I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3231 

To refund United States taxpayer dollars expended on the Durban Review 

Conference, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2009 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. PENCE, 

Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BUYER, Mr. YOUNG

of Alaska, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. WOLF, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LINDER, Mr. 

LOBIONDO, Mr. TERRY, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. BISHOP of 

Utah, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART

of Florida, Mr. NUNES, Mr. MCHENRY, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. LAMBORN, and Mr. BROUN of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To refund United States taxpayer dollars expended on the 

Durban Review Conference, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Durban Taxpayer Re5 fund Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3231 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) The United States is opposed to racism, ra4 cial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intoler5 ance, and has long been a party to the Convention 

6 on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 

7 (2) Expensive and politically skewed inter8 national conferences can disserve and undermine the 

9 worthy goals that they are ostensibly convened to 

10 support. 

11 (3) The goals of the 2001 United Nations 

12 World Conference Against Racism—held in Durban, 

13 South Africa, and commonly referred to as the 

14 ‘‘Durban Conference’’—were undermined by hateful, 

15 anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agen16 das, prompting both Israel and the United States to 

17 withdraw their delegations from the Conference. 

18 (4) The official government declaration adopted 

19 by the World Conference Against Racism, the ‘‘Dur20 ban Declaration and Program of Action’’, focused on 

21 the ‘‘plight of the Palestinian people under foreign 

22 occupation’’, and thereby singled out one regional 

23 conflict for discussion and implicitly launched a false 

24 accusation against Israel of racism towards the Pal25 estinians. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (5) On September 3, 2001, Secretary of State 

2 Colin Powell explained the withdrawal of the United 

3 States delegation from the World Conference 

4 Against Racism by stating that ‘‘you do not combat 

5 racism by conferences that produce declarations con6 taining hateful language, some of which is a throw7 back to the ‘days of Zionism’ equals racism; or sup8 ports the idea that we have made too much of the 

9 Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in 

10 Israel; or that singles out only one country in the 

11 world—Israel—for censure and abuse’’. 

12 (6) The late United States Representative Tom 

13 Lantos, who participated as a member of the United 

14 States delegation to the Durban Conference, sup15 ported that delegation’s withdrawal and wrote in 

16 2002 that the conference ‘‘provided the world with 

17 a glimpse into the abyss of international hate, dis18 crimination and, indeed, racism’’. 

19 (7) On December 19, 2006, the United Nations 

20 General Assembly approved a resolution initiating 

21 preparations for a Durban Review Conference (com22 monly referred to as ‘‘Durban II’’), which was held 

23 between April 20 and 24, 2009, in Geneva, Switzer24 land. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (8) The chair of the preparatory committee for 

2 the Durban Review Conference was Libya, and the 

3 co-chairs included Iran and Cuba. 

4 (9) Throughout the preparatory process for the 

5 Durban Review Conference, member states of the 

6 Organization of the Islamic Conference urged that 

7 the conference again focus criticism on Israel and 

8 single out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for discus9 sion, and also urged that the conference advocate 

10 global speech codes that would impose restrictions 

11 contrary to fundamental freedoms recognized in the 

12 provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human 

13 Rights. 

14 (10) In testimony before the House of Rep15 resentatives on April 2, 2008, then-Assistant Sec16 retary of State for International Organizations 

17 Kristen Silverberg stated that the United States had 

18 decided against participating in preparatory activi19 ties for the Durban Review Conference because 

20 ‘‘[there is] absolutely no case to be made for partici21 pating in something that is going to be a repeat of 

22 Durban I. We dont have any confidence that this 

23 will be any better than Durban I’’. 

24 (11) On September 23, 2008, the House of 

25 Representatives passed House Resolution 1361, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 3231 IH

1 which, among other things, called on the President 

2 to ‘‘urge other heads of state to condition participa3 tion in the 2009 Durban Review Conference on con4 crete action by the United Nations and United Na5 tions Member States to ensure that it is not a forum 

6 to demonize any group, or incite anti-Semitism, ha7 tred, or violence against members of any group or to 

8 call into question the existence of any state’’ and 

9 urged all United Nations Member States ‘‘not to 

10 support a 2009 Durban Review Conference process 

11 that fails to adhere to established human rights 

12 standards and to reject an agenda that incites ha13 tred against any group in the guise of criticism of 

14 a particular government or that seeks to forge a 

15 global blasphemy code’’. 

16 (12) The present United Nations High Com17 missioner for Human Rights and Secretary-General 

18 of the 2009 Durban Review Conference, Dr. 

19 Navanethem Pillay, has repeatedly sought to down20 play the level of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and 

21 anti-Israel political agendas present at the 2001 

22 Durban Conference, describing it as merely ‘‘the vir23 ulent anti-Semitic behavior of a few non-govern24 mental organizations on the sidelines’’ and praising 

25 the biased Durban Declaration and Program of AcVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:49 Jul 17, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3231.IH H3231

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
6 

•HR 3231 IH

1 tion as ‘‘[t]he legacy of this Conference’’, has re2 peatedly sought to downplay the level of hateful, 

3 anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas 

4 present at the 2009 Durban Review Conference and 

5 its preparatory activities, and has repeatedly praised 

6 and urged the full implementation of the 2001 Dur7 ban Declaration and Program of Action. 

8 (13) High Commissioner Pillay has repeatedly 

9 and publicly criticized nations, including the United 

10 States, which announced that they would not partici11 pate in the Durban Review Conference, but has al12 most never publicly criticized governments who suc13 ceeded in using the conference and its preparatory 

14 activities to single out Israel for criticism and to at15 tempt to restrict fundamental freedoms. 

16 (14) A United Nations press release on Sep17 tember 8, 2008, regarding an address by High Com18 missioner Pillay, disturbingly dismissed objections 

19 raised by non-governmental organizations to the 

20 Durban Review Conference as ‘‘ferocious, and often 

21 distorted, criticism by certain lobby groups focused 

22 on single issues’’. 

23 (15) During February of 2009, the United 

24 States actively participated in intergovernmental 

25 consultations on the Durban Review Conference’s 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
7 

•HR 3231 IH

1 ‘‘draft outcome document’’ and engaged in high-level 

2 diplomatic efforts to dramatically reverse the path of 

3 the Durban Review Conference by directing it to4 wards meaningful efforts to combat intolerance and 

5 bigotry and directing it away from efforts to under6 mine the cause of fighting discrimination through 

7 singling out Israel for implicit criticism and calling 

8 for restrictions on fundamental freedoms. 

9 (16) On February 27, 2009, State Department 

10 spokesman Robert Wood stated that, despite United 

11 States efforts to redirect the path of the Durban Re12 view Conference, ‘‘the document being negotiated 

13 has gone from bad to worse, and the current text of 

14 the draft outcome document is not salvageable . . . 

15 A conference based on this text would be a missed 

16 opportunity to speak clearly about the persistent 

17 problem of racism’’ and therefore, the United States 

18 would not participate in further consultations and 

19 negotiations regarding the ‘‘draft outcome docu20 ment,’’ and would not participate in the Durban Re21 view Conference itself unless the ‘‘draft outcome 

22 document’’ was radically shortened and revised to 

23 eliminate objectionable material. 

24 (17) On April 17, 2009, the third and final ses25 sion of the preparatory committee for the Durban 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
8 

•HR 3231 IH

1 Review Conference proposed a final ‘‘draft outcome 

2 document’’ that contained a number of provisions 

3 advocating restrictions on freedom of expression, 

4 and that also implicitly singled out and criticized 

5 Israel for racism by reaffirming, in its very first 

6 paragraph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Pro7 gram of Action. 

8 (18) On April 18, 2009, State Department 

9 spokesman Robert Wood announced that ‘‘the 

10 United States will not join the [Durban] review con11 ference,’’ noting that ‘‘The current document . . . 

12 still contains language that reaffirms in toto the 

13 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action 

14 (DDPA) from 2001, which the United States has 

15 long said it is unable to support . . . The United 

16 States also has serious concerns with relatively new 

17 additions to the text regarding ‘incitement’, that run 

18 counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free 

19 speech.’’. 

20 (19) On April 19, 2009, the President stated at 

21 a press conference that ‘‘I would love to be involved 

22 in a useful conference that addressed continuing 

23 issues of racism and discrimination around the globe 

24 . . . we expressed in the run-up to this conference 

25 our concerns that if you incorporated—if you adoptVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:58 Jul 20, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3231.IH H3231

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
9 

•HR 3231 IH

1 ed all the language from 2001, that’s just not some2 thing we could sign up for . . . our participation 

3 would have involved putting our imprimatur on 

4 something that we just don’t believe . . . Hopefully 

5 . . . we can partner with other countries on to actu6 ally reduce discrimination around the globe. But this 

7 wasn’t an opportunity to do it.’’. 

