mr. chairman , i rise to oppose the lantos-shays substitute and to direct members ' attention to a serious flaw in the peacekeeping section , which i respectfully submit are reasons enough to vote against the substitute . 
the substitute amendment gives the u.n . 
until 2007 to complete even the most basic tasks . 
this is completely unnecessary , and i submit only encourages some states who view rape and exploitation of young women and children by u.n . 
peacekeepers as a mere public relations problem and thus an opportunity to dig in their heels and stall the reform process . 
prince zeid has told some of us , i met with him last week , that sustained pressure is needed to get results . 
we have been here before . 
in 2002 , we knew about the exploitation of children by u.n . 
personnel in the congo . 
i have already chaired two hearings on it myself in my subcommittee . 
yes , the u.n . 
is moving in the right direction , but there needs to be considerable pressure brought to bear to make this happen . 
what is perhaps most troubling about the substitute is that it authorizes an up to 10 percent withholding of u.s. assessed contributions to u.n . 
peacekeeping . 
i want to be clear on this point . 
the hyde bill supports full funding of all existing missions , while the substitute authorizes up to a 10 percent cutoff of our assessed contributions to u.n . 
peacekeeping . 
the withholding is linked to a certification requirement which is , plain and simple , bad policy . 
the intent is good . 
i have no doubt about that . 
but it is flawed . 
the substitute requires the secretary of state to certify that the u.s. permanent rep at the u.n . 
has made every effort to ensure the formal adoption and implementation of mechanisms to suspend the membership of a member state if genocide , ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity are determined to be occurring in that member state regardless of whether the acts are being committed by the government or by a third party . 
`` third party '' is the problem . 
there are countries like the congo , and we have also seen it in uganda , where there are `` third-party '' groups of terrorists and killers and maimers who the government would like to see done away with and are actively cooperating with the international community and the u.n . 
itself to try to mitigate this terrible problem . 
under this language , which is very different than the language that the gentleman from nebraska ( mr. fortenberry ) xz4006400 offered , we would be in a strange and , i think , even bizarre situation where even where there has been an effort made by the state , there could be an explusion and a cutoff of peacekeeping money , 10 percent assessed contribution cutoff . 
it would be wrong for a state to lose their membership when there was no omission , no commission on their part with regards to crimes against humanity and that is where the fortenberry amendment got it right . 
i think we can all agree that genocidal governments do not deserve to have an equal voice at the u.n . 
with other peacekeeping and peace-loving nations . 
but we should not punish those governments which are fighting against those who would commit such heinous acts . 
i think that language is , as i said , egregiously flawed . 
the hyde amendment does get it right . 
