[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13009-13022]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            HENRY J. HYDE UNITED NATIONS REFORM ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonner). 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 further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 2745.

                              {time}  0913


                     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 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 on 
Thursday, June 16, 2005, amendment No. 3 printed in Subpart C of Part 1 
of House Report 109-132 by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to debate the subject of human rights.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Henry J. 
Hyde United Nations Reform Act. We have seen in recent years a steady 
stream of reports detailing mismanagement, corruption and outright 
abuse of the U.N. operations, from the Oil-for-Food Scandal in Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq, to reports of U.N. peacekeepers raping children in 
Bosnia and Sudan, to reports of nepotism, cronyism, and financial 
irregularities in the U.N. missions around the world.
  We have seen clearly evidence of mismanagement and corruption, fraud 
and abuse in this institution. The U.N. Reform Act was developed to 
address these failings by streamlining U.N. programs, restoring 
accountability, setting clear budget and operational priorities. These 
are baseline reforms that many U.N. supporters agree have been needed 
for years, and that can be achieved within a reasonable timeframe to 
restore the U.N.'s function-
ality and credibility.
  To drive the process of reform, this bill sets forth a strong 
enforcement mechanism by withholding 50 percent of U.S. dues if these 
reforms are not instituted by 2007. With this enforcement mechanism we 
can ensure that the U.N. lives up to the ideals it was founded to 
advance six decades ago.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hyde for his 
leadership, for his wisdom and for his statesmanship in developing this 
legislative package to bring a new era of oversight and accountability 
to the U.N.

[[Page 13010]]


  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished Democratic 
whip as much time as he might consume.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the question before this House today is not whether the 
United Nations should be reformed, but how the institution must be 
reformed. Virtually every Member of the House agrees with this 
proposition. If the U.N. is going to retain its credibility, it must 
implement meaningful reform in areas such as budgeting, oversight, and 
accountability, and certainly peacekeeping and human rights.
  We, of course, are not alone in this assessment. The administration 
agrees. The congressionally established Task Force on the United 
Nations, which just issued its report on reform this week, agrees. Even 
top officials of the United Nations agree that reform is needed, and 
Secretary General Kofi Annan has issued a broad reform agenda.
  It is well established, Mr. Chairman, that the U.N. suffers under 
poor management, low staff morale, and a lack of accountability and 
professional ethics. Even worse, the organization has been wracked by 
scandal; for example, revelations of corruption in the Food-for-Oil 
program in Iraq, and evidence that U.N. peacekeepers sexually abused 
women and children that they were sent to protect.
  However, administrative incompetence and even corruption pale in 
comparison to the United Nations's failure to act to prevent genocide, 
most recently in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, and, yes, even as we speak 
in Darfur, Sudan.
  Let no one be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, I believe the United States' 
national security interests are served and strengthened by our active 
participation in international organizations, including the United 
Nations, but, Mr. Chairman, we must not flinch from asking, can an 
organization established to promote tolerance, human rights and the 
peaceful resolution of disputes long survive when its members cannot 
summon the will to stop the slaughter of innocent men, women and 
children, or to enforce resolutions adopted overwhelmingly to achieve 
international stability and security?
  The answer, I think, is self-evident. Specifically, I believe the 
U.N. ideal is undermined when members refuse to act against an 
international outlaw such as Saddam Hussein, who flagrantly flouts his 
obligations under countless Security Council resolutions.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are mired in a war in Iraq, where the 
United States is bearing the overwhelming burden to act against an 
international lawbreaker against whom the United Nations unanimously 
passed 17 resolutions in 12\1/2\ years saying that he was in violation 
of the obligations imposed upon him by the United Nations, and which 
they, in a united way, agreed he had not complied with. As I have 
stated before, the member states of the United Nations must respond to 
such defiance with more than mere words. They must respond with action.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the motivation of Chairman Hyde's 
bill; however, I disagree with its method, an enforcement mechanism 
that would mandate a 50 percent cut in the United States contribution 
to the U.N. should the legislation's 39 proposed reforms not be 
implemented. As Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns of this 
administration told the Washington Post, this approach would undermine 
American credibility at the United Nations; it would undermine our, 
meaning the United States' effectiveness.
  In contrast, the Democratic substitute offered by Mr. Lantos is far 
superior. It maintains, Mr. Chairman, the link between achieving U.N. 
reforms and withholding a portion of the United States assessed dues; 
however, critically importantly, it gives the Secretary discretion to 
make such cuts, rather than mandating them.
  As an aside, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that as long as 
we are a member of the U.N., we have an obligation, a duty, it is in 
our interest, to pay our fair share. Importantly as well, the 
substitute provides the Secretary with a waiver to the requirement to 
veto all new peacekeeping missions or to expand existing missions. To 
do otherwise, in my opinion, would be a significant mistake.
  The Republican bill provides no waiver. In effect, it would block the 
United States from supporting any new peacekeeping mission, including 
involvement in a crisis like the one in Darfur, until peacekeeping 
reforms are completed.
  Very frankly, the victims of genocide cannot wait for a recalcitrant 
United Nations to accomplish those reforms until such time as we act to 
save lives, prevent dislocation, and maintain the safety and human 
rights of the inhabitants of some country.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this substitute directs the Secretary of State 
to withhold 10 percent of our contributions to the U.N.'s peacekeeping 
budget when the U.N. fails to suspend the membership and act against a 
member which is engaged in or acquiescing in genocide.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, none of us questions the necessity of U.N. 
reform. Reform is not optional, it is imperative. The underlying bill, 
however, is an unproductive and harmful response to real problems.
  The Democratic substitute, the substitute offered by the ranking 
Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), gives us our best 
opportunity to strengthen and revitalize the U.N., and I urge my 
colleagues in a bipartisan way, on both sides of the aisle, liberals 
and conservatives, concerned about both the reform of the United 
Nations, but also the effective operation of an international 
organization, our best hope to maintain international law and order, to 
protect human rights and redeem the promises made when we created the 
organization we know as the United Nations.
  And I thank my friend for yielding the time, supporting this 
substitute, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is, without a 
doubt, tough but necessary medicine designed to effectuate systematic 
and sustainable reforms at the United Nations bureaucracies, its 
missions, and programs. It is serious and refuses to accept business as 
usual. And nowhere is the need for massive reform more compelling than 
in the realm of human rights.
  Over the years we have heard calls for reform. Time and again they 
have fallen on deaf ears. In a bizarre rendition of George Orwell's 
Animal Farm, countries which severely violate human rights of their own 
citizens are members in good standing at the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission and as such sit as judge and jury of human rights conditions 
around the world. ECOSOC, the United Nations body which appoints states 
to the Human Rights Commission, facilitates this cruel hoax, which 
guarantees dysfunction at the human rights body, and allows violators 
and violating countries to continue to be placed on the Commission with 
no accountability whatsoever because of its secret voting procedures.
  Even U.N. officials have admitted the Commission is not doing its 
job. A U.N. high-level panel in December of 2004 concluded that the 
UNCHR's credibility and professionalism has been undermined due to the 
active undermining of the work of the Commission by members with poor 
human rights records.
  In March, U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan told the Commission, and I quote 
him, ``unless we remake our human rights machinery, we may be unable to 
renew public confidence in the United Nations.''
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in March I was in Geneva for the Human Rights 
Commission for the umpteenth time. I first started going back when 
Armando Valladares, that great human rights leader in Cuba, was 
appointed as our ambassador by Ronald Reagan. And I had seen over these 
many years that that body has gone from bad to worse. There was no 
resolution, for example, this year on Zimbabwe, called an outpost of 
tyranny by Secretary Rice.

