Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2745) to reform the United Nations, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I stand here with great pride next to my chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and recall all the great and wonderful battles that he has fought in his career, and I am so proud to be at his side at this, not the last battle that we will fight, but, as we lead into the sunset of his career, a battle that will be meaningful and remembered, and for which the American people will be grateful that we had his leadership.

Also, I might add, we are grateful for the honorable adversarial relationship that we have on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a champion of human rights, a dear friend, and someone who I greatly respect and whose guidance, I might say, has been important to my own career.

We are here today to take up the bill named for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the Henry Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. This bill will reform the United Nations in a meaningful and lasting way, especially in the arena of accountability.

Reform is vital in this area. And if anyone should doubt that, they only need look at the Oil-for-Food scandal which my subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), has been investigating. The Oil-for-Food scandal, let us remember what it was. The Oil-for-Food program was set up in order to make sure that the women and children and noncombatants of Iraq did not die of lack of food and medicines because of an oil boycott that we had put, the United Nations had placed, on Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime as a way of pressuring Saddam Hussein to give up his chemical and biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and to continue, and to refrain from his hostile acts like the invasion of Kuwait.

Unfortunately, the Oil-for-Food scandal is what happened to the Oil- for-Food program. We decided to establish a program, the Oil-for-Food program, which would permit the Iraqi regime to sell a certain amount of oil under United Nations supervision and to use the resources from that sale to purchase a certain amount of humanitarian supplies to help the so-called starving women and children of Iraq so these people would not be necessarily harmed.

Right from the beginning, as the United Nations organized the program, Saddam Hussein, this vicious dictator, this mass murderer, was able to choose the buyers for Iraq's oil, as well as the suppliers of humanitarian goods, which would then be the product of the sale of that oil. What do you expect will happen when that is the way it is organized? And why was it organized that way? It was organized that way because it was a United Nations program.

Let us note that our allies, including France and Russia, who had demanded that we have an Oil-for-Food program to help those poor and starving Iraqi children, that as we put the program in place, instead of helping us, they became hindrances to our making sure that the program was run in an honest way. Saddam Hussein was able to demand kickbacks and surcharges for the sale of oil and the purchase of humanitarian goods. Our allies were all too willing to pay those kickbacks. These are the same ones who pressured us to establish the program.

Business was the driving factor, of course, in their decision. But let us note that another driving factor was the fact that we have uncovered that as part of the Oil-for-Food program bribes were being channeled to people in those very governments, and perhaps that had something to do with the decision-making process of our so-called allies.

Of the estimated $65 billion in oil sales during the time of the Oil- for-Food program, perhaps as much as $10 billion was siphoned off by Saddam Hussein, this mass murderer, and this $10 billion, which was supposed to be going to the Iraqi people to alleviate their suffering.

A United Nations-sanctioned inquiry led by Federal Reserve Bank chairman Paul Volcker has unearthed these evidences of kickbacks paid, for example, to the former director of the Oil-for-Food program in the United Nations. Thus we are saying that it was a United Nations program and the Oil-for-Food program resources were used to bribe Benon Sevan, United Nations official who oversaw the program who had been appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and was a close confidant of Kofi Annan.

The Volcker Commission also published evidence detailing the destruction of documents about the Oil-for-Food program as late as last year by Annan's former chief of staff, Iqbal Riza.

The House International Relations Committee has been investigating the United Nations Oil-for-Food program since March of 2004. The oversight of the Oil-for-Food program at the United Nations itself was undercut by the weak institutional oversight management structures in the United Nations itself. The United Nations, as it was organized, as it is organized unless we act today, bears a great deal of the responsibility for the failure of these type of programs like the Oil- for-Food program.

There is not a culture of openness at the United Nations nor is the structure open, but instead a closed structure and a culture of arrogance. The United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services, for example, was denied adequate funding and manpower needed to properly audit the Oil-for-Food program. If they were not given the proper resources, why would we expect it not to be corrupted, especially when dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein?

Saddam provided gifts from $10,000 to $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers with the kickback money that he received from the Oil-for-Food program. And let us note something else. If you want to find out what this program did and the power it gave Saddam Hussein, and the corruption of this idea of saving innocent women and children as a program officiated over by the United Nations, let us recall a speech in this body, not too long ago.

The President of the United States gave his State of the Union message here and introduced us to a lady sitting next to his wife, the first lady. Next to her was an Iraqi woman whose father had been assassinated by Saddam Hussein because he was a human rights activist. How was the assassin paid off? We have traced back the payment of the assassin of the woman who joined us for the State of the Union, the assassin of that woman's father, we have traced back that payment to a man who received the money from Saddam Hussein, and it was channeled through this United Nations program; and the money ended up going through a United Nations program to an assassin who murdered the father of the woman who was introduced to us because he was a human rights activist.

