(E) recommended ‘‘that the Government of 
Switzerland, in its capacity as depositary of the 
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of 
Civilian Persons in Time of War, undertake as 
soon as possible the steps necessary to recon-
vene a Conference of High Contracting Parties 
to the Fourth Geneva Convention on measures 
to enforce the Convention’’ in the West Bank, 
the Gaza Strip, and ‘‘East Jerusalem’’. 
(35) On February 26, 2010, the United Na-
tions General Assembly voted 98–7 (with 31 Mem-
ber States abstaining, and with the United States 
voting against) to adopt resolution A/RES/64/254, 
which built on the determinations of A/RES/64/10. 
(36) On March 24, 2010, the United Nations 
Human Rights Council voted 29–6 (with 11 Member 
States abstaining and one not voting, and with the 
United States voting against) to adopt resolution A/ 
HRC/13/L.30, which, among other things— 
(A) called upon ‘‘all concerned parties, in-
cluding United Nations bodies, to ensure their 
implementation of the recommendations con-
tained in the [Goldstone Report]’’; 
(B) requested that the United Nations 
High Commissioner for Human Rights submit 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
a ‘‘progress report on the implementation of the 
present resolution to the [Human Rights] 
Council at its fourteenth session’’ in May and 
June 2010; and 
(C) decided to ‘‘follow up on the implemen-
tation of the present resolution at [the] fif-
teenth session’’ of the Human Rights Council in 
September 2010. 
(37) On March 25, 2011, the United Nations 
Human Rights Council voted 27–3 (with 16 Member 
States abstaining, and with the United States voting 
against) to adopt resolution A/HRC/16/L.31, which, 
among other things— 
(A) called upon ‘‘all concerned parties, in-
cluding United Nations bodies, to ensure the 
full and immediate implementation of the rec-
ommendations contained in the [Goldstone Re-
port]’’; 
(B) recommended that the United Nations 
General Assembly again consider the Goldstone 
Report at its sixty-sixth session, and urged the 
General Assembly to submit the report to the 
United Nations Security Council ‘‘for its con-
sideration and appropriate action,’’ including 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
referral to the prosecutor of the International 
Criminal Court; 
(C) requested that the United Nations 
High Commissioner for Human Rights submit 
a ‘‘progress report on the implementation of the 
present resolution to the Human Rights Council 
at its eighteenth session of September 2011’’; 
and 
(D) decided to ‘‘follow up on the imple-
mentation of the present resolution at [the] 
nineteenth session [of the Human Rights Coun-
cil] of March 2012’’. 
(38) On April 1, 2011, Richard Goldstone, the 
head of the ‘‘United Nations Fact Finding Mission 
on the Gaza Conflict’’ that authored the Goldstone 
Report, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that 
renounced the Goldstone Report’s claim that the 
Israeli military deliberately attacked civilians during 
Operation Cast Lead. Goldstone wrote that the 
Israeli military’s investigations with respect to inci-
dents in Operation Cast Lead ‘‘indicate that civilians 
were not intentionally targeted as a matter of pol-
icy’’. 
(39) Efforts to delegitimize the democratic 
State of Israel and deny it the right to defend its 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
citizens and its existence can be used to delegitimize 
other democracies and deny them the same right. 
SEC. 602. STATEMENT OF POLICY. 
It is the policy of the United States to— 
(1) consider the Goldstone Report irredeemably 
biased and unworthy of further consideration or le-
gitimacy; 
(2) strongly and unequivocally oppose any con-
sideration, legitimization, or endorsement of the 
Goldstone Report, or any other measures stemming 
from this report, in multilateral fora; 
(3) lead a high-level diplomatic campaign in 
support of the revocation and repudiation, by the 
United Nations General Assembly, of the Goldstone 
Report and any United Nations resolutions stem-
ming from the report, including: 
(A) United Nations General Assembly res-
olutions A/RES/64/10 and A/RES/64/254; and 
(B) United Nations Human Rights Council 
resolutions A–HRC–S–12–1, A/HRC/13/L.30, 
and A/HRC/16/L.31; and 
(4) lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encour-
age other responsible countries not to endorse, sup-
port, or legitimize the Goldstone Report or any other 
measures stemming from the report. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
SEC. 603. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS; REFUND OF UNITED 
STATES TAXPAYER DOLLARS. 
(a) WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS.—The Secretary of 
State shall withhold from the United States contribution 
to the regular budget of the United Nations an amount 
that is equal to the percentage of such contribution that 
the Secretary determines would be or has been expended 
by the United Nations for any part of the Goldstone Re-
port or its preparatory or follow-on activities. 
