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

65–630PDF 2011

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS:

THE FUTURE OF U.S. POLICY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 7, 2011

Serial No. 112–35

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 

VACANT 

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

WITNESS 

The Honorable Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United 

Nations, U.S. Department of State ..................................................................... 15

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

The Honorable Susan Rice: Prepared statement .................................................. 18

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 56

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 57

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 59

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Material submitted for the record ................................................... 61

Questions for the record submitted to the Honorable Susan Rice by the 

Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen .......................................................................... 64

Questions for the record submitted to the Honorable Susan Rice by the 

Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York .......................................................................................................... 71

(1)

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS: THE 

FUTURE OF U.S. POLICY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana RosLehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee will come to order. Before we begin, on behalf of the committee, I would like to express 

our condolences to the family members of the seven U.N. personnel 

murdered in Afghanistan last Friday, and of the 32 people, both 

U.N. staff and others, who died Monday in a plane crash in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo. If I may, I would ask that in our 

seats we observe a moment of silence for those who have lost their 

lives. 

[A moment of silence was observed.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. After recognizing myself 

and the ranking member, my good friend Mr. Berman, for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, we will then recognize members of the committee who seek recognition for 1 minute each. 

The chair will then recognize our distinguished witness and a 

friend of the committee, Ambassador Rice. Following her testimony, 

members will be recognized for questions under the 5-minute rule. 

Without objection, Ambassador Rice’s prepared statement will be 

made a part of the record, and members may have 5 days to insert 

statements and questions for the record, subject to the limitations 

of length in the rules. 

The chair now recognizes herself for 7 minutes. 

It is always a pleasure to welcome you back to our committee. 

Thank you, Ambassador Rice, for your appearance today. 

This is the third session the committee has held this year on reforming the United Nations. In the past decade, the U.N.’s regular 

budget has more than doubled. But has the U.N.’s transparency, 

accountability, or effectiveness increased in proportion? 

Well, the former head of the U.N.’s own internal ethics office had 

this to say in her exit report, excerpts of which were leaked to the 

press: ‘‘There is no transparency. There is [a] lack of accountability 

. . . I regret to say that the [U.N.] Secretariat now is in a process 

of decay . . . It is drifting into irrelevance.’’

The U.N. has never released the full report to the public. Former 

U.N. Deputy Secretary General March Malloch Brown said earlier 

this year, ‘‘There is a huge redundancy and lack of efficiency in the 

2

U.N. system, and that the U.N. budget is utterly opaque, un-transparent, and completely in shadow.’’

Some take comfort in the U.N. General’s call for a 3-percent cut 

in the next biennial budget. But 3 percent? That is like forgoing 

a cost of living increase. At our hearing last month, we considered 

lessons learned from past U.N. reform attempts to ensure that 

present and future efforts are based on what works. 

The most important lesson? Money talks. In fact, Ambassador 

Rice, you recognized this is a February 2005 op-ed published in the 

Washington Post, entitled ‘‘Promoting Democracy: Money Talks.’’

Almost every productive U.S. effort at reforming the U.N. has 

been based on withholding our contributions unless and until needed reforms are implemented. 

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

were skyrocketing, Congress enacted the Helms-Biden agreement. 

The U.S. withheld our dues, and conditioned payments on key reforms. When the U.N. saw that we meant business, they agreed to 

changes that saved U.S. taxpayers funds. 

So smart withholding works. Given that now Vice President 

Biden signed on to smart withholding then, and it worked, I hope 

that the administration will agree to support it now. 

But smart withholding alone is insufficient to produce the lasting, systemic reform that our U.S. taxpayers are demanding. That 

is why we must move funding for the U.N. budget and the U.N. 

entities from an assessed to a voluntary basis. 

Americans, not U.N. bureaucrats or other countries, should determine how much taxpayer dollars are spent on the U.N., where 

they go, and for what purpose. That is at the core of the United 

Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, which I 

first introduced in the year 2007, and which I will soon be reintroducing with updates to reflect recent developments concerning the 

U.N. 

We should pay for U.N. programs and activities that advance our 

interests and our values. If other countries want different things to 

be funded, they can pay for it. The voluntary model works for 

UNICEF, for the World Food Program, and other U.N. entities, and 

it can work for the U.N. as a whole. 

Catherine Bertini, the former U.N. Under Secretary General for 

management and director of the World Food Programs has said,

‘‘Voluntary funding creates an entirely different atmosphere at 

the World Food Program than at the U.N. At the WFP, every 

staff member knows that we have to be as efficient, accountable, transparent, and results-oriented as possible. If we are 

not, donor governments can take their funding elsewhere in a 

very competitive world among U.N. agencies, NGOs, and bilateral governments.’’

Ambassador Rice, with respect to the references in your prepared 

testimony to the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services, I must 

highlight that scores of procurement corruption and fraud cases 

from the now-defunct Procurement Task Force are collecting dust 

in this Office of Internal Oversight Services. 

The job of lead investigator has not been filled on a permanent 

basis since 2006. The individual who currently holds that position 

3

on an interim basis is under investigation himself for retaliating 

against whistle-blowers. 

Finally, Madam Ambassador, your written testimony says, ‘‘The 

U.N. helps isolate terrorists and human rights abusers,’’ but Iran 

is on the board of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. 

The vice chair of the U.N. Human Rights Council is the Cuban regime. The majority of the Council’s members are not free nations. 

And until Ghadafi’s massacre of civilians forced its expulsion, 

Libya had a seat on the Council. 

The Council, of course, did manage at last month’s session to 

adopt six resolutions attacking our free, democratic ally, Israel—

more than at any previous session. The Council also recommended 

the referral of the anti-Israel Goldstone Report to the U.N. Security 

Council, and the International Criminal Court. 

The 5-year review of the Council has indicated no real structural 

reforms will be forthcoming. Even the U.S. mission has called this 

process ‘‘a race to the bottom.’’

The Syrian regime is brutally attacking its people, yet it is running unopposed for a seat on the Human Rights Council. The absence of structural reforms has real consequences. We appreciate 

the limited tactical victories that the U.S. and other nations won 

at the Council’s most recent sessions, but that is just not enough. 

Most of us want a more accountable and effective U.N. I believe 

that the way to achieve this is to require reform first, pay later. 

And lastly, I ask that the U.S. do all we can, Madam Ambassador, to ensure that the Palestinian lobby does not gain member 

status in the U.N. before negotiating a true peace with our ally, 

Israel. 

And now I am pleased to recognize our distinguished ranking 

member, my good friend Mr. Berman, for his opening remarks. 

Welcome, Madam Ambassador. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ros-Lehtinen follows:]

4


65630b-1.eps
5


65630b-2.eps
6

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And 

thank you very much for scheduling this hearing, which allows the 

administration to share its views on the best approach to U.N. reform. 

This is one of those issues where, just based on what you have 

outlined in your opening statement, we share the same goals, but 

have very different views of how best to get there. 

I want to thank Ambassador Rice for taking the time out of her 

hectic schedule to be with us today. And before we get into the arguments about where the U.N. is flawed and where it is doing good 

work, I just want to follow up on the opening comments of my 

chairman, and remind my colleagues that these discussions here 

aren’t just theoretical. 

Behind every U.N. office, program, and mission, there are real 

people who have dedicated their lives to feeding the hungry, organizing democratic elections, and keeping the peace. 

As the chairman mentioned, in the last week alone over 40 U.N. 

staff and contractors have been killed in the line of duty in five different countries around the world. We have mentioned the seven 

that were brutally murdered in Afghanistan, the 32 that perished 

in a plane crash in the Congo, a peacekeeper that was abducted 

and killed in Darfur, and another peacekeeper that was killed in 

Haiti, as well as a staff member that was killed in the Ivory Coast. 

And we honor the enormous sacrifices of these brave men and 

women, and send our condolences to their families. 

Ambassador Rice, you deserve an enormous amount of credit for 

your work to pass the most far-reaching Iran sanctions ever approved by the Security Council, and for your efforts to secure U.N. 

backing for the no-fly zone in Libya. 

We also appreciate the work you have done to promote efficiency, 

accountability, and transparency at the United Nations. With many 

critical issues weighing on the U.N. agenda, including the possible 

recognition of a Palestinian state, the continuation of the flawed 

Durban process, it is absolutely essential that the United States 

maintain a leadership role in the organization. 

And our diplomatic standing in New York and Geneva will be 

dramatically weakened if Congress passes legislation that may 

soon be considered in this committee. By withholding a significant 

portion of our assessed dues unless a nearly impossible list of conditions is met, this bill would severely hinder our ability to pursue 


65630b-3.eps
7

U.S. foreign policy and national security interests, support our allies, and achieve the reforms that both the chairman and I think 

are necessary. 

On the surface, withholding funds sounds like an attractive option. After all, it’s an approach many in Congress use to encourage 

changes in the executive branch. But the U.N. isn’t like the executive branch. 

Like it or not, we are one of 192 member states. And while we 

certainly have tremendous leverage over the Security Council and 

other U.N. organizations, simply refusing to pay our bills is counterproductive. 

The last time the U.S.—here we have a different view of history. 

The last time Congress forced the U.S. into significant arrears at 

the U.N., an effort led by former Senator Jesse Helms, we lost our 

seat on the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

Questions, which is really the most important U.N. budget panel. 

If the goal of the Helms arrears was to diminish U.S. influence 

and put genuine U.N. reform on the back burner, then that goal 

was achieved beyond anyone’s dreams. If, however, the objective 

was to foster meaningful reform, then this withholding of dues 

must be judged a failure. 

That point was clearly articulated by former State Department 

official Terry Miller, one of the Republican witnesses at our previous U.N. hearing, who testified—not a witness that I called—

‘‘Sadly, neither Helms-Biden withholding, nor even the long 

UNESCO withdrawal can be shown to have had any—much long 

term impact on the efficiency, effectiveness, or even the integrity 

of the U.N. system.’’

Ambassador Rice, as the mission in New York gears up for the 

battles ahead, I look forward to hearing your views on how withholding U.S. dues to the U.N. would impact our efforts to prevent 

the recognition of a Palestinian state, and pursue other U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. 

Unfortunately, much of the debate over U.N. reform has been 

characterized by dated and sometimes exaggerated allegations, 

such as the ‘‘Cash for Kim’’ scandal. I agree with Ambassador Mark 

Wallace, the other Republican witness from the committee’s last 

hearing, who argued that the State Department and Congress need 

a system of verifiable metrics in order to accurately evaluate the 

progress of U.N. reform efforts. 

Ambassador Wallace testified the United Nations Transparency 

and Accountability Initiative, an effort he spearheaded while serving at the U.S. mission in New York, is ‘‘a user-friendly way for 

anyone interested in U.N. reform, notably many taxpaying Americans, to evaluate the progress being made on key reform issues, to 

ensure that funds were utilized efficiently and effectively for their 

intended purpose.’’