If ever there was a travesty, it is this. Saddam Hussein was manipulating the program; and the United Nations, it seems, if not willing to go along with Saddam Hussein, was certainly not willing to go along with the reforms that would have corrected the program.

Without approval, the New York office of the Banque de Paris, or Paribas, this was the bank that oversaw the Oil-for-Food program, the U.N.'s bank for the program made unauthorized payments from the program to so-called third parties on more than 400 occasions. These third parties where the unauthorized payments were made went to people that they had no idea who they were giving the money to. We have yet to be able to trace back who actually runs the corporations who received over 400 payments from the bank that ran this Oil-for-Food program, all of this, of course, under the United Nations' direction.

Now, that is the Oil-for-Food program. We could go on about that for hours. But there are other problems at the U.N. which we need to mention, the nepotism at the United Nations. We have seen over and over again people hiring their children. We have seen situations where, for example, Benon Sevan sold his vouchers to a company in which his stepdaughter was hired,

which was in violation of U.N. job violation rules. And let us note former Secretary Boutros Boutros Ghali's nephew.

Neoptism is rampant at the U.N. Maurice Strong, a long-time U.N. official and confidant of Secretary General Annan, hired his step- daughter Kristina Mayo for a U.N. job in violation of U.N. staff regulations. Benon Sevan allegedly sold his oil vouchers to a company run by former Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's nephew. Moreover, this deal with Sevan was set up by Fred Nadler, Boutros- Ghali's brother-in-law.

Strong has also been tainted by his association with the Tongsun Park, from the Koreagate scandal, against whom a complaint was filed by the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York in April. Park was attempting to illicitly influence ``a U.N. official'' through Iraqi Oil-For-Food money. Strong has confirmed that he was that U.N. official but denies wrongdoing.

The WMO in Geneva, Switzerland, a long-time WMO employee and Sudanese national was accused of skimming $3 million from accounts at the organization over a 3-4 year period. The funds were lost to this corruption and they will likely never be recovered.

He is said to have faked his death to avoid investigation. Accordingly, his wife presented a death certificate, acknowledged by Sudanese authorities to have been false, in order to claim his U.N. pension, which the U.N. has withheld pending the results of a full investigation being conducted by the Swiss authorities at the request of the WMO.

WMO authorities believe that ultimately there are 10-15 other WMO employees who could be viewed as negligent or even gross negligence.

The WMO Senior Legal Advisor reported that while bad, ``the internal procedures were not the worst seen in the U.N. family of organizations.''

At WIPO, also in Geneva, Michael Wilson, an Annan family friend, is being investigated by a Swiss judge on charges of bribing a senior official at WIPO to win a renovation contract on the agency's headquarters. The WIPO official acknowledges receiving $270,000 from Wilson. Wilson claims the money was from a private business venture.

There are also allegations of employee skimming of WIPO agency funds related to the renovation.

Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the agency coordinated with international relief agencies and U.N. member states to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people.

In January of 1998, $43,701 had to be recovered from staff members no longer at the mission as well as outstanding obligations of $328,287 in November 1997 for the UNOHCI.

The audit revealed that an inventory of physical assets in May 1998 discovered that 185 items totaling $100,994 could not be accounted for.

The United Nations Claims Commission (UNCC) processes claims for losses and damage suffered as a direct result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91.

In an audit of the UNCC's awards, the OIOS viewed the present system resulted in overpayments of $2,170,951 to the claimants in the 10th installment. Furthermore, in the absence of relevant information, OIOS estimates that UNCC has overpaid by $.51 billion to date for other claims. In addition, it is estimated that UNCC would overpay future claims by $1.27 billion, under the current exchange rate procedures.''

The United Nations Population Fund and U.N. Environment Program promotes environmental and population strategies among member governments.

In a statement before a U.N. Committee in 2004, Thomas Respasch of the U.S. Mission to the U.N. explained, the following extravagant travel expenses of two programs at the U.N.: ``In the U.N. Population Fund, we were quite surprised to learn that some senior staff members who spend more than half their time in travel status are racking up travel costs of $225,000. In the U.N. Environment Program, travel advances to other persons, in the amount of $82,208, had been outstanding for more than 20 months.''

United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) assists member states in their struggle against illicit drugs, crime and terrorism.

In 2003, Samuel Gonzalez-Ruiz, a senior adviser to UNODC, resigned, charging that the office ``tolerates administrative and in some cases criminal violations'' such as nepotism, mismanagement and misappropriation of funds by agency staff. A U.N. probe into corruption allegations found that ``a senior official improperly gave 11 contracts to his wife.'' In 2003, an OIOS probe found mismanagement by executive director Pino Arlacchi; collapse of $250 million 10-year plan to eradicate drugs from Afghanistan. Also found evidence of lavish, excessive spending, such as purchase of a $100,000 Mercedes.

