Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Gulf Coast Conservation Corps Act of 2010, which will help to create jobs in the Gulf Coast region. The program will assist those who have been unemployed due to the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico that took place on April 20, 2010. In a program similar to the Civil Conservation Corps created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, the Gulf Coast Conservation Corps will be a public-private partnership benefiting our nation for years to come.

We find our country in much the same position as it was when President Roosevelt created his Corps. Then, there was a staggering number of unemployed who went to work to conserve our national parks. Today, it is a devastated Gulf Coast. Even before the oil spill, the region was suffering under extraordinary unemployment levels. The tourist industry contributed 620,000 jobs and over $9 billion in wages to the Gulf region. The fishing industry supports over 200,000 jobs with related economic activity of $5.5 billion. With so much of the federal waters unavailable for fishing and so many tourists cancelling planned vacations, the need is dire and we must get people back to work.

The Corps will provide workers with the means, training and knowledge they need to alleviate the worst environmental disaster in the history of our country. These are not ``make work'' jobs. The work is not ``busy work.'' The cleaning and restoration of the Gulf is not optional. And because it will likely take years to finish, it is imperative that we have the necessary resources in place to ensure that it is completed. Participants will do the necessary work to get the Gulf Coast back on track. The Corps will be a committed labor force, performing the hard work that will move the United States beyond this environmental disaster.

As President Roosevelt said, ``All work undertaken should be useful-- not just for a day, or a year, but useful in the sense that it affords permanent improvement in living conditions or that it creates future new wealth for the Nation.''

Madam Speaker, the work of Gulf Coast Conservation Corps is, to say the least, useful. I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House passed H. Res. 1359, a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli solider Gilad Shalit. It has been four long years since Gilad, then 19 years old, was kidnapped by Hamas. Hamas, in direct violation of international human rights law, has refused to allow Gilad any contact with his family, and has further refused to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to determine his well-being. It is a war crime for Hamas to hold Gilad hostage in order to compel the Israeli government to accede to Hamas' demands.

Madam Speaker, the time for Hamas to release Gilad Shalit is now. Right now. It is simply unconscionable for Hamas to engage in such a vicious and cruel exercise in inhumanity. One of both Israeli and American societies' highest and most noble ideals is to never leave a soldier behind. The passage of this resolution reaffirms the United States commitment to continue fighting for Gilad's unconditional and immediate release so that he may return to his family.

Chairman Frank, I first want to commend you on an extraordinary effort and your dedicated leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to supporting this legislation.

Before that, however, I would like to clarify a few points as they pertain to the intent of the bill. It's my understanding that certain provisions which are intended to improve access to mainstream financial institutions are not intended to further limit access to credit and other financial services to the very consumers who are already underserved by traditional banking institutions.

As you know, each year over 20 million working American families with depository account relationships at federally insured financial institutions actively choose alternative sources and lenders to meet their emergency and short-term credit needs.

These alternative sources and lenders often offer convenient and less expensive products and services than the banks where these consumers have relationships.

Further, as the demands for short-term, small-dollar loans continues to increase as a result of the current economic environment, nontraditional lenders have filled the void left by mainstream financial institutions in many of our Nation's underbanked communities.

Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement, and with your permission would skip to the clause that I think is particularly important and include my full statement in the Record in the interest of time.

Rather, I feel that the financial services should be well-balanced and carried out in a manner that encourages consumer choice, market competitions, and strong protections. It is my sincere hope that this legislation is designed to carefully and fairly police the financial services industry treating similar products in the short-term credit market equally while encouraging lending practices that are fair to consumers.

Is this the intent?

I yield to the chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I really commend you for your efforts to pass meaningful financial regulation reform in this Congress. I deeply thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Frank on an extraordinary effort and for his dedicated leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to supporting this legislation.

Before that however, I would like to clarify a few points as they pertain to the intent of this bill.

It is my understanding that certain provisions which are intended to improve access to mainstream financial institutions are not intended to further limit access to credit and other financial services to the very consumers who are already underserved by traditional banking institutions.

As the Chairman knows, each year, over 20 million working American families with depository account relationships at federally insured financial institutions actively choose alternative sources and lenders to meet their emergency and short-term credit needs.

These alternative sources and lenders often offer more convenient and less expensive products and services than the banks or credit unions where these consumers have relationships.

Further, as the demand for short-term, small dollar loans continues to increase as a result of the current economic environment, non- traditional lenders have filled the void left by mainstream financial institutions in many of our nation's underbanked communities.

I agree with the Chairman that lenders should meet this demand responsibly with clear, well-disclosed product terms and conditions that do not encourage consumer dependence and indebtedness.

I would also stress that regulation of this sector of the market should ensure strong consumer protections while encouraging a broad range of product offerings without discrimination as to the type of lender.

Therefore, regulation of short-term credit products and of the lenders who offer them, whether they be traditional financial institutions or non-traditional lenders, should not be used to single out an entire sector.

Rather, it should be well-balanced and carried out in a manner that encourages consumer choice, market competition, and strong protections.

