprofits. This endowment was set up by his wife Marsha and their children as a birthday gift because they knew how important giving back to the community was to David. Mr. Cohn was a proud supporter of the University of Arkansas Razorbacks and was an ambassador for the University of Memphis Athletic Department. David Cohn passed away at the young age of 56 years of age. David Cohn is survived by his wife of 26 years, Marsha, one son, Perry Partain, three daughters, Hannah Reeves, Emily Cohn and Kelli Cohn, as well as his mother, Suzanne Cohn, two sisters, a brother and a host of nephews and a caretaker. Mr. Cohn's commitments to his family and community will be missed. His was a life well lived.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the ranking member for the time. I have a nice speech that was written by a fantastic staffer that I'm not going to use today because I've used it in the past. Most of the speeches today have been used--or parts of them--on the other bills we've had. Because of what we've done this week and the wonderful gentlemen on the opposite side--Mr. Smith and Mr. Coble are two great, wonderful people who I think dearly of. They just have different philosophies than I have. Different perspectives. These bills have been bills to basically be anti-government bills. That's what this Congress has been about. It's been about being anti- government, and it's been about defeating the President of the United States. These bills which we've got would destroy the Administrative Procedure Act and destroy the whole process of government that we've known for decades. The fact is, President Bush had as many, if not more, rules than President Obama; but we didn't hear from the other side anything about the nefarious rulemaking process, the need for reform, the jobs that could be created by eliminating the rulemaking authority or stifling it and changing it, until President Obama became the President. We heard this morning from the other side that it's the administration that's at fault because of all the rules they've produced, and now they say some of rules can change. They say the administration is at fault for all the rules they passed. They made fewer rules than President Bush made. And there was silence on the other side. Silence. All of a sudden there's a roar. This whole week, when we need jobs, when our economy needs job, when our people need unemployment compensation, unemployment insurance continued for the 99ers--not the 99 percent, although they're part of that--the 99ers in terms of weeks they get unemployment insurance; when we need the doctors and medical folks to get the Medicare fixed that we always put in to make sure that we continue to pay doctors a reasonable rate to treat our Medicare patients, we're not dealing with that. And when we need to be dealing with the payroll tax cut for the middle class, we're not dealing with that. We've spent a whole week on destroying government and being anti- government. Rick Perry, one of the candidates for President on the other side, has talked about making Congress half time. How could we be half time when we're not accomplishing our jobs and creating jobs full-time? As Mr. Conyers talked about, next week we've got the mother of all anti-government bills, the REINS Act, which really is reining in government, a bill that would require every rule to be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President within 70 or 75 days before it goes into effect. That's Star Wars--or anti-Star Wars. It's really a big dark hole out there in the universe where all rules and regulations would go and die and never be seen again and just disappear. Well, that's not the way government is supposed to work or should work. And if we had that, how could we work half time under President Perry? We'd have to be working time-and-a-half. And we know there's not enough money for overtime. And President Perry doesn't want us to do that. He wants us to get a separate job when we go home. We go back to San Antonio, we serve half time as a Congressman and half time we work at Walmart. That's what he's suggesting. Who would really love this bill? The tobacco companies. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have rules and regulations on tobacco and we didn't put little notices on tobacco that smoking can kill you; smoking can cause damage to infants; that pregnant women shouldn't drink or smoke. Tobacco companies would love this. Those rules and regulations, very burdensome, giving notice to people about the dangers of tobacco, which Europe has been doing forever and we need to put an end to because it costs us so much in medical costs and the lost of precious lives. The polluters would love this. The destroyers and plunderers of our environment, they'd love it, because wow, Olly, Olly, in free, we can do whatever we want. Removal of mountains, drilling; more oil spills, less regulation. In an emergency, the government can't even respond to clean up the mess. That's what they're talking about. It's all phrased in the tones of small business, small business, small business. Small business is wonderful. We do a lot with small business. Small business is a jobs creator. But this affects big business as well. And it's big business who is behind this, not small business. Small business is the front used to help the polluters, the tobacco companies, and the others that don't want to see regulations that protect the American public's food, air, water, transportation, and other areas. The issue of judicial review has come up, and in this bill we give the courts more power than they otherwise had. The other side usually talks about the importance of the judicial branch simply being an equal partner; but in this position, the judicial branch could review any rule and regulation and make its own determination of cost-benefit analysis without expertise that the agencies have, and it would be the judiciary that had the final say. So it would give more power to the courts and more power, in fact, to the administration. The OIRA office in the White House would have more power than ever. So it's antithetical to much of which the other side argues about. This is not a good bill. It's not good government. And I would ask that we all vote against it and we get back to the jobs that we should be for--creating jobs for the American people and getting us out of this deep, dark, long recession.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would exempt from this particular bill the rules it has when it relates to food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, air quality, and water quality--things we all hold dear, things that will be jeopardized if this bill passes. As I noted in my opening remarks, this threatens to halt agencies' ability to promulgate rules by adding analytical requirements and numerous opportunities for industry to challenge agency rulemaking. Yet you should be able to challenge agency rulemaking, but courts shouldn't be able to summarily throw them out based on a lack of knowledge that they have of an area in which the agencies are really expert, but that's what would happen. The societal cost of enacting H.R. 527 would be to place public health and safety at risk. As we enter this holiday season, it would be well to remember that the reason we take for granted that the food we eat and the water we drink--and the drinks we drink--at all our holiday dinners and receptions won't kill us or sicken us is because of effective rulemaking. Likewise, because of strong regulations, we can take for granted that toys given to our children or grandchildren won't poison them; but the consequences of failing to regulate can be dire. In 2006 24-year-old Jillian Castro became gravely ill after eating spinach tainted with E. coli bacteria. Her organs were rapidly deteriorating; her kidneys were failing; her red blood cells and platelets were dropping rapidly; and she nearly died. According to the best available estimates by public health and food safety experts, millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths each year in this country can be traced to contaminated food. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that foodborne microorganisms have caused 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths. Many of these could be avoided with the proper regulations of food and drug. That's why I ask that food safety be eliminated from this bill, because it will be expensive to treat these people, let alone the fact that they will die. The CDC estimates that salmonella alone affects a million people a year. Just today, the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of grape tomatoes because of potential salmonella contamination. Other recent examples of regulatory failure include the Listeria- tainted cantaloupes that killed 29 people across the country in October. Pedal entrapment issues that cause cars to accelerate unexpectedly resulted in Toyota's recall of nearly 2 million vehicles. There was Mattel's recall of nearly a million toys in 2007 because the toys were covered in lead paint. There are other examples of this. Public health and safety precautions have been on the books for a long time and were passed with bipartisan support. The fact is there were more regulations during President Bush's term than there were overall in President Obama's when you calculate the time they've been in office. Yet there was no call to cut back when President Bush was in office. It's only since President Obama has been in office. The Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted in 1906 by Teddy Roosevelt, then the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act in 1938. The Clean Air Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act were enacted in 1970 when Richard Nixon was President. The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1977. They've served our country well for many years. If H.R. 527 is enacted without adopting this amendment, we can no longer take protections from these harms for granted because, in the future, agencies will be hamstrung from passing regulations to protect the public. I would urge us to pass this amendment and to protect our workers, our consumers, our small businesses, and our small business people when they eat their breakfasts, their lunches and their dinners, when they buy toys for their children and their grandchildren, when they drive their cars, and when they work in their workplaces. I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a positive vote.

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