mr. chairman , i thank the ranking member for yielding me this time . 
because he is not on the floor at this point , i am not going to take this opportunity , i will have many more , to express in some detail my affection , my respect and my admiration for the chairman of our committee who sponsors this bill and who has announced his intent not to seek reelection to the next congress . 
but once in a while in the course of both of our tenures here , i have had occasion to oppose an initiative , and in this case i do so very strongly . 
on the surface this may look like a partisan conflict , but in reality it is not . 
the ambassador under ronald reagan to the united nations says about the bill before us , reforming the united nations is the right goal . 
withholding our dues to the u.n . 
is the wrong methodology . 
when we last built debt to the u.n. , the u.s. isolated ourselves from our allies within the u.n . 
and made diplomacy an impossible task . 
modernizing the united nations to be more capable and effective must be done through engaging our allies and being a leader for creating a u.n . 
for a new century . 
that is ambassador jeane kirkpatrick , no member of the united world federalists is she . 
a recent commission co-chaired by our former speaker newt gingrich , not a man enamored of ideological multilateralism , prepared a report on much-needed u.n . 
reforms and never suggests a mandatory dues cut as a way to effectively achieve those results . 
the president of the united states and this administration , which i believe is a republican administration , indicates very strongly the error of this approach and asks this body to reconsider moving ahead with this particular bill . 
but the area that i want to most focus on does not deal with the dues cut , but has a provision on peacekeeping that is particularly egregious . 
based on the failure to implement five reforms by the effective date of this bill , the day after this bill is signed into law , and those reforms are much needed , i think they are on the way to happening , i do not quarrel with any of them , in fact , i think they are compelling in their nature , this bill mandates the president of the united states to instruct our ambassador to the united nations to veto any new or the expansion of any existing peacekeeping operation . 
in other words , the congress steps in , usurps the executive branch function of formulating foreign policy in exercising its discretion on what its appointee will do in the end without regard to u.s. national interests and in direct violation of executive branch prerogatives . 
for the chairman of this committee to sponsor a bill that does something like that is , i would suggest , quite out of character because there is no one in this house who has made a stronger point in his career of trying to ensure that the president 's power as commander in chief and implementer of foreign policy is maintained . 
the national interest issue compels us to say this is not the right approach . 
what if a new u.n . 
peacekeeping operation , the problems with china or russia in the context of darfur are overcome , and there is a consensus for a new augmented operation there involving african countries , involving european countries , perhaps with no commitment whatsoever from the united states for such an operation ? 
because of the failure to fully implement all five of these reforms , our ambassador , notwithstanding the humanitarian tragedy , notwithstanding how the united states will look to the rest of the world , our ambassador is required to veto such a peacekeeping operation ? 
what if a situation like east timor comes up again , and whatever the problems have been , and whatever the failures to fully implement these reforms , there is a compelling national interest reason for us to support a peacekeeping operation once again that may not involve u.s. troops or forces ? 
why would we want to mandate something that is fraught with constitutional problems and does a disservice to our national interest in such legislation ? 
this is a foolish and improper amendment . 
