Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last night, the President of the United States nominated Judge John Roberts, Jr. to be the next Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. I applaud his choice, and I am hopeful that he is confirmed before the Supreme Court begins its term on October 3.

Judge John Roberts has the keen intellect, the impartiality and temperament, sound legal judgment, and highest integrity necessary for a Supreme Court Justice. He rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion.

It is not surprising that the National Journal has said of John Roberts that he seems to be a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have; all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law.

But Judge Roberts is not new to the confirmation process. In fact, he was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 3, and then confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent. Clearly, Judge Roberts will make an excellent jurist, and I urge the Senate to move quickly with the confirmation process.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, a shameful occupation that is now entering its 31st year. Let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for providing an opportunity for discussion on this important topic.

Mr. Speaker, Turkish troops have been in Cyprus since the occupation in 1974, when over the course of a two-stage offensive, Turkish troops took control of 38 percent of the island. The number of occupying troops now stands at over 30,000 Turkish troops, making Cyprus one of the most militarized countries in the world.

As a Cuban political refugee, the values of liberty and democracy are very dear to my heart. I personally empathize with the Greek Cypriot community and share their plight to achieve a fair end to the Turkish occupation.

The emergence of a strong, vibrant and justifiably unified Cyprus would promote stability both politically and economically to the entire Mediterranean region and would provide a strategic ally for the United States at the crossroads of Europe, Africa, and Asia. As a senior member of the House Committee on International Relations and as a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I shared the joy with families across Cyprus for their much-deserving union with the European Community, as the prominence of Cyprus will be augmented by its full integration into the European Union.

Although all of us wanted to see a fair end to the division of Cyprus before its accession to the EU, the Annan

Plan for a Cyprus settlement was rightfully voted down by the Greek Cypriots by a large majority of 76 percent. The plan imposed unacceptable conditions, including enabling Turkish troops to remain in Cyprus for an indefinite time, even after Turkey's eventual accession to the European Union. There can be no reunification plan that permits Turkish troops to remain stationed on Cypriot soil.

Likewise, the plan unfairly allowed Turkish Cypriots and mainland Turkish settlers to keep Cypriot homes and other properties they seized following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and it would not have to reimburse the owners of the property. There can be no unification that provides for the expropriation of Cypriot property.

In March of this year, I wrote to President Bush demonstrating that the ``no vote'' must not be interpreted at a vote against reunification, but rather as a legitimate expression of the real concerns that made that particular version of the Annan Plan unacceptable to Greek Cypriot voters.

The United States, Cyprus, and Greece continue to maintain a close relationship, and have a great deal in common. Indeed, the democratic principles which unite our nations were first planted some 2,500 years ago in ancient Greece.

The very word ``democracy'' is a construct of two Greek words, ``demos'' and ``kratos'' meaning ``rule by the people,'' and its principles were discussed by the Founding Fathers and are evident in our own Constitution.

James Madison, a crafter of this great Nation, wrote the following: ``Among the confederacies of antiquity, the most considerable was that of the Grecian republics.''

Who are we to argue with James Madison?

Today, Cyprus, Greece and the United States share a deep and abiding commitment to democracy, human rights, free markets and the ideal and practice of equal justice under the law.

As one of our strongest allies in the war against terror, Greece and the Republic of Cyprus continue to fight against the latest global threats of terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism, nuclear proliferation, illegal narcotics and international crime. Cyprus has taken many concrete and active steps to target the perpetrators, collaborators and financiers of terrorism.

As a NATO ally, the Greek government has given the United States both military and financial support for Operation Enduring Freedom, including unrestricted use of its air space and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan.

Most recently, Greece and the United States successfully collaborated during the Summer Olympic Games to guarantee the safety and success of these events. In testament to their commitment to human welfare, Greece's security budget was $1.2 billion, an amount exceeding all prior Olympic games. In recognition of our commonalities, I urge Congress to remain engaged in the search for a just and lasting reunification of Cyprus that will promote peace and stability in this important region.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize someone who is very dear to me, a member of my staff who has been with me since I was elected to Congress almost 16 years ago.

