mr. chairman , i think it is important that when we talk about reforming the united nations that we have to be clear about what the united nations is . 
it is not simply the secretariat . 
the secretariat is just the staff . 
they are the hired help . 
they run the day-to-day affairs of the united nations ; but it is the member states that set policy , that make decisions that are responsible for oversight in implementation of the united nations resolutions . 
in particular , it is the function of the security council to carry out those responsibilities . 
the united states is a permanent member of the security council , with the power to veto any resolution . 
when the security council does not want the united nations to work , it will not work . 
the gingrich-mitchell report put it this way , and i am quoting , `` too often the phrase `the united nations failed ' should actually read `members of the united nations blocked or undermined action by the united nations. ' `` an excellent example of this concept is the sanctions against iraq in the oil-for-food program . 
the united states advocated for the sanctions on iraq in the aftermath of the gulf war and then supported the oil-for-food program , advocated for it , but it was the security council , not some amorphous united nations somewhere up in new york , that had the responsibility to oversee the oil-for-food program and the sanction regime . 
but when jordan and turkey notified the security council that they intended to purchase oil from iraq , in direct violation of the sanctions regime , the security council simply took notice , whatever that means . 
i still can not figure it out , but they did nothing else . 
it did not block jordan and turkey from this trade . 
it did not sanction those countries . 
it did not instruct the secretariat to take any action . 
it did nothing . 
as a result , syria and egypt then began to purchase oil from iraq as well , and it is important to understand that this ended up as the largest illicit source of revenue for saddam hussein , and it had nothing to do with the oil-for-food program , nothing to do with it at all . 
the moneys derived from these so-called trade protocols far exceeded the money that saddam hussein skimmed from the oil-for-food program . 
this chart next to me shows that the so-called trade protocols generated over $ 8 billion in revenue for saddam hussein . 
my friend , the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations talks about $ 10 billion ; 8 billion of that came from the security council 's inaction while looking the other way . 
even some of the money that saddam stole from the oil-for-food program could have been saved by aggressive oversight by the security council . 
it is important to note it was the security council that approved all prices on oil exports from iraq , and every contract needed their approval for humanitarian goods coming into iraq , and yet when the secretariat brought 71 contracts to the attention of the security council because of concerns of pricing irregularities , the security council did nothing , did nothing , and saddam profited and stayed in power as a result . 
why ? 
why did the security council not address any of these issues ? 
because the security council , including our own government , and there was two administrations involved , both the clinton and the bush administration , reached a political decision that it was not in their interests to fully enforce the sanctions . 
that has to be understood . 
so when we talk about making the united nations more effective , let us be clear that the changes that are being proposed , and that i embrace , do not fully address the problem . 
what is ultimately required is improving the way member states work together , and some level of transparency in the internal workings of the security council , not unilaterally withholding dues . 
i am convinced that those eight ambassadors who sent that letter to our congressional leadership are correct when they say withholding dues to the united nations may sound like smart policy , but would be counterproductive . 
it would create resentment , build animosity and actually strengthen the opponents of reform . 
it would place in jeopardy the reform initiatives that we embrace . 
please understand that . 
