Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the ``Prepare All Kids Act,'' which would assist states in providing at least one year of high quality pre-kindergarten to children. The plan calls for a new federal investment to be accompanied by matching funds from the states.

Introduced in the Senate by my colleague on the Joint Economic Committee, Sen. Casey of Pennsylvania, I am happy to be introducing this House companion bill along with original cosponsors Reps. Schwartz, Fattah, Hinchey, and Hirono.

President Obama has made the expansion of high quality early education programs a major pillar of his educational reform agenda--and for good reason. Decades of research and data have proven the enormous benefits of investing in high quality early childhood development and education programs, such as higher high school graduation rates, lower need for special education, and lower rates of teen pregnancy, criminal activity, and dependence on public assistance programs. In fact, for every $1 invested in high quality early education, the nation saves up to $17 due to lower crime and decreased welfare and other entitlement spending.

Clearly, children are our Nation's greatest resource. The ``Prepare All Kids Act'' is not only the right thing to do for our children; it's a wise investment in our future.

Madam Speaker, today, along with Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), I am reintroducing the ``Afghan Women Empowerment Act of 2009.'' This legislation would authorize $115 million each year from FY2010 through FY2012 for programs in Afghanistan that benefit women and girls as well as the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs. The funding would be directed toward important needs including medical care, education, vocational training, legal assistance, protection against trafficking, and civil

participation. Senator Boxer has introduced similar legislation, S. 229, in the Senate.

Although women are guaranteed equal rights in the Afghan constitution, they continue to face challenges including intimidation, discrimination, targeted violence, and efforts to restrict their legal rights. In March the parliament of Afghanistan approved the Shi'ite Personal Status Law which was signed by President Karzai. According to the United Nations, one provision of the law would have the effect of legalizing marital rape by mandating that a wife cannot refuse sex to her husband unless she is ill. In addition, the law would forbid women from working or receiving education without their husbands' permission; restrict their ability to leave the house without a male relative; and aims to strip women of their rights as mothers by granting child custody only to men. President Karzai has ordered that the law be reviewed, and has said that changes will be made to any articles which contradict Afghanistan's Constitution and Islamic Sharia. I believe that the United States has an obligation to ensure that women and girls have the opportunities that they were denied under the Taliban. It is imperative that we provide the support needed to ensure that the rights of women are protected in the new Afghanistan.

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this manager's amendment. It makes a number of commonsense additions to this legislation, such as requiring all written materials from credit card companies to be in at least a 12-point font. Gone will be the days of too-small-to-read fine, fine print disclosures and contracts. It requires the better disclosure of credit card terms when potential customers are offered credit cards in retail stores. It warns customers that constant credit applications can have an adverse effect on one's credit score, and it makes a clarification that Congressman Ackerman sought and achieved somewhat in committee with his amendment that was accepted that will ban fees for paying your credit card bill. No more fees for paying your bills. These are all very good and important things.

I support this amendment and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Last week when the President met with executives of the card companies, he said that credit cards had become unnecessarily complicated for consumers, often leading them to pay more than they reasonably expect. After his meeting, his administration reached out to Congress to offer their support of the credit cardholders' bill of rights but also to offer additional amendments and provisions. The one that we are considering now is one put forth by the administration, and this would require cardholders to opt into any over-the-limit coverage on their credit card.

Our constituents are faced with a multitude of fees and penalties that can be assessed to their credit card accounts. In many cases they do not even know the fees exist because disclosure agreements can be confusing and hard to understand. A recent editorial in the New York Times called ``Over the Limit'' detailed one of the so-called ``worst tricks'' used by credit card companies, ``allowing a consumer to overcharge on his or her account but when the bill arrives, the consumer has been assessed an over-the-limit fee.''

I would like to place this editorial in the Record.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 25, 2009]

Over the Limit

President Obama told banking executives this week to clean

up their credit card business. He made clear that he

understands the billowing anger and the huge strains placed

on millions of American cardholders who face sudden interest

rate spikes, hidden fees and tricky contracts that no one

without a law degree and a magnifying glass can hope to

master.

His promises will amount to little unless he follows

through quickly to strengthen bills in Congress designed to

protect credit card customers.

The president said after meeting credit card executives on

Thursday that he and his economic team recognize the need for

credit cards, especially in a tough economy. Small businesses

often depend on the cards to order goods or meet the payroll.

And consumers have learned to enjoy instant credit at the

checkout counter. But as a longtime user of credit cards

himself, Mr. Obama told banking executives that it is time to

reform this area of their business.

He demanded stronger protections against unfair rate

increases and abusive fees along with more oversight and

enforcement. He called for clarity. He wants contracts

written in plain language, minus fine print or ``anytime, any

reason rate hikes.'' He wants people to be able to comparison

shop online, with one option being ``a plain-vanilla, easy-

to-understand, simplest-terms-possible'' card for the average

user.

Credit card operators have long resisted such reforms, and

earlier experiments with self-policing resulted in very

spotty improvements. After complaints from cardholders who

felt tricked by their banks, the Federal Reserve last year

proposed several useful changes that will not, unfortunately,

take effect until July 2010.

There's a better way to help consumers. A credit card bill

of rights proposed by Democratic Representatives Barney Frank

of Massachusetts and Carolyn Maloney of New York would codify

many of the Fed's rules into law. It would ban interest rate

increases on existing balances unless payment is more than 30

days late, and it would forbid ``double-cycle billing,''

which means charging interest on debts paid off the previous

month.

