[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 81 (Friday, June 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4671-H4679]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2745.

                              {time}  1057


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2745) to reform the United Nations, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. LaHood (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 printed in Part 
2 of House Report 109-132 by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) had 
been postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 5 printed in Part 2 of House Report 109-132.


              Part 2 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Pence

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2 amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Pence:
       In section 101, add at the end the following new 
     subsections:
       (e) Scale of Assessments.--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 make every effort to ensure that the 
     difference between the scale of assessments for the five 
     permanent members of the Security Council is not greater than 
     five times that of any other permanent member of the Security 
     Council.
       (f) Denial of Use of Veto.--If the Secretary of State 
     determines that a permanent member of the Security Council 
     with veto power is not in compliance with the requirement 
     described in subsection (e), 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 make every effort to deny to such 
     permanent member the use of the veto power of such permanent 
     member until such time as such permanent member satisfies the 
     requirement of such subsection.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized on his 
amendment.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with an amendment that I believe brings 
fairness and common sense to the United Nations and specifically to the 
administration of the Security Council.
  The Security Council is tasked with some of the most difficult 
decisions in the United Nations. Of the 15 member states that serve on 
the council, only five have veto power. These nations are China, 
France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset, I realize the United States 
has the largest economy in the world. We pay more in assessed dues to 
the United Nations than any other member state, but I do not believe 
that all nations are able to pay equally to the U.N. However, those 
member states, I would humbly offer today, that serve as permanent 
members on the Security Council with veto power should be assessed 
equally balanced dues to the United Nations.
  Where I grew up down south of Highway 40 we have an old saying that 
you have got to pay to play; but that is not the way it really works at 
the United Nations, at least with regard to the veto power of the 
Security Council.
  The United States, for instance, was assessed dues in the last year 
of approximately $440 million, 22 percent of the U.N.'s total 
assessment. China, a country home to over 1 billion people, with a 
rapidly growing economy, was assessed dues of $36.5 million or 2.1 
percent of the U.N. assessment.

                              {time}  1100

  Let me say again, the United States' $440 million, 22 percent of the 
U.N.'s assessment; and China, a voting member with veto power on the 
Security Council, paid just $36 million, less than 10 percent, and with 
only 2.1 percent of the U.N.'s assessment.
  The Pence amendment today would direct the President of the United 
States to have the United States' permanent representative to the U.N. 
use the voice vote and influence of the United States to make every 
effort to ensure that the difference between the scale of assessments 
of the five permanent members of the Security Council is not greater 
than five times that of any other permanent member of the Security 
Council.
  In addition to that, if the Secretary of State determines a permanent 
member of the Council with veto power is not in compliance with that 
requirement, the President could direct the U.S. permanent 
representative of the U.N. to use his voice vote and influence to make 
every effort to deny such permanent member the use of veto power.
  Not only does common sense and fairness argue for the Pence 
amendment, but there are serious issues that will come before the 
Security Council

[[Page H4672]]

in the immediate future. For instance, China is, in many respects, 
acting on the global scene contrary to U.S. interests. Recently China 
state-owned oil companies began massive investments in Iran's energy 
sector. This is in direct violation of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. In 
the event serious decisions have to be made on the Security Council on 
U.N. sanctions against Iran, China and Russia, who have complicated 
relationships with Iran, are almost certainly to veto any measure. They 
can play, but they do not have to pay.
  If China and Russia will have an equal right to veto tough action at 
the Security Council, should they not also, Mr. Chairman, have an equal 
obligation to support the work of the United Nations in the form of 
dues?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Pence amendment to 
bring justice and fairness and common sense to the assessment of dues 
at the United Nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to commend my friend from Indiana for presenting this very useful 
amendment, which we are very pleased to accept.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, Cordell Hull is the father of the United Nations, and 
has been recognized as such. His birthplace is located in the Fourth 
Congressional District of Tennessee, where he served as a Member of the 
U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Hull received the Nobel Peace Prize 
as a result of his work forging the alliances to establish the United 
Nations. He had observed the failures of the League of Nations and, as 
a result, saw the unleashing of the horrible occurrences of World War 
II.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not rise today to honor Mr. Hull, although it 
would be fitting to do so. It is my firm belief that the United Nations 
has prohibited a third world war. We today are at the edge of an 
attempt to undermine this viable world organization that has perhaps 
saved us from a catastrophic confrontation between the countries of the 
world. As we debate these issues, 6 million souls of those whose lives 
were taken during the Holocaust are crying out for us to preserve this 
vehicle that has carried the message of peace in the world. The souls 
of tens of millions, both civilians and soldiers, who lost their lives 
during World War II are also being felt, I believe, inside this 
Chamber.
  The United Nations has been an entity of the world that we have 
looked to as we have confronted aggressor nations. I recall as a boy 
the young men from our community who went to Korea in what was called a 
U.N. police action. The U.N. also played a major role after Iraq 
invaded Kuwait, when the nations of the world came together to demanded 
Saddam Hussein and his army withdraw from that country, and then 
authorized military action that successfully forced Saddam and his army 
from Kuwait.
  After the September 11 attack, Congress authorized the President and 
this current administration to invade Iraq if there was evidence that 
Saddam's thugs were a threat to America, possessed weapons of mass 
destruction, or had been training the terrorists that attacked this 
country. This Congress had confidence in the current administration and 
their abilities to make decisions involving Iraq, and we gave them that 
authority.
  The Lantos substitute puts us in exactly the same posture of 
confidence in this President as the Iraqi resolution. The Lantos 
substitute gives the President and this administration the right to 
withhold funds from the leaders of the U.N. if they do not adhere to 
the concerns we have in this Congress.
  It is difficult for me to see how any Member of Congress who voted to 
authorize the President to invade Iraq and gave him and his 
administration that authority would today show a lack of confidence in 
this administration. We need to be sure the leaders of the U.N. 
understand our disenchantment with many of the occurrences that have 
happened. But to cripple this viable world organization that has 
ministered to the lesser amongst us, fed the hungry, housed the 
homeless, clothed the naked, cured the sick, provided clean water and a 
safe environment for many in the world is something America cannot 
afford to lose.
  Bear in mind, my support of the U.N. will never include letting the 
United Nations impose in any way on the sovereignty of this Nation, as 
our Constitution would prohibit. Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of 
the Lantos substitute.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Colleagues, there is an old saying south of Highway 40: You have to 
pay to play. Having an equal veto on the Security Council when the 
United States pays ten times what China pays is unfair to the American 
people. It is unjust, and it defies logic. The Pence amendment will 
amend this inequity.
  If China and Russia will have the equal right to veto tough action at 
the Security Council level, they should also have the equal obligation 
to support the work of the United Nations in the form of dues.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass and accept the Pence 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California for his gracious 
acceptance, compliments, and leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in Part 2 
House Report 109-132.


    Part 2, Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Wilson of south carolina

  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2 Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Wilson of South 
     Carolina:
       In section 107(b)(2), add at the end the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       (E) The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices 
     Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and 
     Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.
       (F) Any other entity the Secretary determines results in 
     duplicative efforts or funding or fails to ensure balance in 
     the approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), our chairman, for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this 
important legislation which reforms the United Nations to the House 
floor today. It has been an honor for me to serve on the Committee on 
International Relations with Chairman Henry Hyde, a legendary gentleman 
of public service. I also appreciate the civility of my neighbor, the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. Chairman, for too long the United Nations has taken an unbalanced 
approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nongovernmental 
organizations and commissions within the U.N. that monitor human rights 
abuses have often resorted to an anti-Israel campaign under the guise 
of protecting

[[Page H4673]]

human rights. As a result, numerous organizations exist within the U.N. 
that are not constructively engaged in establishing peace in the Middle 
East, but, rather, serve to continue inflaming anti-Israel sentiment 
throughout the region due to one-sided reporting of human rights 
abuses.
  Chairman Hyde's legislation in section 107(b)(2) seeks to end 
duplicative efforts and fundings to organizations within the U.N. that 
focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The legislation requires the 
Secretary of State within 60 days of enactment to audit the enlisted 
organizations and report to the appropriate congressional committees 
recommendations to eliminate these duplicative efforts.
  My amendment adds The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli 
Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and 
Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories to the list of organizations 
that are to be audited and reported upon. This Committee was 
established by the U.N. General Assembly in 1968. In its most recent 
report dated September 23, 2004, it notes that the Palestinian people's 
hopes for their own homeland and a better future have been considerably 
diminished.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. The prospects of Palestine 
and Israel living side by side in peace for mutual benefit grows 
stronger every day as world leaders continue to work together to 
resolve this conflict. This Special Committee goes so far as to 
criticize Israel for building a security wall, without mentioning how 
the wall has made Israel more secure from suicide bombers, whose sole 
purpose is to commit the most egregious human rights violations by 
killing innocent Israeli civilians. Under these circumstances, it is 
entirely appropriate to add this U.N. Special Committee to the list of 
entities to be audited and reviewed.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops. We will not forget September 11.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although we accept the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to my friend from Iowa the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Asia and the Pacific (Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to speak to the broader subject for a moment. At issue 
clearly before this body is our problem with the U.N., and there is 
near consensus on both sides of this subject. At issue also is the 
manner in which reform is to take place, and here there is a difference 
of judgment.
  The deepest question before this body is whether we want to abide by 
the rule of law as we attempt to advance a new regime of law. And here 
we all have to recognize that the U.N. Charter, a treaty binding on all 
parties, including the United States, provides that, and I quote, 
``expenses of the organization shall be borne by the members as 
apportioned by the General Assembly.''
  In 1962, the International Court of Justice held, sustaining a 
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.
  The bill before us presumptuously implies that the United States is 
free from 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, for instance, provides that 
``every treaty in force is binding on the parties to it and must be 
performed by them in good faith.'' It further specifies that ``a State 
party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of internal law as 
justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations.''
  This body has every reason to direct the executive branch to attempt 
to initiate the compelling list of reform proposals contained in this 
bill, but this domestic lawmaking body does not embellish its 
reputation by refusing to honor our country's treaty commitments.
  Violating the Law of Nations is neither an appropriate nor effective 
technique to express exasperation with the United Nations.
  The goals of this legislation are thoroughly laudable, but we must 
all understand that the framework we adopt to advance them puts us on 
trial.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished deputy majority 
whip.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the United Nations for too long has failed in its 
mission to serve as a world mediating body. One of the great and 
glaring failures of the U.N. is most evident in its treatment of the 
State of Israel. For 57 years, Israel has been a glowing light of 
democracy and a staunch American ally in the Middle East. Sadly, in the 
eyes of the U.N., Israel's defense of its democracy and its citizens is 
worthy only of condemnation.
  Israel is treated as a lesser nation, with reduced membership 
privileges. While genocide in Yugoslavia and Rwanda went unrecognized, 
the U.N. found time to hold repeated emergency sessions to condemn 
Israel for acting in its own self-defense. Nearly a third of the 
criticisms of the Security Council have been devoted to one single 
country: Israel. While the U.N. Commission on Human Rights often 
consists of delegations representing maniacal tyrannies, it has issued 
over a quarter of all official condemnations to a single democracy: 
Israel. It is no wonder we have lost confidence in the U.N.
  The goal of the United Nations should be to spread freedom and 
democracy throughout the world, not entrench tyranny. I urge the 
passage of this legislation and hope we can bring long overdue change 
to a very troubled world body.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Wilson) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a 
member of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina has an 
excellent amendment that is already encompassed in the Lantos 
substitute. The vote of the day will be on the Lantos substitute 
amendment. That will determine what policy this House establishes.
  Let me first address those who are supporters of the U.N., or only 
mildly skeptical, and urge them to vote for the Lantos substitute 
because it undoubtedly ameliorates the underlying legislation. That 
amendment makes this legislation less draconian and less harsh. If and 
when the Lantos amendment is passed and becomes part of the 
legislation, then Members can decide on final passage, whether to vote 
for an ameliorated bill. But please do not give up the opportunity to 
ameliorate this bill simply because you do not feel that the 
amelioration is fully sufficient.
  Now, let me address those who are quite skeptical of the United 
Nations, who want to get tough in demanding reform. The question is 
what strategy do we use. Do we use the straitjacket strategy where we 
do not trust the administration, we think they are insufficiently 
dedicated to the cause of U.N. reform, and so we impose upon them a 
straitjacket, a formula that says even if 38 out of 39 reforms are 
adopted, if one of those 14 that is special is not adopted, 38 out of 
39 is not enough? We force our negotiators to walk into the room 
wearing a straitjacket.
  Or do we adopt the Lantos approach where we empower the 
administration, state our goals, provide the power to withhold a 
substantial part of our dues, and let them begin to negotiate? That 
question depends on whether Members think the Bush administration is 
tough enough, are they sufficiently dedicated to U.N. reform.
  What has this administration done to show where it stands on being 
tough on

[[Page H4674]]

U.N. reform? The answer is two words: John Bolton. Whoever represents 
us at the U.N. will be representing a President and carrying out the 
policies of a President who, when asked who in the world could best 
represent us, selected John Bolton. It will either be John Bolton or 
someone selected by a man who wanted John Bolton.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  (Mr. JINDAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, in yesterday's New York Times, the 
administration took a very positive step forward. They adopted a 
position in favor of expanding the permanent membership of the U.N. 
Security Council. I rise in strong support of this move. In news 
accounts, there are many countries that are mentioned. The countries 
include India, Japan, and Germany as potential members, potential new 
members to the Security Council.
  Given the changes that we have seen in the past decades in the 
international community, especially the recent rise in the Chinese 
economy and recent press reports about the military buildup within 
China, I think it is entirely appropriate that this important body, the 
permanent members of the Security Council, be changed and expanded to 
reflect today's world and today's reality.
  I rise in strong support of the administration's new position, and I 
rise in strong support of expanding, changing, and modernizing the 
membership of the United Nations Security Council.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part 2 of House Report 109-132.


          Part 2, Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. King of iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2 amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       In section 101, add at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Limitation on United States Contributions to UNRWA.--
     The Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the 
     United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees 
     in the Near East (UNRWA) in an amount greater than the 
     highest contribution to UNRWA made by an Arab country, but 
     may not exceed 22 percent of the total budget of UNRWA. For 
     purposes of this subsection, an Arab country includes the 
     following: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Dijibouti, Egypt, Iran, 
     Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, 
     Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the 
     United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Yemen.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In initial discussion with regard to this amendment, I would like to 
associate myself with regard to the remarks made by the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) about the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations. It is an outstanding privilege to be on the 
floor of this Congress with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and 
to work to improve on a bill that he has courageously stepped forward 
with to address the issue of United Nations reform.
  I have an amendment here before this Congress that addresses one 
component of our United Nations contribution, and it is the component 
that goes to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for 
Palestinian refugees. This is something that was established for about 
650,000 refugees years ago when the nation of Israel was formed, and 
today there are 2.5 million refugees trapped in a bind between the Arab 
world that does not want to accept them and pushes them toward Israel.
  We have contributed to that significantly over the years. In fact, 
the United States contribution has grown to approximately one-quarter 
of the world's contribution to fund the UNRWA budget. We need to put a 
limit on that. We need to hold the Arab world accountable to fund their 
neighbors and some of their residents. So with the United States 
contributing approximately a quarter of that overall budget, the 
highest contributor from the Arab world is Saudi Arabia, contributing 
less than one-seventieth that contributed by the United States.
  This amendment caps the amount we would contribute to UNRWA at 22 
percent of the overall contribution and limits the United States 
contribution to an amount no greater than the greatest amount 
contributed by the Arab nations. And included in that list of Arab 
nations for full disclosure purposes is Iran as well, a neighbor, but 
not technically an Arab nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I want to commend 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for introducing it. Last year, the 
United States paid over 25 percent of the UNRWA budget, over $127 
million. No Arab country paid as much as $2 million, and only two Arab 
states paid as much as $1 million.
  This is a long-standing absurdity; but in a year when Saudi Arabia 
earned a windfall profit of some $58 billion, this situation is 
obscene. It is an insult to the United States taxpayer. And it is 
sickening, Mr. Chairman, that Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab world, 
cynically ignoring this situation, continue to lecture to us that we 
are not doing enough to help the Palestinian people.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops short of prescribing the range of 
reforms to which I believe UNRWA needs to be subjected. It must do a 
better job of ensuring that its assistance does not go to anyone who 
engages in terrorism, as U.S. law requires; that their textbooks need 
to be rewritten to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace; that UNRWA needs 
to stop perpetuating a culture of camps and dependency. It must promote 
programs to encourage Palestinians to leave the refugee camps that are 
a breeding ground for misery and terrorism and build a prosperous life 
on the outside.
  Soon I will propose comprehensive reform of UNRWA, but today is not 
that day.
  For today, I only want to rationalize the process of supporting the 
UNRWA budget. I do not want to take one penny of humanitarian aid from 
the Palestinians, nor do I want to increase the burden on a state like 
Jordan, which has done so much, far more than any other Arab state to 
help Palestinian refugees.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to see oil-rich Arab states pay a small 
portion of their fair share, and I want to see the U.S. taxpayer 
treated with respect. Our amendment makes an important start toward 
accomplishing these goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) for offering this amendment. It is sorely needed as we examine 
both the plight of Palestinian refugees and the propaganda that 
emanates from those who prey upon the frustrations of Palestinian 
refugees.
  Mr. Chairman, UNRWA stands for the United Nations Relief and Works 
Agency for Palestine refugees, created in the wake of hostilities in 
1948. This seeks first on a humanitarian basis to aid those who have 
been afflicted, and as is so often the case, the United States of 
America, maligned internationally by many, has stood front

[[Page H4675]]

and center and has borne the financial burden of one-quarter of the 
world's expenditures for UNRWA. And others around the world, we should 
point out, have also stepped in. But the fact is that the United 
States, Sweden, Japan, and Italy pay individually into UNRWA more than 
all the Arab nations combined.
  It is a fair question to ask in terms of geopolitical proximity, 
i.e., neighbors living closest to those experiencing the problems, why 
do those nations not step forward to pay their fair share? Why do those 
nations who in their satellite news organizations that chronicle the 
plight of the Palestinians, why do those same nations not step forward? 
Saudi Arabia ranks 16th in contributing country with $1.8 million in 
funding. A nation that earns billions from its natural wealth of 
petroleum offers less than $2 million. This amendment is wise and fair. 
Adopt this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for 
his support of this amendment and the work that he has done on human 
rights. This is an amendment that is constructive and sends the right 
message. It encourages resources coming from the right people to 
support some people who do need some support.
  I urge its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part 2 of House Report 109-132.


            Part 2, Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McCotter

  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2, amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. McCotter:
       In title I (relating to the mission and budget of the 
     United Nations), add at the end the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 110. UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND LEBANON.

       (a) Resolution 1559.--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 make every effort to ensure that the 
     Security Council is undertaking the necessary steps to secure 
     the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, 
     including--
       (1) deploying United Nations inspectors to verify and 
     certify to the Security Council that--
       (A) all foreign forces, including intelligence, security, 
     and policing forces, have been withdrawn from Lebanon; and
       (B) all militias in Lebanon have been permanently disarmed 
     and dismantled and their weapons have been decommissioned; 
     and
       (2) continuing the presence of United Nations elections 
     monitoring teams in Lebanon to verify and certify to the 
     Security Council that--
       (A) citizens of Lebanon are not being targeted for 
     assassination by foreign forces, in particular by foreign 
     forces of Syria, or by their proxies, as a means of 
     intimidation and coercion in an effort to manipulate the 
     political process in Lebanon;
       (B) elections in Lebanon are being conducted in a fair and 
     transparent manner and are free of foreign interference; and
       (C) that such foreign forces, or their proxies, are not 
     seeking to infringe upon the territorial integrity or 
     political sovereignty of Lebanon.
       (b) United States Action.--If the steps described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) have not been 
     verified and certified to the Security Council by July 31, 
     2005, or by the date that is not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is sooner, 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 
     secure the adoption of a resolution in the Security Council 
     imposing punitive measures on the governments of countries 
     whose forces remain in Lebanon in violation of Security 
     Council Resolution 1559 and who directly, or through proxies, 
     are infringing upon the territorial integrity or political 
     sovereignty of Lebanon.

  The Acting 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, this amendment calls upon the President of the United 
States to ask our permanent representative to the United Nations to use 
his voice, his vote, and every means that he possibly can to enforce 
Security Council Resolution 1559.

                              {time}  1130

  Security Council Resolution 1559 calls upon a full Syrian withdrawal 
of intelligence forces and their troops; it calls upon for free and 
fair elections within Lebanon; and, in the end, it guarantees and 
ensures the sovereignty of Lebanon.
  I do not expect there will be much opposition to this. I would like 
to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for all of his support 
in championing the cause of Lebanese freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Does any Member claim time in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, very quickly, while I strongly disagree with the 
underlying framework that mandates a dues cut-off if all these 
conditions are not met, this particular condition, I think, seeks a 
very important goal of American foreign policy and the implementation 
of U.N. Security Resolution 1559 and the withdrawal of all foreign 
forces and the disarming and dismantlement of all the militias in 
Lebanon. So I compliment the gentleman for proposing this, and ask him 
to reconsider the underlying structure of the bill on which we will be 
voting.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Well, at least the gentleman will get half a loaf, I suppose. I do 
want to point out, in fairness to the United Nations, that they have 
sent their second verification team into Lebanon in the wake of the 
assassination of a popular journalist to again ensure that foreign 
forces and the intelligence network has been removed.
  For too long the people of Lebanon have wept for decades over their 
dead, and now they see the dawn of freedom at the end of the dark days. 
It is critical that the United States and United Nations and every 
nation of the world do everything within its power to ensure that the 
peaceful seeds of revolution continue and perhaps light the way for 
other nations suffering from an oppressive yoke to break free of their 
dictators and tyrants and enter the world's democracies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in Part 2 of House Report 109-132.


                   Part 2, Amendment No. 6 Offered by

                            Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2, amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:
       In title II (relating to human rights and the Economic and 
     Social Council), add at the end the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 203. UNITED NATIONS DEMOCRACY FUND.

       (a) 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 make every effort to--
       (1) establish a Democracy Fund at the United Nations to be 
     administered by Member States of the United Nations Democracy 
     Caucus;
       (2) secure political and financial support for the 
     Democracy Fund from Member

[[Page H4676]]

     States of the United Nations Democracy Caucus; and
       (3) establish criteria that limits recipients of assistance 
     from the Democracy Fund to Member States that--
       (A) are not ineligible for membership on any United Nations 
     human rights body, in accordance with paragraphs (1) through 
     (4) of section 201(b); and
       (B) are determined by the Secretary of State to be emerging 
     democracies or democracies in transition.
       (b) Policy Relating to Funding for the Democracy Fund.--It 
     shall be the policy of the United States to shift 
     contributions of the United States to the regularly assessed 
     budget of the United Nations for a biennial period to 
     initiate and support the Democracy Fund referred to in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Certification.--In accordance with section 601, a 
     certification shall be required that certifies that the 
     requirements described in subsection (a) have been satisfied.
       In section 601(a)(1), strike ``and section 202'' and insert 
     ``section 202, and section 203''.
       In section 601(a)(3)(A), strike ``39'' and insert ``40''.
       In section 601(a)(3)(A), strike ``ten'' and insert ``11''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and a Member opposed 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.
  Mr. Chairman, the few times that the United Nations has implemented 
even a modicum of reform, it has been when the United States has 
leveraged its contribution to press for those changes.
  It has been almost a year since President Bush addressed the U.N. 
General Assembly and raised the creation of a U.N. Democracy Fund. The 
U.N. Secretary General favorably has referred to the fund, but there is 
no fund. We have been down this road many times. The U.N. will pay lip 
service, but its rhetoric rarely, if ever, translates into concrete 
action.
  This is obviously an important issue for my good friend the 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), as he included such a fund in the Advanced Democracy Act and 
includes a $10 million authorization of funds for the Democracy Fund in 
his own substitute to the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act. I would 
therefore assume that my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), would want to ensure that it actually becomes 
a reality and it does not perish in the abyss that is the United 
Nations currently. That is why we need the certification that is 
provided in my amendment.
  Since the distinguished ranking member agrees that the United Nations 
needs reforming, particularly on the human rights front, he would want 
to ensure that there are safeguards in place for the administration of 
the moneys that are donated to the U.N. Democracy Fund, and he would 
not want the same corrupt officials that administered the Oil-for-Food 
program to now administer the U.N. Democracy Fund.
  As the distinguished ranking member is aware, the member countries of 
the U.N. Democracy Caucus have asked for an agenda, one that includes 
tangible criteria and objectives, and my amendment does that. It makes 
the Democracy Caucus responsible for the U.N. Democracy Fund.
  The United Nations was created from the ashes of the Second World War 
in an effort to prevent future atrocities and to fight the rise of the 
oppressive, power-hungry, dictatorial rulers who threaten peace and 
security. Yet, as we have witnessed with grave concern, the United 
Nations has become a rogues gallery, where pariah states proceed with 
virtual impunity. There is no effective mechanism to support new and 
transitioning democracies.
  My amendment addresses this deficiency by calling for the 
establishment of a Democracy Fund at the U.N. to provide grants and in-
kind assistance for emerging democracies. It would seek a wide spectrum 
of participation, one that reflects democratic experience from old and 
new. But it provides safeguards that are going to ensure that only 
countries that uphold and defend human rights and democratic values can 
benefit from and participate in the Fund's activities.
  My amendment also calls on the U.S. permanent representative to the 
U.N. to work to secure political and financial support for the 
Democracy Fund from fellow democracies, and it calls for a shift in 
U.S. contributions to provide start-up funds for this endeavor.
  This amendment translates the vision of a Democracy Fund into a 
concrete initiative. We need to make sure that we are accountable to 
our U.S. taxpayers. We have got to take immediate steps to weaken 
brutal, evil regimes, as the underlying Hyde U.N. Reform Act proposes, 
while we empower and assist those countries who embody and uphold 
democratic values, as this amendment seeks.
  We are once again, Mr. Chairman, engaged in a test of wills and a 
battle of ideas, a battle between those who hate, who incite to 
violence, who oppress and subjugate, against those who stand for the 
democratic beliefs that we cherish and to which we are committed.
  Thus, whether your views are shaped by former President Ronald 
Reagan, who said, ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from 
extinction . . . it must be fought for, protected''; or whether your 
views have been shaped by former President John F. Kennedy, who said, 
``In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been 
granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I 
do not shrink from this responsibility,'' Mr. Chairman, let us not 
shrink from our responsibility, and let us pass this amendment.
  The United Nations was created from the ashes of the second World War 
in an effort to prevent future atrocities against innocent human beings 
and a means to combat the rise of oppressive power-hungry dictatorial 
rulers that threaten peace and stability.
  This commitment is underscored in the Preamble of the U.N. Charter 
which reaffirms: ``faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity 
and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and 
of nations large and small,'' and in the promotion of justice and 
better standards of life ``in larger freedom.''
  Yet, as we have witnessed with grave concern, the United Nations has 
become a rogue's gallery, where pariah states proceed with virtual 
impunity.
  Even when dealing with dictatorships such as the one in Myanmar, what 
the brutal Burmese military junta hears from the U.N. leadership are 
mere statements expressing ``concern'' over the arrests of members of 
opposition parties.
  In addition, there is no effective mechanism to support nascent and 
transitioning democracies.
  The amendment I have sponsored seeks to address this deficiency by 
calling for the establishment of a Democracy Fund at the United Nations 
which will provide grants and in-kind assistance for emerging 
democracies, and which will focus on supporting the development of 
civil society and democratic institutions.
  The Democracy Fund would seek a wide spectrum of participation--one 
that reflects the democratic experience from old and new, while 
providing safeguards that will ensure that only countries that uphold 
and defend human rights and democratic values can benefit from and 
participate in the Fund's activities.
  The safeguards embedded in my amendment include: A requirement that 
the Fund be administered by member countries of the U.N. Democracy 
Caucus; membership criteria that block repressive regimes; and 
certification that the Fund is in force within the parameters set 
forth.
  The success of the Fund will largely depend on the active involvement 
and direction of both the donor states and the emerging democracies 
themselves.
  For this reason, my amendment also calls on the U.S. Permanent 
Representative to the United Nations to work to secure political and 
financial support for the Democracy Fund from fellow democracies, while 
calling for a shift in U.S. contributions to provide the start-up funds 
for this endeavor.
  President Bush proposed the creation of a Democracy Fund at last 
year's U.N. General Assembly meeting and the Secretary General's recent 
report U.N. reform highlighted the Democracy Fund. However, the Fund 
still does not exist. This amendment translates the vision of a 
Democracy Fund into a concrete initiative.
  Concurrently, it provides for accountability and for the most 
efficient use of U.S. funds. It doesn't just simply authorize millions 
of additional U.S. dollars to a United Nations system plagued by 
allegations of graft and corruption--a United Nations system that has 
sexual predators in peacekeeping missions and tyrants dictating the 
human rights agenda. It places control over the Fund in the hands of

[[Page H4677]]

those most knowledgeable about the needs of nascent democracies--fellow 
democracies.
  My colleagues, we are, once again, engaged in a test of wills and 
battle of ideas--a battle between those who hate, who incite to 
violence, who oppress and subjugate, against those who stand for the 
democratic beliefs we cherish and to which we are committed.
  Thus, whether your views have been shaped by former President Ronald 
Reagan who said: ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from 
extinction . . . It must be fought for, protected . . .''; or by former 
President John F. Kennedy who said: ``In the long history of the world, 
only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom 
in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this 
responsibility,''; we must take immediate steps to weaken brutal, evil 
regimes, as the underlying Hyde UN Reform Act proposes, while we 
empower and assist those countries who embody and uphold democratic 
principles, as this amendment seeks.
  I ask my colleagues to render their strong support to the Ros-
Lehtinen amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentlewoman for raising the subject of 
the U.N. Democracy Fund, but this is a wonderful illustration of the 
road we are embarking on here.
  The gentlewoman seeks to add a condition which must be met, or else 
we will slash the dues to 50 percent. In other words, if the rest of 
the world that are member nations of the United Nations do not create 
and support this U.N. Democracy Fund, we will cut our dues.
  The Lantos substitute authorizes a contribution to the U.N. Democracy 
Fund. The condition that the gentlewoman proposes on the base bill 
threatens to cut funds. It does not authorize any contribution by us to 
a very important fund. The gentlewoman spoke eloquently about what we 
want to achieve here, and then says we are cutting it unless somebody 
else does it. The Lantos substitute says this is a wonderful idea; we 
authorize $10 million in contributions to this fund.
  There is also a second issue. The gentlewoman properly encourages 
contributions to democratic governments, but it is most important to 
push democracy in those places where there are not democratic 
governments. There is no eligibility in her amendment for contributions 
from this U.N. Democracy Fund to nongovernmental organizations and 
dissidents and democratic forces in nondemocratic governments.
  But, by and large, the gentlewoman is focusing on an issue that is 
important. Unfortunately, it is in the context of a mandatory imposed 
cut.
  I will just end by quoting a woman I know the gentlewoman respects, 
our former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who said on this subject, 
``Withholding U.S. dues to the United Nations may sound like smart 
policy but would be counterproductive at this time, so soon after the 
Helms-Biden process was completed. It would create resentment, build 
animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform.''
  Withholding the dues to the U.N. is the wrong methodology. When we 
last built debt with the U.N., the U.S. isolated ourselves from our 
allies within the U.N. and made diplomacy a near impossible task. In 
other words, everything we share in common and want to achieve is 
undercut by the base bill to which the gentlewoman is proposing a 
condition.
  I am going to support her amendment. I simply wanted to use this time 
to point out what I think are a few flaws in the amendment, the absence 
of a positive authorization of money for the U.N. Democracy Fund, and 
remind people why the underlying bill is in this case wrong-headed.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
4 additional minutes of debate on this matter, equally divided between 
the two sides.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished friend.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to have been yielded time to 
speak. I am grateful that we got this time extended without objection, 
and I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) in supporting the 
gentlewoman's amendment, without some of his reservations, but these 
are the kinds of things that grow as they move.
  The idea of a United Nations Democracy Fund is so critically 
important. There are so many things happening in the world today where 
we need to encourage those democracies, whether they be in Lebanon or 
the Ukraine or many other places around the world where democracy is 
beginning to grow, beginning to flourish, and to do those things that 
encourage the institutions to grow and perpetuate and maintain and 
sustain democracy. A free press, the rule of law, civil society that 
works in a democratic way, the protection of minority rights are all 
the kinds of things that the gentlewoman's fund and the concept would 
promote around the world.
  It is a critical element. Sustaining democracy, sustaining peace is 
more than just having the instruments of war, which are important to 
have, but also having the instruments of peace, the instruments of 
democracy.
  Democracy is more than just the absence of war. Democracy is the kind 
of society that the United Nations needs to encourage, needs to 
encourage in a greater way, and through all its institutions I think we 
need to be prejudiced towards the democracies of the world. One of the 
ways we can do that is to grow those democracies.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this concept in this bill, and later 
perhaps in other versions and other ideas, and I encourage our 
colleagues really not only to vote for it today, but to sustain this 
thought as we talk about our position in international agencies.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am so glad the gentleman brings up 
this important topic. As the gentleman from California has pointed out, 
our friend, in his own statement, the times we have had reform in the 
United Nations is when we have used our leverage of this assistance. I 
think that making sure that we are accountable to the taxpayers, that 
is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate the comments by my friend, the majority 
whip from Missouri.

                              {time}  1145

  He references respect for the rule of law, and we all concur.
  But I think there is a certain irony here, because as the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Asia, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), alluded 
to, in fact, what we are doing here today, if the base bill should 
become law, is we are disrespecting the rule of law. We are walking 
away from our treaty obligation.
  Now, we have been accused of embracing the concept of unilateralism. 
I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine what the rest of the world is 
contemplating as we are here debating whether we simply will abrogate, 
without a formal process of abrogation, renouncing the charter, just 
simply not meeting our charter obligations. In many respects, this is 
not just simply about the United Nations; this is about the rule of 
law. Do we pick and select and choose what treaties we have ratified 
and are signatory to, which ones we will abide by?
  I do not have to repeat the arguments, the eloquent and, I think, 
accurate arguments put forth by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), 
but that is what we are doing here, if the base bill should pass. We 
will preach and speak about respect for the rule of law, which is 
obviously essential in democracy; but by our action, we will open 
ourselves to charges of hypocrisy. We do not need that now in this 
time, where our own GAO is telling us that there is increasing anti-
Americanism

[[Page H4678]]

spreading throughout the world, which puts our national security 
interests at risk. This amendment, although well intentioned, I think 
creates that potential.
  I know the gentlewoman from Florida is conversant with what is 
happening in the United Nations now. There is a critical mass for 
reform. There are like-minded democracies that support the democracy 
theme, that want to achieve the same goals that we want to. Yet not a 
single one of them is taking the same approach in terms of effecting 
and bringing about the same reform that we all wish to accomplish, 
because they know that if we begin to selectively abrogate our 
responsibilities under international treaties, which we have signed on 
to, that that creates a very, very slippery slope.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman talks about 
responsibilities and abrogating our responsibilities, I am sure that 
the gentleman, my good friend, would agree that we also have an 
obligation to our taxpayers, those who are funding so many of their 
dollars to the United Nations; and we have seen so many scandals 
unfolding from the U.N., and I believe that this amendment gets to 
accountability and transparency.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part 2 of House Report 109-132.


      Part 2, Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Garrett of new jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2, amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Garrett of New 
     Jersey:
       In title I, add at the end the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 110. POLICY WITH RESPECT TO EXPANSION OF THE SECURITY 
                   COUNCIL.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to use the 
     voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United 
     Nations to oppose any proposals on expansion of the Security 
     Council if such expansion would--
       (1) diminish the influence of the United States on the 
     Security Council;
       (2) include veto rights for any new members of the Security 
     Council; or
       (3) undermine the effectiveness of the Security Council.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  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.
  I rise today to offer an amendment addressing another and very 
important issue, and that is the possible expansion of the United 
Nations Security Council.
  My amendment would state that it should be the policy of the United 
States Government to use its voice, vote, and influence of the United 
States at the U.N. to oppose any proposal on expansion of the Security 
Council if that expansion would either diminish the influence of the 
United States on the Security Council, or if it included veto rights 
for any new members of the Security Council or, finally, and most 
importantly, if it would undermine the effectiveness of the Security 
Council.
  Currently, there are five permanent members and there are 10 rotating 
members to the Security Council. It takes a vote of nine members, that 
is 60 percent of all there, a majority, to advance any initiative to 
the Security Council.
  Now, the recent proposal that we have heard about expanding it says 
we should expand it up to 24 members. That would mean we would need 15 
member countries to support any initiative to get it through the 
Security Council. Now, why is that a problem?
  Well, one blatant example of how the number of countries on the 
council and their competing interests have hindered the ability to move 
forward and get substantive and important resolutions passed, the one 
most important one that has been discussed on this floor of recent is 
the genocide that has occurred in Sudan. It has been extremely 
difficult for the United States to try and get any member of the 
Security Council to come to an agreement on this and a resolution, such 
as China, who has economic interests in the area, and African 
countries, who have their own regional difficulties and disagreements 
in the area as well. If we increase the size of the Security Council, 
we would have an even harder time moving important missions through the 
Security Council such as this.
  Now, for those who believe that the United States should play an 
active role in the Security Council, you should support this amendment. 
The more that the United States' influence is lessened in the council, 
the more the United States will have to act unilaterally to deal with 
international crises.
  The expansion of the U.N. Security Council could undermine the 
effectiveness and its ability to respond to threats to international 
peace and security. So I think it is important that Congress send a 
message to the administration and the U.N. that we do not want to 
diminish the influence of the United States on the Security Council. My 
amendment would do just that, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The Acting Chairman. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is no Member in this body who wants to see the influence of the 
United States diminished in the Security Council. It is my personal 
judgment that adding democratic friends and allies, such as the world's 
largest democracy, India, or Japan, a proven friend and ally, standing 
with us in many difficult situations around the globe, will only 
strengthen our influence at the United Nations.
  I see no reason to oppose this amendment. We accept it.
  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.
  Just very briefly, to respond, any increase in the members where they 
have the veto power in the Security Council will possibly have the 
effect of diminishing the U.S. role there, because that means that that 
additional member would be able to block what is in the interests of 
the United States and the interests of the American taxpayers and 
citizens of this Nation.
  Likewise, any proposal to increase the size, even without the ability 
to veto, would diminish the ability of the United States to get 
important initiatives through, just as I stated before, because even if 
they are other democratic nations, they may have competing interests 
with those of the United States, and, therefore, compete with what we 
are trying to do in the Security Council.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  There is no one who favors granting veto power to any new Security 
Council member. It is a fact that with Russia moving in a totalitarian 
direction and China being a nondemocracy, adding democratic nations as 
permanent members of the Security Council will enhance our influence, 
but we are in accord of not granting veto power to any new member.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part 2 of House Report 109-132.

[[Page H4679]]

      Part 2, Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Garrett of new jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2 amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Garrett of New 
     Jersey:
       In section 101, add at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Policy Relating to Zero Nominal Growth.--It shall be 
     the policy of the United States to use the voice, vote, and 
     influence of the United States at the United Nations to make 
     every effort to enforce zero nominal growth in all assessed 
     dues to the regular budget of the United Nations, its 
     specialized agencies, and its funds and programs.
       (f) 5.6 Rule.--It shall be the policy of the United States 
     to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at 
     the United Nations to actively enforce the 5.6 rule at the 
     United Nations, requiring the Secretariat to identify low-
     priority activities in the budget proposal. The United 
     Nations should strengthen the 5.6 rule by requiring that 
     managers identify the lowest priority activities equivalent 
     to 15 percent of their budget request or face an across the 
     board reduction of such amount.
       (g) Annual Publication.--It shall be the policy of the 
     United States to use the voice, vote, and influence of the 
     United States at the United Nations to ensure the United 
     Nations is annually publishing a list of all subsidiary 
     bodies and their functions, budgets, and staff.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  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.
  I rise today to offer another amendment, and this one is to reform 
the U.N. budget process.
  The amendment seeks to control the overall growth of the U.N.'s 
budget and establish priorities within the U.N. budget process and also 
to increase transparency and accountability in it and its subsidiaries, 
and it does so basically in three ways.
  Just to step back for a moment, the U.N.'s budget right now, the 
biennial budget, is around $3.6 billion; but over the last 10 years, we 
have seen that budget grow by almost $1 billion. That is a 39 percent 
increase. Now, I wonder if any of us would think to say that the U.N.'s 
productivity over the last 10 years has also increased by 39 percent. I 
would rather guess not.
  My amendment, first of all, would help to rein in that bloated, out-
of-control bureaucracy at the U.N. by stating that it shall be the 
policy of the U.S. to make every effort to enforce a zero nominal 
growth in the regular budget of the U.N., its specialized agencies, and 
the funds and programs that it has.
  Secondly, another part of my amendment seeks to strengthen the United 
Nations rule 5.6. Now, this is a rule that was set up to instruct the 
Secretariat to identify low-priority activities in the U.N.'s budget 
proposal. Unfortunately, the U.N. has looked at that rule over the 
years and failed to designate almost any programs as low priorities 
under 5.6.
  So my amendment would indicate that every activity that the U.N. is 
involved in cannot simply be a top priority proposal or rule right now. 
So, instead, my amendment would say that the U.N. must look to the 5.6 
rule and identify 15 percent of their budget request as their lower-
priority activities. If they fail to do so, they will face an across-
the-board reduction of such amount.
  Finally, the third point and the last part of my amendment is it 
seeks to address the lack of transparency and accountability at the 
U.N. My amendment seeks to ensure that the U.N. is annually publishing 
a list of all its subsidiary bodies and functions, their budget, and 
their staff as well.
  Now, the much talked-about Gingrich-Mitchell U.N. Task Force that 
went to the U.N. last year, they went to the U.N. and asked for a 
similar list and the U.N. simply could not provide one. Well, if we 
want to rein in this out-of-control bureaucracy that the U.N. is, I 
believe that it is essential that we know who is working for them, how 
much they are paying them, and exactly what is it that they are doing.
  Now, one example of one of these subsidiary agencies that would 
appear to have outlived its usefulness and is wasting some vital 
resources is the Economic Commission for Europe. This commission was 
created right after World War II, and it was designed to help Europe to 
know how they can grow economically and develop. Now, I, quite frankly, 
would argue that we have passed the point that Europe needs any more 
help from the U.N. and advice from the U.N. on how to grow and develop, 
and that this is an agency and a portion of the U.N. that can be 
dissolved.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is an important step in making 
the U.N. a more transparent, accountable, and functioning world body; 
and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, we do not object to this amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Smith of New Jersey) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________