[[Page 13011]]

There was no resolution on Turkmenistan, the most repressive of the 55 
countries of the OSCE, whose government bulldozes mosques, tortures 
Christians and closes rural hospitals. And there is no resolution on 
the People's Republic of China, despite the fact that they have an 
egregious human rights record and routinely torture and maim, 
especially those who are political dissidents, and those who practice 
their faith, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Tibet or the Muslims. 
China persecutes all of those individuals, by the tens of thousands, 
including the Falun Gong, and yet there was no resolution on China.
  Resolutions, I am happy to say, against Belarus and Cuba were 
approved, but that was because President Bush himself and Rudy 
Boschwitz, who led our delegation, and Ambassador Moley and others did 
a Herculean job of getting countries that were likely not to support 
them to do so, but it took their personal lobbying. It was not about 
their human rights records, it was about trying to motivate these 
countries to do the work that they should have done otherwise.
  Even the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, a 
former Supreme Court Justice from Canada, told me in a conversation I 
had in Geneva just a few weeks ago that she believes the atmosphere at 
the Commission on Human Rights is surreal, her word, and that there is, 
quote, no intellectual engagement or serious consideration on the 
issues.
  The current model is ill-suited to the task, she noted, in which the 
Commission is both the adjudicator and the implementor of human rights. 
She said, and I quote her again, the process needs to reinvent itself, 
and that is precisely what Congressman Hyde is trying to do with this, 
very strong language, very strong piece of legislation; to finally say, 
time to put away the games and speak truth to power, especially to 
these dictatorships.
  I would just point out to my colleagues anecdotally that the 
Commission on Human Rights so often turns human rights on its head.
  Bob Fu, the president of China Aid Association, and a victim of the 
Chinese gulag himself, who testified before my subcommittee in April, 
is just one more example of the hypocrisy of that body. Mr. Fu was 
physically expelled from the Commission when the Chinese delegation 
objected and said they felt threatened by the electric shock device 
that Mr. Fu was showing at a demonstration on how China mistreats and 
tortures its prisoners. His credentials were taken away, and he was 
given the boot.
  But it is not just the Commission on Human Rights that is broken; 
other human rights bodies that deal with human rights have also strayed 
from their core mandates and have failed to act against severe human 
rights violators.
  Mr. Chairman, despite almost universal acknowledgment of the problems 
which exist at the U.N. human rights system, there has been little 
reform; lots of lip service, lots of we will do it next week, we will 
do it next year; nothing tangible. In fact, it has actually gotten 
worse over these many years.
  It is clear more pressure is needed, and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. 
Reform Act of 2005 is intended to end this deplorable state of affairs.

                              {time}  0930

  The legislation mandates that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership 
on any human rights body. It should be a no-brainer, but this 
legislation stipulates that countries which fail to uphold the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be ineligible for 
membership. You would think that would be a given. Well, it is not. 
This legislation tries to ensure that it is a given.
  Likewise, countries that are subject to sanction by the Security 
Council, countries that are subjected to country-specific human rights 
resolutions, or countries that violate the principles of the human 
rights bodies they aspire to join would be ineligible for membership.
  In addition to the other criteria, the bill mandates that no human 
rights body has a standing agenda item that relates only to one country 
or region. We all know what that is all about. Every time I have been 
over in Geneva, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
and others have been concerned about this as well, there is a whole 
agenda item that focuses on Israel. And the Israel bashing is 
unconscionable, while China and other countries get by scott-free.
  We had to fight to ensure that Sudan, as the killing and maiming was 
occurring in Darfur, was even on the agenda. Then there was this 
attempt made by a number of countries including Sudan and Cuba to water 
down the language.
  Genocide is being committed, and they are worrying about upsetting 
the apple cart and using language that might cause somebody in Khartoum 
to be upset.
  H.R. 2745 also mandates that the Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, 
abolish secret voting, which is an outrage. That is one of the things 
that ensures that these violator states, these rogue states, get on to 
the Commission on Human Rights.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that in the Hyde bill there is 
very strong support for the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for 
Human Rights and the need to strengthen and expand its authority to go 
into regions where human rights monitors are most needed, such as 
Darfur and eastern Congo.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and to enact the 
human rights reform contained in this legislation. We need a United 
Nations which speaks strongly and clearly for the universal respect for 
and observance of fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of 
each and every human person, and equal rights of men and women as a 
foundation for freedom and justice and peace in the world.
  More high-sounding words will not help the U.N. reform itself. We 
need the strength of this legislation to do it, and we have a 
responsibility to do it as the largest donor and as a world leader in 
the realm of human rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) for crafting particularly powerful provisions with 
respect to the human rights issue. Let me pay tribute to my friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), an indefatigable fighter for 
human rights, for his powerful statement; and let me identify myself 
with his comments. And let me commend the Democratic whip, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his strong statement on the 
bill and on the human rights aspects of it.
  Probably no issue relating to human rights is as hypocritical as the 
performance of the U.N. in recent years. The hypocrisy of the U.N. has 
reached astronomical proportions when it comes to human rights. The 
leading advocate of human rights, the United States, is excluded from 
the Human Rights Commission. The most outrageous violators of human 
rights are placed in positions of power within the Human Rights 
Commission. And if it would not be so serious, it would be a ludicrous 
theater of the absurd as we watch the so-called U.N. Human Rights 
Commission protect human rights violators and attack champions of human 
rights.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and I stand shoulder to 
shoulder in our determination to improve the human rights mechanism of 
the United Nations. We feel that this hypocritical performance of 
recent years must come to an end. And it is absolutely mandatory that 
the current Human Rights Commission be abolished and a new human rights 
entity composed only of countries that respect human rights be created.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

[[Page 13012]]

  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in Subpart D 
of Part 1 in House Report 109-132.


         Part 1, Subpart D Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Part 1, Subpart D amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Royce:
       In section 201(b) (relating to human rights reforms at the 
     United Nations), add at the end the following new paragraph:
       (6) The practice of considering in the principal body in 
     the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human 
     rights country specific resolutions relating to human rights 
     abuses perpetrated by the government of a Member State within 
     such Member State shall not be eliminated.
       In section 601(a)(3)(A), strike ``39'' and insert ``40''.
       In section 601(a)(3)(B)(i), redesignate subclauses (XIII) 
     and (XIV) as subclauses (XIV) and (XV), respectively, and 
     insert after subclause (XII) the following new subclause:

       (XIII) Section 201(b)(6).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as has been discussed today, the United Nations is in 
need of widespread reform. And one area where the United Nations has 
egregiously failed is its appalling human rights record and its 
appalling Commission on Human Rights. If this issue were not so 
serious, it would really be laughable.
  The promotion and protection of human rights has been a core task of 
the United Nations since its founding in 1945. Yet over the years, the 
Commission on Human Rights has gone from, in fact, being a protector of 
human rights to an accomplice of dictators throughout the world.
  Some of the worst violators of human rights work through their 
regional blocs to gain nomination and election to this commission in 
order to protect themselves and their allies from criticism.
  This April our ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva said of the process, 
``The inmates are very close to being in charge of the asylum.''
  Mr. Chairman, the U.N.'s human rights mechanisms frankly are broken. 
Unless the United Nations recasts its human rights body, it may be 
unable to renew any level of public confidence. The Hyde bill takes 
several well-overdue steps to ensure that a future U.N. human rights 
body does not become the farce that today's is. Under the Hyde 
legislation, the United Nations would adopt the foundational principle 
that countries that fail to uphold the universal declaration of human 
rights would be ineligible for membership in that body as well as those 
who have been sanctioned by the Security Council.
  This amendment would add another important reform in the area of 
human rights. The amendment simply states that country-specific 
resolutions shall not be eliminated within the human rights body. And 
this provision would be subject to the certification and withholding 
process of the underlying bill.
  The amendment's purpose is to thwart attempts to eliminate country-
specific resolutions within the Commission on Human Rights or any other 
future human rights bodies.
  Believe it or not, in the recent past, several countries have 
informally advanced the idea of eliminating these resolutions which 
highlight the abuses of individual countries. The ``naming and shaming 
process,'' as it is called, is one of the most effective ways at the 
U.N. to pressure countries to curtail human rights abuses. Were it to 
be eliminated, we might as well shut down the human rights body all 
together, which is exactly what the violator countries would like to 
have us do.
  This issue was brought earlier this year before the Subcommittee on 
Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations of which I 
serve as vice chair. Deputy Assistant Secretary of International 
Organizations Mark Lagon testified before the subcommittee that ``there 
has been a disturbing trend against which we have fought for developing 
countries to turn away from country-specific resolutions that single 
out and place under international scrutiny those countries with the 
worst of human rights records. Even more pernicious,'' he says, ``some 
countries argue for the elimination of all country-specific 
resolutions,'' and there is a growing consensus among states that 
practice these abuses, ``except those targeted at Israel under Item 8, 
the only agenda item devoted exclusively to one country.'' That is what 
they want to maintain while eliminating all other country-specific 
resolutions.
  The sad reality is that there are countries out there that are 
working to eliminate what should be the core function of any U.N. human 
rights body, naming the human rights violators. Unlike this year where 
there was no resolution on Zimbabwe and no resolution on Sudan, there 
would not even be the possibility of bringing up a resolution focused 
on a specific country. Just when you thought it could not get worse. 
Again, it would be laughable if it were not so serious.
  That is why this amendment is important. Some argue that the naming 
and shaming is too blunt an instrument. Instead, they prefer what they 
call ``quiet diplomacy.'' More often than not, silent diplomacy is the 
best friend of states who violate human rights.
  When I meet with those who have been beaten and tortured for 
attempting to stand for election in Zimbabwe or victims of the 
Janjaweed in Darfur, Sudan, many tell me how much words of support and 
condemnation from the world mean to them and those in their country who 
are fighting for freedom.
  This important leverage of naming and shaming must be kept if there 
is hope of reviving the United Nations' standing on human rights. I 
urge the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition 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.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first commend my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), for his extremely valuable amendment, which of 
course we are prepared to accept with the exception of the 50 percent 
penalty provision which applies to all of the amendments that we accept 
during our presentation of the Lantos-Shay substitute in which we will 
deal with the penalty provisions.
  Without being able to single out perpetrators of human rights 
violations, the Human Rights Commission and its work is useless.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, from a distance, the United Nations headquarters 
gleams, its signature glass tower dominating the East River skyline of 
Midtown Manhattan. But a closer look reveals evidence of decades of 
neglect. Sandbags and tar paper dot the roof to plug leaks. The Under 
Secretary-General for Management's office shows signs of water damage. 
Asbestos hangs from ceilings. The buildings furniture and fixtures 
clearly date from the early 1960s.
  The crumbling infrastructure of the headquarters is a metaphor for 
the state of the United Nations itself. Conceived in the waning days of 
World War II, the U.N. is a mid-20th century institution in a 21st-
century world. While the U.N. was designed to prevent war between 
nations, it has been called upon with increasing frequency to stop 
intrastate conflict and solve the challenges of failed states and 
terrorism. In this new undertaking, the U.N.'s performance has been 
unremarkable.
  In early March, I visited the United Nations and met with members of 
the

