mr. chairman , i thank our great esteemed chairman , chairman hyde , for yielding me this time . 
by limiting instruments of persuasion to an authorization by the secretary of state to withhold u.s. dues , this substitute would all but guarantee that few of these reforms would actually be implemented . 
much of the world , including many at the u.n. , would be excused if they saw any threats as a mere bluff . 
the historical record tells us very accurately that any level of success can only be done if we use our leverage . 
if we adopt the lantos-shays substitute amendment , we will not have that leverage . 
my colleagues maintain that our legislation does not afford sufficient flexibility . 
yet a fair reading of this text reveals that that is just not the case . 
first , the certifications for action are not required until the year 2007 . 
secondly , this legislation allows the secretary of state to certify u.n . 
reforms that are substantially similar to , or accomplish the same goals and the same objectives as , the hyde u.n . 
reform act . 
that is plenty of flexibility , mr. chairman . 
if the u.n . 
does on its own institute these reforms , then we have no problems . 
the withholding provisions in the henry hyde u.n . 
reform act will only be triggered and implemented if the u.n . 
does not reform itself . 
the onus is on the u.n . 
to fulfill its stated commitment to reform . 
the constitution gives to congress the responsibility for determining how the public 's money will be spent . 
the lantos substitute proposes to surrender that obligation , that principal source of congressional authority , to an unelected official of the executive branch who has not been entrusted with it by the constitution . 
however burdensome that task is , mr. chairman , it is ours to carry out . 
reforming the u.n . 
is about lives . 
it is not just about policies . 
let us carry out our obligation to the taxpayers by rejecting the lantos substitute and by affirming the hyde bill . 