It is my sincere hope that this legislation is designed to carefully and fairly police the financial services industry, treating similar products in the short-term credit market equally while encouraging lending practices that are fair to consumers. Is this the intent of the legislation?

I thank the Chairman, commend his continued efforts to pass meaningful financial regulatory reform this Congress, and thank him for his previous efforts to ensure we responsibly address the role of non- traditional financial institutions. I look forward to continuing our work together in this matter and as we further our efforts to put our nation back on solid financial footing.

I thank my good friend from California for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is going to consider H. Res. 1460, which honors National Pollinator Week. With the efforts of the Pollinator Partnership, a majority of States and a number of Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, have officially recognized June 21 through June 27, 2010, as a time to reflect upon the importance of, and challenges facing, these species.

The resolution, as offered, acknowledges how vital bees and other pollinators are to our ecosystem and agriculture and supports the goals and ideals of National Pollinator Week.

As mentioned by my colleague, 75 percent of all flowering plant species rely on creatures like birds, bats, bees, and butterflies for fertilization. It would be a misconception, however, to think that pollinators are only important to plants and provide little benefit to us. In fact, one out of every three bites of food that we eat as well as $20 billion of products in the United States alone are derived from pollinators. In light of those kinds of figures, the security of our food supply clearly hinges on the survival of these species.

National Pollinator Week is a time to reflect upon these contributions and what we can do to help preserve these animals. On a similar note, Mr. Speaker, to further emphasize the importance of this issue, I recently participated in cofounding and am now cochair of the Congressional Pollinator Protection Caucus, along with Representative Tim Johnson, Representative Cardoza, and Representative Henry Brown of South Carolina. The caucus is a bipartisan source of information and discussion related to how natural, political, and economic developments impact the security of pollinators and their habitats.

Last week, a briefing on the future of pollinators and in recognition of National Pollinator Week was held in conjunction with the caucus and was a tremendous success. We are planning more events and briefings to keep Members and their staffs informed on this important issue. I urge all of my colleagues to become members of the Congressional Pollinator Protection Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, National Pollinator Week provides us with an opportunity to recognize how important pollinators are to the sustainability of our environment and to our food supply.

You know, Mr. Cardoza, several in my local media and throughout have come forward with all sorts of humor about this; you know, ``It bees that way,'' and ``It's the buzz'' and a whole bunch of these things. But when all is said and done, I think we all recognize that beyond the humor, this is a critically serious matter for the food supply of this Nation and, indeed, the world.

Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, and I thank you for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the heartfelt commitment of Kathy Dixon and foster caregivers for their tireless, selfless efforts to transform the lives of children who need another chance in life. Foster parents like Kathy wrap the necessities of life in the warm heart of family, providing the opportunity for children and young adults to recover from their pasts and reclaim their lives. Foster caregivers remind us that the act of building a quality life for others is truly a remarkable and honorable achievement. All children deserve the best shot at life. Foster caregivers are those who have determined that the best shot does not end with heartbreak, but ends instead with the resolution to succeed.

I received letters from two of Kathy Dixon's foster children, Tynequa and Tony Wardlow. Kathy represents the very best in foster parenting, a courageous woman who has devoted her heart and soul to caring for young children who needed someone to care for and nurture them. As Tynequa writes, ``She took me in when I had nowhere to go.'' Tony says that, ``she is the one who picks me up when I fall.'' He writes that he prayed God would send him a mother who ``would hold on to me like someone with a big heart.'' God, he said, sent him Kathy, ``and so much more.'' Tynequa insists that Kathy has not only saved her life, but also has taught her ``to stand up for what I believe in, have faith in myself, be responsible and respectful, get my education, don't be fake, don't have low self-esteem, don't buy friendship, and most importantly, don't give up on hope.'' I cannot imagine a greater gift in this world than what Kathy has given to her children.

I am pleased to work with many foster care organizations in my district in South Florida. Just recently I met with a group of foster youth--in their late teens and early twenties now--who came to Washington, DC as part of the Broward County Trip of a Lifetime, an annual effort to bring these young adults to our nation's capital to meet their congressional representatives and learn how our government works. I take enormous pride in the opportunity I had to sit down with these young men and women and hear their stories and hopes and dreams for the future. Several of these youth have children of their own now and are working hard to impart to their children the wisdom, love, and affection given to them by their foster families. And it is because of the support they had from their foster families that these youth now dream of becoming engineers, entrepreneurs, social workers, nurses, and much else. In South Florida, organizations like Forever Family have proved enormously successful at changing lives, finding stable homes for children and young adults in need, and setting hundreds of young people on the right path in life.

Madam Speaker, American society is forever indebted to the hard work, deep commitment, determined sacrifice, and unconditional live demonstrated by people like Kathy Dixon. She is an inspirational role model, not just to myself or any one of us here in Congress but, more importantly, to her own children, who recognize the transformation she brought about in their lives. As Tony writes, ``God has blessed me with so many gifts that I will never forget.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two of my constituents, Chelsey Marie Hofer and Angel Millender, the recipients of the 2010 Congressional Award Gold Medal, the United States Congress' only award for American youth. Earning this award requires at least 400 hours of community service, including 200 hours of both personal development and physical fitness activities, and a four-night expedition or exploration. Since 1979, the Congressional Award has inspired our Nation's youth to set and achieve personally challenging goals that build character and foster community service, personal development, and citizenship.