[[Page 13013]]

U.S. mission and high-level officials of the Secretariat to discuss the 
ongoing reform of the world body and to assess the state of the 
relationship between the U.S. and the U.N. I came away impressed with 
the urgent need for reforms that I hope will lead to a more effective 
United Nations.
  We need to strengthen the U.N.'s capacity to quickly and effectively 
deploy peacekeepers to halt and prevent genocides and other forms of 
intrastate and ethnic violence that have become prevalent in the post-
Cold War period.
  We need to end the obscene irony of having Libya and Sudan sit in 
judgment of human rights practices of others. We need to stop member 
states of the U.N. from dominating the agenda with innumerable attacks 
on our democratic ally Israel as a means of deflecting attention from 
the appalling lack of economic opportunity and political freedom in 
many parts of the world.
  As by far the largest contributor in the U.N., this country has a 
huge stake in the success of these reform efforts. But even as we work 
to correct the U.N.'s problems, we cannot lose sight of the fact that 
the U.N. serves so many of our national security interests. U.N. 
peacekeepers instead of American troops are stationed in numerous hot 
spots around the globe from Haiti to the Middle East to the Congo. The 
U.N. helped structure and manage the recent Iraqi elections that were 
an important milestone.
  The U.N. has coordinated the global response for Asian tsunami relief 
for nearly 6 months. It played a vital role in Afghanistan's 
transformation from a medieval theocracy to a nascent democracy. And 
the U.N. has also been a key player in the creation of the nation of 
East Timor.
  U.N. experts have been instrumental in coordinating international 
efforts to fight diseases that in this age of jet travel move across 
borders and between continents easily and often with devastating 
results. These are significant contributions to America's national 
security, and we cannot discount their importance.
  We must push the U.N. to change, but I have deep misgivings about the 
legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). And as an aside, Mr. Chairman, we use the 
word ``distinguished'' here very readily, perfunctorily. It is an 
honorific. It is occasionally a soporific. But in the case of our 
chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), I mean the word in 
all its sincerity. I think there is no chairman and indeed no ranking 
member held in higher regard by the members of the committee than our 
chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. Chairman, I feel honored to serve in the same Congress with the 
chairman.
  I believe the bill that we are considering today is too focused on 
unilaterally punishing the U.N. rather than using our prestige and 
diplomatic leverage to achieve reforms. If the idea is to use reform as 
a way to strengthen the U.N., I do not believe this is the right 
approach.
  My misgivings are shared by the administration and by a bipartisan 
group of former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. including Richard 
Holbrooke, Tom Pickering, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Yesterday, Under 
Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said the bill would undermine the 
credibility of the U.S. at the U.N.
  I will be supporting the substitute, Mr. Chairman, authored by our 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  In conclusion, I believe the substitute is a sensible and tough 
approach that will help us push a reform agenda and give us the 
flexibility to choose not to use punitive measures if our Secretary 
deems it is in the national interest.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. 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 California 
(Mr. Royce) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in subpart D 
of part 1 of House Report 109-132.


      Part 1, Subpart D Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

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

       Part 1, Subpart D amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. 
     Fortenberry:
       In title I, add at the end the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SECTION 110. GENOCIDE AND THE UNITED NATIONS.

       (a) United States Action.--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 the formal 
     adoption and implementation of mechanisms to--
       (1) suspend the membership of a Member State if it is 
     determined that the government of such Member State is 
     engaged in or complicit in, either by commission or omission, 
     acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against 
     humanity;
       (2) impose an arms and trade embargo and travel 
     restrictions on, and freeze the assets of, all groups and 
     individuals responsible for committing or allowing such acts 
     of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity to 
     occur;
       (3) deploy a United Nations peacekeeping operation or 
     authorize and support the deployment of a peacekeeping 
     operation from an international or regional organization to 
     the Member State with a mandate to stop such acts of 
     genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity;
       (4) deploy monitors from the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Refugees to the area in the Member State 
     where such acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes 
     against humanity are occurring; and
       (5) authorize the establishment of an international 
     commission of inquiry into such acts of genocide, ethnic 
     cleansing, or crimes against humanity.
       (b) Certification.--In accordance with section 601, a 
     certification shall be required that certifies that the 
     mechanisms described in subsection (a) have been adopted and 
     implemented.
       In section 601(a)(1), insert ``section 110,'' after 
     ``104(e),''.
       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 gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when a government of a member state of the United 
Nations is engaged in or complicit in acts of genocide, war crimes or 
crimes against humanity, other member states must not stand idly by.
  The U.N. is given the authority and mechanisms to discipline such 
members in article 5 of its charter; yet it often fails to do so.
  This amendment explicitly directs the U.S. permanent representative 
to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to make 
every effort to see that member states are held accountable. This 
accountability would include the following actions:
  One, suspending the membership of a member state if it is determined 
that the member state's government is engaged in or complicit in, 
either by omission or commission, acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, 
or crimes against humanity;
  Two, imposing an arms and trade embargo, travel restrictions, and 
asset freeze upon groups or individuals responsible for such acts;
  Three, deploying a U.N. peacekeeping operation or authorize and 
support the deployment of a peacekeeping operation from an 
international or regional organization;
  Four, deploying monitors from the United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees to the area where such acts are occurring;
  Five, authorizing the establishment of an international commission of 
inquiry into such acts.

[[Page 13014]]

  Mr. Chairman, as an active member of the United Nations, America has 
a responsibility to help strengthen this important body for worldwide 
deliberation. The spirit of the United Nations is undermined when it 
fails to address blatant disregard for its own charter. Its very 
character and effectiveness are weakened. Those governments engaged in 
crimes against humanity should not maintain their full rights and 
privileges at the U.N.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
for their important leadership on the issue of U.N. reform, and the 
chairman, as well as his staff in particular, for working with me on 
this important issue of genocide.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, as 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry) for his very useful amendment. In substance we are in 
agreement with the amendment; but as I will point out when we offer our 
substitute, the punitive portions are particularly absurd in this 
instance.
  Any permanent member of the Security Council can veto U.N. action. 
Assuming that China would veto action in the instance described by my 
friend from Nebraska, the United Nations would not be able to mount the 
action called for, yet we would penalize the U.N. for a veto by a 
member state. That is why the automaticity of the 50 percent 
withholding is simply illogical. It makes no sense.
  The substance of the gentleman's amendment is sound and valid. We 
have no objections to it, and I want to commend him for his initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Forten-
berry) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will accept the amendment.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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 Nebraska 
(Mr. Fortenberry) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to debate the subject of the Oil-for-Food program. 
The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 10 minutes.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is recognized.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think every Member in this House agrees that the 
United Nations needs reform, and I believe that frankly reform at the 
U.N. is imperative.
  The substitute bill that our esteemed ranking member, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), has offered in our markup in many, many 
ways mirrors the bill we are considering today. It endorses many of the 
same reforms that the Hyde bill also endorses. But there is a 
fundamental difference between the two bills, and that goes to the 
issue of what mechanism do we employ to try to bring about the type of 
reforms both bills endorse.
  Now, the substitute that was offered in committee and will be offered 
on the floor authorizes the Secretary of State to push for reforms. The 
Hyde bill is tougher. It requires that reforms be made or U.S. dues are 
partially withheld. The majority of members on the Committee on 
International Relations consider that the leverage of dues is the 
necessary mechanism, and I believe the only mechanism, with a chance of 
actually bringing about these needed reforms.
  Some have suggested that the bill here has too strong a pill in it. 
This is tough treatment. But I would ask Members to remember that 
reforming the United Nations is a tough game. Without strong leverage, 
I am afraid that the Secretary of State's voice would be lost in the 
din of voices at the U.N. that have resisted reform for years and 
years.
  The Oil-for-Food scandal is the exclamation point when we speak about 
the need for U.N. reform. I think it is safe to say that we would not 
be here today promoting broad reform across the U.N. were it not for 
the magnitude of the malfeasance and graft in the Oil-for-Food program.
  It was this scandal that propelled many to take a hard look at the 
United Nations. The portion of this bill that addresses the U.N.'s 
systemic weaknesses in its current oversight efforts is particularly 
welcome. The bipartisan Gingrich-Mitchell report released this week 
found that ``despite the effort of a few member states, the United 
Nations remains lacking in oversight and accountability.''
  The underlying bill mandates the creation of a well-funded 
independent oversight board with the authority to initiate 
investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing. It establishes 
procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who report 
allegations of misconduct; and it establishes policies to end single-
bid contracts.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on International Relations has been 
investigating the United Nations Oil-for-Food program since March of 
2004. In this Congress, the committee has established the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), on which I serve, which has looked 
deep into this scandal.
  The U.N. Oil-for-Food program was established in December of 1996 to 
provide relief to Iraqi people who were facing hardships as a result of 
U.N. sanctions which were imposed on Baghdad after the 1990 invasion of 
Kuwait. Under the program, Iraq was permitted to sell oil to purchase 
food and medicine and humanitarian supplies. We entrusted the U.N. to 
contain a dictator who had used WMD on his own people and invaded a 
neighboring country.
  By accepting oil for food, we put great trust in the U.N. and it 
failed. Lax oversight and corruption enabled Saddam's regime to raise 
billions in illicit revenue by requiring its trading partners to pay 
kickbacks in exchange for doing business in Iraq.
  The seriousness of the Oil-for-Food's corruption cannot be 
underweighed. This program centered on issues of war and peace. Saddam 
Hussein's regime manipulated this program which helped the Iraqi 
dictator stay in power. Our country went to war in Iraq which has come 
at great cost in American lives and treasure. Those who did not support 
this policy put even greater faith in Oil-for-Food.
  With Oil-for-Food, we are not talking about run-of-the-mill waste and 
fraud that is standard at the U.N. We are talking about corruption of a 
program that seriously impacted our vital national interests, interests 
vital enough to send our servicemen and -women to Iraq.
  The issues surrounding the Oil-for-Food program brings into question 
the ability of the United Nations to conduct a containment-oriented 
sanctions regime.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to pay tribute to the leadership of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) on the Oil-for-Food 
investigation. I also want to recognize the work of my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the ranking member on 
the investigations committee, my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

[[Page 13015]]

  It is now clear that the U.N.'s management of that program was 
plagued by sloppy administration which led to a failure to detect 
solicited bribes, collusion with contractors, interference with 
auditors who were assigned to ferret out abuse.
  Even more sickening than these U.N. failings was the behavior of some 
member states such as France and Russia who jumped at the chance to 
participate in Saddam's crimes against the international community.

                              {time}  1000

  To win Russian support for lifting U.N. sanctions, Saddam granted 
one-third of the Oil-for-Food contracts, worth some $10 billion, to 
Russian firms. He also appears to have directed bribes in the form of 
tradable oil vouchers to key officials on Putin's staff, his former 
Chief of Staff Alexander Voloshin, and to Russian political parties and 
politicians, including the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
  With respect to the amendments we are about to debate, we consider 
generally the amendments acceptable, but the withholding of U.N. dues 
on an automatic basis makes them in some cases unenforceable, and, in 
other cases, disproportionate to the events under discussion. We feel 
strongly that the United Nations must clean up its act if it is to 
continue to receive the support of the American people and this 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain some of the difficulty we face here in 
the way in which this sanctions regime broke down. Because of the need 
to maintain consensus within the Security Council and the broader 
membership in the United Nations, somehow the United Nations inevitably 
seems to become neutral or perhaps even sympathetic to the very regime 
being sanctioned, in this case it was Saddam Hussein's regime, and that 
neutrality inevitably led to loopholes in the program that Saddam 
Hussein was able to effectively exploit.
  When the Committee on International Relations began to look into the 
Oil-for-Food scandal, I stated that support for similar U.N. 
administrative programs will be zero unless the United Nations is 
forthcoming with information needed to investigate this scandal, and 
that the withholding of this information was a scandal in itself.
  We all agree that the credibility of the United Nations is on the 
line. As reports continue to come to light, and they come to light even 
this week, they seem to offer more questions than answers. Wherever 
this investigation leads, the seriousness of this issue cannot be 
discounted.
  Some have argued that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is making 
reforms, so why push him? The fact is that the Secretary General needs 
help. For one, he is a lame duck due to his necessity of leaving office 
in 2006. He may not realize it, he may not even appreciate it, frankly, 
but this bill will give Secretary General Annan the leverage he needs 
to make reform in his limited time left, should he choose to use it. 
Nothing focuses a bureaucracy like a threatened budget cut. Sometimes 
strong medicine is what is needed. This is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my 
good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2745. 
I also believe that these two amendments are probably superfluous. But, 
broadly speaking, clearly the Oil-for-Food scandal is a problem. It 
needs serious attention.
  I think all of us in this House agree that the U.N. is in need of 
serious, ambitious reform, but the underlying bill seeks to achieve 
that reform by assuming once again that the United States can dictate 
to the rest of the world. The United Nations does need to clean up its 
act, and it has already begun to do so. It is establishing a Management 
Performance Board to monitor senior managers, appointing the top U.S. 
State Department finance expert as the U.N.'s new management chief, and 
consolidating a comprehensive antifraud and corruption policy, in part 
based on a recent model developed by the World Bank. These are just a 
few of the many actions the U.N. is taking.
  In short, the organization's top bureaucrats are pressing for reform, 
and they need to, because the world is watching. But this U.N. Reform 
Act ignores this reality. It is self-destructive in its isolationism. 
In shifting funds from assessed to voluntary contributions, the Hyde 
bill attempts to legislate for the world by circumventing the General 
Assembly, where budgetary matters must be approved by consensus. 
Measures such as these breed resentment and weaken our credibility. At 
a time when the U.S. public image abroad is already suffering, member 
states do not need a new excuse to think of the U.S. as a bully.
  The Hyde bill would halt the expansion or creation of new 
peacekeeping missions if the U.N. does not meet a very unrealistic time 
line for reform. Such a move would signal a U.S. disengagement from the 
world's problems, including the worst humanitarian crisis of our time, 
the genocide in the Sudan, and it would make the U.S. appear narrowly 
focused on our pocketbook, rather than grave humanitarian concerns. I 
would add, the Oil-for-Food scandal is not one where the U.S. has 
perfectly clean hands.
  We have several golden opportunities these next few months to make 
the world safer and to fight global poverty. We have the G-8 meeting in 
Scotland in July and the U.N. General Assembly summit in New York City 
in September. The U.S. should be showing leadership regarding the 
proposed Peacebuilding Commission, which the administration supports, 
and increasing the effectiveness and amount of aid. The Hyde bill is an 
unfortunate distraction that detracts from U.S. leadership and 
undermines the potential of the U.N.
  There is a price to be paid for putting the U.S. at odds with some of 
our closest allies. Our allies and other nations are going to be less 
willing to cooperate with the U.S. on antiterrorism or other efforts if 
the U.S. continues to refuse to be a global team player.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Lantos-Shays 
substitute, which removes these harmful provisions.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, most Americans probably do not realize it, but most 
other governments, friends and foes alike, put great stock in the 
United Nations, for better or for worse, and for this reason the U.N. 
impacts the United States very significantly. That is why in this era 
of great challenges, of great threats to our security, we must do all 
we can to shake the U.N. from the deep failings described by the 
Gingrich-Mitchell report and referenced in this legislation. That is 
why I am supporting this bill and asking my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), our distinguished chairman.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the last speaker who used 
the words ``bully'' and ``legislating for the world.'' The litany of 
reforms which we deem essential in our legislation is mirrored in the 
Lantos bill, so if I am a bully, he is a bully. Actually, neither of us 
are bullies. We are a couple of nice guys. But these changes that are 
necessary, we all agree. The only difference is how to implement them.
  So I thought I would just make that comment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that the former Speaker 
of this