While Ms. Anita Maggio has been part of my office family since 1989, she has actually dutifully served Capitol Hill for 34 years. She has always been a dear friend to me and to the people of south Florida. Anita is a steadfast, loyal and dedicated member of my staff.

While other young staffers have come and gone, Anita has been the unwavering anchor in my office. Not only does Anita's mere presence boost morale in our office, but also she is a clearinghouse for information and contacts. Anita knows just about everybody on Capitol Hill, and everyone knows her. She has built a network of friends that is unequaled anywhere on the Hill. Everyone she meets is touched by her kindness and by her warmth.

Even though she does not have any children of her own, she has adopted all of us, including the staffers from other offices. She has the uncanny ability to make everyone feel loved and comfortable.

Anita Maggio is a very special soul. Her sensitivity and compassion touch all those who are blessed to know her.

Before joining my team, Anita was employed by my predecessor, the late Congressman Claude Pepper. Over the years, she has developed an intimate knowledge of the district and of the residents of south Florida.

When Anita retires, she will leave a void in my office that no other individual will ever be able to fill. She will be retiring with her husband of 42 years, Tommy Maggio. Over the years, all of us have come to know Tommy Maggio. If you are lucky enough to know Tommy, you will know that he will be retiring from the Rayburn House garage after working there for an amazing 32 years.

It is with great sadness that I bid a fond farewell to one of the most special women I have ever met, a trusted friend and a member of the Ros-Lehtinen and Capitol Hill family, Anita Maggio. Anita will be forever remembered in our hearts.

We love you, Anita; and we love you, Tommy. Please do not make her cook for you every single night. Anita deserves a rest. Be good to her.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity tonight to address the positive effects which American foreign policy has had on the rights of women throughout the world.

As vice-Chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus and as Chair of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia, I have witnessed U.S. efforts to support women across the globe, especially in post-conflict situations.

The progress is historic. Just ask the survivors of Saddam Hussein's regime and the Taliban. The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq indiscriminately slaughtered all Iraqis, but the women were among the most vulnerable.

The notorious Fedayeen beheaded women in public and dumped their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. The regime used widespread rape to extract confessions from detainees. Saddam Hussein's legacy of terror knew no boundaries.

In assessing U.S. contributions to Iraqi women, I look to leaders such as Dr. Khuzai, who served as a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and National Council of Women. After being prisoners in their own country for 35 years, she said, for the Iraqi women, the morale is so high that you cannot understand it unless you go and see. We will be grateful forever.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to visit Iraq as part of a historic all-female congressional delegation. We met with women from all sectors and all educational backgrounds, and the message we heard from all of these women was very clear: They want a say, they want a role, they want to participate, and they want to have the U.S. help them in getting there.

To achieve this end, the United States is helping Iraqi women reintegrate themselves into Iraqi society and indeed to the outside world. The administration embarked on the Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative to train Iraqi women in the skills and practices of democratic public life.

It also established the U.S. Iraqi Women's Network, helping to mobilize the private sector in the United States and to link important resources here to critical needs on the ground. Recently, we saw the fruits of our efforts as countless Iraqi women went to the polls.

U.S. efforts have contributed to a significant positive change in the lives of women in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the Taliban's brutality and blatant disregard for the lives and well being of the Afghan people was perhaps most clearly evident among half of its population, the women of Afghanistan. Made widows and orphans by the will of the Taliban, they were banned from receiving any education past the age of 8, for which the curriculum was limited to the Taliban's corrupted version of the Koran.

In the year 2000, the United Nation's Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization estimated that as few as 3 percent of Afghan girls were receiving primary education. Today, it is thrilling to note that thanks to our U.S. efforts, Afghan women are active participants in their political future. More than 8 million Afghans voted in this country's first-ever presidential election, and 41 percent of them were women.

Hamid Karzai was announced as the official winner; and in his new cabinet appointments, he named three women as ministers. We as a Nation provided political and advocacy training for Afghan women and provided the funds to

support voter registration and the election process.

