Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished Democratic whip as much time as he might consume. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. LANTOS. I could not be more specific, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANTOS. As much time as he requires.

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his very useful amendment. In substance we are in agreement with the amendment; but as I will point out when we offer our substitute, the punitive portions are particularly absurd in this instance. Any permanent member of the Security Council can veto U.N. action. Assuming that China would veto action in the instance described by my friend from Nebraska, the United Nations would not be able to mount the action called for, yet we would penalize the U.N. for a veto by a member state. That is why the automaticity of the 50 percent withholding is simply illogical. It makes no sense. The substance of the gentleman's amendment is sound and valid. We have no objections to it, and I want to commend him for his initiative. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) be allowed to make his statement.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Texas (Mr. Barton) for a very useful amendment, which we will be pleased to accept on this side. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson). (Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. There is no one who favors granting veto power to any new Security Council member. It is a fact that with Russia moving in a totalitarian direction and China being a nondemocracy, adding democratic nations as permanent members of the Security Council will enhance our influence, but we are in accord of not granting veto power to any new member.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Mr. LANTOS. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First, I want to thank my friend from Utah for his most gracious words at the outset of this debate, and I would like to commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for his leadership on foreign policy matters and for his invaluable assistance on the Committee on Rules. Madam Speaker, as we embark upon today's historic debate, at the outset I would like to publicly express my respect, my admiration, my affection, and my friendship to the chairman of the House Committee on International Relations. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has been a giant in this body for many years. His contributions to the work of the Congress and to the welfare of our Nation are without limits, and it has been one of the great privileges of my congressional career to have had the opportunity of serving on his committee. Madam Speaker, let me make it clear that there is no Member of this body who is opposed to far-reaching reforms at the United Nations. We must approve legislation to fight corruption, hypocrisy, ineffectiveness, waste, and anti-Americanism at this important global institution. There is no disagreement, Madam Speaker, between Chairman Hyde and me as to whether the U.N. must be reformed. Where we part ways is on how to accomplish this incredibly important goal. Madam Speaker, the good Lord gave us Ten Commandments. The legislation before the House today gives us 39. While I know there has been some inflation over time, there is no rational explanation for such an explosion of legislative commandments. The United Nations Reform Act is truly a guillotine on autopilot. If the United Nations accomplishes 38 out of 39 commandments, but only accomplishes one-half of the last commandment, the United States will automatically cut off 50 percent of our contributions to the United Nations. Secretary of State Rice will have absolutely no choice in the matter. The President of the United States will have no choice in this matter. The Congress will have no choice in this matter. The bill under consideration is also a death blow to United Nations peacekeeping. Upon enactment of this legislation, the United States will be forced to oppose any new or expanded peacekeeping mission until a comprehensive series of peacekeeping reforms are implemented, many of which we all know will take years to accomplish. Rwanda-style genocides could unfold before our eyes, and the United Nations would have to turn its back. Madam Speaker, I agree that peacekeeping desperately needs reform, but it boggles the mind to think that this body would approve legislation which automatically cuts off all U.S. support for U.N. peacekeeping unless congressionally mandated commandments are immediately implemented. We are not alone, Madam Speaker, in our deep opposition to the United Nations Reform Act in its current form. This Republican administration is strongly opposed to this legislation. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said yesterday that this legislation ``would undermine American credibility at the United Nations and would call into question our reliability as the founder and host Nation and leading contributor to the United Nations.'' Eight of our former Ambassadors to the United Nations, Republicans and Democrats alike, ranging from Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to Ambassador Danforth, a former distinguished Republican Senator, all oppose this legislation. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I will offer a substitute amendment to promote U.N. reform effectively. Our substitute, which is rational, responsible and bipartisan, does not have the rigid and arbitrary dictate that automatically cuts 50 percent of our dues. This provision makes the bill, which has many good provisions in it, a guillotine on autopilot. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Lantos-Shays substitute.