[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12036-12043]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THE UNITED NATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mack). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to 
discuss a topic of worldwide importance, and that is the United 
Nations.
  The United Nations was created in 1945 after World War II, and it was 
done to preserve world peace through collective security; and I 
believe, quite frankly, that it has failed miserably in its role.
  As we approach the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, I wanted 
to discuss the United Nations this afternoon, to look at its original 
charter and its mission, and evaluate if the United Nations has 
accomplished what it was designed to do.
  If we look over here, we have set out what its initial mission was: 
``The United Nations Failing its Mission.'' Its charter calls as 
follows: The U.N. charter calls for maintaining international peace and 
security and to that end to take collective measures for the prevention 
and removal of threats to peace.''
  It sets forth in more detail, if we would read the charter, to 
maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective 
measures for the prevention and removal of threats, to bring about the 
peace and world order.
  Secondly, to develop friendly relations among nations based upon 
respect, respect for the principles of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples.
  Thirdly, to achieve cooperation in solving international problems, 
problems of economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian in character.
  And fourthly and finally, to promote and encourage respect for human 
rights and for the other fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear. 
Freedom from distinctions such as race, sex, language, and religion.
  Unfortunately, if we look at the record of the United Nations over 
the last 60-some-odd years on any one of these issues, I think people 
would have to be in agreement with me that it has failed on each and 
every one. The United Nations has not maintained international peace 
and security. As we point out here, the number of wars that have 
occurred since 1945 number well over 300 wars. Those wars have 
translated into the deaths of some 22 million people.
  The only times that the United Nations has ever supported intervening 
to try to actually stop hostilities, to try to prevent wars, to try to 
do and live up to what its mission says were on two occasions. One was 
with respect to the Korean War. And the only reason that that came 
about, if the Members recall their history, was that the Soviet Union 
at the U.N. in New York boycotted the Security Council meeting, and 
they were able to take a vote to intervene at that point.
  And the second one was much more recent, and that, of course, was in 
the first Persian Gulf war. But other than

[[Page 12037]]

those two examples, there has never been any example where the U.N. has 
successfully stepped in and prevented these wars; and because of it, 22 
million lives have been lost.
  Just over the last 10 years, there have been multiple genocides that 
occurred under the United Nations' watch. These have occurred in 
Bosnia; Rwanda; and now, as we speak, in the Darfur region of the 
Sudan. Each time the United Nations has failed to take the appropriate 
action and the action that was needed to put an end to those mass 
killings, and it was mainly due to political and economic pressures.
  If we think about it, the biggest threat right now to the civilized 
world today, as we speak, is terrorism. And even in this field, the 
U.N. has failed throughout its existence to develop a clear definition 
of what terrorism really is.
  Another main mission of the United Nations is to promote and 
encourage human rights and equal rights throughout the world. In this 
regard we have something called the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. 
This is the primary body that the U.N. has that is charged with 
accomplishing this objective. However, again, look at the record and 
see that the U.N. has failed in this area as well. Countries such as 
Cuba, the Sudan, China, countries that have a long history of violating 
human rights, countries such as these sit on the very commission in the 
U.N. that is supposed to be protecting the human rights and dignity of 
the people in these countries.
  These countries' membership and others like them on this panel 
destroys the very credibility of this commission; and it prevents the 
United Nations from achieving its goals, those goals in promoting and 
strengthening human rights. In fact, it was just a short time ago, 
several years ago, that Libya, that country with that terrible human 
rights track record, was selected to serve as the very chairman of the 
Human Rights Commission.
  When we get into the issue of dollars and cents, American taxpayers 
should be questioning just where their hard-earned tax dollars go. The 
United States pays almost 25 percent of the entire United Nations 
budget. The United States pays upwards of 25 percent of the entire 
budget for the U.N., estimated in the 25 percent ratio. But then when 
we compare that to the number of votes in the U.N. that side with the 
United States on important issues relative to the citizens of the 
state, the pie chart looks particularly different.
