[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4615-H4643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HENRY J. HYDE UNITED NATIONS REFORM ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 319 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2745.
The Chair designates the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1733
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2745) to reform the United Nations, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Terry (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as
having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce that I am terribly flattered
by the extravagant things that have been said, but I must confess I did
not name this bill after myself. While I deeply appreciate the honor, I
am a trifle embarrassed, not thoroughly embarrassed, but a trifle.
Mr. Chairman, most informed people agree that the U.N. is in
desperate need of reform. Corruption is rampant, as evidenced by the
ever-expanding Oil-for-Food scandal. U.N. peacekeepers have sexually
abused children in Bosnia, the Congo, Sierra Leone and other
[[Page H4616]]
places; and the culture of concealment makes rudimentary oversight
virtually impossible. A casual attitude towards conflict-of-interest
rules undermines trust in the U.N.'s basic governance.
I could spend many hours reciting a litany of waste, fraud, and abuse
that has become intolerable. So what do we do about it? What leverage
do we have to bring about change in how this institution operates?
First of all, we pay 22 percent of the budget. That is $440 million.
We pay 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Do not ask me what that
is. You cannot find out. That is a secret. China pays 2.1 percent, or
$36.5 million. Russia pays 1.1 percent, or $19 million.
Over the years, as we listened to the counsels for patience, the
U.N.'s failings have grown worse, not lessened. Our many warnings,
plans and urgings have largely come and gone, with few lasting
accomplishments to mark their presence. Trust in gradual change has
been interpreted as indifference, a very expensive indifference.
So the time has finally come when we must in good conscience say
``enough.'' ``Enough'' to allowing odious regimes such as Cuba, Sudan
and Zimbabwe to masquerade as arbiters of human rights. ``Enough'' to
peacekeepers exploiting and abusing the people they were sent to
protect. ``Enough'' to unkept promises and squandering the dreams of
generations.
Very few are opposed to the U.N.'s role in facilitating diplomacy,
mediating disputes, monitoring the peace, and feeding the hungry. But
we are opposed to the legendary bureaucratization, to political
grandstanding, to billions of dollars spent on multitudes of programs
with meager results, to the outright misappropriation of funds
represented by the Oil-for-Food program. And we rightly bristle at the
gratuitous anti-Americanism that has become ingrained over decades,
even as our checks continue to be regularly cashed.
No observer, be he a passionate supporter of this legislation or
dismissive critic, can pretend that the current structure and
operations of the U.N. represent an acceptable standard. Even the U.N.
itself has acknowledged the need for extensive measures and, to its
credit, has put forward a number of useful proposals for consideration.
In the United States, the recognition of need for change is widely
shared and bipartisan. Republican and Democratic administrations alike
have long called for a more focused and accountable budget, one that
reflects what should be the true priorities of the organization, shorn
of duplicative, ineffective, and outdated programs. Members on both
sides of the aisle in Congress agree that the time has come for far-
reaching reform.
I have heard no arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo.
Even the opponents of this legislation concede the need for deep
change. The key difference, the all-important difference, between their
proposals and the one we have put forward lies in the methods to be
used to accomplish that universally desired goal.
We are already experiencing strenuous resistance to change from many
sources, both within the U.N. and without. But admonishment will not
transform sinners into saints; resolutions of disapproval will not be
read; flexible deadlines and gentle proddings will be ignored.
Instead, more persuasive measures are called for. This legislation
brings to bear instruments of leverage sufficient to the task, the most
important being tying the U.S. financial contribution to a series of
readily understandable benchmarks.
In an effort to derail this legislation, it has been proposed that we
hand to the Secretary of State the power to selectively withhold funds
from the U.N. as a means of inspiring a cooperative attitude in the
organization. I certainly mean no disrespect for the current Secretary,
whom I hold in the highest esteem, but the power of the purse belongs
to Congress and is not delegable, no matter who holds that high office.
We cannot escape this burden. The task we face is an extensive one,
and I have no illusions regarding the difficulties and the challenges
we face. But the choice is simple: we can either seek to accomplish
concrete improvements, which will require an enforcement mechanism more
credible and more decisive than mere wishes, or we can pretend to do
so. For there can be no doubt that any proposal resting upon
discretionary decisions concedes in advance that any reform will be
fragmentary at best, if there is any at all.
We are in a peculiar situation. Opponents of change cloak themselves
in the robes of defenders of the U.N., when it is in fact they who
would condemn it to irrelevance. Those of us who believe the U.N. can
yet reclaim its mission and assume the role foreseen by the vision of
its founders have no choice but to take up this task of U.N. reform.
Yes, this is radical surgery. Sometimes it is the only way to save
the patient.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I urge
all of my colleagues across the aisle to do so. Let me state at the
outset that I fully share the passionate commitment of the gentleman
from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to meaningful and thorough reforms at the
United Nations. This global institution must become more transparent
and open, its employees must be held to the highest ethical and moral
standards, and the abuses of the Oil-for-Food program must never be
repeated.
Mr. Chairman, the United Nations must put an end to its persistent
and pathological persecution of the democratic nation of Israel, which
has become the whipping boy for totalitarian regimes around the globe.
Serial human rights abusers, Mr. Chairman, must also be kept off U.N.
institutions explicitly designed to fight for the cause of human rights
and democracy.
Mr. Chairman, the crushing flow of stories of scandal at the United
Nations has forced a long-overdue recognition of an essential fact
about the place: it is not a real country, like Japan or Norway. It is
a derivative reality reflecting its less-than-perfect member states in
a deeply flawed world.
I would like to remind my colleagues that there will be no quick fix
for an organization composed of 191 member states which, in varying
degrees, have their own shortcomings, their own injustices, their own
flaws, their own hypocrisies of all types. Because a quick fix is not
to be expected, and rigid, punitive measures will not bring about a
long-term fix, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the legislation before the
House today and indicate my intention to offer a substitute amendment.
Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, our Republican administration informed
Congress that it strongly opposes the automatic withholding provisions
of the Hyde bill as well as its infringements upon the President's
constitutional powers.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman, and I want my Republican friends to
listen. The Republican administration strongly opposes the Hyde bill.
{time} 1745
This does not come as a surprise to us, Mr. Chairman. Just a few
weeks ago, high-ranking officials at the Department of State told
Congress that the legislation would undoubtedly create new arrears at
the United Nations because not all of the U.N. reform benchmarks
contained in the bill are achievable. While many of the reforms being
sought in the Hyde bill are worthy goals, many require unanimous
agreement by all 191 U.N. member states, including the likes of Iran,
Syria, and Sudan.
Mr. Chairman, the Lord gave us Ten Commandments, but the bill before
the House today gives us 39. What is worse, Mr. Chairman, is that if
the United Nations achieves 38 of these benchmarks and only
accomplishes half of the thirty-ninth, the Hyde bill automatically,
automatically, cuts off 50 percent of the U.S. contribution to the
United Nations. With this rigid and inflexible mechanism, the
legislation before us will undercut, not strengthen, our ability to
press for the very reforms we all seek.
Senior State Department officials argue that the bill, if enacted,
would severely undermine America's national security interests by
killing desperately needed U.N. peacekeeping operations, including a
possible mission to deal with genocide.
The State Department is not alone in opposing the Hyde bill. Eight
former
[[Page H4617]]
United States Ambassadors to the United Nations have expressed their
strongest opposition to the bill. These Ambassadors include
distinguished Republicans like Jeane Kirkpatrick, John Danforth, a
former distinguished Republican Senator; and Ambassadors Richard
Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, Donald McHenry, Thomas Pickering, Bill
Richardson, and Andrew Young. They argue that the bill ``threatens to
undermine our leadership and effectiveness at the U.N. and the reform
effort itself.''
In short, Mr. Chairman, while the Hyde bill has the best of
intentions, it will cause our Nation to go back into an arrears at the
United Nations without achieving the desired outcomes. Given the
important role the United Nations is currently playing in Afghanistan,
in Iraq, in Darfur, and scores of other places, I fail to see how going
into debt at the United Nations will promote our national security
interests. It will only force the United States to take on greater
global responsibilities at the very moment when our troops and our
diplomats are already spread thin.
I also fail to see, Mr. Chairman, how tying the hands of our
distinguished Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, as she pursues
reform at the United Nations would serve our national interest. The
legislation before the Congress micromanages every possible reform at
the United Nations. It creates mechanical, arbitrary, and automatic
withholdings, and it gives Secretary of State Rice zero flexibility to
get the job done.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I will offer a substitute amendment
to achieve U.N. reform which will give Secretary Rice the flexibility
she asks for, she needs, and she fully deserves from the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to side with our Nation's
bipartisan foreign policy leaders in opposing this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to respond to my dear friend, and he is my dear friend.
If I ever become President of the United States, I would nominate the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as my Secretary of State and be
guided by his advice.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I deeply
appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, that is what I think of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that substantial compliance is
accorded to the Secretary of State, so if 38 of the 39 are complied
with, the 39th could have been substantially complied with and suffice.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support and
appreciation really of both of our leaders on this bill, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), and I am particularly pleased to see this
bill named in appreciation and recognition of the great leadership of
our Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
I think we all know on both sides of the aisle that the United
Nations has not lived up to its expectations. It unfortunately has come
way too close to mirroring the ineffective activities of the
organization it replaced, the League of Nations.
This year, the U.N.'s budget increased to $1.8 billion. Of that $1.8
billion, we pay a substantial part of the cost of the U.N. These
reforms are necessary. Moving the programs that this bill suggests be
moved to voluntary programs only increases the willingness of people to
support those programs, the transparency of those programs.
I strongly urge support for this bill. I strongly urge support for
the penalties that it contains. I appreciate my friend, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and also our great Ranking Member of this
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, although I believe in the values and
principles expressed in the United Nations Charter, the organization
has been hijacked by some member states who have betrayed those values.
The use of blood libels by representatives of member states in official
U.N. reports and by NGOs is unacceptable.
It is time to do more to press the U.N. to reform. It is not enough
to criticize the U.N. and to denounce its institutional anti-Semitism.
Slandering the Jewish people, their aspirations for self-determination,
and their homeland is unacceptable. Excluding Israel, a member state,
from the community of nations because of ancient hatreds and slanders
is unworthy of an organization founded to promote world peace and end
human suffering.
No other nation would be denounced for taking steps to protect its
citizens from acts of terror aimed intentionally at civilians. No
nation has exercised as much restraint as Israel, yet no nation has
been subjected to so much condemnation, indeed vilification and
demonization, including those countries that practice slavery, torture,
and genocide, some of whom have been privileged to sit on the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights, a right denied to Israel in the
more than half a century it has been a member.
The U.N. is capable of good and important work in the eradication of
disease, in alleviating poverty, in averting genocide, in peacekeeping.
It can and should do more, but it can never live up to its potential
and its mission unless it sheds the stain of anti-Semitism.
For these reasons, the United Nations critically needs to be
reformed. Yet, some commands for change, including several provisions
in the Hyde bill, are counterproductive and unwise.
Specifically I cannot support the Hyde bill provision that mandates
cutting in half U.S. payments to the U.N. unless the U.N. adopts 39
specific reforms, many of which cannot conceivably be adopted because
they require unanimous consent from all 191 member states, including
Syria, Iran, and North Korea.
The Hyde bill would halt funding for peacekeeping missions,
endangering vital new or expanded U.N. operations in Darfur and Haiti,
and ignoring the possibility of future crises that may demand
international intervention is such places as Iran or Syria.
The Lantos substitute recommends reforms that will make the U.N. more
fair and effective, but it avoids the rigid and draconian approach that
makes the Hyde bill both unreasonable and potentially dangerous, so I
urge adoption of the Lantos substitute.
Mr. Chairman, although I believe in the values and principles
expressed in the United Nations Charter, the organization has been
hijacked by some member states who have betrayed these values. The use
of blood libels by representatives of member states, in official U.N.
reports, and by NGOs, is unacceptable and clearly evidence that the
United Nations needs to be reformed.
I believe it is time for the United States to do more to press the
U.N. to reform. It is not enough to criticize the U.N. It is not enough
to denounce the U.N.'s institutional anti-Semitism.
Slandering the Jewish people, their aspirations for self-
determination, and their homeland, is unacceptable. Excluding Israel, a
member state, from the community of nations because of ancient hatreds
and slanders is unworthy of an organization founded to promote world
peace and end human suffering.
No other nation would be denounced for taking steps to protect its
citizens from acts of terror aimed intentionally at civilians. No
nation has exercised as much restraint as Israel, yet no nation has
been subjected to so much condemnation, indeed vilification and
demonization, including those countries that practice slavery, torture,
and genocide, some of whom have been privileged to sit on the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights--a right denied to Israel in the
more than half-century it has been a member.
The U.N. is capable of good and important work, in the eradication of
disease, in alleviating poverty, in averting genocide, in peacekeeping.
It can and should do more, but it can never live up to its potential
and its mission unless it sheds the stain of anti-Semitism.
For these reasons, the United Nations critically needs to be
reformed. Yet, some demands for change--including several provisions in
the Hyde bill--are counterproductive and unwise.
Specifically, I cannot support the Hyde bill provision that mandates
cutting in half United States payments to the U.N. unless the U.N.
[[Page H4618]]
adopts 38 specific reforms--many of which cannot conceivably be adopted
because they require unanimous consent from all 191 memberstates,
including Syria, Iran, and North Korea.
The Hyde bill would also halt funding for peacekeeping missions,
endangering vital new or expanded U.N. operations in Darfur and Haiti,
and ignoring the possibility of future crises that may demand
international intervention in such places as Iran or Syria.
The Democratic substitute, offered by my colleague and good friend
from California Mr. Lantos, which authorizes the Secretary of State to
use her discretion in withholding funds to promote adoption of the
reforms we seek, is far preferable. The Lantos substitute recommend
reforms that will make the U.N. more fair and effective, but it avoids
the rigid, draconian, automatic approach that makes the Hyde bill both
unreasonable and dangerous.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
support for H.R. 2745, the United Nations (U.N.) Reform Act. I would
like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Chairman of the International Relations Committee,
for his leadership on this critically important issue.
For years, Americans have watched with disbelief as the United
Nations has put brutal dictatorships like Syria and Sudan on its Human
Rights Commission, while at the same time it lectures free democracies
on what it means to respect human rights. Now, we are seeing not only
misplaced condescension, but also widespread corruption.
The U.N. was established in order to promote international
cooperation and peace between nations. However, the good intentions
that led to the U.N.'s founding have been followed by a long list of
mismanagement, scandal and corruption. Clearly, the U.N. is in
desperate need of reform. Most recently, for example, there were
problems of kickbacks, bribes and nepotism within the Oil for Food
program. There are also serious concerns with the behavior of the U.N.
peacekeepers in Africa, including accusations of sexual abuse of the
very people they are there to protect. These are just two areas of
concern; there are countless other examples.
This important legislation requires the U.N. to make 39 critical
reforms to decrease bureaucracy, increase oversight and most
significantly provide accountability. In order to ensure that the U.N.
takes action, the bill requires the U.S. to withhold 50 percent of our
contribution if the U.N. does not enact these much-needed reforms.
The United States is by far the largest contributor to the U.N. This
year, the U.S. is expected to provide 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget,
an estimated $362 million. It is a travesty that our tax dollars are
being misused by the U.N. with no accountability. This is why we need
this legislation.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). All time for initial general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2745
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Henry J.
Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Statement of Congress.
TITLE I--MISSION AND BUDGET OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Sec. 101. United States financial contributions to the United Nations.
Sec. 102. Weighted voting.
Sec. 103. Budget certification requirements.
Sec. 104. Accountability.
Sec. 105. Terrorism and the United Nations.
Sec. 106. United Nations treaty bodies.
Sec. 107. Equality at the United Nations.
Sec. 108. Report on United Nations reform.
Sec. 109. Report on United Nations personnel.
TITLE II--HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL (ECOSOC)
Sec. 201. Human rights.
Sec. 202. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Sec. 301. International Atomic Energy Agency.
Sec. 302. Sense of Congress regarding the Nuclear Security Action Plan
of the IAEA.
TITLE IV--PEACEKEEPING
Sec. 401. Sense of Congress regarding reform of United Nations
peacekeeping operations.
Sec. 402. Statement of policy relating to reform of United Nations
peacekeeping operations.
Sec. 403. Certification.
TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Sec. 501. Positions for United States citizens at international
organizations.
Sec. 502. Budget justification for regular assessed budget of the
United Nations.
Sec. 503. Review and report.
Sec. 504. Government Accountability Office.
TITLE VI--CERTIFICATIONS AND WITHHOLDING OF CONTRIBUTIONS
Sec. 601. Certifications and withholding of contributions.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means an individual
who is employed in the general services, professional staff,
or senior management of the United Nations, including
contractors and consultants.
(3) General assembly.--The term ``General Assembly'' means
the General Assembly of the United Nations.
(4) Member state.--The term ``Member State'' means a Member
State of the United Nations. Such term is synonymous with the
term ``country''.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of State.
(6) Secretary general.--The term ``Secretary General''
means the Secretary General of the United Nations.
(7) Security council.--The term ``Security Council'' means
the Security Council of the United Nations.
(8) Specialized agencies and specialized agencies of the
united nations.--The terms ``specialized agencies'' and
``specialized agencies of the United Nations'' mean--
(A) the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);
(B) the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
(C) the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO);
(D) the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD);
(E) the International Labor Organization (ILO);
(F) the International Maritime Organization (IMO);
(G) the International Telecommunication Union (ITU);
(H) the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO);
(I) the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO);
(J) the Universal Postal Union (UPU);
(K) the World Health Organization (WHO) and its regional
agencies;
(L) the World Meteorological Organization (WMO); and
(M) the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF CONGRESS.
Congress declares that, in light of recent history, it is
incumbent upon the United Nations to enact significant reform
measures if it is to restore the public trust and confidence
necessary for it to achieve the laudable goals set forth in
its Charter. To this end, the following Act seeks to reform
the United Nations.
TITLE I--MISSION AND BUDGET OF THE UNITED NATIONS
SEC. 101. UNITED STATES FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED
NATIONS.
(a) Statements of Policy.--
(1) In general.--It shall be the policy of the United
States to use its voice, vote, and influence at the United
Nations to--
(A) pursue a streamlined, efficient, and accountable
regular assessed budget of the United Nations; and
(B) shift funding mechanisms of certain organizational
programs of the United Nations specified under paragraph (4)
from the regular assessed budget to voluntarily funded
programs.
(2) United states contributions.--It shall be the policy of
the United States to--
(A) redirect United States contributions to the United
Nations to achieve the policy objectives described in
paragraph (1)(B); and
(B) redirect a portion of funds from the following
organizational programs to pursue the policy objectives
described in paragraph (1)(A):
(i) Public Information.
(ii) General Assembly affairs and conference services.
(3) Future biennium budgets.--It shall be the policy of the
United States to use its voice, vote, and influence at the
United Nations to ensure that future biennial budgets of the
United Nations, as agreed to by the General Assembly, reflect
the shift in funding mechanisms described in paragraph (1)(B)
and the redirection of funds described in paragraph (2).
(4) Certain organizational programs.--The organizational
programs referred to in paragraph (1)(B) are the following:
(A) Economic and social affairs.
(B) Least-developed countries, landlocked developing
countries and small island developing States.
(C) United Nations support for the New Partnership for
Africa's Development.
(D) Trade and development.
(E) International Trade Center UNCTAD/WTO.
(F) Environment.
(G) Human settlements.
(H) Crime prevention and criminal justice.
(I) International drug control.
[[Page H4619]]
(J) Economic and social development in Africa.
(K) Economic and social development in Asia and the
Pacific.
(L) Economic development in Europe.
(M) Economic and social development in in Latin America and
the Caribbean.
(N) Economic and social development in Western Asia.
(O) Regular program of technical cooperation.
(P) Development account.
(Q) Protection of and assistance to refugees.
(R) Palestine refugees.
