Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 356.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Americans were shocked and dismayed but not necessarily surprised when terror struck at the heart of the capital of the United Kingdom, the cradle of Western liberty, on July 7, 2005. It is too easy while we are preoccupied with celebrating our independence from Britain in early July to lose sight of what we owe Britain, our language and our culture, the notion of the rule of law and the separation of powers, our common law legal system, and the underpinnings of our economic system, to name a few examples. The British have been at our side and we at theirs in the struggles against tyranny that preoccupied us throughout most of the 20th century and now in the struggle against the nihilistic terror that has marked the 21st century and in our efforts to bring freedom to Iraq. So it came as no real surprise to find that those who hate us hate the British too and acted on that hate. The British have always impressed the world with their courage, their resilience, recalling the days of the blitz. Today, Britain is different than the Britain of the Second World War. Its streets are filled with people from all over the world who are making their homes in what is like ours, a land of opportunity where newcomers are integrated into society with remarkable success. Today's Londoners showed themselves to be just as brave and determined as the Londoners of the past. President Bush made us all proud when he so forthrightly and eloquently supported Prime Minister Blair and pledged his people and government our full support. Today with this resolution, our House adds its voice to his. We and the British people are bound by ties that terror cannot loosen or fray. We will not be satisfied until we have done what we as Americans can to bring the perpetrators of this attack to justice and we have successfully pursued, disrupted, undermined, and dismantled on a worldwide basis the networks that carry out such attacks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 2005, I was absent for several votes for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted: Vote No. 251, Weiner Amendment regarding funding for COPS program, ``no''; vote No. 252, Inslee Amendment regarding funding for NOAA, ``no''; vote No. 253, Hayworth Amendment regarding contribution to U.N., ``no''; vote No. 254, Flake Amendment regarding Cuba ``no''; vote No. 255, Hinchey Amendment regarding medical marijuana ``no''; vote No. 256, Jones of Ohio Amendment regarding the EEOC ``no''; vote No. 257, Hostettler Amendment regarding Southern Dist. of Indiana case ``yes''; and vote No. 258, Sanders Amendment regarding Section 215 of PATRIOT Act ``no''.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will accept the amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the last speaker who used the words ``bully'' and ``legislating for the world.'' The litany of reforms which we deem essential in our legislation is mirrored in the Lantos bill, so if I am a bully, he is a bully. Actually, neither of us are bullies. We are a couple of nice guys. But these changes that are necessary, we all agree. The only difference is how to implement them. So I thought I would just make that comment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say, in response to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), that contempt is not animating our legislation, and I really question the wisdom of penetrating motives, which seems to be a habit with some people. Blackmail was another phrase used. We have a difference of opinion on how to implement the same reforms. That is what we are talking about, what will be effective and what will not. I do not think we need to question or ascribe contempt for the U.N. We are trying to make the U.N. work. When you pay $442 million a year, you ought to have something to say about how the place operates. Years ago there was a phenomenon called the Stockholm Syndrome, and I will tell my colleagues about the Stockholm Syndrome later, then.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Well, I will not abuse the privilege. Let us get the whole story out on Mr. Gingrich, what he says about withholding. On Wednesday, at the press conference held with himself and Senator Mitchell, Mr. Gingrich stated that he ``supports Mr. Hyde's efforts,'' so that ought to be put into the mix.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not know of anything I have done more reluctantly than object to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert's) very good amendment, not only well-intentioned, but it makes a statement that is very hard to disagree with. But I must because I can conceive of circumstances where it is in our national interest to help support another country that does not vote with us in the U.N., but having a stable country in certain portions of the world can be in our national interest. And I would rather leave that flexibility with the State Department and with the Defense Department so that these grants that are made support our security interests and not necessarily make us feel good because we are rewarding a country that votes with us. Egypt almost never votes with us, but it is important to have the largest Muslim country, other than Indonesia, supporting the aims that we have and goals in the Middle East.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has just administered the perfumed icepick.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), this is a marvelous amendment. The spirit in which it is offered is exemplary, and it is a very difficult thing to oppose it. But I see a problem with it that needs a little work. But I congratulate him and the spirit in which his good amendment was offered, but I hope it is not accepted in its present form. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is with painful reluctance that I object to my dear friend's dreams and his emanating bill. He is on the right track, God knows, but it is overkill. I think 50 percent bites just enough; 75 percent might kill the patient. And so with reluctance and admiration, and a hope that he gets a good night's sleep tonight, undisturbed by dreams, I must object to the amendment.

Mr. HYDE. With pleasure, I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) what an absolute pleasure it is working with him. He brings to these very critical issues intellect, dignity, and a fierce patriotism. I have been very proud and pleased to have had this association. One of the most interesting aspects of today's debate is the fact that we have focused very little on what the U.N. needs to do, and we spent most of our time on how we should ensure these reforms are actually implemented. We have heard from our opponents quote after quote from informed and not-so-informed sources that withholding dues is absolutely the death knell of the U.N. They are victimized by effective reform. Well, how our opponents can make this charge and then support the Lantos substitute suggests a conflicted state of mind. It is clear that the Lantos substitute is nearly identical to our bill except for the powers given to Secretary Rice. I assert she does have flexibility under our bill as well. She can waive the withholding, decide what level of withholding, if any, is appropriate under the Lantos bill. He cedes to her total control over the purse strings. But every Member voting for the Lantos bill, and God bless them, every one of them is voting to withhold dues. I tip my hat to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for achieving consensus in his party for securing unanimity among his flock on the conclusion that the U.N. will not reform unless dues are withheld. That is a signature achievement. Of course the Democrats withhold dues in a fashion different than we do. We legislate them. We say we have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements; it is time we have some teeth in reform. It is not impossible to achieve this notwithstanding the naysayers. There are 2 years before the certifications even kick in, 2 years for the U.N. to get its act together; and then you can do 32 of the 39 reforms, still be certified, and no funds are withheld and still you have another year to accomplish the remaining reforms. So both measures have nearly identical reforms and both measures withhold dues. Only it is the Secretary of State who has the authority in their substitute, and we legislate it. What does history show? History shows when Congress stands tough, when it says if you do not reform, we are not going to pay, then change occurs. Does anyone remember Kassebaum-Solomon? The amendment eventually led to the implementation of consensus-based budgeting, a reform that no one said could be achieved. Does anyone remember UNESCO? We withdrew in protest. We stopped paying our assessed dues. Let me repeat that: we stopped paying our assessed dues. Reforms of that agency were made and we rejoined. Does anyone remember the genesis of the Office of Internal Oversight Services? In the mid-1990s, the U.S. threatened to withhold funding, and lo and behold the U.N. created an oversight function. Even with Helms-Biden, Congress leveraged the fact that in order for us to pay arrears, the U.N. had to undertake certain reforms. All of these requirements were legislated and directed actions which resulted in reforms that were actually implemented. Look, if we want to reform the United Nations, we have to legislate the reforms and have some teeth in the sanctions if they fail to. The U.N. will go sailing its merry way on if it reforms. If it does not reform, there is a penalty. The eight ambassadors that wrote this letter prove our point. There is a mind-set in the upper realms of diplomacy that worships at the theater of the U.N. and could not possibly bring itself to withholding dues, so I do not think it will work. I implore Members to put some teeth in the sanctions. Simon Bolivar, the great South American patriot, had a phrase for political futility. He said it was plowing in the sea. I suggest when it comes to sanctions against the U.N. for failing to reform, if Members leave it to the discretion of the State Department, we are plowing in the sea. Mr. Chairman, let us begin real reform of the U.N., a monumental task, a long road ahead. Let us begin it here and now, June 17, right in this room; and let us begin it with your vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to state improvement is our goal, too. A healthy U.N., rather than a vast, sprawling, bureaucratic cesspool which is where it is headed. Everyone agrees to that. Now this notion that we are obliged by the treaty to pay our dues and that it would be an international default if we did not, that was argued before back in the 1980s. Contributions to the U.N. are made subject to authorization and appropriation of the U.S. Congress. We have a duty to the taxpayer first to ensure that there is good stewardship of their dollars. We have to hold the U.N. accountable. All countries benefit from an efficient, transparent, and accountable U.N. It is not only in our interest. We have not signed away part of our sovereignty. We are paying big dues: $442 million a year just on the dues part. Peacekeeping is another $1 billion. To say we do not have an obligation to make the providers that we purchase with our dues perform honorably and efficiently does not make sense. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).