    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REFORM WITHIN THE UNITED
                     NATIONS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2829

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 13, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-93

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    70-666PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California             Samoa
    DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois         DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          BRAD SHERMAN, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    RON PAUL, Texas                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska           THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             DENNIS CARDOZA, California
    TED POE, Texas                       BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    DAVID RIVERA, Florida                FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
    MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania             KAREN BASS, California
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
    RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
    ROBERT TURNER, New YorkAs
        of October 5, 2011 deg.
                       Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
                 Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   Markup of

    H.R. 2829, To promote transparency, accountability, and reform
      within the United Nations System, and for other purposes.......     2
      En bloc amendments to H.R. 2829 offered by the Honorable Ileana
        Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
        Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs; the
        Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
        from the Commonwealth of Virginia; and the Honorable Jeff
        Fortenberry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
        Nebraska.....................................................   157
      Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2829 offered by
        the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California.................................   180

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California: Material submitted for the record.....   232
    The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
      Affairs: Material submitted for the record.....................   242

                                    APPENDIX

    Markup notice....................................................   250
    Markup minutes...................................................   251
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement..........   253

     TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REFORM WITHIN THE UNITED
                     NATIONS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m. in room
    2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
        Before moving to today's business I would like to begin by
    offering the committee's condolences to the families of the
    three U.N. peacekeepers who were killed patrolling a refugee
    camp in northern Darfur on Monday. These individuals gave their
    lives in the pursuit of peace, and it is appropriate to honor
    their memory by working to strengthen the institution in which
    they served.
        Now, pursuant to notice, the committee meets today to mark
    up H.R. 2829--my age and Howard Berman's age, right? I am 28
    and you are 29, more or less--the United Nations Transparency,
    Accountability, and Reform Act of 2011. Members may have 5
    legislative days to submit for the record remarks on today's
    bill or amendment.
        Without objection, the bill is considered as read and is
    open for amendment at any point.
        [H.R. 2829 follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Furthermore, without objection, the
    following amendments which were provided to members previously
    and are in your packet shall be considered as read and deemed
    adopted en bloc: Ros-Lehtinen amendment 92, the Manager's
    amendment, amendments 102, 103, and 104 offered by Mr.
    Connolly, amendment 83 offered by Mr. Fortenberry; and,
    finally, without objection, the bill text as amended by the en
    bloc shall be considered the original base text for the markup.
        [The information referred to follows:]Ros-Lehtinen
    amendment deg.

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I will now recognize myself for both
    the bill, as amended, and on the substitute amendment to be
    offered by my friend, the ranking member.
        Let me briefly reiterate some of the reasons why this bill
    is so needed. Last year, the U.S. contributed a record $7.7
    billion to the U.N., 21 percent more than 2009; as the report
    of the Office of Management and Budget states in their report
    to Congress.
        The administration's own Ambassador for Management and
    Reform, Joseph Torsella, has said, ``For a decade now, the
    United Nations' regular budget has grown dramatically,
    relentlessly, and exponentially.''
        Now, as America struggles to pay their bills and put food
    on the table, U.N. employees are about to receive another pay
    hike. The administration has rightfully urged the U.N. to cut
    its budget and cancel the pay increase, but the U.N. will
    actually be increasing its budget in the next 2 years. As
    Ambassador Torsella said, this budget increase ``does not
    represent a break from business as usual but, rather, a
    continuation of it.''
        And what is it that we are paying for? A U.N. Human Rights
    Council that includes such gross human rights violators as
    China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and its vice chair, Cuba.
        Two years after the administration joined the Council, the
    Council still has undergone zero fundamental reforms, continues
    to pass resolution after resolution condemning Israel, and its
    permanent agenda item on Israel remains in place. We are paying
    for the Durban process, which has been hijacked to spread anti-
    Israel and anti-Semitic venom.
        Then there is the U.N. Conference on Disarmament recently
    chaired by North Korea. So serial proliferator North Korea
    presided over the U.N.'s disarmament body; and Iran, a regime
    which stones women to death, is a member of the U.N. Commission
    on the Status of Women.
        We are paying for a U.N. that just appointed as the head of
    its Kosovo mission an individual involved in the infamous ``Oil
    for Food'' scandal and a U.N. that goes after whistle-blowers
    while protecting the corrupt.
        Why do we bear the financial burden for this? Every year
    scores of member countries that contribute almost nothing to
    the U.N. vote together to pass the budget. Then they pass the
    cost on big donors like the United States, which is assessed a
    whopping 22 percent. In contrast, China pays just 3 percent.
        We need a game changer. We will never achieve lasting,
    sweeping reforms if the U.S. keeps paying in full what the U.N.
    dictates to us with no consequences for the U.N. failures.
        It is time to leverage our funding to achieve lasting U.N.
    reform by passing this U.N. reform bill. This bill seeks to
    shift the funding basis for the U.N.'s regular budget to
    voluntary contributions so that American taxpayers can choose
    how much of their hard-earned money goes to the U.N. and what
    it is spent on. A shift to voluntary funding will help end the
    U.N.'s entitlement culture, forcing it to perform better and
    cut costs in order to justify its funding.
        The best-performing U.N. bodies are usually the ones funded
    voluntarily, like UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for
    Refugees. That's why the bipartisan Gingrich-Mitchell report
    recommended shifting more U.N. programs to voluntary funding.
        The Secretary of State sent me a letter yesterday opposing
    our bill. The Secretary claims that if we move to a system of
    voluntary funding it will hurt our soldiers in Afghanistan and
    Iraq because other member states won't do the burden sharing to
    pay for U.N. missions in those countries. Does the
    administration have such little faith in our allies and in our
    diplomacy, which they pride themselves on, to think that they
    would not share the burden of fighting Islamic extremists
    unless the U.N. forced them to? And given that the U.S. paid
    billions and billions of dollars to the U.N. last year, I think
    it is clear who is actually carrying the burden without any
    say: The U.S. taxpayer.
        On the ranking member's amendment in the nature of a
    substitute, which he will introduce shortly, regrettably the
    substitute is just that, a substitute for real reform. On each
    area that it addresses, the main prescription is rhetoric, but
    no real consequence for U.N. inaction. The substitute states
    that the administration should take the status of reform
    efforts at voluntarily funded U.N. bodies into account when
    determining how much to contribute to those bodies.