I have done a lot during my lifetime, yet I was amazed to see how much these two have accomplished at such a young age. Having volunteered at organizations like the American Red Cross, Girl Scouts of the USA, and People to People International, Ms. Chelsie Marie Hofer has shown great humility and perseverance. As Ms. Hofer said: ``I learned that by setting goals and working hard, I can achieve anything.'' Mr. Angel Millender is passionate and determined. He took the initiative to be of service at his local hospital's Intensive Care Unit to assist individuals dealing with traumatic experiences. Mr. Millender also surrounded himself with positive young men by joining the ``Men of Tomorrow'' youth group. Both award winners traveled internationally for their ``Expedition Experience''--Ms. Hofer to Japan and Mr. Millender to Panama, where they embraced the local culture and history.

Madam Speaker, Martin Luther King, Jr., said: ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is, `What are you doing for others?' '' The recipients of the Gold Medal are shining examples of a sense of civic duty at an early age. I congratulate both Ms. Chelsey Hofer and Mr. Angel Millender of West Palm Beach, Florida, on this incredible achievement. I am inspired by their energy, passion and commitment to service their community.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the 23rd Congressional District of Florida's recipients of the 2010 Congressional Award Gold Medal for all they have done to serve the Palm Beach County community and I wish them much success in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution honoring National Pollinator Week, which takes place from June 21 to 27, 2010. It is my pleasure to announce that with the leadership of the Pollinator Partnership, a majority of States as well as a number of federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, have officially recognized the occasion to reflect upon the importance of and challenges facing these species vital to our ecosystem and agriculture.

Responsible for almost $20 billion worth of products in the United States alone, an estimated one-third of all food and beverages is derived from pollinators. With 75 percent of all flowering plant species relying on animals like birds, bees, bats, and butterflies as the vehicle for transferring pollen for fertilization, there is no escaping the fact that pollinators are essential not just for plants, but for the sustainability and security of our food supply.

Because new threats are emerging against these animals all the time, we should use National Pollinator Week to learn about how to help protect and encourage pollinators' growth and survival. There are many things we can do. For example, we can plant a garden with native flowering plants supplying pollinators with nectar, pollen and homes as well as work to minimize pollution and use of chemicals that contaminate their habitats. We can also educate our friends on the importance of pollinators and can learn even more from the Pollinator Partnership's Web site, which can be found at www.pollinator.org. Madam Speaker, National Pollinator Week provides us an opportunity to recognize how important pollinators are to the sustainability of our environment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the goals and ideals of National Pollinator Week.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of and express sadness over the passing of an extraordinary man, Daniel D. Cantor.

Mr. Cantor set the bar for what it means to be a true community leader through his philanthropy, friendship, and loyalty.

He loved children, loved the Jewish community, and loved Broward County. It was his fervent desire to give whatever he could, whenever he could, to help.

Mr. Cantor grew up in Middle Village, New York, earned his law degree from New York University, and served in the Navy stateside during World War II. He started practicing law after the war but his attention quickly turned to real estate, where he made his fortune buying, selling and building garden apartments for returning veterans. He made his first $1 million by age 31.

When Mr. Cantor retired to Tamarac in 1980, South Florida became a prime recipient of his charity work. By 1996, in only an 8-year period, Mr. Cantor donated over $22 million to the non-profit community and was recognized by the United States Congress for his efforts.

His contributions went to the Jewish National Fund, the Jewish Institute for Geriatric Care, a program to teach Yiddish in Jewish day schools, including one in Hollywood, and a lecture hall for a university in Israel. Mr. Cantor donated to scholarship funds, medical research, and housing for the elderly in New York, Florida, and Israel. He gave money to resettle Soviet Jews and to fly Ethiopian Jews to Israel. Locally he also gave to the Jewish Federation of Broward County, David Posnack Hebrew Day School in Plantation, and the Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

Of course, he is probably best known through the Daniel D. Cantor Senior Center in Sunrise, which provides adult day care and other programs for the elderly, many of which are constituents of mine.

Madam Speaker, Daniel Cantor was a unique man with a great sense of humor. He served the community with everything he had and this is something I aspire to do every day of my life. He will always be a role model to all who follow Mahatma Ghandi's mantra: ``Be the change you wish to see in the world.''

One Jewish leader in my district said it right: ``It's the end of an era losing a man of that stature.''

I am grateful for Mr. Cantor's contributions and dedication to Broward County, the greater United States, and Israel. He will be missed. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and to the greater community during this difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the League of Black Women on their annual leadership conference which commences today.

