madam speaker , i also want to add to the remarks of the gentleman from florida ( mr. hastings )  and our ranking member , the gentleman from california ( mr. lantos )  , when it comes to the gentleman from illinois ( mr. hyde )  .  i have served with the chairman both on the committee on the judiciary and on the committee on international relations .  i have profound respect and deep affection for him , but i do not like his bill .  it is clear that there is a consensus that the united nations needs reform .  we want reform .  our allies want reform .  the secretary general wants reform .  just this week a congressionally created task force chaired by the former speaker of the house newt gingrich and the former majority leader senator george mitchell issued a report urging adoption of many of the proposals put forth by the secretary general ; but it did not recommend that congress withhold dues to serve as a catalyst to bring about those reforms .  presumably , they were in agreement with the eight former u.s. ambassadors to the united nations , both republican and democrat , who stated yesterday in a letter to the congressional leadership , and i would ask my colleagues to pay close attention to this particular excerpt , `` withholding u.s. dues to the united nations may sound like smart policy , but would be counterproductive .  it would create resentment , build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform .  it would place in jeopardy the reform initiatives most important to u.s. interests. '' remember , these are americans who represented our nation at the united nations .  they understand how the institution works .  they know how to get things done .  yes , madam speaker , i am optimistic that reform will occur , but it will not happen as a result of this bill , it will happen in spite of this bill .  if it were a thoughtful effort to effect change , why did the committee proceed before the gingrich-mitchell task force that we created and funded back in december even made its recommendations ?  no , this bill will not promote u.n .  reform , madam speaker .  it is more likely to undermine those efforts .  support for this bill will reinforce a growing belief that we are not committed to strengthening the united nations , to working with our like-minded allies to make it a more effective tool to promote our interests .  i recognize that some , a few , on the other side honestly believe we should end any participation , any u.s. participation in the united nations .  they prefer to go it alone , but they forget that without the united nations it would fall on us to do much of what the united nations is doing on the planet today , and that the united nations has supported the united states in some of our critical foreign policy needs .  it was the united nations that organized and ran the elections in iraq and in afghanistan and played a critical role in forcing the syrian withdrawal from lebanon .  the ambassadors are correct , resentment towards the united states will increase .  that is because what this bill simply says is unless you do everything we want , we will cut off your funds .  in other words , if you do not play the game according to our rules , we will take our ball and go home .  this take-it-or-leave-it approach does not help us , it hurts us .  a recent gao report stated , and again i am quoting , `` recent polling data show that anti-americanism is spreading and deepening around the world .  such anti-american sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism directed against the united states , impact the cost and effectiveness of military operations , weaken the united states ' ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives , and dampen foreign publics ' enthusiasm for u.s. business services and products. '' that is a quote from our own gao .  this bill is bad for our national security interests , it is bad for america , and i hope it is defeated .  