One Afghan woman casting her ballot said, when you see women here lined up to vote, this is something profound. I never dreamed that this day would come. And through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, the United States is also helping to create campaign schools that provide leadership and organizational training for women seeking political office. With MEPI support, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute conducted the first of these political skills training courses for women from Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

MEPI and the Government of Jordan hosted a workshop in Oman on Women in the Law in February of this year. Nearly 90 women from 16 countries in the Middle East and North Africa regions gathered to support the key issues affecting women in the legal profession and to develop plans for future collaboration.

At the end of the conference, MEPI announced that it would support two follow-up activities: The establishment of a regional association for women in the legal profession and a public legal education campaign on women's rights and equality. We must continue to strive forward in the pursuit of equality for women and develop on our own success.

Mr. Chairman, when we eliminate all the emotional rhetoric here on the floor, what we get to is this amendment. This amendment provides an economic lifeline to the dictatorship. By prohibiting OFAC from enforcing U.S. laws and regulations, this amendment removes those safeguards and it provides the Castro regime with the much needed currency to continue its reign of terror.

Prisoners of conscience are languishing in squalid cells in Cuba, and yet, what are we doing? We are going to bestow this pariah state another victory. Castro is very happy when we do these amendments. Former political prisoners in my Congressional district who endured the most inhumane treatment are the first ones to oppose any weakening of these restrictions.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Davis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is prospective. It seeks to prohibit the use of funds on something that may or may not happen, may be looser, may be stricter, legislating on hypotheticals. And once again, U.S. law already allows individual members of religious organizations to travel to Cuba for religious purposes. The only requirement is that they have a specific license. That is a safeguard in U.S. law to ensure that travel is in fact for the stated purposes, and not for the purposes of tourism.

The regulations ensure that financial donations are not provided to the regime under the guise of religious activity. Current law seeks to prevent the manipulation of legitimate activities to practice or share as one believes about the Cuban people.

The practice of religion should be reaching out, in solidarity, in total respect for the fundamental rights of each and every human being. But what happens in Cuba? The Cuban people continue to live mired in misery and oppression. In Cuba, people are denied their freedom of conscience, their freedom of belief, their freedom of religion. They are persecuted, prosecuted for those beliefs because they run contrary to the Communist doctrine.

Proponents of this amendment and others seeking to revoke U.S. policy toward the Castro dictatorship argue that they are doing it to help the Cuban people. But when we speak of helping the Cuban people, Mr. Chairman, we need to focus on the freedom of the Cuban people. Help is liberty. Help is helping to ensure that every Cuban can speak their minds, not be imprisoned or threatened or beaten to death for it. Help is ensuring that the Cuban people are permitted to practice their religion in true freedom. That is not taking place in Cuba right now.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. This amendment will just free, open so much of the lawlessness that is going on with the permitting process. It promotes lawlessness because it states we are not going to regulate it in the future. We do not know what will happen.

Reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with over 160,000 American students studying abroad each year, the United States acknowledges the potential contribution of true educational exchanges, and Cuba is no exception.

Under current law, educational activities by American students in Cuba are permitted. In fact, under current law, these activities are enhanced by regulating the manner in which students may fulfill these study semesters abroad. Therefore, if it is truly the opportunity for education that the Lee amendment attempts to preserve, then I would like to respectfully remind my colleagues here today that American students are afforded this opportunity through the implementation of current regulations.

The regulations in place merely serve to ensure that those students traveling for educational purposes are doing just that. Current law establishes that specific licenses for educational activities be preserved for undergraduate and graduate institutions. These measures were enacted and must been enforced to prevent the abuse of educational activities such as spring break getaways and island shopping sprees.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' for the Lee amendment because educational travel is already permitted.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Iraqi people on the anniversary of the establishment of Iraqi sovereignty. A year ago today, Iraq took the first crucial step toward establishing a democracy and rejoining the international community as a free nation. In January, as all of us know, the Iraqi people took another step forward. In defiance of an insurgency threatening to ``make the streets run with blood,'' 8.5 million Iraqis cast their ballots.

Now, the political and administrative duties of government are run almost entirely by Iraqis. With the help of U.S. and coalition troops, Iraq's security forces now number approximately 170,000. The people of Iraq deal a crushing blow to the insurgency each and every day through the spirit and courage that they demonstrate. The American people stand firmly beside the people of Iraq in their efforts to establish full democratic rule for themselves.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the McGovern amendment. Assistance under Plan Colombia is not just about policies; it is about saving lives. It is about the countless judges and other innocent Colombians who have, throughout the years, perished under the violence of ruthless narcotrafficking networks.

It is about fighting a threat to stability and security in our own hemisphere and addressing the drug activity and the related criminal enterprises that create an environment where terrorist activities can blossom. It is about assisting our democratic allies in confronting a threat that gradually erodes the institutional framework necessary for the survival of these relatively new and fragile democracies. It is about going to the source of the problem and providing for the welfare of our children and our Nation's future.

Plan Colombia is working, and the funds appropriated in this legislation are vital for the continued success of this effort. If we truly care about the people of the Andean region, let us not abandon them. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is of strategic importance in winning the global war against terrorism. Guantanamo provides the United States with a secure interrogation center to gain essential intelligence information from terrorists. Illegal enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay include terrorist trainers, bombmakers, would-be suicide bombers and terrorist financiers. Through the detainees held at this facility, we have learned about the detonation system used in roadside bombs in Iraq by the insurgency, bombs that have killed our troops and innocent Iraqi citizens. Detainees include 20 of Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguards as well as one of the architects of the September 11 attacks and suspected 20th hijacker in the attack on our country on September 11.

GITMO is designed to save the lives of our citizens and our service men and women from future acts of terror. Let us continue to support this important mission to protect the safety of our constituents and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak about women and Social Security reform.

President Bush is exploring different ways to save Social Security for future generations. And as the mother of two young daughters, I realize that we must tackle this inevitable reform of Social Security now and not defer the debate to future generations. I applaud the President for his strong leadership and his vision.

Women have a particularly large stake in Social Security reform; and I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite), for her leadership on this issue, and we will hear from her later tonight. Social Security may be actually reflecting a bygone America where most American women worked at home and received a spousal benefit based on their husband's earning.

Today, according to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 60 percent of American women participate in the labor force which helps make America the most productive economy in the world. Not only are more women working than when Social Security was formulated; they are working in ways that the framers of this program could not have imagined. The GAO has also found that women are more likely to work part time and work intermittently as they may take time out of the labor force to rear children or care for their elderly parents.

However, Social Security as currently formulated penalizes many of these working women. For example, a homemaker can receive a higher spousal benefit than a woman working in a low-wage job receives based upon her own earnings. In some cases, the household benefit from Social Security is no greater than if these women had never worked at all.

The fact is that under the current system, Social Security earnings cannot be transferred or shifted should a woman unfortunately become a widow. Sadly, this occurs all too often and a woman's total household income can be greatly reduced if she was receiving benefits based on the earnings while her husband was alive, compared to a widow whose benefits are based solely on her husband's earnings. So Social Security should not penalize women in their old age because they decided to join the workforce rather than stay at home.

Social Security must be reformed to better protect women and the invaluable roles that they play in our economy and in our society. We should reward those women who try to balance work in the home and work in the labor force and not ask them to choose one or the other. By reforming Social Security to include private accounts, we can ensure that women receive all of the benefits that they earn in the workplace as well as being entitled to those that their husbands have earned once they have passed on. Forty percent of elderly women in America rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their income.

I join President Bush in assuring elderly women that Social Security reform will not impact their benefits by one penny. At the same time, the reforms that President Bush has envisioned will safeguard Social Security for those women's grandchildren and for all of our children and grandchildren. If we do not reform it, Social Security will be a pay-as-you-go system which is doomed to fail.

In the 1940s, as we have heard many times when Social Security was designed, there were 41 workers paying into the system for every person who was receiving benefits. Today there are only about three workers for every one person receiving benefits. By the year 2042 when workers who are currently in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. If we do not reform Social Security, those of us who are drawing or who will draw benefits will be doing so at the expense of our offsprings' future.

Without reform, we would also continue to penalize our daughters and our grandchildren for mixing a career in the workforce with a dedication to family life. Also, 2.3 million Hispanics receive Social Security benefits and 41 percent, a majority of them women, depend on it as their full source of income.

As the first Hispanic woman elected to Congress, I am committed to ensuring that all women are protected and all are afforded every opportunity. Remember, we are talking about American women here, not Republican women, not Democrat women, but American women. Social Security reform is too important an issue to be left to partisan politics.

Madam Speaker, it is critical for us to recognize the positive, far-reaching implications of CAFTA.

CAFTA is not solely about trade, it is about lives. It is about promoting U.S. national security objectives in our own backyard. By strengthening our allies, our neighboring countries, we are helping to strengthen our own efforts to fight the scourge of terrorism. Free markets and economic development are the best weapons against tyranny, against poverty and against disease.

CAFTA will promote democratic governance, thus advancing stability and consolidating freely-elected governments who are allies in the war against drugs and the War on Terror. Failure to pass CAFTA in Congress will cripple our efforts to freeze out narco-terrorist gangs and others who threaten our national security.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support CAFTA. A vote for CAFTA is a vote for our U.S. national security interests.

Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, CAFTA was finished last year and will soon be taken up by the Congress.

While trade is a critical component of CAFTA, we must recognize that CAFTA is more than just about trade. We have a national security imperative in passing CAFTA. It is an important component of U.S. efforts to address the conditions that breed instability, terrorism, and international criminal activity.

We must help ensure that the countries in Central America have the ability to fight the threats to their democratic institutions. Helping their economic growth is a critical factor to achieving success.

CAFTA is the vehicle for achieving such important U.S. foreign policy and security objectives. CAFTA's defeat would harm not only trade, but antiterrorism and antinarcotic efforts as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of CAFTA. A vote for CAFTA is a vote for U.S. national security.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the few times that the United Nations has implemented even a modicum of reform, it has been when the United States has leveraged its contribution to press for those changes.

It has been almost a year since President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly and raised the creation of a U.N. Democracy Fund. The U.N. Secretary General favorably has referred to the fund, but there is no fund. We have been down this road many times. The U.N. will pay lip service, but its rhetoric rarely, if ever, translates into concrete action.

This is obviously an important issue for my good friend the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as he included such a fund in the Advanced Democracy Act and includes a $10 million authorization of funds for the Democracy Fund in his own substitute to the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act. I would therefore assume that my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), would want to ensure that it actually becomes a reality and it does not perish in the abyss that is the United Nations currently. That is why we need the certification that is provided in my amendment.

Since the distinguished ranking member agrees that the United Nations needs reforming, particularly on the human rights front, he would want to ensure that there are safeguards in place for the administration of the moneys that are donated to the U.N. Democracy Fund, and he would not want the same corrupt officials that administered the Oil-for-Food program to now administer the U.N. Democracy Fund.

As the distinguished ranking member is aware, the member countries of the U.N. Democracy Caucus have asked for an agenda, one that includes tangible criteria and objectives, and my amendment does that. It makes the Democracy Caucus responsible for the U.N. Democracy Fund.

The United Nations was created from the ashes of the Second World War in an effort to prevent future atrocities and to fight the rise of the oppressive, power-hungry, dictatorial rulers who threaten peace and security. Yet, as we have witnessed with grave concern, the United Nations has become a rogues gallery, where pariah states proceed with virtual impunity. There is no effective mechanism to support new and transitioning democracies.

My amendment addresses this deficiency by calling for the establishment of a Democracy Fund at the U.N. to provide grants and in- kind assistance for emerging democracies. It would seek a wide spectrum of participation, one that reflects democratic experience from old and new. But it provides safeguards that are going to ensure that only countries that uphold and defend human rights and democratic values can benefit from and participate in the Fund's activities.

My amendment also calls on the U.S. permanent representative to the U.N. to work to secure political and financial support for the Democracy Fund from fellow democracies, and it calls for a shift in U.S. contributions to provide start-up funds for this endeavor.

This amendment translates the vision of a Democracy Fund into a concrete initiative. We need to make sure that we are accountable to our U.S. taxpayers. We have got to take immediate steps to weaken brutal, evil regimes, as the underlying Hyde U.N. Reform Act proposes, while we empower and assist those countries who embody and uphold democratic values, as this amendment seeks.

We are once again, Mr. Chairman, engaged in a test of wills and a battle of ideas, a battle between those who hate, who incite to violence, who oppress and subjugate, against those who stand for the democratic beliefs that we cherish and to which we are committed.

Thus, whether your views are shaped by former President Ronald Reagan, who said, ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction . . . it must be fought for, protected''; or whether your views have been shaped by former President John F. Kennedy, who said, ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility,'' Mr. Chairman, let us not shrink from our responsibility, and let us pass this amendment.

The United Nations was created from the ashes of the second World War in an effort to prevent future atrocities against innocent human beings and a means to combat the rise of oppressive power-hungry dictatorial rulers that threaten peace and stability.

This commitment is underscored in the Preamble of the U.N. Charter which reaffirms: ``faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,'' and in the promotion of justice and better standards of life ``in larger freedom.''

Yet, as we have witnessed with grave concern, the United Nations has become a rogue's gallery, where pariah states proceed with virtual impunity.

Even when dealing with dictatorships such as the one in Myanmar, what the brutal Burmese military junta hears from the U.N. leadership are mere statements expressing ``concern'' over the arrests of members of opposition parties.

In addition, there is no effective mechanism to support nascent and transitioning democracies.

The amendment I have sponsored seeks to address this deficiency by calling for the establishment of a Democracy Fund at the United Nations which will provide grants and in-kind assistance for emerging democracies, and which will focus on supporting the development of civil society and democratic institutions.

The Democracy Fund would seek a wide spectrum of participation--one that reflects the democratic experience from old and new, while providing safeguards that will ensure that only countries that uphold and defend human rights and democratic values can benefit from and participate in the Fund's activities.

The safeguards embedded in my amendment include: A requirement that the Fund be administered by member countries of the U.N. Democracy Caucus; membership criteria that block repressive regimes; and certification that the Fund is in force within the parameters set forth.

The success of the Fund will largely depend on the active involvement and direction of both the donor states and the emerging democracies themselves.

For this reason, my amendment also calls on the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations to work to secure political and financial support for the Democracy Fund from fellow democracies, while calling for a shift in U.S. contributions to provide the start-up funds for this endeavor.

President Bush proposed the creation of a Democracy Fund at last year's U.N. General Assembly meeting and the Secretary General's recent report U.N. reform highlighted the Democracy Fund. However, the Fund still does not exist. This amendment translates the vision of a Democracy Fund into a concrete initiative.

Concurrently, it provides for accountability and for the most efficient use of U.S. funds. It doesn't just simply authorize millions of additional U.S. dollars to a United Nations system plagued by allegations of graft and corruption--a United Nations system that has sexual predators in peacekeeping missions and tyrants dictating the human rights agenda. It places control over the Fund in the hands of

those most knowledgeable about the needs of nascent democracies--fellow democracies.

My colleagues, we are, once again, engaged in a test of wills and battle of ideas--a battle between those who hate, who incite to violence, who oppress and subjugate, against those who stand for the democratic beliefs we cherish and to which we are committed.

Thus, whether your views have been shaped by former President Ronald Reagan who said: ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction . . . It must be fought for, protected . . .''; or by former President John F. Kennedy who said: ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility,''; we must take immediate steps to weaken brutal, evil regimes, as the underlying Hyde UN Reform Act proposes, while we empower and assist those countries who embody and uphold democratic principles, as this amendment seeks.