The League of Black Women, founded in the 1970's by Dr. Arnita Young Boswell, works today to provide successful, strategic and sustaining leadership experiences for minority professionals and students. With nearly 10,000 members worldwide, the League provides continuing executive-level education. It also provides professional leadership coaching, mentor outreach to school-age students, support of small businesses, and with this conference, exposure of attendees to new relationships in the global corporate community.

More than 200 attendees from major corporations are expected to participate in five days of leadership development forums and executive presentations.

This year's conference theme is ``Black Women 2010: Global Ready.'' As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I was honored to receive an invitation to participate in this year's forum titled ``Women of Color in the U.S. Intelligence Community'' and share insight on the prospects of women in Intelligence rising to higher leadership ranks.

Madam Speaker, the importance of diversity in the intelligence community cannot be overstated. It is one of our greatest strengths, as it is essential to addressing increasingly complex national security threats. We must continue to acquire and maintain an intelligence workforce that mirrors our nation and the world within which we operate.

With the hard work of the League of Black Women and other organizations committed to innovative diversity education and leadership research, we can create and sustain a diverse intelligence workforce.

Again, congratulations to the League of Black Women on this year's conference and look forward to celebrating another successful conference next year.

Madam Speaker, just over 40 years ago, a police raid on a gay bar in Greenwich Village made history. The so- called Stonewall riots, during which members of the gay community openly challenged institutionalized homophobia, marked the beginning of the modern Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, LGBT, rights movement and led to the formation of gay rights organizations across the United States and around the world. Each June, we commemorate this ongoing struggle for equality by celebrating LGBT Pride Month.

It is indeed a historic time for our nation and the American people. What should have happened 17 years ago is now closer to being a reality than ever before. By passing the Murphy Amendment along with the Defense Authorization bill, the House of Representatives has pledged to fulfill its promise of upholding the values for which the United States stands by allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military. As I have said time and again, the discriminatory law known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' should be repealed once and for all. It threatens our national security and costs us millions of dollars each year to kick out dedicated and highly-skilled service members and to retrain new ones.

As we celebrate this victory, we are reminded of the long battle that has brought us to this point. I would be terribly remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work and sacrifices of the countless service members and veterans, many of whose lives have been negatively impacted by this bigoted policy, as well as those military and policy leaders, advocacy organizations, and everyday Americans who have taken a stand against discrimination.

I am also pleased that President Obama and his administration have taken meaningful steps toward achieving LGBT equality. Most recently, President Obama extended a wider range of benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, including key protections such as long- term care insurance, health insurance reimbursements, business travel accident insurance, and tax reimbursements for homeowner's insurance. In April, President Obama also mandated that all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and that they respect patients' choices about who may make critical health care decisions for them.

More than ever before, the fight for LGBT equality is full of hope and promise. But, our work is far from over. The sad reality is that gay and lesbian Americans are still essentially second-class citizens, with different rights depending on where they work and the state in which they live. This nation can only truly prosper when all of its citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Laws that deprive LGBT Americans of these rights are unconstitutional, discriminatory, and unconscionable. It is my sincere hope that Congress and our nation as a whole will work together to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, and lift the ban on men who have sex with men, MSM, donating blood.

Madam Speaker, the LGBT community is part of our American family. They are our friends and neighbors and all contribute to this great nation. We must ensure that the pages of history only continue to turn forward on equality for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. This LGBT Pride Month, I reaffirm my resolve to achieve equal rights for LGBT Americans and nothing less. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, World Ocean Day has been acknowledged annually around the world since 1992. Officially celebrated by the United Nations for the first time in 2009, World Ocean Day this year falls on June 8. This serves as an opportunity to recognize all that the oceans have given us, to acknowledge the crucial role the oceans play in our survival as a species and society, and to affirm our intent to ensure the oceans themselves survive.

A source for food, recreation, scientific and educational opportunities, the oceans are a fundamental building block of our society. Human beings have depended upon the waters for their livelihoods since the earliest days. Our forefathers crossed and fished them in generally the same manner that we do today. It's a testament to the fortitude of the oceans that they can persist when our technology and cultures have changed so much. That resiliency, however, is far from infinite. Should the oceans become no longer able to sustain life, we would very quickly feel the consequences.

The oceans are also often the beginning and end of discussions on ``the environment.'' Home to so many natural wonders and inherent beauty, the world's oceans are justifiably precious. And as such an integral element in global climate change, the oceans are a primary concern for environmentalists and nature-lovers alike. They deserve and need our absolute devotion.

Because of all we have taken from them and because we are the only ones with the capacity to do so, human beings are the de facto caretakers of the oceans. With that responsibility, we must protect them and ensure their viability. The oceans have been subjected to so much--acidification, global warming, pollution. We must make sure the oceans can contribute to our grandchildren's grandchildren as they've done for us and our ancestors.

We have been shown by recent events how fragile and delicate our oceans truly are and how quickly devastation can set in. We can see how much we still don't know about these bodies that make up the vast majority of our planet. Let us take World Ocean Day to enjoy the beauty of the innumerable mysteries hidden only in the deeps and make sure we do our part to look after them. By so doing, we act on behalf of the future of Earth.