(b) Authorization With Respect to the Regular Assessed
Budget of the United Nations.--Subject to the amendment made
by subsection (c), the Secretary of State is authorized to
make contributions toward the amount assessed to the United
States by the United Nations for the purpose of funding the
regular assessed budget of the United Nations.
(c) United States Financial Contributions to the United
Nations.--Section 11 of the United Nations Participation Act
of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287e-3) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 11. UNITED STATES FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
UNITED NATIONS.
``(a) Policy of the United States Relating to the Regular
Assessed Budget of the United Nations.--
``(1) In general.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use
the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the
United Nations to--
``(A) pursue a streamlined, efficient, and accountable
regular assessed budget of the United Nations; and
``(B) shift funding mechanisms of certain organizational
programs of the United Nations specified under paragraph (2)
of subsection (c) from the regular assessed budget to
voluntarily funded programs.
``(2) United states contributions.--It shall be the policy
of the United States to--
``(A) redirect United States contributions to the United
Nations to achieve the policy objectives described in
paragraph (1)(B); and
``(B) redirect a portion of funds from the following
organizational programs to pursue the policy objectives
described in paragraph (1)(A):
``(i) Public Information.
``(ii) General Assembly affairs and conferences services.
``(3) Future biennium budgets.-- The President shall direct
the United States Permanent Representative to the United
Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United
States at the United Nations to ensure that the shifting of
funding mechanisms under paragraph (1)(B) and redirecting of
contributions under paragraph (2) be reflected in future
resolutions agreed to by the General Assembly for the regular
assessed budget of the United Nations for the period of a
current biennium. To achieve the policies described in
paragraphs (1) and (2), the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations shall withhold the
support of the United States for a consensus for such budget
until such time as such budget is reflective of such
policies.
``(b) 22 Percent Limitation.--In accordance with section
601 of the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005,
the Secretary may not make a contribution to a regularly
assessed biennial budget of the United Nations in an amount
greater than 22 percent of the amount calculable under
subsection (c).
``(c) Annual Dues.--
``(1) In general.--For annual dues paid by the United
States to the United Nations each fiscal year, the percentage
specified in subsection (b) shall be multiplied by one-half
of the amount of the regularly assessed budget of the United
Nations for a current biennial period, as agreed to by
resolution of the General Assembly.
``(2) Calculation with respect to certain organizational
programs for redirection.--The percentage specified in
subsection (b) shall be multiplied by one-half of the sum of
amounts budgeted by resolution of the General Assembly for a
current biennial period for the following certain
organizational programs:
``(A) Economic and social affairs.
``(B) Least-developed countries, landlocked developing
countries and small island developing States.
``(C) United Nations support for the New Partnership for
Africa's Development.
``(D) Trade and development.
``(E) International Trade Center UNCTAD/WTO.
``(F) Environment.
``(G) Human settlements.
``(H) Crime prevention and criminal justice.
``(I) International drug control.
``(J) Economic and social development in Africa.
``(K) Economic and social development in Asia and the
Pacific.
``(L) Economic development in Europe.
``(M) Economic and social development in in Latin America
and the Caribbean.
``(N) Economic and social development in Western Asia.
``(O) Regular program of technical cooperation.
``(P) Development account.
``(Q) Protection of and assistance to refugees.
``(R) Palestine refugees.
``(3) Redirection of funds.--Of amounts appropriated for
contributions towards payment of regular assessed dues to the
United Nations for 2008 and each subsequent year, if the
funding mechanisms of one or more of the organizational
programs of the United Nations specified in paragraph (2)
have not been shifted from the regular assessed budget to
voluntarily funded programs in accordance with subsection
(a)(1), the Secretary shall ensure that such amounts in each
such fiscal year that are specified for each such
organizational program pursuant to the resolution agreed to
by the General Assembly for the regular assessed budget of
the United Nations for the period of a current biennium are
redirected from payment of the assessed amount for the
regular assessed budget as follows:
``(A) Subject to not less than 30 days prior notification
to Congress, the Secretary shall expend an amount, not to
exceed 40 percent of the amount specified for each such
organizational program pursuant to the resolution agreed to
by the General Assembly for the regular assessed budget of
the United Nations for the period of a current biennium, as a
contribution to an eligible organizational program specified
in paragraph (4).
``(B) Subject to not less than 30 days prior notification
to Congress, the Secretary shall expend the remaining amounts
under this paragraph to voluntarily funded United Nations
specialized agencies, funds, or programs.
``(4) Eligible organizational programs.--The eligible
organizational programs referred to in paragraph (3)(A) for
redirection of funds under such paragraph are the following:
``(A) Internal oversight.
``(B) Human rights.
``(C) Humanitarian assistance.
``(D) An organizational program specified in subparagraphs
(A) through (P) of paragraph (2), subject to paragraph (5).
``(5) Expenditure of remaining amounts to certain
organization programs.--
``(A) Voluntary contribution.--Subject to not less than 30
days prior notification to Congress and the limitation
specified under subparagraph (B), the Secretary is authorized
to make a voluntary contribution to an organizational program
of the United Nations specified in subparagraphs (A) through
(P) of paragraph (2) of any amounts not contributed in a
fiscal year to an eligible organizational program specified
in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (4).
``(B) 10 percent limitation.--A voluntary contribution
under subparagraph (A) to an organizational program of the
United Nations specified in subparagraphs (A) through (P) of
paragraph (2) may not exceed 10 percent of the total
contribution made under paragraph (3)(A).
``(d) Further Calculation With Respect to Budgets for
Public Information and General Assembly Affairs and
Conference Services.--
``(1) 22 percent limitation.--The Secretary may not make a
contribution to a regularly assessed biennial budget of the
United Nations in an amount greater than 22 percent of the
amount calculable under paragraph (2).
``(2) Annual dues each fiscal year.--
``(A) In general.--For annual dues paid by the United
States to the United Nations each fiscal year, the percentage
specified in paragraph (1) shall be multiplied by one-half of
the amount of the regularly assessed budget of the United
Nations for a current biennial period, as agreed to by
resolution of the General Assembly.
``(B) Calculation with respect to public information and
general assembly affairs and conference services.--With
respect to such United States annual dues, the percentage
specified in paragraph (1) shall be multiplied by one-half of
the sum of amounts budgeted by resolution of the General
Assembly for the 2004-2005 biennial period for the following
organizational programs:
``(i) Public Information.
``(ii) General Assembly affairs and conferences services.
``(C) Redirection of funds.--
``(i) In general.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to make
every effort, including the withholding of United States
support for a consensus budget of the United Nations, to
reduce the budgets of the organizational programs specified
in subparagraph (B) for 2007 by ten percent against the
budgets of such organizational programs for the 2004-2005
biennial period. If the budgets of such organizational
programs are not so reduced, 20 percent the amount determined
under subparagraph (B) for contributions towards payment of
regular assessed dues for 2007 shall be redirected from
payment for the amount assessed for United States annual
contributions to the regular assessed budget of the United
Nations.
``(ii) Specific amounts.--The Secretary shall make the
amount determined under clause (i) available as a
contribution to an eligible organizational program specified
in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (4) of
subsection (c).
``(3) Policy with respect to 2008-2009 biennial period and
subsequent biennial periods.--
``(A) In general.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to make
every effort, including the withholding of United States
support for a consensus budget of the United Nations, to
reduce the budgets of the organizational programs specified
in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) for the 2008-2009
biennial period and each subsequent biennial period by 20
percent against the budgets of such organizational programs
for the 2004-2005 biennial period.
``(B) Certification.--In accordance with section 601, a
certification shall be required that certifies that the
reduction in budgets described in subparagraph (A) has been
implemented.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (c)
shall take effect and apply beginning on October 1, 2006.
SEC. 102. WEIGHTED VOTING.
It shall be the policy of the United States to actively
pursue weighted voting with respect to all budgetary and
financial matters in the Administrative and Budgetary
Committee and in the General Assembly in accordance with the
level of the financial contribution of a Member State to the
regular assessed budget of the United Nations.
[[Page H4620]]
SEC. 103. BUDGET CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Certification.--In accordance with section 601, a
certification shall be required that certifies that the
conditions described in subsection (b) have been satisfied.
(b) Conditions.--The conditions under this subsection are
the following:
(1) New budget practices for the united nations.--The
United Nations is implementing budget practices that--
(A) require the maintenance of a budget not in excess of
the level agreed to by the General Assembly at the beginning
of each United Nations budgetary biennium, unless increases
are agreed to by consensus and do not exceed ten percent; and
(B) require the identification of expenditures by the
United Nations by functional categories such as personnel,
travel, and equipment.
(2) Program evaluation.--
(A) Existing authority.--The Secretary General and the
Director General of each specialized agency have used their
existing authorities to require program managers within the
United Nations Secretariat and the Secretariats of the
specialized agencies to conduct evaluations in accordance
with the standardized methodology referred to in subparagraph
(B) of--
(i) United Nations programs approved by the General
Assembly; and
(ii) programs of the specialized agencies.
(B) Development of evaluation criteria.--
(i) United nations.--The Office of Internal Oversight
Services has developed a standardized methodology for the
evaluation of United Nations programs approved by the General
Assembly, including specific criteria for determining the
continuing relevance and effectiveness of the programs.
(ii) Specialized agencies.--Patterned on the work of the
Office of Internal Oversight Services of the United Nations,
each specialized agency has developed a standardized
methodology for the evaluation of the programs of the agency,
including specific criteria for determining the continuing
relevance and effectiveness of the programs.
(C) Report.--The Secretary General is assessing budget
requests and, on the basis of evaluations conducted under
subparagraph (B) for the relevant preceding year, submits to
the General Assembly a report containing the results of such
evaluations, identifying programs that have satisfied the
criteria for continuing relevance and effectiveness, and an
identification of programs that have not satisfied such
criteria and should be terminated.
(D) Sunset of programs.--Consistent with the July 16, 1997,
recommendations of the Secretary General regarding a sunset
policy and results-based budgeting for United Nations
programs, the United Nations and each specialized agency has
established and is implementing procedures to require all new
programs approved by the General Assembly to have a specific
sunset date.
SEC. 104. ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Certification of Creation of Independent Oversight
Board.--In accordance with section 601, a certification shall
be required that certifies that the following reforms related
to the establishment of an Independent Oversight Board (IOB)
have been adopted by the United Nations:
(1) An IOB is established from existing United Nations
budgetary and personnel resources. Except as provided in this
subsection, the IOB shall be an independent entity within the
United Nations and shall not be subject to budget authority
or organizational authority of any entity within the United
Nations.
(2) The head of the IOB shall be a Director, who shall be
nominated by the Secretary General and who shall be subject
to Security Council approval by a majority vote. The IOB
shall also consist of four other board members who shall be
nominated by the Secretary General and subject to Security
Council approval by a majority vote. The IOB shall be
responsible to the Security Council and the Director and
board members shall each serve terms of six years, except
that the terms of the initial board shall be staggered so
that no more than two board members' terms will expire in any
one year. No board member may serve more than two terms. An
IOB board member may be removed for cause by a majority vote
of the Security Council. The Director shall appoint a
professional staff headed by a Chief of Staff and may employ
contract staff as needed.
(3) The IOB shall receive operational and budgetary funding
through appropriations by the General Assembly from existing
levels of United Nations budgetary and personnel resources,
and shall not be dependent upon any other entity, bureau,
division, department, or specialized agency of the United
Nations for such funding.
(4) While the IOB shall have the authority to evaluate all
operations of the United Nations, the primary mission of the
IOB is to oversee the Office of Internal Oversight Services
and the Board of External Auditors. The IOB may direct the
Office of Internal Oversight Services or the Board of
External Auditors to initiate, abandon, or modify the scope
of an investigation. Every three months or more frequently
when appropriate, the IOB shall submit, as appropriate, to
the Secretary General, the Security Council, the General
Assembly, or the Economic and Social Council a report on its
activities, relevant observations, and recommendations
relating to its audit operations, including information
relating to the inventory and status of investigations by the
Office of Internal Oversight Services.
(5) In extraordinary circumstances and with the concurrence
of the Secretary General or the Security Council by majority
vote, the IOB may augment the Office of Internal Oversight
Services with a special investigator and staff consisting of
individuals who are not employees of the United Nations, to
investigate matters involving senior officials of the United
Nations or of its specialized agencies when allegations of
serious misconduct have been made and such a special
investigation is necessary to maintain public confidence in
the integrity of the investigation. A special investigator
and staff shall comply with all United Nations financial
disclosure and conflict of interest rules, including the
filing of an individual Annual Financial Disclosure Form in
accordance with subsection (c).
(6) The IOB shall recommend annual budgets for the Office
of Internal Oversight Services and the Board of External
Auditors.
(b) Certification of United Nations Reforms of the Office
of Internal Oversight Services.--In accordance with section
601, a certification shall be required that certifies that
the following reforms related to the Office of Internal
Oversight Services (OIOS) have been adopted by the United
Nations:
(1) The OIOS is designated as an independent entity within
the United Nations. The OIOS shall not be subject to budget
authority or organizational authority of any entity within
the United Nations except as provided in this section.
(2) The regular assessed budget of the United Nations shall
fully fund the Internal Oversight Budget from existing levels
of United Nations budgetary and personnel resources and shall
not be dependent upon any other entity, bureau, division,
department, or specialized agency of the United Nations for
such funding.
(3) All United Nations officials, including officials from
any entity, bureau, division, department, or specialized
agency of the United Nations, may--
(A) make a recommendation to the OIOS to initiate an
investigation of any aspect of the United Nations; or
(B) report to the OIOS information or allegations of
misconduct or inefficiencies within the United Nations.
(4) The OIOS may, sua sponte, initiate and conduct an
investigation or audit of any entity, bureau, division,
department, specialized agency, employee (including the
Secretary General) of the United Nations, including any
employee of the specialized agencies of the United Nations,
or contractor or consultant for the United Nations or its
specialized agencies.
(5) At least every three months and more frequently when
appropriate, the OIOS shall submit to the IOB a report
containing an inventory and status of its investigations.
(6) The OIOS shall establish procedures for providing
``whistle-blower'' status and employment protections for all
employees of the United Nations, including employees of the
specialized agencies of the United Nations, who provide
informational leads and testimony related to allegations of
wrongdoing. Such procedures shall be adopted throughout the
United Nations. Such status and protection may not be
conferred on the Secretary General.
(7) The OIOS shall annually publish a public report
determining the proper number, distribution, and expertise of
auditors within the OIOS necessary to carry out present and
future duties of the OIOS, including assessing the staffing
requirements needed to audit United Nations contracting
activities throughout the contract cycle from the bid process
to contract performance.
(8) Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish a
position of Associate Director of OIOS for Specialized
Agencies and Funds and Programs who shall be responsible for
supervising the OIOS liaison or oversight duties for each of
the specialized agencies and funds and programs of the United
Nations. With the concurrence of the Director, the Associate
Director of OIOS for Specialized Agencies and Funds and
Programs may, from existing levels of United Nations
budgetary and personnel resources, hire and appoint necessary
OIOS staff, including staff serving within and located at
specialized agencies and funds and programs permanently or as
needed to liaison with existing audit functions within each
specialized agency and fund and program.
(9) Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish a
position of Associate Director of OIOS for Peacekeeping
Operations, who shall be responsible for the oversight and
auditing of the field offices attached to United Nations
peacekeeping operations. The Associate Director of OIOS for
Peacekeeping Operations shall receive informational leads and
testimony from any person regarding allegations of wrongdoing
by United Nations officials or peacekeeping troops or
regarding inefficiencies associated with United Nations
peacekeeping operations. The Associate Director of OIOS for
Peacekeeping Operations shall be responsible for initiating,
conducting, and overseeing investigations within peacekeeping
operations.
(10) Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish a
position of Associate Director of OIOS for Procurement and
Contract Integrity, who shall be responsible for auditing and
inspecting procurement and contracting win the United
Nations, including within the specialized agencies. The
Associate Director of OIOS for Procurement and Contract
Integrity shall receive informational leads and testimony
from any person regarding allegations of wrongdoing by United
Nations officials or regarding inefficiencies associated with
United Nations procurement or contracting activities. The
Associate Director of OIOS for Procurement and Contract
Integrity shall be responsible for initiating, conducting,
and overseeing investigations of procurement and contract
activities. Not later than 12 months after the establishment
of the position of Associate Director of OIOS for Procurement
and Contract Integrity, the Director, with the assistance of
the Associate Director of OIOS for
[[Page H4621]]
Procurement and Contract Integrity, shall undertake a review
of contract procedures to ensure that practices and policies
are in place to ensure that--
(A) the United Nations has ceased issuing single bid
contracts except for such contracts issued during an
emergency situation that is justified by the Under Secretary
General for Management;
(B) the United Nations has established effective controls
to prevent conflicts of interest in the award of contracts;
and
(C) the United Nations has established effective procedures
and policies to ensure effective and comprehensive oversight
and monitoring of United Nations contract performance.
(c) Certification of Establishment of United Nations Office
of Ethics.--In accordance with section 601, a certification
shall be required that certifies that the following reforms
related to the establishment of a United Nations Office of
Ethics have been adopted by the United Nations:
(1) A United Nations Office of Ethics (UNOE) is
established. The UNOE shall be an independent entity within
the United Nations and shall not be subject to budget
authority or organizational authority of any entity within
the United Nations. The UNEO shall be responsible for
establishing, managing, and enforcing a code of ethics for
all employees of United Nations and its specialized agencies.
The UNEO shall also be responsible for providing such
employees with annual training related to such code. The head
of the UNEO shall be a Director who shall be nominated by the
Secretary General and who shall be subject to Security
Council approval by majority vote.
(2) The UNEO shall receive operational and budgetary
funding through appropriations by the General Assembly from
existing levels of United Nations budgetary and personnel
resources and shall not be dependent upon any other entity,
bureau, division, department, or specialized agency of the
United Nations for such funding.
(3) The Director of the UNEO shall, not later than six
months after the date of its establishment, publish a report
containing proposals for implementing a system for the filing
and review of individual Annual Financial Disclosure Forms by
each employee of the United Nations, including by each
employee of its specialized agencies, at the P-5 level and
above and by all contractors and consultants compensated at
any salary level. Such system shall be in place and
operational not later than six months after the date of the
publication of the report. Such completed forms shall be made
available to the Office of Internal Oversight Services at the
request of the Director of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services. Such system shall seek to identify and prevent
conflicts of interest by United Nations employees and shall
be comparable to the system used for such purposes by the
United States Government. Such report shall also address
broader reforms of the ethics program for the United Nations,
including--
(A) the effect of the establishment of ethics officers
throughout all organizations within the United Nations;
(B) the effect of retention by the UNEO of Annual Financial
Disclosure Forms;
(C) proposals for making completed Annual Financial
Disclosure Forms available to the public on request through
their Member State's mission to the United Nations;
(D) proposals for annual disclosure to the public of
information related to the annual salaries and payments,
including pension payments and buyouts, of employees of the
United Nations, including employees of its specialized
agencies, and of consultants;
(E) proposals for annual disclosure to the public of
information related to per diem rates for all bureaus,
divisions, departments, or specialized agencies within the
United Nations;
(F) proposals for disclosure upon request by the Ambassador
of a Member State of information related to travel and per
diem payments made from United Nations funds to any person;
and
(G) proposals for annual disclosure to the public of
information related to travel and per diem rates and payments
made from United Nations funds to any person.
(d) Certification of United Nations Establishment of
Position of Chief Operating Officer.--In accordance with
section 601, a certification shall be required that certifies
that the following reforms related to the establishment of
the position of a Chief Operating Officer have been adopted
by the United Nations:
(1) There is established the position of Chief Operating
Officer (COO). The COO shall report to the Secretary General.
(2) The COO shall be responsible for formulating general
policies and programs for the United Nations in coordination
with the Secretary General and in consultation with the
Security Council and the General Assembly. The COO shall be
responsible for the daily administration, operation and
supervision, and the direction and control of the business of
the United Nations. The Chief Operating Officer shall also
perform such other duties and may exercise such other powers
as from time to time may be assigned to the COO by the
Secretary General.