I ask my colleagues to render their strong support to the Ros- Lehtinen amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 additional minutes of debate on this matter, equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished friend.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am so glad the gentleman brings up this important topic. As the gentleman from California has pointed out, our friend, in his own statement, the times we have had reform in the United Nations is when we have used our leverage of this assistance. I think that making sure that we are accountable to the taxpayers, that is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman talks about responsibilities and abrogating our responsibilities, I am sure that the gentleman, my good friend, would agree that we also have an obligation to our taxpayers, those who are funding so many of their dollars to the United Nations; and we have seen so many scandals unfolding from the U.N., and I believe that this amendment gets to accountability and transparency.

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

As someone who appreciates the work performed by the International Labor Organization and efforts to bring about and secure labor rights for oppressed people in countries under dictatorial rule, it is with difficulty that I rise in opposition of the gentleman's amendment, but I must.

Had the amendment called on the U.S. permanent representative to the U.N. to work to strengthen the ILO, to increase site inspections, as we had wanted to do, I am confident that we would have gladly supported the gentleman's amendment.

However, this amendment before us today does not seek to reform the ILO, but seeks to use the U.N. to dictate and determine domestic policies of the U.N. member states, policies such as Social Security schemes and employee benefits; and these are issues that in the U.S., for example, we in the Congress are working on and are responsible for. We should not use legislation that seeks to reform the U.N., an international institution, as a means of influencing very specific domestic policy initiatives.

The bill before us, the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005, deals with bringing accountability to the U.N.'s budget process. It does not concern itself with dictating internal, substantive outcomes on the U.N.'s budget process.

In short, today, we are focused on reforming how the U.S., how the U.N. makes the decisions, not on what decisions it makes or what the member states make.

The gentleman from Ohio would have been, I believe, better served by offering his amendment, as others have, by it having called upon the President to direct the U.S. permanent representative to work to ensure enhanced funding for the international labor rights organization, which I believe is a worthy goal, and on that very issue, in fact, this is already being done.

The amendment suggests that the ILO is not doing enough in the social protection sector. However, the 2006-2007 budget that was agreed to shows a significant increase in the budget for the activities of this sector.

The 2004-2005 budget for the protection sector was $72.7 million in 2006, and the 2007 budget is $91 million.

Overall, the International Labor Organization budget increased 12 percent from $529 million during the 2004 and 2005 biennium to $594 million in 2006 and 2007. That is $297 million per year.

The amendment also requires an increase in the field presence by the ILO. However, the organization is currently undertaking a review of the field structures to determine the most effective overseas profile, and this amendment would have the effect of preempting the outcome of this study.

I have been a proud supporter of labor organizations. We want to make sure that they help the oppressed people in all of these countries and do not abuse their people. However, I do not think that this amendment, dictating what member states do with their domestic policies, would get to the heart of the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank our great esteemed chairman, Chairman Hyde, for yielding me this time.

By limiting instruments of persuasion to an authorization by the Secretary of State to withhold U.S. dues, this substitute would all but guarantee that few of these reforms would actually be implemented. Much of the world, including many at the U.N., would be excused if they saw any threats as a mere bluff. The historical record tells us very accurately that any level of success can only be done if we use our leverage. If we adopt the Lantos-Shays substitute amendment, we will not have that leverage.

My colleagues maintain that our legislation does not afford sufficient flexibility. Yet a fair reading of this text reveals that that is just not the case. First, the certifications for action are not required until the year 2007. Secondly, this legislation allows the Secretary of State to certify U.N. reforms that are substantially similar to, or accomplish the same goals and the same objectives as, the Hyde U.N. Reform Act. That is plenty of flexibility, Mr. Chairman.

If the U.N. does on its own institute these reforms, then we have no problems. The withholding provisions in the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act will only be triggered and implemented if the U.N. does not reform itself. The onus is on the U.N. to fulfill its stated commitment to reform.

The Constitution gives to Congress the responsibility for determining how the public's money will be spent. The Lantos substitute proposes to surrender that obligation, that principal source of congressional authority, to an unelected official of the executive branch who has not been entrusted with it by the Constitution. However burdensome that task is, Mr. Chairman, it is ours to carry out.

Reforming the U.N. is about lives. It is not just about policies. Let us carry out our obligation to the taxpayers by rejecting the Lantos substitute and by affirming the Hyde bill.