Madam Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I wish to draw the attention of colleagues to the timely and informative testimony of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatovic, who testified earlier today at a Commission hearing on ``Threats to Free Media in the OSCE Region.'' She focused on various threats to journalists and independent media outlets, including physical attacks and adoption of repressive laws on the media as well as other forms of harassment. Most troubling is the murder of journalists because of their professional activities. According to the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists, 52 journalists have been killed in Russia alone since 1992, many reporting on corruption or human rights violations. Ms. Mijatovic also flagged particular concern over existing and emerging threats to freedom on the Internet and other communications technologies. She also voiced concern over the use of criminal statutes on defamation, libel and insult which are used by some OSCE countries to silence journalists or force the closure of media outlets. With respect to the situation in the United States, she urged adoption of a shield law at the federal level to create a journalists' privilege for federal proceedings. Such a provision was part of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, which passed the House early in the Congress and awaits consideration by the full Senate.

As one who has worked to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the 56 countries that comprise the OSCE, I share many of the concerns raised by Ms. Mijatovic in her testimony and commend them to them to colleagues.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on

Freedom of the Media

(By Dunja Mijatovic)

[From the Helsinki Commission Hearing on the Threats to Free Media in

the OSCE Region, June 9, 2010 ]

Dear Chairmen, Distinguished Commissioners, Ladies and

Gentlemen,

I am honored to be invited to this hearing before the

Helsinki Commission at the very beginning of my mandate. I

feel privileged to speak before you today. The Helsinki

Commission's welcoming statement issued on the day of my

appointment is a clear manifestation of the strong support

you continuously show toward the work of this unique Office,

and I assure you, distinguished Commissioners, that this fact

is very much appreciated.

It will be three months tomorrow since I took office as the

new Representative on Freedom of the Media to the OSCE. Even

though three months may sound short, it has proved more than

enough to gain a deep insight, and unfortunately also voice

concerns, about the decline of media freedom in many of the

56 countries that today constitute the OSCE.

Although the challenges and dangers that journalists face

in our countries may differ from region to region, one sad

fact holds true everywhere: The freedom to express ourselves

is questioned and challenged from many sides. Some of these

challenges are blatant, others concealed; some of them follow

traditional methods to silence free speech and critical

voices, some use new technologies to suppress and restrict

the free flow of information and media pluralism; and far too

many result in physical harassment and deadly violence

against journalists.

Today, I would like to draw your attention to the constant

struggle of so many institutions and NGOs around the world,

including your Commission and my Institution, to combat and

ultimately stop violence against journalists. I would also

like to address several other challenges that I want to place

in the center of my professional activities, each of which I

intend to improve by relentlessly using the public voice I am

now given at the OSCE.

Let me first start with violence against journalists.

Ever since it was created in 1997, my Office has been

raising attention to the alarming increase of violent attacks

against journalists. Not only is the high number of violent

attacks against journalists a cause for concern. Equally

alarming is the authorities' far too-prevalent willingness to

classify many of the murders as unrelated to the journalists'

professional activities. We also see that more and more often

critical speech is being punished with questionable charges

brought against the journalists.

Impunity of perpetrators and the responsible authorities'

passivity in investigating and failing to publicly condemn

these murders breeds further violence. There are numerous

cases that need to be raised over and over again. We need to

continue to loudly repeat the names of these courageous

individuals who lost their lives for the words they have

written. I am sorry for all those whom I will not mention

today; but the names that follow are on the list that I call

``the Hall of Shame'' of those governments that still have

not brought to justice the perpetrators of the horrifying

murders that happened in their countries.

The most recent murder of a journalist in the OSCE area is

the one of the Kyrgyz opposition journalist Gennady Pavlyuk

(Bely Parokhod), who was killed in Kazakhstan in December

last year. It gives me hope that the new Interim Government

of Kyrgyzstan has announced to save no efforts to bring the

perpetrators to justice, as well as those involved in the

2007 murder of Alisher Saipov (Siyosat).

The Russian Federation remains the OSCE participating State

where most members of the media are killed. Paul Klebnikov

(Forbes, Russia), Anna Politkovskaya (Novaya Gazeta),

Anastasia Baburova (Novaya Gazeta), are the most reported

about, but let us also remember Magomed Yevloyev

(Ingushetiya), Ivan Safronov (Kommersant), Yury

Shchekochikhin (Novaya Gazeta), Igor Domnikov (Novaya

Gazeta), Vladislav Listyev (ORT), Dmitry Kholodov (Moskovsky

Komsomolets) and many others.

We also should not forget the brutal murders of the

following journalists, some remain unresolved today:

Hrant Dink (Agos) Armenian Turkish journalist was shot in

2007 in Turkey.

Elmar Huseynov (Monitor) was murdered in 2005 in

Azerbaijan.

Georgy Gongadze (Ukrainskaya Pravda) was killed in 2000 in

Ukraine.

In Serbia, Slavko Curuvija (Dnevni Telegrat) was murdered

in 1999, and Milan Pantic (Vecernje Novosti) was killed in

2001.

