the 1980's. we came back in the 1990's, filled this place to the rafters. planned parenthood organize the march for women's lives. with over 1 million women and wham who stood up for reproductive rights, and guess what -- we're not away. -- we're not going away. they pulled these shenanigans year after year, a battle after day, per day after forget of young people who will stand up for a woman's right to choose. why does a gay guy like me care about choice?

i care about contraception because it keeps us healthy. i care about the fact that my niece's should be able to choose when and if they have a child. that no politician should stand in the way of my sisters being able to decide what they want to do with their personal life. at the base of it, we control our bodies. we decide who we love and marry. halwe decide whether or not we l have a family. those folks have to hear it from us that we decide.

our voices are not his to be heard across the street but in places like south dakota and north dakota, florida, where they are here. go home and tell your folks and family that you decide and live your life with dignity the way you want. that is your god-given right in america. [applause] [applause] >> we decide, we decide, we decide. >> bravo. bravo. you have been amazing. are these guys amazing?

[applause] it is my distinct pleasure to introduce one of the nation's foremost religious figures, spiritual writers, and activists who will close our rally. please welcome her. >> we have this thing called testimony. we tell someone a story which we overcame or something that we want to rebuild to god. in 1969, i had a hard choice of having an abortion in a dark alley and i almost died from it. i had planned parenthood so i could have at least a healthy choice for my life and have healthy information.

i brought my daughter and my granddaughter with may because i want her to be an activist. women today, you have given your voice and vote. we need to have our choice. we need productive rights. we want to stop the war on women. i want to lay led to have the same things that the women are given today, equal health care, equal understanding of what their life choices are. not to be terrified by any man

keeping us in darkness. show up, show out, stop the war on women. to that, i say that is a woman not a man's decision. >> thank you. >> i will see you on this hill. good night.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> as washington works on finding, debate has started on next year's budget. see what has been said from capitol hill to the white house. search, watch, share with everything we have covered since 1987. today, the u.s. envoy to the u.n. warned congress against withholding funding for the u.n.. she said it would hurt u.s. diplomatic efforts around the world. her testimony is next on c-span. after that, we will hear from house majority leader eric kanter and minority whip steny

hoyer. then, house debate on federal spending. government funding is set to expire at midnight tomorrow. tomorrow, we will talk to a republican from wisconsin and democratic congressman paul tanko. we will also discuss what will happen during a government shutdown. "washington journal," each day here on c-span. the u.s. ambassador to the u.s. -- to the united nation outlined the united nations' priorities for reforming the u.n.. she called on congress to approve the three and half billion dollar budget request for the u.n. and other agencies. this house for affairs committee is chaired by --

>> the committee will come to order. we would like to express our condolences to the seven u.s.

personnel murdered in afghanistan last thursday and the 32 people, both u.n. staff and others, who died in a plane crash in the democratic republic of the condo. i would like to observe a moment of silence for those that have lost their lives. >> after recognizing myself and the ranking member for seven minutes each. the chair will recognize our distinguished witness and a friend of the committee, ambassador rice. members will be recognized for questions under the 5 minute rule. the prepared statement will be made a part of this record and members may have five days to

insert statements for the record subject to the limitations of length of the rules. the chair recognizes herself for seven minutes. always a pleasure to welcome you back to your committee. this is the third session the committee has held this year. the regular budget has more than doubled. has the effectiveness increase in proportion? sthe former head of the u.n. ethics office had this to say " there is no transparency, there is a lack of accountability. i regret to say that the u.n. secretariat is in a process of decay. this is drifting into irrelevance. the u.n. has never released the full report to the public.

the former u.n. deputy secretary-general said there is a huge redundancy and lack of efficiency in the u.n. system and that the budget is utterly opaque. it is not transparent and completely in shadow. some take comfort in the u.n. generals call for a 3% cut in the next budget. that is like forgoing a cost of living increase. we would like to ensure that present and future efforts are based on what works. the most important lesson, money talks. this was recognized in a february 2005 op ed published in the "washington post." almost every productive effort has been based on withholding

our contributions unless and until needed reforms are implemented. in the 1990's wendy peacekeeping budgets were skyrocketing, congress enacted the helms-by an agreement. we withheld our reduced until we saw reforms. they agreed. smart withholding alone is insufficient to produce a lasting systemic reform that our u.s. taxpayers are demanding. that is why we must move funding from the u.n. budget and the u.n. entity from an assessed to a voluntary basis.

americans, not bureaucrats or other countries should determine how much tax their dollars are spent on the u.n., where they go, and for what purpose. that is at the accountability and reform act which i first introduced in 2007. we should pay for programs and activities that advance our interests and our values. if other countries want different things to be funded, they can pay for it. the voluntary model works for unicef. this can work for the u.n. as a whole. the former u.n. secretary general for management and director of the world food program says that voluntary funding has an entirely

different atmosphere at the world food program. it has to be official, transparent, and results transparent as possible. they can take their funding elsewhere and a very competitive world among u.n. agencies and bilateral governments. ambassador rice, with respect to the references in your prepared testimony to the u.n. office of internal oversight services. i must highlight that scores of fraud cases from the now defunct procurement task force are collecting dust in this office of internal oversight offices. the job of lead investigator has not been filled on a permanent basis since 2006. the individual who holds that position on a interim basis is

under investigation himself for retaliating against whistle- blowers. finally, madame ambassador, your written testimony says "the one helps to investigate terrorist and human rights abusers." iran is on the board of the status of women. these are not free nations. forced thefi's expulsion, libya had a seat on the council. there was six resolutions attacking our free ally israel, more than any previous session. they recommended the referral of the report to the u.n. security council. the five-year review of the council has indicated no real

