[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 7825]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, as we are getting ready to adjourn, we 
have left the foreign relations authorization bill unfinished. I serve 
on the Committee on International Relations, and I was anxious to 
present several amendments in dealing with especially the United 
Nations. Unfortunately, those amendments were not permitted.
  The amendments that we are dealing with I see as being very small 
token efforts to improve the bill, but not really dealing with the 
essence of whether or not we should be in the United Nations or further 
funding the peacekeeping missions and doing many of the things that I 
believe sincerely should not be engaged in if we followed the 
Constitution, and many Americans agree with this.
  I think we are at a point now where a growing number of Americans 
feel like we are not getting a fair shake from the United Nations. I 
have been preaching this message for quite a few years, but I believe 
the United Nations itself is starting to make my point.
  Just recently, in the last week, the United States was kicked off the 
Human Rights Commission, as well as the International Narcotics Control 
Board. This is an affront to our dignity and ought to point out to us 
that, although we pay the largest amount of money for peacekeeping 
missions and the largest amount of dues, here it is that, because there 
is disagreement, we are humiliated by being kicked off these 
commissions.
  I do not see the benefits of belonging to the United Nations. I see 
too many disadvantages. If it were just a discussion group and trying 
to bring people together, that would be one thing; but we have gone to 
an extreme. This is an extreme position, as far as I am concerned, to 
belong to the United Nations and deliver so much of our sovereignty to 
the United Nations today.
  Essentially since World War II, we have gone to war under U.N. 
resolutions. No longer does the President come to the Congress and ask 
for a declaration of war. U.N. resolutions are passed, and we send our 
troops throughout the world fighting and being engaged in war. That is 
not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution is very clear on 
when we should be involved in war.
  The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and 
more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our 
sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to 
participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, 
and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the 
United Nations I think is something we should really challenge.
  Just January of this past year, it was noted that the United Nations 
proposed for the first time, although not ready to be passed, that we 
have an international tax placed on currency transactions to raise 
billions of dollars to be spent for international activities. Now, you 
say well, that is probably just a proposal and it will never happen. 
But even today, in Bosnia, the United Nations peacekeepers over there 
are tax collectors. There are not enough revenues being collected for 
certain governments, and the UN peacekeepers are there collecting 
taxes. So it is already happening that we are involved in tax 
collecting.
  I think that is the wrong way to go, and certainly we should be 
considering slashing these funds. I would have liked to have seen the 
removal of all the funds for peacekeeping missions. There is no 
national sovereignty reasons why we should put American troops under 
U.N. command in areas like Bosnia. I think that is the wrong way to go, 
I do not think the American people support this, and that we should 
reconsider our position and our relationship in the United Nations.
  There are hundreds of millions of dollars here for population control 
around the world. Some would say, well, as long as we write some little 
sentence in here and say ``please do not use any of the money for 
abortion,'' that will alleviate their conscience about sending tax 
dollars over to do abortions in places like China and other places in 
the world. Well, that does not work, because all funds are fungible. 
Funds can be shifted around. If we send the money, it can be used. If 
we specifically say ``do not use them,'' they can just shift the funds 
around, so I see that as not being a very good idea.
  I would like to strike all the funds for population control. If we 
feel compelled to help other countries and teach them about birth 
control, it should be done voluntarily and through missionary work or 
some other way, but not to tax the American people and force them to 
subsidize events like abortion.

                          ____________________