(b) REFUND OF UNITED STATES TAXPAYER DOL-
LARS.—Funds appropriated for use as a United States 
contribution to the regular budget of the United Nations 
but withheld from obligation and expenditure pursuant to 
subsection (a) shall immediately revert to the United 
States Treasury and shall not be considered arrears to be 
repaid to any United Nations Entity. 
TITLE VII—DURBAN PROCESS 
SEC. 701. FINDINGS. 
The Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) The United States is opposed to racism, ra-
cial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intoler-
ance, and has long been a party to the Convention 
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 
(2) Expensive and politically skewed inter-
national conferences can disserve and undermine the 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
worthy goals that they are ostensibly convened to 
support. 
(3) The goals of the 2001 United Nations 
World Conference Against Racism—held in Durban, 
South Africa, and commonly referred to as ‘‘Durban 
I’’—were undermined by hateful, anti-Jewish rhet-
oric, and anti-Israel political agendas, prompting 
both Israel and the United States to withdraw their 
delegations from the Conference. 
(4) The official government declaration adopted 
by Durban I, the ‘‘Durban Declaration and Program 
of Action’’, focused on the ‘‘plight of the Palestinian 
people under foreign occupation’’, and thereby sin-
gled out one regional conflict for discussion and im-
plicitly launched a false accusation against Israel of 
intolerance towards the Palestinians. 
(5) On September 3, 2001, Secretary of State 
Colin Powell explained the withdrawal of the United 
States delegation from Durban I by stating that 
‘‘you do not combat racism by conferences that 
produce declarations containing hateful language, 
some of which is a throwback to the ‘days of Zion-
ism’ equals racism; or supports the idea that we 
have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests 
that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
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. 
(8) The chair of the preparatory committee for 
Durban II was Libya, and the co-chairs included 
Iran and Cuba. 
(9) Throughout the preparatory process for 
Durban II, 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 discussion, and also urged 
that the conference advocate global speech codes 
that would impose restrictions contrary to funda-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
mental 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 Durban II because ‘‘[there is] absolutely no 
case to be made for participating in something that 
is going to be a repeat of Durban I. We don’t have 
any confidence that this will be any better than Dur-
ban I’’. 
(11) On September 23, 2008, the House of 
Representatives passed House Resolution 1361, 
which, among other things, called on the President 
to ‘‘urge other heads of state to condition participa-
tion in the 2009 [Durban II] Conference on concrete 
action by the United Nations and United Nations 
Member States to ensure that it is not a forum to 
demonize any group, or incite anti-Semitism, hatred, 
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 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
to reject an agenda that incites hatred against any 
group in the guise of criticism of a particular gov-
ernment or that seeks to forge a global blasphemy 
code’’. 
(12) The present United Nations High Com-
missioner for Human Rights, Dr. Navanethem 
Pillay, who served as Secretary General of Durban 
II, has repeatedly sought to downplay the level of 
hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political 
agendas present at Durban I, describing it as merely 
‘‘the virulent anti-Semitic behavior of a few non-gov-
ernmental organizations on the sidelines’’ and prais-
ing the biased 2001 Durban Declaration and Pro-
gramme of Action as ‘‘[t]he legacy of this Con-
ference’’, has repeatedly sought to downplay the level 
of hateful, anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel polit-
ical agendas present at Durban II and its pre-
paratory activities, and has repeatedly praised and 
urged the full implementation of the Durban Dec-
laration and Programme 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 Durban II, but has almost never publicly 
criticized governments who succeeded in using the 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
conference and its preparatory activities to single 
out Israel for criticism and to attempt 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 Durban 
II 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 Durban II’s ‘‘draft outcome docu-
ment’’ and engaged in high-level diplomatic efforts 
to dramatically reverse the path of Durban II by di-
recting it towards meaningful efforts to combat in-
tolerance and bigotry and directing it away from ef-
forts to undermine the cause of fighting discrimina-
tion through singling out Israel for implicit criticism 
and calling for restrictions on fundamental free-
doms. 
