[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.
____________________