[[Page 13016]]

institution Mr. Gingrich considers that this is a moment where reform 
is attainable without the necessity of mandatory, automatic withholding 
of United Nations dues.
  Let me read an excerpt from a press conference that the former 
Speaker held back on April 15 of this year: ``I know of no occasion 
where there has been as wide an agreement that the U.N. has to be 
reformed. I know of no occasion where we have had a Secretary General 
as open and direct as Kofi Annan has been the last 2 months about the 
need for reform. And I think the very reason that Senator Mitchell and 
I were willing to chair this particular project is our belief that this 
could be a remarkable moment to get some significant things done that 
will give the world a more transparent, a more accountable and a more 
effective United Nations.''
  Mr. Chairman, I think what is particularly important about the 
Gingrich-Mitchell task force report is that it does not recommend the 
automatic withholding of dues. Presumably they agree with those eight 
former United States Ambassadors to the United Nations, individuals 
like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who is an icon to many who are of the 
politically conservative persuasion. And this is what those eight 
former U.S. Ambassadors had to say, that the base bill would ``create 
resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of 
reform.''
  Do we just simply want to ignore their warnings? Do we want to 
proceed in a manner that is going to defeat what is clearly a consensus 
in this institution about the need for reform? This is being practical. 
This is about an effort to secure a more effective, more transparent 
organization.
  The stars are aligned, I would suggest. Yes, as Speaker Gingrich 
says, this is a propitious moment for reform, and we, I would suggest, 
could very well derail that effort.
  I would like to just make a brief observation about the Oil-for-Food 
program, and I see my friend, the Chair of my subcommittee, here. Let 
me suggest that the base bill, and even the substitute for that matter, 
does not address, if you will, a fundamental problem that very well may 
be inherent in the institution, because, as I have said over and over 
and over again, we can reform the Secretariat. I do not think that is a 
difficult chore. But we ignore the fact that it was the Security 
Council, the Security Council itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations,
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my colleague and 
friend that this is a moment, a rare moment, when we actually have an 
opportunity to get something done that needs to be done. Unfortunately, 
what we hear from the other side of the aisle is let us pass this 
opportunity up by not making the demands that we are making contingent 
upon anything that we do.
  In other words, we are now going to make our demands for 
accountability, make our demands for reforms, which we have done in the 
base bill, but if these reforms are not implemented, if the United 
Nations continues in its incompetent and corrupt way, as in the past, 
there is going to be no penalty for it. If that is the case, what will 
happen is we will have surely passed up this historic moment to bring 
true reform to an international organization.

                              {time}  1015

  I would suggest that those who think that withholding our dues and 
the threat of withholding our dues is wrong, because Mr. Gingrich, by 
the way, supports the withholding of the dues as a tactic, if they are 
opposed to withholding dues or any other form of implementation, they 
are not for reform. This requires more than simple talk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 1 printed in Subpart E of Part 1 of House Report 109-132.


         Part 1, Subpart E Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Part 1, Subpart E amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of section 104, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (f) Certification of United Nations Cooperation Relating to 
     Oil-for-Food Program.--
       (1) Actions.--In accordance with section 601, a 
     certification shall be required that certifies that the 
     following actions relating to the oil-for-food program have 
     been taken by the United Nations:
       (A) The United Nations Secretary General has authorized the 
     release to a law enforcement authority of any Member State 
     (upon request by the permanent representative to the United 
     Nations of such Member State on behalf of such law 
     enforcement authority) or to a national legislative authority 
     authentic copies of any document in the possession of the 
     United Nations, including any document in the possession of a 
     person who was engaged on a contract basis to provide goods 
     or services to the United Nations, that in the judgment of 
     such requesting law enforcement authority or national 
     legislative authority directly or indirectly concerns the 
     oil-for-food program or a sanction imposed on Iraq related to 
     the oil-for-food program.
       (B) The United Nations has waived any immunity enjoyed by 
     any United Nations official from the judicial process in the 
     United States for any civil or criminal acts or omissions 
     under Federal or State law that may have transpired within 
     the jurisdiction of the United States in connection with the 
     oil-for-food program.
       (2) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     ``oil-for-food program'' means the program established and 
     administered pursuant to United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 986 (April 14, 1995) and subsequent United Nations 
     resolutions to permit the sale of petroleum products exported 
     from Iraq and to use the revenue generated from such sale for 
     humanitarian assistance.
       In section 601(a)(1), strike ``104(e)'' and insert 
     ``104(f)''.
       In section 601(a)(3)(A), strike ``39'' and insert ``41''.
       In section 601(a)(3)(A), strike ``ten'' and insert ``11''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Hyde U.N. 
Reform Act. I appreciate the work that the chairman has done on this 
important topic and the work of the entire committee and staff.
  I lived in the country of Namibia April 1989 through April of 1990. I 
worked with government officials and the future leaders of that country 
as it sought full implementation of U.N. Resolution 435. This 
experience gave me a firsthand witness of how effective the U.N. can be 
in ushering in democracy and helping a country in its peaceful and 
successful emergence from the authority of another country.
  Several years later, after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, I 
traveled to Iraq with my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence). While we were there, we saw the indulgences of Saddam, his 
sons, and his friends in the form of palaces and rooms full of booze, 
paintings, fine china, luxury furniture, and more. Several of these 
palaces were built and outfitted when the U.N. was supposed to be 
monitoring the sale of oil in exchange for food and medicine for the 
Iraqi people.
  Sure, the lot of some Iraqis improved marginally under the Oil-for-
Food program, but they were the lucky ones, and their conditions went 
from destitute to impoverished. We cannot characterize Saddam's 
agreement to the program as being driven by a genuine concern for 
Iraqis. His intention was malicious at the outset. He only agreed to 
the program after he was satisfied that he would be able to manipulate 
it.
  My point is that I have seen the U.N. work, but, more often and more 
recently, I have seen it fail miserably. I will not recount the list of 
scandals, because it is too long. We have heard all about them already.
  Let me just touch on a couple of points in the Oil-for-Food scandal, 
however, because that is the catalyst for the reform we are talking 
about today.

[[Page 13017]]

  The GAO estimates that more than $10 billion of illegal transactions 
took place under the program. In January of last year, an Iraqi 
newspaper published a list of about 270 foreign officials, business 
people, and political entities that have benefited from the scheme, and 
many of those officials are from countries opposed to U.S. interests. 
Russia alone received more than $1 billion worth of oil vouchers.
  Benon Sevan, the leader, the senior official responsible for the 
administration of the program, solicited and received on behalf of a 
third party several million barrels of allocations of oil. The U.N.'s 
own investigations under Paul Volcker have stated that Saddam's actions 
``seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations.''
  The son of the Secretary General was employed by a contracting firm 
up until the time that the firm won a contract from the U.N. for the 
program. The Volcker Committee reported that ``Kojo Annan actively 
participated in efforts by Cotecna to conceal the continuing 
relationship with him.''
  Just this week we are hearing about questionable communications 
between the Secretary General and that same contracting firm. Two of 
the senior investigators on the U.N.'s self-appointed investigation led 
by Paul Volcker recently resigned on principle and said that the 
inquiry downplayed Annan's role in the corruption in an interim report 
released in March. So now, the U.N.'s own investigation is under 
question.
  We need effective investigations into this scandal, truly independent 
inquiries. We also need to serve justice where necessary and where 
possible under our law.
  In the last Congress and once again in this Congress, I introduced 
the Oil-for-Food Accountability Act with cosponsors from both parties, 
I believe around 70 at last count. This amendment that I am introducing 
today contains provisions of that bill.
  Specifically, this amendment would create a certification of U.N. 
cooperation that, one, requires the U.N. to provide documentary 
evidence to member states investigating the Oil-for-Food program; and, 
two, to waive privileges and immunities of any U.N. employee charged 
with a crime associated with the program.
  Mr. Chairman, this scandal is far too big and too connected to the 
U.N. to not include these amendments as part of an underlying bill to 
reform the U.N. I urge support of the amendment.
  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.
  Mr. Chairman, as in other instances, we have no substantive complaint 
about the gentleman's amendment. We believe the automaticity of the 
punitive provisions are counterproductive, and we will deal with that 
later on.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) to address this issue.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), and I want to thank him for helping 
really to make some sense out of this entire U.N. reform effort with 
his substitute.
  I rise in opposition to the deeply flawed Hyde bill and in support of 
the Lantos substitute.
  I am glad that we are having this debate on the floor today. I think 
it is a very healthy debate. I do not think anyone will argue with the 
fact that the United Nations is in need of reform, but I question the 
end goal of this overall process with regard to the Hyde legislation.
  Is the effort real reform, or is it the Republican leadership's, and 
I think it is, a very cynical attempt to maybe begin to send the 
message that we would like to help dismantle or, even worse, begin to 
pull back or withdraw from the United Nations. I say this because it 
seems very much in line with public statements of the administration's 
nominee for the United Nations Ambassador, Under Secretary John Bolton.
  As many have observed, the nomination hearings have shown just how 
much disdain Under Secretary Bolton has for the United Nations and the 
U.N. system. What message does this send to our allies when such a 
nomination is made?
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that many of my colleagues on the other 
side are vocal critics of the United Nations, but I think the Hyde bill 
turns criticism really into contempt. It ensures that we return to 
arrears with the United Nations by requiring withholding of our dues 
for any one of a number of inflexible reasons. In effect, it is my 
belief that the Hyde bill sets up any U.N. reform effort to, quite 
frankly, fail. There simply is no reason to link much-needed U.N. 
reforms with the withholding of dues in such a drastic fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, we should work to reform the United Nations, but, at 
the same time, also work to support the important programs and the 
initiatives at the U.N. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, contrary to Under 
Secretary Bolton's assertions, the U.N. has made a difference in 
keeping the peace and in diffusing conflicts and easing regional 
tension. But there is more that needs to be done. The Lantos substitute 
acknowledges this.
  Our efforts should be working with our friends to promote peace and 
security throughout the world. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the United 
Nations is needed now more than ever. How can our commitment to peace 
and democracy be taken seriously when the administration's nominee has 
been quoted as saying such things as, ``The Secretariat building in New 
York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it would not make a 
bit of difference.'' Or, ``If I were redoing the Security Council 
today, I'd have one permanent member because that is the real 
reflection of the distribution of power in the world.''
  It is a dangerous and cynical message to be sending on the 60th 
anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. I find it 
incredible, Mr. Chairman. It is very incredible that at the time when 
we have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction pointed in all 
directions, that we would simply be looking to pull back from the 
family of nations. It is simply a terrible message to be sending to the 
rest of the world. In an interdependent world like ours, international 
organizations like the United Nations should be recognized as an 
indispensable partner not only in the administration's stated policy of 
spreading democracy throughout the world, but also in helping us in 
securing our national security goals.
  So please support the Lantos amendment. It does achieve what we need 
to do with regard to United Nations reform rather than trying to 
blackmail in pursuit of political interests.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before yielding the balance of my time to 
the distinguished chairman, let me just point out, if this is contempt, 
the only difference, because the Lantos substitute is the same 
substance, is that this maybe is contempt with teeth as opposed to 
toothless contempt. It is the same bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say, in response to my 
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), that contempt is not 
animating our legislation, and I really question the wisdom of 
penetrating motives, which seems to be a habit with some people. 
Blackmail was another phrase used. We have a difference of opinion on 
how to implement the same reforms. That is what we are talking about, 
what will be effective and what will not.
  I do not think we need to question or ascribe contempt for the U.N. 
We are trying to make the U.N. work. When you pay $442 million a year, 
you ought to have something to say about how the place operates.
  Years ago there was a phenomenon called the Stockholm Syndrome, and I

[[Page 13018]]

will tell my colleagues about the Stockholm Syndrome later, then.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the observation 
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and comment 
regarding the former Speaker in terms of the issue of withholding. It 
was yesterday that Mr. Gingrich said, and I am quoting again from 
reports of his statement, ``Withholding should not be our first resort, 
but should remain as our last resort.'' I would submit that this is 
precisely the logic that is put forth in the Lantos substitute.
  One further comment, and I am not going to speak of the Stockholm 
Syndrome, but with all due respect to my dear friend, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake), his amendment is dangerous because he very 
well might be jeopardizing investigations, criminal investigations that 
are ongoing now, because we know what happens when this institution 
receives information. It appears in the press.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) be allowed to make his statement.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A request to extend controlled debate on an 
amendment must be congruent with the terms of the order of the House. 
How much time is the gentleman asking for?
  Mr. LANTOS. As much time as he requires.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman to be a little 
more specific.
  Mr. LANTOS. I could not be more specific, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) each will be recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Well, I will not abuse the privilege.
  Let us get the whole story out on Mr. Gingrich, what he says about 
withholding. On Wednesday, at the press conference held with himself 
and Senator Mitchell, Mr. Gingrich stated that he ``supports Mr. Hyde's 
efforts,'' so that ought to be put into the mix.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in Subpart E 
of Part 1, House Report 109-132.

                              {time}  1030


    Part 1, Subpart E Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Barton of texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 1, Subpart E, amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Barton of 
     Texas:
       In section 104(a), add at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       (7)(A) The IOB shall review the Final Report of the 
     Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) into the United Nations 
     Oil for Food Program (OFF). The IOB's review should focus on 
     the adequacy of the IIC's Final Report or any subsequent 
     reports of the IIC or of any possible successor to the IIC. 
     The IOB's review of the IIC's Final Report should address the 
     Final Report's treatment of and adequacy in the following 
     areas:
       (i) OFF's operations from inception through the transfer of 
     power from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the interim 
     Iraqi government;
       (ii) claims of oil smuggling, illegal surcharges on oil and 
     commissions on commodity contracts, illegal kick-backs, use 
     of oil allocations to influence foreign government officials 
     and international people of influence, and use of funds for 
     military purposes;
       (iii) the involvement, directly or indirectly, of any 
     entity, bureau, division, department, specialized agency, or 
     employee (including the Secretary General) of the United 
     Nations, including any employee of the specialized agencies 
     of the United Nations or any employee or officer of the 
     Secretariat;
       (iv) the IIC's findings, discovery and use of evidence, and 
     investigation practices; and
       (v) the extent of cooperation by the United Nations with 
     requests by Congress for testimony, interviews, documents, 
     correspondence, reports, memoranda, books, papers, accounts, 
     or records related to the Oil for Food Program.
       (B) Subsequent to the IOB's review, the IOB shall determine 
     in a written report whether the IIC investigation is 
     incomplete or inadequate in any respects and whether any 
     additional investigation is justified. If the IOB determines 
     that additional investigation is warranted, it shall appoint, 
     in accordance with paragraph (5), a special investigator and 
     staff consisting of individuals who are not employees of the 
     United Nations and to identify specific areas within the OFF 
     to investigate.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to comment favorably on how refreshing it 
is to come to the floor and be exposed to the civility of the debate 
between the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). It 
shows the Congress at its best in terms of debating the high issues 
before our country. And I want to compliment both gentlemen for their 
civility and their decorum in this debate.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for 
his leadership on this issue, his dedication to trying to find a 
solution that reforms the United Nations and puts that body back in the 
realm that it originally was right after World War II when it was the 
epitome of world cooperation and hope for the future. Unfortunately, 
its image has been tarnished, and justifiably so.
  My amendment deals with one of the blights on the United Nations, and 
this is their ill-fated Oil-for-Food program. I was the first 
subcommittee chairman to hold an investigation on that program back in 
the mid-1990s under the Clinton administration. The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall) and I, on a bipartisan basis at the time, since he was 
a member of the Democratic Party, held several hearings in the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations. We could see even back then that it was a program 
headed for disaster.
  In the last several years, my committee, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, in addition to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde's) 
committee and the Committee on Government Reform, have launched 
independent investigations into the Oil-for-Food program, and I have to 
tell you that the United Nations does not cooperate.
  I can tell you of an incident that happened just this week. The 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce is going to hold a hearing in the near future in which we 
try to bring to light some more of the corruption in that program. We 
have not deposed, but we have interviewed a U.N. employee who wants to 
testify, volunteers to testify, on the record. So I had my chief of 
staff call Paul Volcker, distinguished former Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve System, and ask Mr. Volcker if this particular individual could 
testify. Mr. Volcker said he could not. Here is the person appointed by 
the U.N. to get to the bottom of the corruption in the Oil-for-Food 
program, distinguished former Chairman

[[Page 13019]]

of the Federal Reserve System of the United States of America, and he 
refused to let an employee of the U.N., who wanted to testify, testify 
before a committee of the Congress of the United States. I think that 
is inexcusable.
  So what my amendment would do, if accepted, and my understanding is 
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) would accept it, and I hope 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) would also accept it, 
would simply say that this independent oversight board that the base 
bill creates has to conduct a thorough investigation of Mr. Volcker's 
investigation and any successor investigations, and it sets out some 
guidelines, the most important of which is that the U.N. has to 
cooperate with congressional committees and their request for 
testimony, interviews, documents, correspondence, memoranda, books, 
papers, accounts and records related to the Oil-for-Food program; and 
if they do not, then we can require, again under the auspices, under 
the base bill of the oversight board, that an independent committee has 
to be appointed that is made up not of U.N. officials, not of U.N. 
employees.
  That is all the amendment does. It attempts to get to the bottom of 
the Oil-for-Food scandal by requiring that they cooperate with the 
various congressional committee investigations underway, and if they do 
not, that we have to appoint another board outside the U.N. to get the 
investigation on track.
  I hope that we accept this on a voice vote by unanimous consent. I am 
told that it is going to be supported by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), and I strongly appreciate his support.
  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 want to commend my friend from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for a very useful amendment, which we will be pleased to accept 
on this side.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise as well to reflect on 
the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a 
distinguished friend, as I heard him this morning acknowledging the 
relationship, but also the excellence between the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Ranking 
Member Lantos) and referring to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Hyde) as one of the more outstanding Members of this body. And I 
associate myself with those words and thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) for his service and as well his leadership on a number 
of issues.
  I think this question of U.N. reform is a difficult question, and I 
think it is an important question. I am reminded of my history and my 
childhood. My history tells me that President Wilson's effort at the 
League of Nations, if it had succeeded, we might have had a better 
life, and we might not have had World War II and the tragedy of the 
Holocaust. But it failed.
  And so we come now to the United Nations, almost 60 years old. And I 
am reminded of Ralph Bunche, one of the first African Americans to 
serve at the United Nations and to be nominated for the Nobel Peace 
Prize, how proud so many of us were as we read that in history, knowing 
that the United Nations was reflective of the world's diversity and its 
concerns and its policies. So I think the United States is better off 
because the United Nations exists.
  And the Lantos substitute, in essence, captures that spirit, the 
spirit of the necessity of reform, but yet that we are better off 
because the United Nations exists. It appropriately gives the right 
kind of stick, and that stick, Mr. Chairman, deals with providing the 
guidelines, the regulations, the standards, the moral compass, but it 
gives the Secretary of State, the chief diplomat of the United States, 
the discretion to withhold funds, and so that Secretary of State can 
engage on the world forum and speak with their fellow foreign ministers 
and discuss a world that would be better off with peace.
  In addition, I am gratified that the Lantos amendment thoughtfully 
does not give an automatic cut-off of new U.N. peacekeeping missions. 
How many of us are reflecting on our life and wish that we had been in 
a place, in a position to go into Rwanda and save the million lives? 
The U.N. did not act. The world did not act as we would have preferred 
it to act. The peacekeepers could not stop the violence. And so reforms 
are necessary, but we know that peacekeeping is necessary.
  Those many Members of Congress who have gone into the refugee camps, 
as I have done in Chad, and seen that the only body that was there was 
a representative of the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, the only 
physical body that could get into help the starving people of Sudan.
  And the Lantos amendment substitute has compassion and heart, and it 
has a strong voice and a strong stick. That is the balance of diplomacy 
that we need. That is why I ask my colleagues to support the Lantos 
substitute, because the United Nations makes the world better. It makes 
America better. And we, as leaders of the world and world peace, need 
to work with the United Nations, a strong United Nations and a reformed 
United Nations. Vote for the Lantos substitute.
  I rise in strong support of the Lantos Substitute to United Nations 
Reform Act of 2005. The goal of reforming the United Nations to be a 
stronger and more effective organization is a worthy one, one which the 
Secretary-General is working towards, a goal which most nations of the 
world are in favor of. This substitute amendment will help alter a bill 
that has a worthy goal, but which is flawed in its method of achieving 
those goals.
  The Hyde bill on U.N. reform contains many serious flaws which if 
implemented would not be welcome by the international community. 
Peacekeeping is one such area where this bill contains deeply flawed 
logic. The Hyde bill points to peacekeeping reforms that everyone 
agrees are needed. These reforms are in fact endorsed by the U.N. 
Department of Peacekeeping Operations and in most cases, these reforms 
are already underway to address recent concerns raised about sexual 
exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions. However, the Hyde bill 
says that starting this fall, the United States must prevent the 
expansion of existing missions or the creation of any new U.N. 
peacekeeping missions until all specified reforms are completed and 
certified by the Secretary of State. The truth is that some of these 
requirements simply cannot be met by the fall. True reform takes time. 
Reforms will require careful implementation at the U.N. as well as by 
the 100-plus troop contributing countries, and in some cases will 
require additional U.N. staff and funding which of course is not 
provided by this legislation. And yet, the Hyde bill will likely 
prevent Security Council resolutions to enable the creation or 
expansion of important U.N. missions in places like Darfur in Sudan, 
Haiti, Congo and Afghanistan. We as the United States of America have 
always prided ourselves on helping those who cannot help themselves, on 
aiding those who are being massacred simply because of who they are, 
but now this bill seeks for our Nation to turn a blind eye to these 
people. We, as the 109th Congress cannot allow ourselves to be the ones 
who cut off assistance to these desperate people.
  Not only does the Hyde bill take a wrong approach to peacekeeping, 
but it will also create great problems with the budget at the United 
Nations. The Hyde bill claims to ``pursue a streamlined, efficient, and 
accountable regular assessed budget of the United Nations,'' yet in 
reality the approach taken by the bill will wreak havoc on the U.N. 
budget process and will result in the automatic withholding of U.S. 
financial obligations to the U.N. regular budget. This flawed bill 
attempts to shift funding for 18 specific programs from assessed 
contributions to voluntary contributions. To achieve these goals, the 
bill mandates the withholding of up to $100 million in U.S. dues to the 
U.N. regular budget. While this idea may have merit, the U.S. should 
work with its allies to advance it through the Budget Committee at the 
U.N. instead of starting from the point of withholding dues, which 
should be our Nation's last resort. Furthermore, the Hyde proposal 
links 50 percent of U.N. dues to a list of 39 conditions, not only at 
the U.N. Secretariat, but also at various U.N. specialized

[[Page 13020]]

agencies over which the U.N. has no direct control. All of this will 
create a new U.S. debt at the U.N., since many of the conditions are so 
rigid and specific that they are not achievable. In the end, all that 
any of this will do is create resentment towards the United States in 
the international community. As the Washington Post editorialized, 
``This is like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into an antique 
table: Even if you're aiming at the right nail, you're going to cause 
damage.''
  The Hyde bill also calls for certain steps supported by the U.N. and 
the U.S., such as the strengthening of the U.N.'s oversight function, 
the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission, and reforms in U.N. 
peacekeeping. However, it calls for these reforms to be funded solely 
within existing resources. If the U.S. withholds dues as this bill 
calls for, even less funding will be available to support these 
reforms. This bill also calls for the creation of new positions in 
several departments, including the Office of Internal Oversight 
Services and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, without 
allowing resources to fund these positions.
  The Lantos substitute is a more constructive and cooperative approach 
to U.N. reform. This is not a time when the United States needs to be 
taking an aggressive approach against the United Nations and the 
international community. The Lantos bill gives the Administration much 
more flexibility to negotiate the reform proposals with other Member 
States, and references the withholding of dues as an option of the 
Administration rather than something that will occur automatically.
  The Lantos substitute also waives certain provisions of the Hyde bill 
if it is in the national security interests of the United States. This 
is particularly important when it comes to the provisions on U.N. 
peacekeeping, since new or expanded missions may be necessary to 
support international peace and stability. We can not predict where or 
when we will have to mobilize the international community next and in 
this world of uncertainty we need to have flexibility instead of the 
rigid and overly harsh approach of the Hyde bill.
  The Lantos substitute amendment does not completely alter the United 
Nations Reform Act. The Lantos substitute supports many of the same 
reforms as the Hyde bill--such as the inclusion of Israel as a full 
Member State at the U.N., a series of reforms to address recent 
problems in U.N. peacekeeping, overhaul of the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission, and administrative and management reforms necessary to make 
the U.N. more effective, transparent and accountable. Clearly, those 
who believe in the United Nations as a tool of international 
cooperation can get behind the Lantos substitute. We as a Nation, 
should all support the United Nations because it is a tool of 
international cooperation, an ideal to which we should all aspire.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 90 seconds.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that the Volcker action 
is supported by a former Attorney General of the United States, Dick 
Thornburgh, in a very thoughtful op ed piece, because he understands 
what investigations are about.
  I would describe the amendment put forth by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) as the tip-off amendment. Give the information so that in 
the course of an investigation, those who might be targets or subjects 
of an investigation know what you have and can anticipate the 
questions.
  I would also comment, and I have never met Mr. Volcker, but I have 
read the reports to date. They have been extremely harsh and critical 
and underline the need for reform.
  At the same time, a comment was made, and I think it has to be 
addressed. Everyone involved in the independent inquiry under the 
leadership of Mr. Volcker and the jurists from South Africa is not a 
United Nations employee. In fact, many of them are former career 
Federal prosecutors from our own Department of Justice. I had an 
opportunity to discuss this matter with them. They understand how to 
conduct an investigation. Let them conclude their investigation, and 
then I am sure they would be happy to disseminate any documents they 
might have.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we all vote for the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in Part 2 of House Report 109-132.


             Part 2, Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. 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. 1 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       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. ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE UNITED NATIONS.

       (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) ensure the issuance and implementation of a directive 
     by the Secretary General or the Secretariat, as appropriate, 
     that--
       (A) requires all employees of the United Nations and its 
     specialized agencies to officially and publicly condemn anti-
     Semitic statements made at any session of the United Nations 
     or its specialized agencies, or at any other session 
     sponsored by the United Nations;
       (B) requires employees of the United Nations and its 
     specialized agencies to be subject to punitive action, 
     including immediate dismissal, for making anti-Semitic 
     statements or references;
       (C) proposes specific recommendations to the General 
     Assembly for the establishment of mechanisms to hold 
     accountable employees and officials of the United Nations and 
     its specialized agencies, or Member States, that make such 
     anti-Semitic statements or references in any forum of the 
     United Nations or of its specialized agencies; and
       (D) develops and implements education awareness programs 
     about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism throughout the world, 
     as part of an effort to combat intolerance and hatred;
       (2) work to secure the adoption of a resolution by the 
     General Assembly that establishes the mechanisms described in 
     paragraph (1)(C); and
       (3) continue working toward further reduction of anti-
     Semitic language and anti-Israel resolutions in the United 
     Nations and its specialized agencies.
       (b) 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), insert ``section 110,'' after 
     ``104(e),''.
       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 gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde), our most distinguished colleague, for his outstanding 
leadership in bringing this well-crafted and much-needed legislation to 
the floor.
  Since being elected to Congress almost 11 years ago, I have had the 
distinct honor of serving on both of the committees that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has led, first the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and now the Committee on International Relations. And I can 
sincerely say that I have not served with a more honorable and decent 
man. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your great service to our country.
  I am pleased to be offering this amendment today with another 
distinguished and universally respected Member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on 
International Relations, and it is an honor to be doing this amendment 
with him.
  I am pleased to be offering the amendment. Our amendment would add a 
new section to this legislation requiring the U.S. delegation to the 
U.N. to

[[Page 13021]]

make every effort to officially and publicly condemn anti-Semitic 
statements made at any session of the United Nations. It requires U.N. 
employees to be subject to punitive actions, including immediate 
dismissal, for making anti-Semitic statements or references. It 
requires the development of educational awareness programs about the 
Holocaust and anti-Semitism throughout the world, and it requires a 
certification that these requirements have been carried out.
  The United Nations has for some time been a breeding ground for the 
dissemination of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda. It took 16 
years to reverse a General Assembly resolution that declared Zionism to 
be a form of racism and racial discrimination. And it was only reversed 
after considerable pressure from the United States, coupled with 
Israel's decision to make its participation in the Madrid Peace 
Conference conditional upon repeal of that resolution.
  As noted in H. Res. 282, a bipartisan resolution introduced by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, and adopted in 
this body last week, the U.N. Human Rights Commission took several 
months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian Ambassador 
that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened 
bread for Passover.
  If that were not enough, the president of the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission in 1997 refused to challenge an assertion made by the 
Palestinian observer that the Government of Israel had injected 300 
Palestinian children with the HIV virus. What an absurdity.
  Speaking from experience, Mr. Chairman, I can assure my colleagues of 
the anti-Israel activity at the U.N. In 2001, I was honored to be 
nominated by President Bush to serve as one of the two congressional 
representatives to the U.N., along with the gentleman from American 
Samoa (Mr. Faleoma-
vaega).

                              {time}  1045

  During the year-long appointment, I traveled back and forth from New 
York several times to meet with our ambassador at that time, John 
Negroponte, and our diplomatic delegation.
  On one occasion, I went to New York to participate in a special 
summit on children. Throughout the conference, we discussed resolutions 
on childhood disease, HIV/AIDS, humanitarian assistance, child 
trafficking, and other critical issues. Throughout the final day, our 
delegation trudged through the minutiae of resolutions in committee and 
in plenary session. Aside from the occasional objection to a comma or a 
whereas from the Chinese or the French, the day passed uneventfully, or 
so I thought.
  As I was getting ready to leave that evening, I learned from our 
diplomatic corps that the real battle was not fought in the committees 
or on the floor. It was fought behind the scenes as our American 
delegation successfully fought off an attempt from the Arab bloc to 
deny Israel its credentials to even participate in the children's 
summit. So much for the children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
even though I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment of my friend 
from Ohio.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) claims the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For years, it has been a pathological preoccupation of the United 
Nations to engage in isolating and persecuting the democratic State of 
Israel. Weeks before 9/11 in Durban, South Africa, an international 
conference was called under U.N. auspices to deal with the subject of 
racism and anti-Semitism; and a conference which was designed with 
noble goals turned into a lynching party, the target of it being the 
State of Israel.
  I think the gentleman's amendment is long overdue; and the 
responsibility of our representative at the United Nations to oppose in 
any form anti-Semitism and the singling out of the State of Israel for 
persecution and denunciation is long overdue.
  My expectation is that statements such as the ones we heard from Mr. 
Brahimi, Kofi Annan's representative to Iraq earlier this year, will no 
longer be heard or be allowed to be made.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It provides 
additional support for the one democratic state in the Middle East and 
prevents the recurrence of the upsurge of anti-Semitism which under 
Hitler led to the Holocaust in many countries of the world.
  This is a singularly useful amendment, and I ask all of my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for 
yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for offering this very important 
amendment, which would hopefully lead to the creation of a code of 
conduct to ensure that U.N. employees and officials, as well as U.N. 
member states, reduce, hopefully eliminate absolutely, anti-Semitic 
language and anti-Semitic resolutions.
  I point out to my colleagues, we have had an ongoing series of 
hearings in my subcommittee, as well as in the Commission on Security 
and Cooperation in Europe, concerning this spike in anti-Semitism that 
we have seen.
  The first hearing we held was back in 1995, and then in 2002 we saw a 
particularly alarming spike in countries that make up the OSCE region, 
particularly in France and the Netherlands and some of these other 
countries.
  Part of it is some of the hatred is being carried by emigres into 
their new home, that is to say, France and places like that; and as was 
pointed out by my colleague, some of the absolute, some of the most 
despicable, slanders against Jewish people are being carried 
uncontested.
  We now, in the OSCE, have had three major summits. Last week in Spain 
in Cordova at a summit, nations sent ambassadors and heads of states 
and foreign ministers to Spain, as we did in Vienna and as we did in 
Berlin last year, to look at what the best practices ought to be to try 
to end this scourge of anti-Semitism; and very good action plans have 
been adopted.
  The U.N. needs to take a page out of the OSCE and develop the kind of 
action plans and sensitivity to this terrible prejudice because, if 
left unchecked, it will fester and lay the seeds for acts of violence 
against Jews as well as desecration of cemeteries, as well as 
synagogues.
  So let me finally say that last year, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), Senator 
Voinovich, and I all crafted the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which 
created an office within the State Department and also mandated that 
global reports be done. I urge Members to read those reports, one of 
which just came out earlier this year. It is a very, very disturbing 
read about this growing menace of anti-Semitism; and the U.N., rather 
than being a part of the solution, has for too often been part of the 
problem.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his comments.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader of the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, there was a time 60 years ago, at the end of the war 
that took the lives of 30 million people, when the ancient sin of anti-
Semitism seemed finally to have exhausted its appeal, even among the 
most hateful of men.
  When it was hoped, at long last, that Jews could take their place 
among the

[[Page 13022]]

other free peoples of the world, that they could rise from their unique 
experience in that war, live their lives and pursue their happiness 
free from the genocidal evil that haunted our race.
  In the decades since, however, that hope has been ignored, 
undermined, and even attacked by two generations of U.N. bureaucrats 
and diplomats who remind one of Yeats's observation: ``The best lack 
all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.''
  The best, in this case, is the world's effete, elite diplomatic 
corps, among whom anti-Semitism is considered a harmless amusement, 
like smoking or bribery.
  The worst, on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, are the leaders and 
legitimizers of a bloody cult, bent not only on the destruction of 
Israel but on the slaughter of the Jewish people.
  Either in the interests of consensus or for more malicious ends, the 
institutions of the United Nations have become infected by a relentless 
hostility to Israel, Zionism, and Jews themselves.
  The U.N., which could not bring itself to offer even the mildest 
rebuke to the aggressors in three wars aimed at Israel's destruction or 
even against the campaigns of terror waged against Israeli civilians, 
has littered Lower Manhattan with its countless condemnations of 
Israel's self-defense.
  The U.N., whose charter calls on all nations to ``practice tolerance 
and live together in peace,'' for 2 decades declared that ``Zionism is 
a form of racism.''
  The U.N. General Assembly has hosted countless forums for slander 
against Jews, like the charge that Israel had injected Palestinian 
children with the HIV virus, that contain no mention of the 
deceitfulness of the attacks.
  In too many parts of the world, Mr. Chairman, including those parts 
which should be most sensitive to unchecked anti-Semitism, the U.N.'s 
tolerance of such hostility is dismissed as diplomatic necessity. It 
is, instead, diplomatic terrorism.
  Hatred of Jews, unchecked, begets violence against Jews; and violence 
against any race of people ultimately leads to violence against all 
races of people.
  The United Nations should know better than to allow its institutions 
to be poisoned by hatred.
  Hopefully, this amendment by the gentleman from Ohio will help the 
U.N. learn that valuable lesson.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. 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 Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) will be postponed.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
King of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Acting Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2745) to reform the United Nations, and for other purposes, had come to 
no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________