  On the left, the pie chart showing almost a quarter of the budget 
coming from the U.S., U.S. taxpayers; on the right the pie chart 
showing the number of votes that are with us as opposed to being 
against us, and we just get a slight sliver. What is that number? The 
share of votes in the U.N. General Assembly siding with the United 
States is \1/2\ percent. Less than 1 percent of the time does the U.N. 
side with the United States. The majority of the time, almost 99.5 
percent of the time, they are against us. And despite the fact that we 
pay a vast majority, a huge percentage, of the U.N.'s budget, we have 
the same voting rights as anyone else there; we have the same voting 
power as countries such as Tunisia, Bulgaria, El Salvador; the same 
voting rights as some of the other countries that I mentioned 
previously, those countries with terrible human rights violation 
records that serve on the Commission of Human Rights, et cetera. 
Countries that are headed by dictators and tyrants have the same 
ability to influence that world body that we do in the U.N.
  All these problems that I have mentioned lead back now to the very 
point that I am trying to make this afternoon, that the United Nations 
is in serious need of major change and reform. Over the next hour my 
colleagues and I will discuss some of these problems, problems that the 
United Nations has had from its very foundation, from its very creation 
in 1945, and have existed right up to the present time. Some of these 
problems should be familiar to the Members as we see they make the 
headlines of some of the papers. Other papers we have to read in the 
back to actually find out what is going on with the U.N., problems 
including such things as the now infamous Oil-for-Food scandal, the 
sexual exploitation of women and little children in the Congo, also the 
ongoing crisis that I referenced earlier in the Darfur region of the 
Sudan.
  We need to examine now the ways we need to take to reform the United 
Nations and make it a more accountable and transparent world body, if 
that is possible.
  I should say that I commend the House Committee on International 
Relations, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) as well, the 
chairman of that committee, because he and the committee, as we speak 
and just recently, have been working to bring up legislation out of the 
committee now and before this House that will address these problems, 
bringing up and passing a substantial United Nations reform proposal. I 
look forward to that legislation coming to the floor of the House for 
our consideration, for our review, and hopefully for a vote on that 
legislation soon.
  The lack of oversight and accountability by an international body 
that claims to represent the moral conscience of the world really 
should not be tolerated, should not be tolerated by the citizens of 
this country, should not be tolerated by the citizens of the world. As 
the largest financial contributor to the United Nations in the world, 
the United States is the one country in the best position now to demand 
those reforms.
  So tonight let us take a look at some of those particular areas that 
I have referenced already in need of reform with regard to the 
legislation that we will be seeing soon out of committee and before 
this House for consideration.
  Probably the one that is most familiar to the general public today is 
that dealing with the Oil-for-Food scandal; and when we think about it, 
it really is not that familiar to a lot of people because for a long 
time it was not getting mainstream press attention. In fact, if it was 
not for a newspaper in New York and a few other papers that focused on 
this extensively, we would never have seen this issue make the front 
pages of the paper elsewhere. And if it was not for certain news 
commentaries on stations like Fox and otherwise that did actually do a 
good job of bringing this issue to the fore, the rest of the mainstream 
media failed to dig into this issue to find out what the problems were 
with regard regards to the Oil-for-Food scandal.
  So let us take this opportunity here this afternoon, then, to revisit 
that topic to allow the public to dig in and take a look at what the 
history was there and hopefully open the eyes of some people to some of 
the real problems within the U.N.
  With regard to the Oil-for-Food scandal, we have to go back to the 
first gulf war. Back at that time, sanctions were put in place on 
Saddam Hussein and his entire regime, and those sanctions were put in 
place that forbade them from exporting their oil outside of their 
country. And we know that, of course, the oil revenue was his main 
revenue stream coming into that country. So restrictions were placed on 
that country saying that they could not export any more oil. And, of 
course, that was having a tremendous economic downward impact upon his 
country and, of course, the people that lived in it as well.
  The U.N. became involved and said that there were problems for the 
regular common people in that country because of these sanctions. So in 
1996 these restrictions were softened, and the U.N. established the 
Oil-for-Food program. And in that program, it allowed the Iraqi 
government, Saddam Hussein, to sell a limited amount of oil and a 
limited amount from his reserves, was able to sell outside of that 
country.

                              {time}  1445

  The revenue that would be coming back into Iraq was to be used for 
humanitarian purposes and supplies, food, housing and the like, medical 
supplies, for the regular people who were suffering in Iraq.
  When the U.N. established this, however, Saddam Hussein demanded 
certain transaction payments from the

[[Page 12038]]

companies and officials that were doing business with him. In other 
words, what happened here, these were basically kickbacks to Saddam 
Hussein, money that would turn around and then he would be able to use 
for other purposes, other than helping the people of his country.
  The way it worked was simply this: Under the agreement set up with 
the U.N., he was able to designate those companies that would be the 
ones that would provide the humanitarian services. Well, if those 
companies wanted to have anything to do with getting that lucrative 
contract with his government, he would in turn compel them to make some 
sort of, I guess you would say, under-the-table kickback to himself 
personally and his government.
  And what did he use that money for? He turned around and used that 
money for his army, for his generals, for munitions, and, of course, 
also to provide for the palaces that we have since seen that he enjoyed 
in that country, meanwhile while his people were destitute and in 
poverty. Also money that was used to provide funding to Palestinians 
and the homicide bomber families. Suicide bombing families who engaged 
in that conduct were soon informed that their families would be 
receiving a stipend, if you will, of $15,000 to $25,000 or more, care 
of the Saddam Hussein government, care of the Oil-for-Food revenue 
stream.
  Now, by allowing this corrupt system to continue and allowing Saddam 
Hussein to manipulate the Oil-for-Food Program and also to bribe 
government officials from other countries, and the reports have shown 
there has been an extensive list of government officials and people in 
high levels and positions in other countries, countries that perhaps it 
really should not surprise us, whether we are talking about people in 
Russia or in France, countries that were fighting the United States and 
our positions where we had taken a tougher stance on Saddam Hussein. I 
guess now, in retrospect, we know why some of those countries were 
fighting the United States and our position to try to help the people 
of Iraq, because there were people over in those countries that were 
receiving part of those kickbacks from Saddam Hussein.
  In the end, how much money was diverted from the legitimate purposes 
of helping these people? How much money was diverted from providing for 
food and shelter and medical supplies? Well, altogether, the reports 
are now looking at $21 billion was stolen by Saddam Hussein at the 
expense of his own people of his country.
  Think about it. The U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program was created to help 
provide humanitarian supplies, food and medicine, to the less 
fortunate. But Saddam Hussein, under the auspices and the willing hand, 
if you will, of the U.N., was allowed to use that money to advance 
weapons and military programs as the poor were continuing to be plagued 
by starvation and disease.
  Now the most troublesome facts about the ongoing Oil-for-Food 
investigation now is the lack of cooperation being provided from the 
U.N. to get to the very bottom of how all this occurred and what 
actually took place. We will be taking a look at that in a little more 
detail to see how those reports came out and the fact that the U.N. 
continues to this day to fail to cooperate with Congress, with the 
information that we have sought to receive and also with regard to the 
information that we had received and actually now that the U.N. would 
like to get that information back.
  I see I have been joined by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from 
the great State of Florida, who also I would presume would like to 
speak to the issue of the U.N. and the need for reform and some of the 
problems with the U.N.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
his distinguished leadership in this and other matters.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that as I go back and talk to people in 
my district about the role of the U.N., Americans know they are very 
disturbed by the U.N., but they like the idea of having this United 
Nations as a place where we can promote world peace and world security 
and do some other things. It is not until you explain the record of the 
United Nations, and before then the League of Nations, of total failure 
when it comes to promoting freedom, total failure when it comes to 
protecting collective security, total failure across the board that 
they really get frustrated.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey. The U.N. is in 
need of deep and drastic and dramatic reform, and it is very sad to see 
liberals in the United States Senate hold up a reformer like John 
Bolton's nomination merely because he believes that America's security 
and freedom should come first, and the United Nations needs a serious 
dose of reality.
  I will tell you it has been sad historically to watch the fact that 
the United Nations, that was primarily the child after World War II of 
the British Government and the United States Government to promote 
security for the world and peace, has been a failure.
  It was NATO that protected the freedom and the peace during the Cold 
War. The League of Nations, which was started in 1914-1915, failed to 
deter any major aggressor, including ultimately Hitler's Germany that 
attacked Western Europe and threatened peace throughout the world.
  Just like the League of Nations failed to protect the security of 
free countries, so the U.N. has never once had any impact on protecting 
freedom-loving, peaceful countries from aggressive totalitarian 
countries, the Cold War being the biggest example but not the only 
example. The U.N. was of absolutely no value whatsoever throughout the 
Cold War with the Soviet Union, and it was NATO that preserved through 
power the peace. As Lady Thatcher said, it was Ronald Reagan who won 
the Cold War without firing a single shot.
  Even in smaller regional conflicts, the U.N. historically has been a 
total waste of time, money, effort and resources. For example, Cuba 
having forces in Angola was never deterred by the U.N.; the Soviet 
Union invading Afghanistan, the Vietnamese and the Korean conflicts, 
again examples of the complete impotence of the United Nations to the 
detriment of freedom-loving peoples.
  As my colleague pointed out, the Saddam Hussein failure has been a 
dramatic one, but it is just the most recent one, along with the Oil-
for-Food scandal, the perverted use of some U.N. troops in undermining 
the safety of women and children, actually engaging in the rape and 
torture of these people.
  Even when it comes to peacekeeping, something you would think the 
United Nations would be good at, they have a miserable record. In 
Somalia, it was U.N. troops that presided over the largest genocide in 
the last 10 years. They actually facilitated the genocide by herding 
together folks that were ultimately slaughtered. In Rwanda, you had the 
Tutsis slaughtered by their oppressors. The United Nations was totally 
useless. In Yugoslavia, you had the horrible situation that resulted 
from the U.N. embargo, denying one side the arms to protect themselves 
while the other side engaged in mass slaughter in Bosnia and elsewhere.
  I want to end, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentleman from New Jersey 
and saying there are some things that the United Nations can help at: 
distributing food in times of crisis. They are a nice debating society, 
but they have never once provided any bit of security to the United 
States or any of our friends. To the extent that they condemn anybody, 
it is typically our friends like Israel, when they equated Zionism, the 
belief that the Jewish people ought to have a state where they can be 
free from threats from oppression and anti-semitism and absolute 
genocide. It is Israel that has been condemned more than any other 
nation on Earth by the United Nations.
  Finally, the United Nations has never been united in any way, shape 
or form. Some people say it is a democracy, but it is a democracy where 
a majority of the people that vote are actually dictators, tyrants. The 
majority of the United Nations is governed by places like the African 
Union, the Arab

[[Page 12039]]

League and the Islamic Conference, often not only hostile to America's 
interests but some of these nations actually promoting terrorism 
itself.
  So I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey. U.N. reform is a 
must. If we are not going to reform the U.N., it is time to pull out of 
the U.N., put together a group of freedom-loving, peaceful nations that 
will engage in real collective security, and not engage in this mirage 
where we pour our money down a rat trap, fund our enemies often, and 
embarrass ourselves by being a participant.
  I yield back to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman for those comments. The gentleman made a number of good 
points, the last one with regard to what they are good at. Before the 
gentleman got here, I put up the one chart as to what the charter of 
the U.N. says, what is their ultimate responsibility, why did we create 
the U.N. back after World War II. It was basically the larger mission.
  There it is. The larger mission is maintaining international peace 
and security, which means to try to prevent future wars so we would not 
have another war of the world as we had in World War II, and to try to 
prevent future wars, where we have had over 300 wars.
  Then the gentleman alluded to another point, which is interesting. 
The gentleman says if they are not doing what the charter tells them to 
do, which is to try to make us all feel a little more secure at home, 
that we are not going to engage in another world war, maybe at least, 
the gentleman suggested, that they are helping out providing the 
delivery of food and the like, disaster relief.
  But I think the gentleman will agree with me, because I know the 
gentleman follows the issue of the United States providing tsunami 
relief after the last devastation that occurred at the end of last 
year, how the White House was immediately taking action. Although it 
was not getting a lot of press and it was not actually looking for 
press at that time, the White House and this administration said we are 
going to just go in and get the job done, and we immediately sent our 
troops over there, our ships over in that region of the world.
  We were not calling up the press on the same day we were doing it. 
The administration, they just said, we have a problem. Let us get the 
United States over there and try to solve the problem with regard to 
getting the food and supplies to the people.
  I know the gentleman is very aware of that and was helpful in regard 
to moving the legislation to get funding there.
  But as an individual who has gone on the ground in those countries 
that were suffering from the tsunami, one of the interesting aspects of 
it is not so much what the U.N. did, it is what the United States did 
and what some other bilateral agreements did. As the gentleman recalls, 
what happened was the United States stepped up and said we will provide 
troops and equipment immediately. We will also provide funding.
  They intermediately entered into agreements with countries like 
India. India, of course, was right there. They had their ships within 
less than an hour on the scene. And we were actually getting the job 
done.
  Later, the U.N. became involved. Even after the U.N. slowly began to 
make its presence known, it was not so much the U.N. that was doing the 
work, as the gentleman knows, it is the NGOs, all those other, what is 
the word for it, nonprofit entities, you might sort of say, that were 
on the ground, that were already in some of these countries, funded in 
large part by American taxpayer dollars. Those were the guys who were 
getting the job done.
  So, just to conclude, I think the gentleman makes a good point that 
the U.N. does not do its original mission at all, which is to provide 
security to this country, but the other point is that all they really 
do is come in after the fact when it comes to providing food and 
medicine and still rely upon our tax dollar to get the job done.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank 
the gentleman.
  The United Nations, to the extent it does anything, it distributes 
food and resources largely provided by the United States of America. 
There are other non-governmental organizations that do at least as good 
a job on most occasions. If it was not for the generosity of American 
taxpayers and American contributions, much of the world would never 
recover from some of the horrible disasters that occur.
  But I do believe there is a potential role for the United Nations to 
play in continuing to be a world welfare organization in times of 
emergency relief perhaps and maybe a cocktail debating society. But 
unless there are dramatic reforms, they are good for nothing more. And 
it is a threat to our security if we even pretend that they ever have 
deterred an aggressor.
  As the gentleman points out with his chart, since 1945, their main 
mission was to deter aggression by hostile countries to freedom. They 
have failed 300 times to do their main mission. So let us never depend 
on the United Nations for our security or to protect American 
interests.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman. Before I go on, I will comment that the gentleman's 
comment about a debating society is one that I have used as well, but 
it is a debating society made of who? It is a debating society made up 
of tyrants, dictators and thugs, sort of like governments. I do not 
know that I really want to be engaged in a debating society like that. 
But I thank the gentleman for his work and support.
  As was alluded to, one of the things the U.N. does not do is prevent 
wars. One of the things they might be able to do is help the people. 
That is what they were supposed to be doing with regard to the Oil-for-
Food scandal situation, providing food to the people of Iraq through 
their oil revenue stream.
  Unfortunately, as I was alluding to a moment ago, they failed 
miserably in that respect inasmuch as they allowed the dictator Saddam 
Hussein to use those dollars for other things, to use those dollars to 
help build up his military, to use those dollars to help build up their 
palaces for their generals, some of which I had the opportunity to see 
when I had gone over to Iraq to visit our troops over there, 
magnificent palaces that these generals and Saddam Hussein lived in at 
the time while the rest of the country was basically in squalor and 
poverty. That is where the Oil-for-Food revenue was going to.
  It was also going to, as I said, people outside of his country, 
bribing basically government officials and other high-ranking 
individuals in other countries, such as Russia and France and 
elsewhere, the very same countries that were battling the United States 
in the U.N. saying that we should not be taking a tough position with 
Iraq, that we should allow them to continue on with the Oil-for-Food 
Program.

                              {time}  1500

  Well, now we know why. They wanted the Oil-For-Food program to 
continue just so that they could continue to have a stream of money 
coming into their private bank rolls. Well, the U.N. finally found out 
that that was going on. Investigations were taking place, 
investigations are taking place here in this Congress. But, as I 
alluded to a moment ago, the very U.N. that we fund and house here in 
the United States in New York City, they failed to work with us here in 
Congress so that we can, as American citizens, get to the bottom of it 
and find out where our dollars are going to and exactly what sort of 
transparency we need in order to find out this information. The U.N. 
has shielded their very own people. The U.N. has said that we are not 
going to provide documents to Congress that the Congress wants, we are 
not going to provide people to come and testify before Congress that 
Congress needs.
  So what did the U.N. do in this regard? Well, what the U.N. did do 
was set up their own commission, or the commission has been set up, as 
we are all familiar with now, to investigate, which is now known as the 
Volcker

[[Page 12040]]