(e) Certification of Access by Member States to Reports and
Audits by Board of External Auditors.--In accordance with
section 601, a certification shall be required that certifies
that Member States may, upon request, have access to all
reports and audits completed by the Board of External
Auditors.
SEC. 105. TERRORISM AND THE UNITED NATIONS.
The President shall direct the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote,
and influence of the United States at the United Nations to
work toward adoption by the General Assembly of--
(1) a definition of terrorism that builds upon the
recommendations of the Secretary General's High-Level Panel
on Threats, Challenges, and Change, and includes as an
essential component of such definition any action that is
intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians
with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a
government or an international organization to do, or abstain
from doing, any act; and
(2) a comprehensive convention on terrorism that includes
the definition described in paragraph (1).
SEC. 106. UNITED NATIONS TREATY BODIES.
The United States shall withhold from United States
contributions to the regular assessed budget of the United
Nations for a biennial period amounts that are proportional
to the percentage of such budget that are expended with
respect to a United Nations human rights treaty monitoring
body or committee that was established by--
(1) a convention (without any protocols) or an
international covenant (without any protocols) to which the
United States is not party; or
(2) a convention, with a subsequent protocol, if the United
States is a party to neither.
SEC. 107. EQUALITY AT THE UNITED NATIONS.
(a) Inclusion of Israel in WEOG.--
(1) In general.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use
the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to expand
the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) in the United
Nations to include Israel as a permanent member with full
rights and privileges.
(2) Notification to congress.--Not later than six months
after the date of the enactment of this Act and every six
months thereafter for the next two years, the Secretary of
State shall notify the appropriate congressional committees
concerning the treatment of Israel in the United Nations and
the expansion of WEOG to include Israel as a permanent
member.
(b) Department of State Review and Report.--
(1) In general.--To avoid duplicative efforts and funding
with respect to Palestinian interests and to ensure balance
in the approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues, the Secretary
shall, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act--
(A) conduct an audit of the functions of the entities
listed in paragraph (2); and
(B) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report containing recommendations for the elimination of such
duplicative entities and efforts.
(2) Entities.--The entities referred to in paragraph (1)
are the following:
(A) The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights.
(B) The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights
of the Palestinian People.
(C) The United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle
East Peace Process and Personal Representative to the
Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian
Authority.
(D) The NGO Network on the Question of Palestine.
(c) Implementation by Permanent Representative.--
(1) In general.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use
the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the
United Nations to seek the implementation of the
recommendations contained in the report required under
subsection (b)(1).
(2) Withholding of funds.--Until such recommendations have
been implemented, the United States shall withhold from
United States contributions to the regular assessed budget of
the United Nations for a biennial period amounts that are
proportional to the percentage of such budget that are
expended for such entities.
(d) GAO Audit.--The Comptroller General of the United
States of the Government Accountability Office shall conduct
an audit of--
(1) the status of the implementation of the recommendations
contained in the report required under subsection (b)(1); and
(2) United States actions and achievements under subsection
(c).
SEC. 108. REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS REFORM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and one year thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on United Nations reform since 1990.
(b) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall describe--
(1) the status of the implementation of management reforms
within the United Nations and its specialized agencies;
(2) the number of outputs, reports, or other items
generated by General Assembly resolutions that have been
eliminated;
(3) the progress of the General Assembly to modernize and
streamline the committee structure and its specific
recommendations on oversight and committee outputs,
consistent with the March 2005 report of the Secretary
General entitled ``In larger freedom: towards development,
security and human rights for all'';
(4) the status of the review by the General Assembly of all
mandates older than five years and how resources have been
redirected to new challenges, consistent with such March 2005
report of the Secretary General; and
(5) the continued utility and relevance of the Economic and
Financial Committee and the Social, Humanitarian, and
Cultural Committee, in light of the duplicative agendas of
those committees and the Economic and Social Council.
SEC. 109. REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS PERSONNEL.
(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report--
(1) concerning the progress of the General Assembly to
modernize human resource practices,
[[Page H4622]]
consistent with the March 2005 report of the Secretary
General entitled ``In larger freedom: towards development,
security and human rights for all''; and
(2) containing the information described in subsection (b).
(b) Contents.--The report shall include--
(1) a comprehensive evaluation of human resources reforms
at the United Nations, including an evaluation of--
(A) tenure;
(B) performance reviews;
(C) the promotion system;
(D) a merit-based hiring system and enhanced regulations
concerning termination of employment of employees; and
(E) the implementation of a code of conduct and ethics
training;
(2) the implementation of a system of procedures for filing
complaints and protective measures for work-place harassment,
including sexual harassment;
(3) policy recommendations relating to the establishment of
a rotation requirement for nonadministrative positions;
(4) policy recommendations relating to the establishment of
a prohibition preventing personnel and officials assigned to
the mission of a Member State to the United Nations from
transferring to a position within the United Nations
Secretariat that is compensated at the P-5 level and above;
(5) policy recommendations relating to a reduction in
travel allowances and attendant oversight with respect to
accommodations and airline flights; and
(6) an evaluation of the recommendations of the Secretary
General relating to greater flexibility for the Secretary
General in staffing decisions to accommodate changing
priorities.
TITLE II--HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL (ECOSOC)
SEC. 201. HUMAN RIGHTS.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States to use its voice, vote, and influence at the
United Nations to ensure that a credible and respectable
Human Rights Council or other human rights body is
established within the United Nations whose participating
Member States uphold the values embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
(b) Human Rights Reforms at the United Nations.--The
President shall direct the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations to ensure that the
following human rights reforms have been adopted by the
United Nations:
(1) A Member State that fails to uphold the values embodied
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall be
ineligible for membership on any United Nations human rights
body.
(2) A Member State shall be ineligible for membership on
any United Nations human rights body if such Member State
is--
(A) subject to sanctions by the Security Council; or
(B) under a Security Council-mandated investigation for
human rights abuses.
(3) A Member State that is currently subject to an adopted
country specific resolution, in the principal body in the
United Nations for the promotion and protection of human
rights, relating to human rights abuses perpetrated by the
government of such country in such country, or has been the
subject of such an adopted country specific resolution in
such principal body within the previous three years, shall be
ineligible for membership on any United Nations human rights
body. For purposes of this subsection, an adopted country
specific resolution shall not include consensus resolutions
on advisory services.
(4) A Member State that violates the principles of a United
Nations human rights body to which it aspires to join shall
be ineligible for membership on such body.
(5) No human rights body has a standing agenda item that
relates only to one country or region.
(c) Certification.--In accordance with section 601, a
certification shall be required that certifies that the human
rights reforms described under subsection (b) have been
adopted by the United Nations.
(d) Prevention of Abuse of ``No Action'' Motions.--The
United States Permanent Representative shall work to prevent
abuse of ``no action'' motions, particularly as such motions
relate to country specific resolutions.
(e) Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights.--
(1) Statement of policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States to continue to strongly support the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
(2) Certification.--In accordance with section 601, a
certification shall be required that certifies that the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights has been given greater authority in field operation
activities, such as in the Darfur region of Sudan and in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, in furtherance of the
purpose and mission of the United Nations.
SEC. 202. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL (ECOSOC).
(a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States to use its voice, vote, and influence at the
United Nations to--
(1) abolish secret voting in the Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC);
(2) ensure that, until such time as the Commission on Human
Rights of the United Nations is abolished, only countries
that are not ineligible for membership on a human rights body
in accordance with paragraph (1) through (4) of section
201(b) shall be considered for membership on the Commission
on Human Rights; and
(3) ensure that after candidate countries are nominated for
membership on the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic
and Social Council conducts a recorded vote to determine such
membership.
(b) Certification.--In accordance with section 601, a
certification shall be required that certifies that the
policies described in subsection (a) have been implemented by
the Economic and Social Council.
TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
SEC. 301. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY.
(a) Enforcement and Compliance.--
(1) Office of compliance.--
(A) Establishment.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) to use the voice, vote, and influence of
the United States at the IAEA to establish an Office of
Compliance in the Secretariat of the IAEA.
(B) Operation.--The Office of Compliance shall--
(i) function as an independent body composed of technical
experts who shall work in consultation with IAEA inspectors
to assess compliance by IAEA Member States and provide
recommendations to the IAEA Board of Governors concerning
penalties to be imposed on IAEA Member States that fail to
fulfill their obligations under IAEA Board resolutions;
(ii) base its assessments and recommendations on IAEA
inspection reports; and
(iii) shall take into consideration information provided by
IAEA Board Members that are one of the five nuclear weapons
states as recognized by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (21 UST 483) (commonly referred to as the
``Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty'' or the ``NPT'').
(C) Staffing.--The Office of Compliance shall be staffed
from existing personnel in the Department of Safeguards of
the IAEA or the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security of
the IAEA.
(2) Special committee on safeguards and verification.--
(A) Establishment.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use the voice,
vote, and influence of the United States at the IAEA to
establish a Special Committee on Safeguards and Verification.
(B) Responsibilities.--The Special Committee shall--
(i) improve the ability of the IAEA to monitor and enforce
compliance by Member States of the IAEA with the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and the Statute of the International
Atomic Energy Agency; and
(ii) consider which additional measures are necessary to
enhance the ability of the IAEA, beyond the verification
mechanisms and authorities contained in the Additional
Protocol to the Safeguards Agreements between the IAEA and
Member States of the IAEA, to detect with a high degree of
confidence undeclared nuclear activities by a Member State.
(3) Penalties.--
(A) In general.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use the voice,
vote, and influence of the United States at the IAEA to
ensure that a Member State of the IAEA that is under
investigation for a breach of or noncompliance with its IAEA
obligations or the purposes and principles of the Charter of
the United Nations has its privileges suspended, including--
(i) limiting its ability to vote on its case;
(ii) being prevented from receiving any technical
assistance; and
(iii) being prevented from hosting meetings.
(B) Termination of penalties.--The penalties specified
under subparagraph (A) shall be terminated when such
investigation is concluded and such Member State is no longer
in such breach or noncompliance.
(b) United States Contributions.--
(1) Voluntary contributions.--Voluntary contributions of
the United States to the IAEA should primarily be used to
fund activities relating to Nuclear Safety and Security or
activities relating to Nuclear Verification.
(2) Limitation on use of funds.--The President shall direct
the United States Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use
the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the
IAEA to--
(A) ensure that funds for safeguards inspections are
prioritized for countries that have newly established nuclear
programs or are initiating nuclear programs; and
(B) block the allocation of funds for any other IAEA
development, environmental, or nuclear science assistance or
activity to a country--
(i) the government of which the Secretary of State has
determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, section 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, section 40 of the Arms Export Control
Act, or other provision of law, is a government that has
repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism and the government of which the Secretary has
determined has not dismantled and surrendered its weapons of
mass destruction programs under international verification;
(ii) that is under investigation for a breach of or
noncompliance with its IAEA obligations or the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations; or
(iii) that is in violation of its IAEA obligations or the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
(3) Detail of expenditures.--The President shall direct the
United States Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use the
voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the IAEA
to secure, as part of the regular budget presentation of the
IAEA to Member States of the IAEA, a detailed breakdown by
country of expenditures of the IAEA for safeguards
inspections and nuclear security activities.
[[Page H4623]]
(c) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The President shall direct the United
States Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use the voice,
vote, and influence of the United States at the IAEA to block
the membership on the Board of Governors of the IAEA for a
Member State of the IAEA that has not signed and ratified the
Additional Protocol and--
(A) is under investigation for a breach of or noncompliance
with its IAEA obligations or the purposes and principles of
the Charter of the United Nations; or
(B) that is in violation of its IAEA obligations or the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
(2) Criteria.--The United States Permanent Representative
to the IAEA shall make every effort to modify the criteria
for Board membership to reflect the principles described in
paragraph (1).
(d) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of
the enactment of this Act and annually for two years
thereafter, the President shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the implementation of
this section.
SEC. 302. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE NUCLEAR SECURITY
ACTION PLAN OF THE IAEA.
It is the sense of Congress that the national security
interests of the United States are enhanced by the Nuclear
Security Action Plan of the IAEA and the Board of Governors
should recommend, and the General Conference should adopt, a
resolution incorporating the Nuclear Security Action Plan
into the regular budget of the IAEA.
TITLE IV--PEACEKEEPING
SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REFORM OF UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) although United Nations peacekeeping operations have
contributed greatly toward the promotion of peace and
stability for the past 57 years and the majority of
peacekeeping personnel who have served under the United
Nations flag have done so with honor and courage, the record
of United Nations peacekeeping has been severely tarnished by
operational failures and unconscionable acts of misconduct;
and
(2) if the reputation of and confidence in United Nations
peacekeeping operations is to be restored, fundamental and
far-reaching reforms, particularly in the areas of planning,
management, training, conduct, and discipline, must be
implemented without delay.
SEC. 402. STATEMENT OF POLICY RELATING TO REFORM OF UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
It shall be the policy of the United States to pursue
reform of United Nations peacekeeping operations in the
following areas:
(1) Planning and management.--
(A) Global audit.--As the size, cost, and number of United
Nations peacekeeping operations have increased substantially
over the past decade, an independent audit of each such
operation, with a view toward ``right-sizing'' operations and
ensuring that such operations are cost effective, should be
conducted and its findings reported to the Security Council.
(B) Review of mandates and closing operations.--In
conjunction with the audit described in subparagraph (A), the
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations should
conduct a comprehensive review of all United Nations
peacekeeping operation mandates, with a view toward
identifying objectives that are practical and achievable, and
report its findings to the Security Council. In particular,
the review should consider the following:
(i) Activities that fall beyond the scope of traditional
peacekeeping activities should be delegated to a new
Peacebuilding Commission, described in paragraph (3).
(ii) Long-standing operations that are static and cannot
fulfill their mandate should be downsized or closed.
(iii) Where there is legitimate concern that the withdrawal
from a country of an otherwise static United Nations
peacekeeping operation would result in the resumption of
major conflict, a burden-sharing arrangement that reduces the
level of assessed contributions, similar to that currently
supporting the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus,
should be explored and instituted.
(C) Leadership.--As peacekeeping operations become larger
and increasingly complex, the Secretariat should adopt a
minimum standard of qualifications for senior leaders and
managers, with particular emphasis on specific skills and
experience, and current senior leaders and managers who do
not meet those standards should be removed or reassigned.
(D) Pre-deployment training.--Pre-deployment training on
interpretation of the mandate of the operation, specifically
in the areas of use of force, civilian protection and field
conditions, the Code of Conduct, HIV/AIDS, and human rights
should be mandatory, and all personnel, regardless of
category or rank, should be required to sign an oath that
each has received and understands such training as a
condition of participation in the operation.
(2) Conduct and discipline.--
(A) Adoption of a uniform code of conduct.--A single,
uniform Code of Conduct that has the status of a binding rule
and applies equally to all personnel serving in United
Nations peacekeeping operations, regardless of category or
rank, should be promulgated, adopted, and enforced.
(B) Understanding the code of conduct.--All personnel,
regardless of category or rank, should receive training on
the Code of Conduct prior to deployment with a peacekeeping
operation, in addition to periodic follow-on training. In
particular--
(i) all personnel, regardless of category or rank, should
be provided with a personal copy of the Code of Conduct that
has been translated into the national language of such
personnel, regardless of whether such language is an official
language of the United Nations;
(ii) all personnel, regardless of category or rank, should
sign an oath that each has received a copy of the Code of
Conduct, that each pledges to abide by the Code of Conduct,
and that each understands the consequences of violating the
Code of Conduct, including immediate termination of the
participation of such personnel in the peacekeeping operation
to which such personnel is assigned as a condition of
appointment to such operation; and
(iii) peacekeeping operations should conduct educational
outreach programs to reach local communities where
peacekeeping personnel of such operations are based,
including explaining prohibited acts on the part of United
Nations peacekeeping personnel and identifying the individual
to whom the local population may direct complaints or file
allegations of exploitation, abuse, or other acts of
misconduct.
(C) Monitoring mechanisms.--Dedicated monitoring
mechanisms, such as the Personnel Conduct Units already
deployed to support United Nations peacekeeping operations in
Haiti, Liberia, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of
Congo, should be present in each operation to monitor
compliance with the Code of Conduct, and--
(i) should report simultaneously to the Head of Mission,
the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and
the Associate Director of OIOS for Peacekeeping Operations
(established under section 104(b)(10)); and
(ii) should be tasked with designing and implementing
mission-specific measures to prevent misconduct, conduct
follow-on training for personnel, coordinate community
outreach programs, and assist in investigations, as OIOS
determines necessary and appropriate.
(D) Investigations.--A permanent, professional, and
independent investigative body should be established and
introduced into United Nations peacekeeping operations. In
particular--
(i) the investigative body should include professionals
with experience in investigating sex crimes, as well as
experts who can provide guidance on standards of proof and
evidentiary requirements necessary for any subsequent legal
action;
(ii) provisions should be included in a Model Memorandum of
Understanding that obligate Member States that contribute
troops to a peacekeeping operation to designate a military
prosecutor who will participate in any investigation into an
allegation of misconduct brought against an individual of
such Member State, so that evidence is collected and
preserved in a manner consistent with the military law of
such Member State;
(iii) the investigative body should be regionally based to
ensure rapid deployment and should be equipped with modern
forensics equipment for the purpose of positively identifying
perpetrators and, where necessary, for determining paternity;
and
(iv) the investigative body should report directly to the
Associate Director of OIOS for Peacekeeping Operations, while
providing copies of any reports to the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations, the Head of Mission, and the Member
State concerned.
(E) Follow-up.--A dedicated unit, similar to the Personnel
Conduct Units, staffed and funded through existing resources,
should be established within the headquarters of the United
Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and tasked
with--
(i) promulgating measures to prevent misconduct;
(ii) coordinating allegations of misconduct, and reports
received by field personnel; and
(iii) gathering follow-up information on completed
investigations, particularly by focusing on disciplinary
actions against the individual concerned taken by the United
Nations or by the Member State that is contributing troops to
which such individual belongs, and sharing such information
with the Security Council, the Head of Mission, and the
community hosting the peacekeeping operation.
(F) Financial liability and victims assistance.--Although
peacekeeping operations should provide immediate medical
assistance to victims of sexual abuse or exploitation, the
responsibility for providing longer-term treatment, care, or
restitution lies solely with the individual found guilty of
the misconduct. In particular, the following reforms should
be implemented:
(i) The United Nations should not assume responsibility for
providing long-term treatment or compensation by creating a
``Victims Trust Fund'', or any other such similar fund,
financed through assessed contributions to United Nations
peacekeeping operations, thereby shielding individuals from
personal liability and reinforcing an atmosphere of impunity.
(ii) If an individual responsible for misconduct has been
repatriated, reassigned, redeployed, or is otherwise unable
to provide assistance, responsibility for providing
assistance to a victim should be assigned to the Member State
that contributed the troops to which such individual belonged
or to the manager concerned.
(iii) In the case of misconduct by a member of a military
contingent, appropriate funds shall be withheld from the
troop contributing country concerned.
(iv) In the case of misconduct by a civilian employee or
contractor of the United Nations, appropriate wages shall be
garnished from such individual or fines shall be imposed
against such individual, consistent with existing United
Nations Staff Rules.
(G) Managers and commanders.--The manner in which managers
and commanders handle
[[Page H4624]]
cases of misconduct by those serving under them should be
included in their individual performance evaluations, so that
managers and commanders who take decisive action to deter and
address misconduct are rewarded, while those who create a
permissive environment or impede investigations are penalized
or relieved of duty, as appropriate.
(H) Data base.--A centralized data base should be created
and maintained within the United Nations Department of
Peacekeeping Operations to track cases of misconduct,
including the outcome of investigations and subsequent
prosecutions, to ensure that personnel who have engaged in
misconduct or other criminal activities, regardless of
category or rank, are permanently barred from participation
in future peacekeeping operations.