structural reforms will be forthcoming. even the u.s. mission has called this process a race to the bottom. the regime is brutally attacking its people but they are running unopposed on the human rights council. the absence of structural reforms has real consequences. we appreciate the limited tactical -- wants at the most recent sessions. that is just not enough most of us want an accountable u.n.. i believe the way to achieve this is to require reform first, pay later. lastly, i asked that the u.s. does all we can to ensure that the palestinian lobby does not gain member status in the u.n. before negotiating a true peace with our ally, israel. i am pleased to recognize my

good friend, mr. furman for his opening remarks. >> thank you very much for scheduling this hearing which allows the administration to share their views on the best approach to u.n. reform. this is one of those issues where we share the same goals but have very different views. i would like to thank the ambassador for taking time out for scheduled to be with her today. i want to follow-up on the opening comments. i want to remind our colleagues that these are not just -- behind every mission, there are

real people with the dedicating their lives to feeding the hungry, organizing democratic elections and keeping the peace. as the chairman mentioned, over 40 u.n. staff and contractors have been killed in the line of duties in five different countries around the world. we have mentioned the seven that were murdered in afghanistan. a peacekeeper that was the abducted and killed in our for and another peacekeeper that was killed in haiti. -- a peacekeeper that was abducted and killed in darfur. we send condolences to their families. you deserve credit for this work to pass and for your efforts to secure u.n. backing for the no- fly zone in libya. we appreciate the work you have

done to promote transparency. there is a possible recognition of a palestinian state, the continuation of a flawed -- process. it is essential that the u.s. maintains a leadership role in the organization. it will be dramatically weakened if they pass legislation that would be considered in this committee. by withholding a significant portion of our dues unless a nearly impossible list of conditions is that, this bill would severely hinder our ability to pursue u.s. foreign- policy and national-security interests and support our allies and achieve the reforms.

this encourages changes in the executive branch. we are one of 192 member states. we have tremendous leverage over the security council and other organizations, simply refusing to pay our bills is counterproductive. the last time congress forced congress into significant our readers into the u.n., an effort led by jesse helms, we lost our seat on the administrative and budgetary questions which is the important u.n. budget panel. if the goal was to diminish u.s. influence and a genuine reform on the back burner, than that goal was achieved beyond anyone's dreams. if the objective was to foster meaningful reforms, this withholding of dues much be just

a failure. one of the republican witnesses who testified, not the witness that i called. even the long ionesco withdrawal can be shown to have any much long-term impact on the effectiveness or the integrity of the u.n. system. ambassador rice, i look forward to hearing your views on how withholding u.s. dues would impact our efforts to prevent the recognition of the palestinian state and pursue other u.s. foreign-policy and national-security interests. much of the debate has been characterized by dated and sometimes exaggerated allegations such as the cash for kim scandal. i agree with ambassador mark wallace who argued that the

state department and congress and the verifiable metrics. the transparency initiative, an effort he spearheaded. they are evaluating the issues to make sure that funds where utilize efficiently and effectively for their intended purpose. is a told that the u.n. cesspool of corruption and a money pit for u.s. taxpayer dollars. based on our review of the data, -- has demonstrated a marked improvement among nearly

every u.n. agency and fund. this is the initiatives that the previous administration achieved before they left office. why are my friends so eager to bypass and undermine a promising effort begun by republican appointees under george w. bush? madam chairman, we agreed that much remains to be done to promote greater efficiency, accountability, and transparency and to eliminate the anti israel vitriol that emanates from the human rights council and other bodies. we have in different ways to achieve that reform. withholding u.s. dues simply does not work and a much better approach is to continue and accelerate the quiet but effective approach to you in the form begun in the previous administration. finally, i would like to reiterate my strong support for

the work that you have done to promote our foreign policy interests. we are corp. very grateful to have you there. madam chairman, i yield back. >> the subcommittee on africa, a global rights to share it is recognized. >> i would like to know if the administration has increased their efforts to seek -- who won the election in the ivory coast. we greatly appreciate the administration trying to defeat that. if you can speak to whether or

not we plan on not attending. as you know, all of the major jewish organizations have strongly recommended that we pull out. finally, as i have asked repeatedly, the ongoing problems in the democratic republic of congo or the relatively fresh allegations of peacekeepers abusing young people and especially young women is an ongoing scandal. peacekeepers obviously deal with a great amount of risk. it is intolerable to think that some of those peacekeepers are raping and committing sexual violence. >> the ranking member on the subcommittee on africa is recognized. >> thank you very much. i commend you for the work that you do. i agree with the ranking member that i don't think that

withholding dues is the way to go. i would like to commend the u.s. for their overwhelming vote in the human rights council. this is one that we will put ourselves up for reelection again. let me just say that i commend the great job done in south sudan with the election and we hope that this can be dealt with. this can increase the troops in somalia which is a very important area. maybe we can have stability on the somalia region. i will return the balance of my

time. >> welcome, ambassador. i would disagree with my friend. all of us to not have the same goals in mind. there are people on your side of the aisle and my side of the aisle that believe that we should move towards global government. the fact that the u.n. is being used as a vehicle to see how global government will function. if there is anything that has convinced me that we should not be moving towards global governing. we are expected to pay 22% of the budget of the u.n. with no strings attached is an incredible demand on the people of the united states of america. instead of trying to foist off global government on them,

perhaps we should start working to make sure that our government is functioning well and that means using our resources and the best possible way and not giving it to organization that permits communist china to have a veto power over what it does. >> mr. sherman. >> first, we have a human rights obligation to protect -- from attacks of the iraqi government. a government that is using the fact that inactions criticized by the united states court, the state department still has the mek on the terrorist list but has not determined whether that stands out the light of day. we are dramatically understating the amount we spend four u.n. military actions.

this might help you on domestic politics. you can say, we're not putting in that much money. it undermines your efforts to do more. we are dramatically understating the cost of what we are doing in libya by using the marginal cost accounting and reporting that as costing only $600 million. we need to use full cost accounting which will reveal what is the american people instinctively understand which is that effort is calling -- costing us billions a week. if we use full cost accounting, which is the proper accounting approach, to tell the world what we spent on the military actions sanctioned by the united nations, you will see that we are putting in 50%. >> i want to be very frank. where as i strongly support the

administration's decision to veto, i strongly object to your so-called explanation in which you not only support israel, but you join in the criticism of israel. in 529 short words, this administration i did most of not all of the good that had been done by its veto. i in my opinion, which or words you through israel to the wolves. secondly, on another issue, calling the massacre of un staff in afghanistan last week, the top u.n. official in afghanistan stated that "i do not think we should be binding in the afghan. if we should be blaming the person who barred the koran." i wonder if the administration agrees with that statement especially considering the

united states is the leading founder of the un? >> mr. ingle, the ranking member of the subcommittee is recognized. >> thank you, madame chair. welcome, madam secretary. many of us met with the last week. i want to reiterate what a wonderful job you do as a representative of our country. we just met with ban ki-moon and expressed some of our frustration. i know that will come out later in the questions as well. we are frustrated and tired of the un using israel as a punching bag. i am hope there can be a repudiation of the goldstone report. judge goldstone himself repudiated it. i gave a speech last night the said the un repeated it as well i chaired the subcommittee on

the western hemisphere. they are very chagrined at the recognition of palestine by the other countries. it becomes a disincentive for giving the palestinians to sit down and talk. they think they can just get recognized. these are some of the questions i will ask later on. i thank you personally for your good work. >> mr. schmidt from ohio is recognized. >> i just want to focus my remarks on two things. the first is the human rights council. it came into existence in 2006 to supposedly replaced the commission on human rights. it is difficult to see any difference. the council while significantly ignoring human rights abuses repeatedly introduces statements criticizing israel. its only purpose is to denounce our ally in the middle east. i suggest maybe we ought to move

all the council. the second is might concerned with the excessive budget of the united nations and the disproportionate share paid by the taxpayers of the united states. we are paying 30% of the peacekeeping budget. we are paying one letter% of the cost to upgrade the security at the headquarters in new york. this amounts to $100 million. the biannual budget has more than doubled. larger budgets for the un means larger deficits for the united states. i think it has come time to reform our share of contributions. >> thank you very much. the ranking member of the subcommittee on europe and eurasia. >> thank you, merit -- madam chairman. >> let me thank you for the great work you are doing at the united nations. we are very proud of you and out you have represented the united states of america.

i want to also send my condolences to the un family for the families who lost their lives in afghanistan in service to the united nations. we are focused today on un reform. the u.n. has played a vigorous and vital role. the security council resolutions -- resolution for libya and the un action represents the un at its best. on the 60th anniversary of the refugees, i would like to take special note of the critical activities around the globe. we note that the united states representatives have shaped this un situation. >> mr. kelly, the subcommittee

on asia vice chair. >> thank you, madame chair. i am deeply concerned with the u.n. peacekeeping mission. as we go forward, we are all concerned about the unsustainable debt that the united states continues to run up. using the president of return of "investment", we need to see a positive return on that investment. my anticipation to your testimony is going to be that un peacekeeping operations in libya right now as it continues to escalate, of like to know what our commitment will be as we go forward and the impact it will have on americans. >> mr. carnahan, the ranking member on the subcommittee on oversight and investigations. >> thank you, mr. chair. we are two years into the obama

administration. we think there has been important progress. we still have serious concerns about some reform efforts at the un with the human rights council, in particular. recent successes like the human rights situation in iran are important. we are pleased to hear the announcement that the ministration will be running for another term. i believe challenges require a strong multilateral engagement. it is a far better policy than to retreat and disengage. it harms our national interest and plays into the hands of our adversaries. i would like to see us continue that policy of reform and we engagement. we appreciate your strong efforts. >> mr. duncan of south carolina. >> we would like a clear indication of how much the

united states contributes to the united nations. witnesses have not been able to provide numbers or statistics on how much we are spending and what specific programs american taxpayer support. furthermore, in the programs where we do know where the money goes, we see fundamental problems. american contributions in the past that fall into the hands of of moss. that is unacceptable. these are core institutional flawless. it allows countries that commit human abuses to sit on its counsel and vote while possessing continuous platforms of one-sided criticism of israel, a vital american ally. america should not tolerate such actions. you have a responsibility to uphold the united states constitution and make short american taxpayer dollars achieve the greatest return on

investment. >> mr. connolly of virginia. >> thank you, madam chairman. three points -- history says that the united nations has been a vital and essential part of far -- but affording u.s. foreign interest in the world. people need to remember that. secondly, the idea that we are going to take our model and go home because we do not like various aspects of the un, including it exercising its democratic right to disagree with us is a juvenile posture. roll up your sleeves and make it better. that is the answer. thirdly, the idea that the un is part of a global conspiracy to create a global government is rehashed. we have been hearing it for 60 years. it is not true. thank you and welcome to the foreign affairs committee. >> mr. sporkin very. -- thortenberry.