We are constantly told by our friends on the other side of the 

aisle that the U.N. is a cesspool of corruption, and a money pit for 

U.S. taxpayer dollars. Yet based on our review of the data, UNTAI 

has demonstrated marked improvement among nearly every U.N. 

agency, program, and fund. 

This is the initiative the previous administration achieved before 

they left office. Why are my friends on the other side of the aisle 

8

so eager to bypass and undermine a promising reform effort begun 

by Republican appointees in the George W. Bush administration? 

Madam Chairman, we agree that much remains to be done to 

promote greater efficiency, accountability, and transparency at the 

United Nations, and to eliminate the anti-Israel vitriol that all-toooften emanates from the Human Rights Council and other U.N. 

bodies. 

But we have a fundamental disagreement about the best means 

to achieve that reform. Based on our experience in recent years, I 

would argue that withholding U.S. dues simply doesn’t work, and 

that a much better approach is to continue and accelerate the quiet 

but effective approach to U.N. reform begun in the previous administration. 

And finally, Ambassador Rice, I would like to reiterate my strong 

support for the work you and all your colleagues in the mission in 

New York have done to promote our foreign policy interests at the 

U.N. Representing the U.S. at the U.N. can sometimes be a thankless task, but we are very grateful to have you there. 

Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman. 

And Mr. Smith of New Jersey, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, and Human Rights chair, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Ambassador Rice, welcome to the committee again. Let me just very briefly ask you—and I hope in your testimony you will cover this, but 

just update the committee on the U.N.’s stepped-up efforts to seat 

President Ouattara, who obviously won the election in the Ivory 

Coast. And I know that the U.N. has accelerated its efforts, if you 

could give us an update on that. 

Also on the issue of the upcoming Durban Conference. I know we 

voted no in December, and I greatly appreciate—I know we all do—

the administration stepping up and trying to defeat that. But if you 

could speak to whether or not we plan on not attending—as you 

know, all the major Jewish organizations have strongly recommended that we pull out, and if you could speak to that, as well. 

And finally, as I have asked repeatedly, the ongoing problems in 

DR Congo and the new, or relatively fresh, allegations of peacekeepers abusing young people, and especially young women—you 

know, it is an ongoing scandal. Peacekeepers obviously endure a 

great amount of risk, but it is intolerable to think that some of 

those peacekeepers are raping and committing sexual violence. If 

you could speak to that, as well. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Payne, the 

ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, 

and Human Rights, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, and let me commend you for 

the outstanding work that you continue to do. I agree with Ranking 

Member Berman that I don’t think that withholding dues is the 

way to go. As a matter of fact, I think that there are countries that 

would probably want us to withhold dues, so that we would continue to reduce our influence in the United Nations. 

I think it is the wrong way to go. I would like to commend the 

U.S. for its overwhelming vote in the Human Rights Council, which 

9

it has won. And I know that we will, once again, hopefully, put ourselves up for reelection to the Human Rights Council again. 

Let me just say that I commend the great job done in South 

Sudan with the election, and we hope that Abyei can certainly be 

dealt with. 

We appreciate the possible increase in troops in Somalia, which 

I think is a very key area. Uganda and Burundi’s additional 2,000 

troops each, I think, will go far to have more of a stability in the 

Somalia region. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

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

welcome, Ambassador Rice. I would disagree with my friend Mr. 

Berman. All of us do not have the same goals in mind, and there 

are people on your side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle who 

believe that we should move toward global government. 

And the fact is, the United Nations is being used as a vehicle, 

perhaps, to see how global government will function. And if there 

is anything that has convinced me that we should not be moving 

toward global government, it is the folly of the United Nations. 

The fact that right now we are in such an economic crisis and 

we are expected to pay 22 percent of the budget of the United Nations with no strings attached is an incredible demand on the people of the United States of America. 

So instead of trying to foist off global government on them, perhaps we should start working to make sure that our country is 

functioning well. And that means using our resources in the best 

possible way, and not giving it to an organization that permits 

communist China, the world’s worst human rights abuser, to have 

a veto power over what it does. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, the ranking 

member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and 

Trade. 

Mr. SHERMAN. First, I think we have a human rights obligation 

to protect Camp Ashraf from the attacks of the Iraqi Government, 

a government that exists because we put it there, and a government that is using the fact that, in actions criticized by a United 

States court, the State Department still has the MEK on the terrorist list but has not opened up the process to determine whether 

that decision withstands the light of day. 

Now let me trouble you with an accounting issue. We are dramatically understating the amount we spend for U.N. military actions. This may help you in domestic politics, because you can say 

‘‘Well, we are not really putting in that much money,’’ but it undermines your efforts to get other countries to do more. 

We are, for example, dramatically understating the cost of what 

we are doing in Libya by using the highly discredited marginal cost 

accounting and reporting that as costing only $600 million. We 

need to use full-cost accounting, which will reveal what the American people instinctively understand, and that is that effort is costing us billions a week. 

If we use full-cost accounting, which is the proper accounting approach, to tell the world what we spend on the military actions 

10

sanctioned by the United Nations, you will see that we are putting 

in 50 percent, not 20 percent. I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chabot 

is recognized. He is the Subcommittee on the Middle East and 

South Asia chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ambassador Rice, I want 

to be very frank. Whereas I strongly support the administration’s 

decision to veto the recent U.N. resolution condemning Israel, as 

chairman of the Foreign Affairs Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee I strongly object to your so-called Explanation of Vote, 

in which you not only did not support Israel, but you actually 

joined in the criticism of Israel. 

In 529 short words, this administration undid most, if not all, of 

the good that had been done by its veto. In my opinion, with your 

words, you in effect threw America’s historic ally, Israel, to the 

wolves. 

And secondly, on another issue, following the massacre of U.N. 

staff in Afghanistan last week, the top U.N. official—the top U.N. 

official in Afghanistan—stated that, ‘‘I don’t think we should be 

blaming any Afghan. We should be blaming the person who produced the news, the one who burned the Koran.’’

I would like to know whether or not the administration agrees 

with that statement, especially when considering that the United 

States is the leading funder and supporter of the U.N. around the 

world, and especially in Afghanistan. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Engel, 

the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, is recognized. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome, Madam 

Secretary. Many of us met with you last week, and I want to again 

reiterate that I personally thank you for the wonderful job you are 

doing representing our country. 

We just met with Bank Ki-Moon for breakfast, and we expressed 

some of our frustrations. And I know that will come out later in 

the questions as well, but we are frustrated and tired of the U.N. 

using Israel as a punching bag. 

I am hoping that there can be a repudiation of the Goldstone Report. Judge Goldstone himself repudiated it, and I gave a speech 

on the House floor last night saying that the U.N. ought to repudiate it as well. 

I chair the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Very chagrined at the unilateral recognition of Palestine by some of the 

South American countries, and that it becomes a disincentive for 

getting the Palestinians to sit down and talk, because this way 

they think they can just get recognized as well. 

So these are some of the questions I am going to ask later on. 

And again, thank you personally for your good work. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Ms. Schmidt of 

Ohio is recognized. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Madam 

Ambassador, for being here. I just want to focus my remarks on 

two things. 

11

The first is the Human Rights Council. You know, it came into 

existence in 2006 to supposedly replace the Commission on Human 

Rights, and it is really, quite frankly, difficult to see any difference. 

The Council, while consistently ignoring human rights abuses of 

its own members, such as Libya and Cuba, routinely introduces 

resolutions criticizing and condemning Israel. If its only purpose is 

to denounce our ally in the Middle East, then I suggest maybe we 

ought to move off the Council. 

The second is my concern with the excessive budget of the 

United Nations and the disproportionate share that is being paid 

by the taxpayers of the United States. We are assessed almost one 

quarter of the regular operating budget. We are also paying 30 percent of the peacekeeping budget. We are paying 100 percent of the 

costs to upgrade the security at the headquarters in New York. 

This amounts to $100 million for that alone. 

In the last 10 years, the U.N.’s biennial budget has more than 

doubled. Larger budgets for the U.N. means larger deficits for the 

United States. I think it has come time to reform our share of contributions. 

Again, thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Meeks, the 

ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Ambassador, 

let me just first thank you for the great work that you have been 

doing at the United Nations. When we look at you, with all that 

has been going on, we are very proud of you and how you have 

been representing the United States of America. 

I want to also extend my sincere regrets and condolences to the 

U.N. families for the families who lost their lives in Afghanistan 

in service of the United Nations. 

And though we are here today focused on U.N. reform, I want 

to take time to commend the vigorous and vital role the U.N. has 

played in recent life- and security-threatening situations. 

The Security Council’s resolution coordinating and shaping a unified engagement in Libya, and the U.N. action in Cote d’Ivoire represents the U.N. at its muscular, nimble, and assertive best. 

On this, the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Convention on Refugees, I would like to take special note of the United Nations High 

Commission on Refugees’ critical activities around the globe, and 

highlight the role that UNHCR played in providing shelter for displaced people in Krygyzstan before the winter set in, and tending 

to the refugees fleeing the fighting and discrimination in Libya. 

And we know that the United States representative has shaped 

such engagement, and we thank you for it. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Kelly, the 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific vice chair. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Ambassador, 

it is nice to have you with us. I am deeply concerned with the U.N. 

peacekeeping mission, and as we go forward, we are all concerned 

because of the unsustainable debt that the United States continues 

to run up. And using the President’s term of investments, we have 

quite an investment in the U.N., and we need to see type of a return, a positive return, on that investment. 

12

And so my anticipation through your testimony is going to be the 

U.N. peacekeeping operation in Libya right now, as it continues to 

escalate, and what we look at as a kinetic military action, I would 

like to know what our full commitment is going to be as we go forward, and the impact it is going to have on Americans and the contribution that we make to the U.N. 

So thank you for being here with us today. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carnahan, the 

ranking member on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Ambassador. Welcome back. We are a little more than 2 years into the 

Obama administration’s reform and re-engagement agenda at the 

U.N. and other multilateral organizations, and we think there has 

been important progress. 

While I still have serious concerns about some reform efforts at 

the U.N., and with the Human Rights Council in particular, recent 

successes like the establishment of the Special Rapporteur on the 

human rights situation in Iran, I think, are important. 

I was also pleased to hear the announcement of the administration that they would be running for another term. I believe that the 

global challenges in the 21st century require a strong multilateral 

engagement. 

Being engaged and at the table is a far better policy than one 

of retreat and disengagement that weakens American clout, harms 

our national interest, and plays into the hands of our adversaries. 

I want to see us continue that policy of reform and re-engagement at the U.N., and I appreciate your strong efforts to lead that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Duncan of South 

Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, I am greatly concerned that we 

lack a clear indication of how much the United States contributes 

to the United Nations through assessed and voluntary contributions. In previous hearings, witnesses have not been able to provide 

numbers or statistics on how much we are spending, and what specific programs American taxpayers support financially. 