It would also require 45 days' notice for a rate increase

in most cases. An even stronger bill by Senator Christopher

Dodd of Connecticut would make it harder for people under the

age of 21 to get cards, far too many of whom now think

plastic is simply another form of cash. It would also require

creditors to apply a cardholder's payment to the balance with

the highest interest rate. So far, these reforms face fierce

Republican opposition, especially in the Senate.

If the president is really serious about credit card

relief, he could pressure Congress to end some of the

industry's worst tricks right now. Remember when credit card

limits caused great embarrassment at the restaurant? These

days, many cards allow the overcharge, sparing the

embarrassment but socking the customer with a large fee at

billing time. One solution would be to offer consumers the

choice if a real ceiling that renders cards unusable above

that limit.

Mr. Obama has spent a lot of time and energy trying to save

the banks. He and Congress must also do more to spare their

customers.

Our amendment would require credit cardholders to opt in to receive over-the-limit protection on their credit card in order for a credit card company to charge an over-the-limit fee. Additionally, the amendment allows for transactions that go over the limit to be completed for operational reasons as long as they are of a small amount. But the credit card company is not allowed to charge a fee.

For far too long, credit cardholders have been alone in the fight to bring reasonable standards back to credit card practices. With the passage of this amendment and the underlying bill, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, consumers will be treated more fairly by credit card issuers and will be better able to manage their accounts.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to my good friend and colleague and coauthor of this amendment, along with the administration, Diane Watson.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment seeks to gut all of the consumer protections of the bill as long as the credit card company gives the cardholder 90 days' notice that they are going to do it. This is the exact same amendment that was defeated in the committee with unanimous opposition from the Democrats on the committee, and even a few Republicans voting in opposition.

Allowing issuers to raise interest rates retroactively for a new reason is just creating a loophole for issuers.

The bill allows issuers to impose retroactive interest rates if the cardholder fails to pay or pays 30 days late, which is the time commercial contracts deem late.

So if an issuer is harmed, they have a remedy. In the absence of harm, it's hard to see why we would give the issuer the unilateral right with 90 days' notice to raise the rate retroactively and change the deal with the cardholder.

A deal should be a deal. They shouldn't have these opportunities to change them.

As the Federal Reserve found, and this is important, this is a Federal regulator, the Federal Reserve found most retroactive rate increases are, and I quote, from the Federal Reserve, ``unfair and deceptive.''

In our current mortgage reform discussions, we are trying to mitigate losses by making sure borrowers can repay their loans. Retroactive rate increases do the opposite. They slam borrowers with increased debt and make it less likely that they will be able to repay and pay down the balance.

I believe the best defense against the concerns raised by my colleague is the use of sound underwriting standards by the issuers.

Additionally, nothing in the bill prohibits an issuer from lowering the credit line or canceling the card if they are worried that the cardholder will not repay.

The bill also allows for fees if a customer does not pay on time, for 30 days, or has their check returned. Sound underwriting and these risk mitigation tools will be far more effective in fighting the concerns the gentleman is talking about.

I would say this amendment basically guts the protections that are in the bill that have been endorsed by 54 editorial boards and endorsed by numerous regulators, including the Federal Reserve, and this simply creates a new loophole. I am deeply opposed to it, as was the committee in the committee vote with Republicans' votes.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

The Federal Reserve's report on the rule they proposed, which was very similar to the bill, in it they said that disclosure in their studies was not enough; that the practices were so deceptive it was hard for many consumers to understand them and the contract is so complicated and the fine print so small that most people don't even read it. So to build in another loophole undermines the whole purpose of the bill.

This amendment was killed in the committee, and I urge my colleagues to kill it again. It should be Black Flag dead, because it guts the bill and the protections that we are trying to put in place to protect America's consumers.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an amendment that Congressman Hensarling offered both at the subcommittee and the full committee markups, and it was defeated both times by unanimous Democratic opposition, with even a few Republican votes in opposition to it.

Essentially what this amendment attempts is to create significant exceptions to the consumer protections offered by the underlying legislation and the final rule that was adopted by the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administrator. These three regulators have called the practices that my colleague would attempt to exempt unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive. Why would anyone in this body want to continue unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive practices? Even competition of the free market, they are saying it is anticompetitive.

I would like to point out during some of the many hearings and meetings and seven hearings that we held on the topic in the last several years, we frequently heard from academics, from regulators, that disclosure is not enough. It is too confusing. It is deceptive. Most consumers do not read the contract, they do not understand the contract, and it is worded in a way that is deceptive.

The President called for a plain vanilla card that people could understand. What this card would be that he is proposing is toxic. It would continue the bad practices and defeat the whole purpose of the bill. This amendment would create a subclass of credit cardholders who would have little to no rights.

The bill provides baseline consumer protections that everyone should enjoy. The last thing we should be doing is creating exceptions or subsets that would allow these abusive practices to continue.

It is abusive. It is wrong. This amendment should be killed Black Flag dead.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am generally in support of what my colleague from Illinois is attempting to do, but I do have concerns that too few consumers would take advantage of this provision or even know that it was available to them. I am going to be supporting your amendment, but I would like to work with you in further refining it.

I know the main concern that has been raised about this provision has focused on preventing fraud. And I fully support efforts to prevent fraud, and I am willing to work with you going forward to ensure that consumers know of their right to reject the card and have this information removed from the credit report.

I would also like to take this time to explain why this provision was added to the bill and why I believe it is necessary in one form or another.

Right now, consumers generally do not know the full terms and conditions of their credit card until they have been issued the card. And once a card has been issued, the card is reported on the consumer's credit report, regardless of whether the consumer uses the card or not. The bill would allow an issuer to report a consumer's application for a credit card, but would not allow an issuer to report the approval of the credit card to the credit bureaus until the card has been activated or used.