>> the united nations presents us with some serious problems, challenges, -- the body can be used for great good or facilitate great harm. we have seen the result of un troops in the ivory coast to help quickly in that country's nightmare. however, when the power of the un is used to support ideologies that are inconsistent with universal values whether it be the human rights council or our own participation in the u.n. population fund which goes so far as to align itself with abortion advocacy -- we are as guilty as other nations for leveraging that body for controversy old norms that are an affront to human dignity and human rights. with that said, i believe you're pushed and support of the effort to pass the resolution combating

discrimination and violence was -- had a very important effect in continuing religious freedom. >> thank you. >> crosses, madam chairman. ambassador, prior to an article last weekend, the human rights council had adopted a resolution on palestinian human rights to encourage -- accusing israel of ethnic cleansing. he confirms the is resort -- the israeli army did not intentionally fire. based on his findings and his statements, i hope that you speak to the council's ability to seek the revocation or the retraction of the goals don't report in large measure because of the opportunity it provides

that israel has a right if not the deep to take action to protect its civilians to are being attacked. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much. mr. rivera. >> i want to reiterate my colleague's concerns they have about the un human rights council as well as our participation along with other countries that can only be called human rights abusers such as china and cuba and understand the justification for why we would participate in such a force as the un human rights council. cuba and the annual budget that occurs at the un concerning the embargo -- the embargo is u.s. policy. i would like to hear a little bit about what our efforts to make a more multilateral approach and bring more support

to u.s. policies do not the region. we know that cuba, for example, is a state sponsor of terrorism. we know they are harboring terrorists. the castro regime is harboring fugitives from u.s. justice. i would like to know what our administration's efforts are in the un to make the u.s. embargo more of a multilateral support effort. >> thank you, mr. rivera. mr. sicily. >> thank you, madam chairman. i hope you can comment on the issue of palestinian unilateralism which i believe my other colleagues have mentioned prior to this as well. >> we are not used to that. it is light reform at the un. what we do? the vice chair of the subcommittee on terrorism, not revelation, and trade.

>> thank you, madam chairman. i just want to execute the comments of my colleagues and the concerns they have talked about. specifically, i look forward to discussing the funding of the united states of america to the un particularly for peacekeeping efforts where audits showed there had been fraud and abuse. beyond that, i look forward to discussion about the anti-israel bias that the u.n. attempts to exhibit. thank you for being here. >> ms. wilson of florida. >> thank you, chairwoman -- chairman for this important hearing this morning. i offer my belated condolences to the ambassador and her family. the ambassador's father passed away a little less than a month ago. he was one of the economic premiers of our nation and is greatly missed.

second, during these fiscally tough times it is important that we have a fair process. we need to ensure that the people's money is being efficiently spent. we want to ensure that the law and intent of congress -- the laws are being followed. the american people expect no less. currently, the un is on the ground in afghanistan, libya, sudan, the ivory coast, among other war-torn localities. seven u.n. staffers were beaten, shot, and killed during the attack on their compound in afghanistan. the un, while not perfect, has done much to for both the goals of the un and the united states. i thank embassador price for your hard work in protecting the interest of the united states. >> gracias, so much. thank you to all the members for excellent opening statements. we are so pleased to welcome a

friend of our committee, ambassador susan rice. she is the u.s. permanent representative to the united nations. she served in the clinton administration as assistant secretary of state for african affairs from 1997 until 2001 and a senior post on the national security council from 1993 until 1997. calling her service in the state department, choose a senior fellow at the brookings institution. she has also served in the private sector and on numerous boards. we thank her for agreeing to testify today. madame ambassador, please proceed and welcome back. >> gracias a very much. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. it is an honor to have the chance to come before the committee again today. i thank you, madam chairman, for including michael statement in the record. i want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the many kind

words of sympathy that have been expressed by many members of the committee regarding the recent losses of the united nations has suffered in many countries. it has been a difficult time. your expressions of sympathy will be greatly appreciated. i want to begin this morning by recalling the un's response to the crisis in libya, which in my opinion, should further remind us of the value of the united nations in an age of 21st century challenges. with u.s. leadership, the security council swiftly authorize the use of force to save civilians at risk of mass slaughter. it established a no-fly zone and imposed strong sanctions on the gaddafi regime. with broad international support, we also suspended libya from the human rights council by consensus -- a historic first. as we well know, american

resources and influence are by no means when it was. that is why the united nations is so important to our national security. it allows us to share the costs and burdens of tackling global problems rather than leaving these problems unattended were leading the world to the united states alone. i therefore ask for this committee's support for the president's budget request, the contribution to international organizations, and to the account to help us advance u.s. national interest. our leadership at the united nations makes us more secure and -- in at least five fundamental ways. first, the u.s. prevents conflict and keeps nations from slipping back into war. more than 120,000 military police and civilian peacekeepers are now deployed in 14 operations worldwide in places such as haiti, sudan, and

liberia. just 98 of those individuals or americans in uniform, all serving under u.s. command and control. we are supporting stability so that american troops can come home faster. these are examples of burden- sharing at its best. secondly, the un help halt proliferation of nuclear weapons. over the past two years, the united states led efforts that imposed the toughest sanctions to date on iran and north korea. third, the united nations helps isolate terrorist and human rights abusers by sanctioning individuals and companies associated with terrorism, atrocities, and cross-border crime. fourth, humanitarian and development agencies go where nobody else will to provide desperately needed assistance.

un agencies deliver food, water, and medicine to those who need it effort -- who need it most. fifth, un political efforts can help promote universal values that americans hold dear including human rights, democracy, and equality, whether it is by spotlighting human rights abuses in iran, north korea, and burma, we offer support to governments in indonesia as they prepare for elections. let me turn briefly to our efforts to reform the un and improve its management practices. our agenda focuses on seven priorities. first, un managers must enforce greater budget discipline. it's the secretary general as was noted recently instructed senior managers to cut 3% from current budget levels. that is the first proposed

reduction in 10 years. second, we continue to demand a culture of transparency and accountability for resources and results. we aggressively promote a strengthened independent office of oversight services and an improved ethics framework that enhances protection for whistleblowers. third, we are pushing for a more mobile un work force that incentivize this service in tough assignments, rewards top performers, and removed [unintelligible] fourth, we are improving protection of civilians by combating sexual violence in conflict zones, demanding accountability for war crimes, and strengthening u.n. field missions. fifth, we insist on mandates for peacekeeping missions. not a single new u.n. peacekeeping operation has been created in the last two years.

not a single one. in 2010, for the first time in six consecutive years, we closed missions and reduce the peacekeeping budget. 6, we are working to restructure the logistical support system for peacekeeping missions to make them more efficient, cost- effective, and responsive to realities in the field. finally, we are pressing the un to finish overhauling the way they do business including updating their technology platforms and accounting procedures. but the un, we all agree, must do more to live up to its founding principles. we have taken the human rights council in a better direction, including creating a special raconteur on iran. much more needs to be done. the council must deal with human rights emergencies wherever they occur and its membership should reflect those to respect human

rights, not those who abuse them. we also continue to fight for fair and normal treatment every day for israel throughout the united nations system. the tough issues between israelis and palestinians can be resolved only by direct negotiations between the parties, not in new york. that is why the united states vetoed the security council resolution in february. we consistently oppose anti- israel resolutions in the general assembly and wherever they may arise. the un, we all agree, is far from perfect, but it delivers real results for every american by advancing u.s. security through genuine burden-sharing. that burden-sharing is more important than ever at a time when the threats do not stop at our borders, when americans are

hurting and cutting back, and when american troops remain in harm's way. madam chairman, thank you for your willingness to get me this opportunity. i am pleased to answer the committee's questions. >> thank you very much. will begin with the question and answer period. since the u.n. continues to be used to propagate anti-israel bias, it is important for the u.s. to show leadership and stand publicly and unequivocally with the jewish state. accordingly, i respectfully request this of you -- will you take this opportunity to publicly pledged that the u.s. will join canada and israel in not participating in the upcoming hate-fest and that the u.s. will hold -- will withhold funding from it?

the u.s. will push for the u.s. to repudiate the goldstone report or is the u.s. going to push for a correction in the record to accurately reflect the rejection of judge goldstone on this report? if anything else that is brought to the un that would recognize a palestinian state or upgrade the status of the palestinian observer mission, that the u.s. will do anything it can to oppose and stop such measures and will be to them at the security council before they get to the general assembly? >> thank you, madam chairman. let me take this collectively first and then individually, if i may. first of all, as i said in my testimony for the record, the united states, every day, stands firmly and unequivocally in support of our ally and partner,

israel, in the united nations where they often come under illegitimate and unfair attacks simply for existing. we do this because it is in our national interest. it is manifestly the right thing to do. we spent a great deal of time and effort combating any anti- israel efforts, a peak -- opposing them, the killing them as necessary, and preventing them from arising as -- in the first place. we have had frustrations in some places and success in others. we have succeeded in of -- in incorporating israel into groups it seeks membership to. we have seen israel successfully achieved leadership positions in the united nations. we successfully opposed resolutions that a rose to condemn israel in the i.a.e.a.

this is part of the daily work we do every day. coming to your specific questions -- i have them. with respect to the durbin conference, we withdrew from the conference that occurred in geneva in 2009. we did so out of great frustration with the fact that the problems with the original conference as they related to israel remain unchanged. you know also that this administration and congress stands strongly in support of condemning racism. we are deeply concerned both by its likely content and timing. that is what the united states opposed the resolution

establishing this commemorative conference. that is why we have not participated in any active way. i do not anticipate our posture will change. with respect to goldstone, the united states has been clear from the outset that we believe that report was gravely and fundamentally flawed. it was -- a completely and unfairly drew conclusions about israel's intentions and conduct. we have not seen any evidence that israel has committed crimes against civilians or other war crimes intentionally. we have seen judge goldstone call into question many of the fundamental conclusions of his original report. we are very interested, as i said yesterday, in ensuring that

the follow-up actions that have been contemplated with respect to goldstone seize and go no more. secondly, we would like to see this entire goldstone proposition disappear. we are consulting closely with court friends and partners about the procedural steps we might take to address our concerns about the original report and judge goldstone's recent revelation. i have not formally decided. there are various options out there. i want to say that the most practical ones require further action either by the human rights council or the general assembly. >> thank you. i am sure other members will ask about the palestinian state recognition. i want to recognize my friend, the ranking member from california.

>> thank you, madam chairman. i would like you -- this is obviously a level of speculation as to what would happen -- but indicate on some of the critical missions you have undertaken with, i think, a remarkable amount of success over vital issues. if the u.s. was in a position where we were significantly in arrears of our treaty obligations, hell with your ability to facilitate and achieved some of the successes you have been able to achieve around sanctions, these efforts to fight resolutions of the

i.a.e.a. -- how would your skills be impeded in terms of achieving or maximizing the chances of achieving the results we want? if you could play out your thoughts on that particular issue. i would note for this purpose that you were in the executive branch of government the last time we were significantly in arrears. but it was a helms initiative. that was politics. what damage did do their to our standing and our ability to do the job of pursuing american interests through diplomatic means at the united nations? >> thank you. there is no question when the

u.s. is in debt to the un or when we fail to meet our obligations to pay our contributions, our influence is diminished and our standing is injured and our ability to pursue important initiatives that advance u.s. national security and u.s. national interest is greatly undermined. the dues we pay those four things we vote for in the security council. the bulk of our expenses are for peacekeeping. these are missions we decide to authorize and deploy because we think they do things that matter to the united states. genocide in darfur. preventing the flow of refugees

in stabilizing haiti. bringing democracy and security to every coast. the list goes on. these are things that we have authorized and supported because they serve our national security interests because we have taken the decision that to do nothing would be intolerable and dangerous, and to do something with other sharing the cost in the burden of the military operation is much more sensible than us contemplating doing it alone. this is why it is in our interest beyond that. when we are not fulfilling our obligations, our influence, our leverage, the value of our diplomacy is substantially undermined. i recall in the 1990's how that was, and i can tell you the cooperation we have managed to

achieve to impose tough sanctions on iran and north korea to authorize strong action in libya and ivory coast and other things would not be possible if we were again in a situation of debt. >> let me use my remaining time to throw out one proposition. one thing that unifies this committee and i am happy about it, is the focus on the efforts to delegitimize israel's in the un and its component bodies. have the israelis indicated to you they would hope you would embrace a strategy of not participating there were withholding dues as a way of helping them to overcome this very intentional assault on their standing? >> absolutely not. on the country, we partner every day closely with israel and our ability to be a leader in strong standing with maximum influence

is serving their best interest as well. that is why -- that is among the reasons. it is important to point out is not just the obama administration, it is the bush administration, and all previous administrations that have taken the strong view that is counter to our interests to use withholding of dues as a means of obtaining our policy objectives. it does not work. it is counterproductive, and the record shows it. >> thank you. >> if you could tell us what role the u.n. peacekeeping operations will occur in south sudan after july 9. if you could speak to the issue of use in condo. how you see that playing out by un peacekeepers? also, years back, i held a

series of hearings and offered an amendment on the issue of anti-semitic language in unra text books. we are the major donors. has that been fixed? half a billion dollars over the last two years. we should have zero tolerance for anything that is anti- semitic or anti american when we are footing the bill before those textbooks -- for those textbooks. i raised this with increasing alarm as far back as 1983. that is a barbaric one child per couple policy with its heavy reliance on forced abortion and forced sterilization. brothers and sisters are illegal in china. that has not changed. i easily worked on a case of a woman who was being compelled in -- recently worked on a case of a woman who was being compelled to get an abortion who had a

first child and was not allowed to have a second. i will share with you privately, it was a successful outcome but she is the exception in the prc. women are allowed only one child. as you know, for 30 years, the u.n. population fund has aided and abetted the barbaric policy and they have heaped praise upon it and have trained the cadres. a serious effort was made to find out exactly what that training was, and a stone wall. i wonder -- would like to be part of that to find out what is going on with regards to the work there because as secretary, negroponte pointed out, china's birth limitation program remains harsh the course of in law and practice, including abortion. it is illegal in almost all, the

-- provinces for a single woman to bear a child. if you're on with, you are forcibly aborted even if it is -- if you are not married, you are forcibly boarded. the state department noted that course of and the un comports with and it appears to chinese law. in those counties where unpa is operating, they follow chinese law. the impact and i know you know this, there is the gender disparity 10 years ago in the state department. it was revealed upwards of 100 million girls are missing in china. the direct result of gendercide. the targeting of a girl in

utero and the destruction of that infant baby girl simply because she is female. some people are smiling and laughing on your staff. it galls me to no end that we have not raised this issue, even cedaw has raised it not to the proportionate ought to. it is unconscionable that girls are being targeted because they are being girls and systematically eliminated. 40 million men will not be able to find wives because they have been eliminated as of results of the policy. i strongly encourage you, we need to be on the same page with this. these are crimes against gender. crimes against humanity. where is the genocide convention panel of experts? where others? where's the human rights council? the periodic review punts on this with regard to china. i would ask you please, raise

this issue aggressively and take back if you would the request to have real transparency with regard to unfpa. >> i am not sure i will address that -- be able to address that in the 30 seconds remaining. in post-saddam, the un is in the process of -- sudan, the u.n. is talking to authorities about what would be the optimal follow-on configuration for mission. we expect there to be one. we want it to -- the composition will depend on how far the two parties get in negotiating the remaining issues and what the government itself chooses to ask for. sexual exploitation in the condo is a subject of the gravest concern to the un -- the united states. >> thank you. this is a serious issue that merits further inquiry and we

look forward to getting your response, perhaps after the hearing. if not in written form. -- if not, in written form. >> thank you. i agree with my colleague from new jersey about policies in china. i think that probably one of the things that has made china as strong as it is is because of the embrace u.s. businessmen have made to china. we have a policy where the government is stronger by the largess they are able to get out of our business community. when we look at issues, maybe the burden is not necessarily the un but the behavior of our u.s. business people where this does not become an issue. let me say that i think i believe participating in issues like human rights council and i

believe that if we could argue our points into the ipu, the international parliamentary union. a group that the u.s. removed itself from 10 or 15 years ago. we refuse to come back because of the issues which there is no voice within the ipu to assist israel in its argument as they stay there by themselves without the support of the u.s. let me command the assistance you have done in sudan with the 90 plus percent turnout. the 97% of people who said they should remove. i would like to know what we can do to pressure the result. if it remains unresolved, i

believe what will happen in sudan between the north and south. it will be similar to the issue in pakistan and india that has not been resolved and still continues on. i wonder if you could comment on the somalia and un's assistance to the au in peacekeeping. also in ivory coast, i commend un for their resolutions. is there any action that the un will take for gbagbo to step down? in western sahara, morocco continues to illegally occupy western sahara. is the un doing anything to do with that situation? >> thank you. let me begin with southern sudan and the question there.

as you know, the u.s. has been very active in trying to not only originally to broker the cpa but make sure of its implementation and trying to resolve all the outstanding post referendum issues. it is -- should have been dealt with in its own referendum. the ambassador who was recently named by president obama as his new special envoy is out in the region as we speak. he is working actively with both parties as well as with the au high-level panel to push for resolution there. we understand its significance as a critical issue that needs to be resolved. as you know, it is one of the

most difficult ones and thus far, we have not seen their party's exhibit sufficient flexibility to not resolve it swiftly. there are a number of important post-referendum issues that are still to be negotiated. all of which are high on our agenda. ivory coast has been raised by others as well. the u.n. is playing an active role and have been. in making clear what who won the election. the president outtara was budget, the elected and g was legitimately elected. -- the president was legitimately elected. they are taking out heavy weapons and to facilitate the

emergence of a representative government there. the un is taking a lot of casualties. it is under attack, but it is with the -- doing with the support of the french important work to take out the heavy weapons and we hope the bloody standoff which is persisting will soon end. i do not know if -- >> these are all serious topics and i sincerely apologize to the members for the time limitation. we have so many folks who want to ask questions. each one merits a fuller discussion. >> thank you. thank you, ambassador rice. let me note that when we are spending $1.50 trillion that we're taking in and we realize

this is heading us toward a financial catastrophe of historic proportions, as the interests we have -- interest we have to pay goes up and the interest rates go up as inflation cuts into our economic reality. asking right now the amount of money we are being asked to spend for the un is $6.30 billion. is that correct? is that the correct figure of what we're being asked for? >> no. >> thank you for your important question. we need to have clarity on what is the budget request. >> what are we asking to give to the united nations from the united states? >> we're asking for 1.$1.61 $9 billion for the regular budget and for other international organizations.