Furthermore, in those programs that we do know where the 

money goes, such as the UNRWA and the IAEA, we see multiple 

fundamental problems. UNRWA refuses to vet its staff for ties to 

terrorist organizations, and American contributions in the past 

have fallen in the hands of Hamas. 

That is unacceptable. The Human Rights Council is laughable. 

Its two core institutional flaws plague its system with no recourse 

for change. It allows countries that commit human abuses—China, 

Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Russia—to sit on its Council and vote, 

while possessing continuous platforms of one-sided criticism of 

Israel, a vital American ally. 

America should not tolerate such actions. Ambassador Rice, you 

have a responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution, provide for the common defense, and ensure that American taxpayer 

dollars receive the greatest return on our investment. I look forward to your responses to my questions. 

13

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome, 

Ambassador Rice. Three points. One is, I think history says that 

the United Nations has been a vital and essential part in complementing U.S. foreign policy interests around the world, has been 

since its founding, which we helped create 65 years ago. And people 

need to remember that. 

Secondly, the idea that we are going to take our marbles and go 

home because we don’t like various aspects of the U.N., including 

when it exercises its democratic right to disagree with us, is to me 

a juvenile posture not worthy of a great nation. Roll up your 

sleeves, and make it better. That’s the answer. 

And thirdly, the idea that the U.N. is part of some global conspiracy to create a global government is rehashed right-wing claptrap we have been hearing for over 60 years. It ain’t true, and also 

unworthy of a great power to even express. 

Thank you, and welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Fortenberry, the vice chair of the 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Welcome, Ambassador Rice, and thank you 

for your testimony today. The United Nations presents us with 

some very serious problems, challenges, as well as potential. The 

body can be used for great good, or it can also facilitate great harm. 

We have seen, for example, the commitment and resolve of U.N. 

troops in the Ivory Coast to help quickly end that country’s nightmare. 

However, when the power of the U.N. is used as a platform for 

ideologies that are inconsistent with universal values, whether at 

the so-called Human Rights Council or in our own participation in 

entities such as the U.N. Population Fund, which now goes so far 

as to align itself with abortion advocacy, we are as guilty as other 

nations in leveraging that body for controversial norms that are 

both an affront to human dignity and human rights. 

Now with that said, I believe your push and your support of the 

effort to pass the resolution—end the resolution combating discrimination and violence—had a very important effect in defending 

religious freedom, and I am grateful for that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. 

Deutch of Florida is recognized. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome, Ambassador Rice. Ambassador, prior to Richard Goldstone’s article 

last weekend, the Human Rights Council had just recently adopted 

a resolution by Richard Falk, Special Rapporteur on Palestinian 

Human Rights—perhaps also known as special rapporteur to encourage further anti-Israel bias—accusing Israel of committing ethnic cleansing. 

In Goldstone’s admission, he confirms that the Israeli army 

didn’t intentionally fire on civilians in Gaza, but that Hamas purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets. 

Based on his findings and his statement, I hope that you will 

speak to the Council’s ability to seek the reconsideration, the revocation, or the retraction of the Goldstone report, in large measure 

because of the opportunity it provides to acknowledge that Israel 

14

has the right, if not the duty, like any other civilized nation, to 

take action to protect its citizens, civilians, who are under an onslaught of attacks. And I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Rivera of 

Florida. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t want to reiterate 

my colleagues’ concerns that they have raised regarding the United 

Nations Human Rights Council as well, and our participation along 

with other countries that can only be called human rights abusers, 

such as China and Cuba, and to understand the justification for 

why we even participate in such a farce such as the U.N. Human 

Rights Council. 

Also, with respect to one of those human rights abusers, Cuba, 

and the annual vote that occurs at the United Nations regarding 

the embargo, the embargo is U.S. policy. We always have certain 

friends, staunch allies like Israel, that stand with us on that vote, 

but I would like to hear a little bit about what are our efforts to 

make a more multilateral approach and bring more support to U.S. 

policy throughout the region. 

We know that Cuba, for example, is a state sponsor of terrorism. 

We know they are harboring terrorists. We know that the Castro 

regime is harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, such as drug traffickers, cop-killers, and embezzlers, and I would like to know what 

our administration’s efforts are at the United Nations to make the 

U.S. policy of the embargo more of a multilateral support effort in 

that institution. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just like to 

reiterate that I hope you can comment on the issue of Palestinian 

unilateralism, which I believe my other colleagues have mentioned 

prior to this as well. 

At that, I will yield back my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Wow. We are not used to that. It is 

like the reform at the U.N., what do we do? What is that about? 

Ms. Buerkle of New York, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on 

Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you, 

Ambassador Rice, for being here this morning. I just want to echo 

the comments of my colleagues and the concerns they have talked 

about. 

Specifically, I look forward to a discussion regarding the funding 

by the United States of America to the U.N., particularly with the 

peacekeeping efforts where audits have indicated that there has 

been fraud and abuse of dollars in the peacekeeping efforts. 

And beyond that, I look forward to a discussion about the antiIsrael bias that the U.N. tends to exhibit. So I look forward to our 

hearing this morning, and thank you for being here. I yield. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Ms. Wilson of Florida. 

Ms. WILSON OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, for 

this important hearing this morning. First, I offer my belated condolences to the Ambassador and her family. The Ambassador’s father, Emmett Rice, who passed away a little less than a month ago, 

15

was truly one of the economic pioneers in our nation, and his loss 

will be greatly missed. 

Second, during these fiscally tough times, it is important that we 

have a fair and objective process, filled with individuals capable of 

ensuring that the people’s money is being effectively and efficiently 

spent. We want to ensure that the law and the intent of the Congress—the laws are being followed in the programs that we authorize. 

The American people expect no less. 

Currently, the United Nations is on the ground in Afghanistan, 

Libya, Sudan, the Ivory Coast, among other war-torn localities. 

Seven U.N. staffers were beaten, shot and killed during the attack 

on their compound in Afghanistan. The U.N., while not perfect, has 

done much to forward the goals of both the U.N. and the United 

States. 

I thank Ambassador Rice for her hard work in protecting the interests of the United States, and I look forward to your testimony 

today. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thanks to all the 

members for excellent opening statements. And now we are so 

pleased to welcome a friend of our committee, Ambassador Susan 

Rice, back to our committee. Ambassador Rice is the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. 

She served in the Clinton administration as Assistant Secretary 

of State for African Affairs from ’97 to ’01, and in senior posts on 

the National Security Council from ’93 to ’97. Following her service 

in the State Department, she was a senior fellow at the Brookings 

Institution from ’02 to ’09. 

Ambassador Rice has also served in the private sector, and on 

numerous boards, and we thank her for agreeing to testify today. 

Madam Ambassador, please proceed, and welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN RICE, U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Representative Berman, members of this committee, it is an honor to have the chance to come before the committee again today. I thank you, Madam Chairman, for including 

my full statement in the record, which I will summarize now. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

Ambassador RICE. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude for 

the many kind words of sympathy that have been expressed by 

many members of the committee regarding the recent losses that 

the United Nations has suffered in a number of countries of late. 

It has indeed been a very difficult period, and your expressions of 

sympathy will be very appreciated. 

I want to begin this morning by recalling the U.N.’s response to 

the crisis in Libya, which in my estimation further reminds us of 

the value of the United Nations in an age of 21st century challenges. 

With U.S. leadership, the Security Council swiftly authorized the 

use of force to save civilians at risk of mass slaughter. It established a no-fly zone and imposed strong sanctions on the Ghadafi 

16

regime. With broad international support, we also suspended Libya 

from the U.N. Human Rights Council by consensus, a historic first. 

As we well know, America’s resources and influence are by no 

means limitless, and that is why the United Nations is so important to our national security. It allows us to share the costs and 

burdens of tackling global problems, rather than leaving these 

problems untended or leaving the world to look to the United 

States alone. 

I therefore ask for this committee’s support for the President’s 

budget request for contributions to international organizations, and 

to the CIPA accounts, to help us advance U.S. national interests. 

Our leadership at the United Nations makes us more secure in 

at least five fundamental ways. First, the U.N. prevents conflict 

and keeps nations from slipping back into war. More than 120,000 

military police and civilian peacekeepers are now deployed in 14 

operations worldwide in places such as Haiti, Sudan, and Liberia. 

Just 98 of those individuals are Americans in uniform, all serving 

under U.S. command and control. 

U.N. missions in Iran and Afghanistan are promoting stability so 

that American troops can come home faster. These are examples of 

burden sharing at its best. 

Second, the United Nations helps halt the proliferation of nuclear 

weapons. Over the past 2 years, the United States led efforts that 

imposed the toughest sanctions to date on Iran and North Korea. 

Third, the United Nations helps isolate terrorists and human 

rights abusers by sanctioning individuals and companies associated 

with terrorism, atrocities, and cross-border crime. 

Fourth, U.N. humanitarian and development agencies go where 

nobody else will to provide desperately needed assistance. U.N. 

agencies deliver food, water, and medicine to those who need it 

most, from Darfur to Pakistan, and many other places around the 

world. 

Fifth, U.N. political efforts can help promote universal values 

that Americans hold dear, including human rights, democracy, and 

equality, whether it is by spotlighting human rights abuses in Iran, 

North Korea and Burma, or offering critical support to interim governments in Egypt and Tunisia as they prepare for elections. 

Let me turn now, briefly, to our efforts to reform the United Nations and improve its management practice. Our agenda focuses on 

seven priorities. First, U.N. managers must enforce greater budget 

discipline. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as was noted, recently 

instructed senior managers to cut 3 percent from current budget 

levels, the first proposed reduction compared to the previous year 

of spending in 10 years. 

Second, we continue to demand a culture of transparency and accountability for resources and results. We aggressively promote a 

strengthened, independent Office of Internal Oversight Services, 

and an improved ethics framework and enhanced protection for 

whistle-blowers. 

Third, we are pushing for a more mobile, meritocratic U.N. civilian workforce that incentivizes service in tough field assignments, 

rewards top performers, and removes dead wood. 

17

Fourth, we are improving protection of civilians by combating 

sexual violence in conflict zones, demanding accountability for war 

crimes, and strengthening U.N. field missions. 

Fifth, we are insisting on reasonable, achievable mandates for 

peacekeeping missions. Not a single new U.N. peacekeeping operation has been created in the last 2 years. Not a single one. And 

in 2010, for the first time in 6 consecutive years, we closed missions and reduced the peacekeeping budget. 

Sixth, we are working to restructure the U.N.’s administrative 

and logistical support systems for peacekeeping missions to make 

them more efficient, cost-effective, and responsive to realities in the 

field. 

Finally, we are pressing the United Nations to finish overhauling 

the way it conducts day-to-day business, including upgrading its information technology platforms, procurement practices, and accounting procedures. 

But the U.N., we all agree, must do more to live up to its founding principles. We have taken the Human Rights Council in a better direction, including by creating a new Special Rapporteur on 

Iran. 

But much more needs to be done. The Council must deal with 

human rights emergencies wherever they occur, and its membership should reflect those who respect human rights, not those who 

abuse them. 

We also continue to fight for fair and normal treatment, every 

day, for Israel, throughout the United Nations system. The tough 

issues between Israelis and Palestinians can be resolved only by direct negotiations between the parties, not in New York. 

That is why the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution in February that risked hardening both sides’ positions. We 

consistently oppose anti-Israel resolutions in the Human Rights 

Council, the General Assembly, and wherever they may arise. 

The U.N., we all agree, is far from perfect. But it delivers real 

results for every American by advancing U.S. security through genuine burden-sharing. That burden-sharing is more important than 

ever at a time when the threats don’t stop at our borders, when 

Americans are hurting and cutting back, and when American 

troops remain in harm’s way. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for your willingness to give me this 

opportunity. I am pleased now to answer the committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Rice follows:]

18


65630a_1.eps
19


65630a_2.eps
20


65630a_3.eps
21


65630a_4.eps
22


65630a_5.eps
23


65630a_6.eps
24


65630a_7.eps
25


65630a_8.eps
26


65630a_9.eps
27


65630a_10.eps
28


65630a_11.eps
29


65630a_12.eps
30


65630a_13.eps
31


65630a_14.eps
32

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

that excellent testimony. And now I will begin with the question 

and answer period. 

Madam Ambassador, since the U.N. continues to be used to propagate anti-Israel bias, it is important for the United States to show 

leadership and stand publicly and unequivocally with the Jewish 

State. 

So accordingly, I respectfully request this of you. Will you take 

this opportunity to publicly pledge that the U.S. will join Canada 

and Israel in not participating in the upcoming Durban 3 hate-fest, 

and that the U.S. will withhold funding from it? 

Secondly, that the U.S. will push for the U.N. General Assembly 

to repudiate the Goldstone report, just as it revoked the old Zionism is Racism resolution in ’91. Or is the U.S. going to push for 

a correction in the record to accurately reflect the retraction of 

Judge Goldstone on his report? 

And lastly, if that resolution or statement or anything else is 

brought to the U.N. that would recognize a Palestinian state or upgrade the status of the Palestinian observer mission, that the U.S. 

will do everything it can to oppose and stop such measures, and 

will veto them at the Security Council before they get to the General Assembly? 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me take 

those collectively first, and then individually, if I may. First of all, 

as I said in my full testimony for the record, and as I will reiterate, 

the United States every day stands firmly and unequivocally in 

support of our ally and partner, Israel, in the United Nations, 

where, as we all know, it often comes under illegitimate and unfair 

attacks simply for existing. 

We do this because it is in our national interest, because it accords with our values and principles, and because it is manifestly 

the right thing to do. We have spent a great deal of time and effort 

combating anti-Israel efforts, opposing them, vetoing them when 

necessary, and preventing them from arising in the first place. 

We have had a great deal of frustration in some circumstances, 

and success in others. For example, we have succeeded in incorporating Israel into a number of like-minded groups of countries at 


65630a_15.eps
33

the U.N. in New York and Geneva, which it has long sought membership to. 

We have supported and seen Israel successfully achieve leadership positions in the United Nations, for example co-leading the 

Kimberly process. We successfully opposed resolutions that arose to 

condemn Israel in the IAEA and elsewhere. 

So this is part of the daily work that my mission does, and that 

I am proud to do every day. Now, coming to your specific questions. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. That is Durban 3, Goldstone, and Palestine. 

Ambassador RICE. I have them. Thank you. With respect to the 

Durban Conference, as you know, we withdrew from the Durban 

review conference that occurred in Geneva in 2009. We did so out 

of great frustration with the fact that the problems with the original Durban conference, as they related to Israel, remained unchanged. 

And you know also that this administration and Congress stand 

strongly in support of efforts to oppose racism in all of its forms, 

and that remains very important to the United States. 

But as we look at this 10-year commemoration coming up in September, we are deeply concerned both by its likely content and its 

timing. And that is why the United States opposed the resolution 

establishing this commemorative conference. That is why we have 

not participated in any active way in the discussions or negotiations surrounding the documents that may be considered at that 

conference, and why I don’t anticipate that our posture will change. 

With respect to Goldstone, the United States has been clear from 

the outset that we believe that report was gravely and fundamentally flawed, that it completely unfairly drew conclusions about 

Israel’s intentions and conduct. And we never saw at the time, nor 

do we see now, any evidence that Israel intentionally committed 

crimes against civilians, or other forms of war crimes intentionally. 

And now, of course, we have seen Judge Goldstone call into question many of the fundamental conclusions of his original report. We 

are very interested—as I said yesterday—in first of all ensuring 

that all of the follow-up actions that have been contemplated with 

respect to Goldstone cease and go nowhere. 

Secondly, we would frankly—as I said—like to see this entire 

Goldstone proposition disappear. We are consulting closely with 

core friends and partners about the appropriate procedural steps 

that we might take to address both our concerns about the original 

report, and Judge Goldstone’s recent revelations. 

The tactics that we will choose to do that have not been formally 

decided. There are various options out there, but I want to say, 

Madam Chairman, that the most practical ones require further action either by the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly, 

and we know the challenges attending——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. And I am sure that other 

members will ask about the Palestinian state recognition. Thank 

you so much. I am so pleased to recognize my friend, the ranking 

member, Mr. Berman of California. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And Ambassador Rice, I would like you to—it is obviously a level of speculation as to what would happen, but indicate on some of the critical 

34

missions that you have undertaken with, I think, a remarkable 

amount of success, on what I consider vital national security 

issues, Iran first and foremost. 

If the U.S. were in a position where we were significantly in arrears of our treaty obligations, how would your ability to facilitate 

and achieve some of the successes you have been able to achieve 

around sanctions, these efforts to fight resolutions, at the IAEA 

and in other places, that seek to discriminate and seek to 

delegitimize Israel—how would your skills be impeded in terms of 

maximizing the chances of achieving the results we want? If you 

could just sort of lay out your thoughts on that particular issue. 

And I would note for this purpose, you were in the executive 

branch of government the last time we were very significantly in 

arrears, under the Helms language that the chairman gave some 

credit to Vice President Biden for. But it was a Helms initiative, 

and I think that was politics. 

What damage did it do there to our standing and our ability to 

do the job of pursuing American interests through diplomatic 

means at the United Nations? 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you, Mr. Berman. There is no question 

that when the United States is in debt to the United Nations, when 

we fail to meet our treaty obligations to pay our assessed contributions, that our influence is diminished, our standing is injured, and 

our ability to pursue important initiatives that advance U.S. national security and U.S. national interests is gravely undermined. 

The dues we pay goes for things that we vote for in the Security 

Council. The bulk of our expenses are for peacekeeping. These are 

missions that we decide to authorize and deploy because we think 

they do things that matter to the United States, like halt genocide 

in Darfur, like help to enable a referendum in South Sudan to 

come about, and the creation of a new state—which we look forward to in July—in South Sudan. Preventing the flow of refugees 

and stabilizing Haiti. Bringing democracy and security to Cote 

d’Ivoire. The list goes on. 

But these are things that we have authorized and supported because they serve our national security interests, because we have 

taken the decision that to do nothing would be intolerable and dangerous, and to do something with others sharing the cost and the 

burden of the military operation is much more sensible than us 

contemplating doing it alone. So this is why it is in our interest. 

Beyond that, Mr. Berman, when we are not fulfilling our obligations, our influence, our leverage, the value of our diplomacy is 

substantially undermined. I do recall in the ’90s how that was, and 

I can tell you that the cooperation we have managed to achieve to 

impose tough sanctions on Iran, on North Korea, to authorize 

strong action in Libya and Cote d’Ivoire and many other things, 

would not be possible if we were again in a situation of debt. 

Mr. BERMAN. Let me just use my remaining seconds to throw out 

one proposition. One thing that seems to unify this committee, and 

I am very happy about it, is the focus on the efforts, the tremendous efforts, to delegitimize Israel in the U.N. and its component 

bodies. 

Have the Israelis indicated to you that they would hope you 

would embrace a strategy of not participating there or withholding 

35

dues as a way of helping them to overcome this very intentional 

assault on their standing? 

Ambassador RICE. Absolutely not. On the contrary, we partner 

every day very closely with Israel, and our ability to be a leader 

in strong standing with maximum influence, I believe, Israel sees 

as serving their best interests as well. 

And that is why—that is among the reasons; there are many, 

many reasons—but I think it is important to point out that it is 

not just the Obama administration. It is the Bush administration, 

and all previous administrations, that have taken the strong view 

that it is counter to our interests to use withholding of dues as a 

means of trying to obtain our policy objectives. It doesn’t work. It 

is counterproductive, and the record shows it. 

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

Berman. Mr. Smith, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, 

and Human Rights chair. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ambassador Rice, if you 

could just tell us what role you believe U.N. peacekeeping operations will play in South Sudan after July 9th? And if you could 

speak to the issue of the abuse in the DR Congo—if that has been 

rectified, how you see that playing out—by U.N. peacekeepers? 

Also, years back I held a series of hearings and offered an 

amendment on the whole issue of anti-Semitic language in 

UNRWA textbooks. Has that been fixed? We are the major donor 

still, about $0.5 billion over the last 2 years alone. It seems to me 

that we should have zero tolerance for anything that is either antiSemitic or anti-American, when we are footing the bill for those 

textbooks. 

And finally—and I raise this with increasing alarm, and I have 

raised it since as far back as 1983, and that is the barbaric onechild-per-couple policy, with its very heavy reliance on forced abortion and forced sterilization. 

As you know, brothers and sisters are illegal in China. That has 

not changed. I recently worked on a case of a woman who was 

being compelled in a major city in China to get an abortion after 

her first child, because she was not allowed a second. 

I actually have a picture, because it was a very—and I will share 

it with you privately—a very successful outcome, but she is absolutely the exception in the PRC. With resoluteness, women are allowed only one child. 

As you know, for 30 years the U.N. Population Fund has aided 

and abetted that barbaric policy. They have heaped praise upon it. 

They have trained the cadres. I know under the Bush administration a serious effort was made to find out exactly what that training was, and they stonewalled. 

And I am wondering if we have been able—and I would like to 

be a part of that—to find out exactly what is going on with regards 

to the UNFPA’s work there. 

Because as Secretary John Negroponte pointed out in 2008, when 

we denied funding to the UNFPA, he pointed out in pertinent part, 

that China’s birth limitation program remains harshly coercive in 

law and practice, including coercive abortion. 

It is illegal in almost all provinces for a single woman to bear 

a child, so if you are an unwed mother, you are forcibly aborted, 

36

even if it is the one child permitted to most women in their lifetime 

under the law. 

What was very important in his finding, the State Department 

noted that Chinese law is ‘‘the foundation of its coercive policies 

and practices, and that the UNFPA comports with and adheres to 

Chinese law.’’

