mr. chairman , i rise with great respect for both the gentleman from illinois ( mr. hyde )  and the gentleman from california ( mr. lantos )  in this .  while we can all agree that our country , as the biggest contributor to the u.n. , must help the organization become more efficient and effective , the lantos-shays substitute finds a compromise that i think reflects where the majority of americans come down on this issue .  the gingrich-mitchell task force takes serious issue with much of the damaging policies that have occurred at the u.n. , but it refrains from calling for mandatory withholding of dues .  president bush has also signaled his opposition to many of these provisions , which may hinder our ambassador 's dealings with the organization .  under the lantos-shays substitute , we can send the same message to the international community without undermining our efforts to promote democracy and protect those in need .  mr. chairman , i rise in support of the lantos/shays substitute .  chairman hyde has been an indispensable member of this body for many years , and i commend you for bringing this important debate before us .  while i strongly agree with chairman hyde , that serious and fundamental problems exist at the united nations , i prefer the president 's approach of continuing to pursue negotiations for reform through diplomatic means .  regardless of preference for this bill , we can all agree that the u.n .  and the international community should hear our outrage for the mismanagement of what is meant to be an example of unity and peace .  i commend the chairman and the full committee for trying to improve the accountability of those at the u.n .  and hope this debate will trigger reforms in the functioning of this embattled , yet well-meaning organization .  the lantos-shays substitute reflects the significant reforms outlined in the chairman 's bill .  however , it makes an all important distinction in rightly leaving the secretary of state with the discretion to decide when , and if , the ultimatums are a hindrance to our national interests .  alternatively , automatically withholding funds may derail our international and global commitments and could have a devastating impact on poor nations around the world .  while we can all agree that our country , as the biggest contributor to the u.n. , must help the organization become more efficient and effective , the lantos-shays substitute finds a compromise that i think reflects where the majority of americans come down on this issue .  the gingrich-mitchell task force takes serious issue with much of the damaging policies that have occurred at the u.n. , but it refrains from calling for mandatory withholding of dues .  president bush has also signaled his opposition to many of these provisions , which may hinder our ambassador 's dealings with the organization .  under the lantos-shays substitute , we can send the same message to the international community without undermining our efforts to promote democracy and protect those in need .  