These are but a few of the signs that the U.N. is on the wrong path. But talking about problems is not enough, we must do something about it.

This bill is vital for reform of the United Nations. Chairman Hyde's bill brings real reform to an institution that is quite simply broken.

Regarding the Accountability section of the bill, there is a provision for a special investigator to be assigned to investigate further instances of corruption by high officials of the U.N., such as Benon Sevan.

This bill brings independence to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, OIOS, removing it from under the thumb of political influence at the U.N. and assures OIOS of proper funding to carry out its mission.

This bill creates a U.N. Office of Ethics--an office that after more than a year of investigation into the Oil-for-Food Program has shown-- is sorely needed.

Also, the Ethics office will be tasked in this bill with facilitating and operating a system for financial disclosure.

Finally, the bill creates an Independent Oversight Board (IOB) to review the audits of the OIOS and other audit bodies of the U.N. This office is vital to provide proper oversight of the U.N.

What we have certainly discovered about the U.N. in the hearings on the Oil-for-food program that I have held in the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the International Relations Committee, is that the U.N. was corrupted by Saddam Hussein. This bill will go some distance toward repairing this corruption.

I conclude by saying that the U.N. has not been accountable, transparent and it has not been living up to the standards expected of an institution that receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year from the United States. The American taxpayers deserve more for their money. This is why Chairman Hyde wrote this bill and why we are here today: to fix the U.N. so that the problems exemplified by the Oil-for- Food program as well as others such as the horrific rapes committed by U.N. peacekeepers are never repeated.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for one moment?

Mr. Chairman, let me just note that what measures that we have been suggesting in the bill, as you have just underscored, are very reasonable, and the fact that we have bipartisan support on the measures demanding accountability suggest that these are things that the United Nations should not be opposing. This is nothing that should raise the fur up on the back of the necks of any official at the United Nations. So I appreciate the gentleman, and also, all those ladies and gentlemen on the other side of the aisle coming at these issues of accountability in a very bipartisan fashion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues across the aisle to do so. Let me state at the outset that I fully share the passionate commitment of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to meaningful and thorough reforms at the United Nations. This global institution must become more transparent and open, its employees must be held to the highest ethical and moral standards, and the abuses of the Oil-for-Food program must never be repeated.

Mr. Chairman, the United Nations must put an end to its persistent and pathological persecution of the democratic nation of Israel, which has become the whipping boy for totalitarian regimes around the globe. Serial human rights abusers, Mr. Chairman, must also be kept off U.N. institutions explicitly designed to fight for the cause of human rights and democracy.

Mr. Chairman, the crushing flow of stories of scandal at the United Nations has forced a long-overdue recognition of an essential fact about the place: it is not a real country, like Japan or Norway. It is a derivative reality reflecting its less-than-perfect member states in a deeply flawed world.

I would like to remind my colleagues that there will be no quick fix for an organization composed of 191 member states which, in varying degrees, have their own shortcomings, their own injustices, their own flaws, their own hypocrisies of all types. Because a quick fix is not to be expected, and rigid, punitive measures will not bring about a long-term fix, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the legislation before the House today and indicate my intention to offer a substitute amendment.

Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, our Republican administration informed Congress that it strongly opposes the automatic withholding provisions of the Hyde bill as well as its infringements upon the President's constitutional powers.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman, and I want my Republican friends to listen. The Republican administration strongly opposes the Hyde bill.

This does not come as a surprise to us, Mr. Chairman. Just a few weeks ago, high-ranking officials at the Department of State told Congress that the legislation would undoubtedly create new arrears at the United Nations because not all of the U.N. reform benchmarks contained in the bill are achievable. While many of the reforms being sought in the Hyde bill are worthy goals, many require unanimous agreement by all 191 U.N. member states, including the likes of Iran, Syria, and Sudan.

Mr. Chairman, the Lord gave us Ten Commandments, but the bill before the House today gives us 39. What is worse, Mr. Chairman, is that if the United Nations achieves 38 of these benchmarks and only accomplishes half of the thirty-ninth, the Hyde bill automatically, automatically, cuts off 50 percent of the U.S. contribution to the United Nations. With this rigid and inflexible mechanism, the legislation before us will undercut, not strengthen, our ability to press for the very reforms we all seek.

Senior State Department officials argue that the bill, if enacted, would severely undermine America's national security interests by killing desperately needed U.N. peacekeeping operations, including a possible mission to deal with genocide.

