Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding manifestations of anti-Semitism by United Nations member states and urging action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials, United Nations member states, and the Government of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think every Member in this House agrees that the United Nations needs reform, and I believe that frankly reform at the U.N. is imperative.

The substitute bill that our esteemed ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), has offered in our markup in many, many ways mirrors the bill we are considering today. It endorses many of the same reforms that the Hyde bill also endorses. But there is a fundamental difference between the two bills, and that goes to the issue of what mechanism do we employ to try to bring about the type of reforms both bills endorse.

Now, the substitute that was offered in committee and will be offered on the floor authorizes the Secretary of State to push for reforms. The Hyde bill is tougher. It requires that reforms be made or U.S. dues are partially withheld. The majority of members on the Committee on International Relations consider that the leverage of dues is the necessary mechanism, and I believe the only mechanism, with a chance of actually bringing about these needed reforms.

Some have suggested that the bill here has too strong a pill in it. This is tough treatment. But I would ask Members to remember that reforming the United Nations is a tough game. Without strong leverage, I am afraid that the Secretary of State's voice would be lost in the din of voices at the U.N. that have resisted reform for years and years.

The Oil-for-Food scandal is the exclamation point when we speak about the need for U.N. reform. I think it is safe to say that we would not be here today promoting broad reform across the U.N. were it not for the magnitude of the malfeasance and graft in the Oil-for-Food program.

It was this scandal that propelled many to take a hard look at the United Nations. The portion of this bill that addresses the U.N.'s systemic weaknesses in its current oversight efforts is particularly welcome. The bipartisan Gingrich-Mitchell report released this week found that ``despite the effort of a few member states, the United Nations remains lacking in oversight and accountability.''

The underlying bill mandates the creation of a well-funded independent oversight board with the authority to initiate investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing. It establishes procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who report allegations of misconduct; and it establishes policies to end single- bid contracts.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on International Relations has been investigating the United Nations Oil-for-Food program since March of 2004. In this Congress, the committee has established the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), on which I serve, which has looked deep into this scandal.

The U.N. Oil-for-Food program was established in December of 1996 to provide relief to Iraqi people who were facing hardships as a result of U.N. sanctions which were imposed on Baghdad after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Under the program, Iraq was permitted to sell oil to purchase food and medicine and humanitarian supplies. We entrusted the U.N. to contain a dictator who had used WMD on his own people and invaded a neighboring country.

By accepting oil for food, we put great trust in the U.N. and it failed. Lax oversight and corruption enabled Saddam's regime to raise billions in illicit revenue by requiring its trading partners to pay kickbacks in exchange for doing business in Iraq.

The seriousness of the Oil-for-Food's corruption cannot be underweighed. This program centered on issues of war and peace. Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated this program which helped the Iraqi dictator stay in power. Our country went to war in Iraq which has come at great cost in American lives and treasure. Those who did not

support this policy put even greater faith in Oil-for-Food.

With Oil-for-Food, we are not talking about run-of-the-mill waste and fraud that is standard at the U.N. We are talking about corruption of a program that seriously impacted our vital national interests, interests vital enough to send our servicemen and -women to Iraq.

The issues surrounding the Oil-for-Food program brings into question the ability of the United Nations to conduct a containment-oriented sanctions regime.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

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.

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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. 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. Chairman, how much time remains?

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.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me first commend my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), for his extremely valuable amendment, which of

course we are prepared to accept with the exception of the 50 percent penalty provision which applies to all of the amendments that we accept during our presentation of the Lantos-Shay substitute in which we will deal with the penalty provisions.

Without being able to single out perpetrators of human rights violations, the Human Rights Commission and its work is useless.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, as I am not opposed to the amendment.

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt)

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) be allowed to make his statement.

As much time as he requires.

I could not be more specific, Mr. Chairman.

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).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues that are important to human rights around the world, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on the committee and in bringing this resolution forward and dealing with human rights issues in the Middle East.

I also want to identify myself with the statements made by my colleagues, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

The rise of anti-Semitism globally is undisputable and it is unacceptable. As the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission, I have worked with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), our chairman, to bring up anti-Semitism and fighting anti-Semitism as one of the highest priorities of our Helsinki Commission. I am pleased that as a result of the priority of our delegation, we are now having our third international meeting on anti-Semitism. That will be taking place this week in Spain.

In the second meeting that took place in Berlin, we were able to come out with a Berlin document, a declaration which stated unequivocally the condemnation by all 55 countries in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to condemn anti-Semitism and develop an action plan to fight anti-Semitism. It deals with law enforcement and sensitizing law enforcement. It deals with educating our children in Holocaust education. It deals with respect and understanding of people who have different religious beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, it is very wrong when individuals commit anti-Semitic actions. It is even worse when it is sponsored by a government or by international organizations. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have the resolution before us today that speaks to the United Nations and to the actions within the United Nations. It must clean up its act in regards to its actions of discrimination and anti- Semitism. It is unacceptable, and this resolution speaks to that. And I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, regarding manifestations of anti-Semitism by United Nations member states, and urging action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials. We must not allow anti-Semitism to become a part of the leading international organization that proclaims ``the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world''.

I commend the International Relations Committee for acting on this resolution condemning the resurgence of anti-Semitism around the globe. As Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, I believe we must recognize that despite great achievements with respect to human rights around the world, much more can still be done.

The history of anti-Semitism is indisputable. Today, though, I want to discuss trend of a growth of anti-Semitism throughout the world today.

In the last Congress, to address this new wave of discrimination, I was pleased to join with Congressman Lantos and Helsinki Commission Chairman Chris Smith in working to enact the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. The State Department then issued its first-ever global report on anti-Semitism, giving us a roadmap to build upon for the future.

Last year I traveled as part of the U.S. Delegation of the Helsinki Commission, with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to attend a special conference in Berlin addressing anti-Semitism, held under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). During the course of the trip I went to visit Auschwitz for the first time. That factory of death reaffirmed to me how we must tirelessly work to build understanding and respect between different communities to prevent future acts prejudice, discrimination, and ultimately violence.

At the Berlin Conference, I gave the official U.S. statement in the session on tolerance, and the meeting ended with the issuance of the Berlin Declaration of Action. The Declaration laid out a number of specific steps for states to take to combat the rising tide of anti- Semitism, including specific actions regarding Holocaust education, data collection and monitoring of hate crimes against Jews, and improved coordination between non-governmental organizations and European law enforcement agencies.

As the leading international organization in the world, the United Nations must make it clear that anti-Semitism has no place within its walls. It must condemn anti-Semitic statements made at all meetings and hold accountable the United Nations member states that make such statements. This is the first step of many that will discourage anti- Semitic sentiment from having any place with United Nations members.

Unfortunately, the United Nations has a long history of failing to aggressively combat instances of anti-Semitism within its institution. In 1975, the U.N. General Assembly concluded that ``Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,'' and this resolution was not revoked until 1991, after strong leadership from the U.S., and Israel's refusal to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference unless the resolution was repealed.

Until the year 2000, Israel was denied membership in any regional grouping of the United Nations. It continues to be denied the opportunity to hold a rotating seat on the Security Council, making it the only member to have never served on the Security Council despite being a member of the UN for 56 years. Lastly, Israel continues to be denied the opportunity to serve as a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. These anti-Israeli actions must cease if we are serious about stopping anti-Semitism.

However, I am glad to note that the United Nations Secretary General has recently spoken out on the issue of anti-Semitism. In addition, in 2004 the General Assembly's Third Committee adopted a resolution on religious tolerance for the first time, which states in part its ``deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence directed against members of many religious community . . . including . . . anti-Semitism.'' As Israeli President Moshe Katsav reminded us at our Berlin conference last year, anti-Semitism should indeed receive special attention from the civilized world.

While I welcome these recent steps forward, the United Nations still has a long way to go to combat anti-Semitism. As this resolution states, we must implement awareness programs about the Holocaust throughout the world. This will promote more than just tolerance; it will help the world to achieve racial, religious, cultural, and ethnic acceptance and diversity, leading to a more peaceful and just society.

This resolution also requests that the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations continue working toward further reduction of anti-Semitic language and anti-Israel resolutions. It also asks the Department of State to include information on activities at the United Nations relating to anti-Semitism in its reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom. Finally, it asks the Secretary of State to fund projects

that educate Arab and Muslim countries about religious intolerance.

We must combat this rising tide of anti-Semitism in all of its forms, and ensure that it has no place anywhere in the world, especially the United Nations. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.