U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–666PDF 2011

TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY,

AND REFORM WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS

SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2829

OCTOBER 13, 2011

Serial No. 112–93

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF

H.R. 2829, To promote transparency, accountability, and reform within the 

United Nations System, and for other purposes ............................................... 2

En bloc amendments to H.R. 2829 offered by the Honorable Ileana RosLehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and 

chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs; the Honorable Gerald E. 

Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia; and the Honorable Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Nebraska ............................................................................. 157

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2829 offered by the 

Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ............................................................................................ 180

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Material submitted for the record ..................................... 232

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Material 

submitted for the record ...................................................................................... 242

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 250

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 251

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 253

(1)

TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REFORM WITHIN THE UNITED 

NATIONS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee will come to order. 

Before moving to today’s business I would like to begin by offering the committee’s condolences to the families of the three U.N. 

peacekeepers who were killed patrolling a refugee camp in northern Darfur on Monday. These individuals gave their lives in the 

pursuit of peace, and it is appropriate to honor their memory by 

working to strengthen the institution in which they served. 

Now, pursuant to notice, the committee meets today to mark up 

H.R. 2829—my age and Howard Berman’s age, right? I am 28 and 

you are 29, more or less—the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2011. Members may have 5 legislative days to submit for the record remarks on today’s bill or amendment. 

Without objection, the bill is considered as read and is open for 

amendment at any point. 

[H.R. 2829 follows:]

2


70666a-1.eps
3


70666a-2.eps
4


70666a-3.eps
5


70666a-4.eps
6


70666a-5.eps
7


70666a-6.eps
8


70666a-7.eps
9


70666a-8.eps
10


70666a-9.eps
11


70666a-10.eps
12


70666a-11.eps
13


70666a-12.eps
14


70666a-13.eps
15


70666a-14.eps
16


70666a-15.eps
17


70666a-16.eps
18


70666a-17.eps
19


70666a-18.eps
20


70666a-19.eps
21


70666a-20.eps
22


70666a-21.eps
23


70666a-22.eps
24


70666a-23.eps
25


70666a-24.eps
26


70666a-25.eps
27


70666a-26.eps
28


70666a-27.eps
29


70666a-28.eps
30


70666a-29.eps
31


70666a-30.eps
32


70666a-31.eps
33


70666a-32.eps
34


70666a-33.eps
35


70666a-34.eps
36


70666a-35.eps
37


70666a-36.eps
38


70666a-37.eps
39


70666a-38.eps
40


70666a-39.eps
41


70666a-40.eps
42


70666a-41.eps
43


70666a-42.eps
44


70666a-43.eps
45


70666a-44.eps
46


70666a-45.eps
47


70666a-46.eps
48


70666a-47.eps
49


70666a-48.eps
50


70666a-49.eps
51


70666a-50.eps
52


70666a-51.eps
53


70666a-52.eps
54


70666a-53.eps
55


70666a-54.eps
56


70666a-55.eps
57


70666a-56.eps
58


70666a-57.eps
59


70666a-58.eps
60


70666a-59.eps
61


70666a-60.eps
62


70666a-61.eps
63


70666a-62.eps
64


70666a-63.eps
65


70666a-64.eps
66


70666a-65.eps
67


70666a-66.eps
68


70666a-67.eps
69


70666a-68.eps
70


70666a-69.eps
71


70666a-70.eps
72


70666a-71.eps
73


70666a-72.eps
74


70666a-73.eps
75


70666a-74.eps
76


70666a-75.eps
77


70666a-76.eps
78


70666a-77.eps
79


70666a-78.eps
80


70666a-79.eps
81


70666a-80.eps
82


70666a-81.eps
83


70666a-82.eps
84


70666a-83.eps
85


70666a-84.eps
86


70666a-85.eps
87


70666a-86.eps
88


70666a-87.eps
89


70666a-88.eps
90


70666a-89.eps
91


70666a-90.eps
92


70666a-91.eps
93


70666a-92.eps
94


70666a-93.eps
95


70666a-94.eps
96


70666a-95.eps
97


70666a-96.eps
98


70666a-97.eps
99


70666a-98.eps
100


70666a-99.eps
101


70666a-100.eps
102


70666a-101.eps
103


70666a-102.eps
104


70666a-103.eps
105


70666a-104.eps
106


70666a-105.eps
107


70666a-106.eps
108


70666a-107.eps
109


70666a-108.eps
110


70666a-109.eps
111


70666a-110.eps
112


70666a-111.eps
113


70666a-112.eps
114


70666a-113.eps
115


70666a-114.eps
116


70666a-115.eps
117


70666a-116.eps
118


70666a-117.eps
119


70666a-118.eps
120


70666a-119.eps
121


70666a-120.eps
122


70666a-121.eps
123


70666a-122.eps
124


70666a-123.eps
125


70666a-124.eps
126


70666a-125.eps
127


70666a-126.eps
128


70666a-127.eps
129


70666a-128.eps
130


70666a-129.eps
131


70666a-130.eps
132


70666a-131.eps
133


70666a-132.eps
134


70666a-133.eps
135


70666a-134.eps
136


70666a-135.eps
137


70666a-136.eps
138


70666a-137.eps
139


70666a-138.eps
140


70666a-139.eps
141


70666a-140.eps
142


70666a-141.eps
143


70666a-142.eps
144


70666a-143.eps
145


70666a-144.eps
146


70666a-145.eps
147


70666a-146.eps
148


70666a-147.eps
149


70666a-148.eps
150


70666a-149.eps
151


70666a-150.eps
152


70666a-151.eps
153


70666a-152.eps
154


70666a-153.eps
155


70666a-154.eps
156

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Furthermore, without objection, the 

following amendments which were provided to members previously 

and are in your packet shall be considered as read and deemed 

adopted en bloc: Ros-Lehtinen amendment 92, the Manager’s 

amendment, amendments 102, 103, and 104 offered by Mr. 

Connolly, amendment 83 offered by Mr. Fortenberry; and, finally, 

without objection, the bill text as amended by the en bloc shall be 

considered the original base text for the markup. 

[The information referred to follows:]

157


70666b-1.eps
158


70666b-2.eps
159


70666b-3.eps
160


70666b-4.eps
161


70666b-5.eps
162


70666b-6.eps
163


70666b-7.eps
164


70666b-8.eps
165


70666b-9.eps
166


70666b-10.eps
167


70666b-11.eps
168


70666b-12.eps
169


70666b-13.eps
170


70666b-14.eps
171


70666b-15.eps
172


70666b-16.eps
173


70666b-17.eps
174


70666c.eps
175


70666d.eps
176


70666e.eps
177


70666f.eps
178

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I will now recognize myself for both 

the bill, as amended, and on the substitute amendment to be offered by my friend, the ranking member. 