The State Department is not alone in opposing the Hyde bill. Eight former

United States Ambassadors to the United Nations have expressed their strongest opposition to the bill. These Ambassadors include distinguished Republicans like Jeane Kirkpatrick, John Danforth, a former distinguished Republican Senator; and Ambassadors Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, Donald McHenry, Thomas Pickering, Bill Richardson, and Andrew Young. They argue that the bill ``threatens to undermine our leadership and effectiveness at the U.N. and the reform effort itself.''

In short, Mr. Chairman, while the Hyde bill has the best of intentions, it will cause our Nation to go back into an arrears at the United Nations without achieving the desired outcomes. Given the important role the United Nations is currently playing in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Darfur, and scores of other places, I fail to see how going into debt at the United Nations will promote our national security interests. It will only force the United States to take on greater global responsibilities at the very moment when our troops and our diplomats are already spread thin.

I also fail to see, Mr. Chairman, how tying the hands of our distinguished Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, as she pursues reform at the United Nations would serve our national interest. The legislation before the Congress micromanages every possible reform at the United Nations. It creates mechanical, arbitrary, and automatic withholdings, and it gives Secretary of State Rice zero flexibility to get the job done.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I will offer a substitute amendment to achieve U.N. reform which will give Secretary Rice the flexibility she asks for, she needs, and she fully deserves from the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to side with our Nation's bipartisan foreign policy leaders in opposing this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I deeply appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding, let me commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his powerful statement. And let me commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for including in his bill extremely important measures that enhance accountability. I would like to state that the Lantos-Shays substitute which we will present later contains the same measures. We are in full accord on dramatically enhancing accountability at the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his comments.

I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the distinguished chairman of the Asia and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee, my distinguished Republican colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from New York for offering this amendment. Our side is prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

The diplomatic immunity that the United Nations is granted under international law is not designed to shield its employees from the due process of law when they commit crimes. Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated on numerous occasions that he would never allow the U.N.'s diplomatic immunity to protect any employee from prosecution for a crime she or he may have committed.

The Lantos-Shays substitute has a parallel amendment, and we are happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our side is prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. We have heard very disturbing reports about possible contracting scandals involving kickbacks at the World Meteorological Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization in recent years. It will be extremely helpful to have our General Accounting Office also undertake a thorough review of these matters.

We are looking forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others to make certain that all U.N.-affiliated organizations achieve the appropriate reforms, and I thank the gentleman for offering this important amendment which will support our efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for yielding, and I want to commend him for bringing before this body an important amendment. We strongly support his amendment, and I am very pleased to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. I want to commend him on bringing this matter before the body.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for presenting this amendment. We have no objections. We are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). The problem with this provision, as with much of the bill, is the lack of judgment that our Secretary of State could bring to bear as a new, tragic Darfur-like situation erupts someplace.

We do not question the need for improving the peacekeeping process, we are with you totally on that, but we would like to have our Secretary of State have the opportunity of exercising her judgment in a rapidly changing and evolving situation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, although we do not oppose this amendment, that we have 5 minutes to explain our position.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 5 minutes to explain our position.

I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield for the final time, but before I do so, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we accept the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for the final time.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we are pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The International Atomic Energy Agency is a vital U.N.-affiliated agency that directly serves the national security interests of the United States and underpins the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The IAEA safeguards and inspection system is the primary means, and sometimes the only means, by which we and the rest of the world can gain information and insight into the nuclear activities of countries of concern such as Iran.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the IAEA's investigation into Iran's deceit, obfuscation and outright lies about its nuclear activities. For over 2 years now, IAEA investigators have refused to be intimidated by Iran's crude threats and tactics, and they keep confronting Tehran with facts and inconsistencies in Iran's feeble excuses and fabrications about its nuclear activities.

Even today, Mr. Chairman, an IAEA official is reporting that Iran has admitted, when confronted by IAEA investigators, to conducting plutonium processing experiments far more recently than it previously claimed and lying about when it obtained uranium centrifuge enrichment equipment.

Mr. Chairman, we must provide with all the financial and other support that we can, while pushing it, and its governing councils of member states, to give it more authority to investigate and even punish countries that have violated their safeguards agreements and their non- nuclear commitments. The provisions of the Lantos-Shays substitute amendment do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my good friend from Virginia and the gentlewoman from Nevada for their outstanding amendment. We strongly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I want to commend him on this most important amendment.

We cannot permit countries such as Iran to profit from their exploitation of the nuclear nonproliferation regime to acquire nuclear equipment and technology that they then use to develop nuclear weapons capabilities in violation of their solemn commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The Markey amendment is a necessary step to establish a new global requirement that violators of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty must surrender all nuclear materials, equipment, and technology they acquired through the subterfuge of ``peaceful nuclear activities.''

This is a singularly significant amendment, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time.

Let me quote, this would undermine American credibility at the United Nations. It would undermine our effectiveness. Those are the words of the distinguished Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who said of the bill that we are considering, it will call into question our reliability as the founder and host Nation and leading contributor to the United Nations and would also harm our image worldwide.

My colleague from Utah pointed to the bipartisanship. I gather that he would agree that it is bipartisan when Nicholas Burns and Alcee Hastings and other Democrats and this administration join in opposing this measure.

In my opinion, this bill takes a shortsighted approach to reforming the United Nations. There are decent, necessary and desirable provisions in this legislation, but, Madam Speaker, this bill takes well-thought-out ideas and pushes them far into the realm of demagoguery, demonstrating a contempt for the United Nations that is entirely unfounded.

The United Nations Reform Act is yet another example of the majority's willingness to bulldoze over dissension and force its will upon those who would otherwise disagree. The draconian requirements of the underlying legislation will affect everything from the promotion of human rights in the organization to the inclusion of mandatory sunset provisions for all new U.N. programs.

The most shortsighted of the bill's provisions would require a mandatory withholding of peacekeeping funds unless the requirements in this legislation are met.

Madam Speaker, simply put, prohibiting the Secretary of State from exercising discretion regarding the withholding of funds to the United Nations is counterproductive. The Secretary herself told a group here in the Capitol day before yesterday that the Bush administration is not supporting the mandatory withholdings contained in this bill. It seems clear that if even this administration, which has never been reluctant to withhold criticism of the U.N., is against this provision, then it must be bad.

It has become a cliche when Members of the House speak repeatedly about winning the hearts and minds of the world; yet our constant use of gun-barrel diplomacy continues to fail. Do my colleagues really believe that withholding millions of dollars from the United Nations will encourage the member nations to go along with what we are trying to do today?

Adlai Stevenson, that great champion of world diplomacy, said, ``The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations, great or small, to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to.'' Now, more than 40 years later, the underlying legislation seeks to eliminate the right of any country besides our own to chart the future of the United Nations.

The only way for us to reform the U.N. is to work within it rather than threatening to take our ball and go home. We will not be successful by withholding the funds that are needed to do the job.

Thanks to the Bush administration, the United States' international reputation as a peace-loving Nation is in tatters. Now my friends on the other side want to pass a bill which will withhold peacekeeping funds while conflicts rage around this world unchecked? This is irresponsible, immoral and a foreign policy disaster.

Everyone in this body realizes that the United Nations is not a perfect organization, but on balance, the United Nations has been and will continue to be good for America on a range of global issues.

Let us not forget the thousands of United Nations personnel who risked their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring about successful and free elections in those countries or the role of the U.N. in effecting the withdrawal of Syrian military forces from Lebanon.

In March of 2005, Secretary-General Annan released a string of initiatives to combat terrorism, proposals that the United States Government has openly supported. And in the Sudan, the U.N. has committed aid workers, troops, police, and money to ensure the success of peace accords.

The U.N. also continues to provide a global voice and to be a powerful advocate for change around the world. How many millions of children's lives have been saved through UNICEF, Madam Speaker? How many millions of lives have been saved through disease treatment and eradication programs? How many have been made better through development assistance, cultural programs, and advances in education? Can we really justify cutting off our support for all these efforts simply because the U.N. does not implement every single one of our reform proposals?

Madam Speaker, that is the reason I will be supporting the Lantos- Shays substitute to this bill. Eleanor Roosevelt, our country's first representative to the United Nations, remarked, ``Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you will be criticized anyway.'' It may be that the United States will still be criticized even if we adopt the substitute and these reforms are pushed through. But I would rather do the right thing and be criticized than give up and go home because things did not go 100 percent of the way that we wanted it to.

The Lantos-Shays substitute takes a realistic approach to reforming the United Nations. It includes virtually all of the reforms in H.R. 2745, with one crucial difference. The substitute gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to make decisions regarding funds based on the needs of the United States. The substitute avoids the counterproductive all-or-nothing diplomacy of this measure, while still promoting the reforms everyone agrees are needed.

Madam Speaker, legislating unrealistic ultimatums will not achieve the goal that we are seeking. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill- advised and shortsighted legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman, and I agree with him regarding our rhetoric. When I made my references I was referring to the Bush administration and not to the distinguished chairman and other Members in the body. And I stand by those statements, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join in whole-hearted endorsement in echoing of all of the words of praise that have been directed toward the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. I have known the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to not only be gentlemanly and eloquent, but fair-minded and bipartisan in a substantial number of efforts, and I, like all of our colleagues here, deeply appreciate the work that he has done on behalf of this Nation and indeed this world throughout the course of his career, and I compliment him in that regard.