So in those counties where the UNFPA is operating, they absolutely must follow Chinese law with regard to the one-child-percouple policy. And the impact—and I know you know this, Ambassador Rice—there is the gender disparity—10 years ago, in the 

State Department country reports on human rights practices, it 

was revealed that upwards of 100,000,000 girls are missing in 

China, as a direct result of gender-cide. 

The targeting of a girl in utero, and the destruction of that tiny 

infant baby girl, simply because she is female—now, I see some 

people in your staff smiling and laughing. You know, it galls me 

to no end, frankly, that we have not raised this gender-cide issue—

even CEDAW has raised it, not to the proportion that it ought to. 

But frankly, it is unconscionable that girls are being targeted because of their being girls, and systematically eliminated. By 2020, 

40,000,000 men will not be able to find wives, because they have 

been eliminated, systematically, year in and year out, as a direct 

result of the one-child-per-couple policy. 

So I strongly encourage you, we need to be on the same page 

with this. These are crimes against gender, crimes against humanity. And where is the Genocide Convention Panel of Experts? 

Where are others? Where is the Human Rights Council? 

You know, the periodic review punts on this, with regard to 

China. So I would ask you, please, to raise this issue aggressively, 

and take back, if you would, the request that they have real transparency with regard to UNFPA. It does not exist currently. 

Ambassador RICE. Madam Chair, I am not sure I am going to be 

able to address all of those in the 30 seconds remaining. I am going 

to talk as fast as I know how. 

In post-Sudan, the U.N. is in the process—post-referendum 

Sudan, and the U.N. is in the process of assessing and talking to 

southern authorities about what would be the optimal follow-on 

configuration for a U.N. mission. We expect there to be one, but we 

want it to—its composition will depend, in part, on how far the two 

parties get in negotiating some of the remaining issues, and what 

the government itself chooses to ask for. 

Sexual exploitation in the Congo is a subject of gravest concern 

to the United States, to the administration, as well as Congress——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Ambassador, and I know 

that this is a serious issue that merits further inquiry. And we look 

forward to getting your response perhaps after the hearing. 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And if not, in written form, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Payne, the ranking member on 

the same committee. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. And I agree with my colleague 

from New Jersey about the policies in China. However, I think 

37

probably one of the things that has made China as strong as it is 

is because of the embrace that U.S. businessmen have made to 

China, and we have a policy where China has been able to make 

itself very strong, and have its current government stronger by virtue of the largesse of what they are able to get out of our business 

community. 

So I think that when we look at issues, maybe the burden is not 

necessarily the United Nations’ but the behavior of our U.S. 

businesspeople, where this doesn’t become an issues. 

Let me just say that I believe that participating in issues like the 

Human Rights Council—and I also think that if we were at Durban, we could actually argue our points at the IPU, which is International Parliamentary Union, a group that the United States removed itself from maybe 10 or 15 years ago. 

Israel is still a member. They say why don’t we come back to assist them, but we refuse to come back primarily because of the 

issues. Which to me, there is no voice within the IPU to assist 

Israel in its argument, as they stay there by themselves, without 

the support of the U.S. 

Let me just quickly, once again, commend the assistance that 

you have done in Sudan with the 90-plus percent turnout of the 

election, the 96 or -7 percent of people who say they should remove—but one, I would like to know what we can do the pressure 

the results for Abyei. 

If Abyei remains unresolved, I believe war will happen in Sudan 

between the north and the south, in the future. It will be similar 

to the issue in Pakistan and India that has not been resolved, and 

still continues on. 

I wonder if you could comment on Somalia, and the U.N.’s assistance to the AU with their peacekeeping. Also, in Cote d’Ivoire, 

where the U.N.—and I commend them for their resolutions—is 

there any more action that the U.N. will take for Gbagbo to step 

down in that area. 

And finally, with the Western Sahara—you know, Morocco still 

continues to illegally occupy Western Sahara. Is the U.N. doing 

anything to deal with that situation? 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Let me begin with 

southern Sudan, and the question of Abyei. As you know, the 

United States has been very active in trying not only, originally, 

to broker the CPA, but to ensure its full implementation, and in 

the run-up to the referendum, and in trying to resolve all of the 

outstanding post-referendum issues. 

And Abyei is not even a post-referendum issue. It should have 

been, as you know, dealt with in its own referendum simultaneous 

to the southern referendum. 

Ambassador Princeton Lyman, who was recently named by President Obama as his new special envoy, is out in the region as we 

speak. He is working actively with both parties, as well as with the 

AU high-level panel, former South African President Mbeki and 

others, to try to push for resolution of Abyei. 

We fully understand its significance as a critical issue that needs 

to be resolved. As you also know, it is one of the most difficult ones, 

and thus far we have not seen the parties exhibit sufficient flexibility to resolve it swiftly. 

38

There are a number of other important post-referendum issues 

that are also still to be negotiated: Resource-sharing, borders, citizenship, and the like, all of which are high on our agenda. 

Cote d’Ivoire, if I might for a second, has been raised by others 

as well. The U.N. is playing a very active role, and has been, first 

of all in making clear who won the election, that President 

Ouattara was legitimately elected, and that Gbagbo must step 

down, and do so—should have done so quite some time ago. 

We have imposed additional sanctions on Gbagbo and his cronies, 

and we have beefed up the U.N. peacekeeping mission, which is 

now actively taking on its peace enforcement mission to protect civilians, to take out heavy weapons, and to facilitate the emergence 

of a representative government there. 

The U.N. has done—is taking a lot of casualties. It is under attack, but it is doing, with the support of the French, very important 

work to try to protect civilians, take out the heavy weapons. And 

we hope that the bloody standoff which is persisting will soon end. 

Madam Chairwoman, I don’t know if my——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. So sorry. I know these are all serious 

topics, and I sincerely apologize to the members for the time limitation, but we have so many folks who want to ask questions. I know 

that each one merits a fuller discussion. Mr. Rohrabacher, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations chairman. 

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

and thank you Ambassador Rice. Let me just note that when we 

are spending $1.5 trillion more than we are taking in, and we realize that this is heading us toward a financial catastrophe of historic 

proportions, as the interest that we have to pay on that debt goes 

up, and as perhaps the interests rates go up as inflation cuts into 

our people’s economic reality, asking—right now, the amount of 

money that we are being asked to spend for the United Nations is 

$6.3 billion. Is that correct? Is that a correct figure of what we are 

being asked for? 

Ambassador RICE. No. Thank you for your important question, 

and we need to have clarity on, indeed, what is the budget request. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What are we actually being asked to give to 

the United Nations from the United States? 

Ambassador RICE. We are asking for $1.619 billion for the regular budget, and for all of the U.N.——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Ambassador RICE. As well as other international organizations, 

not all United Nations. The regular budget request, as a subset of 

that, is $568 million. And for peacekeeping for Fiscal ’12, we are 

requesting $1.9 billion, and to apply another $225 million in existing credits in order to meet our assessed contributions, which we 

estimate will be $2.145 billion 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And what does that all add up to? 

Ambassador RICE. Well, I can get you that in a second. Let me 

calculate that. But it is 1.619 plus 2.145. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me tell you, we are talking about real 

money here. 

Ambassador RICE. Very much so, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And let me just say that providing this type 

of money to an organization that uses Israel as a punching bag is 

39

something that is not acceptable. And the fact is, the people in the 

United Nations who are using Israel as a punching bag are people 

who they themselves are guilty of major crimes against humanity, 

whether it is China and the gender-cide that we heard about, or 

whether it is other countries that murder their own people and repress their own people. 

Let me ask you this, going to the question of my position on claptrap. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Connolly, are you ready? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Do you believe that the U.N. resolutions limit us to what we can do in our own interests, as to what 

our Government can do in our own interests? 

Ambassador RICE. No. Absolutely not. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So U.N. resolutions do not limit the 

United States as to what we can do in our own interest. 

Ambassador RICE. No. First of all, there is no such thing as a 

U.N. resolution that the United States hasn’t voted for. First point. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does not China have a veto power in the Security Council? 

Ambassador RICE. There is no resolution that can pass the Security Council without U.S. support. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do we—inform me, is a veto and a position 

of us not voting, is that the same? 

Ambassador RICE. No. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So a resolution can actually go forward, unless we veto it. If we are refraining, a resolution can still go 

through. 

Ambassador RICE. We have three choices, sir, when we vote. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ambassador RICE. We can vote yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Ambassador RICE. We can abstain, which we almost never do. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ambassador RICE. Or we can vote no. And when we vote no, that 

is the equivalent of a veto. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right, so——

Ambassador RICE. So nothing can be adopted by the Security 

Council without the U.S. assent. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Without the U.S. not abstaining, at least. 

Ambassador RICE. That is a form of assent, ultimately. Because 

we have allowed it to get through. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we could talk about that in greater 

depth. But let me just ask about the money. How much has the 

budget of the United Nations grown over the last 10 years? 

Ambassador RICE. Let me answer your prior question. You asked 

for the sum total, 3,539,000,000 is the sum of our request for the 

CIO account, contributions to international organizations, which includes the regular budget of the United Nations, which we pay 22 

percent of, and 1.920 for peacekeeping. 

I want to underscore that the CIO account includes a number of 

international organizations, like the OAS, that are not U.N. entities. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So what is the bottom line on it? I mean, is 

that——

40

Ambassador RICE. I am giving you a number of—just to keep it 

simple here, 3.539 is the sum total of what the administration is 

requesting in Fiscal 2012 for CIO and peacekeeping accounts. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And for all U.N. activities, we are talking 

about 3.5? 

Ambassador RICE. That is what I just said. That is actually more 

than—that includes some other international organization activities, but——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last note. I still have, I think, 5 seconds. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Sorry, you are over five. But thank 

you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, I am sorry. Pardon me. But Camp Ashraf 

is something that you need to tell your boss about, that we are concerned about here. 

Ambassador RICE. We are very aware. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, the ranking 

member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and 

Trade, is recognized. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ambassador, I will ask you to respond for the 

record to the accounting issue I brought up in my opening statement. I hope that the administration will use full-cost accounting, 

which is the legitimate system of accounting, and live with the political disadvantage of truthfully telling the American people how 

expensive it is for us to provide military assets to these U.N.-authorized activities. 

Because then you will gain for our country the diplomatic advantage of telling the world the enormous burden that the American 

taxpayer absorbs in order to make available to such actions as 

Libya our unique military capacity. 

As to Libya, an issue has arisen as to what the President has the 

power to do in the absence of a statutory authorization passed by 

both houses of Congress. And my question for you is, has the President’s legal authority expanded? Does he have more permissible options because our actions in Libya are pursuant to a United Nations resolution? Does the U.N. resolution have any effect on Presidential power? 

