mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
i just want to respond to what i think was an inadvertent misstatement by the gentleman from indiana on what i think is an over-the-top provision of this bill , requiring a veto of any new or expanded peacekeeping operations in the security council . 
he referred to it as an ability for the u.s. to withhold its forces for it . 
but read the provision you have written : the president shall direct the united states permanent representative to the u.n . 
to use the voice , the vote and the influence of the u.s. at the u.n . 
to oppose the creation of a new or expansion of existing peacekeeping operations . 
`` vote '' means `` veto '' at the security council . 
you veto the peacekeeping operation , it does not happen . 
the genocide in darfur continues , no matter what the political will is of the body , because we have only trained 60 , 000 of the 68 , 000 peacekeepers by the day this bill passes . 
this has nothing to do with the debate about withholding dues as leverage . 
this has to do with define our own national interests in the name of i do not know what . 
it makes no sense , it is unconstitutional , and it should have been stricken from this bill . 