(I) Welfare.--Peacekeeping operations should assume
responsibility for maintaining a minimum standard of welfare
for mission personnel to ameliorate conditions of service,
while adjustments are made to the discretionary welfare
payments currently provided to Member States that contribute
troops to offset the cost of operation-provided recreational
facilities.
(3) Peacebuilding commission.--
(A) Establishment.--Consistent with the recommendations of
the High Level Panel Report, the United Nations should
establish a Peacebuilding Commission, supported by a
Peacebuilding Support Office, to marshal the efforts of the
United Nations, international financial institutions, donors,
and non-governmental organizations to assist countries in
transition from war to peace.
(B) Structure and membership.--The Commission should--
(i) be a subsidiary body of the United Nations Security
Council, limited in size to ensure efficiency;
(ii) include members of the United Nations Security
Council, major donors, major troop contributing countries,
appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and
the International Monetary Fund; and
(iii) invite the President of ECOSOC, regional actors,
Member States that contribute troops, regional development
banks, and other concerned parties that are not already
members, as determined appropriate, to consult or participate
in meetings as observers.
(C) Responsibilities.--The Commission should seek to ease
the demands currently placed upon the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations to undertake tasks that fall beyond
the scope of traditional peacekeeping, by--
(i) developing and integrating country-specific and system-
wide conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and
long-term development policies and strategies; and
(ii) serving as the key coordinating body for the design
and implementation of military, humanitarian, and civil
administration aspects of complex missions.
(D) Resources.--The establishment of the Peacebuilding
Commission and the related Peacebuilding Support Office,
should be staffed within existing resources.
SEC. 403. CERTIFICATION.
(a) New or Expanded Peacekeeping Operations Contingent Upon
Presidential Certification of Peacekeeping Operations
Reforms.--
(1) No new or expanded peacekeeping operations.--
(A) Certification.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
until the Secretary of State certifies that the requirements
described in paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the President
shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to
the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of
the United States at the United Nations to oppose the
creation of new, or expansion of existing, United Nations
peacekeeping operations.
(B) Exception and notification.--The requirements described
under subparagraphs (F) and (G) of paragraph (2) may be
waived until January 1, 2007, if the President determines
that such is in the national interest of the United States.
If the President makes such a determination, the President
shall, not later than 15 days before the exercise of such
waiver, notify the appropriate congressional committees of
such determination and resulting waiver.
(2) Certification of peacekeeping operations reforms.--The
certification referred to in paragraph (1) is a certification
made by the Secretary to the appropriate congressional
committees that the following reforms, or an equivalent set
of reforms, related to peacekeeping operations have been
adopted by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping
Operations or the General Assembly, as appropriate:
(A) A single, uniform Code of Conduct that has the status
of a binding rule and applies equally to all personnel
serving in United Nations peacekeeping operations, regardless
of category or rank, has been adopted by the General Assembly
and mechanisms have been established for training such
personnel concerning the requirements of the Code and
enforcement of the Code.
(B) All personnel, regardless of category or rank, serving
in a peacekeeping operation have been trained concerning the
requirements of the Code of Conduct and each has been given a
personal copy of the Code, translated into the national
language of such personnel.
(C) All personnel, regardless of category or rank, are
required to sign an oath that each has received a copy of the
Code of Conduct, that each pledges to abide by the Code, and
that each understands the consequences of violating the Code,
including the immediate termination of the participation of
such personnel in the peacekeeping operation to which such
personnel is assigned as a condition of the appointment to
such operation.
(D) All peacekeeping operations have designed and
implemented educational outreach programs to reach local
communities where peacekeeping personnel of such operations
are based to explain prohibited acts on the part of United
Nations peacekeeping personnel and to identify the individual
to whom the local population may direct complaints or file
allegations of exploitation, abuse, or other acts of
misconduct.
(E) A centralized data base has been created and is being
maintained in the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping
Operations that tracks cases of misconduct, including the
outcomes of investigations and subsequent prosecutions, to
ensure that personnel, regardless of category or rank, who
have engaged in misconduct or other criminal activities are
permanently barred from participation in future peacekeeping
operations.
(F) A Model Memorandum of Understanding between the United
Nations and each Member State that contributes troops to a
peacekeeping operation has been adopted by the United Nations
Department of Peacekeeping Operations that specifically
obligates each such Member State to--
(i) designate a competent legal authority, preferably a
prosecutor with expertise in the area of sexual exploitation
and abuse, to participate in any investigation into an
allegation of misconduct brought against an individual of
such Member State;
(ii) refer to its competent national or military authority
for possible prosecution, if warranted, any investigation of
a violation of the Code of Conduct or other criminal activity
by an individual of such Member State;
(iii) report to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations
on the outcome of any such investigation;
(iv) undertake to conduct on-site court martial proceedings
relating to allegations of misconduct alleged against an
individual of such Member State; and
(v) assume responsibility for the provision of appropriate
assistance to a victim of misconduct committed by an
individual of such Member State.
(G) A professional and independent investigative and audit
function has been established within the United Nations
Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the OIOS to monitor
United Nations peacekeeping operations.
TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
SEC. 501. POSITIONS FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENS AT
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
The Secretary of State shall make every effort to recruit
United States citizens for positions within international
organizations.
SEC. 502. BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR REGULAR ASSESSED BUDGET OF
THE UNITED NATIONS.
(a) Detailed Itemization.--The annual congressional budget
justification shall include a detailed itemized request in
support of the assessed contribution of the United States to
the regular assessed budget of the United Nations.
(b) Contents of Detailed Itemization.--The detailed
itemization required under subsection (a) shall--
(1) contain information relating to the amounts requested
in support of each of the various sections and titles of the
regular assessed budget of the United Nations; and
(2) compare the amounts requested for the current year with
the actual or estimated amounts contributed by the United
States in previous fiscal years for the same sections and
titles.
(c) Adjustments and Notification.--If the United Nations
proposes an adjustment to its regular assessed budget, the
Secretary of State shall, at the time such adjustment is
presented to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), notify and consult with the
appropriate congressional committees.
SEC. 503. REVIEW AND REPORT.
Not later than six months after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of State shall conduct a review of
programs of the United Nations that are funded through
assessed contributions and submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report containing--
(1) the findings of such review; and
(2) recommendations relating to--
(A) the continuation of such programs; and
(B) which of such programs should be voluntarily funded,
other than those specified in subparagraphs (A) through (R)
of subsection (c)(2) of section 11 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945, as amended by section 101(c) of
this Act.
SEC. 504. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.
(a) Report on United Nations Reforms.--Not later than 12
months after the date of the enactment of this Act and again
12 months thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United
States of the Government Accountability Office shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the
status of the 1997, 2002, and 2005 management reforms
initiated by the Secretary General and on the reforms
mandated by this Act.
(b) Report on Department of State Certifications.--Not
later than six months after each certification submitted by
the Secretary of State to the appropriate congressional
committees under this Act and subsection (d)(3) of section 11
of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (as amended
by section 101(c) of this Act), the Comptroller General shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on each such certification. The Secretary shall provide the
Comptroller General with any information required by the
Comptroller General to submit any such report.
[[Page H4625]]
TITLE VI--CERTIFICATIONS AND WITHHOLDING OF CONTRIBUTIONS
SEC. 601. CERTIFICATIONS AND WITHHOLDING OF CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Certifications.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
certifications required under subsection (d)(3) of section 11
of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (as amended
by section 101(c) of this Act) and section 103, sections
104(a) through 104(e), sections 201(c) and 201(e), and
section 202 of this Act are certifications submitted to the
appropriate congressional committees by the Secretary of
State that the requirements of each such section have been
satisfied with respect to reform of the United Nations.
(2) Alternate certification mechanism.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), in
the event that the Secretary is unable to submit a
certification in accordance with paragraph (1), the Secretary
may submit to the appropriate congressional committees, in
accordance with subparagraph (B), an alternate certification
that certifies that the requirements of the section to which
the original certification applies have been implemented
through reforms that are substantially similar to the
requirements of such section or accomplish the same purposes
as the requirements of such section.
(B) Equivalency.--Reforms are substantially similar or
accomplish the same purposes if--
(i) such reforms are formally adopted in written form by
the entity or committee of the United Nations or of its
specialized agency that has authority to enact or implement
such reforms or are issued by the Secretariat or the
appropriate entity or committee in written form; and
(ii) such reforms are not identical to the reforms required
by a particular certification but in the determination of the
Secretary will have the same, or nearly the same effect, as
such reforms.
(C) Written justification and consultation.--
(i) Written justification.--Not later than 30 days before
submitting an alternate certification in accordance with
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a written justification
explaining in detail the basis for such alternate
certification.
(ii) Consultation.--After the Secretary has submitted the
written justification under clause (i), but no later than 15
days before the Secretary exercises the alternate
certification mechanism described under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall consult with the appropriate congressional
committees regarding such exercise.
(3) Limited exception for substantial compliance.--
(A) Substantial compliance.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
if at least 32 of the 39 reforms represented by the ten
certifications specified under paragraph (1) have been
implemented, all such reforms (including the unimplemented
reforms) so represented shall be deemed to have been
implemented for the year in which the Secretary submits such
certifications.
(B) Mandatory implementation of certain reforms.--
(i) In general.--The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall
not apply unless the reforms under the following sections
have been implemented for the year to which subparagraph (A)
applies:
(I) Subsection (d)(3) of section 11 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 (as amended by section 101(c) of
this Act).
(II) Section 103(b)(1)(A).
(III) Section 103(b)(2)(D).
(IV) Section 104(a)(1).
(V) Section 104(a)(6).
(VI) Section 104(b)(1).
(VII) Section 104(b)(2).
(VIII) Section 104(c)(1).
(IX) Section 201(b)(1).
(X) Section 201(b)(2).
(XI) Section 201(b)(3).
(XII) Section 201(b)(5).
(XIII) Section 202(a)(1).
(XIV) Section 202(a)(2).
(ii) Full compliance in succeeding year.--If the
unimplemented reforms under subparagraph (A) are not
implemented in the year succeeding the year to which
subparagraph (A) applies, the provisions of subsection (b)
shall apply for such succeeding year.
(b) Withholding of United States Contributions to Regular
Assessed Budget of the United Nations.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4) and in
accordance with paragraph (2), until such time as all
certifications (or alternate certifications) are submitted in
accordance with subsection (a), the United States shall
appropriate, but withhold from expenditure, 50 percent of the
contributions of the United States to the regular assessed
budget of the United Nations for a biennial period.
(2) Available until expended.--The contributions
appropriated but withheld from expenditure under paragraph
(1) are authorized to remain available until expended.
(3) Application with respect to section 11(b) of the united
nation participation act of 1945.--Until such time as all
certifications (or alternate certifications) are submitted in
accordance with subsection (a), subsection (b) of section 11
of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (as amended
by section 101(c) of this Act) shall be administered as
though such section reads as follows: ``The Secretary may not
make a contribution to a regularly assessed biennial budget
of the United Nations in an amount greater than 11 percent of
the amount calculable under subsection (c).''.
(4) Section 11(d)(3) of united nations participation act of
1945.--
(A) Special rule.--A certification under subsection (d)(3)
of section 11 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(as amended by section 101(c) of this Act) (relating to the
2008-2009 biennial period and subsequent biennial periods)
shall not be required until such time as the United Nations
makes its formal budget presentation for the 2008-2009
biennial period.
(B) Application.--If the Secretary does not submit a
certification under such section, the 50 percent withholding
described under paragraph (1) shall apply.
(c) Release of Funds.--At such time as all certifications
(or alternate certifications) are submitted in accordance
with subsection (a), the United States shall transfer to the
United Nations amounts appropriated but withheld from
expenditure under subsection (b).
(d) Annual Reviews.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct annual
reviews, beginning one year after the date on which the
Secretary submits the final certification (or alternate
certification) in accordance with subsection (a), to
determine if the United Nations continues to remain in
compliance with all such certifications (or alternate
certifications). Not later than 30 days after the completion
of each such review, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report containing the
findings of each such review.
(2) Action.--If during the course of any such review the
Secretary determines that the United Nations has failed to
remain in compliance with a certification (or an alternate
certification) that was submitted in accordance with
subsection (a), the 50 percent withholding described under
subsection (b) shall re-apply with respect to United States
contributions each fiscal year to the regular assessed budget
of the United Nations beginning with the fiscal year
immediately following such review and subsequent fiscal years
until such time as all certifications (or alternate
certifications) under subsection (a) have been submitted.
(e) Effective Date.--The certifications (or alternate
certifications) specified under subsection (a) shall be
required with respect to United States contributions towards
payment of regular assessed dues of the United Nations for
2007 and subsequent years.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment shall be
in order, except those printed in House Report 109-32 and amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 319.
Each amendment printed in the report shall be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to an
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Additional periods of general debate shall be in order as follows, to
be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on International Relations:
Number 1, 20 minutes prior to consideration of amendments printed in
subpart A of part 1 of the report on the subject of accountability of
the United Nations;
Number 2, 10 minutes prior to consideration of amendments printed in
subpart B of part 1 of the report on the subject of United Nations
peacekeeping operations;
Number 3, 10 minutes prior to consideration of amendments printed in
subpart C of part 1 of the report on the subject of the International
Atomic Energy Agency;
Number 4, 20 minutes prior to consideration of amendments printed in
subpart D of part 1 of the report on the subject of human rights; and,
Number 5, 20 minutes prior to consideration of amendments printed in
subpart E of part 1 of the report on the subject of the Oil-for-Food
program.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of Committee on
International Relations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc
consisting of amendments printed in part 2 of the report not earlier
disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments
en bloc shall be considered read, except that modifications shall be
reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member or their
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before
disposition of the amendment en bloc.
It is now in order to debate the subject of accountability of the
United Nations.
[[Page H4626]]
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here with great pride next to my chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and recall all the great and
wonderful battles that he has fought in his career, and I am so proud
to be at his side at this, not the last battle that we will fight, but,
as we lead into the sunset of his career, a battle that will be
meaningful and remembered, and for which the American people will be
grateful that we had his leadership.
Also, I might add, we are grateful for the honorable adversarial
relationship that we have on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), a champion of human rights, a dear
friend, and someone who I greatly respect and whose guidance, I might
say, has been important to my own career.
We are here today to take up the bill named for the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the Henry Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005.
This bill will reform the United Nations in a meaningful and lasting
way, especially in the arena of accountability.
{time} 1800
Reform is vital in this area. And if anyone should doubt that, they
only need look at the Oil-for-Food scandal which my subcommittee, under
the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), has been
investigating. The Oil-for-Food scandal, let us remember what it was.
The Oil-for-Food program was set up in order to make sure that the
women and children and noncombatants of Iraq did not die of lack of
food and medicines because of an oil boycott that we had put, the
United Nations had placed, on Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime as a
way of pressuring Saddam Hussein to give up his chemical and biological
weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and to continue, and to refrain
from his hostile acts like the invasion of Kuwait.
Unfortunately, the Oil-for-Food scandal is what happened to the Oil-
for-Food program. We decided to establish a program, the Oil-for-Food
program, which would permit the Iraqi regime to sell a certain amount
of oil under United Nations supervision and to use the resources from
that sale to purchase a certain amount of humanitarian supplies to help
the so-called starving women and children of Iraq so these people would
not be necessarily harmed.
Right from the beginning, as the United Nations organized the
program, Saddam Hussein, this vicious dictator, this mass murderer, was
able to choose the buyers for Iraq's oil, as well as the suppliers of
humanitarian goods, which would then be the product of the sale of that
oil. What do you expect will happen when that is the way it is
organized? And why was it organized that way? It was organized that way
because it was a United Nations program.
Let us note that our allies, including France and Russia, who had
demanded that we have an Oil-for-Food program to help those poor and
starving Iraqi children, that as we put the program in place, instead
of helping us, they became hindrances to our making sure that the
program was run in an honest way. Saddam Hussein was able to demand
kickbacks and surcharges for the sale of oil and the purchase of
humanitarian goods. Our allies were all too willing to pay those
kickbacks. These are the same ones who pressured us to establish the
program.
Business was the driving factor, of course, in their decision. But
let us note that another driving factor was the fact that we have
uncovered that as part of the Oil-for-Food program bribes were being
channeled to people in those very governments, and perhaps that had
something to do with the decision-making process of our so-called
allies.
Of the estimated $65 billion in oil sales during the time of the Oil-
for-Food program, perhaps as much as $10 billion was siphoned off by
Saddam Hussein, this mass murderer, and this $10 billion, which was
supposed to be going to the Iraqi people to alleviate their suffering.
A United Nations-sanctioned inquiry led by Federal Reserve Bank
chairman Paul Volcker has unearthed these evidences of kickbacks paid,
for example, to the former director of the Oil-for-Food program in the
United Nations. Thus we are saying that it was a United Nations program
and the Oil-for-Food program resources were used to bribe Benon Sevan,
United Nations official who oversaw the program who had been appointed
by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and was a close confidant of Kofi
Annan.
The Volcker Commission also published evidence detailing the
destruction of documents about the Oil-for-Food program as late as last
year by Annan's former chief of staff, Iqbal Riza.
The House International Relations Committee has been investigating
the United Nations Oil-for-Food program since March of 2004. The
oversight of the Oil-for-Food program at the United Nations itself was
undercut by the weak institutional oversight management structures in
the United Nations itself. The United Nations, as it was organized, as
it is organized unless we act today, bears a great deal of the
responsibility for the failure of these type of programs like the Oil-
for-Food program.
There is not a culture of openness at the United Nations nor is the
structure open, but instead a closed structure and a culture of
arrogance. The United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services,
for example, was denied adequate funding and manpower needed to
properly audit the Oil-for-Food program. If they were not given the
proper resources, why would we expect it not to be corrupted,
especially when dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein?
Saddam provided gifts from $10,000 to $25,000 to families of
Palestinian suicide bombers with the kickback money that he received
from the Oil-for-Food program. And let us note something else. If you
want to find out what this program did and the power it gave Saddam
Hussein, and the corruption of this idea of saving innocent women and
children as a program officiated over by the United Nations, let us
recall a speech in this body, not too long ago.
The President of the United States gave his State of the Union
message here and introduced us to a lady sitting next to his wife, the
first lady. Next to her was an Iraqi woman whose father had been
assassinated by Saddam Hussein because he was a human rights activist.
How was the assassin paid off? We have traced back the payment of the
assassin of the woman who joined us for the State of the Union, the
assassin of that woman's father, we have traced back that payment to a
man who received the money from Saddam Hussein, and it was channeled
through this United Nations program; and the money ended up going
through a United Nations program to an assassin who murdered the father
of the woman who was introduced to us because he was a human rights
activist.
If ever there was a travesty, it is this. Saddam Hussein was
manipulating the program; and the United Nations, it seems, if not
willing to go along with Saddam Hussein, was certainly not willing to
go along with the reforms that would have corrected the program.
Without approval, the New York office of the Banque de Paris, or
Paribas, this was the bank that oversaw the Oil-for-Food program, the
U.N.'s bank for the program made unauthorized payments from the program
to so-called third parties on more than 400 occasions. These third
parties where the unauthorized payments were made went to people that
they had no idea who they were giving the money to. We have yet to be
able to trace back who actually runs the corporations who received over
400 payments from the bank that ran this Oil-for-Food program, all of
this, of course, under the United Nations' direction.
Now, that is the Oil-for-Food program. We could go on about that for
hours. But there are other problems at the U.N. which we need to
mention, the nepotism at the United Nations. We have seen over and over
again people hiring their children. We have seen situations where, for
example, Benon Sevan sold his vouchers to a company in which his
stepdaughter was hired,
[[Page H4627]]
which was in violation of U.N. job violation rules. And let us note
former Secretary Boutros Boutros Ghali's nephew.