Ambassador RICE. Let me begin with your first question, if I 

might. I think there are some important clarifications that need to 

be made. There are U.N. operations, which are U.N. blue-helmeted 

or field missions, for which we are requesting funding in the CIPA 

account. And these are the 14 missions that I described in places 

like Haiti and——

Mr. SHERMAN. Ambassador, I have so many questions. I would 

hope that you would respond to the accounting question for the 

record. 

Ambassador RICE. I am trying my best to respond, but I have to 

do it with clarity, so that we are not allowing——

Mr. SHERMAN. I fully understand that there are the bluehelmeted operations, and then there is the——

Ambassador RICE. But when we talk about U.N. missions——

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I just think of it as broader. 

41

Ambassador RICE. Then there are missions that the Security 

Council might bless or authorize that we do in our own national 

interest. Those would include Afghanistan and Iraq, and Libya 

now. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I regard those as costs consistent with the U.N., 

but I think——

Ambassador RICE. Those aren’t U.N. operations. Those are things 

where we——

Mr. SHERMAN. Please respond to my Libya question. 

Ambassador RICE. I am trying to. Now, the Libya mission is not 

one that falls under U.N. accounting, or U.N. budgets. It is something that we are undertaking in a national capacity, in a coalition——

Mr. SHERMAN. Can you address my Libya question, as to the 

powers of the President? 

Ambassador RICE. As to the powers of the President, Mr. Sherman, of course the powers of the President are what they are as 

spelled out in the Constitution, and they are neither enhanced or 

diminished by U.N. Security Council resolutions. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are not claiming that the U.N. Participation Act somehow expands the power of the President to act with 

regard to Libya? 

Ambassador RICE. I am not. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. What is the administration’s position on 

Palestinian attempts, or at least discussion of a unilateral declaration of statehood? Will the United States work actively to defeat 

this attempt in the General Assembly, should it arise? What has 

the administration done so far? What are you planning to do? 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let me explain 

again, if I can, the process here. For a new state to gain membership of the United Nations, two things have to happen. It has to 

be recommended by the Security Council, where we have a veto. 

And then it must be agreed by two thirds of the General Assembly. 

If that issue were to arise, while I obviously would not want to 

address definitively a hypothetical, I think I could say with some 

high degree of confidence that the establishment that way of a 

state, prior to the final status issues being resolved in direct negotiations, would run counter to long-standing U.S. policy. 

So there is not a risk of a Palestinian state being included in the 

United Nations as a member state without the U.S. agreeing to 

that, okay? Now, what we could face separately is the General Assembly adopting a political declaration that doesn’t have the weight 

of international law, but would have, perhaps, some other form of 

weight, political or symbolic. 

That they could do without creating a state formally, without creating a U.N. member state. And that would be a political declaration of the sort that could come before the General Assembly, and 

where it is fair to suspect that we might not be in the majority. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Ambassador, and 

thank you, Mr. Sherman. I am going to recognize Mr. Chabot, the 

chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, 

for his 5 minutes. And then we have three votes, and we will return. Mr. Chabot? 

42

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. In my opening statement, I only had 1 minute. Now I have five, so I would like to return to the topic of the proposed—the statement condemning Israel 

that I mentioned before. 

As I previously stated, many of us in Congress were disappointed 

by the administration’s handling of the recent draft resolution at 

the U.N. Security Council that selectively criticized, condemned 

Israel. 

The administration said over and over again, including to this 

committee, that the Security Council was wrong. It was the wrong 

place to address final status issues. But you repeatedly refused to 

publicly commit in advance to veto that resolution, leaving Israel 

essentially twisting in the wind. 

Then we found out, not directly from the administration, but 

from the press, that you had reversed your position, and were trying to get a Security Council statement criticizing Israel, instead 

of a resolution. 

And then, when the statement was rejected and the resolution 

came up for a vote, while you did veto it, you issued a really astonishing Explanation of Vote that not only did not support Israel, but 

actually joined in the criticism. 

Many of us were extremely disappointed that the administration 

thought this appropriate, let alone acceptable. As I previously stated, in 529 short words, the administration undid all the good that 

had been done by its veto. 

In criticizing Israel, you used such language as ‘‘reject in the 

strongest terms,’’ ‘‘corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region,’’ ‘‘devastates trust,’’ ‘‘folly and illegitimacy.’’ These were the 

words that you read before the world stage. ‘‘We therefore,’’ you 

closed, ‘‘regrettably have opposed this draft resolution.’’

Many of us read this as, ‘‘We agree with the demonizing, condemnation, and vilifying, but we regrettably have to vote against 

it. We wanted to support the resolution, and we agree with the 

substance, but we were regrettably—we have to vote against it.’’

With those words, Ambassador Rice, we essentially threw our 

friend and ally, Israel, to the wolves. The United States, I think, 

has to look at this very closely. The United Nations is a deeply 

flawed body, and I am disappointed to say that on February 18th, 

we added to those flaws instead of being a force for good. 

As a strong defender of our ally, Israel, I want to make clear that 

I reject in the strongest terms this administration’s criticism of 

Israel. It corrodes hopes for peace and stability in the region, and 

it devastates trust. I therefore, regrettably, have to oppose the folly 

and illegitimacy of that statement. 

Perhaps you can clarify for me, what was the administration 

hoping to accomplish with your anti-Israel statement? Would you 

want the U.S. to be treated this way by our allies? How can our 

calls to end the demonizing of Israel be taken seriously when this 

administration refuses to speak out at a particularly critical time, 

when it really matters? 

Ambassador RICE. Madam Chairman, this is such an important 

issue that I would like to have the opportunity to respond in full. 

And if you would be a little generous with the time constraints, I 

would appreciate it. 

43

I have to say, sir, with all due respect, I reject your characterization of that statement. Let me explain the following. First of all, 

the veto itself, the first of this administration, sent a very clear 

message. And our statement was clear about our view of the decision to bring the resolution forward, which we opposed. 

The statement laid out long-standing U.S. policy. It said we are 

committed to a comprehensive and lasting Arab-Israeli peace. It 

said we are focused on the goal of a two-state solution. It said the 

only way to achieve that peace and security is through direct negotiations between the parties. 

And it said that the draft resolution under discussion risked 

hardening the positions of both sides, encouraging the parties to 

stay out of negotiations, and to come back to the Council if they 

hit impasses in the future. 

The statement also noted long-standing U.S. policy, that we have 

opposed unilateral steps by either party that could undermine trust 

or prejudge any final status issues. Settlement activity falls into 

that category, and the Explanation of Vote restated long-standing 

U.S. policy of six prior consecutive administrations, which has been 

consistent. 

It was President Bush, in April 2002, who said ‘‘Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop.’’ In 2005, Secretary 

Rice said ‘‘U.S. policy is clear: The expansion of settlements ought 

to stop, settlement activity ought to stop. We are particularly concerned about any kind of activity that would prejudge the outcome 

of a final status agreement.’’

The EOV also stated that the only way to reach a two-state solution is through direct negotiations, and said it was unwise for the 

Council to attempt to resolve core issues that divide Israelis and 

Palestinians, and that every potential action must be measured 

against one overriding standard: Will it move the parties closer to 

the agreement? 

So that was what my statement said, in sum. I think you need 

to read it in its entirety. It reflects long-standing American policy 

of successive administrations. We stood strongly against the resolution. We vetoed it. And if there is any ambiguity in a veto, I don’t 

know what it is. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. I stand by my statement. I think that the administration——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And I regrettably have to say I reject 

this, but it has to come to an end. So we will come right back. We 

have 8 minutes to vote, and we will be back. So the committee is 

temporarily in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 

at 12:12 p.m., the same day.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee is back in session, and 

as soon as Ambassador Rice returns, I will recognize Congressman 

Burton for his 5 minutes of questioning. 

I am informed that Ambassador Rice has a prior commitment at 

the White House, and so will need to leave at 12:45. I will be merciless with my gavel. I remind members that they can leave—they 

can submit questions for the record to the Ambassador. Just get 

them to the committee within the next 5 days. 

44

Thank you, Madam Ambassador. It is always great, I say, to be 

interrupted by democracy. Those bells, I hope that in my native 

homeland of Cuba we get to be interrupted by democracy soon. 

And with that, Madam Ambassador, I will turn to Mr. Burton of 

Indiana for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I really appreciate 

you yielding to me. Ambassador, I heard what you said. I would 

like to—I mean, obviously you have different information than we 

have. 

But I have here in this vote all the money that went to the U.N., 

and it was $6.347 trillion. Now, I don’t know where you got your 

figures, but if you need this I will be glad to give it to you. 

The second thing I would like to say before I ask you a question 

is, when I heard my colleague, who is chairman of the Middle East 

Subcommittee, read your statement to the United Nations regarding the veto which you used, it really bothered me. 

I mean, you know I have heard about damning with faint praise, 

but you went way beyond the pale. It says, ‘‘While we agree with 

our fellow Council Members, and indeed the wider world, about the 

folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we 

think otherwise,’’ and it goes on, and on, and on. 

See, you give our ally, the only real ally we have in the Middle 

East, a slap in the face. And I just can’t understand that. You don’t 

say anything in here about the rocket fire into Israel. You talk 

about the settlements, you don’t talk about the 10 months that 

Benjamin Netanyahu did not move on settlements because he was 

waiting to discuss with the Palestinians a solution to the problem. 

All you did was criticize Israel. I mean—well, I have it right 

here. Here is your statement. And you can say—Madam, I will 

yield to you in a minute. You can say anything that you want, but 

facts are facts, and your statement is right here. 

And anybody that reads what you said or hears what you said 

is saying, ‘‘We would like to really put it to Israel, because they are 

going on with the settlements, but we can’t, or we won’t right now, 

because we don’t think this is the proper venue.’’

And your statement is just really unacceptable, not just to Republicans, but to Democrats as well. I mean, there was criticism 

from across the spectrum in the Congress for the things that were 

said at the U.N. regarding this. 

There is no question that the settlements are an issue, and the 

Israeli Government has taken steps to deal with the problem for 

10 months. You don’t mention that in your statement. Why didn’t 

you mention that? I don’t understand. You didn’t mention that, but 

you sure criticized Israel for going on with it. 

While Israel stopped for 10 months and said, ‘‘Okay, we will negotiate with you, and we will suspend building in the settlement 

area,’’ no mention of that. No mention of the rocket fire. No mention of the civilians that are put in danger by Hezbollah and by 

Hamas. 

And I just don’t understand that. You know, when the administration says they are supporting Israel and they wait till the last 

minute to create doubt in everybody’s mind on whether or not they 

are going to veto that Security Council resolution, it bothers us. 

45

The administration should have come out very quickly and said, 

‘‘We support Israel. We want this solution. We want there to be a 

solution. We would like to see the settlements stop, but that can’t 

be done until there is a reasonable expectation that there is going 

to be an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.’’

That should be the criteria. Not blaming Israel, beating them 

over the head on the settlements, not mentioning the rocket fire 

endangering civilians. I just don’t get it. So maybe you can explain, 

in the minute that we have left, how you support Israel so much, 

and how you are with us, as far as the Congress is concerned, in 

supporting Israel. 