(16) On February 27, 2009, a State Depart-
ment spokesman stated that, despite United States 
efforts to redirect the path of Durban II, ‘‘the docu-
ment being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, 
and the current text of the draft outcome document 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
is not salvageable . . . A conference based on this 
text would be a missed opportunity to speak clearly 
about the persistent problem of racism’’ and there-
fore, the United States would not participate in fur-
ther consultations and negotiations regarding the 
‘‘draft outcome document,’’ and would not partici-
pate in Durban II 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 Durban II 
proposed a final ‘‘draft outcome document’’ that 
contained a number of provisions advocating restric-
tions on freedom of expression, and that also implic-
itly singled out and criticized Israel for racism by re-
affirming, in its very first paragraph, the 2001 Dur-
ban Declaration and Programme of Action. 
(18) On April 18, 2009, a State Department 
spokesman announced that ‘‘the United States will 
not join the [Durban II] conference’’, 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 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
with relatively new additions to the text regarding 
‘incitement’, that run counter to the U.S. commit-
ment 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-
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 Durban II, and the Czech Re-
public walked out of the Conference during its pro-
ceedings, never to return. 
(21) Libya was the chair of the Main Com-
mittee of Durban II, and vice presidents of Durban 
II included Libya, Iran, and Cuba. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
(22) Speaking at Durban II 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 rac-
ism’’. 
(23) In his speech at Durban II, Ahmadinejad 
also propagated anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, 
saying that ‘‘Those who control huge economic re-
sources 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, governments partici-
pating in Durban II adopted by consensus an ‘‘out-
come document’’ that contained a number of provi-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
sions advocating restrictions on freedom of expres-
sion, and that also implicitly singled out and criti-
cized Israel for racism by reaffirming, in its very 
first paragraph, the 2001 Durban Declaration and 
Program of Action. 
(26) Throughout Durban II, many speakers 
singled out Israel for criticism or called for restric-
tions on fundamental freedoms, including represent-
atives of Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Ven-
ezuela, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, 
Qatar, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, 
Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Ban-
gladesh, Switzerland, the Organization of the Islamic 
Conference, the Arab League, the Palestine Libera-
tion Organization, and a number of other organiza-
tions and countries. 
(27) During Durban II, several speakers who 
sought to draw attention to genuine instances of rac-
ism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, related intol-
erance, and human rights violations by the govern-
ments of Iran, Libya, and China were repeatedly in-
terrupted by the delegations from those governments 
and instructed by the conference’s chair to not refer 
specifically to those governments. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
(28) On December 18, 2009, the United Na-
tions General Assembly approved Resolution A/RES/ 
64/148, which urged the ‘‘full and effective imple-
mentation of the Durban Declaration and Pro-
gramme of Action’’ and called for a ‘‘one-day ple-
nary event to commemorate the ten-year anniversary 
[of Durban I] during the high-level segment of the 
General Assembly to be devoted to racism, racial dis-
crimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance dur-
ing its sixty-fifth session, in 2011’’. The United 
States, joined by 12 other nations, voted against this 
resolution. 
(29) On December 24, 2010, the United Na-
tions General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/ 
65/240, authorizing the holding of a ‘‘one-day high- 
level meeting of the General Assembly to commemo-
rate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the 
Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, at 
the level of Heads of State and Government, on the 
second day of the general debate of the sixty-sixth 
session’’ in September of 2011. The resolution also 
states that the meeting (commonly referred to as 
‘‘Durban III’’) will adopt a ‘‘political declaration 
aimed at mobilizing political will at the national, re-
gional, and international levels for the full and effec-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
tive implementation of the Durban Declaration and 
Programme of Action and its follow-up processes.’’. 
The resolution also requests that the United Nations 
Secretary General ‘‘establish a programme of out-
reach, with the involvement of Member States and 
United Nations funds and programmes as well as 
civil society, including non-governmental organiza-
tions, to appropriately commemorate the tenth anni-
versary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration 
and Programme of Action.’’ The resolution also re-
quests that ‘‘the Office of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Human Rights and the Depart-
ment of Public Information of the Secretariat . . . 
launch a public information campaign for the com-
memoration of the tenth anniversary of the adoption 
of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Ac-
tion’’. The United States, joined by 21 other na-
tions, voted against this resolution. 
(30) The Government of Canada has announced 
that it will not participate in the Durban III meet-
ing. Canadian Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, 
and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney stated that 
‘‘Our government has lost faith in the entire tainted 
Durban process. Canada will not participate in this 
charade any longer. We will not lend our country’s 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
good name to a commemoration of what has widely 
been characterized as a hatefest . . . Canada is 
clearly committed to the fight against racism, but 
the Durban process commemorates an agenda that 
actually promotes racism rather than combats it.’’. 