Consumers should not have open lines of credit listed on their credit report if they have no intention of ever using the card. And while I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and will maintain this going forward, I just want to ensure consumers receive adequate disclosures relating to this. And so I will be supporting your amendment, and we can help work on further disclosures.

Today, America's consumers can see what a Democratic President and a Democratic majority means to their lives. We can stop these abusive practices by voting down the motion to recommit and voting for the bill.

Small businesses, the Small Business Association was part of our coalition. They support the bill. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, they call it a key vote alert. They will score people on this vote, a vote in support of the legislation.

So we have a chance to vote with the regulators of this country that support the bill and have called these practices unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive. We get to vote with 54 editorial boards across the country that have endorsed the bill, with every consumer group, every civil rights group, and many grassroots organizations that have called this their number 1 legislative priority.

We do not need to delay. We need to vote against this motion to recommit, and we need to move forward in enacting these provisions to protect America's working men and women, particularly when our economy is downturning, many people are losing their jobs. We need to protect our consumers, not delay provisions that can help them better manage their credit and stop abusive practices.

Vote for the Democratic bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1913, the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Preven of 2009.'' As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe that H.R. 1913 is critically important to ensuring that those who commit hate crimes are appropriately prosecuted and punished. I want to commend Chairman Conyers and the Democratic Leadership for bringing this legislation before the House of Representatives early in the 111th Congress so that we may finally get this bill to the President's desk.

Each story is tragic, someone who is assaulted or murdered because of nothing more than his or her race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, for example. Someone who may have done nothing other than walk down a particular street, attend a certain house of worship, or simply be who they are. Today we send the important message that we will not tolerate these acts of violence by ensuring that local law enforcement agencies have the necessary resources to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

On June 11, 2000, at the annual Puerto Rican Day parade in New York City, more than fifty women were sexually harassed and assaulted by a group of men. I was outraged not only that the attacks occurred, but that according to many of the victims, the police did not take their allegations seriously. Unfortunately, women are all too often targeted because of their gender.

Although the bill as reported out of committee does not include provisions from legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 823, the ``Hate Crimes Statistics Improvement Act of 2009,'' I understand that this language will be included in future legislation that Chairman Conyers intends to bring before the House of Representatives. The provisions included in my bill would ensure that hate crimes motivated by gender are accounted for by the FBI and local law enforcement agencies. Violence against women is a serious problem in this country. With accurate data, local communities will be better able to identify gender-based hated crimes in their area, ensure that the prosecution of such crimes is a priority, and chart their progress toward eliminating them.

H.R. 1913 is landmark legislation that I believe will go a long way in reducing violence in communities across this nation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, and I thank the Democratic leadership, Chairman Frank, Chairman Gutierrez, and my Democratic colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

The House bill would provide consumers protection from credit card fraud and deception. Today's action builds on the vote that we had last year when the bill passed by 312-112. We held numerous hearings and meetings, and came forward with a set of gold principles that many issuers have voluntarily followed. Today's bill is another step forward towards making these protections permanent, and importantly, we expand upon them in a number of key areas to provide consumers with additional protections.

The bill targets specific abusive practices--retroactive rate increases that can trap cardholders in a downward spiral of unexpected debt, double-cycle billing that charges interest on balances that have already been paid, payment allocation rules that deny cardholders the right to pay down their high interest rate balances first, due date gimmicks that trick people into paying their bills late and then hitting them with retroactive rate increases, penalty interest rates, late fees, multiple over-limit fees for one over-limit transaction, and subprime cards of which the annual fees alone eat up most of the credit line before a single charge is ever made. It gives consumers more tools to better manage their own credit, such as setting their own credit limit.

This is not a bill that takes away consumer choice or that infringes on anyone's rights. It simply says it is not right to be deceptive, to be unfair or to engage in anticompetitive practices.

The bill has been endorsed by consumer groups, labor unions and civil rights organizations that have made the passage of this bill a top priority because these unfair practices affect so many people every single day of the year. There have been more than 54 editorials and op- eds endorsing the need for credit card reform across our Nation. Just last week, President Obama called to the White House the top executives from the credit card industry to tell them that the days of any time/ any reason increases must come to an end.

This is an important bill that affects many people. It is hard for me to come to the floor of Congress or to walk down the street without hearing some story of some type of credit card abuse. This would end the tricks and traps, and it builds also on the Federal rule that came out after our bill passed that resembles strongly our bill. Sixty-six thousand comments were written in support of the Federal rule which we are supporting today, too.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation. It will help millions of people in America. We have done a great deal to help our banks shore up their capital requirements and allow them to provide more loans. This will allow consumers to protect their interest rates, to keep them lower so that they have more money, their own money, to invest in our economy. It's fair to all concerned. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this important bill in so many areas.

I would like this time to respond to my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Bachus, where he pointed out that the bill may cause interest rates to rise and credit lines to be cut.

But what we are hearing now, interest rates are rising and credit lines are being cut, and we don't have the bill in place. In fact, what we are hearing from many people on this floor, and what we hear when we go home to our districts, that oftentimes when you pay on time and do not go over your limit, interest rates can go up, and it's totally legal.

I have talked to constituents and others who have told me that their rates have doubled. They have called the issuers, and they don't even have to give them a reason. Because, now, in the very fine print, they can raise the rates any time, any reason, retroactively on existing balances.

One astonishing hearing was when the head of Freddie Mac, Syron, testified before our Financial Services Committee, and he said that he and his wife read the credit card contract fine print for hours and could not figure out what it said. The Federal Reserve also came forward and said that Reg Z or disclosure was not enough. They said the practices were unfair and deceptive and misleading, that the average citizen, like the chairman of Freddie Mac, could not even understand what was in the fine print.

This bill really is very balanced and fair and allows consumers to have notice when interest rates are going up. They have 45 days' notice, so they can decide whether they want to opt into this higher rate or go to another card that has a lower rate and pay off their balance. This will put competition into the system, and, I believe, lower rates.

I wanted to respond to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle. In good times and in bad times, the issuers have been opposed to this legislation, and we need it now. We are in bad times. Consumers need protection.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and would like to respond to some of the statements that my good friend on the other side of the aisle made.

He mentioned the Great Britain example, but in the Great Britain example there were fee caps and interest rate caps. The Credit Card Bill of Rights does not have any caps on fees or interest rates. It merely gives information to consumers to better manage their credit and make decisions of how they would better manage their credit.

He gave the example that he did not want interest going up on consumers who are paying their cards on time and not going over the limit. Precisely what this bill does is protect those consumers from rate increases, any time, any reason, even when they have done everything right. It is totally, totally unfair.

And there is absolutely no penalty in this bill for anyone doing the right thing. If anything, it protects them from unfair and deceptive practices that could hinder and raise their interest rates.

He mentioned that he would like more choice, but that is basically one of the main goals of the bill. This bill is not a bill that takes away consumer choice or infringes on anyone's rights. It simply says it is not right to be deceptive, to be unfair or to engage in anti- competitive practices.

I would caution my friends on the other side of the aisle that voting against this bill is a rare opportunity to vote against the Federal Reserve, the body with the responsibility of safety and soundness in our financial institutions. They have come out in support of this bill with a rule that mirrors it to a great degree. The major points of this bill are encompassed in the Federal rule.

This is a bill that protects our consumers and has been endorsed by many editorial boards and consumer groups across the country.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, which amends the FMLA to permit leave to care for a domestic partner, same-sex spouse, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, grandparent or child of a domestic partner, if that person has a serious health condition.

The landmark 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act allows qualified workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year to care for newborns or to care for himself/herself, parents, children under 18 or a legal spouse if that person has a serious health condition. Since becoming law over sixteen years ago, it has allowed many tens of millions of Americans to take unpaid leave without the risk of losing their jobs.

But, imagine if your domestic partner, same-sex spouse, adult child, parent-in-law, or grandparent was involved in a serious car accident and had no one to take care of him or her. Then imagine your employer telling you that you can't take a few unpaid days off work to care for your loved one because your relationship is not covered by FMLA. This situation sounds preposterous, but there is no protection for you in current law. That is why the FMLA Inclusion Act is so important.

This session, the bill was improved to permit leave to care for the child of a domestic partner. Often, domestic partners are not able to adopt their partner's child, even when that person is the only parent the child has ever known. The FMLA Inclusion Act would ensure those children can be cared for by the person they call ``Mom'' or ``Dad.''

I am pleased that the Human Rights Campaign has endorsed this legislation, and I am proud to introduce it with the support of original cosponsors Representatives Baldwin, Woolsey, Frank, Polis, Delahunt, Hirono, Farr, Israel and Nadler.

The FMLA Inclusion Act represents simple fairness, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this fairness prevails.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 340, a resolution that expresses sympathy to the victims, families and friends of the tragic act of violence at the American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY.

My heart goes out not only to the victims and families of this senseless tragedy but to the entire city of Binghamton, New York. I am deeply saddened by the violence that has afflicted that community and that together, the citizens can regain a sense of safety and hope. I would also like to thank and commend the first responders and all of law enforcement who responded to the crime scene and who continue to help the community cope with this tragedy. Binghamton, New York has a long history of welcoming people from all backgrounds, nationalities, and religions, as well as immigrants and visitors from abroad and the American Civic Association in Binghamton has been at the heart of these efforts. For over 80 years, the American Civic Association has served its community assisting immigrants and refugees with counseling, resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, language skills, and other critical services that have played a vital role in the effort to pursue the dreams of immigrants seeking legal citizenship.

Many of those who sought a haven in the Association had escaped the violence of war and tyranny in their home countries to create a better life in the United States. It is a sad irony that instead, they found tragedy.

In the midst of tragedy, I respectfully remind my colleagues that we will continue to be vigilant against these cowardly acts of violence and that our condolences are with the victims and their friends and families. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 104, which supports the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

I was the lead Democratic sponsor of the original legislation to designate April as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, which was introduced by former Representative Mark Green and signed into law in 2003. I am proud to have been a part of that initial effort, which has grown into a nationwide campaign to raise public awareness regarding sexual violence, prevent future crimes, and provide crucial services to victims of rape and sexual assault.

Even as we shine a spotlight on this issue throughout the month of April, it is important to remember that preventing sexual assault must be top priority every month of the year. A 2000 study by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 18% of women in the United States have been raped in their lifetimes, yet we know that only about 6% of women who have been raped will ever see their attacker spend a day in jail.

I have long been a champion of domestic and international women's issues, and preventing violence against women has been one of my top priorities since my very first day in Congress. That is why I wrote ``The Debbie Smith Act,'' signed into law in 2004 to improve the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases with DNA evidence. DNA evidence is crucial to getting rapists off the streets, and yet across the country, thousands of unprocessed DNA evidence kits are gathering dust. Each one of these represents a victim who has been denied justice, and a rapist who is free to commit more crimes. With this legislation, the huge backlog of rape kits is finally being processed.

In 2008 I introduced H.R. 5057, ``The Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act,'' which was signed into law, and which extends the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program through FY 2014. The bill also reauthorizes several critical programs which provide training and education for criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence. I am pleased to have been joined by Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith of the Judiciary Committee in introducing that important legislation.

It is vitally important that we continue these efforts to reduce the DNA backlog crisis in our nation's crime labs. Equally imperative are efforts to support the Violence Against Women Act by fully funding the organizations, shelters, and counseling centers which provide the crucial victim services which help women escape dangerous situations and begin new lives free from violence and fear.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, last week we witnessed the deplorable spectacle of a United Nations conference purporting to address the troubling issue of racism, hijacked by nations with a deplorable record on human rights and turned into an all-out attack on Israel. I am proud that the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, The Jewish Week and other leading organizations in New York City organized a counter-conference that really discussed the continued problems of racism, racial discrimination, genocide, xenophobia, gender discrimination and religious intolerance.

I was pleased to have been asked to address the conference's opening day. Set forth below are my remarks:

``I want to thank Robert Weinberg, Marc Landis, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and Jewish Week for giving me the opportunity to address you this morning.

Eight years ago at Durban I, we witnessed a spectacle of anti- semitism the like of which has not been seen since World War II. There are many places you might expect to see anti-semitism--a ku klan klan rally, a pogrom, a neo-Nazi gathering. A UN-sponsored World Conference on Racism would not have immediately jumped to my mind--until the grotesque carnival of hatred we witnessed 8 years ago.

Of course, the UN had passed the illogical and hateful Zionism is Racism resolution in 1975--but they revoked that resolution in 1991 by a vote of 111 to 25, 10 years before the conference.

And yet, the warning signs were present.

At the pre-Conference it became clear that the full conference would be dominated by chants of `Zionism equals racism,' accusations that Israel is an apartheid state and other outrageous slanders. Israel and the United States walked out--as they should have done.

The real irony is that anti-semitism, a form of racism, should be so prevalent at a conference that was supposed to combat racism.

The hate literature distributed during the NGO conference included caricatures of Jews with hooked noses, surrounded by money, and Israelis wearing Nazi emblems.

At the government conference, states such as Syria and Iran objected to the inclusion of Anti-Semitism or the Holocaust in the final report. They argued that any reference to the Holocaust would be `favoritism.'

Anti-semitism is like the canary in the coal mine. It has always come before a hatred that spreads through many sectors of society.

At the first conference Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister sent a statement in which he asserted: `antisemitism goes far beyond hatred of Jews. It has arisen where Jews have never lived, and survives where only Jewish cemeteries remain. And while Jews may be the first to suffer from its influence, they have rarely been the last.'

Instead of learning from history, Durban I and II seek to deny what happened, and then to twist its lessons beyond all recognition. Talking about an actual example of racism isn't favoritism, it's reality. Pretending it didn't happen or isn't important just encourages racists. After all, Hitler learned a great lesson from the Turkish attacks on the Armenians-- `who remembers the Armenians?' he asked as he prepared plans for the final solution.

If we forget the Holocaust, or hesitate to bring it up, it emboldens the murderers. That's why I have been sponsoring a bill--the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act to make sure our young people learn about the Holocaust and what happened when hatred and intolerance was allowed free reign.

I also authored and passed that Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, which opened up long-sealed US government records from World War II, so that all of us would know what our government knew about the Holocaust and the Nazis who scrambled to hide their past in the aftermath of the war. Eight million documents were unclassified as a result. The newly unsealed records have been fascinating--they showed that we knew a lot about Nazi collaborators who had murdered Jews, and even include a report from Hitler's psychiatrist.

Six months after Durban I, as the world struggled to comprehend the terrorist attack on New York on 9/11, which occurred just two days after Durban I's closing ceremonies, Deputy Minister Melchior gave a speech in which he juxtaposed the two events, and struggled to make sense of the senseless. He said: `In an irony of epic proportions, this Conference against Racism itself hosted the most racist speeches and proposals to be heard in an international forum since the second World War. While doing nothing to help the millions of slaves, of impoverished and oppressed, this Conference became the mouthpiece for a new and venal form of antisemitism.'

The United Nations can do great work, but Israel often gets scapegoated by its many enemies. But as much as the UN can do wrong, it's important to remember that it can also do right. Just last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international equivalent of the bill of rights. It was the crowning achievement of Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the committee responsible for drafting it. It was written in the aftermath of World War II, as the world struggled to lift itself out of the ashes and deal with Hitler's devastation. The world understood what could happen when a truly evil man who controlled a vast store of weapons was able to give free reign to his desire to conquer and destroy. They believed a body that defended human rights would surely prevent such evil from rising up in the future.

Despite the good will of a newly liberated Europe, Eleanor Roosevelt had a long and difficult struggle to get the member nations to agree on one document. She had to persuade them to put aside their own narrow national interests and to agree to a strong affirmation of individual rights. It took her three years. When she was done, we had a document that affirmed that: `it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.'

Instead of Eleanor Roosevelt, today we have a representative of Libya's Muhamar Khadafi chairing the planning committee for Durban II. This planning committee includes such noted defenders of human rights as Iran and Cuba.

Human Rights Watch, a leading human rights NGO, pointed out the irony of Libya's position by sending a Palestinian, Ashraf Ahmed El-Hojouj, to testify before the committee. He was a medical intern who had been detained by Libya's government and accused of spreading AIDS, when he had been providing medical care. He and five Bulgarian nurses were held in dreadful conditions while the international community struggled to free them and avert a death sentence.

Madam Chair,' he said. `I don't know if you recognize me. I am the Palestinian medical intern who was scapegoated by your country, Libya, in the HIV case in the Benghazi hospital, together with five Bulgarian nurses.

Starting in 1999, as you know, the five nurses and I were falsely arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, brutally tortured, convicted, and sentenced to death. All of this, which lasted for nearly a decade, was for only one reason: because the Libyan government was looking to scapegoat foreigners.

Madam Chair, if that is not discrimination, then what is?'

When I began drafting this speech, it was three days before the Conference opened, and it still wasn't clear which Western countries would be attending Durban II. The U.S., Israel, Italy, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Poland, Sweden and Holland have stated that they won't go.

Some other EU members have also indicated that they may walk out-- particularly if language to `never forget' the Holocaust is taken out. But what does it say that the conference will be opened with an address by the notorious Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The Bush Administration had been an early opponent of Durban II and in December, the U.S. cast a symbolic vote against the UN's budget because it included funding for this conference.

The Obama Administration, in the spirit in which he was elected, made an effort to reach out and to try to make the conference's report better. They figured that if we weren't at the table, we could be sure that we would object to the final document. If we were at the table, we had a tiny chance of making it palatable.

Unfortunately, in a conference chaired by Libya, our odds of success were limited. And, it seems clear that our worst expectations have been fulfilled. Human rights are being used as a weapon of political interests antithetical to human rights protection.

Was the Obama Administration right to participate in the pre- conference negotiations? Some would argue that it wasn't worth the time, the expense or the frustration. I've always believed that you're doomed to fail if you never try. You can always reject a bad bargain-- but you'll never get what you want if you don't ask for it--and you can't ask for anything if you storm out at the beginning. So, I believe President Obama was right to try change the document in the lead up to this conference. And as it became clear that the United States could never endorse the final report, he was right to decide not to send a delegation to the actual conference.

I think most of the Western nations were more than a little embarrassed by Durban I, and that Europe's enthusiasm for this type of spectacle has been tempered by the explosion of terrorism that the entire world has experienced since Durban I. I am pleased the United States had the company of many other nations in boycotting Durban II.

Eleanor Roosevelt believed that our greatest asset is the conviction that our actions accord with justice and humanity. I am delighted to be here at the counter-conference, where justice and humanity can be the focus. There is so much work that could be done at a real conference on racism--exploring ways to bring justice in Darfur, looking at the discrimination against the Baha'i, exploring why the world has tolerated a return to clan rule in failed states like Somalia and parts of Pakistan, looking at ways to combat xenophobia and intolerance.

Once upon a time, we dreamed that the United Nations could be a forum to address those issues. Perhaps in time it could be--but not when states led by the worst abusers of human rights get to chair human rights panels, and not when narrow political interests are allowed to dominate. I hope, if there ever is a Durban III, it will be convened in an earnest effort to achieve equality.''

Madam Speaker, I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing AAJLJ and Jewish Week's Durban II Counterconference.

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to re-introduce the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Act, along with Representatives Ackerman, Berman, and Higgins. Named after a survivor of the Nazi death camps who dedicated his life to documenting the crimes of the Holocaust, the legislation would provide federal grants to Holocaust organizations to teach today's students about the Holocaust. I thank my friend Senator Menendez for introducing the Senate companion bill this week as we commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day.

I also want to take this opportunity to remember our dear friend and colleague Chairman Tom Lantos, who passed away last year. The only Holocaust survivor elected to Congress, Tom translated his horrific experience into a lifetime commitment to Holocaust education and the fight against anti-Semitism.

As the generations who survived the Holocaust pass away, we must make sure that new generations know the horrors of that terrible time. We must also make sure that those who would deny the existence of the Holocaust do not have the ability to rewrite history.

Unfortunately, many young people around the country have not learned about the Holocaust because their schools do not have the funds or tools to teach about this tragic event in world history. We need programs in our schools that allow students to learn about the consequences of intolerance and hate.

The most effective way to counter prejudice, hate crimes and violence is through education: the best investment a society can make towards ensuring tolerance.

The Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act is a positive step toward that end.

Madam Speaker, today, along with Representatives Baldwin, and Biggert, I am introducing a House Concurrent Resolution which expresses the sense of Congress that the Shi'ite Personal Status Law in Afghanistan violates the fundamental rights of women and should be repealed. Senator Boxer is introducing the same resolution in the Senate.

In March the Afghan parliament approved the Shi'ite Personal Status Law which was signed by President Hamid Karzai. According to reports in the media and by the United Nations, this law would legalize marital rape, strip mothers of custodial rights in the event of a divorce, and prohibit a woman from leaving her home unless her husband gives his approval. President Obama has called this law ``abhorrent'' and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that the law is ``reprehensible and reminiscent of the decrees made by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the 1990s.''

This resolution urges the Afghan Government and President Karzai to declare these provisions unconstitutional, and to not publish the law on the grounds that it violates the Constitution of Afghanistan and the basic rights of women. Additionally, the resolution encourages the U.S. Government to address the status of women's rights and security in Afghanistan to ensure that these rights are not being eroded.

I have long been a champion for the rights of women internationally, but particularly in Afghanistan. Throughout the country's turbulent history, the women of Afghanistan have been a source of strength, stability, and peace. Working with my colleagues, we have ensured that reconstruction aid for Afghanistan includes support for programs that increase women's access to education, economic opportunities, and health care. We have also worked to increase recognition of the vital role women have to play in rebuilding Afghan society in the wake of violent conflict, and I am pleased that the U.S. government has devoted resources specifically to support the work of local women-led nongovernmental organizations, as well as the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.

In its current form, the Shi'ite Personal Status Law fundamentally contradicts these efforts. We cannot stand by and allow such an immense setback to the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, who have been treated as second-class citizens for far too long. For years, the United States has worked with the people and government of Afghanistan to rebuild the rule of law and promote respect for human rights. Creating a new and better future for the women of Afghanistan is a critical part of this mission.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Michael Stern, an extraordinary man who passed away on April 7, 2009 at the age of 98 He was a journalist, author, genius and visionary, and I was deeply fortunate to count him as a friend.

In 1978, he joined with his good friend Zachary Fisher, to save the aircraft carrier Intrepid from mothballs and use it as the base for an extraordinary museum situated in Pier 86 on the West Side of Manhattan. Since it opened its doors in 1982, the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum has served more than 10 million visitors. Mr. Stern knew that the Intrepid was one of the most successful ships in U.S. history, and that it would be a fitting monument to the herorism of our nation's military.

Commissioned during World War II, the Intrepid served in the Pacific Theater, survived five kamikaze attacks and one torpedoing. In its year and a half of active duty, Intrepid's aircraft had destroyed 301 Japanese airplanes and helped sink 122 enemy ships, including shared credit for the super-battleships Yamoto and Musashashi. The ship went on to serve as one of the primary recovery vessels for NASA, did three tours of duty off Vietnam, and assisted submarine surveillance in the North Atlantic during the Cold War.

Together, Mr. Stern and Mr. Fisher also created the Fisher Center for Alzheimer's Research Foundation at Rockefeller University and Fisher Houses, a program to build houses for families of hospitalized military personnel to stay near to their loved ones while they are receiving treatment. After Mr. Fisher's death, Mr. Stern started the Michael Stern Parkinson's Research Foundation. I serve on the Board of Trustees of both research foundations and know that they support vital research to find cures for these devastating neurological diseases. Scientists tell us that the two diseases may have a common cause and, therefore, a common cure. Mr. Stern hoped the work he supported would eventually lead to that cure.

Mr. Stern joined the United States Army in 1943 as a war correspondent for Fawcett Publications and the North American Newspaper

Alliance. He was first shipped out to Algeria, and later traveled with American forces through Sicily and up the boot of Italy. He arrived in Rome just one day ahead of U.S. troops. As a young journalist from Brooklyn, he writes of feeling slightly provincial in the face of Rome's cosmopolitan ethos and rich historical past. Nonetheless, he relates that the city inspired him, thrilled him, made him become more worldly and knowledgable. He made it his home for the next 50 years.

In the foreward to Mr. Stern's book, An American in Rome, Robert Ruark creates a vivid portrait of him as a journalist in Italy: ``Michael Stern is a myth. He never really existed outside a scriptwriter's imagination. He dug up and lived with the most famous outlaw of our time when ten thousand Italian police couldn't locate Salvatore Giuliano. He wrote the definitive pieces on such unlikely people as Lucky Luciano, Virginia Hill, Dorothy DiFrasso, Geroge Dawson, Freddie McEvoy, Roberto Rossellini, Vincenzo Moscatello and Calouste Sarkis Gubenkian. . . . The reason a lot of people hate Mike Stern's guts is that he is a writer of harsh truth. . . . Don't get me wrong. Mike's an operator. He's an arranger, a dealer, and if necessary, a law unto himself. He does not play to lose. If he were a baseball player, he'd dust off his mother to protect his earned run average, and if he were a boxer he would unhesitatingly club you in the neck to win. . . . I have seen people stop by his table in a Roman caffe and say: ``You son of a bitch, I'll kill you for what you wrote about me.'' Mike doesn't even bother to scowl. So many people have been threatening to kill him for years that one more is only a bore. This is a tough boy, and he writes tough prose. I wish to Christ we had more like him in a soppy, soggy world of cotton-wooled halftruths.''

Before becoming a war correspondent, Mr. Stern wrote for True Crime magazine and other publication, sometimes using his own name, sometimes employing a pseudonym. Later, he authored or co-authored a number of books, including Flight From Terror, Into the Jaws of Death, No Innocence Abroad and An American in Rome.

In 1934, Mr. Stern married Estelle Goldstein, who died in 1995. In addition to his daughter, Margaret, of Manhattan, he is survived by a son, Michael Jr., of Juno Beach, Fla., and a granddaughter.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in paying respects to Michael Stern, a true American hero whose work has educated, inspired and benefitted generations of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ballet Academy East (BAE) as it celebrates its 30th Anniversary. BAE was founded in September 1979 by Julia Dubno, who continues to serve as its director and inspiring leader.

Ms. Dubno opened BAE in a brownstone on East 79th Street featuring one small studio. Under Ms. Dubno's careful tutelage the school has flourished, growing in size and reputation. Today the school occupies 5 spacious studios and features a world renowned faculty. Ms. Dubno has assembled a talented group of teachers and musicians to work with all levels of students from two year olds through adults. The school introduces toddlers to the concept of dance, provides a nurturing environment for training older children and enables adults of all ages to stay in shape.

There are times when it seems that every small girl on the Upper East Side is taking ballet class at BAE. Toddlers in pink leotards and their mothers or caretakers flock to BAE's building every day. The elevators are crowded with youngsters in strollers, scrambling to put on ballet slippers as they rush to class. They find a ballet fantasy world, filled with music, movement, story-telling and dance.

While toddlers of every degree of interest in dance are welcomed, by the time children reach first grade, the school begins to evaluate and grade students with an eye to preparing them for the rigorous world of dance. In the afternoon, these older children arrive, exuding a sense of purpose and a desire to succeed. Advanced students rave about the fact that instruction really seems to be a group effort, with each class complementing the others. The pre-professional program consists of classical training that is intended to prepare young dancers for any professional company. Combinations become more advanced as students improve their technique. BAE's faculty help students discover a love of dance and enable skilled students to improve their technique. Students find that BAE allows them to expand as artists, discovering their strengths and finding ways to overcome their weaknesses. BAE students perform for the public at annual spring and studio performances, and as part of Dances Patrelle's annual Nutcracker.

Darla Hoover (former member of New York City Ballet) is the artistic advisor and coordinator for the graded level program. Graduates have gone on to perform with many national and regional ballet companies or to attend other topnotch ballet schools, including the School of American Ballet, Dance Theater of Harlem Ensemble, Nashville Ballet School, BalletMet, Nashville Ballet II and Kansas City Ballet. Students often return for additional classes. As one student wrote in the most recent newsletter: ``Change is good, but it's always nice to know you can go back.''

The school was thrilled to welcome Cynthia Gregory, whom Rudolf Nureyev once called ``America's prima ballerina assoluta,'' as one of its Permanent Guest Faculty. She staged Michael Fokine's Les Sylphides for the BAE Student Company Studio Showing in February.

For adults working to stay in shape or seeking to improve flexibility or muscle tone, BAE offers Open Classes for adult students of all levels in Pilates, yoga, jazz, and modern. Adults laud the intimate classes and the dedication of the faculty. Instructors are knowledgable and willing to offer advice so that even the most advanced dancers can improve.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the great contributions Ballet Academy East has made in training young ballerinas, and Julia Dubno for guiding young people to achieve their best.

Madam Speaker, the rising cost of child care is squeezing working families in these difficult economic times, and the amount of assistance the federal government currently provides to ease the burden of these expenses is inadequate. To address this issue, today I am introducing the Child Care Affordability Act.

A substantial gap exists between what high-quality early care and education programs cost and what most families can afford to pay. The average cost of full-time care for one child in a child care center is about $13,000 per year in urban areas--nearly one quarter of the typical family's income. The amount of assistance that the typical family can receive from the current federal credit for child care expenses is limited to $600 for one child and $1,200 for two children. The Child Care Affordability Act helps families to fill that gap so that more of America's children will experience high-quality child care and early education settings.

The Child Care Affordability Act of 2009 acts on two fronts. First, it creates a new tax deduction for child and dependent care expenses. Much of a so-called ``martini lunch'' is currently a tax-deductible business expense, while child care is not. But for the typical family, child care is a very necessary expense for being able to work. Second, the bill expands the current credit for child and dependent care expenses so that it provides a more meaningful level of assistance to families. Families would be able to choose either the deduction or the credit, making the choice that gives them the biggest tax break. A family with median income of $56,788 and two children could receive as much as $5,200 in tax assistance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this initiative to ease the burden on working families while making an essential investment in the future prosperity of our country.

Madam Speaker, as a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, and the representative of a large and vibrant community of Armenian Americans, I join my colleagues in the sad commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.

Today we declare once again that the Turkish and American governments must finally acknowledge what we have long understood: that the unimaginable horror committed on Turkish soil in the aftermath of World War I was an act of genocide.

The tragic events began on April 24, 1915, when more than 200 of Armenia's religious, political and intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople and killed. Ultimately, more than 1.5 million Armenians were systematically murdered at the hands of the Young Turks, and more than 500,000 more were exiled from their native land.

On this 94th anniversary of the genocide, I join with the chorus of voices that grows louder with each passing year. We simply will not allow the planned elimination of an entire people to remain in the shadows of history. The Armenian Genocide must be acknowledged, studied, and never, ever allowed to happen again.

Three years ago I joined with my colleagues in the Caucus in urging PBS not to give a platform to the deniers of the genocide by canceling a planned broadcast of a panel which included two scholars who deny the Armenian Genocide. This panel was to follow the airing of a documentary about the Armenian Genocide. Along with Representative Anthony Weiner, I led a successful effort to convince Channel Thirteen in New York City to pull the plug on these genocide deniers.

The United States must join other parliaments in passing a resolution affirming that the Armenian people were indeed subjected to genocide. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs took an important step two years ago in passing such a resolution. In the 111th Congress, I am a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 252, and I am hopeful that this resolution will make it to the Floor.

An acknowledgment of the genocide is not our only objective. I remain committed to ensuring that the U.S. government continues to provide direct financial assistance to Armenia. Over the years, this aid has played a critical role in the economic and political advancement of the Armenian people. This year I have joined with my colleagues in requesting economic and military assistance for Armenia.

Legislation passed in the 109th Congress and signed into law to reauthorize the Export Import Bank included important language prohibiting the Bank from funding railroad projects in the South Caucasus region that deliberately exclude Armenia.

American tax dollars should not be used to support efforts to isolate Armenia, and these provisions would prevent that by ensuring that U.S. funds are not used to support the construction of a new railway that bypasses Armenia. A railway already exists that connects the nations of Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, but because it crosses Armenia, an expensive and unnecessary new railway had been proposed. Allowing the exclusion of Armenia from important transportation routes would stymie the emergence of this region as an important East-West trade corridor.

On this solemn day, our message is clear: the world remembers the Armenian Genocide, and the governments of Turkey and the United States must declare--once and for all--that they do, too.