not all united nations. it is the regular budget request as a subset of that -- that is 568 million and for peacekeeping for fiscal year 12, we're requesting $1.90 billion in -- and to apply another to under $25 million in existing credits to meet our contributions which we estimate will be $2.145 billion. >> what does that add up to? >> i can get you that in the second. it is 1.619 + 2.145. >> providing this type of money to an organization that uses israel as a punching bag is something that is not acceptable. the people in the united nations who are using israel as a punching bag are people who they themselves are guilty of major

crimes against humanity. whether it is time and the gendercide we hear about or the countries who murder and repress their people. let me ask you this going to the question of my position on claptrap. >> are you ready? >> all right. do you believe the u.n. resolutions limit us to what we can do in our own interest as -- what our government can do in our interest. >> no. >> un resolutions do not limit the united states as to what we could do in our own interest? >> no. there is no such thing as a u.n. resolution that the u.s. has not voted for. first point. second point -- >> does not china have a veto power? >> there is no resolution that can pass the security council

without u.s. support. >> and for me. as a video -- inform me. is a position and veto the same? >> no. >> unless we are refraining, a resolution can go through. >> we have three choices when we vote. we can vote yes, we can abstain which we almost never do, or we can vote no. when we vote no, that is the equivalent of a veto. nothing can be adopted by the security council without the u.s. the set. >> right. with the u.s. not abstaining. >> that is a form of a cent. we have allowed it to get through. >> we could talk about that in greater depth. let me ask about the money. how much has the budget grown

over 10 years? >> let me answer your prior question. you asked it totals 3.539 is the sum of our request for the cio contributions which includes the regular budget of the un which would take too -- 22% and 1.920 for peacekeeping. the cio account includes a number of international organizations like the oas. i am giving you 3.539 is the sum total of what they administration is requesting in fiscal year 2012 for cio and peace-keeping accounts. >> for all un activities, we are talking about 3.5. >> that is why said. that includes other international organization activities. >> one last note.

>> you are over five. thank you. i apologize. >> this is something we need to tell your boss about. >> we're very aware. >> thank you. the ranking member is recognized. >> i will ask you to respond to the accounting issue. i hope the administration will use full cost accounting, which is the legitimate system of accounting, and live with a political disadvantage of truthfully telling the american people how expensive it is for us to provide military assets to these u.n. authorized activities. you will gain for our country the diplomatic advantage of telling the world the enormous burden that the american taxpayer absorbs in order to

make available to such actions as libya, our unique military capacity. as to libya, the issue has arisen as to what does the president have the power to do in the absence of a statutory authorization passed by both houses of congress? my question for you is, is the president's legal power expanded? does he have more permissible options because our actions in libya are pursuant to a united nations resolution? does the un resolution have any effect on presidential power? >> let me begin with your first question. i think there are important clarifications that need to be made. there are un operations, which

are un blue helmeted or field missions for which we are requesting funding in the account and these are the 14 missions i described in places like haiti and ivory coast. >> i hope you would account -- respond to the accounting question. >> i am trying my best but i have to do with clarity. >> i fully understand they are the blue helmeted operations and are authorized. >> the security council might bless or authorize that we do in our own national interest. that would include afghanistan. and iraq. >> regard those as cost consistent -- i regard those as cost consistent with the un. could you please respond? >> i am trying to. the libyan mission is not one that falls under u.s. accounting or un budgets.

it is something we are undertaking -- >> could you address my libya question as to the war and the powers of the president? >> as to the powers of the president, they are what they are as spelled out in the constitution and they are neither enhanced or diminished by un security council resolutions. >> you're not claiming that the un participation act expands the power of the president to act with regard to libya? >> i am not. >> ok. what is the administration's position on palestinian attempts or discussion of a unilateral declaration of statehood? will the u.s. work actively to defeat this attempt in the general assembly should it arise? would it -- what has the administration done and what are you planning to do? >> thank you. let me explain if i can come up process here. for a member of a new state to gain membership, two things have

to happen. it has to be recommended by the security council, where we have a veto, and it must be agreed by two-thirds of the general assembly. if that issue were to arise, while i obviously would not want to address definitively a hypothetical, i can say with some high degree of confidence that the establishment that way of a state prior to the final status issues be resolved in the -- and direct negotiations would run counter to standing u.s. policy. there is not a risk of palestinian state being included in the un as a member state without the u.s. agree to that. ok? what we could face separately is the general assembly adopting a

political declaration. that does not have the weight of international law, but would perhaps some other form of weight, political or symbolic. that they could do without reading a state formally without creating a u.n. member state and that would be a political declaration of the sort that could come before the general assembly. it is fair to suspect we might not be in the majority. >> thank you. i will recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia for five minutes. we have three votes and we will return. >> thank you. in my opening statement, i had one minute and now have five. i would like to return to the topic of the proposed statement condemning israel. as i previously stated, many of those in congress were

disappointed of the handling of the recent draft resolution of the un security council that selectively criticized and condemned israel. the administration said over and over again including to this committee that the security council was wrong. it was the wrong place to address final status issues. you repeatedly refused to commit in advance to veto the resolution, leaving israel twisting in the wind. we found out not directly from the administration but from the press you had reversed or position and were trying to get the security council statement criticizing israel instead of a resolution. when the statement was rejected and the resolution came up for vote, you vetoed it but issued an astonishing explanation that did not support israel but joined in criticism. many of us were extremely disappointed that the administration thought this

appropriate kamala below acceptable. as i stated previously, in 529 short words, the administration and did the good that had been done by veto. in criticizing israel, used such language as, reject in the strongest terms corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region, devastates trust, folly, and a legitimacy. these were the words you read it before the world stage. you close, we therefore have opposed this draft resolution. many of us read this as we agree with the demonizing, condemnation, and vilifying, but we regrettably have to vote against it. we wanted to support the resolution and we agree with the substance. we were regrettably -- we have to vote against it. with those words, we threw our friend and ally to the wolves.