Let me briefly reiterate some of the reasons why this bill is so needed. Last year, the U.S. contributed a record $7.7 billion to the 

U.N., 21 percent more than 2009; as the report of the Office of 

Management and Budget states in their report to Congress. 

The administration’s own Ambassador for Management and Reform, Joseph Torsella, has said, ‘‘For a decade now, the United Nations’ regular budget has grown dramatically, relentlessly, and exponentially.’’

Now, as America struggles to pay their bills and put food on the 

table, U.N. employees are about to receive another pay hike. The 

administration has rightfully urged the U.N. to cut its budget and 

cancel the pay increase, but the U.N. will actually be increasing its 

budget in the next 2 years. As Ambassador Torsella said, this 

budget increase ‘‘does not represent a break from business as usual 

but, rather, a continuation of it.’’

And what is it that we are paying for? A U.N. Human Rights 

Council that includes such gross human rights violators as China, 

Russia, Saudi Arabia, and its vice chair, Cuba. 

Two years after the administration joined the Council, the Council still has undergone zero fundamental reforms, continues to pass 

resolution after resolution condemning Israel, and its permanent 

agenda item on Israel remains in place. We are paying for the Durban process, which has been hijacked to spread anti-Israel and 

anti-Semitic venom. 

Then there is the U.N. Conference on Disarmament recently 

chaired by North Korea. So serial proliferator North Korea presided over the U.N.’s disarmament body; and Iran, a regime which 

stones women to death, is a member of the U.N. Commission on 

the Status of Women. 

We are paying for a U.N. that just appointed as the head of its 

Kosovo mission an individual involved in the infamous ‘‘Oil for 

Food’’ scandal and a U.N. that goes after whistle-blowers while protecting the corrupt. 

Why do we bear the financial burden for this? Every year scores 

of member countries that contribute almost nothing to the U.N. 

vote together to pass the budget. Then they pass the cost on big 

donors like the United States, which is assessed a whopping 22 

percent. In contrast, China pays just 3 percent. 

We need a game changer. We will never achieve lasting, sweeping reforms if the U.S. keeps paying in full what the U.N. dictates 

to us with no consequences for the U.N. failures. 

It is time to leverage our funding to achieve lasting U.N. reform 

by passing this U.N. reform bill. This bill seeks to shift the funding 

basis for the U.N.’s regular budget to voluntary contributions so 

that American taxpayers can choose how much of their hardearned money goes to the U.N. and what it is spent on. A shift to 

voluntary funding will help end the U.N.’s entitlement culture, 

forcing it to perform better and cut costs in order to justify its 

funding. 

The best-performing U.N. bodies are usually the ones funded voluntarily, like UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for RefuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:29 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\101311M\70666 HFA PsN: SHIRL
179

gees. That’s why the bipartisan Gingrich-Mitchell report recommended shifting more U.N. programs to voluntary funding. 

The Secretary of State sent me a letter yesterday opposing our 

bill. The Secretary claims that if we move to a system of voluntary 

funding it will hurt our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq because 

other member states won’t do the burden sharing to pay for U.N. 

missions in those countries. Does the administration have such little faith in our allies and in our diplomacy, which they pride themselves on, to think that they would not share the burden of fighting 

Islamic extremists unless the U.N. forced them to? And given that 

the U.S. paid billions and billions of dollars to the U.N. last year, 

I think it is clear who is actually carrying the burden without any 

say: The U.S. taxpayer. 

On the ranking member’s amendment in the nature of a substitute, which he will introduce shortly, regrettably the substitute 

is just that, a substitute for real reform. On each area that it addresses, the main prescription is rhetoric, but no real consequence 

for U.N. inaction. The substitute states that the administration 

should take the status of reform efforts at voluntarily funded U.N. 

bodies into account when determining how much to contribute to 

those bodies. 

I believe this is an acknowledgment of just how effective voluntary funding is at achieving reform. Yet the ranking member opposes the proposal in the underlying bill to shift the basis for the 

U.N. regular budget to voluntary contributions, which increases 

our leverage to achieve reform throughout the U.N. system as well 

as will enable us to fund those programs that actually work and 

advance U.S. interests. Leveraging our contributions as the underlying bill proposes can help stop Abu Mazen’s dangerous Palestinian statehood scheme. By contrast, the substitute amendment 

offers no consequences if any U.N. body upgrades the Palestinian 

status. 

Turning to peacekeeping, like Mr. Berman, I value the contributions that peacekeepers have made to global peace and security, including in Haiti, but the substitute fails to address the urgent need 

for reforms to restore the reputation of U.N. peacekeeping, particularly in light of recent reports of sexual abuse of minors by peacekeepers in Haiti and the illegal exploitation of natural resources by 

U.N. employees in Congo. I ask my colleagues to oppose this substitute and settle for nothing less than real reform by supporting 

the underlying bill. 

I will now ask the clerk to report the Berman amendment in the 

nature of a substitute before I yield to the ranking member for his 

remarks on today’s business. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

2829 offered by Mr. Berman of California. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Without objection the Berman substitute is considered as read. 

[The information referred to follows:]

180


70666g-1.eps
181


70666g-2.eps
182


70666g-3.eps
183


70666g-4.eps
184


70666g-5.eps
185


70666g-6.eps
186


70666g-7.eps
187


70666g-8.eps
188


70666g-9.eps
189


70666g-10.eps
190


70666g-11.eps
191


70666g-12.eps
192


70666g-13.eps
193


70666g-14.eps
194


70666g-15.eps
195


70666g-16.eps
196


70666g-17.eps
197


70666g-18.eps
198


70666g-19.eps
199


70666g-20.eps
200


70666g-21.eps
201


70666g-22.eps
202


70666g-23.eps
203


70666g-24.eps
204


70666g-25.eps
205


70666g-26.eps
206


70666g-27.eps
207


70666g-28.eps
208


70666g-29.eps
209


70666g-30.eps
210


70666g-31.eps
211


70666g-32.eps
212


70666g-33.eps
213


70666g-34.eps
214


70666g-35.eps
215


70666g-36.eps
216

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. My friend, the ranking member, is recognized for up to 7 minutes to speak on his amendment and the 

underlying bill. Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I am offering the amendment in the nature of a substitute at this 

point to—everybody should be happy to try and conflate a speech 

against the bill and a separate speech in favor of the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute into one with the hope that we can 

finish our work on this bill by the time we have to recess for the 

joint session. 

Madam Chairman, this so-called reform legislation is being marketed as a way to combat efforts by the Palestinians to gain statehood at the U.N. and put a stop to some of the other repugnant 

anti-Israel practices at the world body. But that is really false advertising. Those issues, as important as they are, are just a smokescreen the majority is using to obscure its real agenda. In fact, the 

true purpose of the bill is to end U.S. participation in the U.N. and, 

in the process, deal a fatal financial blow to the world body. 