In Montenegro, Dusko Jovanovic (Dan), was shot dead in

2004.

In Croatia, Ivo Pukanic (Nacional) and his marketing

director, Niko Franjic, were killed by a car bomb in 2008.

Violence against journalists equals violence against

society and democracy, and it should be met with harsh

condemnation and prosecution of the perpetrators. There can

be no improvement without an overhaul of the very apparatus

of prosecution and law enforcement, starting from the very

top of the Government pyramid.

There is no true press freedom as long as journalists have

to fear for their lives while performing their work. The OSCE

commitments oblige all participating States to provide safety

to these journalists, and I will do my best to pursue this

goal with the mandate I am given and with all professional

tools at my disposal.

We also observe another very worrying trend; more and more

often the imprisonment of critical journalists based on

political motivations including fabricated charges. Let me

mention some cases:

In Azerbaijan, the prominent editor-in-chief of the now-

closed independent Russian-language weekly, Realny

Azerbaijan, and Azeri-language daily, Gundalik Azarbaycan,

Eynulla Fatullayev was sentenced in 2007 to a cumulative

eight-and-a-half years in prison on charges on defamation,

incitement of ethnic hatred, terrorism and tax evasion. The

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Azerbaijan in

violation of Article 10 and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of

the European Convention on Human Rights, so there is only one

possible outcome--Fatullayev should be immediately released.

In Kazakhstan, Ramazan Yesergepov, the editor of Alma-Ata

Info, is serving a three-year prison term on charges of

disclosing state secrets.

Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade, bloggers from Azerbaijan,

are serving two and a half years and two years in prison

respectively since July 2009 on charges of hooliganism and

infliction of light bodily injuries.

In Uzbekistan, two independent journalists, Dilmurod Saiid

(a freelancer) and Solijon Abdurahmanov (Uznews), are

currently serving long jail sentences (twelve-and-a-half-

years and ten years) on charges of extortion and drug

possession.

I will continue to raise my voice and demand the immediate

release of media workers imprisoned for their critical work.

I join Chairman Cardin for commending independent

journalists in the Helsinki Commission's recent statement on

World Press Freedom Day. These professionals pursue truth

wherever it may lead them, often at great personal risk. They

indeed play a crucial and indispensable role in advancing

democracy and human rights. By highlighting these murder and

imprisonment cases, by no means do I intend to neglect other

forms of harassment or intimidation that also have a

threatening effect on journalists. Let me just recall that,

with the heightened security concerns in the last decade,

police and prosecutors have increasingly raided editorial

offices, journalists' homes, or seized their equipment to

find leaks that were perceived as security threats.

Suppression and restriction of Internet Freedom

Turning to the problems facing Internet freedom, we can see

that new media have changed the communications and education

landscape in an even more dramatic manner than did the

broadcast media in the last half century. Under my mandate,

the challenge has remained the same: how to safeguard or

enhance pluralism and the free flow of information, both

classical Helsinki obligations within the OSCE.

It was in 1998 that I read the words of Vinton G. Cerf in

his article called ``Truth and the Internet''. It perfectly

summarizes the nature of the Internet and the ways it can

create freedom.

Dr. Cerf calls the Internet one of the most powerful agents

of freedom: It exposes truth to those who wish to see it. But

he also warns us that the power of the Internet is like a

two-edged sword: it can also deliver misinformation and

uncorroborated opinion with equal ease. The thoughtful and

the thoughtless co-exist side by side in the Internet's

electronic universe. What is to be done, asks Cerf.

His answer is to apply critical thinking. Consider the

Internet as an opportunity to educate us all. We truly must

think about what we see and hear, and we must evaluate and

select. We must choose our guides. Furthermore, we must also

teach our children to think more deeply about what they see

and hear. That, more than any electronic filter, he says,

will build a foundation upon which truth can stand.

Today, this foundation upon which truth could indeed so

firmly stand is under continuous pressure by governments. As

soon as governments realized that the Internet challenges

secrecy and censorship, corruption, inefficiency and bad

governing, they started imposing controls on it. In many

countries and in many ways the effects are visible and they

indeed threaten the potential for information to circulate

freely.

The digital age offers the promise of a truly democratic

culture of participation and interactivity. Realizing that

promise is the challenge of our times. In the age of the

borderless Internet, the protection of the right to Freedom

of Expression ``regardless of frontiers'' takes on a new and

more powerful meaning.

In an age of rapid technological change and convergence,

archaic governmental controls over the media are increasingly

unjust, indefensible and ultimately unsustainable. Despite

progress, many challenges remain, including the lack of or

poor quality of national legislation relating to freedom of

information, a low level of implementation in many OSCE

member states and existing political resistance.

The importance of providing free access for all people

anywhere in the world can not be raised often enough in the

public arena, and cannot be discussed often enough among

stakeholders: civil society, media, as well as local and

international authorities.

Freedom of speech is more than a choice about which media

products to consume.

Media freedom and freedom of speech in the digital age also

mean giving everyone--not just a small number of people who

own the dominant modes of mass communication, but ordinary

people, too--an opportunity to use these new technologies to

participate, interact, build, route around and talk about

whatever they wish--be it politics, public issues or popular

culture. The Internet fundamentally affects how we live. It

offers extraordinary opportunities for us to learn, trade,

connect, create and also to safeguard human rights and

strengthen democratic values. It allows us to hear each

other, see each other and speak to each other. It can connect

isolated people and help them through their personal

problems.

These rights, possibilities and ideals are at the heart of

the Helsinki Process and the OSCE principles and commitments

that we share. We must find the best ways to spread access to

the Internet, so that the whole world can benefit from what

it can offer, rather than increasing the existing gaps

between those who have access to information and those who do

not. And to those governments who fear and distrust the

openness brought along by the Internet, let me emphasize over

and over again:

The way a society uses the new communications technologies

and how it responds to economic, political and cultural

globalization will determine the very future of that society.

Restrict access to information, and your chances to develop

will become restricted. Open up the channels of free

communication, and your society will find ways to prosper.

I was delighted to hear Secretary of State Clinton speak

about a basic freedom in her January speech on Internet

freedom in the ``Newseum''. This freedom is the freedom to

connect. Secretary Clinton rightly calls this freedom the

freedom of assembly in cyber space. It allows us to come

together online, and shape our society in fundamental ways.

Fame or money is no longer a requisite to immensely affect

our world.

My Office is rapidly developing a comprehensive strategy to

identify the main problems related to Internet regulation in

the 56 countries of the OSCE, and ways to address these

issues. I will count on the support of the Helsinki

Commission to advance the universal values that this strategy

will attempt to extend to those countries where these values

are still being questioned.

Let me also mention the importance to protect the freedom

of other new technologies.

Only two weeks ago, my Office organized the 12th Central

Asia Media Conference in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where media

professionals from all five Central Asian countries adopted a

declaration on access to information and new technologies.

This document calls on OSCE governments to facilitate the

freer and wider dissemination of information, including

through modern information and communication technologies, so

as to ensure wide access of the public to governmental

information.

It also reiterates that new technologies strengthen

democracy by ensuring easy access to information, and calls

upon state institutions with legislative competencies to

refrain from adopting new legislation that would restrict the

free flow of information. And only this spring my Office

published a guide to the digital switchover, to assist the

many OSCE countries where the switch from analogue to digital

will take place in the next five years. The aim of the guide

is to help plan the digitalization process, and help ensure

that it positively affects media freedom, as well as the

choice and quality available to the audience.

Besides advocating the importance of good digitalization

strategies, I will also use all available fora to raise

attention to the alarming lack of broadcast pluralism,

especially television broadcast pluralism, in many OSCE

countries. As television is the main source of information in

many OSCE regions, we must ensure that the laws allow for

diverse, high-quality programs and objective news to easily

reach every one of us. Only well-informed citizens can make

good choices and further democratic values. Whether we talk

about Internet regulation, inventive ways to switch to

digital while preserving the dominance of a few selected

broadcasters, attempts to limit access to information or

broadcast pluralism, we must keep one thing in mind: No

matter what governments do, in the long run, their attempts

to regulate is a lost battle.

People always find ways to obtain the rights that are

denied to them. History has shown this over and over again.

In the short run, however, it is very clear that I will

intervene with governments which try to restrict the free

flow of information.

Defamation

Similar to fighting violence against journalists, my Office

has been campaigning since its establishment in 1997 to

decriminalize defamation and libel in the entire OSCE region.

Unfortunately, in most countries, defamation is still

punishable by imprisonment, which threatens the existence of

critical speech in the media. This is so despite the

consistent rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in

Strasbourg, stating that imprisonment for speech offences,

especially when committed by criticizing public figures, is a

disproportionate punishment.

Let us again remind ourselves of the journalists and

bloggers I have mentioned above when discussing violence

against journalists. They are currently in prison because

their writing was considered defamatory. Their fate reminds

us all of the importance of the right to freely speak our

mind.

This problem needs urgent reform not only in the new, but

also in the old democracies of the OSCE. Although the

obsolete criminal provisions have not been used in Western

Europe for decades, their ``chilling effect'' remained.

Furthermore, the mere existence of these provisions has

served as a justification for other states that are unwilling

to stop the criminalization of journalistic errors, and

instead leave these offenses solely to the civil-law domain.

Currently, defamation is a criminal offence in all but ten

OSCE countries--my home country Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Ireland, Moldova, Romania, Ukraine,

the United Kingdom and the United States.

Last year, three OSCE countries decriminalized defamation,

which I consider to be an enormous success: Ireland, Romania

and the United Kingdom; the last being the first among the

Western European participating States to officially

decriminalize defamation.

Some other countries, such as Armenia, are currently

reforming their defamation provisions, and I hope that I can

soon welcome the next country that carries out this important

and very long overdue reform.