Just let us know, because your statement sure as heck didn’t indicate that at all. 

Ambassador RICE. I object to your mischaracterization——

Mr. BURTON. Well, I object to your statement at the U.N. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Burton. 

Ambassador RICE. I object——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Ambassador, if you could just 

hold the clock a second—if you could push the button on your 

microphone? Thank you. 

Ambassador RICE. I object strenuously to your 

mischaracterization——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I am sorry, we are having technical 

problems. They are working on it. I apologize. 

Ambassador RICE [continuing]. Of my statement, and I object 

even more strenuously to your suggestion that this administration 

and our Government is in any way lacking in its support for Israel. 

We have the strongest, most deep military, security, and intelligence cooperation that this country has ever had under this administration. Every day, I and my colleagues stand up in support 

of our interests and Israel’s interests in the United Nations, and 

we have made important progress in that regard. 

From the start of this administration, from the very second day, 

we have made it a top priority trying to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and a two-state solution. 

The issue on the table was a resolution on settlements. President 

Obama instructed me to veto that resolution, and I did so. My Explanation of Vote explained why we vetoed it. You are welcome to 

insert it into the record, or I can. 

Mr. BURTON. I will. 

Ambassador RICE. And it elaborated the long-standing U.S. policy of six consecutive administrations, which is that settlement activity is illegitimate. 

But it said a lot more than that. It spoke about our commitment 

to a two-state solution. It spoke about our opposition to resolving 

or attempting to address or resolve issues that can only be resolved 

through negotiations, in the context of a resolution. 

That is why we vetoed it, and that is why we have made clear 

that for this, or any subsequent effort to bring any kind of final 

status issue before the Security Council, that is something that we 

have, and we will, consistently opposed. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Burton? 

46

Mr. BURTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous 

consent to include the entire statement of the Ambassador, and 

also the cost to the U.N. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. That might be limited to size limitations, but we will look into that. But this will be made part of the 

record. 

Ambassador RICE. Madam Chairman——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And I sincerely apologize for these 

technical difficulties. They are trying to work this out. And Mr. 

Engel, I apologize. You are recognized. I am sorry about the microphones not working. 

Mr. ENGEL. These don’t work either? No. Okay. Madam Ambassador, I will try to be loud. First of all, again I want to personally 

thank you for the tough job you are doing. It’s not easy to defend 

some of the practices of the United Nations. 

You can understand, I am sure, why so many people on both 

sides of the aisle are frustrated, and why we think that the United 

Nations needs to be seriously revamped. You take the Human 

Rights Council, 42 of 65 country-specific resolutions are anti-Israel. 

And as has been said by many of my colleagues, some of the 

worst human rights abusers in the world sit on that Human Rights 

Council. I am wondering if you could tell us two things. 

Number one, the Goldstone report was rejected on the House 

Floor by this body right after it was passed in the U.N. And we 

rejected it because we said that Israel—it is almost a blood libel, 

as Shimon Peres said when they accused Israel of targeting civilians. 

But yet we know that Hamas targets civilians. In fact, just this 

morning, the rockets from Gaza hit a school bus, injuring several 

children, I understand. So we know that Hamas deliberately targets civilians. 

And therefore, Israel has undergone a whole investigation, and 

has come up with the fact that Israel did not target civilians. And 

that is why Judge Goldstone has repudiated his report. 

What can we do to make sure that the United Nations repudiates 

the report? Because there are some in the United Nations that 

want to go forward with the original Goldstone report as if it were 

truth, and we now know it isn’t. 

And secondly, the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, 

which I know you ran through the procedure before, that we can 

veto that. And I hope that we will. And if the U.N. General Assembly passes it, it may be a political statement but it has no real effect. 

I think that this unilateral recognition impedes a peace agreement, because it tells the Palestinians that they need not sit down 

and negotiate, that somehow or other they will get their state by 

refusing to negotiate. 

Israel, or any country, cannot be put in the position of preconditions to even sitting down and talking. These are very serious 

issues that will be resolved in final status talks, but not as a precondition. 

So I just wonder if you could just tell us how we can try to ensure that Goldstone is repealed, as the infamous Zionism is Racism 

47

resolution was repealed several years ago. And what is the administration doing to combat this terrible anti-Israel bias? 

Because what you hear, the frustration here is that people say, 

‘‘Well, why should we continue to fund the United Nations when 

time and time again it comes out against what we think is in the 

best interests of the United States and our ally, Israel?’’

And I know your arguments, which have a lot of credence, in my 

opinion, that we need to stay and fight. But I am sure you appreciate how frustrating it gets when we pay the lion’s share of things, 

and then we think we are kind of spit in the face, and our ally, 

Israel, is spit in the face. 

So I have raised a bunch of things. If you can comment on any 

or all of them, I would appreciate it. 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. And I appreciate the spirit of your questions. As I said earlier, we absolutely have been unequivocal in our condemnation of the substance 

and conclusions of the Goldstone report, which we have been very 

clear on from the outset. 

We are, as I mentioned earlier, in the process of talking to the 

closest partners on this about how best, in light of both the subsequent actions that were already in different U.N. bodies as a result 

of Goldstone and Judge Goldstone’s own op-ed in the Washington 

Post, that we might accelerate our efforts to just put this entire sad 

episode to bed. 

And our aim is twofold. One is to prevent follow-up action in the 

GA, in the Security Council, any referrals to other bodies, from materializing. And secondly, we share your interests in trying to clear 

the record. Whether that can be done through repudiation—that 

would require a new resolution of both the Human Rights Council 

and the General Assembly—or whether there are other procedural 

mechanisms that we can employ. 

But the aim is to accomplish that, and we are trying to consult 

with partners who have a direct stake in this as to how best to accomplish these goals. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. And 

thank you, Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I just want to take 3 seconds to say 

that I also hope we can get Israel removed from the permanent 

agenda of the U.N. Human Rights Council. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. And we welcome Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama. Always welcome to 

our committee. Ms. Schmidt of Ohio is recognized. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you, and I am going to move down so that 

we can hear each other more clearly. I have three questions for 

you, two concerning the Secretary General and the third regarding 

funding. 

The first is, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon appointed a panel 

of experts to advise him and make recommendations to him on the 

issues of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of 

international human rights and the humanitarian law during the 

final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka. The panel has submitted 

its report to the Secretary General. Will the United States push the 

United Nations to publish this report? 

48

My second question, again regarding the U.N. The Secretary 

General has violated the rules and regulations of the U.N. by appointing as his Special Envoy for Libya an official from the Government of Jordan, who both maintains outside business interests and 

his fee and salary as a senator. This is in violation of the U.N.’s 

own rules that U.N. officials may receive income from outside 

sources. Is the U.S. aware of this violation, and does it agree with 

critics that the Secretary General should not be violating the rules 

of the organization? 

And my final question is, can you explain to me why the United 

States is paying 100 percent of the security upgrade costs at the 

United Nations headquarters in New York? 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. Let me begin with 

your last question about security upgrades. First of all, with regard 

to the U.N. building and its renovation, we paid 22 percent—that 

is our regular budget assessed share—of the costs of the overall 

renovation. 

I think it is important to note that Americans, American contractors, have received the lion’s share of all of the contracts that have 

been let as a result of that renovation, such that if you do the math 

we are—for every dollar we have spent, there are $4 coming back 

into the United States, into our economy. 

The second point is security upgrades. The City of New York, 

and the New York Police Department, recommended and indeed insisted that in the course of the renovation, given the terrorist 

threat that faces the United Nations’ headquarters building, and 

given its geographical location over the F.D.R. Freeway and right 

up on First Avenue, that there be additional security upgrades 

above and beyond what was envisioned when the original capital 

master plan was implemented. 

The estimated cost of that was $100 million. The State Department and administration, in conjunction with New York authorities, the City of New York as well as the New York Police Department, made the judgment that it was in our interests both to get 

those security upgrades done and done in a timely fashion, so that 

the cost overrides were not excessive down the road. 

It is American citizens who are most affected by the security of 

the U.N. building, both in terms of 40 percent of those in and out 

of the building every day are Americans, but also it is Americans 

driving under the building, walking by it, who will be at greatest 

risk. So that is why we made the decision to invest in our own security and make those upgrades. 

With respect to the panel of experts, that report is just coming 

forward. We look forward to it, and we think that it would be beneficial if it were available publicly. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. So will we push to have it published? 

Ambassador RICE. I would like to read it before I make that 

judgment, but in general, yes. And with respect to Mr. Khatib, the 

Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Libya, just appointed. Very 

distinguished, very effective person who on short notice took on a 

very important role. I had the opportunity to meet with him this 

week as he briefed the Security Council. 

49

He is an excellent selection of special representative. He is in the 

process of working out with the Secretary General and the Secretariat the circumstances of his employment and renumeration. 

It happened very quickly in response to the Security Council resolution that he was appointed, and he has been out in the field now 

twice to Libya in the short time that has elapsed since then. And 

we look forward to his employment circumstances being implemented in a fashion consistent with rules and regulations. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you. And finally, just my personal view. 

Israel is the best friend we have in the world, and we have to make 

sure that the U.N. doesn’t continue to use Israel as a bully pulpit 

for its own agenda. 

Ambassador RICE. I couldn’t agree more. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. We need to make sure that Israel’s interests are 

protected, because when their interests are protected, our interests 

are protected. 

Ambassador RICE. I couldn’t agree more. And I think there is an 

important distinction here that rarely gets made. There is the 

U.N., the institution that sends missions out into the field, that 

feeds the hungry, that inoculates children against disease. 

And then there are the 192 member states, who act and speak 

and vote in their own interests, that is often not our interest. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. That is an important distinction. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. Thank you, Ms. Schmidt. 

Mr. Meeks, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe 

and Eurasia, is recognized. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, Madam Ambassador, I want to thank you for the great work that you have been 

doing representing our country at the United Nations. 

And I just also want to continue to thank you for your work, that 

it is important that we sit and be engaged with the rest of the 

world. And that is really for our own security. Because truthfully, 

if we acted unilaterally, and did not have the allies that we have, 

many of the nations that are sitting in the U.N. and other places—

hooray. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Eureka. 

Mr. MEEKS. We have the microphone again. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The question just brought out the 

juice. 

Mr. MEEKS. So it is important, I think, that we don’t have to go 

along with a kind of gunslinging-type attitude, that we are working 

closely. 

Because when we ask individuals to come with us to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or other places, or to fight with us against terrorism, 

where we need to work with one another to combat terrorism, and 

to make sure—we need many of these same allies, whom some 

would say that we just ignore. And I don’t know how we ignore 

them, when we will need them to help us, and then when they 

need some help we don’t help them. 

That being said, and I think you touched on this earlier. I think 

it is no secret that the previous administration, the Bush administration, had at times rocky relationships with the U.N. But they 

never proposed withholding a significant amount of dues to the 

U.N. 

