Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Madam Speaker; and I rise in strong support of this rule.

I think that the underlying legislation is much needed and long overdue. I have been working to help reform the United Nations since I first came to Congress, and I have not found anybody yet that disagrees with the fact that we very, very direly need to reform the United Nations. This once-utopian organization has degenerated into an institution that is largely dysfunctional and on the verge of becoming irrelevant, and that is why we need these reforms and we need them now.

There are a lot of areas that this legislation deals with, whether it is cronyism, corruption, or financial mismanagement. But I just want to stress one that relates to budgetary reform and the way that people vote on that.

Right now, the United States contributes about 22 percent of the general budget of the United Nations and 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget. If you take the last 128 nations that contribute dues, if you put all their dues together, that adds up to less than 1 percent; yet they have the same vote. Those 128 nations have the same vote as the United States. In fact, if you take the top three countries, they contribute over half the dues, and yet everybody has the same vote on budgetary matters.

Imagine a family, if you will, where the dad goes out and works all year and provides income for his family. And at the time to decide how to spend it, the four kids get up and say, this is what we want to do, this is where we want to go on our vacation, this is what hotel we want to stay in. Well, that is the way the United Nations works, and that is why we need the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act we are considering today.

One of the reforms in this act would say that when you vote on budgetary matters, then you weight those votes. That would do two things: number one, it would mean that the countries that contribute the most money would have more leverage in making sure that the money gets spent where it is supposed to be spent and in making sure that they get the results they want to get. And it also would encourage some of the other countries to contribute more money to the dues of the United Nations.

One of the areas we often hear criticized is this area of cronyism. It is unbelievable, but the United Nations, if you count the full-time and the contract employees, they have over 43,000 employees. To put that in perspective, a lot of multibillion dollar corporations do not have that many employees. Ebay, people have heard of that, is a company worth $52 billion, and the United Nations has five times as many employees as they have. Anheiser Busch, which makes and sells beer around the world, the U.N. has a third more employees than they have.

So I think it is time that we got a handle on how the money that American taxpayers send off to the United Nations gets spent, and this haphazard budgetary process can be changed by weighted voting.

There is no doubt in my mind that the time is now for reform at the U.N. This organization has become a shadow of its former self and likely bears little resemblance to what its founders had envisioned. Amid charges of cronyism, corruption, and financial scandal in recent months, the relevance and reputation of the United Nations has deteriorated drastically. What's more, the U.N. appears to engage in anti-American sentiment for sport, promoting it around the globe.

This is a true slap in the face to the United States. After all, we are going to contribute 22 percent of the U.N.'s general budget and 28 percent of its peacekeeping budget this year. This means a funding request for Fiscal Year 2006 of $439 million by President Bush. The top 10 contributors of U.N. dues account for more than 76 percent of all dues paid while the 128 countries with the lowest dues account for less than 1 percent of dues paid. However, among the 192 member countries, everyone's vote is worth the same. Imagine this scenario: parents agreeing to fund the family vacation, but allowing the children to dictate where the family goes, what hotel they stay at, and what activities they do. That's what is happening at the U.N. right now and that is why we need to support the Hyde Bill.

H.R. 2745 calls for weighted voting on budgetary matters. Weighted voting on budgetary matters would give the U.N.'s biggest contributors more leverage to ensure that their money is achieving the purposes for which it is intended. Weighted voting would encourage other countries to increase their contribution to the organization.

The State Department said the U.S. paid nearly $3.9 billion in contributions to the U.N. system in 2004. And who knows where that money went? Some of it likely went to fund patronage jobs of which the U.N. has many. Between full-time employees and contract workers, the U.N. employs almost 43,000 people. Let me put that in perspective: 43,000 workers is more than five times more the total employed by eBay, a company worth almost $52 billion. Another kicker: total U.N. employment is nearly one third greater than that of Anheuser-Busch, another multi-billion dollar company.

As elected officials, we have an obligation to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. It is our responsibility to bring reform to the U.N.'s haphazard budget practices and the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is a step toward accomplishing that goal. The American people deserve nothing less.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying bill.

I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his service and this bill. I had some prepared remarks, but I have got to respond to the last speaker who talked about CEDAW. It seems to me that that is a perfect example of what is wrong with the United Nations and our funding the United Nations. What a joke CEDAW is. We are the only industrialized country that has not signed that treaty. Women do better here than anyplace in the world. There is no person who supports equal rights for women more than I do, and I think that CEDAW is a joke because of those who have supported it, look at how they treat women.

As Members of Congress, we have a duty to ensure accountability of each and every American taxpayer dollar that goes to the United Nations. From the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, to its lack of action with respect to the genocide in Darfur, to the horrendous human rights abuses by U.N. peacekeeping staff during their mission in the Congo, what did they care about CEDAW. The U.N. is rife with fraud and abuse and needs reform.

Two of the most important items this bill requires are to direct the U.S. permanent representative to aggressively pursue a definition of terrorism and to mandate that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership on any human rights body. The U.N. counts some of the world's leading human rights violators and state sponsors of terrorism among its membership and even taps many of them to be in leadership positions on its subcommittees. This is outrageous and ironic.

Let us empower our new ambassador to the U.N. and the administration with reforms that have some teeth and will effect change. The United Nations' reputation of being a credible and effective international peacekeeping body has been tarnished. It is no wonder so many Americans question the efficacy and the very necessity of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and bill and thank Mr. Hyde for his service and this bill. The United Nations Charter includes some very laudable goals, but when the rubber meets the road, the U.N. has failed miserably to put these ideals into practice, especially in recent years.

As a founding member of the U.N. and a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, we have a duty to insist on a higher standard. And as Members of Congress, we have a duty to ensure accountability of each and every American taxpayer dollar that goes to the U.N.

From the U.N. Oil for Food program to its lack of action with respect to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan to the horrendous human rights abuses by U.N. peacekeeping staff during their mission in the Congo, the U.N. is rife with fraud and abuse and needs reform.

This bill includes a call for certifiable reforms including: Shifting 18 programs from the regular assessed budget to voluntary funded programs so their funding would not be automatic; all new programs started by the U.N. to include sunsetting provisions; cuts and streamlining in the funding for the 15,484 conferences and scheduled meetings that occurred in 2004 and 2005, some of which cost $7-8,000 per hour; creation of an ethics office to provide oversight over the U.N. budget and financial disclosure form.

And two of the most important items this bill requires are to direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to aggressively pursue a definition of terrorism and to mandate that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership on any human rights body.

The U.N. counts some of the world's leading human rights violators and state sponsors of terrorism among its membership and even taps many of them to be in leadership positions on its subcommittees. This is completely outrageous and dangerously ironic.

Let us empower our new ambassador to the U.N. and the administration with reforms that have some teeth and will effect change. The United Nations' reputation of being a credible and effective, international peacekeeping body has been sorely tarnished. It is no wonder so many Americans question the efficacy and the very necessity of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me echo what has been said about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). There has never been a finer Member of Congress in the history of the Republic than the gentleman from Illinois. He was one of the most eloquent speakers I have ever known in this House. We really appreciate all his hard work on this bill.

Now, let me say to my friend from Massachusetts, I have been listening to this stuff for 20 years. You cannot do anything to put pressure on the United Nations, because if you do, the whole world is going to hate us. The sky is going to fall, Henny Penny. The State Department has been working with the United Nations for the last 20 years that I have been here and working on the Foreign Affairs Committee, International Relations now. The problems still exist. The only difference is, it is worse now than it has ever been.

We have got to do something about it. Mr. Bolton needs to be confirmed on the other side because we need a tough guy over there to force the issue. We have got an Oil-for-Food scandal that is growing daily. Kofi Annan, the head of the United Nations, the Secretary- General, said, Oh, I didn't have anything to do with it. We now are finding memos where he talked to the people in the oil industry saying that he would give them unqualified support.

A few months ago, he said, Oh, I never did that, and he said he would never resign under any circumstances. Now he is hedging his bets on that because the case against him and the Oil-for-Food scandal is growing and growing and growing. He is the head man over there. On his watch, everything has been going haywire.

We have got U.N. peacekeeping forces raping women and kids, and nothing has been done about that. We have got all kinds of problems over there and something must be done. How do you do that? We say, Well, let's follow the same course we have been following for the last 20 years. The State Department says, My gosh, we'll go over there and we'll do something about it. I have high regard for Condoleezza Rice. I think she is a dynamite lady and going to do a dynamite job. But this body needs to put the hammer by using American taxpayers' dollars on the U.N. to clean up that mess over there. We cannot go on day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year letting this thing be completely out of hand.

The gentleman talked about the Mitchell and Gingrich report. They said that it is a mess over there. How do you clean it up? You make a change from top to bottom. How do you do that when the rest of the world or much of the rest of the world says, Oh, my gosh, we don't want the United States dictating to us. I can understand that. We are the big guy on the block. They do not want us dictating to them, and we do not want to dictate to them. We want to work with them. But the fact of the matter is they are not listening in many cases and the corruption goes on and on and on, the mismanagement goes on and on and on, and nothing changes. And the United States keeps pouring in 25 percent, or almost that much, of the funds out of the taxpayers' pockets in this country for that body.

How do you change it? You take out the hammer, and the hammer is the money. You say to the world body, the United Nations, If you don't clean up that mess, we are going to withhold funds. And if we withhold funds, you are going to have a big, big problem over there.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is one of my dearest friends in this place and the gentleman from Massachusetts is not a bad friend, either. We have traveled together. I have high regard for him, even though he is wrong a lot of the time. But I just want to say, something has to be done. There must be something in the water in Massachusetts. I do not know. But something has to be done. And what has to be done is we have got to put pressure on the U.N. and the best way to do it is to say, either you change things over there or we are going to withdraw funds.