(5) On September 3, 2001, Secretary of State 
Colin Powell explained the withdrawal of the United 
States delegation from the World Conference 
Against Racism by stating that ‘‘you do not combat 
racism by conferences that produce declarations con-
taining hateful language, some of which is a throw-
back to the ‘days of Zionism’ equals racism; or sup-
ports the idea that we have made too much of the 
Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in 
Israel; or that singles out only one country in the 
world—Israel—for censure and abuse’’. 
(6) The late United States Representative Tom 
Lantos, who participated as a member of the United 
States delegation to the Durban Conference, sup-
ported that delegation’s withdrawal and wrote in 
2002 that the conference ‘‘provided the world with 
a glimpse into the abyss of international hate, dis-
crimination and, indeed, racism’’. 
(7) On December 19, 2006, the United Nations 
General Assembly approved a resolution initiating 
preparations for a Durban Review Conference (com-
monly referred to as ‘‘Durban II’’), which was held 
between April 20 and 24, 2009, in Geneva, Switzer-
land. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
21:27 Jul 20, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3231.IH
H3231
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
(8) The chair of the preparatory committee for 
the Durban Review Conference was Libya, and the 
co-chairs included Iran and Cuba. 
(9) Throughout the preparatory process for the 
Durban Review Conference, member states of the 
Organization of the Islamic Conference urged that 
the conference again focus criticism on Israel and 
single out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for discus-
sion, and also urged that the conference advocate 
global speech codes that would impose restrictions 
contrary to fundamental freedoms recognized in the 
provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. 
(10) In testimony before the House of Rep-
resentatives on April 2, 2008, then-Assistant Sec-
retary of State for International Organizations 
Kristen Silverberg stated that the United States had 
decided against participating in preparatory activi-
ties for the Durban Review Conference because 
‘‘[there is] absolutely no case to be made for partici-
pating in something that is going to be a repeat of 
Durban I. We dont have any confidence that this 
will be any better than Durban I’’. 
(11) On September 23, 2008, the House of 
Representatives passed House Resolution 1361, 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
05:49 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3231.IH
H3231
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
which, among other things, called on the President 
to ‘‘urge other heads of state to condition participa-
tion in the 2009 Durban Review Conference on con-
crete action by the United Nations and United Na-
tions Member States to ensure that it is not a forum 
to demonize any group, or incite anti-Semitism, ha-
tred, or violence against members of any group or to 
call into question the existence of any state’’ and 
urged all United Nations Member States ‘‘not to 
support a 2009 Durban Review Conference process 
that fails to adhere to established human rights 
standards and to reject an agenda that incites ha-
tred against any group in the guise of criticism of 
a particular government or that seeks to forge a 
global blasphemy code’’. 
(12) The present United Nations High Com-
missioner for Human Rights and Secretary-General 
of the 2009 Durban Review Conference, Dr. 
Navanethem Pillay, has repeatedly sought to down-
play the level of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and 
anti-Israel political agendas present at the 2001 
Durban Conference, describing it as merely ‘‘the vir-
ulent anti-Semitic behavior of a few non-govern-
mental organizations on the sidelines’’ and praising 
the biased Durban Declaration and Program of Ac-
VerDate 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
tion as ‘‘[t]he legacy of this Conference’’, has re-
peatedly sought to downplay the level of hateful, 
anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas 
present at the 2009 Durban Review Conference and 
its preparatory activities, and has repeatedly praised 
and urged the full implementation of the 2001 Dur-
ban Declaration and Program of Action. 
(13) High Commissioner Pillay has repeatedly 
and publicly criticized nations, including the United 
States, which announced that they would not partici-
pate in the Durban Review Conference, but has al-
most never publicly criticized governments who suc-
ceeded in using the conference and its preparatory 
activities to single out Israel for criticism and to at-
tempt to restrict fundamental freedoms. 
(14) A United Nations press release on Sep-
tember 8, 2008, regarding an address by High Com-
missioner Pillay, disturbingly dismissed objections 
raised by non-governmental organizations to the 
Durban Review Conference as ‘‘ferocious, and often 
distorted, criticism by certain lobby groups focused 
on single issues’’. 
(15) During February of 2009, the United 
States actively participated in intergovernmental 
consultations on the Durban Review Conference’s 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
05:49 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3231.IH
H3231
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
‘‘draft outcome document’’ and engaged in high-level 
diplomatic efforts to dramatically reverse the path of 
the Durban Review Conference by directing it to-
wards meaningful efforts to combat intolerance and 
bigotry and directing it away from efforts to under-
mine the cause of fighting discrimination through 
singling out Israel for implicit criticism and calling 
for restrictions on fundamental freedoms. 
(16) On February 27, 2009, State Department 
spokesman Robert Wood stated that, despite United 
States efforts to redirect the path of the Durban Re-
view Conference, ‘‘the document being negotiated 
has gone from bad to worse, and the current text of 
the draft outcome document is not salvageable . . . 
A conference based on this text would be a missed 
opportunity to speak clearly about the persistent 
problem of racism’’ and therefore, the United States 
would not participate in further consultations and 
negotiations regarding the ‘‘draft outcome docu-
ment,’’ and would not participate in the Durban Re-
view Conference itself unless the ‘‘draft outcome 
document’’ was radically shortened and revised to 
eliminate objectionable material. 
(17) On April 17, 2009, the third and final ses-
sion of the preparatory committee for the Durban 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
05:49 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3231.IH
H3231
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Review Conference proposed a final ‘‘draft outcome 
document’’ that contained a number of provisions 
advocating restrictions on freedom of expression, 
and that also implicitly singled out and criticized 
Israel for racism by reaffirming, in its very first 
paragraph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Pro-
gram of Action. 
(18) On April 18, 2009, State Department 
spokesman Robert Wood announced that ‘‘the 
United States will not join the [Durban] review con-
ference,’’ noting that ‘‘The current document . . . 
still contains language that reaffirms in toto the 
Durban Declaration and Programme of Action 
(DDPA) from 2001, which the United States has 
long said it is unable to support . . . The United 
States also has serious concerns with relatively new 
additions to the text regarding ‘incitement’, that run 
counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free 
speech.’’. 
(19) On April 19, 2009, the President stated at 
a press conference that ‘‘I would love to be involved 
in a useful conference that addressed continuing 
issues of racism and discrimination around the globe 
. . . we expressed in the run-up to this conference 
our concerns that if you incorporated—if you adopt-
VerDate 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
ed all the language from 2001, that’s just not some-
thing we could sign up for . . . our participation 
would have involved putting our imprimatur on 
something that we just don’t believe . . . Hopefully 
. . . we can partner with other countries on to actu-
ally reduce discrimination around the globe. But this 
wasn’t an opportunity to do it.’’. 
(20) Canada, Israel, Italy, Germany, the Neth-
erlands, Poland, Australia, and New Zealand also 
did not participate in the Durban Review Con-
ference, and the Czech Republic walked out of the 
Conference during its proceedings, never to return. 
(21) Libya was the chair of the Main Com-
mittee of the Durban Review Conference, and vice 
presidents of the Durban Review Conference in-
cluded Libya, Iran, and Cuba. 
(22) Speaking at the Durban Review Con-
ference on April 20, 2009, Iranian leader Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad called the democratic State of Israel 
‘‘totally racist’’ and ‘‘the most cruel and repressive 
racist regime’’, and called for Israel’s destruction, 
stating that ‘‘Efforts must be made to put an end 
to the abuse by Zionists . . . Governments must be 
encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at 
eradicating this barbaric racism’’. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
01:16 Jul 18, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3231.IH
H3231
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
(23) In his speech at the Durban Review Con-
ference, Ahmadinejad also propagated anti-Semitic 
conspiracy theories by saying that ‘‘Those who con-
trol huge economic resources and interests in the 
world . . . mobilize all the resources, including their 
economic and political influence and world media, to 
render support in vain to the Zionist regime’’. 
(24) Disgusted by Ahmadinejad’s biased and 
incendiary statements, delegates from about two 
dozen nations walked out of the assembly hall in 
protest, but most delegations remained, and a large 
number of delegations and observers repeatedly ap-
plauded Ahmadinejad’s remarks. 
(25) On April 21, 2009, the Durban Review 
Conference adopted by consensus an ‘‘outcome docu-
ment’’ that contained a number of provisions advo-
cating restrictions on freedom of expression, and 
that also implicitly singled out and criticized Israel 
for racism by reaffirming, in its very first para-
graph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program 
of Action. 
(26) Throughout the Durban Review Con-
ference, many speakers singled out Israel for criti-
cism or called for restrictions on fundamental free-
doms, including representatives of Iran, Libya, 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
05:49 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3231.IH
H3231
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Saudi Ara-
bia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Algeria, the United 
Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, 
Bahrain, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Switzerland, the Or-
ganization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab 
League, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and 
a number of other organizations and countries. 
(27) During the Durban Review Conference, 
several speakers who sought to draw attention to 
genuine instances of racism, racial discrimination, 
xenophobia, related intolerance, and human rights 
violations by the governments of Iran, Libya, and 
China were repeatedly interrupted by the delegations 
from those governments and instructed by the con-
ference’s chair to not refer specifically to those gov-
ernments. 
(28) The 2001 World Conference Against Rac-
ism and the 2009 Durban Review Conference have 
made little or no demonstrable contribution to com-
bating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and 
related intolerance. 
(29) To date, over $2,000,000 from the United 
Nations regular budget has been expended on the 
Durban Review Conference and its preparatory ac-
tivities. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
05:49 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3231.IH
H3231
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
(30) On December 24, 2008, the United Na-
tions General Assembly approved a program budget 
for the biennium 2008–2009 that, over the objec-
tions of the United States, the European Union, 
Canada, Australia, and other prominent Member 
States, provided a significant portion of the funding 
for the Durban Review Conference and its pre-
paratory activities from the United Nations regular 
budget. 
(31) The United States is the largest contrib-
utor to the United Nations system, and is assessed 
for a full 22 percent of the United Nations regular 
budget, which is funded by assessed contributions 
from Member States. 
(32) Funding the Durban Review Conference 
and its preparatory activities through the United 
Nations regular budget has resulted in United 
States taxpayer dollars being used for those pur-
poses. 
(33) The United States decided to withhold 
from its 2008 funding for the United Nations reg-
ular budget an amount equivalent to the United 
States share of the United Nations Human Rights 
Council budget, including its share of the Council- 
VerDate 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