mr. chairman , as so ably demonstrated by the gentlemen from california ( mr. lantos  and mr. rohrabacher ) , the u.n .  is crying out for reform .  but let us not forget that the only oath we as members take is to the constitution and votes should reflect this obligation , not pique , not ideology , not well-intentioned concern for reform .  unfortunately , the approach contained in the bill before us contravenes the united nations charter and undercuts the rule of law .  it also misreads the constitutional prerogatives of congress .  it is true that under article 1 we have been given purse-string authority .  it is not true that we have been provided the power to negotiate .  that authority resides with the executive branch .  there has been a suggestion made that only by threatening the withholding of resources can progress be made at the u.n .  this assertion at first blush sounds like commonsense realism .  but counterintuitively to utterers of this precept , historical experience reveals that prior u.s. withholding tactics have frequently embarrassed the united states and weakened , rather than strengthened , our diplomatic positions .  nobody likes to be threatened , especially when threats represent breaches of the law of nations .  it is no accident that the bush administration has voiced opposition to this bill and warned that unilaterally backing out of our financial obligations will undermine our credibility and effectiveness at the u.n .  one obvious issue , especially for my republican colleagues , is whether deference to the judgment of house leadership in matters of multilateral diplomacy is more compelling than deference to the president .  but this quandary is secondary to the issue of the rule of law .  the fundamental choice today is between deference to the law or to sovereign impunity .  any sense of history would suggest that now is not the time to denigrate law .  the passions of men , no matter how understandable must be constrained by law if there is any hope for a more peaceful and just world .  accordingly , i intend to vote for the principal substitute to the committee bill , but against either the committee bill or the substitute on final passage .  the former represents a congressional directive that in all likelihood will require the u.s. to declare financial war on the united nations .  the alternative approach , while more restrained , has the effect of authorizing the executive branch to conduct a financial war on the u.n .  should the secretary of state choose to do so .  both presumptuously imply that the united states is free of an international obligation to pay its assessment .  this body would be wiser to abide by the rule of law and fidelity to the constitution , not the politics of the moment .  finally , mr. speaker , it is at times like this i am reminded of the warning of the english philosopher , john locke , who once suggested that little is more dangerous than a good prince , because that prince is so respected it is hard to object when he may be wrong .  henry hyde is not just a good prince , he is a great one .  but i fear in this instance he may be wrong , and i would suggest to my colleagues that the most appropriate way to show our esteem is through respectful dissent to the finest in our midst .  mr. chairman .  at the outset , let me express my appreciation to chairman hyde and his staff for reaching out to consult with me as this legislation was developed .  although we have differing perspectives on this bill , i have the utmost respect for our distinguished chairman , as well as his staff , who are among the finest on capitol hill .  the committee has done a quality job in assembling a panoply of united nations reform proposals .  virtually all of the suggestions are compelling .  the problem is the framework of their consideration .  unfortunately , in my judgment , the underlying committee approach is thoroughly inappropriate .  the democratic substitute is better , but is inappropriate as well .  all of us have pique of one kind or another about the u.n .  as a supporter of the principles that underlie the founding of the united nations , i must confess to profound disappointment in the conflicts of interest that developed in the oil-for-food program .  bizarrely , according to a federal indictment made public earlier this spring , a south korean named tongsun park appears to be at the center point of one set of iraqi oil transfers in which as a middleman he may have used part of his commissions to influence several u.n .  officials .  what is astonishingly `` dja 2 vu '' about these charges is that tongsun park had been indicted on bribery and conspiracy charges in the late 1970s for using his role as a rice agent for the u.s. food for peace program to bestow money and gifts on members of congress who had legislated the guidelines that allowed commissions on those agricultural sales .  the involvement of tongsun park in the iraqi oil-for-food scandal may be a footnote to the abuses that developed but it symbolically underscores the urgent need for reform , accountability and transparency in u.n .  endeavors .  ironically , the oil-for-food program was authorized by the security council with u.s. support and every contract had to be approved by the government of the united states .  it appears that proceeds from some of these contracts may have benefited influential individuals and institutions in various countries , including russia and france , and thus had the effect of providing financial incentives for people in key foreign countries to oppose the policy perspectives of the united states .  it also appears that conflicts of interest may have been precipitated with a small number of u.n .  employees .  perspective is difficult to bring to issues of the day , but with regard to the oil-for-food program , it is apparent that the international system is vulnerable to corruption .  it may be that relative to the multi-billion-dollar size of the program , the conflicts in new york may to some seem paltry .  but it should be clear that a few thousand here and a few thousand there add up to a loss of confidence in institutions of governance .  bureaucratic waste and ineptitude are a challenge to any large organization , but of all institutions the u.n .  should be the one most sensitive in the world to the problem of the `` two c 's : '' corruption and conflicts of interest .  the united nations was created to promote the rule of law among and within nations .  it was expected to be an honest and implacably neutral broker to help settle international disputes and advance international law in areas as diverse as arms control , trade , human rights , and the environment .  in all these activities , political differences were to be expected , but integrity of purpose and deed was to be the u.n. 's hallmark .  but tragically , no institution can fulfill its mission if its programs are subverted or its representatives conduct themselves in ways that are not respectful of the law .  corruption is the bitterest breach of trust , especially for the u.n. , which in so many parts of the world represents the aspirations of people who live in desperate poverty and fear .  in this regard , in december 2004 , congress directed the united states institute of peace to establish a task force on the united nations .  the 12-member bipartisan task force , chaired by former house speaker newt gingrich and former senate majority leader george mitchell , worked with leading public policy organizations to assess reforms that would enable the u.n .  to better meet the goals of its 1945 charter and offer the u.s. government an actionable agenda to strengthen the u.n .  the report recommends establishing a chief operating officer to be in charge of daily u.n .  operations ; empowering the secretary general to replace his or her top officials ; and creating an independent oversight board with adequate audit powers to prevent another scandal like oil-for-food .  in addition , the report suggests abolishing the current u.n .  human rights commission and establishing a new human rights council , ideally to be composed of democratic governments committed to monitoring , promoting , and enforcing human rights .  over the years , there have been many reports advocating u.n .  reform .  by background , in the early 1990 's i co-chaired the united states commission on improving the effectiveness of the united nations .  the commission held six hearings in regional centers across the country , receiving testimony from hundreds of witnesses representing a cross-section of philosophical perspectives .  the report the commission put forth underlined a certain degree of optimism that the u.n .  could play a constructive role in world affairs , but explicitly recognized `` serious management problems '' and lack of adequate financial accountability in the u.n .  system , and called for the u.n .  to establish a fully independent inspector general 's office .  with respect to political and security issues , the commission , like the gingrich-mitchell commission , recognized that means must be found to make the security council more representative of power balances in the world today ; accordingly , it recommended the expansion of permanent membership of the security council .  i introduced a bill to this effect yesterday , house resolution 321 , and am hopeful it will receive serious committee and house review at a later date .  also like the gingrich-mitchell commission , the u.s. commission on improving the effectiveness of the united nations recommended the establishment of a u.n .  rapid reaction force to prevent acts of genocide and crimes against humanity .  arguably , these last recommendations -- expansion of the security council and establishment of a u.n .  rapid deployment force -- are the two most important reform proposals the u.n .  is considering today .  the reform bill before us today is silent on each .  while both the gingrich-mitchell commission and the earlier u.n .  commission highlighted severe management concerns , neither advocated linking progress on u.n .  reform to u.s. payment of dues to the organization .  indeed , eight former u.s. ambassadors to the united nations -- madeleine albright , john danforth , richard holbrooke , jeane kirkpatrick , donald mchenry , thomas pickering , bill richardson and andrew young -- urged congress earlier this week to reject legislation that would withhold payments to the world body unless specific reform plans were enacted .  here , we must understand precisely what the meaning of a 50 percent cut in u.s. contributions to the u.n. , as envisioned in the bill before us , implies .  as the country in the world that most stands for the rule of law , we are proposing to circumvent it .  the committee approach represents a congressional directive that in all likelihood will require the u.s. to declare financial war on the united nations .  the alternative democratic approach , while more restrained , has the effect of authorizing the executive branch to conduct a financial war on the u.n .  should the secretary of state choose to do so .  both approaches contravene the u.n .  charter , a treaty binding all parties , including the united states .  it specifies : `` the expenses of the organization shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the general assembly '' ( article 17 ( 2 ) ) .  in 1962 , the international court of justice held -- sustaining the position of the united states -- that apportionment of expenses by the general assembly creates the obligation of each member to bear that part of the expenses apportioned to it .  both efforts , the first boldly , the second with an extra executive branch hurdle , presumptuously imply that the united states is free of an international obligation to pay its assessments .  this position runs counter to elemental principles of international law .  the vienna convention on the law of treaties provides that : `` every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith '' ( article 26 ) .  it specifies that : `` a state party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of internal law as justification for its failure to perform the treaty '' ( article 21 ( 1 ) ) .  the only oath we as members take is to the constitution .  votes should reflect this obligation , not pique , not ideology , not well-intentioned concern for reform .  the bill before us undercuts the rule of law .  it also misreads the constitutional prerogative of congress .  it is true under article i that we have been given purse string authority .  it is not true that we have been provided the power to negotiate .  that authority resides with the executive branch .  the legislation before us eviscerates the separation of powers that our founders so thoughtfully constructed .  the democratic alternative represents a credible political , but uncompelling legal balancing .  the wiser way to go is to take the group of reform ideas assembled in the committee bill , many of which , by the way have been derived from recommendations of various u.n .  initiated panels , and simply direct the executive to use its authority to seek to advance them in a way only it can .  there has been a suggestion made that only by threatening the withholding of resources can progress at the u.n .  be made .  this assertion at first blush sounds like common-sense realism .  but counter-intuitively to utterers of this precept , historical experience reveals that prior u.s. withholding tactics have frequently embarrassed the u.s. and weakened rather than strengthened u.s. diplomatic positions .  nobody likes to be threatened , especially when threats represent breaches of the law of nations .  this bill , while frustratingly reflective of many legitimate sentiments , will almost certainly prove counterproductive .  while it contains good ideas that many in the u.n .  community support , the coercive methodology implicit in the threat of withholding legally obligated resources will jeopardize rather than advance prospects for reform .  it is no accident that the bush administration has voiced opposition to this bill and warned that unilaterally backing out of our financial obligations will undermine our credibility and effectiveness at the u.n .  we may be the greatest democracy in history but in a world where u.s. leadership has for so many lost its luster , good policy is far likelier to precipitate constructive results than big economic threats .  one obvious issue , especially for my republican colleagues , is whether on matters of multilateral diplomacy deference to the judgment of house leadership is more compelling than deference to the president .  but this quandary is secondary to the issue of the rule of law .  the fundamental choice today is between deference to the law or to sovereign impunity .  any sense of history would suggest that now is not the time to denigrate law .  the passions of men , no matter how understandable , must be constrained by law , if there is any hope for a more peaceful and just world .  accordingly , i intend to vote for the principal substitute to the committee bill , but against either the committee or the substitute on final passage .  it is the rule of law and fidelity to the constitution , not the politics of the moment that should guide our consideration of this bill .  