Concluding remarks

Dear Chairmen,

Dear Commissioners,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The above problematic areas--violence against journalists,

restrictions of new media including the Internet, lack of

pluralism and resistance to decriminalize defamation--are

among the most urgent media freedom problems that need our

attention and concentrated efforts today. However, we will

also not forget about the many other fields where there is

plenty of room to improve. Of course, I will not miss the

excellent opportunity that we are here together today to

raise your attention to the topic that my distinguished

predecessor, Miklos Haraszti, has already raised with you:

the establishment and the adoption of a federal shield law in

the United States.

As you know, my Office has been a dedicated promoter of the

federal shield law for many years. If passed, the Free Flow

of Information Act would provide a stronger protection to

journalists; it could ensure that imprisonments such as that

of Judith Miller in 2005, and Josh Wolf in 2006, could never

again take place and hinder investigative journalism. But the

passage of such legislation would resonate far further than

within the borders of the United States of America. It could

send a very much needed signal and set a precedent to all the

countries where protection of sources is still opposed by the

government and is still not more than a dream for

journalists.

I respectfully ask all of you, distinguished Commissioners,

to continue and even increase your efforts to enable that the

Free Flow of Information Act soon becomes the latest

protector of media freedom in the United States.

And of course I cannot close my speech without mentioning

my home country, Bosnia and Herzegovina. As you know, not

only Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also most of the emerging

democracies in the Balkans enjoy modern and forward-looking

media legislation. We can openly say that they almost have it

all when it comes to an advanced legal and regulatory

framework enabling free expression to thrive. But it is not

that simple. I use this moment to pose several questions: if

there are good laws, then why do we still face severe

problems in relation to media freedom, why do we stagnate and

sometimes even move backward? Where does the problem lie?

And, more importantly, how can we solve it and move ahead?

What Bosnia and Herzegovina shows us is that good laws in

themselves are not enough. Without their good implementation,

they are only documents filled with unrealized potential. In

countries that struggle with similar problems, we must stress

over and over again: without the full implementation of valid

legislation, without genuine political will, without a

comprehensive understanding of the media's role in a

functioning democracy, without the creation of a safe

environment for journalists to do their work, and without

true commitment by all actors, these countries risk falling

far behind international standards.

Apart from unmet expectations and disillusioned citizens,

we all know that the consequences of politicized and misused

media could be very serious. In conclusion, let me assure

you, dear Commissioners, that I will not hesitate to openly

and vigorously remind any country of their responsibilities

toward implementing the OSCE commitments to the freedom of

the media.

I am also asking you to use this opportunity today and send

a clear message to the governments of all OSCE countries to

do their utmost to fully implement their media legislation

safeguarding freedom of expression. The governments have the

power to create an environment in which media can perform

their unique role free of pressures and threats. Without

this, no democracy can flourish.

Thank you for your attention.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of and express sadness over the untimely death of lawyer and friend Gerald A. Williams.

Mr. Williams was not only a friend but a brilliant lawyer whose mission was to serve our community in South Florida. He was a humble man and a true role model.

He had served as the chief counsel to the Palm Beach County School Board since November 2005 and was responsible for all legal matters involving the School Board. Prior to serving as Chief Counsel, he served for four years as Chief Negotiator and Chief Officer of Administration for the school district.

In numerous appointments and positions, Mr. Williams also served as general counsel for the Virgil Hawkins Florida Chapter of the National Bar Association, as treasurer and executive board member for the Urban League of Palm Beach County, and as co-founder and president of the Suncoast Chamber of Commerce in West Palm Beach.

Mr. Williams became one of the first black graduates of the University of Florida College of Law in 1975. His firm, Haygood & Williams, grew into the largest all-black law firm in the state. Mr. Williams left private practice in 1997 to serve as Chief Labor Counsel, and Chief Officer of Labor and Legislative Relations for Dade County Public Schools.

In 2009, Mr. Williams was recognized by Florida Trend Magazine as one of Florida's Legal Elite and identified as one of the top government attorneys in the state.

Mr. Williams was a husband, a father, a brother, an uncle, a godfather, a dedicated public service attorney and community leader. I am grateful for Mr. Williams' contributions and dedication to Palm Beach County. He will be greatly missed. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends and to the greater community during this difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and acknowledge the celebration that will take place on June 9, 2010 in honor of the 40th anniversary of the League of Conservation Voters, LCV. Since its inception in 1969, LCV has transformed environmental policy into national priorities. I believe that protecting our environment is vital to the health of all Americans and LCV has continued to make that commitment over the past 40 years. With an ultimate goal of ensuring the survival and sustainability of the planet, LCV continues to inform the public about the most important environmental issues facing our nation.

Through organizing at the grassroots level, building coalitions and training the next generation of environmental leaders, LCV is fighting for the future of our environment. Madam Speaker, the League of Conservation Voters has been an invaluable resource for voters across the nation and advocate of the preservation of our natural resources and environmental policies. I would like to congratulate the League of Conservation Voters and wish them much continued success. The dinner honoring the LCV on this landmark anniversary is truly a celebration of a momentous occasion.