50

And I know that you were not in that position during that administration, but you started to touch on it. Could you just tell us 

why even the Bush administration did not withhold a substantial 

amount of money, dues, to the U.N.? What is the significance of 

that? 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. I think it was interesting that you had former Ambassador Mark Wallace testify recently before this committee. And he explained that, in his judgment and the judgment of the previous administration which he 

served, it has not been wise, not judged wise or beneficial, to use 

withholding as a tactic to implement change. 

And he was the author, to his credit, of some energetic reform 

initiatives that we have sustained and augmented. The reason it 

isn’t wise is because it doesn’t work. It has been tried in the past, 

and as Mr. Berman said earlier, it resulted only in our isolation 

and our loss of a crucial seat on the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, which is the body where we get 

to scrub the budget and ensure that we are not asked to pay for 

things that we think are unworthy. 

It is also not the vehicle to achieve reform. We have achieved the 

greatest progress on reform under the previous administration and 

this administration, when we have worked to and been able to remain current on our assessed contributions. 

Mr. MEEKS. Are there any consequences to not paying our assessed dues? 

Ambassador RICE. First of all, it violates our treaty obligations. 

Secondly, if we are in arrears over a period of time, we can lose 

our vote in the General Assembly. 

Mr. MEEKS. And some members have proposed shifting our contributions to the U.N. on a purely voluntary basis. Can you tell us, 

without assessed contributions, how do we fund unpopular or less 

than compelling activities that the U.N. must undertake? Could 

you talk about that briefly? 

Ambassador RICE. Voluntary contributions can work to a certain 

extent in field operations. It has worked for UNICEF and WFP, as 

the chairwoman noted in her statement. It doesn’t work when you 

are talking about peacekeeping operations, the administrative responsibilities that have to be conducted in U.N. headquarters. 

Let me give you two important examples. The two missions that 

have contributed most recently to increases in the U.N. regular 

budget have been the U.N. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Those two missions are directly serving our interests. They have 

been formed largely at our initiative, to augment and support the 

work of our troops in the field. 

We currently pay, under the regular budget, 22 percent of the 

costs of those missions, which are together over $0.5 billion. If we 

took the view that we will only pay for those missions that we 

like—our share is $0.5 billion. 

If we were to pay for only those missions that we like, we would 

find ourselves paying 100 percent of costly—or close to 100 percent 

of costly, important missions like that, rather than 22 percent. And 

our net costs would quite likely be higher. 

As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to the peacekeeping budget, there is nothing that we are asked to pay for that we haven’t 

51

previously voted to create. All of those missions are created by a 

vote in the Security Council, and the U.S. can say yes, because we 

want it and we believe it serves our interests, or no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks. 

And thank you, Madam Ambassador. Mr. Rivera of Florida. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to this 

issue of the punching bag that has been mentioned before. Israel, 

our greatest ally, being a punching bag of the United Nations, 

which I completely agree with. 

But I want to talk first about the United States being the punching bag, particularly vis-a`-vis U.S. policy toward Cuba. And I am 

wondering, we always have a yearly vote, that yearly spectacle 

when the United Nations uses the U.S. as a punching bag and 

votes against U.S. policy of isolating the Castro dictatorship economically, even though, as has been mentioned previously, the Castro regime is recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism by our own 

Government. 

It is a regime that is harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, including cop killers, drug traffickers. A regime that has murdered 

Americans in international airspace, as occurred in 1996 in the 

Brothers to the Rescue shoot down. And I am wondering what efforts do you make personally to try and garner support for U.S. 

policy toward Cuba? 

Ambassador RICE. First of all, we firmly and unequivocally, at 

every opportunity, condemn, for the very reasons you described, 

Cuba’s human rights record and its long-standing record of abuses, 

as well as its record of support for terrorism. 

Secondly, every year, when the resolution comes before the General Assembly, we work hard—I myself and my colleagues at the 

U.S. mission—to garner as many votes in conjunction with our position of voting against the resolution as we can muster. 

And we have a small core of countries, including Israel, as you 

pointed out, that regularly and loyally stand with us on this. And 

we every year make efforts to expand that grouping. But I think, 

as you well know, as we strongly make our case for our policy, 

which is a bilateral policy, on the embargo at the U.N., and we 

work to gain votes, we are in a minority, and a small minority. 

As you well know, the embargo has limited international support, and even our closest allies, like Canada and the European 

partners, don’t share our view. And this is an issue that has been 

and will remain an annual irritant. 

Let me also address more broadly, though, Cuba’s standing at 

the United Nations, and what we do to deal with that. Cuba, once 

upon a time, had a lot of juice at the United Nations, and a lot of 

support and influence. And that influence is dramatically diminished. 

It is increasingly isolated within the Latin American Group. It is 

increasingly isolated within the general membership. And let me 

give you a couple of examples. We have heard about the Human 

Rights Council, and our frustration with that, which we share. 

But there are no more than five countries out of 47 on the 

Human Rights Council, at the present, Cuba being one of them, 

52

whose record on human rights we would all agree is absolutely 

abysmal. 

The other 42 are either upstanding countries, or countries that 

are somewhere in the middle. Cuba is at the bottom, but it is losing 

ground. At the Human Rights Council this year, Cuba worked very, 

very hard to block the creation of a Special Rapporteur on Freedom 

of Assembly, and was roundly defeated. That passed unanimously 

by the Human Rights Council. 

It also tried to upset the process of our periodic review, and other 

countries pointedly condemned Cuba. 

Mr. RIVERA. I only have 1 minute left. I appreciate those comments, and I think it speaks to the fact that if Cuba’s standing is 

diminishing so much, it should allow space for you, in your capacity, to make even greater progress on bringing allies toward the 

United States’ position on Cuba. In particular, those allies that 

maybe do not have the relationships with Cuba that some of those 

that you mentioned earlier. 

But there are a lot of countries on the planet, and I hope you will 

make every effort to internationalize U.S. policy, because it is the 

just policy, considering what you have just mentioned, the dismal 

human rights record by the Castro dictatorship. So I hope you will 

make every effort to continue to garner that support for our policy. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera. Mr. 

Deutch? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ambassador Rice, I 

wanted to turn to Iran. And as we look at recent events in the Middle East, it seems that Iran has been emboldened. On Tuesday, the 

Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. was quoted as saying that the geopolitical picture of the region is changing in favor of Iran. Reports 

in the last several weeks indicate that Iran is continuing to move 

toward weaponization, and Iran continues to look for ways to evade 

international sanctions. 

I would like to commend you for the role that you have played, 

first in the U.N. sanctions against Iran last year. The efforts that, 

again, you helped to spearhead, to keep Iran off of the Human 

Rights Council. And particularly the creation of the Special 

Rapporteur on Iran, hopefully focusing on Iranian human rights 

abuses. 

On a going-forward basis, as we look to events unfolding in the 

region and steps that can be taken to focus on the threats that Iran 

poses, if the regime continues to defy the IAEA and moves ahead 

with its illicit nuclear program, would the Security Council impose 

another round of sanctions that would include even greater sanctions to choke off the energy sector? I wonder if there have been 

discussions with Security Council members about strengthening existing sanctions. 

And of greatest concern to me, if you could address what you 

think it would take to get China, who continues to make $1-billion 

investments in Iran’s oil fields, and the Russians, who recently 

spoke of rolling back sanctions, to cooperate and support another 

resolution. 

Ambassador RICE. First of all, thank you very much for your 

kind words in support of our efforts, both in the Security Council 

and other bodies, with respect to Iran. 

53

We have been very plain that we will stand up and condemn and 

seek to isolate Iran for its human rights record and its abuses, both 

in multilateral fora and nationally, as we have continued to impose 

sanctions on individuals responsible for Iran’s human rights 

abuses. 

And we will do all that we can to prevent Iran from obtaining 

a nuclear capacity. We do that through a variety of means. 

Through multilateral measures, as we have in the United Nations 

Security Council, and I will come back to what more we can do. 

But also, as you know, through your excellent legislation and national measures that we have taken and continue to take, to implement not only the Security Council resolutions, but the measures 

and authorities given to us by Congress. 

Inside the U.N., I think in the short term there is scope for tightening enforcement and implementation of 1929 and previous resolutions, which are having a significant impact, and we are regularly getting the support of countries from Nigeria to Asia in blocking an intercepting—and obviously Israel—Iranian arms shipments. 

So there is a panel of experts, there is a sanctions committee, all 

of which can help tighten enforcement of existing measures. I think 

it needs to be acknowledged that China and Russia worked with 

us to pass that important resolution. They have implemented it to 

the letter, and we have asked them to do more. 

Russia has dealt with the S–300s, which is above and beyond the 

resolution. China, we have been pressing not to backfill investments. And thus far, we have seen good response to that sort of 

request. 

In terms of a new resolution in the short term, sir, I think that 

is unlikely to be viable. But obviously over time, and also in response to actions that Iran may take, we will continue to keep multilateral action, including Security Council action, on the table. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And I appreciate that. And just in my remaining 

minute, in addition to these resolutions on nuclear proliferation activities, Iran has consistently been found to be in violation of arms 

transfer resolutions. 

The interception of the Victoria by the Israeli navy with 2,500 

mortars and 65,000 rounds of ammunition—the interception, again, 

seizure of illegal arms shipments by Nigeria in February, the Turkish seizure of an Iranian cargo vessel carrying 60 AK–47s and 200 

mortar shells—Iran has continued to violate Security Council Resolution 1747. 

I would respectfully request that you continue to look for ways 

to penalize Iran for non-compliance with that resolution, which prohibits Iranian arms exports. 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. And Madam Ambassador, I know that based on our previous arrangement you have 

to be back at the White House at 1 o’clock. And so we appreciate 

your time. I give my deepest apologies to Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Ms. Buerkle, who is our U.N. representative from our committee. And so I hope that you work well with Ms. Buerkle. She 

is our Ambassador. And Mr. Keating of Massachusetts. And thank 

you, Congresswoman Sewell, for joining us. 

54

So Madam Ambassador, thank you very much for your excellent 

testimony. We look forward to working with you on U.N. reform, 

an issue we both are passionate about. 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, and the committee is—oh, 

I am sorry. 

Ambassador RICE. Thank you very much for your leadership, and 

your kindness, and that of all of your colleagues. And please come 

visit us. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. You are a good friend. And Ms. 

Buerkle will be right there. The committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

56


65630n.eps
57


65630m-1.eps
58


65630m-2.eps
59


65630c-1.eps
60


65630c-2.eps
61

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


65630d-1.eps
62


65630d-2.eps
63


65630d-3.eps
64


65630e-1.eps
65


65630e-2.eps
66


65630e-3.eps
67


65630e-4.eps
68


65630e-5.eps
69


65630e-6.eps
70

[NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.] 


65630e-7.eps
71

[NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.]

Æ


65630f.eps