Commission, to investigate the allegations involving the Oil-For-Food.
  The problem with that is a number of folds:
  First of all, the gentleman who is heading up the Commission, Paul 
Volcker, an honorable gentleman, but someone it has been discovered has 
close ties himself to the U.N. in the past and to the Secretary 
General, Kofi Annan, in the past, as well as other conflicts of 
interest, so perhaps not the best to be heading up the investigation. 
Also, as far as the powers that that commission has, lack of subpoena 
powers, lack of ability to hold people in contempt in order to get them 
to testify before this commission.
  And it is for those reasons that that commission has not done the 
study and has not done the inquiry that we would all like to have had, 
so we could get all the information out with regard to the Oil-For-Food 
scandal and the mismanagement at the top, at least the malfeasance, 
misfeasance at worst, at the top of the hierarchy of the U.N.
  Paul Volcker also has been accused of downplaying Kofi Annan's 
involvement in the scandal. Several reports have come out of his 
commission with regard to this scandal, and others. They are called 
interim reports.
  Several weeks ago, unfortunately for them, two of their top 
investigators who were working on his commission resigned from that 
investigatory body; they resigned. And the reason they did so, they 
said, was because they felt that the commission and the reports that 
have been issued by the commission basically are too soft, not hard-
hitting enough, on Kofi Annan and Kofi Annan's involvement with the 
Oil-For-Food scandal. Those individuals and the information that they 
have been able to take out as far as documents and what have you would 
not have been available to Congress, had it not been that those people 
did not do the honorable thing and stand up and say that they are not 
going to be part of an investigation that is not much more than a 
whitewash of what is going on over at the U.N.
  The second report, remember I said there were several interim 
reports, the second interim report's most troubling finding was the 
fact that Kofi Annan's chief of staff authorized the shredding of 
documents, numerous documents authorized by the chief of staff of Kofi 
Annan relating to the Oil-For-Food scandal. He retired on January 15, 
earlier this year. It was the same day that the committee was informed 
that these documents had been shredded. In other words, documents that 
would have been necessary to show the direct involvement of the parties 
to this action for Oil-For-Food were simply destroyed and shredded.
  It is interesting to note that this is the same individual, the same 
chief of staff that previously had supposedly sent out an order saying 
that no documents should be discarded, that the commission should have 
access to all documents that they needed and sought; but at the end of 
the day, it was that individual himself, the chief of staff, that was 
found guilty. Well, not found guilty, but found as the individual who 
was shredding these documents.
  Now that these other two individuals have resigned from the 
commission that have been referenced before because of their views on 
the report being too soft, they took with them certain documents and 
they took those documents, and those documents have found their way 
here to this House and to the investigatory bodies here in this House.
  One would think that the U.N. and the Volcker Commission would say, 
that is fine. Now that you have the documents, go ahead and do all that 
you need. But what happened right after that? Well, we know from the 
reports in the press that Paul Volcker then came back and attempted as 
best he could to block congressional investigations from looking at 
these documents and, in fact, demanded those very same documents back. 
So, basically, just a pattern of blocking inquiry into what the U.N. 
has been doing and a pattern of standing in the way of citizens of the 
United States and the citizens of the world to see for themselves the 
poor job that the U.N. has done with regard to living up to its charter 
of protecting and making a secure world and protecting the people in 
Iraq.
  I see that I am joined here this afternoon, and I appreciate that, by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence); and I yield to him.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong agreement with the sentiment expressed by the 
gentleman from New Jersey and our colleagues who have spoken in this 
Special Order, and I especially want to commend the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for being one of the singular and most effective 
voices about the truth about the United Nations in the 21st century on 
Capitol Hill, and I appreciate his leadership in organizing this 
Special Order today.
  As a member of the newly organized Subcommittee on Oversight for the 
United Nations, I am especially grateful to have an opportunity to 
speak and to do so specifically, as the gentleman has requested, about 
legislation that we on the Committee on International Relations 
reported, literally just hours ago, when, by a very close vote, and 
what was I think an extraordinary and civil and thoughtful debate, the 
Committee on International Relations produced U.N. reform with teeth.
  The Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005, we believe, will come to the 
floor of this Congress next week, and it will represent, in sum total, 
the most significant effort by the people of the United States of 
America to reform and amend this half-century-old institution. And that 
is the intention and the purpose of what, when it was introduced with 
the authorship of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and my 
singular cosponsorship, the Hyde/Pence bill purposes to do.
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that if the United Nations did not exist 
as a forum for international deliberation, we would very likely have to 
invent it. The United Nations, not as a world government, but as a 
world deliberative forum, serves an important role. But because of 
years of mismanagement, mindless bureaucracy, and, as the gentleman has 
spoken with force and authority today, profound corruption, this 
institution's vitality and survival in the 21st century is at risk 
without fundamental reform. And that is precisely what the Henry Hyde 
U.N. Reform Act brings.
  But I say very carefully and directly, this is not a bill that 
provides an outline for reform of the United Nations with, if I can 
speak plainly, the United States providing virtually a third of the 
funding for this institution and then saying, we think these are good 
ideas for reform; we sure hope you do too. This is U.N. reform with 
teeth.
  In fact, we use a variety of methods of leverage in the United 
Nations Reform Act of 2005, but that which has caught the most notice 
is the potential withholding of 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues if 
certifications are not made in the critical areas of reform that are 
described. Those areas include budgeting. The Hyde legislation urges 
the shifting of 18 programs from regular assessed budget authority to 
voluntary funded programs that will be a great deal more accountable in 
the process.
  On the subject of accountability, the Hyde legislation mandates the 
creation of an independent oversight board with broad investigative 
authority through the Office of Internal Oversight Services, what will 
come to be known as the OIOS, will have the authority to initiate 
investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing and establish 
procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who serve in a 
whistleblowing capacity.
  In the area of human rights, the U.N. Reform Act also has a get-tough 
policy mandating that the United Nations adopt criteria for membership 
on any human rights policy within the institution. Under these 
criteria, countries that fail to uphold the universal declaration of 
human rights would be ineligible for membership. Now, this may come as 
a shock to any that are looking in today, Mr. Speaker, but that is not 
required today. There are countries who participate in human rights 
forums in the United Nations that do not

[[Page 12041]]

uphold the universal declaration of human rights. We say that should 
not be the case.
  And in the area of peacekeeping, where there have been such 
extraordinary scandals of late, children, little girls, 10, 11 and 12 
years of age being sexually molested by blue-helmeted U.N. 
peacekeepers, which photographs record being made of the molestation 
and then the trafficking of those records, there are fundamental 
reforms in the Hyde legislation that would mandate a single and 
enforceable uniform code of conduct for all personnel serving in 
peacekeeping missions.
  And there is a strict mandate that the criteria of the commission on 
peacekeeping reform that was adopted by the United Nations, that the 
five criteria and objectives be implemented in the immediate before any 
additional peacekeeping operations can be authorized by the President 
of the United States.
  I want to yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey because there 
will be ample time on the floor next week, I believe, when the U.N. 
Reform Act comes to this floor, to unpack it for the American people. 
But it is, in a very real sense, an opportunity to take that 
information that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is leading 
on to the floor today and who has been such a champion of, taking the 
truth about the U.N. and saying, here is the proper response of the 
American people.
  As I close, let me say that one response could simply be the American 
people, through their elected representatives, could profoundly reduce 
our participation financially in the United Nations. And it is 
important to say that the U.N. Reform Act keeps funding level. There is 
no reduction in funding by the people of the United States of America 
to the United Nations in the U.N. Reform Act. There is a potential for 
as much as a 50 percent reduction in assessed dues if the United 
Nations, through its membership and internal organs, does not 
fundamentally adopt and implement reform in the next 2 to 3 years.
  It is U.N. reform with teeth, and for all of the reasons that the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) effectively brings to the floor 
today, the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is an idea whose time has 
come.
  I yield back with gratitude to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, as 
well, for joining us here this afternoon and also for the work that he 
has already done on the committee. I commend him for that. I know the 
gentleman is well respected by all of our colleagues for his 
insightfulness and level-headedness as far as addressing this issue 
because, as he pointed out, we could be going in either extreme on this 
issue.
  Probably, when we get into the debate on this legislation next week, 
whether it becomes partisan or not, I can imagine that there will be 
extremes from both sides, so I appreciate the gentleman's moderation on 
this and his hard work on this. I am sure the gentleman joins with me 
in supporting the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde).
  In essence, what the committee is doing is they are looking for in 
the Reform Act of 2005, these are my words, not the committee's words, 
but they are looking for oversight, accountability, and cutting 
bureaucracy, I guess the same thing that they were always looking for 
in any form of entity, government or otherwise, that plays an important 
role in our lives. We do not want a huge bureaucracy, we do want a 
level of accountability so we know who is responsible and we can hold 
them accountable for what they have done, and we want oversight. We 
want somebody, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) alluded to, 
somebody, some apparatus who would be in a position to be able to step 
back for a moment and take a look at the situation as a whole and see 
whether they are complying with their overall charter and complying 
with their overall mission.

                              {time}  1515

  As we have alluded to already this evening, we already know 
throughout history they have not been doing so, so now we have to 
decide what to do with it.
  I referenced before the problems, the ongoing investigation with the 
U.N. and what they have found so far. The behavior of the U.N. up to 
date, in my opinion, is just totally indefensible with regard to their 
investigations and the investigations that they are taking, blocking 
for Congress to take. I, for one, take the position, and have signed on 
to legislation that we had last year when these issues first came up, 
to say that we should be suspending all, we should be suspending all 
funding to the U.N. until they agree to fully cooperate and provide us 
with that level of accountability.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has legislation that addresses 
the issue and says that we should be withholding some level of funding 
to the U.N. until there is a true accounting, until we can certify that 
we actually know where all of that money went to.
  Remember how much we were talking about here? $21 billion has been 
effectively stolen, stolen from the people of Iraq, the poor, destitute 
people of Iraq, during the entire scandal by Saddam Hussein and other 
people around the world and his regime, the largest theft, I guess, in 
world history. And we are just looking for an accountability for that.
  It is really an outrage when you think about it. The American public 
should be outraged about what has occurred at the U.N. The world 
community should be outraged about what occurred at the U.N., and right 
over in Iraq in the work of Saddam Hussein and right under the noses of 
the administrators at the U.N.?
  A $21 billion scandal, and it is only now beginning to have the facts 
come out. We have a responsibility as Members of the Congress to 
continue with this investigation. We have a responsibility, as alluded 
to before by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), to make sure that 
if we are going to be providing them any of your hard-earned tax 
dollars that we will get to the bottom of it, hold those people 
responsible for what their actions were, for participating in or 
profiting from this outrage. They need to lose their jobs or go to jail 
or both.
  So that is just one tip of the iceberg problem with the U.N. And I 
can allude just to a point how this impacts upon the world issue, world 
community as far as security and terrorism is concerned. I think I have 
the chart here.
  I referenced before what Saddam Hussein was able to do with the 
money, buy houses and palaces and military. But part of it, also, in 
not too complex an arrangement here, part of it also helped to 
facilitate suicide bombers which we see on TV more frequently than any 
of us want. But suicide bombers in other parts of the world as well?
  I mentioned before that there was a situation where he was getting 
kickbacks from payments from companies in the Oil-for-Food program. 
Some of that money then went to a bank account in Jordan. There was 
also revenue coming into the regime, a $3 a barrel fee for oil. That 
was paid by the Jordanian Government as part of their agreement over 
with Iraq to get some of money out. Again, that money ended up in a 
Jordanian bank account there. There is a bank, Rafidian Bank in Iraq. 
That money was there; and other sources as well, I should say. The top 
line here shows sources of money: kickbacks, fee per barrel and other 
sources of funds as well.
  All of that money coming into the regime, and where did it go? Into 
the various bank accounts that regime controlled. And eventually out of 
that bank account and to the families of suicide bombers. $15, $20, 
$25, upwards of $35,000 each was going to the families of suicide 
bombers to help them out and to encourage that heinous type of action 
that we see as life is being taken from other families and individuals.
  The regime was supporting it. The U.N. was basically facilitating it 
by allowing it to occur under their noses.
  I am seeing now that I am joined by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) for bringing forth this

[[Page 12042]]

important special order and for his presentation with regard to the 
United Nations.
  I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about how we might 
better reform the United Nations and how we might better direct the 
future of this country and the world. There has been a lot said, Mr. 
Speaker, about the United Nations and what kind of a structure it is. 
This country has for a long time believed very firmly in the sense that 
we can bring together an international dialogue, resolve the world's 
problems and avoid war. That was why the League of Nations was 
established and certainly why the United Nations was established. The 
U.N. was established in an endeavor to correct some of the mistakes 
that were made with the League of Nations and establish an organization 
that might function essentially in perpetuity in a fashion that is 
going to be helpful towards peace and security in the world.
  Unfortunately, it has not worked out so much that way, Mr. Speaker. 
In fact, the entire structure of the United Nations is something we do 
not talk about very often. It has a huge flaw, and the flaw is this, 
that in the minds of the people in this country and around the world we 
believe, since we have a forum there, we have a general assembly there 
that brings in voices from nearly every nation in the world and they 
sit in a place and they have an open forum and an open debate, that 
somehow that is a semblance of democracy and so, therefore, the will of 
the people of the world will be manifested in the policy of the United 
Nations.
  The big flaw is that many of those people that sit there are either 
dictators themselves or mouthpieces for dictators, people that would 
cut the tongues out of their own constituents if they were to stand up 
and speak like a free people as we do here in this country. So, 
therefore, the voice of the world is not heard in the United Nations. 
It is often the voice of the rulers, the despots.
  In fact, as we listened to the United Nations and the loudest voices 
in the United Nations prior to our engagement and liberation of Iraq, 
we heard a loud noise come from France, and they were organizing 
intensively to oppose the United States' potential operations in Iraq? 
That same noise came from Germany, and it came from Russia, and it came 
from China, where we remember those days two-and-a-half, 3 years ago.
  I said at the time that the decibels of resistance to a potential 
liberation of Iraq that came from those countries and others in 
addition to that can be indexed almost directly in proportion to their 
oil interests in Iraq and in the Middle East. In fact, at the time I 
did not know how prophetic that was, because we were not aware at the 
time of the Oil-for-Food Program. Now when you add that at least $10.1 
billion worth of fraud that came with Oil-for-Food, the $5.7 billion in 
oil smuggling, the $4.4 billion in illicit surcharges, we know now it 
is bigger than that.
  We know the names of some of the players? We know that those players 
were in places where their voices were echoed in opposition to the 
liberation of the Iraqi people. One can only suspect their interest was 
to continue raking the gravy off of the Oil-for-Food Program and pocket 
the money themselves. So they had what is called a vested interest. In 
fact, if I remember the words of Barber Conable, it was, Hell hath no 
fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle. Well, 
their moral principle was actually an immoral principle, a principle of 
profit. That is part of the corruption of the United Nations.
  There is a sex scandal within the administration that brought 
actually sometimes more media than the Oil-for-Food scandal did. And 
then we have those things.
  We need to keep encouraging the investigation into the Oil-for-Food 
Program, and then we have the operations of peacekeeping in Africa 
where we have peacekeepers perpetuating sexual violence on innocent 
citizens, innocent people.
  An organization like this that does not have a legitimate oversight 
program truly needs a U.N. Reform Act? I am 100 percent supportive of 
this U.N. Reform Act. A number of the components in here are essential. 
I think it is essential that the United States looks at holding back 
and reserving some of its dues to the United Nations until we get a 
bright light that shines on the United Nations, until we have a United 
Nations that functions as truly the voice of the people of the world 
and has the accountability like we have here in the United States.
  So, with that, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
thank him for his work.
  I know that the American public agrees with you when you say that we 
should be withholding funding to an organization such as this where 
there is no accountability and there is no transparency of what has 
been going on all of these many years and this failing mission. So I 
thank you for your work.
  At this time, I see we are joined by the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett) for yielding and his leadership in underscoring the lengthy, 
loathsome and lewd history that the United Nations possesses, a history 
of the deception and dishonesty and duplicity.
  As a former judge in Houston, Texas, for over 20 years, I believe in 
consequences for bad conduct. When improper behavior takes place, I do 
not believe that we should say to the perpetrator, the person 
responsible, try to do a little better. Normally, we look to the head 
of the organization when the organization is floundering, especially in 
corruption.
  In order for the U.N. to regain credibility, Kofi Annan must step 
down. Under his watch, the world's largest financial and human rights 
scandal has occurred. The U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal makes the Enron 
scandal in Houston, Texas, look like theft of a toothbrush. This U.N. 
scandal resulted in millions of lives languishing in Iraq. In the 
ongoing investigation, it appears as though Kofi Annan and his top 
staff may have obstructed justice, may have destroyed piles of files 
that many suspect reveal how he knew what was going on all along.
  There should be consequences, and my question is, what is the United 
Nation's position on the consequences in its own body for improper 
corrupt conduct? Why cannot the United Nations enforce basic civil 
rules for conduct?
  Let us revisit just briefly some of the accusations against the 
United Nations in addition to the Oil-for-Food disgrace. How about the 
150 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. civilian staff and soldiers in 
the Congo? Accusations which include prostitution, rape, pedophilia. Or 
what about the numerous cases of abuse among peacekeepers in the 
northeastern town of Bunia? This does not include previous reports of 
peacekeeping abuses in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Bosnia, and Somalia, and the 
list goes on and on.
  How about the tragic tales of defenseless North Korean defectors who 
faced deprivation or worse at the hands of U.N.-operated refugee camps? 
Or the investigations into the involvement of U.N. affiliates in 
trafficking prostitution in Kosovo? Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, some 
of the internal misconduct we have heard about like the allegations of 
sexual harassment, abuse of power, unwanted physical conduct within at 
least one U.N. administrative office. And let us not forget the 
indications that Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, may have engaged in corruption 
by way of the Swiss company for which he worked that inspected items 
going to Iraq on behalf of the Oil-for-Food program.
  Whether or not we ever substantiate claims that the UN's Oil-for-Food 
initiative has ties to international terrorism, one thing is certain: 
Outlaws within the ranks of the United Nations have instigated terror 
in the lives of people across the globe. Rather than weeping for joy at 
the arrival of United Nation relief, many of those people run in panic 
at thought of such a sordid savior touching the ground in their own 
country.
  Whatever happened to the United Nations' charter promise that 
advances

