[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4607-H4615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2745, HENRY J. HYDE UNITED NATIONS 
                           REFORM ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 319

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2745) to reform the United Nations, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on International Relations now printed in the 
     bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment 
     to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       (e)(1) Consideration of amendments printed in subpart A of 
     part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules shall begin 
     with an additional period of general debate, which shall be 
     confined to the subject of accountability of the United 
     Nations and shall not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations.
       (2) Consideration of amendments printed in subpart B of 
     part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules shall begin 
     with an additional period of general debate, which shall be 
     confined to the subject of United Nations peacekeeping 
     operations and shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations.
       (3) Consideration of amendments printed in subpart C of 
     part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules shall begin 
     with an additional period of general debate, which shall

[[Page H4608]]

     be confined to the subject of the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency and shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations.
       (4) Consideration of amendments printed in subpart D of 
     part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules shall begin 
     with an additional period of general debate, which shall be 
     confined to the subject of human rights and shall not exceed 
     20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
     Relations.
       (5) Consideration of amendments printed in subpart E of 
     part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules shall begin 
     with an additional period of general debate, which shall be 
     confined to the subject of the Oil-for-Food Program and shall 
     not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     International Relations.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on International Relations or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed 
     in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier 
     disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read (except that modifications shall be 
     reported), shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations or their designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in 
     such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of 
     a motion to strike may be modified to the form of a germane 
     perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be 
     stricken. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1615

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 
2005, and provides a structured rule for consideration of 28 different 
amendments, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the minority.
  The rule provides for the offering of the 28 specified amendments 
according to subject areas as designated in the text of the resolution, 
and with a cumulative total of an hour and 40 minutes of general debate 
to be divided equally by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong 
support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2745, the 
Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. Madam Speaker, with 28 
amendments in order, to poorly paraphrase Winston Churchill, never will 
so much be said by so many about so little, in this case, just a single 
subject act.
  It is fitting, though, Madam Speaker, that this bill be named after 
our esteemed colleague to my right, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde), who has served and is serving with such distinction 
and integrity and has been a stalwart in these halls for the past 30 
years. He is to be commended for putting together a well-thought-out, 
comprehensive measure aimed at helping to bring about real and needed 
reforms within the United Nations.
  I commend also the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the 
ranking member, as well for the long-standing cooperation and 
dedication to bipartisanship in the area of U.S. policy and diplomacy 
which is evident in many important aspects of this legislation.
  In fact, Madam Speaker, when these two distinguished gentlemen were 
testifying before the Committee on Rules on this bill, I was struck by 
the fact that the House, and indeed the entire Nation, is the 
beneficiary of decades' worth of their collective wisdom and firsthand 
experience.
  We spent the last few weeks discussing DOD authorization and 
appropriations, Interior, State and Justice appropriations, and these 
acts have a wide range of topics and generated a multitude of 
amendments. This specific act has generated 28 potential amendments on 
a single topic, and, Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to 
love listening to all 28 of those amendments, but let that not 
overshadow the reality of this bill.
  This bill is unusual in the bipartisan unity of the content. When it 
comes to the issue of United Nations reform, I was also impressed that 
both gentlemen, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the 
gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), seemed to be of one 
mind when it relates to the necessity for reforms in the wake of 
continued scandals within various United Nations functions.
  There was also a unique, bipartisan unity in supporting the need for 
a penalty to follow failure of reform. There is a small disagreement on 
who should trigger that penalty, which differences I know my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle will bring forward, but there can be no 
doubt as to the underlying need of this penalty phase. That is telling.
  To put it in a nutshell, Madam Speaker, this legislation is long 
overdue. It would require 39 very specific reforms within the areas of 
U.N. budgeting, oversight, accountability, and human rights. It 
provides clarity and a reasonable timetable under which the U.N. must 
act. With the U.S. footing the largest share of dues of any Nation, a 
share consistent with our voice, this act should provide some real 
teeth and real incentives to get the job done. To not require such 
withholdings would only create a paper tiger.
  As an old teacher, I learned that I never made a threat that I was 
not willing to carry out. If students ever thought I was not seriously 
going to follow through on my disciplinary commitments, I would lose 
all credibility and lose both the respect and the cooperation of the 
kids. It would create an atmosphere of weakness and chaos. No learning 
would take place. Such an atmosphere of distrust cannot be part of our 
foreign policy. We have seen that too often, and such a potential 
cannot be ignored.
  There are indeed precedents for what we are trying to do both in the 
1980s and 1990s when actions by Congress ensured change within the 
United Nations.
  It is regrettable, Madam Speaker, that this bill is even necessary. 
It is regrettable that the United Nations would not undertake to clean 
up its own act in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, irregularities 
in the accounting and uses of its funds, misconduct by entrenched U.N. 
bureaucrats, and the deplorable state of the U.N. Commission on Human 
Rights.
  We all witnessed the appalling lack of resolve and consistency in the 
U.N. when it failed to live up to and enforce the 17 different 
resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein's murderous regime.
  When I am at home in my district, some of my constituents will say to 
me that we ought to pull out of the United Nations entirely. It is hard 
to argue with many of them who say that the U.N. is merely a haven for 
corruption, waste and, frankly, anti-Americanism. We must do all we can 
to try and rectify all these problems, and to not act would indeed be 
irresponsible.
  This act sends an unmistakably clear message that specific reforms 
must be enacted or face real consequences. If these reforms are not 
enacted, the future looks bleak and will only increase the calls to 
replace the United Nations with a more updated handling of 
international disputes.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this rule is a good and fair rule. It 
made every single amendment in order, all 28, which were filed before 
the Committee on Rules. In short, the only complaint that one may have 
with this rule is that is may be somewhat parsimonious in its general 
debate, and we will provide in those 28 amendments a

[[Page H4609]]

long and wide-ranging debate of all of these important issues.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes, and 
I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time.
  Let me quote, this would undermine American credibility at the United 
Nations. It would undermine our effectiveness. Those are the words of 
the distinguished Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who said of 
the bill that we are considering, it will call into question our 
reliability as the founder and host Nation and leading contributor to 
the United Nations and would also harm our image worldwide.
  My colleague from Utah pointed to the bipartisanship. I gather that 
he would agree that it is bipartisan when Nicholas Burns and Alcee 
Hastings and other Democrats and this administration join in opposing 
this measure.
  In my opinion, this bill takes a shortsighted approach to reforming 
the United Nations. There are decent, necessary and desirable 
provisions in this legislation, but, Madam Speaker, this bill takes 
well-thought-out ideas and pushes them far into the realm of 
demagoguery, demonstrating a contempt for the United Nations that is 
entirely unfounded.
  The United Nations Reform Act is yet another example of the 
majority's willingness to bulldoze over dissension and force its will 
upon those who would otherwise disagree. The draconian requirements of 
the underlying legislation will affect everything from the promotion of 
human rights in the organization to the inclusion of mandatory sunset 
provisions for all new U.N. programs.
  The most shortsighted of the bill's provisions would require a 
mandatory withholding of peacekeeping funds unless the requirements in 
this legislation are met.
  Madam Speaker, simply put, prohibiting the Secretary of State from 
exercising discretion regarding the withholding of funds to the United 
Nations is counterproductive. The Secretary herself told a group here 
in the Capitol day before yesterday that the Bush administration is not 
supporting the mandatory withholdings contained in this bill. It seems 
clear that if even this administration, which has never been reluctant 
to withhold criticism of the U.N., is against this provision, then it 
must be bad.
  It has become a cliche when Members of the House speak repeatedly 
about winning the hearts and minds of the world; yet our constant use 
of gun-barrel diplomacy continues to fail. Do my colleagues really 
believe that withholding millions of dollars from the United Nations 
will encourage the member nations to go along with what we are trying 
to do today?
  Adlai Stevenson, that great champion of world diplomacy, said, ``The 
whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations, great or 
small, to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to.'' Now, more 
than 40 years later, the underlying legislation seeks to eliminate the 
right of any country besides our own to chart the future of the United 
Nations.
  The only way for us to reform the U.N. is to work within it rather 
than threatening to take our ball and go home. We will not be 
successful by withholding the funds that are needed to do the job.
  Thanks to the Bush administration, the United States' international 
reputation as a peace-loving Nation is in tatters. Now my friends on 
the other side want to pass a bill which will withhold peacekeeping 
funds while conflicts rage around this world unchecked? This is 
irresponsible, immoral and a foreign policy disaster.
  Everyone in this body realizes that the United Nations is not a 
perfect organization, but on balance, the United Nations has been and 
will continue to be good for America on a range of global issues.
  Let us not forget the thousands of United Nations personnel who 
risked their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring about successful 
and free elections in those countries or the role of the U.N. in 
effecting the withdrawal of Syrian military forces from Lebanon.

                              {time}  1630

  In March of 2005, Secretary-General Annan released a string of 
initiatives to combat terrorism, proposals that the United States 
Government has openly supported. And in the Sudan, the U.N. has 
committed aid workers, troops, police, and money to ensure the success 
of peace accords.
  The U.N. also continues to provide a global voice and to be a 
powerful advocate for change around the world. How many millions of 
children's lives have been saved through UNICEF, Madam Speaker? How 
many millions of lives have been saved through disease treatment and 
eradication programs? How many have been made better through 
development assistance, cultural programs, and advances in education? 
Can we really justify cutting off our support for all these efforts 
simply because the U.N. does not implement every single one of our 
reform proposals?
  Madam Speaker, that is the reason I will be supporting the Lantos-
Shays substitute to this bill. Eleanor Roosevelt, our country's first 
representative to the United Nations, remarked, ``Do what you feel in 
your heart to be right, for you will be criticized anyway.'' It may be 
that the United States will still be criticized even if we adopt the 
substitute and these reforms are pushed through. But I would rather do 
the right thing and be criticized than give up and go home because 
things did not go 100 percent of the way that we wanted it to.
  The Lantos-Shays substitute takes a realistic approach to reforming 
the United Nations. It includes virtually all of the reforms in H.R. 
2745, with one crucial difference. The substitute gives the Secretary 
of State the flexibility to make decisions regarding funds based on the 
needs of the United States. The substitute avoids the counterproductive 
all-or-nothing diplomacy of this measure, while still promoting the 
reforms everyone agrees are needed.
  Madam Speaker, legislating unrealistic ultimatums will not achieve 
the goal that we are seeking. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-
advised and shortsighted legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my friend from Florida 
that the language that substitutes for debate around here is 
troublesome. Demagogic, I heard the gentleman say. Immoral, gun-boat 
diplomacy, contempt for the U.N. None of those inflammatory terms, in 
my judgment, apply to this debate.
  And I suggest that we can disagree as to the one issue, and that is 
how to enforce the reforms we all agree are needed, without calling 
each other names or disparaging our motives.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the chairman, and I agree with him 
regarding our rhetoric. When I made my references I was referring to 
the Bush administration and not to the distinguished chairman and other 
Members in the body. And I stand by those statements, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HYDE. Well, reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman, but the Bush administration is on your side, not mine, this 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on 
the Committee on Rules.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, 
Dag Hammarskjold, commented during his tenure that ``the United Nations 
was not created to take humanity to heaven but save it from hell.'' A 
keen observation on the fundamental tensions present in such a massive 
and massively important institution.
  The U.N. was built upon the very highest of ideals: support for human

[[Page H4610]]

rights, peaceful resolution of conflict, and respect for international 
law and conventions. However, the reality of the U.N.'s composition of 
191 member states, often with 191 different national interests, has 
challenged these high ideals. We all know that.
  Many are examining how to meet these challenges and improve the 
weaknesses of the organization: the Secretary-General's report, the 
U.N. High Level Advisory Panel, the Volcker Commission Investigation, 
the Mitchell-Gingrich report. And each of them, in addition to the bill 
we are debating today, is circling around the same group of reforms. 
But the central debate here on the House floor is not about what the 
reforms should be. Madam Speaker, the debate here is how you sell them.
  There are 191 individual members of the organization that must agree 
on the reforms, sometimes unanimously, if we are to make the U.N. an 
even better organization than it already is. And this is where I 
diverge from some of my colleagues.
  I share the views of the eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United 
Nations. I do not believe harsh, automatic penalties hold any chance of 
garnering support among the many nations needed to enact these reforms. 
I must note that their experience spans each of the five Presidencies, 
from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. We should be heeding their sage 
advice.
  For this reason, I support the Lantos-Shays substitute, which 
authorizes the Secretary of State to withhold a portion of our U.N. 
dues at his or her discretion instead of the severe automatic 
penalties.
  We should not advocate a policy of withdrawal from the world 
community on the one hand and ask for it to engage on the other. But 
H.R. 2745 would stir up exactly that resentment in its current form, 
resentment that will kill any hope for change.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, the United Nations has a genuine 
opportunity to reform and, with our leadership, the potential for great 
success. We must add to this momentum by supporting the Lantos-Shays 
substitute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Madam 
Speaker; and I rise in strong support of this rule.
  I think that the underlying legislation is much needed and long 
overdue. I have been working to help reform the United Nations since I 
first came to Congress, and I have not found anybody yet that disagrees 
with the fact that we very, very direly need to reform the United 
Nations. This once-utopian organization has degenerated into an 
institution that is largely dysfunctional and on the verge of becoming 
irrelevant, and that is why we need these reforms and we need them now.
  There are a lot of areas that this legislation deals with, whether it 
is cronyism, corruption, or financial mismanagement. But I just want to 
stress one that relates to budgetary reform and the way that people 
vote on that.
  Right now, the United States contributes about 22 percent of the 
general budget of the United Nations and 28 percent of the peacekeeping 
budget. If you take the last 128 nations that contribute dues, if you 
put all their dues together, that adds up to less than 1 percent; yet 
they have the same vote. Those 128 nations have the same vote as the 
United States. In fact, if you take the top three countries, they 
contribute over half the dues, and yet everybody has the same vote on 
budgetary matters.
  Imagine a family, if you will, where the dad goes out and works all 
year and provides income for his family. And at the time to decide how 
to spend it, the four kids get up and say, this is what we want to do, 
this is where we want to go on our vacation, this is what hotel we want 
to stay in. Well, that is the way the United Nations works, and that is 
why we need the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act we are considering today.
  One of the reforms in this act would say that when you vote on 
budgetary matters, then you weight those votes. That would do two 
things: number one, it would mean that the countries that contribute 
the most money would have more leverage in making sure that the money 
gets spent where it is supposed to be spent and in making sure that 
they get the results they want to get. And it also would encourage some 
of the other countries to contribute more money to the dues of the 
United Nations.
  One of the areas we often hear criticized is this area of cronyism. 
It is unbelievable, but the United Nations, if you count the full-time 
and the contract employees, they have over 43,000 employees. To put 
that in perspective, a lot of multibillion dollar corporations do not 
have that many employees. Ebay, people have heard of that, is a company 
worth $52 billion, and the United Nations has five times as many 
employees as they have. Anheiser Busch, which makes and sells beer 
around the world, the U.N. has a third more employees than they have.
  So I think it is time that we got a handle on how the money that 
American taxpayers send off to the United Nations gets spent, and this 
haphazard budgetary process can be changed by weighted voting.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the time is now for reform at the 
U.N. This organization has become a shadow of its former self and 
likely bears little resemblance to what its founders had envisioned. 
Amid charges of cronyism, corruption, and financial scandal in recent 
months, the relevance and reputation of the United Nations has 
deteriorated drastically. What's more, the U.N. appears to engage in 
anti-American sentiment for sport, promoting it around the globe.
  This is a true slap in the face to the United States. After all, we 
are going to contribute 22 percent of the U.N.'s general budget and 28 
percent of its peacekeeping budget this year. This means a funding 
request for Fiscal Year 2006 of $439 million by President Bush. The top 
10 contributors of U.N. dues account for more than 76 percent of all 
dues paid while the 128 countries with the lowest dues account for less 
than 1 percent of dues paid. However, among the 192 member countries, 
everyone's vote is worth the same. Imagine this scenario: parents 
agreeing to fund the family vacation, but allowing the children to 
dictate where the family goes, what hotel they stay at, and what 
activities they do. That's what is happening at the U.N. right now and 
that is why we need to support the Hyde Bill.

  H.R. 2745 calls for weighted voting on budgetary matters. Weighted 
voting on budgetary matters would give the U.N.'s biggest contributors 
more leverage to ensure that their money is achieving the purposes for 
which it is intended. Weighted voting would encourage other countries 
to increase their contribution to the organization.
  The State Department said the U.S. paid nearly $3.9 billion in 
contributions to the U.N. system in 2004. And who knows where that 
money went? Some of it likely went to fund patronage jobs of which the 
U.N. has many. Between full-time employees and contract workers, the 
U.N. employs almost 43,000 people. Let me put that in perspective: 
43,000 workers is more than five times more the total employed by eBay, 
a company worth almost $52 billion. Another kicker: total U.N. 
employment is nearly one third greater than that of Anheuser-Busch, 
another multi-billion dollar company.
  As elected officials, we have an obligation to be good stewards of 
the taxpayers' money. It is our responsibility to bring reform to the 
U.N.'s haphazard budget practices and the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 
2005 is a step toward accomplishing that goal. The American people 
deserve nothing less.
  Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 8 
minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. First, I want to thank my friend from Utah for his most gracious 
words at the outset of this debate, and I would like to commend my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for 
his leadership on foreign policy matters and for his invaluable 
assistance on the Committee on Rules.
  Madam Speaker, as we embark upon today's historic debate, at the 
outset I would like to publicly express my respect, my admiration, my 
affection, and my friendship to the chairman of the House Committee on 
International Relations. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 
been a giant in this body for many years. His contributions to the work 
of the Congress and to the welfare of our Nation are without limits, 
and it has been one of the great

[[Page H4611]]

privileges of my congressional career to have had the opportunity of 
serving on his committee.
  Madam Speaker, let me make it clear that there is no Member of this 
body who is opposed to far-reaching reforms at the United Nations. We 
must approve legislation to fight corruption, hypocrisy, 
ineffectiveness, waste, and anti-Americanism at this important global 
institution. There is no disagreement, Madam Speaker, between Chairman 
Hyde and me as to whether the U.N. must be reformed. Where we part ways 
is on how to accomplish this incredibly important goal.
  Madam Speaker, the good Lord gave us Ten Commandments. The 
legislation before the House today gives us 39.

                              {time}  1645

  While I know there has been some inflation over time, there is no 
rational explanation for such an explosion of legislative commandments.
  The United Nations Reform Act is truly a guillotine on autopilot. If 
the United Nations accomplishes 38 out of 39 commandments, but only 
accomplishes one-half of the last commandment, the United States will 
automatically cut off 50 percent of our contributions to the United 
Nations. Secretary of State Rice will have absolutely no choice in the 
matter. The President of the United States will have no choice in this 
matter. The Congress will have no choice in this matter.
  The bill under consideration is also a death blow to United Nations 
peacekeeping. Upon enactment of this legislation, the United States 
will be forced to oppose any new or expanded peacekeeping mission until 
a comprehensive series of peacekeeping reforms are implemented, many of 
which we all know will take years to accomplish. Rwanda-style genocides 
could unfold before our eyes, and the United Nations would have to turn 
its back.
  Madam Speaker, I agree that peacekeeping desperately needs reform, 
but it boggles the mind to think that this body would approve 
legislation which automatically cuts off all U.S. support for U.N. 
peacekeeping unless congressionally mandated commandments are 
immediately implemented.
  We are not alone, Madam Speaker, in our deep opposition to the United 
Nations Reform Act in its current form. This Republican administration 
is strongly opposed to this legislation. Under Secretary of State 
Nicholas Burns said yesterday that this legislation ``would undermine 
American credibility at the United Nations and would call into question 
our reliability as the founder and host Nation and leading contributor 
to the United Nations.''
  Eight of our former Ambassadors to the United Nations, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, ranging from Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to 
Ambassador Danforth, a former distinguished Republican Senator, all 
oppose this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, my Republican colleague, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I will offer a substitute amendment to 
promote U.N. reform effectively. Our substitute, which is rational, 
responsible and bipartisan, does not have the rigid and arbitrary 
dictate that automatically cuts 50 percent of our dues. This provision 
makes the bill, which has many good provisions in it, a guillotine on 
autopilot. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Lantos-Shays 
substitute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), one of the leading voices 
on the Committee on International Relations.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  We are all sinners even though we have the 10 Commandments, but can 
Members imagine how much more sin we might be committing had those 
commandments been mere suggestions? That is why the Henry Hyde U.N. 
Reform Act does have commandments that the U.N. should and must adhere 
to. I rise in strong support of this bill.
  On Monday as we were preparing for the debate on reforming the United 
Nations, a constituent of mine was at one of the sessions of the 
Economic and Social Council, one of the many United Nations bodies, and 
he was immediately struck by the almost Orwellian and secretive nature 
of the proceedings, as well as by the vitriolic, anti-American attacks 
in which the chairman and other members of the committee were engaged.
  My constituent made several observations to me that reaffirmed that 
lives, not just policies, are at stake in our efforts to reform the 
U.N. institutions. This same constituent sent me a postcard like this 
one that reaffirmed to me the need for this. It had a note encouraging 
the Congress to overhaul the United Nations, and the picture on the 
postcard is a sculpture of a broken world, implying that the United 
Nations is the means by which to fix it.
  However, how can the United Nations be considered a legitimate source 
of stability or an instrument for the protection of the most vulnerable 
populations or a tool for the promotion of human rights and good 
governance when it is plagued with graft and corruption, when sexual 
predators and traffickers in human beings are part of the policing and 
peacekeeping mission, and when the Human Rights Commission is a country 
club of rogue states made up of dictators and tyrants and thugs?
  Reforming the United Nations is necessary for its survival, and it is 
long overdue. However, reform must not be limited to rearranging the 
deck chairs, but instead to correcting the organization's serious 
institutional and systemic flaws. The U.N. has paid lip service to 
nominal efforts to reform itself, and the few times that those promises 
have been kept, it is when the United States has leveraged its 
financial support for the organization and its specialized agencies.
  For this reason, the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 mandates 
spending cuts in specific programs, redirects funds to priority areas, 
and, yes, withholds 50 percent of U.S.-assessed dues if certifications 
are not made in critical areas. Those commandments must be adhered to.
  If we are serious about making the United Nations relevant again, and 
I think in a bipartisan way we are, if we are serious about restoring 
it to reflect its core mission, and I think in a bipartisan way we are, 
if we are serious about saving the United Nations from itself, then we 
must render our overwhelming support for the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act 
of 2005.
  I would just like to close by saying that it is very fitting that 
this bill before us should have the name of our distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who has been the conscience of the House, the 
voice of the people for so many years, has had such a distinguished 
public service career in the House and led us through some very 
difficult times as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary as well 
as chairman of our Committee on International Relations. I am so 
pleased that this bill before us, which will reform this wonderful 
peacekeeping institution, will have his name as part of its reform 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I also want to add to the remarks of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and our ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), when it comes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I have served with the chairman both on the 
Committee on the Judiciary and on the Committee on International 
Relations. I have profound respect and deep affection for him, but I do 
not like his bill.
  It is clear that there is a consensus that the United Nations needs 
reform. We want reform. Our allies want reform. The Secretary General 
wants reform. Just this week a congressionally created task force 
chaired by the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the former 
majority leader Senator George Mitchell issued a report urging adoption 
of many of the proposals put forth by the Secretary General; but it did 
not recommend that Congress withhold dues to serve as a catalyst to 
bring about those reforms.
  Presumably, they were in agreement with the eight former U.S. 
Ambassadors to the United Nations, both Republican and Democrat, who 
stated yesterday in a letter to the congressional leadership, and I 
would ask my

[[Page H4612]]

colleagues to pay close attention to this particular excerpt, 
``Withholding U.S. dues to the United Nations may sound like smart 
policy, but would be counterproductive. It would create resentment, 
build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform. It would 
place in jeopardy the reform initiatives most important to U.S. 
interests.'' Remember, these are Americans who represented our Nation 
at the United Nations. They understand how the institution works. They 
know how to get things done.
  Yes, Madam Speaker, I am optimistic that reform will occur, but it 
will not happen as a result of this bill, it will happen in spite of 
this bill.
  If it were a thoughtful effort to effect change, why did the 
committee proceed before the Gingrich-Mitchell task force that we 
created and funded back in December even made its recommendations?
  No, this bill will not promote U.N. reform, Madam Speaker. It is more 
likely to undermine those efforts. Support for this bill will reinforce 
a growing belief that we are not committed to strengthening the United 
Nations, to working with our like-minded allies to make it a more 
effective tool to promote our interests.
  I recognize that some, a few, on the other side honestly believe we 
should end any participation, any U.S. participation in the United 
Nations. They prefer to go it alone, but they forget that without the 
United Nations it would fall on us to do much of what the United 
Nations is doing on the planet today, and that the United Nations has 
supported the United States in some of our critical foreign policy 
needs. It was the United Nations that organized and ran the elections 
in Iraq and in Afghanistan and played a critical role in forcing the 
Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.
  The Ambassadors are correct, resentment towards the United States 
will increase. That is because what this bill simply says is unless you 
do everything we want, we will cut off your funds. In other words, if 
you do not play the game according to our rules, we will take our ball 
and go home.
  This take-it-or-leave-it approach does not help us, it hurts us. A 
recent GAO report stated, and again I am quoting, ``Recent polling data 
show that anti-Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. 
Such anti-American sentiments can increase foreign public support for 
terrorism directed against the United States, impact the cost and 
effectiveness of military operations, weaken the United States' ability 
to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and 
dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and 
products.''

                              {time}  1700

  That is a quote from our own GAO. This bill is bad for our national 
security interests, it is bad for America, and I hope it is defeated.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I love history. In fact, this is not necessarily unprecedented. The 
Kassebaum-Solomon amendment in 1985 asked for change, and meaningful 
change took place. In 1994, we insisted on an oversight committee and 
an oversight committee took place. And under the bipartisan Helms-Biden 
approach, once again we insisted on changes with the United Nations. 
The United Nations responded to it. This bill is keeping a tradition 
that is historical going back for at least 20 years in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me echo what 
has been said about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). There has 
never been a finer Member of Congress in the history of the Republic 
than the gentleman from Illinois. He was one of the most eloquent 
speakers I have ever known in this House. We really appreciate all his 
hard work on this bill.
  Now, let me say to my friend from Massachusetts, I have been 
listening to this stuff for 20 years. You cannot do anything to put 
pressure on the United Nations, because if you do, the whole world is 
going to hate us. The sky is going to fall, Henny Penny. The State 
Department has been working with the United Nations for the last 20 
years that I have been here and working on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, International Relations now. The problems still exist. The 
only difference is, it is worse now than it has ever been.
  We have got to do something about it. Mr. Bolton needs to be 
confirmed on the other side because we need a tough guy over there to 
force the issue. We have got an Oil-for-Food scandal that is growing 
daily. Kofi Annan, the head of the United Nations, the Secretary-
General, said, Oh, I didn't have anything to do with it. We now are 
finding memos where he talked to the people in the oil industry saying 
that he would give them unqualified support.
  A few months ago, he said, Oh, I never did that, and he said he would 
never resign under any circumstances. Now he is hedging his bets on 
that because the case against him and the Oil-for-Food scandal is 
growing and growing and growing. He is the head man over there. On his 
watch, everything has been going haywire.
  We have got U.N. peacekeeping forces raping women and kids, and 
nothing has been done about that. We have got all kinds of problems 
over there and something must be done. How do you do that? We say, 
Well, let's follow the same course we have been following for the last 
20 years. The State Department says, My gosh, we'll go over there and 
we'll do something about it. I have high regard for Condoleezza Rice. I 
think she is a dynamite lady and going to do a dynamite job. But this 
body needs to put the hammer by using American taxpayers' dollars on 
the U.N. to clean up that mess over there. We cannot go on day after 
day, week after week, month after month, year after year letting this 
thing be completely out of hand.
  The gentleman talked about the Mitchell and Gingrich report. They 
said that it is a mess over there. How do you clean it up? You make a 
change from top to bottom. How do you do that when the rest of the 
world or much of the rest of the world says, Oh, my gosh, we don't want 
the United States dictating to us. I can understand that. We are the 
big guy on the block. They do not want us dictating to them, and we do 
not want to dictate to them. We want to work with them. But the fact of 
the matter is they are not listening in many cases and the corruption 
goes on and on and on, the mismanagement goes on and on and on, and 
nothing changes. And the United States keeps pouring in 25 percent, or 
almost that much, of the funds out of the taxpayers' pockets in this 
country for that body.
  How do you change it? You take out the hammer, and the hammer is the 
money. You say to the world body, the United Nations, If you don't 
clean up that mess, we are going to withhold funds. And if we withhold 
funds, you are going to have a big, big problem over there.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is one of my 
dearest friends in this place and the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
not a bad friend, either. We have traveled together. I have high regard 
for him, even though he is wrong a lot of the time. But I just want to 
say, something has to be done. There must be something in the water in 
Massachusetts. I do not know. But something has to be done. And what 
has to be done is we have got to put pressure on the U.N. and the best 
way to do it is to say, either you change things over there or we are 
going to withdraw funds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to 
yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about the 
gentleman from Illinois, also. There are probably no two people that 
are more opposite than the two of us. I want the gentleman to know, I 
am going to miss him when he really does leave the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 2745 is enacted, it will be a huge step backward 
for women around the world, because it would end U.S. funding for 
CEDAW. CEDAW is the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of 
Discrimination Against Women, which is the U.N. treaty on the rights of 
women around the world. CEDAW is a United Nations treaty that supports 
international standards to discourage sex-based discrimination and 
encourages equality in education,

[[Page H4613]]

health care, employment and all other arenas of public life for all 
women around the world. This treaty serves as a powerful tool for women 
worldwide as they fight against discrimination. It also leads to 
substantial improvements for women's lives across the world.
  The impact of CEDAW can be seen in countries like Australia where the 
government cited its treaty obligations in passing national legislation 
against sexual harassment in the workplace based on CEDAW, or in 
Pakistan where education for young women was introduced in primary 
schools after treaty ratification in Pakistan, causing sharp increases 
in female enrollment in their schools.
  To date, 170 countries have ratified CEDAW. Sadly, the United States 
continues to be the only industrialized nation that has not ratified, 
leaving us in the company of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran. It is 
time to abandon this unfavorable distinction. It is time to be a world 
leader and a champion of human and women's rights. We must ratify 
CEDAW, and we must do it now. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
cosponsor my resolution on CEDAW, H. Res. 67, to support the Lantos 
amendment, and to vote against this base bill unless we do something 
drastically to improve it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill. I also 
want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his service 
and this bill. I had some prepared remarks, but I have got to respond 
to the last speaker who talked about CEDAW. It seems to me that that is 
a perfect example of what is wrong with the United Nations and our 
funding the United Nations. What a joke CEDAW is. We are the only 
industrialized country that has not signed that treaty. Women do better 
here than anyplace in the world. There is no person who supports equal 
rights for women more than I do, and I think that CEDAW is a joke 
because of those who have supported it, look at how they treat women.
  As Members of Congress, we have a duty to ensure accountability of 
each and every American taxpayer dollar that goes to the United 
Nations. From the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, to its lack of action with 
respect to the genocide in Darfur, to the horrendous human rights 
abuses by U.N. peacekeeping staff during their mission in the Congo, 
what did they care about CEDAW. The U.N. is rife with fraud and abuse 
and needs reform.
  Two of the most important items this bill requires are to direct the 
U.S. permanent representative to aggressively pursue a definition of 
terrorism and to mandate that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership on 
any human rights body. The U.N. counts some of the world's leading 
human rights violators and state sponsors of terrorism among its 
membership and even taps many of them to be in leadership positions on 
its subcommittees. This is outrageous and ironic.
  Let us empower our new ambassador to the U.N. and the administration 
with reforms that have some teeth and will effect change. The United 
Nations' reputation of being a credible and effective international 
peacekeeping body has been tarnished. It is no wonder so many Americans 
question the efficacy and the very necessity of the United Nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and bill and thank 
Mr. Hyde for his service and this bill. The United Nations Charter 
includes some very laudable goals, but when the rubber meets the road, 
the U.N. has failed miserably to put these ideals into practice, 
especially in recent years.
  As a founding member of the U.N. and a permanent member of the U.N. 
Security Council, we have a duty to insist on a higher standard. And as 
Members of Congress, we have a duty to ensure accountability of each 
and every American taxpayer dollar that goes to the U.N.
  From the U.N. Oil for Food program to its lack of action with respect 
to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan to the horrendous human rights abuses 
by U.N. peacekeeping staff during their mission in the Congo, the U.N. 
is rife with fraud and abuse and needs reform.
  This bill includes a call for certifiable reforms including: Shifting 
18 programs from the regular assessed budget to voluntary funded 
programs so their funding would not be automatic; all new programs 
started by the U.N. to include sunsetting provisions; cuts and 
streamlining in the funding for the 15,484 conferences and scheduled 
meetings that occurred in 2004 and 2005, some of which cost $7-8,000 
per hour; creation of an ethics office to provide oversight over the 
U.N. budget and financial disclosure form.
  And two of the most important items this bill requires are to direct 
the U.S. Permanent Representative to aggressively pursue a definition 
of terrorism and to mandate that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership 
on any human rights body.
  The U.N. counts some of the world's leading human rights violators 
and state sponsors of terrorism among its membership and even taps many 
of them to be in leadership positions on its subcommittees. This is 
completely outrageous and dangerously ironic.
  Let us empower our new ambassador to the U.N. and the administration 
with reforms that have some teeth and will effect change. The United 
Nations' reputation of being a credible and effective, international 
peacekeeping body has been sorely tarnished. It is no wonder so many 
Americans question the efficacy and the very necessity of the United 
Nations.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I am a proud original cosponsor of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform 
Act, and I rise today in support of the rule and with a profound sense 
of gratitude for the leadership that my mentor and friend, Henry J. 
Hyde of Illinois, has provided on this bill and throughout an 
illustrious career in this Congress. I also want to commend for what I 
know will be a vigorous debate that has already begun the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) for his thoughtful consideration of this 
bill.
  One of the extraordinary things about this debate as it unfolds 
before the American people, Mr. Speaker, is the degree of agreement 
between the two men that I just mentioned. It is a rare piece of 
legislation indeed where there is so much agreement about the goals. 
But I believe what will become apparent to any observer of this debate 
is that we are not so much arguing over the ends as the means, and that 
is a legitimate argument that will be, I believe, a great service to 
the country. The United Nations is desperately in need of fundamental 
reform, and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act does just that.
  In 1994, staffers at UNICEF's Kenya office defrauded and squandered 
up to $10 million by some estimates. In the Congo last year, U.N. 
peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of widespread sexual 
exploitation. And we all know of the $10 billion Oil-for-Food scandal. 
Both sides agree it is time for reform in the wake of years of 
mismanagement and outright scandal. But I submit humbly that it is time 
for U.N. reform with teeth, and that is precisely what the Hyde U.N. 
Reform Act provides. It focuses on budgets, streamlining, 
prioritization of programs, oversight, accountability, peacekeeping, 
and human rights. But the Hyde bill also uses the leverage of 
withholding up to 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues if certifications 
are not made in key areas.
  Under the Hyde bill, the U.N. must achieve 32 of 39 reforms, 14 of 
which are mandatory, or face the potential loss of 50 percent of U.S. 
assessed dues. Let us be clear. This is the point of contention, Mr. 
Speaker, that is, who controls the power of the purse. I submit at the 
beginning of this debate that the power of the purse is the power of 
the American people. It is not for the State Department or even the 
Secretary of State to say when and how the resources of the American 
people will be spent. That is the function of the Congress of the 
United States even where the United Nations is concerned. It is time to 
save the U.N. from its own scandals and mismanagement. It is time for 
U.N. reform with teeth.
  Let us begin the debate. Then let us pass the Henry J. Hyde U.N. 
Reform Act.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H4614]]

  Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars in coverups, fraud investigations, 
abuses of power, calls for resignation, shredded documents. I am not 
talking about the Nixon or the Clinton administrations, though both 
contained plenty of the above. I am talking about the U.N., that most 
sacred cow of international organizations. It has been the subject of 
many scandals. Billions of dollars intended to help the Iraqi people 
were stolen from the Oil-for-Food program.

                              {time}  1715

  It appears that that happened because of conflicts of interest at the 
highest levels of the U.N. Countries like Syria, Sudan, Libya, North 
Korea, China and Cuba have had seats or still have seats on the Human 
Rights Commission, the U.N.'s body for addressing human rights issues. 
Those nations are all members of the U.N., and we should not kick them 
out, but they should not be setting policy on human rights. Members of 
this Commission can veto certain resolutions that come before the U.N.
  Sudan, from its seats on the Commission, has vetoed efforts to 
condemn the genocide it is committing in Darfur. U.N. peacekeepers were 
recently found to be raping the children, the very people they were 
ordered to protect, in the Congo. We could go on and on.
  The U.N. plays a vital role in mediating disputes, in caring for the 
poor, and facilitating dialogue. But the system seems to breed abuse 
and fraud and wasteful spending because of the U.N.'s huge bureaucracy. 
It is accountable to no one. Much of what happens happens behind closed 
doors.
  Changes need to be made. They need to be made in the structure of the 
U.N. They need to be substantial, not cosmetic changes. The mess needs 
to be cleaned up.
  I urge support for the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform plan, which will 
make changes of substance.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul), also a member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule 
and this important piece of legislation. And I want to thank the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership on this 
important issue, and it is an honor to serve with him on the Committee 
on International Relations.
  World leaders gathered in 1945 to implement a vision that began with 
President Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, was conceived by 
President Franklin Roosevelt and brought into existence by Harry 
Truman, now known as the United Nations. What the United Nations has 
become today would surely break the hearts of these great men.
  More than just a group of countries working towards peace, the United 
Nations represents the idea that each human being deserved a better 
existence. What happens at the United Nations today does not represent 
these ideals. And until the United Nations becomes the body envisioned 
by these giants of the past, until it becomes a place where the good of 
mankind is truly advanced, and not a place where the agendas of tyrants 
and dictators are protected, we should not continue to pay 25 percent 
of the United Nations budget.
  There are those who believe that we should simply leave the U.N. and 
start over, and there are moments when I wonder if really there is no 
other option. There may be a day when this becomes inevitable, but now 
is not the time to cut and run. Now is the time to hold the United 
Nations accountable. It is important for the United States to remain 
engaged and a player on the world's stage to enact these important 
reforms.
  This legislation has offered 39 important reforms with the teeth of 
tied to funding, which will return honor and integrity to what was once 
a distinguished body.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 
2005. It is tough but necessary medicine designed to finally at long 
last reform the United Nations so that they can realize the noble dream 
of its founders.
  Today the United Nations is rife with scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, 
and missed opportunity. Clearly there are bright and committed people 
at the U.N., and I applaud them. But others with less laudable motives 
often hijack the U.N. mission, its programs, and undermine the vital 
missions of the United Nations.
  Those of us who believe the U.N. can and must do better refuse to 
accept the status quo. Business as usual just does not cut it. The 
Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 injects real and measurable 
accountability into the United Nations, and that is exceedingly 
important in a myriad of areas including the area of peacekeeping 
operations and in human rights.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his 
great leadership on this and on so many human rights issues around the 
world. This is important legislation. I hope the body will support it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join in whole-hearted endorsement in echoing 
of all of the words of praise that have been directed toward the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. I 
have known the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to not only be 
gentlemanly and eloquent, but fair-minded and bipartisan in a 
substantial number of efforts, and I, like all of our colleagues here, 
deeply appreciate the work that he has done on behalf of this Nation 
and indeed this world throughout the course of his career, and I 
compliment him in that regard.
  I also accept the chastisement of the distinguished Chair with 
reference to rhetoric, but I would urge that some of the rhetoric that 
I may have used is rhetoric that I learned here in the House of 
Representatives that has been used on both sides of the aisle much too 
often, in my judgment.
  That said, I would like not to be an apologist for the United 
Nations. The United Nations needs to be reformed, and I think that it 
could be put better by the words of Under Secretary of State Nicholas 
Burns, whom I quoted when I began. I further quote him in saying that 
it is more important to press for structural reforms. I think 
Ambassador Burns is absolutely mindful of what all of us are. The 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member; the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), his colleague in filing this 
measure; all of the members of the Committee on International 
Relations, indeed all the Members of this body recognize that the 
United Nations has problems. But if we are in the business of using 
this as precedent, then we would not want to establish a precedent 
where using the hammer, as the gentleman from Indiana referred to the 
monetary withholding as being the hammer, to cause people to undertake 
to do what we say. Then we establish that as a precedent, and we look 
up next month, 2 months from now, another country comes forward. We are 
not the only dues payor, we are the largest dues payor to the United 
Nations. So someone else that decides that it should reform in a way 
more likely to comport with their government's understandings could use 
this as a precedent. I do not think that that is a good thing. I do not 
think that is good policymaking, and I have tried to make that clear.
  Let me give the Members the analogy by way of an exact example. I 
happen to be the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is the first 
time that an American has been the president, and we are holding the 
Assembly's conference here in Washington, D.C., and I thank the Speaker 
of the House and the majority leader of the Senate for the 
extraordinary effort that they have put in allowing that this Assembly 
be undertaken in appropriate fashion in a bipartisan way. Secretary 
Rice is one of the featured speakers at that Assembly.
  I raise it only for this reason, and I see the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend, who is the Chair of the Helsinki 
House side of the same Assembly that I am talking

[[Page H4615]]

about. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) can relate to what I 
am about to say, and I ask the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) 
to do so as well.
  More than a year ago, the governing side of the OSCE was met with 
threats from the country Russia. And we agree even today that 
transparency and accountability in that organization is critical. They 
hold most of their undertakings behind closed doors. They operate on 
the consensus rule, and it primarily stagnates the mission of the OSCE. 
But Russia said that unless the United States paid more dues, 
interestingly enough in this particular instance, and that they paid 
less dues, and that reform measures that they were seeking were 
implemented, that they would withhold their dues from the OSCE. It did 
not stop the organization from running. It is not going to stop the 
Assembly from taking place here in Washington, D.C., July 1 through 
July 5. But what it did was that threat caused turmoil inside the 
organization that is in need of reform, and I think we run into the 
same kind of measure here in this particular proposal.
  Listen, Madeleine Albright and John Danforth, Richard Holbrooke and 
Jeane Kirkpatrick are nobody's rookies, and they are not naive when it 
comes to what is needed. Thomas Pickering and Bill Richardson and 
Donald McHenry and Andrew Young, all eight of these individuals were 
people that served as our Ambassadors under Republican and Democratic 
administrations to the United Nations, and during that entire period of 
time, each of them in their own way contributed to meaningful reform. 
All of them have said, The need for United Nations reform is clear, but 
we urge that you carefully consider this legislation because it will 
not, it will not, do the necessary reforms at the U.N.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kindness and 
flexibility of my good friend from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the rule 
and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act, and just as proud to rise in 
tribute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  When the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) feels something needs 
fixing, we had better take notice and know it needs fixing.
  We need an organization of nations that cares about human rights, but 
we need a united group of nations that believes more in the rights of 
individuals than it believes that the right of individuals is to 
plunder others.
  It should be noticed that at a time when the United Nations' 
reputation for truth, justice, and following its own rules is at an 
all-time low, it should be doing everything it can to bring information 
to light, whether it is good or bad. If the U.N. leadership, however, 
spent half the time lining the fabric of freedom than it has been 
lining the pockets of friends and family, then this would be 
approaching utopia. That is not the case.
  Last month there was an investigator who had something called a 
conscience. He wanted to come forward with information. What did the 
U.N. do? They hired attorneys to have an injunction to keep us from 
knowing the truth.
  It is time to be united and holding the United Nations accountable. 
Support the rule on the Henry H. Hyde bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules for yielding me this 1 minute.
  I grew up in the Deep South in the late 1950s. Every other billboard 
in the South, in my part of Georgia, said, ``Get out of the United 
Nations.'' I did not think that was correct then, and I do not feel 
that way now. In fact, maybe we should have joined the League of 
Nations and we would never have had World War II. But if there is ever 
a time to reform an organization, it is absolutely now.
  I am proud to support the rule and the bill, H.R. 2745, the Henry J. 
Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005.
  The gentleman from California earlier talked about the Ten 
Commandments and the fact that we are burdening the U.N. with these 39 
commandments. But really what he is suggesting is that they are not 
commandments at all. They become suggestions. It does not really 
matter, the number.

                              {time}  1730

  I think we need some teeth in this reform, and that is what the Henry 
J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act does. I am fully supportive. I ask my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this, and let us 
straighten out that organization.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for having had a very 
quality debate here today. It is interesting to note once again that 
the ranking member and the chairman have said the need for reform is 
obvious. There is no disagreement on that point. It is seemingly the 
mechanism of doing that.
  Once again I point out that in 1985, 1994 and 1999, this House set 
precedent by doing the exact same concept that is there. And it is true 
that maybe I have heard a new concept here that I do not need to make 
all Ten Commandments to get to heaven, but I also know that when I was 
in my classroom and I put high standards and high expectations, my kids 
met those standards; and if I wavered, then they wavered at the same 
time.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It is an excellent rule, and I 
urge its adoption and passage of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________