[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.
____________________