Neoptism is rampant at the U.N. Maurice Strong, a long-time U.N.
official and confidant of Secretary General Annan, hired his step-
daughter Kristina Mayo for a U.N. job in violation of U.N. staff
regulations. Benon Sevan allegedly sold his oil vouchers to a company
run by former Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's nephew.
Moreover, this deal with Sevan was set up by Fred Nadler, Boutros-
Ghali's brother-in-law.
Strong has also been tainted by his association with the Tongsun
Park, from the Koreagate scandal, against whom a complaint was filed by
the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York in April. Park
was attempting to illicitly influence ``a U.N. official'' through Iraqi
Oil-For-Food money. Strong has confirmed that he was that U.N. official
but denies wrongdoing.
The WMO in Geneva, Switzerland, a long-time WMO employee and Sudanese
national was accused of skimming $3 million from accounts at the
organization over a 3-4 year period. The funds were lost to this
corruption and they will likely never be recovered.
He is said to have faked his death to avoid investigation.
Accordingly, his wife presented a death certificate, acknowledged by
Sudanese authorities to have been false, in order to claim his U.N.
pension, which the U.N. has withheld pending the results of a full
investigation being conducted by the Swiss authorities at the request
of the WMO.
WMO authorities believe that ultimately there are 10-15 other WMO
employees who could be viewed as negligent or even gross negligence.
The WMO Senior Legal Advisor reported that while bad, ``the internal
procedures were not the worst seen in the U.N. family of
organizations.''
At WIPO, also in Geneva, Michael Wilson, an Annan family friend, is
being investigated by a Swiss judge on charges of bribing a senior
official at WIPO to win a renovation contract on the agency's
headquarters. The WIPO official acknowledges receiving $270,000 from
Wilson. Wilson claims the money was from a private business venture.
There are also allegations of employee skimming of WIPO agency funds
related to the renovation.
Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the agency coordinated with
international relief agencies and U.N. member states to relieve the
suffering of the Iraqi people.
In January of 1998, $43,701 had to be recovered from staff members no
longer at the mission as well as outstanding obligations of $328,287 in
November 1997 for the UNOHCI.
The audit revealed that an inventory of physical assets in May 1998
discovered that 185 items totaling $100,994 could not be accounted for.
The United Nations Claims Commission (UNCC) processes claims for
losses and damage suffered as a direct result of Iraq's unlawful
invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91.
In an audit of the UNCC's awards, the OIOS viewed the present system
resulted in overpayments of $2,170,951 to the claimants in the 10th
installment. Furthermore, in the absence of relevant information, OIOS
estimates that UNCC has overpaid by $.51 billion to date for other
claims. In addition, it is estimated that UNCC would overpay future
claims by $1.27 billion, under the current exchange rate procedures.''
The United Nations Population Fund and U.N. Environment Program
promotes environmental and population strategies among member
governments.
In a statement before a U.N. Committee in 2004, Thomas Respasch of
the U.S. Mission to the U.N. explained, the following extravagant
travel expenses of two programs at the U.N.: ``In the U.N. Population
Fund, we were quite surprised to learn that some senior staff members
who spend more than half their time in travel status are racking up
travel costs of $225,000. In the U.N. Environment Program, travel
advances to other persons, in the amount of $82,208, had been
outstanding for more than 20 months.''
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) assists member
states in their struggle against illicit drugs, crime and terrorism.
In 2003, Samuel Gonzalez-Ruiz, a senior adviser to UNODC, resigned,
charging that the office ``tolerates administrative and in some cases
criminal violations'' such as nepotism, mismanagement and
misappropriation of funds by agency staff. A U.N. probe into corruption
allegations found that ``a senior official improperly gave 11 contracts
to his wife.'' In 2003, an OIOS probe found mismanagement by executive
director Pino Arlacchi; collapse of $250 million 10-year plan to
eradicate drugs from Afghanistan. Also found evidence of lavish,
excessive spending, such as purchase of a $100,000 Mercedes.
These are but a few of the signs that the U.N. is on the wrong path.
But talking about problems is not enough, we must do something about
it.
This bill is vital for reform of the United Nations. Chairman Hyde's
bill brings real reform to an institution that is quite simply broken.
Regarding the Accountability section of the bill, there is a
provision for a special investigator to be assigned to investigate
further instances of corruption by high officials of the U.N., such as
Benon Sevan.
This bill brings independence to the Office of Internal Oversight
Services, OIOS, removing it from under the thumb of political influence
at the U.N. and assures OIOS of proper funding to carry out its
mission.
This bill creates a U.N. Office of Ethics--an office that after more
than a year of investigation into the Oil-for-Food Program has shown--
is sorely needed.
Also, the Ethics office will be tasked in this bill with facilitating
and operating a system for financial disclosure.
Finally, the bill creates an Independent Oversight Board (IOB) to
review the audits of the OIOS and other audit bodies of the U.N. This
office is vital to provide proper oversight of the U.N.
What we have certainly discovered about the U.N. in the hearings on
the Oil-for-food program that I have held in the subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations in the International Relations Committee,
is that the U.N. was corrupted by Saddam Hussein. This bill will go
some distance toward repairing this corruption.
I conclude by saying that the U.N. has not been accountable,
transparent and it has not been living up to the standards expected of
an institution that receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year
from the United States. The American taxpayers deserve more for their
money. This is why Chairman Hyde wrote this bill and why we are here
today: to fix the U.N. so that the problems exemplified by the Oil-for-
Food program as well as others such as the horrific rapes committed by
U.N. peacekeepers are never repeated.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before yielding, let me commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his powerful statement. And let me
commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for including in
his bill extremely important measures that enhance accountability. I
would like to state that the Lantos-Shays substitute which we will
present later contains the same measures. We are in full accord on
dramatically enhancing accountability at the United Nations.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for one
moment?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just note that what measures
that we have been suggesting in the bill, as you have just underscored,
are very reasonable, and the fact that we have bipartisan support on
the measures demanding accountability suggest that these are things
that the United Nations should not be opposing. This is nothing that
should raise the fur up on the back of the necks of any official at the
United Nations. So I appreciate the gentleman, and also, all those
ladies and gentlemen on the other side of the aisle coming at these
issues of accountability in a very bipartisan fashion.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) for his comments.
I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Leach), the distinguished chairman of the Asia and Pacific Affairs
Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee, my distinguished
Republican colleague.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, as so ably demonstrated by the gentlemen
from California (Mr. Lantos and Mr. Rohrabacher), the U.N. is crying
out for reform. But let us not forget that the only oath we as Members
take is to the Constitution and votes should reflect this obligation,
not pique, not ideology, not well-intentioned concern for reform.
Unfortunately, the approach contained in the bill before us
contravenes the United Nations charter and undercuts the rule of law.
It also misreads the constitutional prerogatives of Congress. It is
true that under article 1 we have been given purse-string authority. It
is not true that we have been provided the power to negotiate. That
authority resides with the executive branch.
[[Page H4628]]
There has been a suggestion made that only by threatening the
withholding of resources can progress be made at the U.N. This
assertion at first blush sounds like commonsense realism. But
counterintuitively to utterers of this precept, historical experience
reveals that prior U.S. withholding tactics have frequently embarrassed
the United States and weakened, rather than strengthened, our
diplomatic positions. Nobody likes to be threatened, especially when
threats represent breaches of the law of nations.
It is no accident that the Bush administration has voiced opposition
to this bill and warned that unilaterally backing out of our financial
obligations will undermine our credibility and effectiveness at the
U.N.
One obvious issue, especially for my Republican colleagues, is
whether deference to the judgment of House leadership in matters of
multilateral diplomacy is more compelling than deference to the
President. But this quandary is secondary to the issue of the rule of
law. The fundamental choice today is between deference to the law or to
sovereign impunity.
Any sense of history would suggest that now is not the time to
denigrate law. The passions of men, no matter how understandable must
be constrained by law if there is any hope for a more peaceful and just
world.
Accordingly, I intend to vote for the principal substitute to the
committee bill, but against either the committee bill or the substitute
on final passage. The former represents a congressional directive that
in all likelihood will require the U.S. to declare financial war on the
United Nations. The alternative approach, while more restrained, has
the effect of authorizing the executive branch to conduct a financial
war on the U.N. should the Secretary of State choose to do so. Both
presumptuously imply that the United States is free of an international
obligation to pay its assessment. This body would be wiser to abide by
the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, not the politics of
the moment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is at times like this I am reminded of the
warning of the English philosopher, John Locke, who once suggested that
little is more dangerous than a good prince, because that prince is so
respected it is hard to object when he may be wrong. Henry Hyde is not
just a good prince, he is a great one. But I fear in this instance he
may be wrong, and I would suggest to my colleagues that the most
appropriate way to show our esteem is through respectful dissent to the
finest in our midst.
Mr. Chairman. At the outset, let me express my appreciation to
Chairman Hyde and his staff for reaching out to consult with me as this
legislation was developed. Although we have differing perspectives on
this bill, I have the utmost respect for our distinguished Chairman, as
well as his staff, who are among the finest on Capitol Hill.
The Committee has done a quality job in assembling a panoply of
United Nations reform proposals. Virtually all of the suggestions are
compelling. The problem is the framework of their consideration.
Unfortunately, in my judgment, the underlying Committee approach is
thoroughly inappropriate. The Democratic substitute is better, but is
inappropriate as well.
All of us have pique of one kind or another about the U.N. As a
supporter of the principles that underlie the founding of the United
Nations, I must confess to profound disappointment in the conflicts of
interest that developed in the oil-for-food program.
Bizarrely, according to a federal indictment made public earlier this
spring, a South Korean named Tongsun Park appears to be at the center
point of one set of Iraqi oil transfers in which as a middleman he may
have used part of his commissions to influence several U.N. officials.
What is astonishingly ``deja vu'' about these charges is that Tongsun
Park had been indicted on bribery and conspiracy charges in the late
1970s for using his role as a rice agent for the U.S. Food for Peace
program to bestow money and gifts on Members of Congress who had
legislated the guidelines that allowed commissions on those
agricultural sales.
The involvement of Tongsun Park in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal may
be a footnote to the abuses that developed but it symbolically
underscores the urgent need for reform, accountability and transparency
in U.N. endeavors.
Ironically, the oil-for-food program was authorized by the Security
Council with U.S. support and every contract had to be approved by the
government of the United States. It appears that proceeds from some of
these contracts may have benefited influential individuals and
institutions in various countries, including Russia and France, and
thus had the effect of providing financial incentives for people in key
foreign countries to oppose the policy perspectives of the United
States. It also appears that conflicts of interest may have been
precipitated with a small number of U.N. employees.
Perspective is difficult to bring to issues of the day, but with
regard to the oil-for-food program, it is apparent that the
international system is vulnerable to corruption. It may be that
relative to the multi-billion-dollar size of the program, the conflicts
in New York may to some seem paltry. But it should be clear that a few
thousand here and a few thousand there add up to a loss of confidence
in institutions of governance.
Bureaucratic waste and ineptitude are a challenge to any large
organization, but of all institutions the U.N. should be the one most
sensitive in the world to the problem of the ``two c's:'' corruption
and conflicts of interest.
The United Nations was created to promote the rule of law among and
within nations. It was expected to be an honest and implacably neutral
broker to help settle international disputes and advance international
law in areas as diverse as arms control, trade, human rights, and the
environment. In all these activities, political differences were to be
expected, but integrity of purpose and deed was to be the U.N.'s
hallmark. But tragically, no institution can fulfill its mission if its
programs are subverted or its representatives conduct themselves in
ways that are not respectful of the law. Corruption is the bitterest
breach of trust, especially for the U.N., which in so many parts of the
world represents the aspirations of people who live in desperate
poverty and fear.
In this regard, in December 2004, Congress directed the United States
Institute of Peace to establish a Task Force on the United Nations. The
12-member bipartisan Task Force, chaired by former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, worked with
leading public policy organizations to assess reforms that would enable
the U.N. to better meet the goals of its 1945 charter and offer the
U.S. government an actionable agenda to strengthen the U.N.
The report recommends establishing a chief operating officer to be in
charge of daily U.N. operations; empowering the Secretary General to
replace his or her top officials; and creating an Independent Oversight
Board with adequate audit powers to prevent another scandal like oil-
for-food. In addition, the report suggests abolishing the current U.N.
Human Rights Commission and establishing a new Human Rights Council,
ideally to be composed of democratic governments committed to
monitoring, promoting, and enforcing human rights.
Over the years, there have been many reports advocating U.N. reform.
By background, in the early 1990's I co-Chaired the United States
Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations. The
Commission held six hearings in regional centers across the country,
receiving testimony from hundreds of witnesses representing a cross-
section of philosophical perspectives.
The report the commission put forth underlined a certain degree of
optimism that the U.N. could play a constructive role in world affairs,
but explicitly recognized ``serious management problems'' and lack of
adequate financial accountability in the U.N. system, and called for
the U.N. to establish a fully independent Inspector General's office.
With respect to political and security issues, the Commission, like
the Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, recognized that means must be found
to make the Security Council more representative of power balances in
the world today; accordingly, it recommended the expansion of permanent
membership of the Security Council. I introduced a bill to this effect
yesterday, House Resolution 321, and am hopeful it will receive serious
Committee and House review at a later date.
Also like the Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, the U.S. Commission on
Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations recommended the
establishment of a U.N. rapid reaction force to prevent acts of
genocide and crimes against humanity.
Arguably, these last recommendations--expansion of the Security
Council and establishment of a U.N. rapid deployment force--are the two
most important reform proposals the U.N. is considering today. The
reform bill before us today is silent on each.
While both the Gingrich-Mitchell Commission and the earlier U.N.
Commission highlighted severe management concerns, neither advocated
linking progress on U.N. reform to U.S. payment of dues to the
organization. Indeed, eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United
Nations--Madeleine Albright, John Danforth, Richard Holbrooke, Jeane
Kirkpatrick, Donald McHenry, Thomas Pickering, Bill Richardson and
Andrew Young--urged Congress earlier this week to reject legislation
that would withhold payments to the world body unless specific reform
plans were enacted.
[[Page H4629]]
Here, we must understand precisely what the meaning of a 50 percent
cut in U.S. contributions to the U.N., as envisioned in the bill before
us, implies. As the country in the world that most stands for the rule
of law, we are proposing to circumvent it. The Committee approach
represents a Congressional directive that in all likelihood will
require the U.S. to declare financial war on the United Nations. The
alternative Democratic approach, while more restrained, has the effect
of authorizing the Executive Branch to conduct a financial war on the
U.N. should the Secretary of State choose to do so.
Both approaches contravene the U.N. Charter, a treaty binding all
parties, including the United States. It specifies: ``The expenses of
the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the
General Assembly'' (Article 17(2)). In 1962, the International Court of
Justice held--sustaining the position of the United States--that
apportionment of expenses by the General Assembly creates the
obligation of each Member to bear that part of the expenses apportioned
to it.
Both efforts, the first boldly, the second with an extra Executive
Branch hurdle, presumptuously imply that the United States is free of
an international obligation to pay its assessments. This position runs
counter to elemental principles of international law. The Vienna
convention on the Law of Treaties provides that: ``Every treaty in
force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them
in good faith'' (Article 26). It specifies that: ``A state party to a
treaty may not invoke the provisions of internal law as justification
for its failure to perform the treaty'' (Article 21(1)).
The only oath we as Members take is to the Constitution. Votes should
reflect this obligation, not pique, not ideology, not well-intentioned
concern for reform.
The bill before us undercuts the rule of law. It also misreads the
Constitutional prerogative of Congress. It is true under Article I that
we have been given purse string authority. It is not true that we have
been provided the power to negotiate. That authority resides with the
Executive Branch.
The legislation before us eviscerates the separation of powers that
our founders so thoughtfully constructed. The Democratic alternative
represents a credible political, but uncompelling legal balancing. The
wiser way to go is to take the group of reform ideas assembled in the
Committee bill, many of which, by the way have been derived from
recommendations of various U.N. initiated panels, and simply direct the
Executive to use its authority to seek to advance them in a way only it
can.
There has been a suggestion made that only by threatening the
withholding of resources can progress at the U.N. be made. This
assertion at first blush sounds like common-sense realism. But counter-
intuitively to utterers of this precept, historical experience reveals
that prior U.S. withholding tactics have frequently embarrassed the
U.S. and weakened rather than strengthened U.S. diplomatic positions.
Nobody likes to be threatened, especially when threats represent
breaches of the law of nations.
This bill, while frustratingly reflective of many legitimate
sentiments, will almost certainly prove counterproductive. While it
contains good ideas that many in the U.N. community support, the
coercive methodology implicit in the threat of withholding legally
obligated resources will jeopardize rather than advance prospects for
reform. It is no accident that the Bush Administration has voiced
opposition to this bill and warned that unilaterally backing out of our
financial obligations will undermine our credibility and effectiveness
at the U.N.
We may be the greatest democracy in history but in a world where U.S.
leadership has for so many lost its luster, good policy is far likelier
to precipitate constructive results than big economic threats.
One obvious issue, especially for my Republican colleagues, is
whether on matters of multilateral diplomacy deference to the judgment
of House leadership is more compelling than deference to the President.
But this quandary is secondary to the issue of the rule of law. The
fundamental choice today is between deference to the law or to
sovereign impunity.
Any sense of history would suggest that now is not the time to
denigrate law. The passions of men, no matter how understandable, must
be constrained by law, if there is any hope for a more peaceful and
just world.
Accordingly, I intend to vote for the principal substitute to the
Committee bill, but against either the Committee or the substitute on
final passage. It is the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution,
not the politics of the moment that should guide our consideration of
this bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the ranking
member of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the
International Relations Committee.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that when we talk
about reforming the United Nations that we have to be clear about what
the United Nations is. It is not simply the Secretariat. The
Secretariat is just the staff. They are the hired help. They run the
day-to-day affairs of the United Nations; but it is the Member states
that set policy, that make decisions that are responsible for oversight
in implementation of the United Nations resolutions.
{time} 1815
In particular, it is the function of the Security Council to carry
out those responsibilities. The United States is a permanent member of
the Security Council, with the power to veto any resolution.
When the Security Council does not want the United Nations to work,
it will not work. The Gingrich-Mitchell report put it this way, and I
am quoting, ``Too often the phrase `the United Nations failed' should
actually read `members of the United Nations blocked or undermined
action by the United Nations.' ''
An excellent example of this concept is the sanctions against Iraq in
the Oil-for-Food program. The United States advocated for the sanctions
on Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War and then supported the Oil-
for-Food program, advocated for it, but it was the Security Council,
not some amorphous United Nations somewhere up in New York, that had
the responsibility to oversee the Oil-for-Food program and the sanction
regime.
But when Jordan and Turkey notified the Security Council that they
intended to purchase oil from Iraq, in direct violation of the
sanctions regime, the Security Council simply took notice, whatever
that means. I still cannot figure it out, but they did nothing else. It
did not block Jordan and Turkey from this trade. It did not sanction
those countries. It did not instruct the Secretariat to take any
action. It did nothing.
As a result, Syria and Egypt then began to purchase oil from Iraq as
well, and it is important to understand that this ended up as the
largest illicit source of revenue for Saddam Hussein, and it had
nothing to do with the Oil-for-Food program, nothing to do with it at
all. The moneys derived from these so-called trade protocols far
exceeded the money that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the Oil-for-Food
program. This chart next to me shows that the so-called trade protocols
generated over $8 billion in revenue for Saddam Hussein.
My friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations talks about $10 billion; 8 billion of that came from the
Security Council's inaction while looking the other way.
Even some of the money that Saddam stole from the Oil-for-Food
program could have been saved by aggressive oversight by the Security
Council. It is important to note it was the Security Council that
approved all prices on oil exports from Iraq, and every contract needed
their approval for humanitarian goods coming into Iraq, and yet when
the Secretariat brought 71 contracts to the attention of the Security
Council because of concerns of pricing irregularities, the Security
Council did nothing, did nothing, and Saddam profited and stayed in
power as a result.
Why? Why did the Security Council not address any of these issues?
Because the Security Council, including our own government, and there
was two administrations involved, both the Clinton and the Bush
administration, reached a political decision that it was not in their
interests to fully enforce the sanctions. That has to be understood.
So when we talk about making the United Nations more effective, let
us be clear that the changes that are being proposed, and that I
embrace, do not fully address the problem. What is ultimately required
is improving the way member states work together, and some level of
transparency in the internal workings of the Security Council, not
unilaterally withholding dues.
I am convinced that those eight Ambassadors who sent that letter to
our congressional leadership are correct when they say withholding dues
to the United Nations may sound like smart
[[Page H4630]]
policy, but would be counterproductive. It would create resentment,
build animosity and actually strengthen the opponents of reform. It
would place in jeopardy the reform initiatives that we embrace. Please
understand that.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired on Part 1.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in Subpart A
of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of New York
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. King of
New York:
In section 104, add at the end the following new
subsection:
(f) Waiver of Immunity.--The President shall direct the
United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations
to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at
the United Nations to ensure that the Secretary General
exercises the right and duty of the Secretary General under
section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
of the United Nations to waive the immunity of any United
Nations official in any case in which such immunity would
impede the course of justice. In exercising such waiver, the
Secretary General is urged to interpret the interests of the
United Nations as favoring the investigation or prosecution
of a United Nations official who is credibly under
investigation for having committed a serious criminal offense
or who is credibly charged with a serious criminal offense.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as may
consume.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, let me join with my other colleagues in
commending the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for the
outstanding leadership he has demonstrated on this bill. It caps a
tremendous career in this body and is just one further shining example
of how much we owe him and how we are indebted to him for his years of
service to the United States Congress.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment should be noncontroversial. As both sides
have acknowledged, there have been enormous scandals at the United
Nations. Its reputation has suffered dramatically.
For those who do wish the United Nations to be reformed, and for the
United Nations to reform itself, it is essential that it restore or
regain some modicum of credibility from the American public and,
indeed, from the world community. To do that, my amendment urges or
directs the President of the United States to urge our permanent
representative to the U.N. to call upon the Secretary General to waive
immunity in those instances where U.N. officials have committed serious
offenses.
We have heard descriptions of various alleged misconduct by officials
such as Benon Sevan, who is head of the Oil-for-Food program. Also,
other individuals have been relieved of their duties at the U.N., such
as the official charged with supervising contractor selection.
To me, it just makes elemental sense that the Secretary General under
section 20 exercise his discretion to waive immunity in those cases so
that criminal action, if necessary, can be brought, and it would be
imperative upon our upcoming representative to the United Nations to
call upon him to do that.
It is an amendment on which I urge its adoption. I believe it is
essential, again, a significant step, and yet one which is a common-
sense step to restoring the credibility that the U.N. deserves.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from New York
for offering this amendment. Our side is prepared to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
The diplomatic immunity that the United Nations is granted under
international law is not designed to shield its employees from the due
process of law when they commit crimes. Secretary General Kofi Annan
has stated on numerous occasions that he would never allow the U.N.'s
diplomatic immunity to protect any employee from prosecution for a
crime she or he may have committed.
The Lantos-Shays substitute has a parallel amendment, and we are
happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as always, I
appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from California who, again,
I am proud to call my friend, and I certainly accept his support of the
amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We, too, are very pleased to accept this excellent amendment and
thank the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I do obviously support the acceptance by our ranking member of the
amendment.
I think it is important to note for the record that there are
currently investigations that are ongoing, and for the information of
my friend from New York, the Secretary General has been very explicit
that he will fully cooperate. We have received information back that
that cooperation is, in fact, occurring, and he has publicly stated,
without equivocation, that there will be no immunity for members of the
United Nations.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would agree
with the gentleman.
In my remarks, I particularly did not direct my remarks to the
Secretary General, and, in fact, the remarks are directed to our
Ambassador to the United Nations, that in the future he continue that
policy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in Subpart A
of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Garrett of
New Jersey:
In section 504, add at the end the following new
subsection:
(c) United Nations Construction and Contracting.--Not later
than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report describing
the costs associated with the contracting for and
construction of the Geneva, Switzerland, buildings of the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The report shall
include analyses of the procurement procedures for each such
building and shall specifically address issues of any corrupt
contracting practices that are discovered, such as rigged
bids and kickbacks, as well as other improprieties. The
report shall also include an identification of other credible
allegations of corrupt contracting at United Nations
construction projects that involve major construction on a
scale comparable to the WMO and WIPO construction projects,
and a description of the results of an investigation into
each such credible allegation.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H4631]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Before I begin, let me just use this opportunity to extend my
appreciation to the chairman for his work in so many different areas
important and vital to the people of this country, but right now, at
the issue at hand before us, an area that is of utmost importance to
the constituents in my district, as well as the citizens of this Nation
and the world community as well. So I thank the chairman for his
steadfast dedication to addressing these problems.
Also, let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the
chairman's staff as well for their efficiency in bringing these matters
to the floor and their cooperation in working with our offices in order
to proceed along on these matters.
I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to offer an amendment regarding possible
contract abuses by high-ranking U.N. officials and to hopefully make
the U.N. a more accountable and transparent body.
This amendment will ask the Office of the Comptroller General to
submit a report to Congress detailing the costs associated with the
renovation of two U.N. buildings in Geneva, Switzerland. Let my give my
colleagues a little background.
Michael Wilson, a friend of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who
has referred to the Secretary General as his ``uncle,'' is being
investigated by a Swiss judge of possibly bribing a top U.N. official
for a $50 million renovating contract at the World Intellectual
Property Organization.
It is alleged that Mr. Wilson paid $270,000 to a top official at the
intellectual property agency named Khamis Suedi. In return, the
construction company Mr. Wilson represented was to be awarded the
construction contract for this renovation work.
Here is the interesting connection. Mr. Wilson has also been a close
business partner with the Secretary General's son Kojo Annan. In fact,
Mr. Wilson helped get Kojo a job at Cotecna, a Swiss-based inspection
firm. Not long after hiring him, Cotecna was awarded a lucrative
contract to inspect goods going to Iraq with the newly implemented Oil-
for-Food program that we have heard talked about on this floor earlier.
Kofi Annan has continuously denied ever meeting with or supporting
the Cotecna contract proposal. In fact, the Volcker Commission,
appointed by Kofi Annan to investigate the Oil-for-Food scandal, in
their second interim report that came out this spring came out and
stated, ``There is no evidence that the selection of Cotecna in 1998
was subject to any affirmative or improper influence of the Secretary
General in the bidding or selection process.''
{time} 1830
However, just this week, a memo obtained from Mr. Wilson around the
time that the Oil-for-Food inspection contract was being decided,
stated: ``We had brief discussions with the Secretary-General. We could
count on their support.''
Now, the Volcker Commission only now is hastily reevaluating its
initial findings in light of this new evidence; and Kofi Annan, as
suspected, is dodging questions and hiding now behind the commission. I
believe that the Volcker Commission has proven to be too cozy to the
Secretary-General to adequately assess the true depth of corruption. In
order to provide a full accounting of any illicit dealings to the
American taxpayer, the United States must continue its aggressive
investigation, and my amendment will further that goal.
Even real estate magnet Donald Trump states, in speaking about the
proposal in New York City about their planned expansion of their
headquarters, ``The United Nations is a mess and they are spending
hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily on this project.'' If
Donald Trump says they are wasting millions of dollars, I can only
imagine what the average American taxpayer's view must be on the U.N.
Investigations of the U.N. financial dealings under Kofi Annan
resemble the peeling back of an onion. The more that is cut away, the
greater the stench. This amendment is a bold step, I believe, in
slicing away one more slice of the onion, another layer, to reveal the
full account of any illicit dealings at the U.N.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California will
control the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time.
I also read the same report that the gentleman from New Jersey
referred to, but I would like to provide him an update at this point
because I am sure he received his information from a newspaper report,
if I am correct.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I received it from different locations,
actually. It began, if I may, it began with newspaper reports.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, let me provide
this as an update, because this is a report by the Associated Press
from today, titled ``U.N. Oil-for-Food author of e-mail memo says he
never discussed Oil-for-Food contract bid with Kofi Annan. The
executive who wrote an e-mail suggesting that the U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan may have known about a U.N. contract awarded to his
son's company has denied ever discussing the firm's bid with Annan, a
law firm said Wednesday.''
So, again, I think it is worthy of a review, clearly worthy of an
investigation; but I do find it interesting that when we talk about
investigations that we have not taken the opportunity to investigate
the report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction of
the report by an American official indicating that the Coalition
Provisional Authority provided less than adequate controls for
approximately $9 billion of development funds for Iraq funds provided
to Iraq through the national budget process. We cannot find that money.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our side is prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. We have heard
very disturbing reports about possible contracting scandals involving
kickbacks at the World Meteorological Organization and the World
Intellectual Property Organization in recent years. It will be
extremely helpful to have our General Accounting Office also undertake
a thorough review of these matters.
We are looking forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) and others to make certain that all U.N.-affiliated
organizations achieve the appropriate reforms, and I thank the
gentleman for offering this important amendment which will support our
efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and I just want to say that I appreciate both
gentlemen's comments and the information that they conveyed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds, the balance of my time, to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. On behalf of the majority we are also very happy
to accept this amendment.
This amendment seeks to identify overspending due to possibly rigged
contracts at U.N. buildings around the world. The U.S. generally pays
22 percent of those costs. The savings could be in the millions of
dollars for U.S. taxpayers if other instances of building improprieties
were found and, by connection, action taken to correct those
improprieties.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his amendment,
and we are accepting it again as well.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
[[Page H4632]]
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in Subpart A of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cannon
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart A amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Cannon:
In section 108(b)(4) (relating to the report on United
Nations reform), strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
In section 108(b)(5), strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and''.
In section 108(b), add at the end the following new
paragraph:
(6) whether the United Nations or any of its specialized
agencies has contracted with any party included on the Lists
of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and
Nonprocurement Programs.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For their work on this bill, I would first of all like to thank the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), two giants of this institution and people
who I am pleased to call friends.
Mr. Chairman, our government is being forced to give financial
support to corporations we normally would exclude because of our
membership in the United Nations and where our dues are spent. When a
Federal agency takes an action to exclude a contractor under the
nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the
agency enters the information about the excluded party into the
Excluded Parties List System, the EPLS, which is maintained by the
General Services Administration.
This means that we have a list of individuals and companies with whom
our government is forbidden to do business or provide grants or similar
assistance. The EPLS identifies those who are deemed corrupt or
untrustworthy or even those involved in terrorist activities, like the
Islamic jihad and Hezbollah. These contractors are excluded from
entering contracts and agencies may not solicit offers from, award
contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors.
Contractors are excluded from conducting business with the government
as agents or representatives of other contractors. What is more, every
U.S. citizens can view the EPLS on line. We know who we do not support
and why we do not support them and what their punishment is.
However, though our government has a list of parties we refuse to
deal with, our dollars might be supporting them through the U.N. I am
offering an amendment that will add a paragraph to section 108 of H.R.
2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. This section
requires a report to be filed with the Congress of the United States on
the status of the U.N.'s reform. My amendment requires a report on the
contracts entered into by the U.N. or any of its specialized agencies
with parties on the U.S. Government's EPLS.
This amendment is endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, as well as
Americans For Tax Reform. U.N. officials have time and again
demonstrated poor judgment and an inability to appropriately manage the
money provided by many countries, including the United States. It is
absolutely clear, Mr. Chairman, that something has to be done about the
U.N.
The release this week of the Oil-for-Food contractor Cotecna, calling
into question Kofi Annan's claim that he was unaware of Cotecna's bid
for a contract in 1998, is just the latest in a long stream of ethical
blunders.
As a bipartisan report, featured in yesterday's Wall Street Journal
stated, ``Until and unless it changes dramatically, the United Nations
will remain an uncertain instrument, both for the governments that
comprise it and for those that look to it for salvation.''
It is only logical that the same restrictions we place upon on our
Federal agencies be applied to the money we give to the U.N. This extra
measure of oversight will help prevent future corruption by the U.N.
and create clear guidelines regarding who the U.N. contracts with.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for yielding, and
I want to commend him for bringing before this body an important
amendment. We strongly support his amendment, and I am very pleased to
accept it.
Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority, I
want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for offering this
very, very important amendment. It will ensure that the U.N. is not
using its funds to inadvertently fund terrorism or fraudulent
companies. It is a very good amendment, and we accept it and support
it.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4, printed
in Subpart A of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McCotter
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart A amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. McCotter:
In section 104(c)(1), add at the end the following new
sentence: ``The UNOE shall promulgate ethics rules, including
the following:''.
In section 104(c)(1), add at the end the following new
subparagraphs:
(A) No employee of any United Nations entity, bureau,
division, department, or specialized agency may be
compensated while participating in the domestic politics of
the country of such employee, except for voting or acting as
part of a Security Council, General Assembly, or legitimately
authorized United Nations mission or assignment.
(B) No United Nations entity, bureau, division, department,
or specialized agency may hire an individual convicted in a
generally recognized court of a democratically-elected
government with an independent judiciary and an extradition
treaty with the United States and the European Union for any
crime or crimes involving financial misfeasance, malfeasance,
fraud, or perjury.
(C) The employment of an employee of any United Nations
entity, bureau, division, department, or specialized agency
who is convicted in a generally recognized court of a
democratically-elected government with an independent
judiciary and an extradition treaty with the United States
and the European Union of any crime or crimes involving
financial misfeasance, malfeasance, fraud, or perjury shall
be subject to termination.
(D) If an employee of any United Nations entity, bureau,
division, department, or specialized agency has contact
regarding the disposition of ongoing internal United Nations
operations or decisions with an individual who is not an
employee or official of the government of a Member State (or
a similarly situated individual), with an individual who is
not officially employed by any United Nations entity, bureau,
division, department, or specialized agency, or with an
individual who is not a working member of the media, a
memorandum of such contact shall be prepared by such employee
and, upon request, be made available to Member States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. McCotter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is relatively self-explanatory. It is an
effort to add some commonsense reforms to the United Nations in the
area of employment, in the area of what their employees may or may not
do with the entity's monies while they are politicking in their own
domestic elections and an attempt to make sure there is a record should
they have outside unauthorized contact with individuals who are not
members of government or the media.
[[Page H4633]]
I would like to say that the rationale for bringing this forward is
to provide a practical benefit to the reform effort at the United
Nations; but I think it also is important that we recognize, as Martin
Luther King, Jr., once said, ``There can be no great sorrow where there
is no great love.''
We are engaged today to try to redeem the dream of Franklin Roosevelt
that the United Nations in the age of the nuclear bomb; that in the age
of a global war on terror, at some point we could have something at
night to get us to sleep, and that is the belief that the United
Nations would be a force for good in the world; that international
disputes could be resolved there; that the finest and most noble
motives of humanity could find expression and implementation.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has said
in a wonderfully elegant phrase, ``Unfortunately the United Nations at
present is a derivative reality.'' So I am trying to inject some
practicality into that derivative reality.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOTTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. I want to
commend him on bringing this matter before the body.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and would like to thank the distinguished minority ranking member, the
chairman of our committee, and everyone who is engaged in this debate.
It has been an honor to work on this issue with them. It has been an
honor to learn from them. And more importantly, it has been an honor to
see the example they set and to set a bar for others in this
institution to emulate their integrity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in Subpart A of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Poe
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart A amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Poe:
In title I, add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 110. REPORT ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED
NATIONS.
Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall submit to the Committee on International Relations of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate a report on United States
contributions to the United Nations. Such report shall
examine assessed, voluntary, in-kind, and all other United
States contributions.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a former judge, I believe in consequences for bad conduct; and of
course when improper behavior takes place, I do not believe in saying
to the perpetrator, no matter who it is, try to do a little better. The
United Nations has a history of abuse, misconduct, criminal negligence,
money laundering, some corruption, and sexual violence against the very
people the United Nations swears to protect. Mr. Chairman, there should
be consequences, and my question is who is holding the United Nations
accountable for that conduct.
Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and others in Congress,
the United States has begun the tough task of investigating the
scandals which the United Nations is ridden with. But in my opinion,
the United States will never be able to hold the United Nations
accountable if we do not know where our aid, our money is going once we
hand it over to the United Nations.
My amendment simply would require the OMB to give a yearly report to
Congress on all the contributions, whether they be assessed, voluntary,
or in-kind, that the United States gives to the United Nations. The
American taxpayers have the right to know how the United Nations is
spending American money. So by keeping track of our contributions, the
United States will be more capable of holding the United Nations
accountable for the way it spends members' monies and makes use of
members' contributions.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
{time} 1845
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe) for presenting this amendment. We have no objections. We are
prepared to accept it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
offering this amendment. One of the difficulties we had when involved
with the arrearage issue some years ago was the fact that for many
Americans, it was a shock to learn how much of the voluntary and in-
kind contributions the United States did make, which were justified,
but for which we got no credit.
I think by getting all of the information on assessed, voluntary and
in-kind contributions, I think Americans will be amazed, as will
international friends around the world in like manner will be amazed,
how much the U.S. Government does provide.
So often in-kind contributions like airlift for military operations
in no way gets on the ledger, so we do not have a thorough and a full
accounting of the U.S. contribution and how the money is spent. I
commend the gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) will be
postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in Part 1,
Subpart A of House Report 109-132.
It is now in order to debate the subject of United Nations
peacekeeping operations.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
Because he is not on the floor at this point, I am not going to take
this opportunity, I will have many more, to express in some detail my
affection, my respect and my admiration for the chairman of our
committee who sponsors this bill and who has announced his intent not
to seek reelection to the next Congress. But once in a while in the
course of both of our tenures here, I have had occasion to oppose an
initiative, and in this case I do so very strongly.
On the surface this may look like a partisan conflict, but in reality
it is not. The Ambassador under Ronald Reagan to the United Nations
says about the bill before us, Reforming the United Nations is the
right goal. Withholding our dues to the U.N. is the wrong methodology.
When we last built debt to the U.N., the U.S. isolated ourselves from
our allies within the U.N. and made diplomacy an impossible
[[Page H4634]]
task. Modernizing the United Nations to be more capable and effective
must be done through engaging our allies and being a leader for
creating a U.N. for a new century. That is Ambassador Jeane
Kirkpatrick, no member of the United World Federalists is she.
A recent commission co-chaired by our former speaker Newt Gingrich,
not a man enamored of ideological multilateralism, prepared a report on
much-needed U.N. reforms and never suggests a mandatory dues cut as a
way to effectively achieve those results.
The President of the United States and this administration, which I
believe is a Republican administration, indicates very strongly the
error of this approach and asks this body to reconsider moving ahead
with this particular bill.
But the area that I want to most focus on does not deal with the dues
cut, but has a provision on peacekeeping that is particularly
egregious. Based on the failure to implement five reforms by the
effective date of this bill, the day after this bill is signed into
law, and those reforms are much needed, I think they are on the way to
happening, I do not quarrel with any of them, in fact, I think they are
compelling in their nature, this bill mandates the President of the
United States to instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to veto
any new or the expansion of any existing peacekeeping operation.
In other words, the Congress steps in, usurps the executive branch
function of formulating foreign policy in exercising its discretion on
what its appointee will do in the end without regard to U.S. national
interests and in direct violation of executive branch prerogatives.
For the chairman of this committee to sponsor a bill that does
something like that is, I would suggest, quite out of character because
there is no one in this House who has made a stronger point in his
career of trying to ensure that the President's power as Commander in
Chief and implementer of foreign policy is maintained.
The national interest issue compels us to say this is not the right
approach. What if a new U.N. peacekeeping operation, the problems with
China or Russia in the context of Darfur are overcome, and there is a
consensus for a new augmented operation there involving African
countries, involving European countries, perhaps with no commitment
whatsoever from the United States for such an operation? Because of the
failure to fully implement all five of these reforms, our Ambassador,
notwithstanding the humanitarian tragedy, notwithstanding how the
United States will look to the rest of the world, our Ambassador is
required to veto such a peacekeeping operation?
What if a situation like East Timor comes up again, and whatever the
problems have been, and whatever the failures to fully implement these
reforms, there is a compelling national interest reason for us to
support a peacekeeping operation once again that may not involve U.S.
troops or forces? Why would we want to mandate something that is
fraught with constitutional problems and does a disservice to our
national interest in such legislation? This is a foolish and improper
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence)
and that he may control the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise for a few brief moments to speak on behalf of title VI of this
bill which calls for far-reaching reforms in the areas of planning,
management, conduct and accountability of peacekeeping operations
within the United Nations. It does, as the gentleman from California
said quite accurately, it does involve some tough love and the
potential for withholding support for the creation of new or expanded
peacekeeping missions if the U.N. does not implement the most basic yet
critically important reforms that are called for.
As I have said before, the power of the purse is the power of the
American people. While title IV of the peacekeeping reforms of this
bill do not cut peacekeeping funds, they do withhold the expansion of
any U.S. involvement in peacekeeping operations if these reforms are
not enacted.
The need for the reforms are obvious. The Congo in this last calendar
year, U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of
widespread sexual exploitation of refugees in the Democratic Republic
of Congo.
In Eritrea in 2005, U.N. peacekeeping staff ran up more than $500,000
of unpaid international calls.
In Burundi in 2004, two U.N. peacekeepers were suspended following
allegations of sexual misconduct.
In Sierra Leone in 2003, U.N. peacekeepers were accused by Human
Rights Watch of systematic rape of women, and the list goes on and on
and on.
The need for reform is real. I am pleased to say there is broad
agreement about the need for reform. In fact, the United Nations
Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has endorsed specifically
all seven of the reforms that are included in this legislation. In
fact, those reforms have been endorsed by Prince Zeid of Jordan, the
Secretary General's special advisor on sexual exploitation and abuse,
and all but one, the signature of an oath, have already been adopted by
the U.N. special committee.
According to officials at the U.N., most of these reforms are
expected to be in place by the end of July 2005. Five of the
peacekeeping reforms under this title are linked to immediate
withholding of support for new and expanded missions. They are: the
adoption of a uniform code of conduct; the training of peacekeeping
personnel on that code of conduct; the signature of an oath to abide by
the code of conduct; design of programs to explain prohibited acts to
host populations so there would be greater accountability for the
behavior of peacekeepers; and the creation of a centralized database to
track these areas of misconduct.
Once again I say that officials at the U.N. believe that most of
these reforms will be in place in a matter of weeks, so it is difficult
to understand how requiring these reforms before any additional U.S.
missions are approved under peacekeeping operations is a little hard to
understand.
Two additional reforms are equally critical, but may require more
time to implement: the adoption of a model memorandum of understanding;
and the establishment of an independent investigative audit that
functions for peacekeeping missions.
These are all part and parcel of restoring the credibility of the
good work that U.N. peacekeepers have done throughout the past 60
years, and it is central to the principle of the Henry J. Hyde U.N.
Reform Act that we stand, even with tough love, for the idea that we
use the power of the purse, which is the power of the American people,
in this case the threat of withholding additional missions to the
United Nations under peacekeeping operations to demand that these
necessary reforms are implemented.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). The problem with this provision, as
with much of the bill, is the lack of judgment that our Secretary of
State could bring to bear as a new, tragic Darfur-like situation erupts
someplace.
We do not question the need for improving the peacekeeping process,
we are with you totally on that, but we would like to have our
Secretary of State have the opportunity of exercising her judgment in a
rapidly changing and evolving situation.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate on Part 1, Subpart B has
expired.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in Subpart B
of Part 1 printed in House Report 109-132.
{time} 1900
Part 1, Subpart B Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Boozman
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart B amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Boozman:
[[Page H4635]]
In section 402(1) (relating to reform of United Nations
peacekeeping operations), add at the end the following new
subparagraph:
(E) Gratis military personnel.--The General Assembly should
lift restrictions on the utilization at the headquarters in
New York, the United States, of the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations of gratis military personnel by the
Department so that the Department may accept secondments from
Member States of military personnel with expertise in mission
planning, logistics, and other operational specialties.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment that would give the United Nations
greater flexibility in the peacekeeping operations that they are
involved in by allowing voluntary military personnel to serve at the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York. This was the norm
until early 1999. Over time, 130 experienced officers had been loaned.
They had expertise in mission planning, logistics, all of the things
that are so important in these types of missions. There was a lull and
because of the complaint of some of the other nations that 85 percent
of this group came from developed countries, it was discontinued.
As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I frequently
hear of the problems that we have with peacekeeping, the atrocities in
various parts of the world. Again, I think that this is a situation
that would greatly remedy that.
Rotating these professionals into the U.N. on a periodic basis
provides a means for introducing new ideas, techniques, and experience
without having to deal with terminating contracts or moving people and
positions. It allows the system to deal with unexpected demands. The
U.N.'s new operational responsibilities demand a more flexible
approach.
I think the other thing is that this would not cost anything. This
would be a mechanism where, in fact, I think we could save a great deal
of money by being much more efficient. We are asking the United Nations
to be more effective with their planning and their operations. The
other thing that is important is that in no way does this require our
Department of Defense to assign any U.S. military personnel. It only
leaves the door open.
I want to thank my chairman and thank the ranking member for their
work on this and, again, our staffs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, although we do not
oppose this amendment, that we have 5 minutes to explain our position.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I just want to respond to what I think was an inadvertent
misstatement by the gentleman from Indiana on what I think is an over-
the-top provision of this bill, requiring a veto of any new or expanded
peacekeeping operations in the Security Council. He referred to it as
an ability for the U.S. to withhold its forces for it. But read the
provision you have written: the President shall direct the United
States permanent representative to the U.N. to use the voice, the vote
and the influence of the U.S. at the U.N. to oppose the creation of a
new or expansion of existing peacekeeping operations.
``Vote'' means ``veto'' at the Security Council. You veto the
peacekeeping operation, it does not happen. The genocide in Darfur
continues, no matter what the political will is of the body, because we
have only trained 60,000 of the 68,000 peacekeepers by the day this
bill passes. This has nothing to do with the debate about withholding
dues as leverage. This has to do with define our own national interests
in the name of I do not know what. It makes no sense, it is
unconstitutional, and it should have been stricken from this bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 4
minutes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to reality, too, as the gentleman
from California just did. I think it is important we not deceive
ourselves. While the United Nations clearly needs our leadership, we
also need the United Nations, particularly in the area of peacekeeping.
There are some 16 peacekeeping missions deployed around the world
today. They number at least 70,000 troops. Ten of them, 10, are
American. These so-called ``blue helmets'' have saved the lives of
hundreds of thousands of innocent people and some of them have been
killed while doing so.
Are there problems? Clearly there are problems. Is progress being
made? Yes, progress is being made. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) and myself recently met with Prince Zeid. There is progress
being made, but this amendment does not help the cause.
Just imagine, if you will, the cost to the United States in terms of
dollars and blood if Americans were required to fill those roles. This
bill could very well force the U.S. military, which is as we know
already stretched dangerously thin, to deploy to more and more
inhospitable venues. One example that we are all familiar with, Haiti.
There are 6,700 United Nations troops in Haiti today along with 1,400
U.N. police working to keep order, and more are scheduled. Without that
United Nations presence, the United States would be left with the
responsibility of restoring order, providing security, and rebuilding a
functioning government. This is nation-building for real that hopefully
will transpire in Haiti. Otherwise, we will be looking at a failed
state close to our southern borders with all the consequences that that
will implicate.
It is the United Nations that is keeping Haiti from total collapse
into anarchy. I have no doubt that the expenses associated with that
scenario, if there is a total collapse, will vastly exceed our annual
commitment to the United Nations, both voluntary and assessed, for
years to come. Not only would we have to commit U.S. troops to restore
order; we might have to deal with a humanitarian crisis that could very
well compel us to use Guantanamo for something significantly different
from its current use, much like we did in the early 1990s when it was a
refugee center for Haitians who were fleeing from their country in
makeshift crafts and dying by the thousands. As the world's richest
nation and the sole superpower, this unpleasant task would fall to us
alone.
Do we really want to assume that burden? That is just one example.
Multiply the potential by 16, by a factor of 16, if this particular
provision should eventually become law. We put ourselves, our troops,
our taxpayers at great risk.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Not too long ago, my wife came to me. She had, the night before, seen
a program on television. She said, John, is it true that the U.N.
peacekeepers are trading sex for peanut butter with 9- and 10-year-old
kids? She could not believe it. I looked at her, and I said, Cathy,
it's true. That is happening.
I talked to Chairman Smith and he subsequently held hearings. They
came over and assured us that things were getting better. We were told
that basically the implication was on the battlefield, these things
happen, sexual abuse occurs. My response was, This isn't sexual abuse.
That taking pictures of 9- and 10-year-old kids, exploiting them, was
child abuse and a criminal matter.
We heard that there would be zero tolerance. A week later, another
television program and the guy said, We have heard there is going to be
zero tolerance. He said, What does that mean? He showed pictures of
these guys sneaking out at night to a village, again to do their work
and showed a picture of a guy riding around in a U.N. vehicle with a
prostitute.
I think we have worked, we have held our hearings, we have coerced. I
think the time now is to demand accountability. Again, I would ask all
of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
[[Page H4636]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in Subpart B of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kline
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart B amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Kline:
In title IV (relating to United Nations peacekeeping
operations), add at the end the following new section (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 404. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO PROTECTION OF
UNITED STATES OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.
Nothing in this title shall be construed as superseding the
Uniform Code of Military Justice or operating to effect the
surrender of United States officials or members of the Armed
Forces to a foreign country or international tribunal,
including the International Criminal Court, for prosecutions
arising from peacekeeping operations or other similar United
Nations-related activity, and nothing in this title shall be
interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (title II of the 2002
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and
Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States; Public
Law 107-206).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in strong support of the Kline amendment and thank the
gentleman from Minnesota for offering it today.
No one in this body knows better than the gentleman from Minnesota
the paramount and absolute need to protect, with every tool at our
disposal, our men and women in uniform. The gentleman from Minnesota's
amendment today does just that by expressly stating in this long
overdue United Nations reform package that all of the reforms we will
pass augment, and in no way change, the Federal law that exempts our
troops from prosecution in the International Criminal Court.
The ICC is a threat not only to the sovereignty of the United States
and to the constitutional rights of American citizens; it is an
overreaching distortion of the United Nations charter and its mission.
The ICC would, in effect, disregard not only Federal and State law but
also the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, thereby establishing a rogue
court in which foreign judges can indict, try, and convict American
troops for broadly defined and openly interpreted crimes, all without
any of the fundamental legal rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution.
The ICC, then, represents a clear and present danger to the ultimate
success of the civilized world's war on terror and an affront to both
our troops and the Nation they serve. When we ask American men and
women to risk their lives around the world to defend our freedom, the
least we can do is promise them they will not be hauled before an
unaccountable, politically motivated court just for doing their job.
The United States is not a party to the ICC and has even taken the
unprecedented step of ``unsigning'' the treaty to clarify that point.
We do not cooperate in any of its proceedings or pretenses, and we do
not recognize its authority over any action undertaken by a single
citizen of this Nation. The ICC is a product of the worst excesses of
the undemocratic mindset that has so permeated the United Nations and
distorted its true purpose.
The United Nations' mission is to protect and promote human rights
around the globe, to exhort with clarity and courage the principles of
justice and liberty to those who would seek to oppress them. The ICC,
on the contrary, could be an instrument of undemocratic score-settling,
a shadowy kangaroo court in which despots and their diplomats can
humiliate and even imprison the men and women who have the courage to
do the work the U.N. refuses to do.
I urge our colleagues to vote for the Kline amendment and reiterate
America's commitment to our troops, our national sovereignty, and the
hard work of human freedom.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 5
minutes to explain our position.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from California in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. LANTOS. I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
{time} 1915
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this time, if I might,
to ask the gentleman from Minnesota a question.
His amendment says that nothing in this title, this title that the
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has brought to us, should be
construed to supersede the Uniform Code of Military Justice or
surrender U.S. officials to a foreign country or international
tribunal.
Could the gentleman tell the body what section of the gentleman from
Illinois' (Chairman Hyde) bill could be construed to require the
surrender of officials, what section of the gentleman from Illinois'
(Chairman Hyde) bill could be construed as requiring superseding the
Uniform Code of Military Justice? I am certainly unaware of any such
section, and I am certainly unaware of any desire by the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to present to the body such a section.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
This is extremely well-crafted legislation that the chairman has
brought forward in close cooperation with many of his colleagues on the
Committee on International Relations, and I am in very strong support
of this bill. There is language in section 4 which calls for a uniform
code of conduct, which I think is a very excellent idea.
We want to be very certain that as this legislation goes forward, it
in no way can be misinterpreted to impinge upon the Uniform Code of
Military Justice or the American Servicemembers' Protection Act. We are
trying to avoid any confusion here and make sure that our men and women
who are going to work in United Nations peacekeeping operations and go
around the world are in no way compromised.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the proponent of the
amendment is aware of the fact that U.S. personnel are already
prohibited from being under the command of another nation, and
therefore would always be subject to the UCMJ.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to make sure that there is no
possibility for misinterpretation as we bring forward this very
important new legislation, and that it can in no way subject the
American Armed Forces or any other American personnel, for that matter,
to foreign tribunals or the International Criminal Court.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, would it be fair to say that, in effect,
his effort is an effort to gild the lily?
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield for the final time, but before I do so, Mr.
Chairman, let me say that we accept the gentleman's amendment.
[[Page H4637]]
I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for the final time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I just want to be very brief.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my
colleagues this is a very serious debate, and when one starts using
terminology like is he trying to gild the lily, he is trying to protect
American servicemen from any kind of legal action that might be taken
against them. So let us be serious about it.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his comments.
I want to be very clear that I am in strong support of this
legislation that has come forward by the Committee on International
Relations, but there are things that raise my interest and my concern.
A few weeks ago media outlets throughout the world proudly parroted
Amnesty International's unfounded charges of torture and ill treatment
in the so-called America ``gulags.'' Instead of condemning the
government-inflicted famine in Kim Jong-Il's North Korea or continued
human rights abuses in Castro's Cuba, the executive director of Amnesty
International USA revealed the true goal of organizations such as his
when he called on foreign governments to arrest and prosecute U.S.
Government officials and military personnel. We want to make sure that
we have got language in here that would prevent that.
The Belgian experience, for example, and recent propaganda espoused
by Amnesty International shows that we were wise to doubt the merchants
who were peddling ``universal jurisdiction'' at the cost of national
sovereignty. Indeed, even President Clinton did not send the Rome
Statute establishing the International Criminal Court to the U.S.
Senate because of its fundamental flaws.
The United States is a Nation dedicated to justice and the rule of
law, and we cannot allow these fundamental protections to be stripped
from our servicemen and women performing peacekeeping missions, and I
think we in this body need to be ever vigilant to ensure that that does
not happen.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we are pleased
to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I thank our friends for accepting this important amendment that the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has brought forward to the bill.
Certainly today United States troops are deployed around the world as
they defend our freedoms and as they assist others in defending their
freedom.
In Iraq and Afghanistan they are working tirelessly to create a
secure environment for fledgling democracies. On the Korean Peninsula,
they face a brutal dictator. In Kosovo they observe an uneasy peace
among old adversaries, and in Japan and Europe they stand to react to
any national crisis. In addition, our naval personnel operate in dozens
of bases worldwide to protect global trade routes, prevent nuclear
proliferation, and many other important tasks.
And even as they perform these actions in defense of liberty in other
nations, our troops serve the United States of America, not the United
Nations or any other foreign power. Their mission may send them abroad,
but we must never allow a foreign court to interfere in U.S. military
affairs.
Examples already exist of the dangers of the International Criminal
Court. During the most notable example recently, European opponents of
the Iraq War suggest that senior U.S. officials including the Secretary
of Defense and top military commanders should be tried by that Court.
The United States of America has a long history of fair and firm
military justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is understood
and respected by our military personnel that serves our Armed Forces
well. Under no circumstances should our men and women in uniform fear
retribution in the form of prosecution by a foreign court of justice.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) understands this as
well as any Member of this body. I appreciate his bringing this
amendment to the floor, and I am pleased to see it included in a bill
that I hope is heartily responded to by support today.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to debate the subject of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong support of the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform
Act and would like to provide some insight on the background and the
impetus for Title III of the bill that relates, as the Chair pointed
out, to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
To put it simply, the catalyst was the Iran case. For at least two
decades, the Iranian regime has been pursuing a covert nuclear program.
According to the November 2003 report of the IAEA, Iran's deceptions
have dealt with the most sensitive aspects of the nuclear cycle.
Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency could not disprove
that Iran's nuclear program was not for weapons development. In 2004,
the IAEA reports enumerated more Iranian breaches, including work on an
element that could be used for nuclear explosions. And the response
from the Iranian Foreign Minister as well as the Secretary of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council was that Iran had to be recognized by
the international community as a member of the nuclear club and, ``This
is an irreversible path,'' they said.
Fast forward to this year, and the news reports appearing in the last
few months state that the Iranian regime plans to install 54,000
advanced P-2 model centrifuges at its facility in Natanz. The Director
General of the IAEA has called upon Iran to allow its inspectors full
access to the sites in Lavizan and Parchin.
Yet Iran has recently barred the International Atomic Energy Agency
from visiting those sites, and Western intelligence sources cited by
the media sources suspect that Iran may be experimenting with high
explosives appropriate for nuclear weapons.
Just yesterday at the Board meeting in Vienna of the IAEA, it was
revealed that Iran had conducted experiments to create plutonium for
many more years beyond what it claimed.
All of this, and Iran has yet to suffer any consequences or has been
held accountable by the IAEA for its flagrant and indeed dangerous
violations and breaches. In fact, Iran recently served on the Board of
Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency because, under the
current structure, under its policies, countries that are suspected of
breaching their safeguards, they are allowed to serve in leadership
positions within the Agency.
The Iran case as well as the linkage to the nuclear black market
network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan illustrates another grave
issue, the need to deny and deprive terrorists, whether state or
nonstate actors, the access to the technology, to the parts, and to the
materials to develop a nuclear-related arsenal. These dangers prompted
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and me to take immediate
steps within the context of the U.N. reform bill to strengthen the
International Atomic Energy Agency in the areas of safeguard
inspections and nuclear security; also, to effectively use U.S.
contributions to deny rogue states and state sponsors of terrorism,
such as Iran, such as Syria, the ability to pursue dangerous weapons
with virtual impunity.
And title III of this bill thereby translates objectives into
concrete actions to achieve U.S.
[[Page H4638]]
counterproliferation goals. It seeks the establishment of an Office of
Compliance and enforcement within the Secretariat of the Agency to
function as an independent body of technical experts that will assess
the activities of member states and recommend specific penalties for
those that are in breach or violation of their obligations. Also, it
establishes a Special Committee on Safeguards and Verification to
advise the Board of Governors on additional measures necessary to
enhance the Agency's ability to detect undeclared activities by member
nations. Furthermore, it seeks the suspension of privileges of member
states that are under investigation or in breach or noncompliance of
their obligations and the establishment of membership criteria that
would keep such rogue states, such as Iran, such as Syria, from serving
on the Board of Governors.
The section in this act reinforces our U.S. priorities concerning the
safety of nuclear materials and counterproliferation by calling for
U.S. voluntary contributions to the Agency to primarily be used to fund
activities related to nuclear security.
And, Mr. Chairman, that is why, under the leadership and expertise of
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), we understand that the
bill before us and especially Title III of this bill translates these
objectives into concrete actions, and we hope that the full body will
recommend passage of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida expired.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is a vital U.N.-affiliated
agency that directly serves the national security interests of the
United States and underpins the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The IAEA safeguards and inspection system is the primary means, and
sometimes the only means, by which we and the rest of the world can
gain information and insight into the nuclear activities of countries
of concern such as Iran.
{time} 1930
I want to take this opportunity to commend the IAEA's investigation
into Iran's deceit, obfuscation and outright lies about its nuclear
activities. For over 2 years now, IAEA investigators have refused to be
intimidated by Iran's crude threats and tactics, and they keep
confronting Tehran with facts and inconsistencies in Iran's feeble
excuses and fabrications about its nuclear activities.
Even today, Mr. Chairman, an IAEA official is reporting that Iran has
admitted, when confronted by IAEA investigators, to conducting
plutonium processing experiments far more recently than it previously
claimed and lying about when it obtained uranium centrifuge enrichment
equipment.
Mr. Chairman, we must provide with all the financial and other
support that we can, while pushing it, and its governing councils of
member states, to give it more authority to investigate and even punish
countries that have violated their safeguards agreements and their non-
nuclear commitments. The provisions of the Lantos-Shays substitute
amendment do just that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate under Part 1 of Subpart C
has expired.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in Subpart C
of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart C Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cantor
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart C amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Cantor:
In section 301, redesignate subsection (d) as subsection
(e).
In section 301, insert after subsection (c) the following
new subsection:
(d) Nuclear Program of Iran.--
(1) United states action.--The President shall direct the
United States Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use the
voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the IAEA
to make every effort to ensure the adoption of a resolution
by the IAEA Board of Governors that makes Iran ineligible to
receive any nuclear material, technology, equipment, or
assistance from any IAEA Member State and ineligible for any
IAEA assistance not related to safeguards inspections or
nuclear security until the IAEA Board of Governors determines
that Iran--
(A) is providing full access to IAEA inspectors to its
nuclear-related facilities;
(B) has fully implemented and is in compliance with the
Additional Protocol; and
(C) has permanently ceased and dismantled all activities
and programs related to nuclear-enrichment and reprocessing.
(2) Penalties.--If an IAEA Member State is determined to
have violated the prohibition on assistance to Iran described
in paragraph (1) before the IAEA Board of Governors
determines that Iran has satisfied the conditions described
in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of such paragraph, such
Member State shall be subject to the penalties described in
section 301(a)(3), shall be ineligible to receive nuclear
material, technology, equipment, or assistance from any IAEA
Member State, and shall be ineligible to receive any IAEA
assistance not related to safeguards inspections or nuclear
security until such time as the IAEA Board of Governors makes
such determination with respect to Iran.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to increase
the ability of the United States to protect our world from the spread
of nuclear weapons to dangerous governments.
This amendment does two things: first, it calls for the U.S.
permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency to
do all it can to ensure that Iran be cut off from any nuclear material
technology and assistance.
Secondly, the amendment provides for penalties for any country that
continues to provide assistance to Iran's nuclear efforts.
Mr. Chairman, for over 35 years Iran has been a non-nuclear party to
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. As such, it is bound by the treaty
to open up all of its nuclear program efforts for international
inspection. Despite this obligation, Iran has continued to pursue the
development of nuclear capability in the dark without transparency.
Two years ago, an Iranian opposition group revealed the location of
hidden facilities used for the development of a nuclear program,
locations which have since been verified by the IAEA. As the
gentlewoman from Florida (Chairman Ros-Lehtinen) pointed out just
yesterday, Iran acknowledged working with plutonium, a possible nuclear
arms component, for years longer than it admitted to the IAEA. We also
found out it had received sensitive technology that can be used as
parts of weapons programs earlier than it originally said it did.
Iran claims these efforts are for a peaceful purpose. But how can one
really believe that Iran needs a civilian nuclear program when it sits
on the world's second largest proven reserves of natural gas, not to
mention its petroleum deposits? Clearly, Mr. Chairman, I posit Iran
cannot be trusted.
As Iran has repeatedly lied to the world regarding the extent and
sophistication of its nuclear program, Tehran serves as the world's
capital for the export and sponsorship of terrorism. It has
demonstrated a willingness to provoke its neighbors, as well as the
United States and Israel. Past efforts to stop Iran's pursuit of
nuclear weapons have obviously failed.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a clear and unequivocal
declaration to Iran, as well as to the nations of the world, that the
United States is serious about stopping Iran's development of nuclear
weapons. I urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, and I
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Nevada?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their work on
this issue,
[[Page H4639]]
and my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), for
cosponsoring this amendment with me.
This amendment would take a strong stand against Iranian nuclear
proliferation and would help to ensure that Iran ceases its weapons
program. The amendment directs the permanent representative to the IAEA
to use his influence to ensure that Iran does not receive any nuclear
material or technological assistance from other IAEA member states.
This restriction will remain in place until Iran allows full access to
its nuclear-related facilities by IAEA inspectors, has fully
implemented IAEA's additional protocol, and has completely ended all
nuclear enrichment programs.
Tehran has relentlessly pursued a large-scale, covert nuclear weapons
program for almost 2 decades. This program represents the great
proliferation challenge to the United States. Iran is the most active
state sponsor of terrorism. It has provided Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic
jihad, and the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine with
funding, training, and weapons to continue their terrorist attacks
throughout the world.
Unless the world community intervenes, Iran will become the first
active state sponsor of terrorism to acquire the greatest instrument of
terror and destruction, nuclear weapons. A nuclear-armed Iran will
terrorize and destabilize the entire Middle East and pose a serious
threat to Europe, Asia, Africa, as well as the United States.
Iran has already tested the Shahab-3 missile, with a range of over
1,250 miles. This not only puts Israel, the only democracy in the
Middle East, in danger, but can be used to attack U.S. bases in the
region. There is strong evidence that Iran would be willing to sell
nuclear material to the highest bidder. Worse yet, Iran might be
willing to simply give the nuclear material away. Faced with the
reality of a radical Iran with nuclear weapons, other countries in the
region might feel compelled to develop their own nuclear capability to
maintain an awful balance of power.
Iran continues to deceive the international community and hide its
actions from international observers. Iran did not acknowledge the
existence of the Natanz fuel enrichment plant until after its existence
was discovered. This facility can manufacture enough uranium to produce
25 to 30 nuclear weapons per year. In 2003, Iran admitted that it had a
laser uranium enrichment program not previously disclosed.
We know of two facilities that manufacture and refine nuclear
materials, including an enrichment facility designed for 1,000
centrifuges, and a large buried facility intended to house up to 50,000
centrifuges.
Today, a report was delivered to the IAEA's Board of Governors by the
Deputy Director General of the UN. In it Iran admits to experimenting
with and producing plutonium.
Recently, Moscow entered into an agreement to provide nuclear fuel
for Iran's controversial Bushehr reactor. Under the agreement, Russia
would control the fissile material. But there is nothing to prevent
Iran from withdrawing from the agreement. If Iran did that, the Bushehr
reactor could produce enough plutonium annually for 30 nuclear weapons.
The Ayatollahs of Terror must not be allowed to acquire nuclear
weapons under any circumstances. A nuclear Iran threatens the entire
planet. I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BERKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my good friend from
Virginia and the gentlewoman from Nevada for their outstanding
amendment. We strongly support it.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his
leadership and also the gentlewoman from Nevada. But I do want to take
this time, Mr. Chairman, to recognize the extraordinary leadership of
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the Committee on
International Relations.
The gentleman from Illinois is truly a man with a backbone of steel
and a heart of gold. He is an icon of this institution; and I, for one,
know I am joined by every Member of this House in thanking him for his
leadership on this bill and the number of other measures that he has
worked on and done such a tremendous job with.
I am proud to be here in support of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform
bill, and I know my colleagues join me in thanking the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for all that he does.
In paraphrasing a well-known phrase, I would like to just say, Mr.
Chairman, I sleep better every night knowing that Henry Hyde is here
fighting for America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor)
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in Subpart C of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart C Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from New Jersey seeking to offer the
amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk)?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, I am.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart C amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Smith of
New Jersey:
In section 301, redesignate subsection (d) as subsection
(e).
In section 301, insert after subsection (c) the following
new subsection:
(d) Small Quantities Protocol.--The President shall direct
the United States Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use
the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the
IAEA to make every effort to ensure that the IAEA changes the
policy regarding the Small Quantities Protocol in order to--
(1) rescind and eliminate the Small Quantities Protocol;
(2) require that any IAEA Member State that has previously
signed a Small Quantities Protocol to sign, ratify, and
implement the Additional Protocol, provide immediate access
for IAEA inspectors to its nuclear-related facilities, and
agree to the strongest inspections regime of its nuclear
efforts; and
(3) require that any IAEA Member State that does not comply
with paragraph (2) to be ineligible to receive nuclear
material, technology, equipment, or assistance from any IAEA
Member State and subject to the penalties described in
section 301(a)(3).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, by way of background, the Small Quantities Protocol
frees countries from reporting the possession of up to 10 tons of
uranium, up to 20 tons of depleted uranium, depending on enrichment,
and up to 2.2 pounds of plutonium. Some experts suggest that 10 tons of
natural uranium can be processed into sufficient material for up to two
nuclear warheads. Iran has already reportedly utilized much smaller
quantities of uranium or plutonium in laboratory experiments with
suspected links to nuclear arms programs.
A recent IAEA internal memorandum reportedly recommended that the
agency's board approve no further small quantity protocols and that it
grant the IAEA chief the authority to ask that all signatories to the
protocol agree to cancel them.
This amendment seeks to close the loophole from the inspections
regime by, number one, calling for the IAEA to rescind the Small
Quantities Protocol; secondly, to require that any nation that has
signed the Small Quantities Protocol to have implemented and be in
compliance with the additional protocol providing for more stringent
inspections; and, third, to prohibit any IAEA members from receiving
any nuclear-related material, technology, equipment, or assistance and
be subjected to penalties if they do
[[Page H4640]]
not adhere to the higher inspection standards.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the protocol is out of date in an era marked
by secret nuclear programs that have been discovered in Iran, Libya and
North Korea, and where the bar is set much higher for suspicions of
possible atomic activities. By rescinding the Small Quantities
Protocol, the IAEA will have additional access to evaluate the nuclear
program of an IAEA member state and to confirm that the state is in
full compliance with its safeguards obligations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in strong support of the previous
amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkeley). It is an important initiative,
one that I have been working on in similar context for some time as a
member of the Committee on International Relations.
It is certainly appropriate that we be voting on this amendment
tonight, the day after Iran admits that it has once again lied to the
international community, this time about its plutonium experiments, 5
years after they said that they had ceased continuing such experiments.
{time} 1945
For nearly two decades, Iran has pursued a clandestine nuclear
program, while claiming it had to keep this program hidden from the
international community because of sanctions against it. Iran has
repeatedly stated that it will never give up its right to enrich fuel
for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
What they have here is clearly a pattern of deception. They have
forfeited their right to any peaceful nuclear technology when they
deliberately hid the activities, facilities, and materials of their
nuclear program from the entire world for nearly two decades.
Let us be clear. Iran is a country with huge oil and natural gas
reserves. They simply do not need nuclear power for energy consumption.
That is why I am very happy to support this amendment. We need to send
a very clear message. It is clearly in the national security interest
of the United States that Iran cannot move forward with impunity, and,
certainly, that we do not, through the IAEA, give it operational
capacity to do so; to be able to have the ability, for example, at the
Bushehr Nuclear Facility, to be able to have operational capacity.
That is why that amendment is clearly so important. I look forward to
the State Department authorization bill, where language has been
included that we hope moves us closer, along with the Security Council,
to coming to understand the grave nature of the challenge that we face
in Iran and its nuclear energy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
New Jersey for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of
the amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has
proffered. I commend the gentleman from Illinois for being the original
author of the amendment, and I am proud to be his cosponsor.
The reason we need this amendment is that a quantity of nuclear
materials that could be put into a suitcase and made into a nuclear
weapon and detonated in Times Square or in some other major place in
the United States or around the world could be legally obscured from
international inspection under the present protocol. This inspection
protocol was written at a time when nuclear weapons were only reusable
on warheads or submarines. It ignored the deadly new technology that
can compress the size of the weapons, but not their deadliness.
The fact of the matter is that no quantity of uranium or plutonium
that could be used for weapon purposes is too small for inspection.
Those who would deem it worthy of using these quantities are more
dangerous with smaller amounts.
So the idea here is that the international inspection regime be
geared to the realities of the present risk. It is a very good idea. I
would urge Members on both sides to support it so we can preclude the
awful day when a very small amount of weapons material makes a very big
and horrible difference for innocent people in our country or innocent
people around the world.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed
in Subpart C of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.
Part 1, Subpart C Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 1, Subpart C Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Markey:
In section 301(a)(3), amend the paragraph heading so as to
read: ``Penalties with respect to the iaea.--''.
In section 301(a), add at the end the following new
paragraph:
(4) Penalties with respect to the nuclear nonproliferation
treaty.--The President shall direct the United States
Permanent Representative to the IAEA to use the voice, vote,
and influence of the United States at the IAEA to ensure that
a Member State of the IAEA that is found to be in breach of,
in noncompliance with, or has withdrawn from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty shall return to the IAEA all nuclear
materials and technology received from the IAEA, any Member
State of the IAEA, or any Member State of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in the 35 years since the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty has been in force, much has changed around the world, but what
has not changed is the danger inherent in the spread of nuclear
weapons.
My amendment says that the President of the United States shall
direct the United States permanent representative to the IAEA to use
their influence and their vote to secure an agreement within the IAEA
requiring that any member state of the NPT that is in breach of the
treaty or withdraws from the treaty must return any nuclear materials
or technology acquired for peaceful purposes.
Now, why is this amendment needed? Well, for the first time in the
treaty's history, one country has withdrawn from the treaty. In 2002,
international inspectors were asked to leave North Korea, and, in 2003,
North Korea withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty. And just this
year North Korea announced to the world that it has nuclear weapons;
all the while, North Korea is allowed to keep any and all nuclear
materials, nuclear technology, and assistance they receive as a member
of the NPT.
So while considerable diplomatic activity has taken place to try to
convince North Korea to reverse its action, there is actually no rule
in place now at the IAEA that would require North Korea to return all
of the nuclear materials it received.
My amendment would mandate that the President direct the United
States permanent representative at the IAEA to secure such an agreement
amongst the IAEA member states.
[[Page H4641]]
This type of requirement is not just important because of North
Korea. Currently we have Iran declaring its rights to pursue all
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, it says. The United States
and Europe are worried that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons
program, but all the while Iran is insisting on its right to receive
all nuclear materials, nuclear technology, and assistance for its
peaceful program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say to my friends and colleagues that this is a good
amendment, and, on behalf of the majority, we would like to accept it.
I would say very briefly that unless states which are in
noncompliance with their nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations,
or which seek to withdraw from the treaty, are forced to give up their
peaceful nuclear capabilities legally acquired under the treaty, they
can use these to illegally develop nuclear weapons. As was pointed out
by my colleague, such states as North Korea and Iran have already used
their status as nuclear nonproliferation treaty parties to develop
nuclear weapons, and this closes the loophole. It is a good amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). The global nuclear nonproliferation regime
that has served the world well for many years has developed
shortcomings, and the Markey amendment addresses one such shortcoming
that I think we must address.
This is an issue that is especially important to me as chairman of
the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation. We
held a hearing in April on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and one
of the key issues that we looked at was how NPT states should address
the noncompliance or attempted withdrawal of a state from the treaty.
This amendment takes a step forward in solving this challenge by
calling upon the President to work with other International Atomic
Energy Agency member states to mandate that any State which is found to
be in noncompliance with its NPT obligations, or attempts to withdraw
from the NPT, will be compelled to return all the nuclear materials and
technology it received as a consequence of being an NPT member. I
believe such a provision would be helpful in convincing states to
adhere to their NPT obligations.
States such as North Korea and Iran have likely already used their
status, past status in the case of North Korea, as NPT states to
develop nuclear weapons programs, and I believe it is vital that the
United States play a leading role in multilateral efforts to close the
loophole in the NPT that allows states to receive nuclear energy
assistance, but not pay any penalty if they subsequently withdraw from
the treaty, as has North Korea. Compelling the surrender of materials
and equipment gained under the NPT would be a positive step forward, so
I am pleased to support the Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time. I want to commend him on this most important amendment.
We cannot permit countries such as Iran to profit from their
exploitation of the nuclear nonproliferation regime to acquire nuclear
equipment and technology that they then use to develop nuclear weapons
capabilities in violation of their solemn commitments under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty.
The Markey amendment is a necessary step to establish a new global
requirement that violators of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty must
surrender all nuclear materials, equipment, and technology they
acquired through the subterfuge of ``peaceful nuclear activities.''
This is a singularly significant amendment, and I urge my colleagues
across the aisle to support the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will conclude by saying this: There are no Democrats, there are no
Republicans when it comes to the issue of nuclear nonproliferation. The
one thing that President Bush and John Kerry agreed upon in their
Presidential debates is that this is the most important issue in the
world. It may have been the only thing that they agreed upon, but they
did agree upon this one issue.
Now, interestingly, in the Atomic Energy Act of the United States, in
1954, it is, in fact, a requirement under our law that if another
nation is in violation of the agreement, that the nuclear materials
which we give to that country is not used for peaceful purposes, that
all of the materials that we have sent to that country must be returned
to our country.
What this amendment says is that as a member of the United Nations
and the IAEA, that we now will extend this not just to the United
States, but to all countries in the world; that the IAEA must enforce a
requirement that if a country is in violation of its agreement to use
materials only for peaceful purposes, then the IAEA must act
immediately to begin the process of reclaiming all of the material that
all of the countries of the world have sent to that country which is in
violation of the law.
We must put teeth in this law. We must not allow the short-term
diplomatic or political agenda of any President or any Secretary of
State, Democrat or Republican, to interfere with the overarching goal
of ensuring that nuclear weapons are not used anywhere on this planet
at any time.
{time} 2000
And so I urge all Members to support this amendment. It goes a long
way in sending a message to the rest of the world that the United
States intends on being the leader on the issue of nuclear
nonproliferation, regardless of which other country in the world is
involved and regardless of which other country in the world was the
supplier of those materials. We will be the moral leader.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 1 printed in Subpart A
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), amendment No. 5 printed in
Subpart A by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), amendment No. 1
printed in Subpart C by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Part 1, Subpart A, Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of New York
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 printed in Subpart A of Part 1 of House Report 109-
132 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
[[Page H4642]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405,
noes 13, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 270]
AYES--405
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--13
Capuano
Conyers
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
McKinney
Rangel
Scott (VA)
Stark
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Waters
NOT VOTING--14
Blumenauer
Bono
Cardin
Cox
Cuellar
Davis, Tom
Gillmor
Hooley
Millender-McDonald
Oberstar
Pelosi
Reyes
Sessions
Young (AK)
{time} 2027
Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. LEE, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Messrs.
CAPUANO, McDERMOTT, KUCINICH and RANGEL changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Part 1, Subpart A Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Poe
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 5 printed in Subpart A, Part 1 of House Report 109-132
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 402,
noes 14, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 271]
AYES--402
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
[[Page H4643]]
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--14
Carson
Frank (MA)
Hastings (FL)
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
McGovern
Moore (WI)
Payne
Stark
Watt
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--17
Blumenauer
Bono
Buyer
Cardin
Conyers
Cox
Cuellar
Davis, Tom
Gillmor
Hooley
Inslee
Millender-McDonald
Oberstar
Pelosi
Reyes
Sessions
Young (AK)
{time} 2036
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Part 1, Subpart C Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cantor
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 411,
noes 9, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 272]
AYES--411
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--9
Abercrombie
Conyers
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
McKinney
Moore (WI)
Paul
Stark
NOT VOTING--13
Blumenauer
Bono
Cox
Cuellar
Davis, Tom
Gillmor
Hooley
Millender-McDonald
Oberstar
Pelosi
Reyes
Sessions
Young (AK)
{time} 2056
Mr. CAPUANO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2745) to
reform the United Nations, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________