Title I of the legislation states that the U.S. must withhold 50 

percent of our assessed contributions unless the President certifies 

that at least 80 percent of the entire U.N. regular budget—80 percent of what is now all paid for by assessed contributions—is funded only by voluntary contributions within 2 years. 

We all know that it would be impossible for the President to 

make such a certification. Among other things, it would require a 

revision of the U.N. charter and a renegotiation of the treaty establishing the U.N. It is not going to happen. 

Even if the U.N. Human Rights Council were truly reformed, the 

Goldstone report was completely repudiated, and the U.N. instituted more meaningful audit and oversight disclosure requirements, this bill would still defund the U.N. if they didn’t adopt an 

80 percent voluntarily funded regular budget. 

In July, this committee voted to slash U.N. contributions to the 

U.N. by 25 percent. Why not just have a straight up or down vote 

on making additional cuts, rather than going through this subterfuge? 

Madam chairman, this legislation is premised on the notion that 

withholding our U.N. dues can leverage meaningful change at the 

organization, but there is no evidence to support that argument. 

Previous attempts at withholding did not lead to any significant 

and lasting reforms. They only succeeded in weakening our diplomatic standing and influence and undermining efforts to promote 

transparency, fiscal responsibility, and good management practices 

in the U.N. system. 

For those reasons, the George Bush administration opposed the 

late Chairman Henry Hyde’s U.N. bill which had no such feature. 

It was simply trying to make reforms in the U.N. by withholding 

dues. This one creates an impossible standard and says, if we don’t 

meet it, we cut it by 50 percent. 

Madam Chairman, I want to say a few words about the contention that this bill is necessary to prevent the Palestinians from 

forging ahead with plans to unilaterally declare statehood at the 

U.N. or upgrade its membership in various U.N. entities. 

217

Current law already requires withholding of U.S. funds from any 

U.N. entity that grants full membership to the Palestinian Authority. As we saw last week, this threat of withholding was not particularly effective as the UNESCO Executive Board voted 40 to 4, 

with 14 abstentions, to submit the question of full Palestinian 

membership to the full UNESCO membership. 

Frankly, I don’t understand the logic of penalizing a U.N. organization for the votes of its member states. In fact, many of the 

states that are likely to support unilateral Palestinian moves at the 

U.N. would undoubtedly prefer that the U.S. withdraw from the organization. So one could argue that this bill would be rewarding 

them for bad behavior. 

A more effective approach would be to reduce or eliminate U.S. 

assistance to countries that vote against this at the U.N. on resolutions that only encourage the Palestinians from circumventing direct negotiations with Israel. This bill contains no such provision. 

Madam Chairman, all of us are familiar with the flaws and 

shortcomings of the U.N. The anti-Israel vitriol spewed from the 

committee on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, the Human Rights Council’s obsession with and biased treatment of Israel, and, in general, the organization’s overlapping jurisdiction of agencies, duplication of services, and efficient procurement practices. 

But it is also important to recognize that the U.N. often plays an 

essential role in supporting American foreign policy, national security interests, U.N. peacekeepers. They separate warring parties, 

and they create conditions for reconciliation at a fraction of the cost 

of deploying U.S. military. 

The World Food Programme feeds the victims of famine in the 

Horn of Africa, the World Health Organization coordinates international efforts to prevent spread of infectious disease, and the 

U.N. Security Council has provided the legal basis for putting together a strong international coalition of countries determined to 

prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability, a critical 

issue that we will discuss at tomorrow’s hearing. 

Madam Chairman, I agree we need to keep the pressure on the 

U.N. to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are spent wisely. But trying 

to ram through this partisan piece of legislation is not the way to 

do it. 

I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment that 

I am offering. My substitute acknowledges the simple reality: We 

can’t legislate change at the U.N. like we can in the executive 

branch. Instead, it seeks to provide direction to and strengthen the 

administration’s ability to push for greater transparency, accountability, and ethical standards at the U.N. 

They will do this by enshrining in law the State Department’s 

U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative, originally conceived by former U.S. Ambassador for U.N. Management and Reform, Mark Wallace, a George W. Bush appointee, which will 

strengthen our ability to monitor U.S. Progress on reforms. It 

would also mandate rigorous reviews and monitoring programs for 

various peacekeeping efforts and make it the policy of the United 

States to work with the U.N. to institute a number of needed management reforms. 

218

My amendment will not get the U.S. out of the U.N., but it will 

be a far more effective tool for promoting real reform and countering anti-Israel bias in the U.N. I urge my colleagues to support 

this substitute, defeat the underlying bill, and yield back my 30 

seconds. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. I thank my 

good friend from California for his statement. 

I now would like to recognize Ms. Buerkle of New York, who 

served as the congressional representative for the majority to the 

United Nations. Ms. Buerkle is recognized. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I just want to make a couple of comments with regards to really 

a myth that withholding U.N. assessments doesn’t work. Money, I 

think, is by far the strongest leverage we have at the U.N.; and, 

unfortunately, sometimes it is the only language that they understand and they respond to. 

In 1980, Congress withheld funding until the U.N. implemented 

budget reforms. That effort was successful until we stopped conditioning funding on reform. 

Again, in 1989, Yasser Arafat pushed for the PLO to gain full 

membership in U.N. entities as a way to gain de facto recognition 

for a Palestinian state. The United States made clear at that time 

that we would cut off funding to any U.N. entity that upgraded the 

status of PLO, and at that time the PLO’s effort was stopped dead 

in its tracks. 

In the 1990s, when U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets were 

skyrocketing, Congress enacted the Helms-Biden agreement. We 

withheld our dues and conditioned repayment on key reforms. 

When the U.N. saw we meant business, the members agreed to reform, saving our taxpayers dollars. 

Even the Obama administration enforcing U.S. law continues to 

withhold assessed contributions to certain anti-Israeli U.N. agencies like the Division for Palestinian Rights. 

Smart withholding is the most effective tool we have to encourage the U.N. to reform. Money does talk and, unfortunately, sometimes it is the only thing the U.N. will listen to. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Payne is recognized to speak on the Berman amendment 

and/or the underlying bill. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I support, strongly support the Berman amendment and oppose 

H.R. 2829. The United States is currently working with the United 

Nations to address some of the world’s most pressing challenges, 

from the humanitarian need of vulnerable communities in the Horn 

of Africa and Haiti to political crises and violence in Libya and 

Sudan. Now is not the time to disengage from the world body. Indeed, it is more important than ever that America maintains its 

long-standing commitment to global leadership and engagement. 

Through the United Nations, we are able to extend our global 

reach and advance our national security interests. H.R. 2829 would 

severely limit the President’s ability to support new or expanded 

U.N. peacekeeping missions. Anyone that has closely watched Africa over the past decade knows that the United Nations’ peaceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:29 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\101311M\70666 HFA PsN: SHIRL
219

keepers have played a pivotal roll in protecting civilians, securing 

peace and supporting democratic reforms across the continent. 