[[Page 12043]]

 justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and the 
dignity and the worth of the human person?
  In fact, in raising the United Nations' duty to promoting dignity and 
humanity, how ironic it has become that countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, 
Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and even China now comprise the membership in the 
United Nations' Commission on Human Rights.
  This body must act. It must act now. And it must start with demanding 
that Kofi Annan step down. He is responsible for the conduct of the 
United Nation, because in our society we look to the head of any 
organization. Then let us try to aid congressional investigators in 
their efforts to unravel the deception and gluttony and the corruption 
perpetrated for years by the United Nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make those comments; and 
I hope that we as a body can make a statement that the United Nations 
is going to be held accountable for its conduct.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe) for his comments. I thank you for bringing so many of 
points to the public's attention.
  You raise a point of whatever happened to the U.N. charter. That is 
something we have been discussing tonight extensively. Whatever did 
happen to the charter and the role that the U.N. was set up for back in 
1945?
  You also used the expression, I noticed a couple of times as you went 
through, a litany, a litany of abuses by the U.N., whether it was the 
150 human rights abuses or the forced prostitution and on and on. Each 
time I noticed that you mentioned the words, you said ``not to mention 
this,'' as a phrase. Well, it is good thing. I appreciate the fact that 
you are here tonight. I appreciate the fact that you are mentioning 
these points, because, as you know, most of these points are not being 
mentioned in the mainstream media. Most of these points are not being 
driven home back at home, throughout our communities and the rest of 
the world as well.
  So I applaud you for mentioning them and making sure that these are 
at the front of people's attention so that this body can do just as you 
said, hold this institution accountable. I thank the gentleman for his 
work.

                              {time}  1530

  The gentleman has raised so many important points that we need to go 
to in more detail. And as we begin to look at the reform next week, 
legislation, I hope that we will have the opportunity to explore each 
and every one of these in more detail so that the public can have a 
better understanding of just the number of abuses. We just touched on a 
little bit of detail about the Oil-for-Food scandal and abuses of the 
U.N. as far as that scandal and as far as the cover up that seems to be 
going on.
  I join with the gentleman in saying that we should be asking for the 
head of the U.N. to step down now so that he can be replaced with 
someone that we all have confidence in in the interim period of time 
until, if ever, reform is made at the U.N. so that American taxpayers 
can look and say with pride, this is where our tax dollars are going, 
as opposed to the abuses where it is going on right now; the abuses 
that are, as I said before, just a litany. The gentleman mentioned the 
150 alleged human rights abuses by the U.N., by the very peacekeepers 
who are going into these countries that are trying to make these 
countries safe, such as in the Congo. Instead, they bring tragedy to 
the very people who become victims of the U.N. as opposed to the 
warring factions that are over there.
  The gentleman made reference also to the idea of forced prostitution. 
This is forced prostitution by little tiny kids. 10-year-old girls have 
been allegedly used and compelled into prostitution, a tragedy that is 
happening under the auspices of the U.N. body that we are funding. 
These young women, these young girls that are being compelled to be 
involved in this, the phrase used now just as we had the Oil-for-Food 
scandal, now we have the sex-for-food scandal as well.
  We are talking about impoverished countries over there where food is 
hard to come by and people are starving in parts of Africa. And they 
are being, well, forced under these conditions to sell themselves for a 
jug of milk or a bit of food or for a dollar. For that reason now the 
phrase sex-for-food is here. They have also been phrased ``the dollar 
girls'' in these areas as well, again, under the watchful noses and 
willing acquiescence by the U.N. because it is the very people that the 
U.N. has engaged over there that have allowed this conduct to go on.
  I believe we have significantly more issues to address, but we have 
only touched the tip of the iceberg as far as the need of reform or the 
drastic changes as far as the relationship between the United States 
and the U.N. I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to bring it to 
the American public.

                          ____________________