        I believe this is an acknowledgment of just how effective
    voluntary funding is at achieving reform. Yet the ranking
    member opposes the proposal in the underlying bill to shift the
    basis for the U.N. regular budget to voluntary contributions,
    which increases our leverage to achieve reform throughout the
    U.N. system as well as will enable us to fund those programs
    that actually work and advance U.S. interests. Leveraging our
    contributions as the underlying bill proposes can help stop Abu
    Mazen's dangerous Palestinian statehood scheme. By contrast,
    the substitute amendment offers no consequences if any U.N.
    body upgrades the Palestinian status.
        Turning to peacekeeping, like Mr. Berman, I value the
    contributions that peacekeepers have made to global peace and
    security, including in Haiti, but the substitute fails to
    address the urgent need for reforms to restore the reputation
    of U.N. peacekeeping, particularly in light of recent reports
    of sexual abuse of minors by peacekeepers in Haiti and the
    illegal exploitation of natural resources by U.N. employees in
    Congo. I ask my colleagues to oppose this substitute and settle
    for nothing less than real reform by supporting the underlying
    bill.
        I will now ask the clerk to report the Berman amendment in
    the nature of a substitute before I yield to the ranking member
    for his remarks on today's business.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to
    H.R. 2829 offered by Mr. Berman of California.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Without objection the
    Berman substitute is considered as read.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. My friend, the ranking member, is
    recognized for up to 7 minutes to speak on his amendment and
    the underlying bill. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        I am offering the amendment in the nature of a substitute
    at this point to--everybody should be happy to try and conflate
    a speech against the bill and a separate speech in favor of the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute into one with the hope
    that we can finish our work on this bill by the time we have to
    recess for the joint session.
        Madam Chairman, this so-called reform legislation is being
    marketed as a way to combat efforts by the Palestinians to gain
    statehood at the U.N. and put a stop to some of the other
    repugnant anti-Israel practices at the world body. But that is
    really false advertising. Those issues, as important as they
    are, are just a smokescreen the majority is using to obscure
    its real agenda. In fact, the true purpose of the bill is to
    end U.S. participation in the U.N. and, in the process, deal a
    fatal financial blow to the world body.
        Title I of the legislation states that the U.S. must
    withhold 50 percent of our assessed contributions unless the
    President certifies that at least 80 percent of the entire U.N.
    regular budget--80 percent of what is now all paid for by
    assessed contributions--is funded only by voluntary
    contributions within 2 years.
        We all know that it would be impossible for the President
    to make such a certification. Among other things, it would
    require a revision of the U.N. charter and a renegotiation of
    the treaty establishing the U.N. It is not going to happen.
        Even if the U.N. Human Rights Council were truly reformed,
    the Goldstone report was completely repudiated, and the U.N.
    instituted more meaningful audit and oversight disclosure
    requirements, this bill would still defund the U.N. if they
    didn't adopt an 80 percent voluntarily funded regular budget.
        In July, this committee voted to slash U.N. contributions
    to the U.N. by 25 percent. Why not just have a straight up or
    down vote on making additional cuts, rather than going through
    this subterfuge?
        Madam chairman, this legislation is premised on the notion
    that withholding our U.N. dues can leverage meaningful change
    at the organization, but there is no evidence to support that
    argument. Previous attempts at withholding did not lead to any
    significant and lasting reforms. They only succeeded in
    weakening our diplomatic standing and influence and undermining
    efforts to promote transparency, fiscal responsibility, and
    good management practices in the U.N. system.
        For those reasons, the George Bush administration opposed
    the late Chairman Henry Hyde's U.N. bill which had no such
    feature. It was simply trying to make reforms in the U.N. by
    withholding dues. This one creates an impossible standard and
    says, if we don't meet it, we cut it by 50 percent.
        Madam Chairman, I want to say a few words about the
    contention that this bill is necessary to prevent the
    Palestinians from forging ahead with plans to unilaterally
    declare statehood at the U.N. or upgrade its membership in
    various U.N. entities.
        Current law already requires withholding of U.S. funds from
    any U.N. entity that grants full membership to the Palestinian
    Authority. As we saw last week, this threat of withholding was
    not particularly effective as the UNESCO Executive Board voted
    40 to 4, with 14 abstentions, to submit the question of full
    Palestinian membership to the full UNESCO membership.
        Frankly, I don't understand the logic of penalizing a U.N.
    organization for the votes of its member states. In fact, many
    of the states that are likely to support unilateral Palestinian
    moves at the U.N. would undoubtedly prefer that the U.S.
    withdraw from the organization. So one could argue that this
    bill would be rewarding them for bad behavior.
        A more effective approach would be to reduce or eliminate
    U.S. assistance to countries that vote against this at the U.N.
    on resolutions that only encourage the Palestinians from
    circumventing direct negotiations with Israel. This bill
    contains no such provision.
        Madam Chairman, all of us are familiar with the flaws and
    shortcomings of the U.N. The anti-Israel vitriol spewed from
    the committee on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the
    Palestinian people, the Human Rights Council's obsession with
    and biased treatment of Israel, and, in general, the
    organization's overlapping jurisdiction of agencies,
    duplication of services, and efficient procurement practices.
        But it is also important to recognize that the U.N. often
    plays an essential role in supporting American foreign policy,
    national security interests, U.N. peacekeepers. They separate
    warring parties, and they create conditions for reconciliation
    at a fraction of the cost of deploying U.S. military.
        The World Food Programme feeds the victims of famine in the
    Horn of Africa, the World Health Organization coordinates
    international efforts to prevent spread of infectious disease,
    and the U.N. Security Council has provided the legal basis for
    putting together a strong international coalition of countries
    determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons
    capability, a critical issue that we will discuss at tomorrow's
    hearing.
        Madam Chairman, I agree we need to keep the pressure on the
    U.N. to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are spent wisely. But
    trying to ram through this partisan piece of legislation is not
    the way to do it.
        I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment
    that I am offering. My substitute acknowledges the simple
    reality: We can't legislate change at the U.N. like we can in
    the executive branch. Instead, it seeks to provide direction to
    and strengthen the administration's ability to push for greater
    transparency, accountability, and ethical standards at the U.N.
        They will do this by enshrining in law the State
    Department's U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative,
    originally conceived by former U.S. Ambassador for U.N.
    Management and Reform, Mark Wallace, a George W. Bush
    appointee, which will strengthen our ability to monitor U.S.
    Progress on reforms. It would also mandate rigorous reviews and
    monitoring programs for various peacekeeping efforts and make
    it the policy of the United States to work with the U.N. to
    institute a number of needed management reforms.
        My amendment will not get the U.S. out of the U.N., but it
    will be a far more effective tool for promoting real reform and
    countering anti-Israel bias in the U.N. I urge my colleagues to
    support this substitute, defeat the underlying bill, and yield
    back my 30 seconds.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. I thank my good
    friend from California for his statement.
        I now would like to recognize Ms. Buerkle of New York, who
    served as the congressional representative for the majority to
    the United Nations. Ms. Buerkle is recognized.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        I just want to make a couple of comments with regards to
    really a myth that withholding U.N. assessments doesn't work.
    Money, I think, is by far the strongest leverage we have at the
    U.N.; and, unfortunately, sometimes it is the only language
    that they understand and they respond to.
        In 1980, Congress withheld funding until the U.N.
    implemented budget reforms. That effort was successful until we
    stopped conditioning funding on reform.
        Again, in 1989, Yasser Arafat pushed for the PLO to gain
    full membership in U.N. entities as a way to gain de facto
    recognition for a Palestinian state. The United States made
    clear at that time that we would cut off funding to any U.N.
    entity that upgraded the status of PLO, and at that time the
    PLO's effort was stopped dead in its tracks.
        In the 1990s, when U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets
    were skyrocketing, Congress enacted the Helms-Biden agreement.
    We withheld our dues and conditioned repayment on key reforms.
    When the U.N. saw we meant business, the members agreed to
    reform, saving our taxpayers dollars.
        Even the Obama administration enforcing U.S. law continues
    to withhold assessed contributions to certain anti-Israeli U.N.
    agencies like the Division for Palestinian Rights.
        Smart withholding is the most effective tool we have to
    encourage the U.N. to reform. Money does talk and,
    unfortunately, sometimes it is the only thing the U.N. will
    listen to.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Payne is recognized to speak on the Berman amendment
    and/or the underlying bill.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        I support, strongly support the Berman amendment and oppose
    H.R. 2829. The United States is currently working with the
    United Nations to address some of the world's most pressing
    challenges, from the humanitarian need of vulnerable
    communities in the Horn of Africa and Haiti to political crises
    and violence in Libya and Sudan. Now is not the time to
    disengage from the world body. Indeed, it is more important
    than ever that America maintains its long-standing commitment
    to global leadership and engagement.
        Through the United Nations, we are able to extend our
    global reach and advance our national security interests. H.R.
    2829 would severely limit the President's ability to support
    new or expanded U.N. peacekeeping missions. Anyone that has
    closely watched Africa over the past decade knows that the
    United Nations' peacekeepers have played a pivotal roll in
    protecting civilians, securing peace and supporting democratic
    reforms across the continent.
        The United Nations' mission in Liberia was established in
    2003 to support the implementation of the cease-fire agreement
    and the peace process. Two days ago, on October 11th, the
    Liberian people went to the polls and peacefully voted for the
    second time in the nation's history.
        In March 2005, the U.N.--United Nations mission in Sudan
    was created to support and implement the comprehensive peace
    agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan
    People's Liberation Movement, PLM.
        Earlier this year, the people of southern Sudan voted in an
    election deemed free and fair by the international community.
    On July 9th, I was in Juba as south Sudan became the world's
    newest nation.
        Last year, incumbent Laurent Gbagbo defied the democratic
    will of his people and refused to step down as President of
    Cote d'Ivoire. What followed was a full-scale military
    conflict. With international support, the victor, President
    Ouattara, was installed. Following months of fighting, Gbagbo
    was finally captured; and the democratic will of the
    d'Ivoiriens were realized with the help of the United Nations'
    troops.
        Democracy and peace, along with economic security, are
    major deterrents to conflicts. Supporting peace is also more
    cost effective than unilateral intervention.
        The United Nations is the biggest tool in our democracy
    promotion and peacekeeping toolbox. Ranking Member Berman's
    substitute amendment addresses all of our key concerns with the
    United Nations without diminishing our ability to influence
    necessary reforms. I urge my colleagues to support the Berman
    amendment and oppose the underlying bill.
        Thank you very much, and I yield back the remainder of my
    time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman from New
    Jersey.
        I am pleased to yield to speak on the Berman amendment or
    the underlying bill--and/or--to Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; and I really
    appreciate you moving this bill.
        The U.N. is really our buddy. They vote with us almost
    never. We built a building for them in New York. The
    Rockefellers built it. We pay for the police to protect
    everybody when they come to the New York to the cost of
    billions of dollars over the years. And let's just look at what
    we have got.
        We pay 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and 27 percent
    of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the
    administration's budget for this year, Fiscal Year 2011, is
    $516.3 million to the U.N. regular budget and $2.182 billion
    for the peacekeeping budget. According to OMB, U.S.
    contributions for the U.N. system were more than $6.347
    billion--billion--in 2009.
        I don't know if anybody realizes, but we have some
    financial difficulties here in the United States.
        Now let's just take a look at what the U.N. has done.
        In August 2011, Cuba, which has provided biotechnology to
    other rogue regimes which are closely allied with serial
    proliferators--North Korea, Iran, and Syria--Cuba assumed the
    presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. Do you believe
    that?
        In 2011, June, North Korea, a serial nuclear proliferator
    that secretly developed nuclear weapons and continues to
    violate multiple U.N. Security Council sanctions resolutions,
    assumes the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. You
    get that?
        Saudi Arabia in November 2010, which severely restricts the
    human rights of Saudi women--and I went over to try to get some
    American women out of there who were held against their will--
    they were elected to the Board of U.N. Women.
        Cuba, a gross human rights violator, in 2010 is named vice
    chair of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Did you get that, Madam
    Chairwoman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I did.
        Mr. Burton. They are vice chairman of the Human Rights
    Council, Cuba. How many people do they have in prisons over
    there and torture people and everything? Our old buddy Castro.
        Iran in 2010, which severely restricts the human rights of
    Iranian women and has stoned women to death, is announced as a
    member of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.
        We are giving these people billions of dollars. They never
    work with us. I don't even know when why we give them anything.
    I really don't. It is crazy.
        Now, if we want to help people who are starving in Africa
    and so forth and work with some of the countries to help
    provide assistance to them, that is one thing. But the U.N. is
    never, has never, and never will be a good friend to the United
    States. They are pointing every kind of crackpot regime, from
    Cuba to North Korea to Saudi Arabia to Cuba to Libya to Iran,
    to leadership positions; and we continue to give them our
    money. I think the American taxpayers, if they knew all this,
    would say this is a bunch of bull.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, and the
    gentleman yields back. It is a wonderful precedent that Mr.
    Berman started. They are yielding back the time.
        So pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Ackerman, to speak on the Berman amendment and/or the
    underlying bill.
        Mr. Ackerman. I get it, too. I say I get it, too. I got all
    of it.
        And the reason why people are yielding back their time is
    because they don't have enough good things to say about the
    bill that is in front of us, not a lot of real merit to it.
        Let me correct a couple of things. We didn't give anybody
    the money to build the United Nations. It was given by a great
    Republican businessman from New York, Mr. Rockefeller, and his
    family; and that money built the United Nations out of a vision
    that this Republican had that the world could be a better place
    if people came together and had a place to speak and talk and
    meet and the countries of the world could talk out their
    grievances instead of going to war. It has not always been
    successful, but it is the only thing we have got going for us
    to try to make that happen.
        The previous speaker mentioned that we pay for the police
    to police the United Nations. I will just call to your
    attention we are supposed to pay for the police to reimburse
    them, but we don't. And Mr. Berman had the good sense to
    correct that or try to correct that by putting in his
    substitute language that both myself and Peter King from New
    York have been working on for years that would require the
    prompt payment of the amount of money that is supposed to be
    reimbursed to the City of New York, which has laid out millions
    and millions and millions of dollars over the years and has not
    been paid back. So if you want to correct that injustice that
    was just cited, then vote for the substitute.
        So we want to make the dues voluntary, and that way we can
    have our say in how it gets spent. Wouldn't that be just? That
    makes as much sense as making income tax voluntary so we can
    pick and choose what we want to pay for if we didn't like this
    war or that war or we don't like some kind of program. Or if we
    really don't like Medicare, don't pay that part, or don't like
    Social Security or health care or whatever it is you don't
    like. You don't like Congress, don't pay the part of your taxes
    that pays us. And see where we get and how logical that would
    be to the American people or any other people to make funding
    optional, voluntary so we can pick and choose.
        Now the United Nations is not supposed to be our pal. We
    don't own it. It is not a branch of the American Government or
    an arm of the American people. It is where all the people of
    the world express their grievances and argue things that we
    disagree about. If we agreed on everything, we wouldn't need
    the United Nations. But we don't.
        And the fact that bad countries that do bad things at times
    in bad areas of human behavior get to chair committees is not
    because they have been chosen because they are the admirable
    party in women's rights or human rights or whatever it is. It
    is because they rotate these things among regions of the world,
    and then the region gets to choose if they are up for the
    chairmanship of that committee. And sometimes it is a bad guy's
    turn. Get it? It is not because these people are exemplary. It
    is ironic that they get to chair these things, but that is what
    happens when you are a country.
        It was mentioned that we should withhold because other
    countries don't pay as much as we do, other countries are not
    as big, as big as we are or as wealthy as we are, despite our
    problems. And United Nations isn't an entitlement, and its
    programs aren't entitlements. But I would like to speak about
    entitlements.
        There is not a serious player in Washington, DC--the good
    thing is this bill is never going to see the light of day.
    Nobody even suspects the Senate would ever take it up, much
    less pass it. That is the good thing about it.
        But there is an entitlement here. It is the entitlement
    that my grandchildren, the entitlement that they grow up in a
    world of peace. It is the entitlement of Israeli people's
    grandchildren and Palestinian people's grandchildren.
        There is only one hope, because we are having a lot of
    difficulty of doing this on a bilateral basis. And that hope
    still rests in the United Nations with all its flaws and all of
    the bad things and inconsistencies that occur there. And to
    disguise this as this is for the benefit of the Israelis is
    sad, but laughable. The last thing the Israelis would like to
    see is the United States and the President of the United
    States, the defender-in-chief of Israel, President Obama, not
    to be in the United Nations so he and we could veto bad things
    that would happen in the United Nations were we not there, both
    for Israelis and others as well.
        I would urge the passage of the substitute, because it is a
    darn sight better than the underlying bill which, when we do
    pass it, isn't going anywhere anyway. So that is the only
    consolation that I have.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        The gentleman from New York, Mr. Rohrabacher of California,
    is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Gee, I wonder if the Rockefellers got a tax advantage when
    they gave all that property to the United Nations. I think it
    is very fitting and very apropos that the Rockefellers were so
    involved----
        Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Not yet, because I have a statement to
    make.
        Mr. Ackerman. I thought you wanted an answer.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. If there is time afterwards, I would be
    happy to.
        Let me just note that I think the Rockefellers represent
    the global elite that goes hand in hand with the anti-American
    spirit that is so prevalent in the United Nations.
        Let's just get down to what this is all about today. The
    underlying bill that we are talking about, that the chairman
    has spent considerable time developing, is something that the
    American People, when they find out about it, are going to be
    very supportive of.
        The fact is that at a time when the level of deficit
    spending is so out of control that it is heading our country to
    an economic calamity the idea of reducing expenditures, the
    expenditure of American tax dollars on U.N. programs that are
    not in our national interest, is not just a good idea, it is a
    great idea, and so just the underlying idea that we are going
    to do that, that is terrific.
        Let's look at some other major issues that we are deciding
    today, and my colleague from New York just mentioned it in
    passing, but that is that our contributions to the United
    Nations are on a voluntary--should we want to put them on a
    voluntary basis. Today, they are not on a voluntary basis, and
    the bottom line is the American people believe that money that
    we take from them should not be given to someone else to spend
    in any way that other body wants, even if it is against our
    interest, and let us note that the United Nations is not a
    sovereign body and has no legitimate authority to assess a tax
    or assess a demand of the American people.
        When my colleague mentioned about when it would make the
    income tax voluntary, that is what scares people. Because there
    are some people who would like to give the United Nations the
    power to tax and the authority to take money away from the
    American people and spend it exactly the way they want to.
        Just the fact that the chairman and those of us who support
    her are trying to make sure that if we are taxing our people at
    a time of crisis when our people are out of work that their
    money isn't going to go to be spent on anti-American and anti-
    democratic projects that have been put in place by the United
    Nations, we are following not only the will of the people but
    we are following what the Constitution is all about.
        The Constitution gives us, the Congress, authority to
    control the purse strings, and we are the ultimate power when
    it comes to the expenditure of those tax dollars, and it should
    be. When we give them to an organization, it should be on a
    voluntary basis, so if that organization gets too far out and
    starts appointing Iran to head up a commission on the status of
    women, that maybe that we can help put pressure on them not to
    make those kind of decisions.
        Now, my colleague from New York pointed out that this idea
    that the chairmanship of these types of commissions and
    committees just are there. You know, they happen to go into the
    hands of these dictators and oddballs and lunatics, and we
    should just say, well, that is because it rotates; they really
    didn't have a choice. Get it?
        Well, I want you to get something. The bottom line is, if
    they have a system that is set up that puts these gangsters in
    charge of policy, then the system is wrong. There is something
    wrong with that system, and it should be corrected, and as long
    as we maintain that we can voluntarily contribute or not, we
    will have the pressure we need to try to reform the system so
    that gangsters, that Nazis, don't get put in charge of human
    rights commissions.
        I would suggest that what we have before us is something
    that constitutionally is very important, as well as practically
    is very important, and practically we cannot continue this
    level of deficit spending. If we have to bring it down, let's
    bring it down this way. Quit financing people who hate us, and,
    number two, let's make sure U.S. contributions are voluntary.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman for his
    statement.
        I am pleased to yield to the ranking member on the
    Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, the gentleman from New
    York, for the Berman substitute or the underlying bill.
        Mr. Engel. I thank the chair for her courtesy, gracious
    courtesy as always.
        And, look, I am certainly not going to make excuses for the
    United Nations. I share the frustrations many of my colleagues
    have articulated on the other side of the aisle and that people
    on this side of the aisle feel as well.
        I will vote for the Berman substitute, but I understand the
    chair's sincere frustration in wanting to change the way the
    U.N. and some of these other countries take us for granted,
    spit in our face, and think they will have American money to
    just go around and kind of use it to whet their mouth to spit
    right back in our face.
        The bottom line, though--and this is what I am going to be
    listening to in this debate this afternoon--is what is in our
    best interests, what is in the best interests of the United
    States of America. Certainly I feel the frustration and would
    like to say, you know what? I am taking my marbles, and I am
    going home. Because this is an organization that cannot be
    fixed.
        But, on the other hand, I have to question and say, are we
    better off being there where we can have some influence, as we
    are trying to have now with this ridiculous Palestinian
    universal declaration of statehood, where we can have some
    influence, where we are putting together the votes on the
    Security Council so that they, the Palestinians, do not have
    the nine votes which would force the United States to veto it?
    Are we better off being there and preventing bad things from
    happening or would we be better off not being there? I think a
    very good case can be made that we are better off being there.
        Now, it doesn't mean--I don't think it means that we should
    just continue to play business as usual and provide the money
    for them to do all these awful things that my colleagues have
    mentioned. So I think it is a balancing act. I think we have to
    decide what is in our best interests.
        Some of my colleagues have suggested, for instance, that
    we--and this committee voted along party line vote to withdraw
    from the OAS, the Organization of American States, with all the
    Republicans voting yes and all the Democrats voting no. I
    happen to believe that the Organization of American States,
    although very flawed, is a hell of a lot better with United
    States' participation, because that is the one organization in
    the Western Hemisphere which we can influence. We have an
    extreme influence in that organization.
        And there are other organizations which exclude the United
    States, like UNASUR and MERCOSUR, where we have no influence.
    Do we want to really destroy the OAS and have these other
    organizations become preeminent?
        I sort of feel that way a little bit about the United
    Nations. I don't know if we kind of walk away what does that
    do.
        Michael Bloomberg, our mayor in New York City, has urged us
    to defeat the legislation, because he is looking at it from a
    point of view of the New York economy; and the United Nations
    obviously enhances the stature of New York and helps the New
    York economy as well.
        But I do think, I do think, that, whether or not the
    chair's legislation becomes law or not, we in the United States
    have got to give this issue a good hard look. Because we can
    all recite all the outrages in the United Nations that have
    happened where our country is treated horrifically while they
    take our money and kind of laugh in our face.
        So I want to say, Madam Chair, I share your frustration and
    I know how you feel and I share the frustration. The question
    is, what is the best way to deal with that and would it be in
    our best interest to withdraw funds at this point and have
    voluntary contributions? I am going to be listening for the
    rest of the afternoon.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        And the ranking member and I have a gentleman/gentlelady
    agreement to see if we can wrap it up before the Joint Session
    because there are many activities related to the South Korean
    President's address. And with that in mind, I am pleased to
    yield to Mr. Fortenberry for any remarks that he might have on
    the amendment.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I probably won't
    take the whole time.
        Madam Chair, first, let me say this. I believe that the
    United States should be an active participant in multilateral
    institutions. However, of late, we have seen the rogue regimes
    of both Cuba and North Korea assume leadership roles at the
    United Nations. As it was mentioned, North Korea took the
    presidency of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in spite of
    its nuclear weapons proliferation. Cuba, with its massive human
    rights violations, gallingly took vice chair of the U.N. Human
    Rights Council last year.
        Madam Chairman, these countries need to order their own
    houses before they are given the jurisdiction over panels
    affecting the rest of the world. Giving a country like Cuba or
    North Korea chairmanship over disarmaments and human rights is
    a farce.
        It is true that the United States has done a lot--the
    United Nations, excuse me, has done a lot of good across time.
    In its proper role, the United Nations is one of the strongest
    multilateral institutions the world has seen; and it does allow
    meaningful space for dialogue for the responsible community of
    nations on all measures of crises throughout the world. But
    when the United Nations steps out of its lane and employs
    divisive tactics of ideological aggression or when it appears
    to condone gross human rights violations by granting presidency
    or chairmanships to bad actors, that good is tarnished.
        Madam Chair, an amendment I am offering today tries to
    restore some integrity to the United Nations. It directs the
    United States' permanent representative to the United Nations
    to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to
    ensure that no representative of a country designated by the
    Department of State as a tier 3 human rights violating country,
    one that does not fully comply with the minimum standards set
    forth by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, shall preside
    as a chair or president of any United Nations panel.
        These are countries that not only do not comply with
    certain basic human rights standards that are the policy of our
    Government and are assessed by our own State Department but are
    not making any efforts to do so. These countries, again, must
    get their own houses in order before the international
    community grants them any authority on the global stage. I
    believe this is a responsible and reasonable use of our
    leverage as a country and will improve the overall mission of
    the United Nations.
        I thank the chair and the ranking member as well for
    agreeing to adopt this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct. We have adopted it as part
    of the en bloc.
        I thank the gentleman for the time and will now go to Mr.
    Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, although, obviously,
    philosophically I sadly have a disagreement with the underlying
    premise of this bill, I want to thank you and your staff
    particularly for your accommodation on the en bloc amendments,
    particularly Doug Anderson of your staff and of course the
    ranking member as well. So thank you very much for your
    courtesy.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I love the brevity. Thank you so
    much. You are going to be recognized a lot from now on.
        Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
        I really would like to speak to what I think are some of
    the positive benefits of this overall bill and really focus my
    points on the peacekeeping issue.
        There are a total of 16 vital and achievable reforms under
    the peacekeeping title, seven of which are required under the
    certification section of the underlying bill. Madam Chair,
    these seven reforms tied to the certification include the
    adoption of a uniform code of conduct that applies equally to
    all peacekeeping personnel, regardless of category or rank,
    training on and distribution of personnel copies of the code of
    conduct for all peacekeepers, signature of an oath by all
    personnel to abide by the code and assume personal liability
    for failure to do so, design and implementation of educational
    outreach programs to explain prohibited acts to host
    populations, creation of a centralized database to track cases
    of misconduct, adoption of a model memorandum of understanding,
    and, seven, establishment of an independent investigation and
    audit function for peacekeeping within the U.N. Department of
    Peacekeeping Operations and Office of Internal Oversight
    Services.
        Madam Chair, these reforms are reasonable, achievable, and,
    in fact, have been recommended by the U.N. itself. All seven of
    these reforms are consistent with the recommendations contained
    in the 2005 report by the special advisor on the prevention of
    sexual exploitations and abuse. All but one of these reforms,
    the oath, were specifically endorsed by the Special Committee
    on Peacekeeping.
        Additional far-reaching reforms will be required to make
    U.N. peacekeeping more efficient and effective, but for the
    purposes of this bill only the most critical and immediately
    achievable were addressed.
        Madam Chair, there is a profound sense of urgency when
    discussing these reforms, for they seek to protect innocents
    from unconscionable acts of sexual abuse and criminal
    misconduct, including corruption and the illegal exploitation
    of natural resources. Madam Chair, these acts do not occur in a
    vacuum. They occur when order has broken down and a permissible
    environment has been allowed to flourish. They demean the value
    of U.N. peacekeeping and offend the values enshrined in the
    U.N. charter. They perpetuate conflict rather than restore
    peace.
        Just as the peacekeepers owe a duty of care to the people
    they have been sent to protect, we owe a duty of care to the
    U.N. nations' peacekeeping. It is incumbent upon us as the
    greatest contributors to U.N. peacekeeping to do everything
    within our power to help stop these abuses and restore the
    sullied reputation of U.N. peacekeeping. And I commend you,
    Madam Chair, for advancing this in an efficient manner.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady.
        We have three last speakers, and then we will move to the
    vote on the Berman substitute. Ms. Schwartz is recognized.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, and I will not take my full time,
    I hope.
        But I do want to just say that certainly I wanted to add my
    voice in opposition to the underlying bill that we are
    considering today and wanted to say, as drafted, that my
    concern, of course, is that it would poison the U.S.
    relationship within the U.N. that could eventually force our
    withdrawal from the United Nations. And while there are
    certainly areas where I would agree with the majority, the
    other side of the aisle, that there is a need for reform in the
    U.N., and we have discussed many of them at different times
    during the hearings here, but I believe, along with the ranking
    member, that using financial withholdings to advance a shift
    from assess to payments of voluntary--will only lead to
    additional frustrations within the U.N. and the weakening of
    our position in making some of the changes and reforms we like
    to see at the U.N. and, in fact, enhance other member states
    that we disagree with by giving them an even stronger
    consistent voice in the organization without our presence and
    without our objections.
        The U.N., as we have all talked about, was established as a
    forum for nations to confront our conflicts diplomatically and
    to collaborate on solutions to problems that affect a
    significant majority of member states. It has served as a
    significant multiplier for our own foreign affairs budget,
    allows the U.S. to advance our national security interests at a
    fraction of the cost in lives and money of sustained military
    operations.
        Just a comparison, last year the contribution made by the
    United States to the U.N. was roughly $450 million. It took the
    Department of Defense roughly 34 hours of operation in
    Afghanistan to spend that same amount of money. So it could
    certainly be perceived as money very appropriately spent.
        I just want to say, in a world of increasing global
    problems, it is shortsighted to walk away from an institution
    that has, with our direct involvement, been able to advance
    solutions to these problems.
        Most recently, the U.N. has been instrumental in imposing
    sanctions on Syria, Libya, and Iran; and we should certainly
    acknowledge the significant role the U.N. plays in successful
    peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in critical post-conflict
    situations around the world.
        I appreciate the chairman's concern regarding the degree of
    favoritism displayed by members of the U.N. to the
    Palestinians. Nonetheless, Israel itself finds that it works
    within the U.N. to resolve certain issues. Our involvement as
    Israel's friend and ally plays an extremely important role in
    mitigating this hostility and advocating for fairness toward
    Israel within the U.N.
        So, again, I appreciate the need for reform. Nonetheless,
    the U.N. has proven to be invaluable for America and American
    leadership in the world. To abandon the U.N. would only
    embolden our adversaries.
        These sentiments are shared not only by our own current
    Secretary of State, but by the previous administration as well.
    Former Secretary John Bolton had come to the Hill on numerous
    occasions to testify against earlier iterations of this
    legislation over these same exact concerns. So, short of the
    ranking member's amendment in the nature of a substitute being
    agreed to, I will not be supporting this legislation.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentlelady; and I am so
    pleased to yield to my Florida colleague, Mr. Deutch who, along
    with Ms. Buerkle, represents us so well as our delegates to the
    U.N.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you as
    well for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues,
    transparency and peacekeepers.
        UNCHR, the Human Rights Council, serves in this anti-
    Israel--pervasive anti-Israel bias need to be addressed. And I
    thank the ranking member for his amendment which addresses
    them, and I will support that amendment, but I cannot support
    this legislation.
        I wanted to focus, as some others have, on the specific
    issue that I spend so much time dealing with, which is this
    obsession that so many member states have with attempts to
    delegitimize the free and democratic state of Israel. There is
    no arguing that for years Israel has been subject to extreme
    bias by members of the United Nations, Durban, Goldstone.
    Israel has a permanent agenda item at the Human Rights Council.
    These must be condemned, and I join every member of this
    committee in doing so.
        But even after all of these events Israel has not walked
    away from the U.N., and neither should we. Neither should the
    United States. It is because of U.S. engagement that we are
    able to make advances. Since the administration decided to
    fully reengage at the U.N., we have created a long-term
    strategy to help normalize Israel status in and across the U.N.
    and a broader multilateral system. And our engagement serves
    not only as a benefit to advancing Israel as a legitimate
    member of the international community. It serves our interests,
    more importantly.
        We have worked to ensure that Israel has the opportunity to
    contribute fully to all U.N. institutions even as it continues
    to be singled out by some member states. We garnered enough
    support to defeat a resolution at the IAEA singling out
    Israel's nuclear program for rebuke. We worked with our ally
    Israel to support the appointment of Israelis to U.N.
    positions. Frances Raday was recently chosen as an expert
    member of the Human Rights Council's special working group to
    eliminate discrimination against women. We helped secure the
    passage of three Israel-sponsored resolutions on agricultural
    technology in the General Assembly. We have worked to improve
    Israel's status in multilateral bodies, including joining the
    OECD last year, a collection of the world's 30 top economies.
        Israel has chosen to play an active role in peacekeeping
    humanitarian missions. Israel is engaged at the U.N.; we should
    be as well. Thanks in part to efforts--U.S. efforts on its
    behalf, Israel will join the board of the U.N. Children's Fund
    and chair an economic and social council of that body in the
    coming months. These are the sorts of important steps we have
    taken.
        At the Human Rights Council it is true there are serious
    flaws. Efforts to delegitimize Israel are pervasive, and anti-
    Israel resolutions are disproportionate, and the Human Rights
    Council is the best evidence of that. And we have to be
    critical, and we have to argue against it and be passionate in
    our opposition.
        But had we not scaled back our engagement at the U.N.
    during the last administration, the U.S. would have been at the
    table from the beginning, at the start of the Human Rights
    Council where we could have had a say in creating legitimate
    membership interests, standards that would have prevented some
    of the worst human rights abusers like Cuba and Libya from
    membership.
        Both the chairman's bill and the ranking member's
    substitute contain standards for Human Rights Council
    membership, but only the ranking member's amendment ensures
    that we are an active participant in bringing about reforms.
    The bottom line is, since U.S. involvement in the Human Rights
    Council, the U.S. has had a significant impact. Since we
    rejoined, our leadership led to the authorization of
    international mandates to closely monitor and address human
    rights situations in Iran, Libya, Syria, the Ivory Coast,
    Burma, North Korea, Cambodia, and Sudan.
        Perhaps most importantly, it was U.S. leadership that kept
    Iran and Syria from gaining seats on the Council. We helped
    establish a special rapporteur on human rights in Iran. We were
    there to speak out vehemently against the Goldstone report. We
    were there. We were showing leadership.
        That is what the United States always does. The United
    States doesn't turn and walk away from a battle. We have to
    stand up for what we believe in, and we have to do it in a
    forum where the entire world hears what we say.
        Nothing would hurt Israel more, by the way, or hurt our
    interests or any of our allies' interests if we decided--if
    another country decided, because we stopped making payments to
    the United Nations, if someone decided to challenge our
    position on the Security Council. They could say that the U.S.
    doesn't take its responsibility to the international community
    seriously. Why should it continue to have a permanent seat on
    the Security Council?
        Imagine if we didn't have a veto. Imagine what we would not
    have been able to do on behalf of our interests and our allies'
    interests. We have to stand up for what we believe in as a
    nation, and we need to do it in the venue that gives us the
    loudest and strongest voice.
        I thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Carnahan, that was a bloodless coup d'etat. I dethroned
    you. You are our very able partner at the U.N. with Ms.
    Buerkle.
        You are recognized. You are our last speaker. We will then
    vote on the Berman substitute and then go on to the underlying
    bill. Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
        It is with great respect--I just want to go on record--I
    cannot support your U.N. reform bill without Ranking Member
    Berman's substitute language. Many of us here want to see
    continued reforms throughout the U.N. system, but not retreat.
    And none of us, including me, condone many of the actions that
    we have heard about that have gone on at the U.N. We have heard
    over time but also we have heard recited here today.
        But the best way--the best way to push reforms and advance
    our core values and beliefs is through responsible, effective
    engagement and by meeting our financial obligations. The Bush
    administration policy of underfunding those obligations to the
    U.N., and adhering to a policy of disengagement throughout the
    U.N. system damaged our standing at the U.N. and around the
    world and brought our perception around the world to its lowest
    levels on record.
        The bill would turn back the clock to these Bush era
    policies of disengagement, undermine our credibility, weaken
    our ability to advocate for reform, and inhibit our ability to
    champion our values and will put at risk U.S. national security
    interests. I believe that anti-U.S., anti-democratic, and anti-
    reform contingents at the U.N. would think this kind of
    disengagement was great, because it is like us taking our
    players off the field and putting our agenda at a disadvantage.
        While far from perfect, the record of accomplishment over
    the past several years proves that a policy of engagement is
    far more successful than one of disengagement. Among a few of
    the successes--think about it--the U.S. engagement; critical
    structural reforms implemented; creating U.N. women,
    streamlining women's programs throughout the U.N. system;
    serious management reforms, including higher ethical standards
    and whistle-blower protections; groundbreaking U.N. Security
    Council actions on Iran and North Korea; and forcing Iran to
    give up its seat on the Human Rights Council.
        Key accomplishments at the Human Rights Council include
    resolutions on freedom of expression, assembly, and
    discrimination; creation of the human rights monitoring
    mechanisms for Cote d'Ivoire, Libya, Iran, and Syria; and
    positive steps forward on reducing a number of anti-Israel
    resolutions on the Council.
        And for those of my colleagues concerned about our ally
    Israel, talk to any of the representatives of the country of
    Israel. I am sure you will hear from them their strong support
    for full-strength U.S. involvement at the U.N. and not a
    watered-down U.S. engagement.
        So, with that, we still have progress to be made at the
    U.N., but our reputation, our ability to affect change, and
    these accomplishments prove that a policy of engagement is far
    better than a policy of disengagement. This bill is not in our
    national interest, and I urge that we support the substitute
    language of Ranking Member Berman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Cardoza is recognized. He is going to yield time to Mr.
    Ackerman.
        Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to yield
    such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague from New
    York.
        Mr. Ackerman. I thank the gentleman. I just need a minute
    or so to wrap up.
        First, a lot of the justification of this bill is
    attributed to trying to help Israel. I think we have all noted,
    especially recently, that Israel gets unjustly blamed for an
    awful lot of things in this world. I didn't think that this
    bill by the majority should be one of them.
        There is no justification to pin this on Israel. If you
    want to pass it, pass it on your own arguments, but don't lay
    this at Israel's feet. Talk to the Israelis if you really want
    to know what they think about it.
        Secondly, one of our colleagues brought up a question--I
    guess it was more in tone of trying to discredit the existence
    of the United Nations by its funding source. I was quite
    surprised. I don't think you should jump to a conclusion that
    just because the Rockefellers are Republicans or just because
    they are rich that makes them greedy. They did not donate the
    property for the United Nations to get a tax credit.
        You may find it shocking, but the United Nations is not a
    501(c)(3) charity designated entity of the United States.
    Surprise, surprise. But your legislation seems to treat it as
    such, and you would deny it the right to exist because you
    might disagree with some of the things that it does on behalf
    of its total membership, which I disagree with also from time
    to time.
        The United Nations is an important place. It doesn't do
    everything right. We don't do everything right. I don't do
    everything right. I don't know anybody that does everything
    right. But we have to strive to make things better, especially
    something that is set up with the intent of making things
    better in the world. That is the purpose of the United Nations.
        We shouldn't be looking because we disagree with some of
    the things that occur there or the votes--I disagree with some
    of the votes that are done here--we don't want to do away with
    the Congress, or do we?
        We are starting another movement.
        This approach is basically if you don't like what is going
    on in a place that we have membership with the entire
    international community that the direction we should take is
    just cut and run, cut the money and run away. That is what this
    bill does. It is cut and run. It is not stand and fight for the
    things in which we believe to try to make the world a better
    place, to convince players that are not decent players that
    they should become better players and to resolve conflicts by
    peaceful means. Just cut and run. Starve the beast. Take away
    the money. Let's get out.
        Do you know who would be happy with this strategy, who
    would gladly vote for this bill? If you are looking for
    international votes for this bill, do you know who wants it?
    The countries that get sanctioned by the U.N.
        The Iranians love this bill. No U.S. involvement in the
    U.N., no U.N. to sanction them, no countries united to deprive
    them of the ability to do the things that they are looking to
    do that are rather dark and sinister. The Iranians will vote
    for this bill. Give them a chance.
        The Libyans will vote for this bill. They don't like the
    U.N. either. They don't want us involved. The Syrians would
    love us out. The Cubans would love us out. The North Koreans
    would love us out.
        These are the supporters of this dark bill. If you are
    looking for support for this bill, look to those countries.
    Don't look to this side of the aisle.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Hearing no further request for time, the question occurs
    on----
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Berman. I ask unanimous consent to include in the
    record----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
        Mr. Berman [continuing]. A letter from the Secretary of
    State and the Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research
    Associates poll on----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]Sec. of
    State deg.

                                  ----------

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And if I could put also in the
    record Ambassador Bolton's enthusiastic support for this bill.
    I don't know where it came out----
        Mr. Berman. He is not under instructions any longer.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Many op-eds that he has written in
    favor of this bill.
        But if we are going to put in things for the record,
    without objection, let that be in there as well.
        [The information referred to follows:]Ros-
    Lehtinen--The Weekly Standard deg.

                                  ----------

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hearing no further request for
    recognition, the question occurs on the Berman substitute
    amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Having concluded consideration of the Berman substitute and
    hearing no further amendment, the question occurs on agreeing
    to the bill, H.R. 2829, as amended. The clerk will call the
    roll. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly off no, on aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo.
        Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce.
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Mack. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
        Mr. Fortenberry.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Poe. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
        Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Mrs. Schmidt.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mrs. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera.
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly.
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino.
        Mr. Marino. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle.
        Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Mrs. Ellmers.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mrs. Ellmers votes aye.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes aye.
        Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
        Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
        Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
        Mr. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
        Mr. Sires.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Duetch. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
        Mr. Cardoza.
        Mr. Cardoza. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
        Mr. Chandler.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins.
        Mr. Higgins. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
        Ms. Schwartz.
        Ms. Schwartz. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
        Mr. Murphy.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
        Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
        Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry wanted us to wait,
    but I am sorry. We know how he feels about the bill anyway.
        The clerk will call the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 23 ayes,
    and 15 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        The ayes have it. The bill is agreed to, and without
    objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    Without objection, the bill, as amended, will be reported
    favorably to the House as a single amendment in the nature of a
    substitute incorporating the amendments adopted by the
    committee; and the staff is directed to make technical and
    conforming changes.
        Having concluded today's business, I want to thank all of
    our members and the staff for the hard work and the cooperation
    that went into this markup.
        And, with that, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

         Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.