The United Nations’ mission in Liberia was established in 2003 

to support the implementation of the cease-fire agreement and the 

peace process. Two days ago, on October 11th, the Liberian people 

went to the polls and peacefully voted for the second time in the 

nation’s history. 

In March 2005, the U.N.—United Nations mission in Sudan was 

created to support and implement the comprehensive peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s 

Liberation Movement, PLM. 

Earlier this year, the people of southern Sudan voted in an election deemed free and fair by the international community. On July 

9th, I was in Juba as south Sudan became the world’s newest nation. 

Last year, incumbent Laurent Gbagbo defied the democratic will 

of his people and refused to step down as President of Cote d’Ivoire. 

What followed was a full-scale military conflict. With international 

support, the victor, President Ouattara, was installed. Following 

months of fighting, Gbagbo was finally captured; and the democratic will of the d’Ivoiriens were realized with the help of the 

United Nations’ troops. 

Democracy and peace, along with economic security, are major 

deterrents to conflicts. Supporting peace is also more cost effective 

than unilateral intervention. 

The United Nations is the biggest tool in our democracy promotion and peacekeeping toolbox. Ranking Member Berman’s substitute amendment addresses all of our key concerns with the 

United Nations without diminishing our ability to influence necessary reforms. I urge my colleagues to support the Berman 

amendment and oppose the underlying bill. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. 

I am pleased to yield to speak on the Berman amendment or the 

underlying bill—and/or—to Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; and I really appreciate you moving this bill. 

The U.N. is really our buddy. They vote with us almost never. 

We built a building for them in New York. The Rockefellers built 

it. We pay for the police to protect everybody when they come to 

the New York to the cost of billions of dollars over the years. And 

let’s just look at what we have got. 

We pay 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and 27 percent of 

the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the administration’s 

budget for this year, Fiscal Year 2011, is $516.3 million to the U.N. 

regular budget and $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget. According to OMB, U.S. contributions for the U.N. system were more 

than $6.347 billion—billion—in 2009. 

I don’t know if anybody realizes, but we have some financial difficulties here in the United States. 

Now let’s just take a look at what the U.N. has done. 

220

In August 2011, Cuba, which has provided biotechnology to other 

rogue regimes which are closely allied with serial proliferators—

North Korea, Iran, and Syria—Cuba assumed the presidency of the 

Conference on Disarmament. Do you believe that? 

In 2011, June, North Korea, a serial nuclear proliferator that secretly developed nuclear weapons and continues to violate multiple 

U.N. Security Council sanctions resolutions, assumes the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. You get that? 

Saudi Arabia in November 2010, which severely restricts the 

human rights of Saudi women—and I went over to try to get some 

American women out of there who were held against their will—

they were elected to the Board of U.N. Women. 

Cuba, a gross human rights violator, in 2010 is named vice chair 

of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Did you get that, Madam 

Chairwoman? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I did. 

Mr. BURTON. They are vice chairman of the Human Rights Council, Cuba. How many people do they have in prisons over there and 

torture people and everything? Our old buddy Castro. 

Iran in 2010, which severely restricts the human rights of Iranian women and has stoned women to death, is announced as a 

member of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. 

We are giving these people billions of dollars. They never work 

with us. I don’t even know when why we give them anything. I 

really don’t. It is crazy. 

Now, if we want to help people who are starving in Africa and 

so forth and work with some of the countries to help provide assistance to them, that is one thing. But the U.N. is never, has never, 

and never will be a good friend to the United States. They are 

pointing every kind of crackpot regime, from Cuba to North Korea 

to Saudi Arabia to Cuba to Libya to Iran, to leadership positions; 

and we continue to give them our money. I think the American taxpayers, if they knew all this, would say this is a bunch of bull. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, and the gentleman yields back. It is a wonderful precedent that Mr. Berman 

started. They are yielding back the time. 

So pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, to speak on the Berman amendment and/or the underlying 

bill. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I get it, too. I say I get it, too. I got all of it. 

And the reason why people are yielding back their time is because they don’t have enough good things to say about the bill that 

is in front of us, not a lot of real merit to it. 

Let me correct a couple of things. We didn’t give anybody the 

money to build the United Nations. It was given by a great Republican businessman from New York, Mr. Rockefeller, and his family; 

and that money built the United Nations out of a vision that this 

Republican had that the world could be a better place if people 

came together and had a place to speak and talk and meet and the 

countries of the world could talk out their grievances instead of 

going to war. It has not always been successful, but it is the only 

thing we have got going for us to try to make that happen. 

The previous speaker mentioned that we pay for the police to police the United Nations. I will just call to your attention we are 

221

supposed to pay for the police to reimburse them, but we don’t. And 

Mr. Berman had the good sense to correct that or try to correct 

that by putting in his substitute language that both myself and 

Peter King from New York have been working on for years that 

would require the prompt payment of the amount of money that is 

supposed to be reimbursed to the City of New York, which has laid 

out millions and millions and millions of dollars over the years and 

has not been paid back. So if you want to correct that injustice that 

was just cited, then vote for the substitute. 

So we want to make the dues voluntary, and that way we can 

have our say in how it gets spent. Wouldn’t that be just? That 

makes as much sense as making income tax voluntary so we can 

pick and choose what we want to pay for if we didn’t like this war 

or that war or we don’t like some kind of program. Or if we really 

don’t like Medicare, don’t pay that part, or don’t like Social Security or health care or whatever it is you don’t like. You don’t like 

Congress, don’t pay the part of your taxes that pays us. And see 

where we get and how logical that would be to the American people 

or any other people to make funding optional, voluntary so we can 

pick and choose. 

Now the United Nations is not supposed to be our pal. We don’t 

own it. It is not a branch of the American Government or an arm 

of the American people. It is where all the people of the world express their grievances and argue things that we disagree about. If 

we agreed on everything, we wouldn’t need the United Nations. 

But we don’t. 

And the fact that bad countries that do bad things at times in 

bad areas of human behavior get to chair committees is not because they have been chosen because they are the admirable party 

in women’s rights or human rights or whatever it is. It is because 

they rotate these things among regions of the world, and then the 

region gets to choose if they are up for the chairmanship of that 

committee. And sometimes it is a bad guy’s turn. Get it? It is not 

because these people are exemplary. It is ironic that they get to 

chair these things, but that is what happens when you are a country. 

It was mentioned that we should withhold because other countries don’t pay as much as we do, other countries are not as big, 

as big as we are or as wealthy as we are, despite our problems. 

And United Nations isn’t an entitlement, and its programs aren’t 

entitlements. But I would like to speak about entitlements. 

There is not a serious player in Washington, DC—the good thing 

is this bill is never going to see the light of day. Nobody even suspects the Senate would ever take it up, much less pass it. That is 

the good thing about it. 

But there is an entitlement here. It is the entitlement that my 

grandchildren, the entitlement that they grow up in a world of 

peace. It is the entitlement of Israeli people’s grandchildren and 

Palestinian people’s grandchildren. 

There is only one hope, because we are having a lot of difficulty 

of doing this on a bilateral basis. And that hope still rests in the 

United Nations with all its flaws and all of the bad things and inconsistencies that occur there. And to disguise this as this is for the 

benefit of the Israelis is sad, but laughable. The last thing the 

222

Israelis would like to see is the United States and the President 

of the United States, the defender-in-chief of Israel, President 

Obama, not to be in the United Nations so he and we could veto 

bad things that would happen in the United Nations were we not 

there, both for Israelis and others as well. 

I would urge the passage of the substitute, because it is a darn 

sight better than the underlying bill which, when we do pass it, 

isn’t going anywhere anyway. So that is the only consolation that 

I have. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Rohrabacher of California, 

is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Gee, I wonder if the Rockefellers got a tax advantage when they 

gave all that property to the United Nations. I think it is very fitting and very apropos that the Rockefellers were so involved——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not yet, because I have a statement to make. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thought you wanted an answer. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If there is time afterwards, I would be happy 

to. 

Let me just note that I think the Rockefellers represent the global elite that goes hand in hand with the anti-American spirit that 

is so prevalent in the United Nations. 

Let’s just get down to what this is all about today. The underlying bill that we are talking about, that the chairman has spent 

considerable time developing, is something that the American People, when they find out about it, are going to be very supportive 

of. 

The fact is that at a time when the level of deficit spending is 

so out of control that it is heading our country to an economic calamity the idea of reducing expenditures, the expenditure of American tax dollars on U.N. programs that are not in our national interest, is not just a good idea, it is a great idea, and so just the 

underlying idea that we are going to do that, that is terrific. 

Let’s look at some other major issues that we are deciding today, 

and my colleague from New York just mentioned it in passing, but 

that is that our contributions to the United Nations are on a voluntary—should we want to put them on a voluntary basis. Today, 

they are not on a voluntary basis, and the bottom line is the American people believe that money that we take from them should not 

be given to someone else to spend in any way that other body 

wants, even if it is against our interest, and let us note that the 

United Nations is not a sovereign body and has no legitimate authority to assess a tax or assess a demand of the American people. 

When my colleague mentioned about when it would make the income tax voluntary, that is what scares people. Because there are 

some people who would like to give the United Nations the power 

to tax and the authority to take money away from the American 

people and spend it exactly the way they want to. 

Just the fact that the chairman and those of us who support her 

are trying to make sure that if we are taxing our people at a time 

of crisis when our people are out of work that their money isn’t 

223

going to go to be spent on anti-American and anti-democratic 

projects that have been put in place by the United Nations, we are 

following not only the will of the people but we are following what 

the Constitution is all about. 

The Constitution gives us, the Congress, authority to control the 

purse strings, and we are the ultimate power when it comes to the 

expenditure of those tax dollars, and it should be. When we give 

them to an organization, it should be on a voluntary basis, so if 

that organization gets too far out and starts appointing Iran to 

head up a commission on the status of women, that maybe that we 

can help put pressure on them not to make those kind of decisions. 

Now, my colleague from New York pointed out that this idea that 

the chairmanship of these types of commissions and committees 

just are there. You know, they happen to go into the hands of these 

dictators and oddballs and lunatics, and we should just say, well, 

that is because it rotates; they really didn’t have a choice. Get it? 

Well, I want you to get something. The bottom line is, if they 

have a system that is set up that puts these gangsters in charge 

of policy, then the system is wrong. There is something wrong with 

that system, and it should be corrected, and as long as we maintain 

that we can voluntarily contribute or not, we will have the pressure 

we need to try to reform the system so that gangsters, that Nazis, 

don’t get put in charge of human rights commissions. 

I would suggest that what we have before us is something that 

constitutionally is very important, as well as practically is very important, and practically we cannot continue this level of deficit 

spending. If we have to bring it down, let’s bring it down this way. 

Quit financing people who hate us, and, number two, let’s make 

sure U.S. contributions are voluntary. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

I am pleased to yield to the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, the gentleman from New York, 

for the Berman substitute or the underlying bill. 

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the chair for her courtesy, gracious courtesy 

as always. 

And, look, I am certainly not going to make excuses for the 

United Nations. I share the frustrations many of my colleagues 

have articulated on the other side of the aisle and that people on 

this side of the aisle feel as well. 

I will vote for the Berman substitute, but I understand the 

chair’s sincere frustration in wanting to change the way the U.N. 

and some of these other countries take us for granted, spit in our 

face, and think they will have American money to just go around 

and kind of use it to whet their mouth to spit right back in our 

face. 

The bottom line, though—and this is what I am going to be listening to in this debate this afternoon—is what is in our best interests, what is in the best interests of the United States of America. 

Certainly I feel the frustration and would like to say, you know 

what? I am taking my marbles, and I am going home. Because this 

is an organization that cannot be fixed. 

224

But, on the other hand, I have to question and say, are we better 

off being there where we can have some influence, as we are trying 

to have now with this ridiculous Palestinian universal declaration 

of statehood, where we can have some influence, where we are putting together the votes on the Security Council so that they, the 

Palestinians, do not have the nine votes which would force the 

United States to veto it? Are we better off being there and preventing bad things from happening or would we be better off not 

being there? I think a very good case can be made that we are better off being there. 

Now, it doesn’t mean—I don’t think it means that we should just 

continue to play business as usual and provide the money for them 

to do all these awful things that my colleagues have mentioned. So 

I think it is a balancing act. I think we have to decide what is in 

our best interests. 

Some of my colleagues have suggested, for instance, that we—

and this committee voted along party line vote to withdraw from 

the OAS, the Organization of American States, with all the Republicans voting yes and all the Democrats voting no. I happen to believe that the Organization of American States, although very 

flawed, is a hell of a lot better with United States’ participation, 

because that is the one organization in the Western Hemisphere 

which we can influence. We have an extreme influence in that organization. 

And there are other organizations which exclude the United 

States, like UNASUR and MERCOSUR, where we have no influence. Do we want to really destroy the OAS and have these other 

organizations become preeminent? 

I sort of feel that way a little bit about the United Nations. I 

don’t know if we kind of walk away what does that do. 

Michael Bloomberg, our mayor in New York City, has urged us 

to defeat the legislation, because he is looking at it from a point 

of view of the New York economy; and the United Nations obviously enhances the stature of New York and helps the New York 

economy as well. 

But I do think, I do think, that, whether or not the chair’s legislation becomes law or not, we in the United States have got to give 

this issue a good hard look. Because we can all recite all the outrages in the United Nations that have happened where our country 

is treated horrifically while they take our money and kind of laugh 

in our face. 

So I want to say, Madam Chair, I share your frustration and I 

know how you feel and I share the frustration. The question is, 

what is the best way to deal with that and would it be in our best 

interest to withdraw funds at this point and have voluntary contributions? I am going to be listening for the rest of the afternoon. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

And the ranking member and I have a gentleman/gentlelady 

agreement to see if we can wrap it up before the Joint Session because there are many activities related to the South Korean President’s address. And with that in mind, I am pleased to yield to Mr. 

Fortenberry for any remarks that he might have on the amendment. 

225

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I probably won’t 

take the whole time. 

Madam Chair, first, let me say this. I believe that the United 

States should be an active participant in multilateral institutions. 

However, of late, we have seen the rogue regimes of both Cuba and 

North Korea assume leadership roles at the United Nations. As it 

was mentioned, North Korea took the presidency of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in spite of its nuclear weapons proliferation. Cuba, with its massive human rights violations, gallingly took 

vice chair of the U.N. Human Rights Council last year. 

Madam Chairman, these countries need to order their own 

houses before they are given the jurisdiction over panels affecting 

the rest of the world. Giving a country like Cuba or North Korea 

chairmanship over disarmaments and human rights is a farce. 

It is true that the United States has done a lot—the United Nations, excuse me, has done a lot of good across time. In its proper 

role, the United Nations is one of the strongest multilateral institutions the world has seen; and it does allow meaningful space for 

dialogue for the responsible community of nations on all measures 

of crises throughout the world. But when the United Nations steps 

out of its lane and employs divisive tactics of ideological aggression 

or when it appears to condone gross human rights violations by 

granting presidency or chairmanships to bad actors, that good is 

tarnished. 

Madam Chair, an amendment I am offering today tries to restore 

some integrity to the United Nations. It directs the United States’ 

permanent representative to the United Nations to use the voice, 

vote, and influence of the United States to ensure that no representative of a country designated by the Department of State as 

a tier 3 human rights violating country, one that does not fully 

comply with the minimum standards set forth by the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act, shall preside as a chair or president of any 

United Nations panel. 

These are countries that not only do not comply with certain 

basic human rights standards that are the policy of our Government and are assessed by our own State Department but are not 

making any efforts to do so. These countries, again, must get their 

own houses in order before the international community grants 

them any authority on the global stage. I believe this is a responsible and reasonable use of our leverage as a country and will improve the overall mission of the United Nations. 

I thank the chair and the ranking member as well for agreeing 

to adopt this amendment. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Correct. We have adopted it as part of 

the en bloc. 

I thank the gentleman for the time and will now go to Mr. 

Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, although, obviously, philosophically I sadly have a disagreement with the underlying 

premise of this bill, I want to thank you and your staff particularly 

for your accommodation on the en bloc amendments, particularly 

Doug Anderson of your staff and of course the ranking member as 

well. So thank you very much for your courtesy. 

226

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I love the brevity. Thank you so much. 

You are going to be recognized a lot from now on. 

Mrs. Schmidt is recognized. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

I really would like to speak to what I think are some of the positive benefits of this overall bill and really focus my points on the 

peacekeeping issue. 

There are a total of 16 vital and achievable reforms under the 

peacekeeping title, seven of which are required under the certification section of the underlying bill. Madam Chair, these seven reforms tied to the certification include the adoption of a uniform 

code of conduct that applies equally to all peacekeeping personnel, 

regardless of category or rank, training on and distribution of personnel copies of the code of conduct for all peacekeepers, signature 

of an oath by all personnel to abide by the code and assume personal liability for failure to do so, design and implementation of 

educational outreach programs to explain prohibited acts to host 

populations, creation of a centralized database to track cases of 

misconduct, adoption of a model memorandum of understanding, 

and, seven, establishment of an independent investigation and 

audit function for peacekeeping within the U.N. Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations and Office of Internal Oversight Services. 

Madam Chair, these reforms are reasonable, achievable, and, in 

fact, have been recommended by the U.N. itself. All seven of these 

reforms are consistent with the recommendations contained in the 

2005 report by the special advisor on the prevention of sexual exploitations and abuse. All but one of these reforms, the oath, were 

specifically endorsed by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping. 

Additional far-reaching reforms will be required to make U.N. 

peacekeeping more efficient and effective, but for the purposes of 

this bill only the most critical and immediately achievable were addressed. 

Madam Chair, there is a profound sense of urgency when discussing these reforms, for they seek to protect innocents from unconscionable acts of sexual abuse and criminal misconduct, including corruption and the illegal exploitation of natural resources. 

Madam Chair, these acts do not occur in a vacuum. They occur 

when order has broken down and a permissible environment has 

been allowed to flourish. They demean the value of U.N. peacekeeping and offend the values enshrined in the U.N. charter. They 

perpetuate conflict rather than restore peace. 

Just as the peacekeepers owe a duty of care to the people they 

have been sent to protect, we owe a duty of care to the U.N. nations’ peacekeeping. It is incumbent upon us as the greatest contributors to U.N. peacekeeping to do everything within our power 

to help stop these abuses and restore the sullied reputation of U.N. 

peacekeeping. And I commend you, Madam Chair, for advancing 

this in an efficient manner. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. 

We have three last speakers, and then we will move to the vote 

on the Berman substitute. Ms. Schwartz is recognized. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, and I will not take my full time, I 

hope. 

227

But I do want to just say that certainly I wanted to add my voice 

in opposition to the underlying bill that we are considering today 

and wanted to say, as drafted, that my concern, of course, is that 

it would poison the U.S. relationship within the U.N. that could 

eventually force our withdrawal from the United Nations. And 

while there are certainly areas where I would agree with the majority, the other side of the aisle, that there is a need for reform 

in the U.N., and we have discussed many of them at different times 

during the hearings here, but I believe, along with the ranking 

member, that using financial withholdings to advance a shift from 

assess to payments of voluntary—will only lead to additional frustrations within the U.N. and the weakening of our position in making some of the changes and reforms we like to see at the U.N. and, 

in fact, enhance other member states that we disagree with by giving them an even stronger consistent voice in the organization 

without our presence and without our objections. 

The U.N., as we have all talked about, was established as a 

forum for nations to confront our conflicts diplomatically and to collaborate on solutions to problems that affect a significant majority 

of member states. It has served as a significant multiplier for our 

own foreign affairs budget, allows the U.S. to advance our national 

security interests at a fraction of the cost in lives and money of 

sustained military operations. 

Just a comparison, last year the contribution made by the United States to the U.N. was roughly $450 million. It took the Department of Defense roughly 34 hours of operation in Afghanistan to 

spend that same amount of money. So it could certainly be perceived as money very appropriately spent. 

I just want to say, in a world of increasing global problems, it 

is shortsighted to walk away from an institution that has, with our 

direct involvement, been able to advance solutions to these problems. 

Most recently, the U.N. has been instrumental in imposing sanctions on Syria, Libya, and Iran; and we should certainly acknowledge the significant role the U.N. plays in successful peacekeeping 

and humanitarian efforts in critical post-conflict situations around 

the world. 

I appreciate the chairman’s concern regarding the degree of favoritism displayed by members of the U.N. to the Palestinians. 

Nonetheless, Israel itself finds that it works within the U.N. to resolve certain issues. Our involvement as Israel’s friend and ally 

plays an extremely important role in mitigating this hostility and 

advocating for fairness toward Israel within the U.N. 

So, again, I appreciate the need for reform. Nonetheless, the U.N. 

has proven to be invaluable for America and American leadership 

in the world. To abandon the U.N. would only embolden our adversaries. 

These sentiments are shared not only by our own current Secretary of State, but by the previous administration as well. Former 

Secretary John Bolton had come to the Hill on numerous occasions 

to testify against earlier iterations of this legislation over these 

same exact concerns. So, short of the ranking member’s amendment in the nature of a substitute being agreed to, I will not be 

supporting this legislation. 

228

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlelady; and I am so 

pleased to yield to my Florida colleague, Mr. Deutch who, along 

with Ms. Buerkle, represents us so well as our delegates to the 

U.N. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you 

as well for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues, transparency and peacekeepers. 

UNCHR, the Human Rights Council, serves in this anti-Israel—

pervasive anti-Israel bias need to be addressed. And I thank the 

ranking member for his amendment which addresses them, and I 

will support that amendment, but I cannot support this legislation. 

I wanted to focus, as some others have, on the specific issue that 

I spend so much time dealing with, which is this obsession that so 

many member states have with attempts to delegitimize the free 

and democratic state of Israel. There is no arguing that for years 

Israel has been subject to extreme bias by members of the United 

Nations, Durban, Goldstone. Israel has a permanent agenda item 

at the Human Rights Council. These must be condemned, and I 

join every member of this committee in doing so. 

But even after all of these events Israel has not walked away 

from the U.N., and neither should we. Neither should the United 

States. It is because of U.S. engagement that we are able to make 

advances. Since the administration decided to fully reengage at the 

U.N., we have created a long-term strategy to help normalize Israel 

status in and across the U.N. and a broader multilateral system. 

And our engagement serves not only as a benefit to advancing 

Israel as a legitimate member of the international community. It 

serves our interests, more importantly. 

We have worked to ensure that Israel has the opportunity to contribute fully to all U.N. institutions even as it continues to be singled out by some member states. We garnered enough support to 

defeat a resolution at the IAEA singling out Israel’s nuclear program for rebuke. We worked with our ally Israel to support the appointment of Israelis to U.N. positions. Frances Raday was recently 

chosen as an expert member of the Human Rights Council’s special 

working group to eliminate discrimination against women. We 

helped secure the passage of three Israel-sponsored resolutions on 

agricultural technology in the General Assembly. We have worked 

to improve Israel’s status in multilateral bodies, including joining 

the OECD last year, a collection of the world’s 30 top economies. 

Israel has chosen to play an active role in peacekeeping humanitarian missions. Israel is engaged at the U.N.; we should be as 

well. Thanks in part to efforts—U.S. efforts on its behalf, Israel 

will join the board of the U.N. Children’s Fund and chair an economic and social council of that body in the coming months. These 

are the sorts of important steps we have taken. 

At the Human Rights Council it is true there are serious flaws. 

Efforts to delegitimize Israel are pervasive, and anti-Israel resolutions are disproportionate, and the Human Rights Council is the 

best evidence of that. And we have to be critical, and we have to 

argue against it and be passionate in our opposition. 

But had we not scaled back our engagement at the U.N. during 

the last administration, the U.S. would have been at the table from 

the beginning, at the start of the Human Rights Council where we 

229

could have had a say in creating legitimate membership interests, 

standards that would have prevented some of the worst human 

rights abusers like Cuba and Libya from membership. 

Both the chairman’s bill and the ranking member’s substitute 

contain standards for Human Rights Council membership, but only 

the ranking member’s amendment ensures that we are an active 

participant in bringing about reforms. The bottom line is, since 

U.S. involvement in the Human Rights Council, the U.S. has had 

a significant impact. Since we rejoined, our leadership led to the 

authorization of international mandates to closely monitor and address human rights situations in Iran, Libya, Syria, the Ivory 

Coast, Burma, North Korea, Cambodia, and Sudan. 

Perhaps most importantly, it was U.S. leadership that kept Iran 

and Syria from gaining seats on the Council. We helped establish 

a special rapporteur on human rights in Iran. We were there to 

speak out vehemently against the Goldstone report. We were there. 

We were showing leadership. 

That is what the United States always does. The United States 

doesn’t turn and walk away from a battle. We have to stand up for 

what we believe in, and we have to do it in a forum where the entire world hears what we say. 

Nothing would hurt Israel more, by the way, or hurt our interests or any of our allies’ interests if we decided—if another country 

decided, because we stopped making payments to the United Nations, if someone decided to challenge our position on the Security 

Council. They could say that the U.S. doesn’t take its responsibility 

to the international community seriously. Why should it continue 

to have a permanent seat on the Security Council? 

Imagine if we didn’t have a veto. Imagine what we would not 

have been able to do on behalf of our interests and our allies’ interests. We have to stand up for what we believe in as a nation, and 

we need to do it in the venue that gives us the loudest and strongest voice. 

I thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Carnahan, that was a bloodless coup d’etat. I dethroned you. 

You are our very able partner at the U.N. with Ms. Buerkle. 

You are recognized. You are our last speaker. We will then vote 

on the Berman substitute and then go on to the underlying bill. 

Mr. Carnahan is recognized. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. 

It is with great respect—I just want to go on record—I cannot 

support your U.N. reform bill without Ranking Member Berman’s 

substitute language. Many of us here want to see continued reforms throughout the U.N. system, but not retreat. And none of us, 

including me, condone many of the actions that we have heard 

about that have gone on at the U.N. We have heard over time but 

also we have heard recited here today. 

But the best way—the best way to push reforms and advance our 

core values and beliefs is through responsible, effective engagement 

and by meeting our financial obligations. The Bush administration 

policy of underfunding those obligations to the U.N., and adhering 

to a policy of disengagement throughout the U.N. system damaged 

230

our standing at the U.N. and around the world and brought our 

perception around the world to its lowest levels on record. 

The bill would turn back the clock to these Bush era policies of 

disengagement, undermine our credibility, weaken our ability to 

advocate for reform, and inhibit our ability to champion our values 

and will put at risk U.S. national security interests. I believe that 

anti-U.S., anti-democratic, and anti-reform contingents at the U.N. 

would think this kind of disengagement was great, because it is 

like us taking our players off the field and putting our agenda at 

a disadvantage. 

While far from perfect, the record of accomplishment over the 

past several years proves that a policy of engagement is far more 

successful than one of disengagement. Among a few of the successes—think about it—the U.S. engagement; critical structural reforms implemented; creating U.N. women, streamlining women’s 

programs throughout the U.N. system; serious management reforms, including higher ethical standards and whistle-blower protections; groundbreaking U.N. Security Council actions on Iran and 

North Korea; and forcing Iran to give up its seat on the Human 

Rights Council. 

Key accomplishments at the Human Rights Council include resolutions on freedom of expression, assembly, and discrimination; creation of the human rights monitoring mechanisms for Cote d’Ivoire, 

Libya, Iran, and Syria; and positive steps forward on reducing a 

number of anti-Israel resolutions on the Council. 

And for those of my colleagues concerned about our ally Israel, 

talk to any of the representatives of the country of Israel. I am sure 

you will hear from them their strong support for full-strength U.S. 

involvement at the U.N. and not a watered-down U.S. engagement. 

So, with that, we still have progress to be made at the U.N., but 

our reputation, our ability to affect change, and these accomplishments prove that a policy of engagement is far better than a policy 

of disengagement. This bill is not in our national interest, and I 

urge that we support the substitute language of Ranking Member 

Berman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cardoza is recognized. He is going to yield time to Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to yield 

such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague from New 

York. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman. I just need a minute or 

so to wrap up. 

First, a lot of the justification of this bill is attributed to trying 

to help Israel. I think we have all noted, especially recently, that 

Israel gets unjustly blamed for an awful lot of things in this world. 

I didn’t think that this bill by the majority should be one of them. 

There is no justification to pin this on Israel. If you want to pass 

it, pass it on your own arguments, but don’t lay this at Israel’s feet. 

Talk to the Israelis if you really want to know what they think 

about it. 

Secondly, one of our colleagues brought up a question—I guess 

it was more in tone of trying to discredit the existence of the 

United Nations by its funding source. I was quite surprised. I don’t 

231

think you should jump to a conclusion that just because the Rockefellers are Republicans or just because they are rich that makes 

them greedy. They did not donate the property for the United Nations to get a tax credit. 

You may find it shocking, but the United Nations is not a 

501(c)(3) charity designated entity of the United States. Surprise, 

surprise. But your legislation seems to treat it as such, and you 

would deny it the right to exist because you might disagree with 

some of the things that it does on behalf of its total membership, 

which I disagree with also from time to time. 

The United Nations is an important place. It doesn’t do everything right. We don’t do everything right. I don’t do everything 

right. I don’t know anybody that does everything right. But we 

have to strive to make things better, especially something that is 

set up with the intent of making things better in the world. That 

is the purpose of the United Nations. 

We shouldn’t be looking because we disagree with some of the 

things that occur there or the votes—I disagree with some of the 

votes that are done here—we don’t want to do away with the Congress, or do we? 

We are starting another movement. 

This approach is basically if you don’t like what is going on in 

a place that we have membership with the entire international 

community that the direction we should take is just cut and run, 

cut the money and run away. That is what this bill does. It is cut 

and run. It is not stand and fight for the things in which we believe 

to try to make the world a better place, to convince players that 

are not decent players that they should become better players and 

to resolve conflicts by peaceful means. Just cut and run. Starve the 

beast. Take away the money. Let’s get out. 

Do you know who would be happy with this strategy, who would 

gladly vote for this bill? If you are looking for international votes 

for this bill, do you know who wants it? The countries that get 

sanctioned by the U.N. 

The Iranians love this bill. No U.S. involvement in the U.N., no 

U.N. to sanction them, no countries united to deprive them of the 

ability to do the things that they are looking to do that are rather 

dark and sinister. The Iranians will vote for this bill. Give them 

a chance. 

The Libyans will vote for this bill. They don’t like the U.N. either. They don’t want us involved. The Syrians would love us out. 

The Cubans would love us out. The North Koreans would love us 

out. 

These are the supporters of this dark bill. If you are looking for 

support for this bill, look to those countries. Don’t look to this side 

of the aisle. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Hearing no further request for time, the question occurs on——

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. I ask unanimous consent to include in the 

record——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

232

Mr. BERMAN [continuing]. A letter from the Secretary of State 

and the Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research Associates 

poll on——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]


70666h-1.eps
233


70666h-2.eps
234


70666i-1.eps
235


70666i-2.eps
236


70666i-3.eps
237


70666i-4.eps
238


70666i-5.eps
239


70666i-6.eps
240


70666i-7.eps
241


70666i-8.eps
242

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And if I could put also in the record 

Ambassador Bolton’s enthusiastic support for this bill. I don’t know 

where it came out——

Mr. BERMAN. He is not under instructions any longer. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Many op-eds that he has written in 

favor of this bill. 

But if we are going to put in things for the record, without objection, let that be in there as well. 

[The information referred to follows:]


70666j-1.eps
243


70666j-2.eps 70666j-3.eps
244


70666k-1.eps
245


70666k-2.eps
246

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs on the Berman substitute amendment. All 

those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Having concluded consideration of the Berman substitute and 

hearing no further amendment, the question occurs on agreeing to 

the bill, H.R. 2829, as amended. The clerk will call the roll. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes aye. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes aye. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. BURTON. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly off no, on aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes aye. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes aye. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes aye. 

Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson votes aye. 

Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes aye. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. McCaul votes aye. 

Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe votes aye. 

Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. 

Mrs. Schmidt. 

247

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mrs. Schmidt votes aye. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes aye. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes aye. 

Mr. Griffin. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes aye. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes aye. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes aye. 

Mrs. Ellmers. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mrs. Ellmers votes aye. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes aye. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes no. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes no. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne votes no. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes no. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes no. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Meeks votes no. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes no. 

Mr. Sires. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly. 

248

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes no. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DUETCH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes no. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

Mr. CARDOZA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cardoza votes no. 

Mr. Chandler. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes no. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schwartz votes no. 

Mr. Murphy. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes no. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes no. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Fortenberry wanted us to wait, 

but I am sorry. We know how he feels about the bill anyway. 

The clerk will call the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 23 ayes, and 

15 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

The ayes have it. The bill is agreed to, and without objection the 

motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. Without objection, the 

bill, as amended, will be reported favorably to the House as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the 

amendments adopted by the committee; and the staff is directed to 

make technical and conforming changes. 

Having concluded today’s business, I want to thank all of our 

members and the staff for the hard work and the cooperation that 

went into this markup. 

And, with that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(249)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

250

f


70666n.eps
251


70666m-1.eps
252

f


70666m-2.eps
253


70666l-1.eps
254


70666l-2.eps
255

Æ


70666l-3.eps