[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3231 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3231

To refund United States taxpayer dollars expended on the Durban Review 
                  Conference, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2009

 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Pence, 
Mr. McCotter, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Young of Alaska, 
 Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Burton of Indiana, 
Mr. Royce, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. 
 Blackburn, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Linder, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Terry, Mr. Platts, 
Mr. Shuster, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. 
 Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Nunes, Mr. McHenry, Mrs. Bachmann, 
  Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Broun of Georgia) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
To refund United States taxpayer dollars expended on the Durban Review 
                  Conference, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Durban Taxpayer Refund Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The United States is opposed to racism, racial 
        discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, and has 
        long been a party to the Convention on the Elimination of 
        Racial Discrimination.
            (2) Expensive and politically skewed international 
        conferences can disserve and undermine the worthy goals that 
        they are ostensibly convened to support.
            (3) The goals of the 2001 United Nations World Conference 
        Against Racism--held in Durban, South Africa, and commonly 
        referred to as the ``Durban Conference''--were undermined by 
        hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political 
        agendas, prompting both Israel and the United States to 
        withdraw their delegations from the Conference.
            (4) The official government declaration adopted by the 
        World Conference Against Racism, the ``Durban Declaration and 
        Program of Action'', focused on the ``plight of the Palestinian 
        people under foreign occupation'', and thereby singled out one 
        regional conflict for discussion and implicitly launched a 
        false accusation against Israel of racism towards the 
        Palestinians.
            (5) On September 3, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell 
        explained the withdrawal of the United States delegation from 
        the World Conference Against Racism by stating that ``you do 
        not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations 
        containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to 
        the `days of Zionism' equals racism; or supports the idea that 
        we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that 
        apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one 
        country in the world--Israel--for censure and abuse''.
            (6) The late United States Representative Tom Lantos, who 
        participated as a member of the United States delegation to the 
        Durban Conference, supported that delegation's withdrawal and 
        wrote in 2002 that the conference ``provided the world with a 
        glimpse into the abyss of international hate, discrimination 
        and, indeed, racism''.
            (7) On December 19, 2006, the United Nations General 
        Assembly approved a resolution initiating preparations for a 
        Durban Review Conference (commonly referred to as ``Durban 
        II''), which was held between April 20 and 24, 2009, in Geneva, 
        Switzerland.
            (8) The chair of the preparatory committee for the Durban 
        Review Conference was Libya, and the co-chairs included Iran 
        and Cuba.
            (9) Throughout the preparatory process for the Durban 
        Review Conference, member states of the Organization of the 
        Islamic Conference urged that the conference again focus 
        criticism on Israel and single out the Israeli-Palestinian 
        conflict for discussion, and also urged that the conference 
        advocate global speech codes that would impose restrictions 
        contrary to fundamental freedoms recognized in the provisions 
        of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
            (10) In testimony before the House of Representatives on 
        April 2, 2008, then-Assistant Secretary of State for 
        International Organizations Kristen Silverberg stated that the 
        United States had decided against participating in preparatory 
        activities for the Durban Review Conference because ``[there 
        is] absolutely no case to be made for participating in 
        something that is going to be a repeat of Durban I. We dont 
        have any confidence that this will be any better than Durban 
        I''.
            (11) On September 23, 2008, the House of Representatives 
        passed House Resolution 1361, which, among other things, called 
        on the President to ``urge other heads of state to condition 
        participation in the 2009 Durban Review Conference on concrete 
        action by the United Nations and United Nations Member States 
        to ensure that it is not a forum to demonize any group, or 
        incite anti-Semitism, hatred, or violence against members of 
        any group or to call into question the existence of any state'' 
        and urged all United Nations Member States ``not to support a 
        2009 Durban Review Conference process that fails to adhere to 
        established human rights standards and to reject an agenda that 
        incites hatred against any group in the guise of criticism of a 
        particular government or that seeks to forge a global blasphemy 
        code''.
            (12) The present United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
        Rights and Secretary-General of the 2009 Durban Review 
        Conference, Dr. Navanethem Pillay, has repeatedly sought to 
        downplay the level of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-
        Israel political agendas present at the 2001 Durban Conference, 
        describing it as merely ``the virulent anti-Semitic behavior of 
        a few non-governmental organizations on the sidelines'' and 
        praising the biased Durban Declaration and Program of Action as 
        ``[t]he legacy of this Conference'', has repeatedly sought to 
        downplay the level of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-
        Israel political agendas present at the 2009 Durban Review 
        Conference and its preparatory activities, and has repeatedly 
        praised and urged the full implementation of the 2001 Durban 
        Declaration and Program of Action.
            (13) High Commissioner Pillay has repeatedly and publicly 
        criticized nations, including the United States, which 
        announced that they would not participate in the Durban Review 
        Conference, but has almost never publicly criticized 
        governments who succeeded in using the conference and its 
        preparatory activities to single out Israel for criticism and 
        to attempt to restrict fundamental freedoms.
            (14) A United Nations press release on September 8, 2008, 
        regarding an address by High Commissioner Pillay, disturbingly 
        dismissed objections raised by non-governmental organizations 
        to the Durban Review Conference as ``ferocious, and often 
        distorted, criticism by certain lobby groups focused on single 
        issues''.
            (15) During February of 2009, the United States actively 
        participated in intergovernmental consultations on the Durban 
        Review Conference's ``draft outcome document'' and engaged in 
        high-level diplomatic efforts to dramatically reverse the path 
        of the Durban Review Conference by directing it towards 
        meaningful efforts to combat intolerance and bigotry and 
        directing it away from efforts to undermine the cause of 
        fighting discrimination through singling out Israel for 
        implicit criticism and calling for restrictions on fundamental 
        freedoms.
            (16) On February 27, 2009, State Department spokesman 
        Robert Wood stated that, despite United States efforts to 
        redirect the path of the Durban Review Conference, ``the 
        document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, and the 
        current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable . 
        . . A conference based on this text would be a missed 
        opportunity to speak clearly about the persistent problem of 
        racism'' and therefore, the United States would not participate 
        in further consultations and negotiations regarding the ``draft 
        outcome document,'' and would not participate in the Durban 
        Review Conference itself unless the ``draft outcome document'' 
        was radically shortened and revised to eliminate objectionable 
        material.
            (17) On April 17, 2009, the third and final session of the 
        preparatory committee for the Durban Review Conference proposed 
        a final ``draft outcome document'' that contained a number of 
        provisions advocating restrictions on freedom of expression, 
        and that also implicitly singled out and criticized Israel for 
        racism by reaffirming, in its very first paragraph, the 2001 
        Durban Declaration and Program of Action.
            (18) On April 18, 2009, State Department spokesman Robert 
        Wood announced that ``the United States will not join the 
        [Durban] review conference,'' noting that ``The current 
        document . . . still contains language that reaffirms in toto 
        the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) from 
        2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to 
        support . . . The United States also has serious concerns with 
        relatively new additions to the text regarding `incitement', 
        that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free 
        speech.''.
            (19) On April 19, 2009, the President stated at a press 
        conference that ``I would love to be involved in a useful 
        conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and 
        discrimination around the globe . . . we expressed in the run-
        up to this conference our concerns that if you incorporated--if 
        you adopted all the language from 2001, that's just not 
        something we could sign up for . . . our participation would 
        have involved putting our imprimatur on something that we just 
        don't believe . . . Hopefully . . . we can partner with other 
        countries on to actually reduce discrimination around the 
        globe. But this wasn't an opportunity to do it.''.
            (20) Canada, Israel, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, 
        Poland, Australia, and New Zealand also did not participate in 
        the Durban Review Conference, and the Czech Republic walked out 
        of the Conference during its proceedings, never to return.
            (21) Libya was the chair of the Main Committee of the 
        Durban Review Conference, and vice presidents of the Durban 
        Review Conference included Libya, Iran, and Cuba.
            (22) Speaking at the Durban Review Conference on April 20, 
        2009, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the democratic 
        State of Israel ``totally racist'' and ``the most cruel and 
        repressive racist regime'', and called for Israel's 
        destruction, stating that ``Efforts must be made to put an end 
        to the abuse by Zionists . . . Governments must be encouraged 
        and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this 
        barbaric racism''.
            (23) In his speech at the Durban Review Conference, 
        Ahmadinejad also propagated anti-Semitic conspiracy theories by 
        saying that ``Those who control huge economic resources and 
        interests in the world . . . mobilize all the resources, 
        including their economic and political influence and world 
        media, to render support in vain to the Zionist regime''.
            (24) Disgusted by Ahmadinejad's biased and incendiary 
        statements, delegates from about two dozen nations walked out 
        of the assembly hall in protest, but most delegations remained, 
        and a large number of delegations and observers repeatedly 
        applauded Ahmadinejad's remarks.
            (25) On April 21, 2009, the Durban Review Conference 
        adopted by consensus an ``outcome document'' that contained a 
        number of provisions advocating restrictions on freedom of 
        expression, and that also implicitly singled out and criticized 
        Israel for racism by reaffirming, in its very first paragraph, 
        the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action.
            (26) Throughout the Durban Review Conference, many speakers 
        singled out Israel for criticism or called for restrictions on 
        fundamental freedoms, including representatives of Iran, Libya, 
        Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, 
        Indonesia, Qatar, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, 
        Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Bangladesh, 
        Switzerland, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the 
        Arab League, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and a 
        number of other organizations and countries.
            (27) During the Durban Review Conference, several speakers 
        who sought to draw attention to genuine instances of racism, 
        racial discrimination, xenophobia, related intolerance, and 
        human rights violations by the governments of Iran, Libya, and 
        China were repeatedly interrupted by the delegations from those 
        governments and instructed by the conference's chair to not 
        refer specifically to those governments.
            (28) The 2001 World Conference Against Racism and the 2009 
        Durban Review Conference have made little or no demonstrable 
        contribution to combating racism, racial discrimination, 
        xenophobia, and related intolerance.
            (29) To date, over $2,000,000 from the United Nations 
        regular budget has been expended on the Durban Review 
        Conference and its preparatory activities.
            (30) On December 24, 2008, the United Nations General 
        Assembly approved a program budget for the biennium 2008-2009 
        that, over the objections of the United States, the European 
        Union, Canada, Australia, and other prominent Member States, 
        provided a significant portion of the funding for the Durban 
        Review Conference and its preparatory activities from the 
        United Nations regular budget.
            (31) The United States is the largest contributor to the 
        United Nations system, and is assessed for a full 22 percent of 
        the United Nations regular budget, which is funded by assessed 
        contributions from Member States.
            (32) Funding the Durban Review Conference and its 
        preparatory activities through the United Nations regular 
        budget has resulted in United States taxpayer dollars being 
        used for those purposes.
            (33) The United States decided to withhold from its 2008 
        funding for the United Nations regular budget an amount 
        equivalent to the United States share of the United Nations 
        Human Rights Council budget, including its share of the 
        Council-administered preparatory process for the 2009 Durban 
        Review Conference.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS; STATEMENT OF POLICY.

    (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the 2009 Durban Review Conference, like its 2001 
        predecessor and the preparatory activities of both conferences, 
        was subverted by members of the Organization of the Islamic 
        Conference and irredeemably distorted into a forum for anti-
        Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-freedom activity;
            (2) by publicly declaring that the United States would not 
        participate in the Durban Review Conference, the President 
        upheld and reaffirmed the fundamental commitment of the United 
        States to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, 
        and related intolerance, and should be commended for his 
        decision not to participate; and
            (3) the Governments of Canada, Israel, Italy, Germany, the 
        Netherlands, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, and the Czech 
        Republic should be commended for their decision to not 
        participate or cease participation in the Durban Review 
        Conference.
    (b) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the United 
States to--
            (1) lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encourage other 
        responsible countries to not fund any portion of the Durban 
        Review Conference or its preparatory or follow-on activities, 
        and to withhold from their respective contributions to the 
        regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations an 
        amount that is equal to the percentage of such respective 
        contributions that they determine would be or has been 
        allocated by the United Nations for any part of the Durban 
        Review Conference or its preparatory or follow-on activities; 
        and
            (2) lead a high-level diplomatic effort to explore 
        credible, alternative forums for combating racism, racial 
        discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.

SEC. 4. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS; REFUND OF UNITED STATES TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

    (a) Withholding of Previously-expended Funds.--The Secretary of 
State shall withhold from the United States contribution to the 
regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations an amount that 
is equal to the percentage of such contribution that the Secretary 
determines would be or has been allocated by the United Nations for any 
part of the Durban Review Conference or its preparatory or follow-on 
activities.
    (b) Withholding of Funds To Be Expended in the Future.--Until the 
Secretary of State submits to the appropriate congressional committees 
a certification, on a case-by-case basis, that the requirements 
described in subsection (d) have been satisfied, the United States 
shall withhold from the United States contribution to the regularly 
assessed biennial budget of the United Nations an amount that is equal 
to the percentage of such contribution that the Secretary determines 
has been allocated by the United Nations for any conference or other 
multilateral forum, or the preparatory or follow-on activities of any 
conference or other multilateral forum, that is organized under the 
aegis or jurisdiction of the United Nations or of any program, agency, 
or affiliate of the United Nations.
    (c) Refund of United States Taxpayer Dollars.--Funds appropriated 
for use as a United States contribution to the regularly assessed 
biennial budget of the United Nations but withheld from obligation and 
expenditure pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) may be obligated and 
expended for that purpose upon the certification described in 
subsection (d). Such funds shall revert to the United States Treasury 
if no such certification is made by the date that is one year after 
such appropriation.
    (d) Certification.--The certification referred to in subsection (b) 
is a certification made by the Secretary of State to the appropriate 
congressional committees concerning the following:
            (1) The specified conference or forum did not reaffirm the 
        Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (2001) or the outcome 
        document of the Durban Review Conference (2009).
            (2) The specified conference or forum was not used to 
        single out the United States or the State of Israel for unfair 
        or unbalanced criticism.
            (3) The specified conference or forum was not used to 
        propagate racism, racial discrimination, anti-Semitism, denial 
        of the Holocaust, incitement to violence or genocide, 
        xenophobia, or related intolerance.
            (4) The specified conference or forum was not used to 
        advocate for restrictions on the freedoms of speech, 
        expression, religion, the press, assembly, or petition, or for 
        restrictions on other fundamental human rights and freedoms.
            (5) The leadership of the specified conference or forum 
        does not include a Member State, or a representative from a 
        Member State--
                    (A) subject to sanctions by the Security Council;
                    (B) under a Security Council-mandated investigation 
                for human rights abuses; or
                    (C) the government of which the Secretary of State 
                has determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the 
                Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in 
                effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
                Powers Act), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, 
                section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or 
                other provision of law, is a government that has 
                repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
                terrorism.
    (e) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional 
committees'' means--
            (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
            (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the Senate.
                                 <all>