8 (20) Canada, Israel, Italy, Germany, the Neth9 erlands, Poland, Australia, and New Zealand also 

10 did not participate in the Durban Review Con11 ference, and the Czech Republic walked out of the 

12 Conference during its proceedings, never to return. 

13 (21) Libya was the chair of the Main Com14 mittee of the Durban Review Conference, and vice 

15 presidents of the Durban Review Conference in16 cluded Libya, Iran, and Cuba. 

17 (22) Speaking at the Durban Review Con18 ference on April 20, 2009, Iranian leader Mahmoud 

19 Ahmadinejad called the democratic State of Israel 

20 ‘‘totally racist’’ and ‘‘the most cruel and repressive 

21 racist regime’’, and called for Israel’s destruction, 

22 stating that ‘‘Efforts must be made to put an end 

23 to the abuse by Zionists . . . Governments must be 

24 encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at 

25 eradicating this barbaric racism’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
10 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (23) In his speech at the Durban Review Con2 ference, Ahmadinejad also propagated anti-Semitic 

3 conspiracy theories by saying that ‘‘Those who con4 trol huge economic resources and interests in the 

5 world . . . mobilize all the resources, including their 

6 economic and political influence and world media, to 

7 render support in vain to the Zionist regime’’. 

8 (24) Disgusted by Ahmadinejad’s biased and 

9 incendiary statements, delegates from about two 

10 dozen nations walked out of the assembly hall in 

11 protest, but most delegations remained, and a large 

12 number of delegations and observers repeatedly ap13 plauded Ahmadinejad’s remarks. 

14 (25) On April 21, 2009, the Durban Review 

15 Conference adopted by consensus an ‘‘outcome docu16 ment’’ that contained a number of provisions advo17 cating restrictions on freedom of expression, and 

18 that also implicitly singled out and criticized Israel 

19 for racism by reaffirming, in its very first para20 graph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program 

21 of Action. 

22 (26) Throughout the Durban Review Con23 ference, many speakers singled out Israel for criti24 cism or called for restrictions on fundamental free25 doms, including representatives of Iran, Libya, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
11 

•HR 3231 IH

1 Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Saudi Ara2 bia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Algeria, the United 

3 Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, 

4 Bahrain, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Switzerland, the Or5 ganization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab 

6 League, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and 

7 a number of other organizations and countries. 

8 (27) During the Durban Review Conference, 

9 several speakers who sought to draw attention to 

10 genuine instances of racism, racial discrimination, 

11 xenophobia, related intolerance, and human rights 

12 violations by the governments of Iran, Libya, and 

13 China were repeatedly interrupted by the delegations 

14 from those governments and instructed by the con15 ference’s chair to not refer specifically to those gov16 ernments. 

17 (28) The 2001 World Conference Against Rac18 ism and the 2009 Durban Review Conference have 

19 made little or no demonstrable contribution to com20 bating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and 

21 related intolerance. 

22 (29) To date, over $2,000,000 from the United 

23 Nations regular budget has been expended on the 

24 Durban Review Conference and its preparatory ac25 tivities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
12 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (30) On December 24, 2008, the United Na2 tions General Assembly approved a program budget 

3 for the biennium 2008–2009 that, over the objec4 tions of the United States, the European Union, 

5 Canada, Australia, and other prominent Member 

6 States, provided a significant portion of the funding 

7 for the Durban Review Conference and its pre8 paratory activities from the United Nations regular 

9 budget. 

10 (31) The United States is the largest contrib11 utor to the United Nations system, and is assessed 

12 for a full 22 percent of the United Nations regular 

13 budget, which is funded by assessed contributions 

14 from Member States. 

15 (32) Funding the Durban Review Conference 

16 and its preparatory activities through the United 

17 Nations regular budget has resulted in United 

18 States taxpayer dollars being used for those pur19 poses. 

20 (33) The United States decided to withhold 

21 from its 2008 funding for the United Nations reg22 ular budget an amount equivalent to the United 

23 States share of the United Nations Human Rights 

24 Council budget, including its share of the CouncilVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:49 Jul 17, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3231.IH H3231

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
13 

•HR 3231 IH

1 administered preparatory process for the 2009 Dur2 ban Review Conference. 

3 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS; STATEMENT OF POLICY. 

