mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
as someone who appreciates the work performed by the international labor organization and efforts to bring about and secure labor rights for oppressed people in countries under dictatorial rule , it is with difficulty that i rise in opposition of the gentleman 's amendment , but i must . 
had the amendment called on the u.s. permanent representative to the u.n . 
to work to strengthen the ilo , to increase site inspections , as we had wanted to do , i am confident that we would have gladly supported the gentleman 's amendment . 
however , this amendment before us today does not seek to reform the ilo , but seeks to use the u.n . 
to dictate and determine domestic policies of the u.n . 
member states , policies such as social security schemes and employee benefits ; and these are issues that in the u.s. , for example , we in the congress are working on and are responsible for . 
we should not use legislation that seeks to reform the u.n. , an international institution , as a means of influencing very specific domestic policy initiatives . 
the bill before us , the henry hyde u.n . 
reform act of 2005 , deals with bringing accountability to the u.n. 's budget process . 
it does not concern itself with dictating internal , substantive outcomes on the u.n. 's budget process . 
in short , today , we are focused on reforming how the u.s. , how the u.n . 
makes the decisions , not on what decisions it makes or what the member states make . 
the gentleman from ohio would have been , i believe , better served by offering his amendment , as others have , by it having called upon the president to direct the u.s. permanent representative to work to ensure enhanced funding for the international labor rights organization , which i believe is a worthy goal , and on that very issue , in fact , this is already being done . 
the amendment suggests that the ilo is not doing enough in the social protection sector . 
however , the 2006-2007 budget that was agreed to shows a significant increase in the budget for the activities of this sector . 
the 2004-2005 budget for the protection sector was $ 72.7 million in 2006 , and the 2007 budget is $ 91 million . 
overall , the international labor organization budget increased 12 percent from $ 529 million during the 2004 and 2005 biennium to $ 594 million in 2006 and 2007 . 
that is $ 297 million per year . 
the amendment also requires an increase in the field presence by the ilo . 
however , the organization is currently undertaking a review of the field structures to determine the most effective overseas profile , and this amendment would have the effect of preempting the outcome of this study . 
i have been a proud supporter of labor organizations . 
we want to make sure that they help the oppressed people in all of these countries and do not abuse their people . 
however , i do not think that this amendment , dictating what member states do with their domestic policies , would get to the heart of the gentleman 's amendment . 