I also accept the chastisement of the distinguished Chair with reference to rhetoric, but I would urge that some of the rhetoric that I may have used is rhetoric that I learned here in the House of Representatives that has been used on both sides of the aisle much too often, in my judgment.

That said, I would like not to be an apologist for the United Nations. The United Nations needs to be reformed, and I think that it could be put better by the words of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, whom I quoted when I began. I further quote him in saying that it is more important to press for structural reforms. I think Ambassador Burns is absolutely mindful of what all of us are. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), his colleague in filing this measure; all of the members of the Committee on International Relations, indeed all the Members of this body recognize that the United Nations has problems. But if we are in the business of using this as precedent, then we would not want to establish a precedent where using the hammer, as the gentleman from Indiana referred to the monetary withholding as being the hammer, to cause people to undertake to do what we say. Then we establish that as a precedent, and we look up next month, 2 months from now, another country comes forward. We are not the only dues payor, we are the largest dues payor to the United Nations. So someone else that decides that it should reform in a way more likely to comport with their government's understandings could use this as a precedent. I do not think that that is a good thing. I do not think that is good policymaking, and I have tried to make that clear.

Let me give the Members the analogy by way of an exact example. I happen to be the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is the first time that an American has been the president, and we are holding the Assembly's conference here in Washington, D.C., and I thank the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate for the extraordinary effort that they have put in allowing that this Assembly be undertaken in appropriate fashion in a bipartisan way. Secretary Rice is one of the featured speakers at that Assembly.

I raise it only for this reason, and I see the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend, who is the Chair of the Helsinki House side of the same Assembly that I am talking

about. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) can relate to what I am about to say, and I ask the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to do so as well.

More than a year ago, the governing side of the OSCE was met with threats from the country Russia. And we agree even today that transparency and accountability in that organization is critical. They hold most of their undertakings behind closed doors. They operate on the consensus rule, and it primarily stagnates the mission of the OSCE. But Russia said that unless the United States paid more dues, interestingly enough in this particular instance, and that they paid less dues, and that reform measures that they were seeking were implemented, that they would withhold their dues from the OSCE. It did not stop the organization from running. It is not going to stop the Assembly from taking place here in Washington, D.C., July 1 through July 5. But what it did was that threat caused turmoil inside the organization that is in need of reform, and I think we run into the same kind of measure here in this particular proposal.

Listen, Madeleine Albright and John Danforth, Richard Holbrooke and Jeane Kirkpatrick are nobody's rookies, and they are not naive when it comes to what is needed. Thomas Pickering and Bill Richardson and Donald McHenry and Andrew Young, all eight of these individuals were people that served as our Ambassadors under Republican and Democratic administrations to the United Nations, and during that entire period of time, each of them in their own way contributed to meaningful reform. All of them have said, The need for United Nations reform is clear, but we urge that you carefully consider this legislation because it will not, it will not, do the necessary reforms at the U.N.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, and provides a structured rule for consideration of 28 different amendments, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the minority.

The rule provides for the offering of the 28 specified amendments according to subject areas as designated in the text of the resolution, and with a cumulative total of an hour and 40 minutes of general debate to be divided equally by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. Madam Speaker, with 28 amendments in order, to poorly paraphrase Winston Churchill, never will so much be said by so many about so little, in this case, just a single subject act.

It is fitting, though, Madam Speaker, that this bill be named after our esteemed colleague to my right, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who has served and is serving with such distinction and integrity and has been a stalwart in these halls for the past 30 years. He is to be commended for putting together a well-thought-out, comprehensive measure aimed at helping to bring about real and needed reforms within the United Nations.

I commend also the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, as well for the long-standing cooperation and dedication to bipartisanship in the area of U.S. policy and diplomacy which is evident in many important aspects of this legislation.

In fact, Madam Speaker, when these two distinguished gentlemen were testifying before the Committee on Rules on this bill, I was struck by the fact that the House, and indeed the entire Nation, is the beneficiary of decades' worth of their collective wisdom and firsthand experience.

We spent the last few weeks discussing DOD authorization and appropriations, Interior, State and Justice appropriations, and these acts have a wide range of topics and generated a multitude of amendments. This specific act has generated 28 potential amendments on a single topic, and, Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to love listening to all 28 of those amendments, but let that not overshadow the reality of this bill.

This bill is unusual in the bipartisan unity of the content. When it comes to the issue of United Nations reform, I was also impressed that both gentlemen, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), seemed to be of one mind when it relates to the necessity for reforms in the wake of continued scandals within various United Nations functions.

There was also a unique, bipartisan unity in supporting the need for a penalty to follow failure of reform. There is a small disagreement on who should trigger that penalty, which differences I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will bring forward, but there can be no doubt as to the underlying need of this penalty phase. That is telling.

To put it in a nutshell, Madam Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. It would require 39 very specific reforms within the areas of U.N. budgeting, oversight, accountability, and human rights. It provides clarity and a reasonable timetable under which the U.N. must act. With the U.S. footing the largest share of dues of any Nation, a share consistent with our voice, this act should provide some real teeth and real incentives to get the job done. To not require such withholdings would only create a paper tiger.

As an old teacher, I learned that I never made a threat that I was not willing to carry out. If students ever thought I was not seriously going to follow through on my disciplinary commitments, I would lose all credibility and lose both the respect and the cooperation of the kids. It would create an atmosphere of weakness and chaos. No learning would take place. Such an atmosphere of distrust cannot be part of our foreign policy. We have seen that too often, and such a potential cannot be ignored.

There are indeed precedents for what we are trying to do both in the 1980s and 1990s when actions by Congress ensured change within the United Nations.

It is regrettable, Madam Speaker, that this bill is even necessary. It is regrettable that the United Nations would not undertake to clean up its own act in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, irregularities in the accounting and uses of its funds, misconduct by entrenched U.N. bureaucrats, and the deplorable state of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

We all witnessed the appalling lack of resolve and consistency in the U.N. when it failed to live up to and enforce the 17 different resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein's murderous regime.

When I am at home in my district, some of my constituents will say to me that we ought to pull out of the United Nations entirely. It is hard to argue with many of them who say that the U.N. is merely a haven for corruption, waste and, frankly, anti-Americanism. We must do all we can to try and rectify all these problems, and to not act would indeed be irresponsible.

This act sends an unmistakably clear message that specific reforms must be enacted or face real consequences. If these reforms are not enacted, the future looks bleak and will only increase the calls to replace the United Nations with a more updated handling of international disputes.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this rule is a good and fair rule. It made every single amendment in order, all 28, which were filed before the Committee on Rules. In short, the only complaint that one may have with this rule is that is may be somewhat parsimonious in its general debate, and we will provide in those 28 amendments a

long and wide-ranging debate of all of these important issues.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), one of the leading voices on the Committee on International Relations.

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

I love history. In fact, this is not necessarily unprecedented. The Kassebaum-Solomon amendment in 1985 asked for change, and meaningful change took place. In 1994, we insisted on an oversight committee and an oversight committee took place. And under the bipartisan Helms-Biden approach, once again we insisted on changes with the United Nations. The United Nations responded to it. This bill is keeping a tradition that is historical going back for at least 20 years in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), also a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kindness and flexibility of my good friend from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for having had a very quality debate here today. It is interesting to note once again that the ranking member and the chairman have said the need for reform is obvious. There is no disagreement on that point. It is seemingly the mechanism of doing that.

Once again I point out that in 1985, 1994 and 1999, this House set precedent by doing the exact same concept that is there. And it is true that maybe I have heard a new concept here that I do not need to make all Ten Commandments to get to heaven, but I also know that when I was in my classroom and I put high standards and high expectations, my kids met those standards; and if I wavered, then they wavered at the same time.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is an excellent rule, and I urge its adoption and passage of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that when we talk about reforming the United Nations that we have to be clear about what the United Nations is. It is not simply the Secretariat. The Secretariat is just the staff. They are the hired help. They run the day-to-day affairs of the United Nations; but it is the Member states that set policy, that make decisions that are responsible for oversight in implementation of the United Nations resolutions.

In particular, it is the function of the Security Council to carry out those responsibilities. The United States is a permanent member of the Security Council, with the power to veto any resolution.

When the Security Council does not want the United Nations to work, it will not work. The Gingrich-Mitchell report put it this way, and I am quoting, ``Too often the phrase `the United Nations failed' should actually read `members of the United Nations blocked or undermined action by the United Nations.' ''

An excellent example of this concept is the sanctions against Iraq in the Oil-for-Food program. The United States advocated for the sanctions on Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War and then supported the Oil- for-Food program, advocated for it, but it was the Security Council, not some amorphous United Nations somewhere up in New York, that had the responsibility to oversee the Oil-for-Food program and the sanction regime.

But when Jordan and Turkey notified the Security Council that they intended to purchase oil from Iraq, in direct violation of the sanctions regime, the Security Council simply took notice, whatever that means. I still cannot figure it out, but they did nothing else. It did not block Jordan and Turkey from this trade. It did not sanction those countries. It did not instruct the Secretariat to take any action. It did nothing.

As a result, Syria and Egypt then began to purchase oil from Iraq as well, and it is important to understand that this ended up as the largest illicit source of revenue for Saddam Hussein, and it had nothing to do with the Oil-for-Food program, nothing to do with it at all. The moneys derived from these so-called trade protocols far exceeded the money that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the Oil-for-Food program. This chart next to me shows that the so-called trade protocols generated over $8 billion in revenue for Saddam Hussein.

My friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations talks about $10 billion; 8 billion of that came from the Security Council's inaction while looking the other way.

Even some of the money that Saddam stole from the Oil-for-Food program could have been saved by aggressive oversight by the Security Council. It is important to note it was the Security Council that approved all prices on oil exports from Iraq, and every contract needed their approval for humanitarian goods coming into Iraq, and yet when the Secretariat brought 71 contracts to the attention of the Security Council because of concerns of pricing irregularities, the Security Council did nothing, did nothing, and Saddam profited and stayed in power as a result.

Why? Why did the Security Council not address any of these issues? Because the Security Council, including our own government, and there was two administrations involved, both the Clinton and the Bush administration, reached a political decision that it was not in their interests to fully enforce the sanctions. That has to be understood.

So when we talk about making the United Nations more effective, let us be clear that the changes that are being proposed, and that I embrace, do not fully address the problem. What is ultimately required is improving the way member states work together, and some level of transparency in the internal workings of the Security Council, not unilaterally withholding dues.

I am convinced that those eight Ambassadors who sent that letter to our congressional leadership are correct when they say withholding dues to the United Nations may sound like smart

policy, but would be counterproductive. It would create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen the opponents of reform. It would place in jeopardy the reform initiatives that we embrace. Please understand that.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I do obviously support the acceptance by our ranking member of the amendment.

I think it is important to note for the record that there are currently investigations that are ongoing, and for the information of my friend from New York, the Secretary General has been very explicit that he will fully cooperate. We have received information back that that cooperation is, in fact, occurring, and he has publicly stated, without equivocation, that there will be no immunity for members of the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

I also read the same report that the gentleman from New Jersey referred to, but I would like to provide him an update at this point because I am sure he received his information from a newspaper report, if I am correct.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, let me provide this as an update, because this is a report by the Associated Press from today, titled ``U.N. Oil-for-Food author of e-mail memo says he never discussed Oil-for-Food contract bid with Kofi Annan. The executive who wrote an e-mail suggesting that the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan may have known about a U.N. contract awarded to his son's company has denied ever discussing the firm's bid with Annan, a law firm said Wednesday.''

So, again, I think it is worthy of a review, clearly worthy of an investigation; but I do find it interesting that when we talk about investigations that we have not taken the opportunity to investigate the report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction of the report by an American official indicating that the Coalition Provisional Authority provided less than adequate controls for approximately $9 billion of development funds for Iraq funds provided to Iraq through the national budget process. We cannot find that money.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to reality, too, as the gentleman from California just did. I think it is important we not deceive ourselves. While the United Nations clearly needs our leadership, we also need the United Nations, particularly in the area of peacekeeping. There are some 16 peacekeeping missions deployed around the world today. They number at least 70,000 troops. Ten of them, 10, are American. These so-called ``blue helmets'' have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and some of them have been killed while doing so.

Are there problems? Clearly there are problems. Is progress being made? Yes, progress is being made. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and myself recently met with Prince Zeid. There is progress being made, but this amendment does not help the cause.

Just imagine, if you will, the cost to the United States in terms of dollars and blood if Americans were required to fill those roles. This bill could very well force the U.S. military, which is as we know already stretched dangerously thin, to deploy to more and more inhospitable venues. One example that we are all familiar with, Haiti. There are 6,700 United Nations troops in Haiti today along with 1,400 U.N. police working to keep order, and more are scheduled. Without that United Nations presence, the United States would be left with the responsibility of restoring order, providing security, and rebuilding a functioning government. This is nation-building for real that hopefully will transpire in Haiti. Otherwise, we will be looking at a failed state close to our southern borders with all the consequences that that will implicate.

It is the United Nations that is keeping Haiti from total collapse into anarchy. I have no doubt that the expenses associated with that scenario, if there is a total collapse, will vastly exceed our annual commitment to the United Nations, both voluntary and assessed, for years to come. Not only would we have to commit U.S. troops to restore order; we might have to deal with a humanitarian crisis that could very well compel us to use Guantanamo for something significantly different from its current use, much like we did in the early 1990s when it was a refugee center for Haitians who were fleeing from their country in makeshift crafts and dying by the thousands. As the world's richest nation and the sole superpower, this unpleasant task would fall to us alone.

Do we really want to assume that burden? That is just one example. Multiply the potential by 16, by a factor of 16, if this particular provision should eventually become law. We put ourselves, our troops, our taxpayers at great risk.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the proponent of the amendment is aware of the fact that U.S. personnel are already prohibited from being under the command of another nation, and therefore would always be subject to the UCMJ.