4 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con5 gress that— 

6 (1) the 2009 Durban Review Conference, like 

7 its 2001 predecessor and the preparatory activities 

8 of both conferences, was subverted by members of 

9 the Organization of the Islamic Conference and irre10 deemably distorted into a forum for anti-Israel, anti11 Semitic, and anti-freedom activity; 

12 (2) by publicly declaring that the United States 

13 would not participate in the Durban Review Con14 ference, the President upheld and reaffirmed the 

15 fundamental commitment of the United States to 

16 combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, 

17 and related intolerance, and should be commended 

18 for his decision not to participate; and 

19 (3) the Governments of Canada, Israel, Italy, 

20 Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Australia, New 

21 Zealand, and the Czech Republic should be com22 mended for their decision to not participate or cease 

23 participation in the Durban Review Conference. 

24 (b) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It shall be the policy 

25 of the United States to— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
14 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (1) lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encour2 age other responsible countries to not fund any por3 tion of the Durban Review Conference or its pre4 paratory or follow-on activities, and to withhold from 

5 their respective contributions to the regularly as6 sessed biennial budget of the United Nations an 

7 amount that is equal to the percentage of such re8 spective contributions that they determine would be 

9 or has been allocated by the United Nations for any 

10 part of the Durban Review Conference or its pre11 paratory or follow-on activities; and 

12 (2) lead a high-level diplomatic effort to explore 

13 credible, alternative forums for combating racism, 

14 racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intol15 erance. 

16 SEC. 4. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS; REFUND OF UNITED 

17 STATES TAXPAYER DOLLARS. 

18 (a) WITHHOLDING OF PREVIOUSLY-EXPENDED

19 FUNDS.—The Secretary of State shall withhold from the 

20 United States contribution to the regularly assessed bien21 nial budget of the United Nations an amount that is equal 

22 to the percentage of such contribution that the Secretary 

23 determines would be or has been allocated by the United 

24 Nations for any part of the Durban Review Conference 

25 or its preparatory or follow-on activities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
15 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (b) WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED IN

2 THE FUTURE.—Until the Secretary of State submits to 

3 the appropriate congressional committees a certification, 

4 on a case-by-case basis, that the requirements described 

5 in subsection (d) have been satisfied, the United States 

6 shall withhold from the United States contribution to the 

7 regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations 

8 an amount that is equal to the percentage of such con9 tribution that the Secretary determines has been allocated 

10 by the United Nations for any conference or other multi11 lateral forum, or the preparatory or follow-on activities of 

12 any conference or other multilateral forum, that is orga13 nized under the aegis or jurisdiction of the United Nations 

14 or of any program, agency, or affiliate of the United Na15 tions. 

16 (c) REFUND OF UNITED STATES TAXPAYER DOL17 LARS.—Funds appropriated for use as a United States 

18 contribution to the regularly assessed biennial budget of 

19 the United Nations but withheld from obligation and ex20 penditure pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) may be obli21 gated and expended for that purpose upon the certification 

22 described in subsection (d). Such funds shall revert to the 

23 United States Treasury if no such certification is made 

24 by the date that is one year after such appropriation. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
16 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (d) CERTIFICATION.—The certification referred to in 

2 subsection (b) is a certification made by the Secretary of 

3 State to the appropriate congressional committees con4 cerning the following: 

5 (1) The specified conference or forum did not 

6 reaffirm the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action 

7 (2001) or the outcome document of the Durban Re8 view Conference (2009). 

9 (2) The specified conference or forum was not 

10 used to single out the United States or the State of 

11 Israel for unfair or unbalanced criticism. 

12 (3) The specified conference or forum was not 

13 used to propagate racism, racial discrimination, anti14 Semitism, denial of the Holocaust, incitement to vio15 lence or genocide, xenophobia, or related intolerance. 

16 (4) The specified conference or forum was not 

17 used to advocate for restrictions on the freedoms of 

18 speech, expression, religion, the press, assembly, or 

19 petition, or for restrictions on other fundamental 

20 human rights and freedoms. 

21 (5) The leadership of the specified conference 

22 or forum does not include a Member State, or a rep23 resentative from a Member State— 

24 (A) subject to sanctions by the Security 

25 Council; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
17 

•HR 3231 IH

1 (B) under a Security Council-mandated in2 vestigation for human rights abuses; or 

3 (C) the government of which the Secretary 

4 of State has determined, for purposes of section 

5 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 

6 (as continued in effect pursuant to the Inter7 national Emergency Economic Powers Act), 

8 section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, sec9 tion 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 

10 1961, or other provision of law, is a government 

11 that has repeatedly provided support for acts of 

12 international terrorism. 

13 (e) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘appropriate 

14 congressional committees’’ means— 

15 (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the 

16 Committee on Appropriations of the House of Rep17 resentatives; and 

18 (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and 

19 the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS