Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007

SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (Extensions of Remarks - June 29, 2006)

SPEECH OF
HON. STENY H. HOYER

MARYLAND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes:

* Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment.

* I cannot think of a more pernicious amendment that is being considered today than this amendment.

* For more than 30 years, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act has ensured that U.S. Citizens, who may require assistance to cast an educated vote in a language other than English, have the ability to vote in the language in which they are most adept.

* Section 203 has proven to be a constitutional, just, and practical way to maximize voter participation and ensure our democracy truly reflects its citizens.

* Every Member of this body who cares about voting rights should join me in condemning the amendment before us.

* It is nothing short of a cynical attempt to disinfranchise eligible voters and to undermine core protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act.

* I urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to roll back the clock on civil rights.

* Defeat the Stearns amendment.
HON. TOM LANTOS

OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 29, 2006

* Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues a very important op-ed by a very distinguished American diplomat, the former U.S Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. His article, ``Turning to the U.N., Again,'' which appeared in the Washington Post on June 28th, provides us with a critical reminder that the UN, though a flawed institution, remains ``indispensable to the United States.''

* Ambassador Holbrooke points out that, earlier this month, President Bush once again turned to America's great ally in New York, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, to help the Administration secure its most pressing foreign policy goal, cementing a political compact for Iraq. Kofi Annan is a great friend of the United States and a great personal friend of mine. I share Ambassador Holbrooke's confidence that the distinguished Secretary General, will use his good offices to convene a series of international meetings with the purpose of hammering out a new ``Iraq Compact.''

* Mr. Speaker, after noting this latest instance of the United States turning again to the UN for help, Ambassador Holbrooke argues that it is critical to America's core interests to strengthen the United Nations. As he so eloquently states, it is time for the Administration to move past its internal debate about the UN, ``whether to support it or abandon it, to use it or bypass it.'' Ambassador Holbrooke is absolutely correct that this ambivalence toward the UN has undermined our Nation's ability to lead the effort to reform the UN.

* Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full text of Ambassador Holbrooke's important article be placed in the RECORD and I urge my colleagues to read it carefully and thoughtfully.

[From the Washington Post, June 28, 2006]
TURNING TO THE U.N., AGAIN
(By Richard Holbrooke)

In a little-noticed announcement in President Bush's news conference on June 14, the day he returned from Iraq, he said that he would send two personal emissaries to New York to consult with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on the political and economic future of Iraq. The next day, still with remarkably little public attention, Philip Zelikow, the counselor of the State Department, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt met with Annan and his deputy, Mark Malloch Brown, at the secretary general's Sutton Place residence. There was no one else present.

The two presidential envoys asked Annan to use his unique ``convening powers'' to help organize international meetings that would lead (by this fall, the Americans hope) to the unveiling of a new ``Iraq Compact''--an agreement between the Iraqi government and major international donors that would commit Baghdad to a series of political and economic reforms in return for substantially more international aid. (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called Annan the same day to make an identical request.)

This is a good idea--and quite similar to suggestions from many administration critics. With the battle for Baghdad raging, it remains to be seen whether an Iraq Compact will work--or even get off the ground--but it is certainly an important step in the right direction for Iraq and for American policy.

For Annan and the United Nations, Bush's request poses an ironic and difficult challenge. On the one hand, the administration is asking for help on the worst problem it faces, acknowledging, however belatedly and reluctantly, that once again, the United Nations is not only relevant but at times indispensable to the United States. On the other hand, the resentment among the majority of U.N. member states over the way the institution has been treated recently, especially by Washington's current U.N. ambassador,

makes any effort to get the United Nations to help the United States far more difficult.

How to treat the United Nations has been a particular dilemma for President Bush, since opponents of the organization form an important part of the administration's core constituency. Internal disagreements over the past five years about whether to support it or abandon it, to use it or bypass it, have both weakened the organization and led to reduced U.S. influence even as more and more intractable issues are thrown into its hands.

The United Nations is facing major budgetary problems caused primarily by American insistence on a six-month budget cycle instead of the normal two-year cycle. It must deal with growing shortfalls in the U.S. contribution to peacekeeping funding, despite Washington's calls for more peacekeepers in Darfur and elsewhere. And it is confronted by a deadlock over rebuilding the headquarters complex in New York--a deadlock whose main cause is the administration's failure to push Congress for proper funding. (This is particularly difficult to understand, since the U.N. signature building, its 38-story East River office tower--built in 1950 and never subject to modern safety codes--is widely acknowledged to be the major building in New York most vulnerable to a terrorist attack. For example, when the president visits it, the Secret Service closes down FDR Drive beneath it--but what about the rest of the time?)

Still, even though Annan and the world body have been diminished by Washington, he and his colleagues simply cannot refuse to help on the Iraq matter; it is their responsibility as international civil servants to go where the problems are worst and then to do their best. And, on the basis of private talks with Annan, Malloch Brown and administration officials, I have no doubt that they intend to do just that. In fact, Malloch Brown has already agreed to travel to Baghdad very soon for preliminary meetings that the United Nations and the United States hope will culminate later this year in a high-level conference in the region. As Annan moves into his last six months as secretary general, this would be the right way to end a turbulent decade in that office--with a genuine contribution to the cause of peace in Iraq.

It is, however, impossible not to note the irony and the implications of what has happened in the past two weeks between Washington and the United Nations. Once again, an administration that has underfunded, undersupported and undermined the United Nations has turned to it, almost in desperation, for help.

The lesson should be clear: Despite the enormously self-destructive actions of many other member states, especially the group of developing nations called the G-77, the United Nations still serves U.S. foreign policy interests in many important ways. Not only Iraq but also Iran, Darfur, Afghanistan and the difficult negotiations just started over Kosovo's final status--all issues of vital importance to the United States--have now ended up in the United Nations. To weaken this institution further, as has happened in recent years, serves no clear American national security interest. To strengthen it would make it more valuable to the United States and to every nation that seeks conflict resolution, stability and economic progress. With the maneuvering over the selection of Annan's successor underway, it is time for Washington--and this must include Congress--to put behind it a sorry period of confusion and offer the United Nations more support, both financial and political, in return for the things it needs in Iraq and elsewhere.

http://thomas.loc.gov/