Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would provide funding for FEMA to conduct a comprehensive study of its emergency response and disaster relief services as a result of weather- related disasters associated with global warming.

There is no doubt in my mind that global warming is happening and that man is contributing to it. Now, it is our responsibility to work to mitigate the impacts of potentially catastrophic climate change.

2005 is currently tied with 1998 for the warmest year on record. However, the warmth in 2005 is remarkable because, in contrast to 1998, it was not boosted by El Nino. And since 1990, we've had the 10 hottest years on record.

Hurricanes are getting stronger, heat waves are hitting harder and more often, and the polar ice cap and Greenland's ice are melting. Several weeks ago, the Northeast saw some of the worst flooding in 70 years, and the strength of Hurricane Katrina created a tragedy of Biblical proportions. These examples of what climate change can do tell us we must act now before another disaster hits.

We need to address climate change with concerted action and with bipartisan dialogue, regional cooperation and an alliance between industry and environmentalists.

The threat from global warming is very real, and we must act now to combat potentially catastrophic climate change. We cannot leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to the important and essential role that oncology nurses play in providing quality cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side-effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosoclal and supportive care to patients, and their families. In short, they are integral to our Nation's cancer care delivery system.

On behalf of the people with cancer and their families in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, I would like to specifically acknowledge Karen Stanley from Greenwich, Connecticut, for her service on the Oncology Nursing Society Board of Directors and her role as president of the Oncology Nursing Society. Through her steadfast leadership and commitment to the Oncology Nursing Society, Karen has advanced policies and programs that reduce and prevent suffering from cancer.

I am proud that the Oncology Nursing Society has two chapters in my home State of Connecticut. Located in Berlin and Brookfield, these chapters serve the oncology nurses in the State and support them in the effort to provide high quality cancer care to patients and their families.

Since 1975, the Oncology Nursing Society has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration, and education in the field of oncology. The Oncology Nursing Society is the largest organization of oncology health professionals the world with more than 33,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. I commend Karen and her organization for all that they do in the field of oncology.

Cancer is a complex multifaceted and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. According to the American Cancer Society, one in three women and one in two men will receive a diagnosis of cancer at some point in their lives, and one out of every four deaths in the United States results from cancer. This year approximately 17,320 people in Connecticut will be diagnosed with cancer and another 6,990 will lose their battles with this terrible disease. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment.

Today, more than two-thirds of cancer cases strike people over the age of 65, and the number of cancer cases diagnosed among senior citizens is projected to double by 2030. At the same time, many of the community-based cancer centers are facing significant barriers in hiring the specialized oncology nurses they need to treat cancer patients. We are on the verge of a major national nursing shortage, and it is estimated there will soon be a shortage of 1.1 million nurses.

I would like to once again acknowledge and thank Karen Stanley for her hard work and leadership as president of ONS. As a nurse and leader in the field, Karen has made it her life's mission to help others and she should be applauded for all she has done.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I hope I don't use the whole minute, but just to say that as a Republican who believes in free markets, it is one of the big contradictions for me to constantly see some of my conservative colleagues argue for a Depression program, a program from the Depression era.

This is a program that costs a billion dollars, it distorts the marketplace, and the reason we are debating it here is because we rarely get an opportunity to debate this kind of issue. It needs to be gone.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1736) to provide for the participation of employees in the judicial branch in the Federal leave transfer program for disasters and emergencies.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1736, legislation to allow judicial branch employees to participate in the Federal leave transfer program in the event of disasters and emergencies.

In 1997, Congress authorized the creation of an emergency leave transfer program that allowed employees of the executive branch, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to transfer portions of their annual leave to other executive branch employees who are adversely affected by a natural disaster or emergencies. The 1997 legislation was built upon special procedures that were developed to assist Federal employees in the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts petitioned Congress to consider extending the existing emergency leave transfer program to cover employees of the judicial

branch. S. 1736, introduced last September by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Susan Collins, was passed by the Senate last October. While it may be too late to benefit the approximately 400 judicial branch employees displaced by Hurricane Katrina, this authority will be available to judicial branch employees should disaster strike again.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation demonstrates to our hardworking and dedicated Federal workforce that the Congress of the United States is committed to their safety and security. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

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

I just want to say that I should not have left out Senator Lieberman. Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins both worked very closely on a bipartisan basis to move forward important legislation. I think this is important legislation, and I join with my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), in urging passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Shuster, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Young and Mr. Oberstar. I wanted to defer my opportunity to go before Mr. Lantos because it needs to be clear this began in the heart and mind of Mr. Lantos' wife, and we are merely instruments of her goodness.

I rise, in support of H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, which we do refer to as the PETS Act, which Congressman Lantos and I, as co-chairmen of the Friends of Animals Caucus, introduced.

This commonsense bill requires State and local preparedness planners to include plans for evacuation of pet owners, pets and service animals, as has already been described by previous speakers.

Hurricane Katrina left so many victims in its wake, including an estimated 600,000 animals that either lost their lives or were left without shelter. Hurricane Katrina taught us the hard lesson that, as we prepare for future emergencies, it is important we incorporate pet owners and their pets in our plans.

Many pet owners had to choose between their safety and the safety of their pets, and anyone who owns a pet understands the difficult decisions that they had to make.

In order to qualify for Federal Emergency Management Agency funding, a jurisdiction is required to submit a plan detailing their disaster preparedness plan. The PETS Act would simply require State and local emergency preparedness authorities to plan for how they would accommodate household pets and service animals when presenting these plans to FEMA. Animals do not go before people, but animals will have a place in this plan.

The human horror and devastation in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama was a tragedy we are addressing, but it was also heartbreaking to hear stories of forcing evacuees to choose between being rescued or remaining with their pets.

This bipartisan legislation is necessary because when asked to choose between abandoning their pets or their personal safety, many pet owners chose to risk their lives and would continue today to risk their lives and remain with their pets. The plight of the animals left behind was truly tragic. This is not just an animal protection issue; this is a public safety issue. Roughly two-thirds of American households own pets. We need to ensure the pets and their pet owners are protected.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I, too, want to make reference to that young man; I guess he was around 7 years old. I think of him and think this young man may have lost his home, he may have lost everything he owned, but he had his pet. As long as he had his pet, he could deal with it. To see this pet being grabbed from him, to me it was the height of cruelty that I still have a hard time understanding and appreciating.

When my mom and dad moved when I was 8 or 9 years old to another place, our pet dog, Mack, kept running back to the original house, and we lost him. For 2 years, I didn't have a pet, but I grew up with a pet. Then we moved to a new home and my parents could afford nothing else. They told me no Christmas presents. There would be no Christmas presents. My Christmas present was a new home, a brand new room, and I dealt with that. I thought, this year, no Christmas presents.

They were gone Christmas Eve day, and they came home that night. They didn't tell me where they had been, which was very unusual. I was with my three older brothers. Then my parents asked me to come down into the garage. As I did, they were walking up holding a beautiful collie pup. That night I slept on the floor with Lance, my collie pup.

I will never forget the joy I had. It was the best Christmas I ever had, and it was just one little gift, a pet that remained in our household for years.

This is an important bill, and I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, the founding charter of Hamas reads, ``Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.'' Madam Speaker, when your enemy says he is going to kill you, you better pay attention.

The Hamas victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections is of great concern to me and many others and presents a major challenge to the peace process. Hamas ran a campaign primarily based on cleaning out the corruption of the Fatah party. The Palestinian people responded to this pledge, but sadly in the process elected a terrorist government.

Unless Hamas recognizes the State of Israel's right to exist, ceases incitement and permanently disarms and dismantles their terrorist infrastructure, there is no hope for peace. The bottom line is neither our government nor Israel can meet with or provide assistance to a government led by this terrorist organization.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert in the Congressional Record the following statement by Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Viewpoints: United Nations

Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan will step down from his

position as Secretary-General when his second five-year term

ends on December 31.

The search for a successor to Secretary-General Annan

promises to create differences within the U.N. Security

Council. Russia and China back the customary procedure of

rotating the post among the world's regions, while the U.S.

and Britain are questioning the need to do so.

Since the United Nations was established in October 1945,

the post of Secretary-General has been held by Trygve Lie of

Norway

(1946-1953); Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden (1953-1961); U Thant

of Burma (1961-1971); Kurt Waldheim of Austria (1972-1981);

Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru (1982-1991); and Boutros

Boutros-Ghali of Egypt (1992-1996). Kofi A. Annan, who is

from Ghana, has served since January 1997.

The list of candidates widely discussed in the

international press include: Aleksander Kwasniewski, former

Polish president; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvian president;

Kemal Dervis, Turkey, currently head of the U.N. Development

Program; Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand's deputy prime

minister; Shashi Tharoor, India, U.N. under-secretary-general

for Communications and Public Information and an award-

winning journalist/novelist; Ban Ki Moon, South Korea's

foreign minister; Jose Ramos-Horta, foreign minister of East

Timor and a 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate; Jayantha

Dhanapala, Sri Lanka, served as U.N. undersecretary-general

for disarmament and as ambassador to the United States; Goh

Chok Tong, former prime ministr of Singapore; and Prince Zeid

Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, Jordanian ambassador to the U.N. The

list is not exhaustive and the selection of a dark-horse

candidate cannot be discounted.

The BBC (February 14) reported, ``Analysts say there is

much support for an Asian leader among U.N. member states, in

line with an informal tradition that rotates the role on a

geographical basis. But Washington's U.N. Ambassador John R.

Bolton said last month that Kofi Annan's successor should be

selected on merit alone.''

There have been calls for a Woman as Secretary-General.

Woman's groups have begun lobbying for a woman to succeed

Secretary-General Annan. Their campaign has taken on new

urgency with the recent announcement that Secretary-General

Annan's deputy, Louise Frechette, appointed in 1998 partly

because she was a woman, will leave in April to return to her

native Canada.

As the campaigns move forward it is to be noted that there

are no established qualifications for the post, no search

committees, no interviews, no background checks, no campaign

rules and no forums for showcasing aspirants and their ideas.

If history is a guide, it is likely that none of the

discussed candidates will emerge the winner and that the

person who does is not being publicly discussed.

Wang Guangya, China's Ambassador (the PRC holding a

Permanent seat on the Security Council) at a recent reception

said China would support only candidates from Asia, a polite

way of saying the PRC would threaten to veto candidates from

elsewhere.

The current Chief of Staff for the Secretary-General is

Mark Malloch Brown, recently Head of the UNDP (United Nations

Development Program). He will take the post of Deputy

Secretary-General in April.

Meanwhile, the Secretary General has presented a far-

reaching report with proposals for an overhaul ranging from

setting up a 2,500-strong core of mobile peacekeeping

professionals to multimillion-dollar invesments in training

and technology.

His far-reaching report ``Investing in the United Nations:

For a Stronger Organization Worldwide,'' focuses on ensuring

efficiency and accountability in a way that reflects the fact

that more than 70 per cent of the $10 billion annual budget

now relates to peacekeeping and other field operations, up

from around 50 per cent of a $4.5 billion budget ten years

ago.

``Our current rules and regulations were designed for an

essentially static Secretariat, whose main function was to

service conferences and meetings of Member States, and whose

staff worked mainly at Headquarters,'' the Secretary-General

said as he presented the report in the General Assembly Hall.

``Today thanks to the mandates that Member States have given

us, we are engaged directly in many parts of the world,

working on the ground to improve the lives of people who need

help.''

In the 16 years since the cold war ended, the Organization

has taken on more than twice as many new peacekeeping

missions as in the previous 44 years and spending on

peacekeeping has quadrupled. Over half of its 30,000 civilian

staff now serve in the field--not only in peacekeeping, but

also in humanitarian relief, criminal justice, human rights

monitoring, supporting national elections, and in the battle

against drugs and crime.

The Secretary-General's comprehensive reform blueprint was

called for in the Outcome Document adopted by national

leaders at last September's World Summit in New York. It

builds on a package of reforms Mr. Annan launched last year

to enhance ethics and accountability and address weaknesses

exposed by the Indepdent Inquiry on the Oil-for-Food

Programme as well as evidence of sexual exploitation in

certain peace eping operations.

In the report, the Secretary-General urges Member States to

seize the moment for change. ``This is an opportunity, which

may not occur again until another generation has passed, to

transform the United Nations by aligning it with, and

equipping it for, the substantive challenges it faces in the

twenty-first century,'' he writes. ``It is a chance to give

Member States the tools they need to provide strategic

direction and hold the Secretariat fully accountable for its

performance.''

While the report identifies a number of areas of potential

cost savings and efficiencies, the primary financial message

is that it is time to reverse years of underinvestment in

people, systems and information technology to address

operational deficiencies and ensure that the UN can reach the

level of effectiveness expected by Member States.

The Secretary-General said that although the UN had made a

number of major organizational changes in recent rears to

keep up with the increasing expectations of Member States,

these efforts had only addressed the symptoms, not the

causes, of the Organization's shortcomings. ``It is now time

to reach for deeper, more fundamental change,'' he said.

Along these lines, the proposals encompass a revamped

version of how to recruit, contract, train, assign and

compensate staff, with an emphasis on bringing conditions for

field-based personnel up to par with those at other UN

agencies operating in the field. This will include proposals

for converting 2,500 existing short-term peacekeeping

positions into a new flexible and mobile core of dedicated

specialists who can be deployed rapidly in urgent

peacekeeping and special political missions.

``Increasingly complex mandates require staff with

different skills,'' the Secretary-General told the Assembly.

``We need to be able to recruit and retain leaders, managers

and personnel capable of handling large multidisciplinary

operations, with increasingly high budgets. ``As things

stand,'' he added, ``many of our staff, especially the field

staff who serve with great idealism and integrity, often in

situations of hardship and danger are demoralized and de-

motivated by lack of opportunities for promotion, and by the

frustrattons of dealing with a bureaucracy that can seem both

excessive and remote.''

The report calls for consolidating reporting to address

logjams associated with the current system, where over 100

senior UN officials are directly answerable to the Secretary-

General. It also proposes the formal delegation of

responsibility for management policies and overall

operational matters to a redefined post of Deputy Secretary-

General to help free the Secretary-General to focus on

political and policy issues.

The report also proposes significant investment to overhaul

the Organization's information and communications

infrastructure by replacing current antiquated, fragmented

technology systems with an integrated global platform that

should be led by a dedicated Chief Information Technology

Officer.

Separately, the report identifies significant opportunities

to realize cost savings and efficiency gains, recommending

that the Secretariat explore options for alternative service

delivery, including the potential for relocating core

functions from Headquarters to lower cost duty stations and

possible outsourcing of less central functions such as

printing.

One area where investment could yield substantial savings

is procurement, where the report outlines change that would

improve transparency and realize up to $400 million.

A number of the proposals fall under the direct authority

of the Secretary-General, who said he intends to immediately

carry them out. But most of the fundamental changes,

particularly with regard to budget and personnel issues,

require approval from Member States.

To help ensure momentum for this agenda through the end of

his term and to help equip his successor to follow through,

the Secretary-General also proposes creating a Change

Management Office that would seek to work closely with Member

States to drive the implementation of the reforms.

In the report, Mr. Annan cautions against complacency,

stressing that the proposals must mark the beginning of a

process that will be carried over the next several years.

``One of the weaknesses of the old culture is precisely the

view that a report or a vote in itself represents change,''

he notes. ``In practice, reports and votes enable and

authorize change, but change itself is the long march that

follows.''

Last week the international community took an important

step forward in the fight for global human rights by way of

the General Assembly voting to adopt a new Human Rights

Council.

The new Human Rights Council represents a significant

improvement over the old, discredited Human Rights Commission

because it includes a number of new provisions and

characteristics that will significantly strengthen the UN's

human rights machinery and prevent human rights violators

from participating in the Council.

The President of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson, has

done a masterful job of diplomacy, as demonstrated by the

broad support that exists among governments and non-

governmental organizations.

His proposal was made considerably stronger through pledges

by a large number of countries.

These recent pledges will help ensure that countries with

dubious human rights records will not be elected to the new

Council and that countries under Security Council sanctions

are prevented from participating in the Council.

The new commitments significantly enhance the proposal and

set the stage for additional efforts to strengthen the new

body as it is formed and made operational.

Countries committed to human rights must know that

leadership and diplomacy can continue to improve the Council

as it gets up and running and into the future.

While this unfortunate that the United States found itself

virtually alone in New York and was unable to join consensus,

it is

a positive sign that the United States did not abandon the

Council altogether.

Result of the GA resolution on Human Rights Council: 170 in

favour; 44 against (U.S., Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau);

and 3 abstained (Venezuela, Iran, Belarus).

Building on these principles, the U.S. should participate

actively in the next phase of the Council, exercising

leadership and summoning enlightened diplomacy to advance the

Council and the cause of human rights.

The creation of this new Council--which was mandated by

world leaders in last September's summit at the UN--also

fuels the momentum in the ongoing reform process at the UN.

The Secretary-General attended the World Economic Forum in

January of this year and addressed the Plenary Session:

``A New Mindset for the United Nations''

``Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear friends:

``Some of you may remember me coming to Davos nine years

ago, as a freshly minted Secretary-General.

``Since then I have attended all but three of your annual

meetings--including the memorable one in 2002 when you came

to show confidence in New York, after the attack on the World

Trade Center.

``So I did not hesitate one minute, Klaus, before accepting

your kind invitation to come here once more, at the beginning

of my last year in office. And I was also very happy to

accept the title you suggested for this session--`a new

mindset for the United Nations'.

``Why? because it expresses something I have striven to

achieve throughout these nine years, and something in which

Davos itself has played a part.

``In 1999, when I came here and called for a `global

compact' between the United Nations and the private sector,

many of my colleagues in the Secretariat--and many

representatives of member States--would hardly have been more

shocked if I had proposed a compact with the Devil.

``It is the mindset that I have been seeking to change

throughout my time in office--the mindset that sees

international relations as nothing more than relations

between States, and the United Nations as little more than a

trade union for governments.

``My objective has been to persuade both the member States

and my colleagues in the Secretariat that the United Nations

needs to engage not only with governments but with people.

Only if it does that, I believe, can it fulfill its vocation

and be of use to humanity in the 21st century.

``That's why, in the year 2000, I used the first words of

the UN Charter, `We the Peoples' as the title of my report

setting out the agenda for the Millennium Summit, at which

political leaders from all over the world came together to

assess the challenges of a new century, and adopted a

collective response, known as the `Millennium Declaration.'

``And that was why last year, in my report called `In

Larger Freedom', I urged governments to accept that security

and development are interdependent, and that neither can be

long sustained without respect for human rights and the rule

of law.

``That report was intended as the blueprint, not only for a

far-reaching reform of the United Nations itself, but also

for a series of decisions that would enable humanity to

realize the aims of the Millennium Declaration, particularly

in the light of new challenges that had arisen since.

``How far the blueprint will be translated into reality,

remains to be seen. But in the meantime the United Nations

has not stood still. Far from it! This has been a decade of

rapid change. Let me give you a few examples.

``When I took office there was a widespread perception,

based on the tragic events in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda,

that UN peacekeeping was a failed experiment, and that

henceforth this task would have to be handled by regional

organizations.

``Peacekeepers, especially in countries where conflict is

still raging--where there is literally no peace to keep--

continue to face immense challenges. Even so, today we have

85,000 people serving in 16 UN peacekeeping operations,

spread across four continents. Most of these operations are

not static observers of a truce, but active participants in

the implementation of peace agreements, helping the people of

war-torn countries make the transition from war to peace.

``Certainly, in many parts of the world regional

organizations play an important role, and so they should. But

most often they do so in partnership with the United Nations.

The UN has become, in effect, the indispensable mechanism for

bringing international help to countries recovering from

conflict--and member States have now recognized this by

agreeing to set up a Peacebuilding Commission, within the UN,

to manage this highly complex process.

``The last decade has also seen growing use of United

Nations economic sanctions. These are now used to influence

or restrict the activity not only of recalcitrant States, but

also of non-State actors, such as rebel movements or

terrorist groups. At the same time, the Security Council has

developed more sophisticated and humane types of sanctions,

aimed at individuals rather than whole societies--travel

bans, for instance, and the freezing of bank accounts.

``The same philosophy of punishing individuals rather than

communities has driven the work of the UN criminal tribunals

for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia--one of which was the

first international court to convict people of genocide

(including a former prime minister) and of rape as a war

crime, while the other has become the first to indict and

try a former Head of State.

``This in turn has led to further innovations, including

the mixed tribunal in Sierra Leone and, of course, the

International Criminal Court. The latter is not an organ of

the United Nations, but the UN convened and serviced the

conference, which adopted its Statute in 1998.

``Over 100 States have now ratified the Statute--which

means that the Court's jurisdiction is now recognized by well

over half the UN's membership.

``Another way the UN has changed is the increasing focus on

human rights--which is reflected in the recent decision by

member States to strengthen the office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights. That office is now a dynamic

operational entity, which deploys and supports hundreds of

human rights workers around the world. And I hope that within

the next week or two we may see agreement on a corresponding

change at the intergovernmental level, with the establishment

of a more authoritative Human Rights Council, to replace the

now widely discredited Commission.

``One more example of change: the United Nations has

responded to the growth of international terrorism. Even

before `9/11', the Security Council had imposed sanctions on

Al-Qaida, and set up a special committee to monitor its

activities. Immediately after the attack, the Council went

much further, with its historic resolution 1373, which

imposed stringent obligations on all countries, established a

list of terrorist organizations and individuals, and created

the Counter-Terrorism Committee to monitor member States'

compliance and help them improve their capacity to enact and

implement anti-terrorist legislation.

``In short, I believe the United Nations is proving itself

an increasingly flexible instrument, to which its member

States turn for a wider and wider array of functions.

``For instance, within the last five years the UN has been

asked: to shepherd Afghanistan's transition from the anarchic

wasteland of the Taliban and the warlords to the nascent

democracy--still struggling, but hopeful--that it is today;

to help establish the Interim Government of Iraq, and to help

organize the referendum and elections there--as it has

supported democratic elections in half the world's nations

over the last 12 years; to verify the withdrawal of Syrian

troops from Lebanon and carry out, for the first time ever, a

full criminal investigation into the assassination of a

former prime minister; to coordinate global relief efforts

after the tsunami, and again after the earthquake in Kashmir;

and to take the lead in raising global awareness, as well as

funds, to protect the world's peoples against avian flu.

``What all these activities have in common is that they

involve the United Nations not simply in relations among its

member States, but also in the lives of their peoples. To

carry out such tasks, we must engage not only with

governments but with all the new actors on the international

scene.

``That includes the private sector, but it also includes

parliamentarians; voluntary, non-profit organizations;

philanthropic foundations; the global media; celebrities from

the worlds of sport and entertainment; and in some cases

labour unions, mayors and local administrators. And it

includes less benign actors such as terrorists, warlords, and

traffickers in drugs, illicit weapons or--worst of all--the

lives and bodies of human beings.

``That is why I have repeatedly urged all the organs of the

United Nations to be more open to civil society, so that

their decisions can fully reflect the contribution made by

groups and individuals who devote themselves to studying

specific problems, or working in specific areas.

``It is also why I myself have cultivated contacts with

scholars, with parliamentarians, with practitioners of all

sorts, and with young people--seeking to learn from their

views and also encouraging them, whatever sector they work

in, to use their talents for the public good and to keep the

global horizon in view.

``It is one of the reasons why I have worked constantly to

make our Organization more transparent and comprehensible to

the public, and thereby more genuinely accountable.

``And, of course, it is why I launched the Global Compact,

to which the international business community--including some

of you in this audience--has responded with such enthusiasm

that it is now the world's leading corporate citizenship

initiative, involving more that 2,400 companies, in nearly 90

countries.

``This new mindset must also extend to the domain of

international peace and security--so that we think of

security not only in conventional terms, focusing on

prevention of war between States, but also as including the

protection of the world's peoples, against threats which, to

many of them today, seem more immediate and more real.

``One of those threats is the threat of genocide and other

crimes against humanity. I called the General Assembly's

attention to this in 1999, warning that such mass atrocities

can never be treated as a purely domestic affair. Being

rightly called crimes against humanity, they demand a

collective response from humanity, which should be organized

and legitimized by the United Nations.

``More recently, the High-Level Panel that I appointed in

2003 has identified a broad range of threats, including:

poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation;

conflict within States, as well as between them; the spread

of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons;

terrorism; and transnational organized crime.

``My `Larger Freedom' report built on this re-definition of

global security, drawing it together with the detailed

recommendations of the Millennium Project for achieving the

Millennium Development Goals by 2015--which in itself would

rescue many millions of people from the threats of poverty

and disease.

``But my report also included a third dimension: human

rights and the rule of law. Without these, any society,

however well-armed, will remain insecure; and its

development, however dynamic, will remain precarious.

``Member States took the report as their starting-point in

negotiating the outcome of last September's world summit. I

won't say that that document fulfills all my hopes. But it

does contain many important decisions--from the creation of a

Peacebuilding Commission and Human Rights Council, through

the commitments to advance the Millennium Development Goals,

to the acceptance, by all States individually and

collectively, of the responsibility to protect populations

from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes

against humanity.

``Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

``The United Nations cannot stand still, because the

threats to humanity do not stand still. Every day the world

presents new challenges, which the founders of the UN 60

years ago could never have anticipated. Whether it is a

looming crisis over Iran and its compliance with the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty, continuing atrocities in Darfur, or

the threat of an avian flu pandemic, people all over the

world look to the United Nations to play a role in making

peace, protecting civilians, improving livelihoods, promoting

human rights and upholding international law. I have worked

long and hard to transform the United Nations so that when

called upon, as we are every day, we will deliver what is

asked of us--effectively, efficiently and equitably. That

is the true objective of the changes I have sought to

bring about, and it will be the true measure of my success

or failure.

``And my successor--since I understand several members of

this panel may be interested in the position--need not worry.

Changing the mindset of the United Nations, so that it can

both reflect and influence the temper of the times, is a

never-ending challenge. There will be plenty more work to do

in the years and decades to come.''

I have worked for three Secretary Generals and been at post

for some 20 years. I am honored to have worked for the House

of Peace. As we approach the new era of a new Secretary-

General I say it is time for renewal.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution expressing the Sense of Congress that calls for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to address global warming.

There is no doubt in my mind that global warming is happening and that man is contributing to it. Now, it is our responsibility to work to mitigate the impacts of potentially catastrophic climate change.

The year 2005 is currently tied for the warmest year on record with 1998. However, the warmth in 2005 is remarkable because, in contrast to 1998, it was not boosted by El Nino. And since 1990, we've had the 10 hottest years on record.

Hurricanes are getting stronger, heat-waves are hitting harder and more often, and the polar ice cap and Greenland's ice are melting. We must act now.

We need to deal with climate change with concerted action and with bipartisan dialogue, regional cooperation and an alliance between industry and environmentalists.

The threat from global warming is very real, and we must act now to combat potentially catastrophic climate change. We cannot leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren.

We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to protect clean water. For more than three decades, the Clean Water Act has been protecting all of our Nation's waters from unregulated pollution, filling and destruction.

However, in May 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule that changed the definition of ``fill material'' for both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The new definition allows waste to be used to fill streams, wetlands and other waters.

Allowing coal mining spoil and other types of waste material to be dumped into our waters and wetlands is contrary to the central goal of the Clean Water Act: preserving physical, chemical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.

While there may be a need for some regulatory changes so that the Corps and EPA use consistent definitions of ``fill'' material, this can and should be accomplished by ensuring that both agencies' definitions explicitly exclude the use of wastes to fill our Nation's waters--not, as proposed, to weaken the Corps' regulations to sanction this long- prohibited practice.

Madam Chairman, protecting our environment is one of the most important jobs I have as a Congressman. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today would hurt, rather than protect, our forests by speeding up destructive logging projects in national forests impacted by natural disturbances.

H.R. 4200 would limit critical environmental reviews and excludes the public from the decision making process. Basic protections for streams, critical wildlife habitat, old growth forests, roadless areas, fragile soils, and other essential natural resources would be removed under this legislation.

Science suggests logging harms damaged forests and impedes their recovery, and can actually increase the likelihood and severity of future forest fires. A study by researchers at Oregon State University has shown allowing forests to recover naturally after a fire increases forest regeneration and decreases the risk of future fires.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Congress can and must do a better job protecting our environment. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

It is my understanding that the chairman, if we can close this debate quickly, will gladly accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/Leach/ Price amendment which will increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.

As Dana Goia, the NEA Chairman, said ``A great nation deserves great art.''

How we prioritize the arts and humanities and their impact on our society and children's education says a lot about us as Americans.

Support of the arts should come from so many sources--individuals, foundations, arts consumers, and, yes, taxpayers. In a bill where we are spending $29.5 billion on various government programs, I believe spending $275.3 million on cultural programs is well worth the investment. It is a moderate amount of money that can have a big impact because today's economy is driven by ideas and innovation.

In fact, nationwide, there are 548,000 businesses involved in the creation or distribution of the arts and employ 2.9 million people. The fourth District of Connecticut is home to 2,841 arts-related businesses employing 14,711 people.

The Federal investment in the arts is the smallest part of arts funding. But we have a role--an important one. A stabilizing one. And one that we should continue.

I grew up in an arts family. My parents--both performing actors--met in the theater.

Listening to my father play the piano each night and hearing stories from their days on the stage gave me a profound appreciation for creative expression--an appreciation that I know so many of the constituents I represent share.

I thank the Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks for their continued support of the arts and humanities.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, before the gentlelady leaves, I want to thank her for I think just a very moving and important message about what Israelis are faced with. I just thank her for that message.

Mr. Speaker, I would like specifically to talk about Iraq and to say that in the 12 visits I have had to Iraq, when I ask Iraqis what their biggest fear is, it almost always is this: ``That you will leave us.'' Then they might say, ``That you will leave us before we can grab hold of democracy.''

Well, I have to say, frankly, that is one of my biggest fears. I am not afraid that we will see the war in Iraq lost in Iraq. I am most fearful that we will see the war in Iraq lost here at home.

It would seem a little surprising to say that I have seen significant progress in Iraq, because people see the way we were in April 2003 and they think it was so exciting, and they compare it to April 2003. But, unfortunately, after April 2003 there was a significant decline in what took place in Iraq.

First we allowed the looting. And to Iraqis, they would ask me when I would go there, why did you allow people to trash our country? These were not all Iraqis who were doing it. These were people who were looting. And Americans were just standing by and allowed this to happen. And they believed, frankly, that we wanted it to happen, because they believed that we could have prevented it had we wanted to.

And then we proceeded to disband their army, their border patrol and their police and leave 24 million Iraqis totally and completely defenseless in a country the size of California.

And then what did we do? We said to 150,000 coalition forces, primarily Americans, some Brits, that you had to be the police, the border patrol and the army in a country the size of California with 24 million people.

That was basically an impossible task. And so what I saw happen in April 2003 is that things just kept getting worse. They were worse in December 2003. And even worse by April 2004. But then, at that point, we had started to reverse the slide. We reversed it by beginning to train their police, their border patrol and their army.

And we began to see a change when we transferred power in June of 2004. And Iraqis started to take ownership. And so when I kept going back every 3 to 4 months, I kept seeing progress. And then by 2005, I was there for the elections when they took place in January of 2005. It is just historic and moving, every time I think about it. Iraqis came out and voted. The Sunnis did not, but the Shiias and the Kurds did.

They formed a government, and they created a constitutional convention and invited Sunnis in. They did not participate in the voting, so they were not represented, but they were invited in. And they created a constitution. They voted on that constitution by October.

And I was told by the UN that it would be one of the fairest elections with the best participation, put our elections to shame, and frankly it did. Mubarak of Egypt, the president, said they would not accept their constitution. 79 percent ratified it. It was extraordinary.

And now they had this constitution and a third election in just 11 months. And 76 percent of 100 percent of the eligible voters voted. Now if you get 65 percent voting in our country, that is 65 percent of the two-thirds that bother to register. So it was an amazing event.

They chose a government. But Jafari, the prime minister who was selected by the Shiias was not liked by the Sunnis and the Kurds, and the minority said no to the majority, and the majority said we rule. And the minority side minority rights. And they went back and forth, and for 3 months we had this standoff.

The minority was able to demonstrate minority rights, and the majority was able to say we accept your minority rights. That is maturity taking place.

Now you have a new prime minister, and this new prime minister is reaching out to Sunnis, Shiias and Kurds. When I ask a Kurd if they are a Kurd or a Shiia, or Shiia if they are Shiia or Sunni, they will say, I am a Sunni, but

I am married to a Shiia, or I am a Shiia and my son is married to a Sunni.

And if I ask a Kurd, they will say I am Kurd, but you do not seem to understood. Kurds are Sunnis. We tend to divide them up more than they do. My biggest fear is that in spite of the progress that is being made, huge progress, in spite of the fact that Sunni radicals tried to ignite the country in sectarian violence, you only saw that sectarian violence in two places, Baghdad and Ramadi, and actually Basra.

They held off. This is an amazing thing that we are seeing take place. The Iraqis deserve our staying the course with them. They did not attack us, we attacked them. We disbanded their army, their police and their border patrol. It is absolutely imperative, absolutely imperative that we not leave before they have their police, their border patrol, and their army to protect themselves.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 751, recognizing American Ballet Theatre as a cultural and educational resource for our Nation.

Over the last 65 years, American Ballet Theatre has elevated the artistry and talent of classical dance in the United States, and has brought a greater appreciation and understanding of the arts to countless people in all 50 States and around the world.

American Ballet Theatre has developed a special relationship with Connecticut through the award-winning Make a Ballet Program.

Since 2002, ABT has been offering this program at The Waterside School, an independent, private day school in Stamford, which introduces low-income children to ballet. ABT Teaching Artists come to the school twice a week and provide a thorough introduction to the arts and high-quality dance instruction. This long-term, in-depth exposure to the arts leaves indelible impacts on the students, instilling a sense of confidence and accomplishment, and planting seeds that will reap appreciation for the arts for years to come.

American Ballet Theatre also holds a Ballet for the Young Dancer program at the YWCA in Greenwich each year, providing children between the ages of 5 and 12 with weekly ballet classes with some of the finest dancers in the world.

While the grand performances that American Ballet Theatre presents have established it as one of the world's great ballet companies, it is the interactions with local communities across America that truly distinguish ABT as a national treasure.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of this amendment, which I believe is very reasonable and will help ensure our government is taking proper steps to protect the health of our troops.

Like many heavy metals such as lead, depleted uranium is harmful when the resulting particles from a burned round are inhaled or ingested.

The use of these munitions, however, also provides a significant advantage to our soldiers because they have the speed, mass, and physical properties to penetrate exceptionally well against highly armored targets.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis amendment which would lift the ban on personally funded abortion care provided at overseas military bases.

Since over 200,000 women serve overseas in military bases and are denied the right under Roe v. Wade to terminate a pregnancy, we need this legislation. This legislation would restore the right of a female service member who has been stationed overseas to use their own funds to obtain an abortion as they would be able to do if they were back home.

I urge adoption of this amendment. And I speak adamantly against our present policy that while allowing women who have been raped or been impregnated by a family member or whose life is in danger because of an unhealthy pregnancy to have an abortion, they have to pay for it themselves. That is wrong.

While we are not addressing this issue today at least we can move forward with the Davis amendment.