[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.

                          ____________________