(31) The Government of Israel has announced 
that it will not participate in the Durban III meet-
ing, stating that ‘‘Israel is part of the international 
struggle against racism. The Jewish people was 
itself a victim of racism throughout history. Israel 
regrets that a resolution on an important subject— 
elimination of racism—has been diverted and politi-
cized by the automatic majority at the UN, by link-
ing it to the Durban Declaration and Programme of 
Action (2001) that many states would prefer to for-
get. The Durban Conference of 2001, with its 
antisemitic undertones and displays of hatred for 
Israel and the Jewish World, left us with scars that 
will not heal quickly . . . Under the present cir-
cumstances, as long as the [Durban III] meeting is 
defined as part of the infamous ‘Durban process’, 
Israel will not participate . . .’’. 
(32) On June 2, 2011, the United States pub-
licly announced that it would not participate in the 
Durban III meeting. U.S. State Department deputy 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
spokesman stated that the ‘‘Durban process includes 
displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and we 
don’t want to see that commemorated. In our con-
versations about this commemoration, we’ve not seen 
the kind of progress that we think is indicative. We 
remain unconvinced that the conference is moving in 
a new direction.’’. 
(33) The Governments of the Czech Republic, 
the Netherlands, and Italy have announced that they 
will not participate in the Durban III meeting. 
(34) The Durban I and Durban II Conferences, 
and the preparatory and follow-on activities for both, 
have made little or no demonstrable contribution to 
combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, 
and related intolerance. 
(35) To date, several million dollars from the 
United Nations regular budget has been expended 
on Durban I, Durban II, and their preparatory and 
follow-on activities. 
(36) 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. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
(37) Funding for Durban I, Durban II, and 
their preparatory and follow-on activities through 
the United Nations regular budget has resulted in 
United States taxpayer dollars being used for those 
purposes. 
(38) The United States Congress, through its 
adoption of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2008 (Public Law 110–161) withheld from the 
United States assessed contribution for fiscal year 
2008 to the United Nations regular budget an 
amount equivalent to the United States share of the 
United Nations Human Rights Council budget, in-
cluding its share of the Council-administered pre-
paratory process for Durban II. 
SEC. 702. SENSE OF CONGRESS; STATEMENT OF POLICY. 
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that— 
(1) the Durban I and Durban II conferences, 
and their preparatory and follow-on activities, were 
subverted by members of the Organization of the Is-
lamic Conference and irredeemably distorted into a 
forum for anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-freedom 
activity; 
(2) by walking out of the Durban I conference, 
not participating in the Durban II conference, and 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
06:09 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
announcing that it would not participate in the Dur-
ban III meeting, the United States Government 
upheld and reaffirmed the fundamental commitment 
of the United States to combating racism, racial dis-
crimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance; 
(3) the Governments of Canada, Israel, Italy, 
Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Australia, New 
Zealand, and the Czech Republic should be com-
mended for their decision to not participate or cease 
participation in the Durban II conference. 
(4) the Governments of Canada, Israel, the 
Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Italy, and any 
other government that decides not to participate in 
the Durban III meeting, should be commended for 
that decision; and 
(5) the Administration should expeditiously and 
unequivocally announce that it will not participate 
in, support, or legitimize any part of the Durban 
process. 
(b) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It shall be the policy 
of the United States to— 
(1) lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encour-
age other responsible countries— 
(A) not to participate in, support, legiti-
mize, or fund any portion of the Durban III 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
meeting, its preparatory or follow-on activities, 
or any other part of the Durban process, and 
(B) to withhold from their respective con-
tributions to the regularly assessed biennial 
budget of the United Nations an amount that 
is equal to the percentage of such respective 
contributions that they determine would be or 
has been allocated by the United Nations for 
any part of the Durban III meeting or its pre-
paratory or follow-on activities, or for any other 
part of the Durban process; 
(2) lead a high-level diplomatic effort to explore 
credible, alternative forums for combating racism, 
racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intol-
erance. 
SEC. 703. NON-PARTICIPATION IN THE DURBAN PROCESS. 
None of the funds made available in any provision 
of law may be used for United States participation in the 
Durban III meeting, its preparatory or follow-on activities, 
or any further part of the Durban process. 
SEC. 704. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS; REFUND OF UNITED 
STATES TAXPAYER DOLLARS. 
(a) WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS FOR THE DURBAN 
PROCESS.—The Secretary of State shall withhold from the 
United States contribution to the regular budget of the 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:19 Aug 31, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2829.IH
H2829
jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS