Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should support the regionally balanced expansion of the membership of the United Nations Security Council.

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.

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce that I am terribly flattered by the extravagant things that have been said, but I must confess I did not name this bill after myself. While I deeply appreciate the honor, I am a trifle embarrassed, not thoroughly embarrassed, but a trifle.

Mr. Chairman, most informed people agree that the U.N. is in desperate need of reform. Corruption is rampant, as evidenced by the ever-expanding Oil-for-Food scandal. U.N. peacekeepers have sexually abused children in Bosnia, the Congo, Sierra Leone and other

places; and the culture of concealment makes rudimentary oversight virtually impossible. A casual attitude towards conflict-of-interest rules undermines trust in the U.N.'s basic governance.

I could spend many hours reciting a litany of waste, fraud, and abuse that has become intolerable. So what do we do about it? What leverage do we have to bring about change in how this institution operates?

First of all, we pay 22 percent of the budget. That is $440 million. We pay 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Do not ask me what that is. You cannot find out. That is a secret. China pays 2.1 percent, or $36.5 million. Russia pays 1.1 percent, or $19 million.

Over the years, as we listened to the counsels for patience, the U.N.'s failings have grown worse, not lessened. Our many warnings, plans and urgings have largely come and gone, with few lasting accomplishments to mark their presence. Trust in gradual change has been interpreted as indifference, a very expensive indifference.

So the time has finally come when we must in good conscience say ``enough.'' ``Enough'' to allowing odious regimes such as Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe to masquerade as arbiters of human rights. ``Enough'' to peacekeepers exploiting and abusing the people they were sent to protect. ``Enough'' to unkept promises and squandering the dreams of generations.

Very few are opposed to the U.N.'s role in facilitating diplomacy, mediating disputes, monitoring the peace, and feeding the hungry. But we are opposed to the legendary bureaucratization, to political grandstanding, to billions of dollars spent on multitudes of programs with meager results, to the outright misappropriation of funds represented by the Oil-for-Food program. And we rightly bristle at the gratuitous anti-Americanism that has become ingrained over decades, even as our checks continue to be regularly cashed.

No observer, be he a passionate supporter of this legislation or dismissive critic, can pretend that the current structure and operations of the U.N. represent an acceptable standard. Even the U.N. itself has acknowledged the need for extensive measures and, to its credit, has put forward a number of useful proposals for consideration.

In the United States, the recognition of need for change is widely shared and bipartisan. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have long called for a more focused and accountable budget, one that reflects what should be the true priorities of the organization, shorn of duplicative, ineffective, and outdated programs. Members on both sides of the aisle in Congress agree that the time has come for far- reaching reform.

I have heard no arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo. Even the opponents of this legislation concede the need for deep change. The key difference, the all-important difference, between their proposals and the one we have put forward lies in the methods to be used to accomplish that universally desired goal.

We are already experiencing strenuous resistance to change from many sources, both within the U.N. and without. But admonishment will not transform sinners into saints; resolutions of disapproval will not be read; flexible deadlines and gentle proddings will be ignored.

Instead, more persuasive measures are called for. This legislation brings to bear instruments of leverage sufficient to the task, the most important being tying the U.S. financial contribution to a series of readily understandable benchmarks.

In an effort to derail this legislation, it has been proposed that we hand to the Secretary of State the power to selectively withhold funds from the U.N. as a means of inspiring a cooperative attitude in the organization. I certainly mean no disrespect for the current Secretary, whom I hold in the highest esteem, but the power of the purse belongs to Congress and is not delegable, no matter who holds that high office.

We cannot escape this burden. The task we face is an extensive one, and I have no illusions regarding the difficulties and the challenges we face. But the choice is simple: we can either seek to accomplish concrete improvements, which will require an enforcement mechanism more credible and more decisive than mere wishes, or we can pretend to do so. For there can be no doubt that any proposal resting upon discretionary decisions concedes in advance that any reform will be fragmentary at best, if there is any at all.

We are in a peculiar situation. Opponents of change cloak themselves in the robes of defenders of the U.N., when it is in fact they who would condemn it to irrelevance. Those of us who believe the U.N. can yet reclaim its mission and assume the role foreseen by the vision of its founders have no choice but to take up this task of U.N. reform.

Yes, this is radical surgery. Sometimes it is the only way to save the patient.

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

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

I just want to respond to my dear friend, and he is my dear friend. If I ever become President of the United States, I would nominate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as my Secretary of State and be guided by his advice.

Mr. Chairman, that is what I think of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that substantial compliance is accorded to the Secretary of State, so if 38 of the 39 are complied with, the 39th could have been substantially complied with and suffice.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We, too, are very pleased to accept this excellent amendment and thank the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

Because he is not on the floor at this point, I am not going to take this opportunity, I will have many more, to express in some detail my affection, my respect and my admiration for the chairman of our committee who sponsors this bill and who has announced his intent not to seek reelection to the next Congress. But once in a while in the course of both of our tenures here, I have had occasion to oppose an initiative, and in this case I do so very strongly.

On the surface this may look like a partisan conflict, but in reality it is not. The Ambassador under Ronald Reagan to the United Nations says about the bill before us, Reforming the United Nations is the right goal. Withholding our dues to the U.N. is the wrong methodology. When we last built debt to the U.N., the U.S. isolated ourselves from our allies within the U.N. and made diplomacy an impossible

task. Modernizing the United Nations to be more capable and effective must be done through engaging our allies and being a leader for creating a U.N. for a new century. That is Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, no member of the United World Federalists is she.

A recent commission co-chaired by our former speaker Newt Gingrich, not a man enamored of ideological multilateralism, prepared a report on much-needed U.N. reforms and never suggests a mandatory dues cut as a way to effectively achieve those results.

The President of the United States and this administration, which I believe is a Republican administration, indicates very strongly the error of this approach and asks this body to reconsider moving ahead with this particular bill.

But the area that I want to most focus on does not deal with the dues cut, but has a provision on peacekeeping that is particularly egregious. Based on the failure to implement five reforms by the effective date of this bill, the day after this bill is signed into law, and those reforms are much needed, I think they are on the way to happening, I do not quarrel with any of them, in fact, I think they are compelling in their nature, this bill mandates the President of the United States to instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to veto any new or the expansion of any existing peacekeeping operation.

In other words, the Congress steps in, usurps the executive branch function of formulating foreign policy in exercising its discretion on what its appointee will do in the end without regard to U.S. national interests and in direct violation of executive branch prerogatives.

For the chairman of this committee to sponsor a bill that does something like that is, I would suggest, quite out of character because there is no one in this House who has made a stronger point in his career of trying to ensure that the President's power as Commander in Chief and implementer of foreign policy is maintained.

The national interest issue compels us to say this is not the right approach. What if a new U.N. peacekeeping operation, the problems with China or Russia in the context of Darfur are overcome, and there is a consensus for a new augmented operation there involving African countries, involving European countries, perhaps with no commitment whatsoever from the United States for such an operation? Because of the failure to fully implement all five of these reforms, our Ambassador, notwithstanding the humanitarian tragedy, notwithstanding how the United States will look to the rest of the world, our Ambassador is required to veto such a peacekeeping operation?

What if a situation like East Timor comes up again, and whatever the problems have been, and whatever the failures to fully implement these reforms, there is a compelling national interest reason for us to support a peacekeeping operation once again that may not involve U.S. troops or forces? Why would we want to mandate something that is fraught with constitutional problems and does a disservice to our national interest in such legislation? This is a foolish and improper amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to respond to what I think was an inadvertent misstatement by the gentleman from Indiana on what I think is an over- the-top provision of this bill, requiring a veto of any new or expanded peacekeeping operations in the Security Council. He referred to it as an ability for the U.S. to withhold its forces for it. But read the provision you have written: the President shall direct the United States permanent representative to the U.N. to use the voice, the vote and the influence of the U.S. at the U.N. to oppose the creation of a new or expansion of existing peacekeeping operations.

``Vote'' means ``veto'' at the Security Council. You veto the peacekeeping operation, it does not happen. The genocide in Darfur continues, no matter what the political will is of the body, because we have only trained 60,000 of the 68,000 peacekeepers by the day this bill passes. This has nothing to do with the debate about withholding dues as leverage. This has to do with define our own national interests in the name of I do not know what. It makes no sense, it is unconstitutional, and it should have been stricken from this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this time, if I might, to ask the gentleman from Minnesota a question.

His amendment says that nothing in this title, this title that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has brought to us, should be construed to supersede the Uniform Code of Military Justice or surrender U.S. officials to a foreign country or international tribunal.

Could the gentleman tell the body what section of the gentleman from Illinois' (Chairman Hyde) bill could be construed to require the surrender of officials, what section of the gentleman from Illinois' (Chairman Hyde) bill could be construed as requiring superseding the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I am certainly unaware of any such section, and I am certainly unaware of any desire by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to present to the body such a section.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, would it be fair to say that, in effect, his effort is an effort to gild the lily?