[Pages H4658-H4671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HENRY J. HYDE UNITED NATIONS REFORM ACT OF 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore (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.

[[Page H4659]]

{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 functionality 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.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished Democratic
whip as much time as he might consume.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
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.

[[Page H4660]]

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. 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?

[[Page H4661]]

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.
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

[[Page H4662]]

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 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

[[Page H4663]]

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.
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. Fortenberry)
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

[[Page H4664]]

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).
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

[[Page H4665]]

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 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.

[[Page H4666]]

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.
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.

[[Page H4667]]

Years ago there was a phenomenon called the Stockholm Syndrome, and I
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 asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
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 of the Federal Reserve System of
the United States of America, and he refused to let an employee of the
U.N.,

[[Page H4668]]

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 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

[[Page H4669]]

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 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

[[Page H4670]]

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. Faleomavaega).

{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 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

[[Page H4671]]

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.

____________________