the united states i think has to look at this closely. the un is a deeply flawed body and i'm disappointed to say that on february 18, we added to this clause instead of being a force for good. as a strong defender of our ally israel, i reject in the strongest terms this administration's criticism of israel. nick rhodes hopes for peace and stability in the region and it devastates trust. i regrettably have to oppose the folly and the legitimacy of that statement. perhaps you can clarify for me, what was the administration tried to accomplish? would you want the u.s. to be treated this way by our allies? how can our calls to end the demonizing of israel be taken seriously when this administration refuses to speak out at a critical time when it really matters? >> this is such an important

issue that i would like to have the opportunity to respond in full. if you would be generous with the time constraints, i would appreciate it. i have to say with all due respect, i reject your characterization of that statement. let me explain the following. the video itself -- to veto set this message and we were clear about bringing a resolution forward, which we oppose. the statement laid out policy and said we are committed to a comprehensive and lasting peace. it said we're focused on the goal of a two-stage solution. it said we are -- the only way to achieve that is to -- through direct negotiations and the draft resolution under discussion risks hardening the position of both sides and encouraging the parties to stay out of negotiation and to come back to the council if there's an impasse it noted policy we

have opposed unilateral steps by either party that could undermine trustor prejudge any final status issues. settlement activity falls into that category and the explanation of u.s. policy of six prior consecutive administrations which has been consistent, it was president bush in april 2002 who said israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop. in 2005, secretary rice said u.s. policy is clear. the expansion of settlements ought to stop and settlement activity ought to stop. we're concerned about activity that would prejudge the outcome of a final status agreement. the only way to reach us -- a solution is through negotiation. every potential action must be measured against one standard.

will it move the parties closer to the agreement? that was what my statement said and you need to read it in its entirety. it reflects a longstanding american policy of successive administrations. we stood strongly against the resolution. we vetoed it and if there is any ambiguity, i do not know what it is. thank you. >> i stand by my statement. >> i regrettably have to say i reject this, but it has to come to an end. we will come right back. we have eight minutes to vote, and we will be back so the committee is temporarily in recess. >> thank you. botto

>> the committee is back in session. [inaudible]

>> thank you, madam speaker. i heard what you said. [inaudible] i would like to say as to the

budget. i heard the member of the subcommittee read your statement regarding the veto. i have heard about [inaudible] [inaudible] and i just cannot understand it. you do not say anything about the rocket fire into israel.

you cannot talk about 10 months that benjamin netanyahu did not move on settlements because he was [inaudible] i got it right here. >> please read it. >> you can say anything they want -- that you want but facts are facts and this is right here. we would like to put it to israel. we do not think [inaudible] in your -- your statement is unacceptable. there was criticism across the spectrum on things that were said.

there is no question that -- the israeli government has taken steps to do with the problem. you did not mention that. [inaudible] that -- no mention of that or the rocket fire for the civilians that are put in danger. i do not understand that. when the administration says they are supporting israel and the wait till the last minute -- they would until the last minute -- the administration should

have said we support israel. we want there to be a solution. there should be a reasonable expectation [inaudible] that should be the criteria. not blaming israel. beating them over the head and not talking about the rocket fire or danger to civilians. i just do not get it. maybe you can explain. [inaudible] are you with us as far as congress is concerned? your statements do not indicate that at all. >> i object strenuously to your mischaracterization. >> i object to your statement. >> [inaudible] push the button on your

microphone. thank you. >> i object to your suggestions this administration and government is in any way not in support of israel. [inaudible] every day, i and my colleagues stand up in support. this is an important topic. we have made a top priority of trying to broker a lasting peace between israel and the palestinians at the two state solution. the issue on the table was of resolution on settlements. president obama instructed me to veto the resolution and i did so.

my explanation of both explains why we vetoed it. you're welcome to insert it into the record. it operated the longstanding u.s. policy of six consecutive administration's which is that settlement activity is illegitimate. it would set more than that. it spoke about our commitment to a two-stage solution and our opposition to resolving or attempting to address and resolve issues that can be resolved through a -- through negotiation in the context of the resolution. for this or any subsequent efforts to bring any kind of final status issue before the security council, that is something we have and we will consistently opposed. >> i would like to yield. >> without objection.

>> the entire statement. >> that might be limited but we will look into that. it will be made part of the record. i apologize for the technical difficulties. they're trying to work this out. [no audio] i'm sorry about the microphones not working. >> madame ambassador. i will try to bailout. i want to personally thank you for the tough job your doing. it is not easy to defend some of the practices of the united nations. you can understand why so many people on both sides of the aisle are frustrated and why thwe think the u.s. needs to be seriously revamped.

42 of 65 countries specific are anti-israel. as ben hat -- as has been set, some of the worst human rights abusers in the world sit on that human rights council. i am wondering if you could tell us two things. number one, the goldstone report was rejected on the house floor by this body right after it was passed in the un, and we rejected it because we said israel -- it is almost a blood libel. as siobhan press said -- shimon peres said. the rocket from gaza hit a

school bus, injuring children. we know that hamas deliberately target civilians. therefore, israel has undergone an investigation and has come up with the fact that israel did not target civilians and that is why judge goldstone has repudiated reports. what can we do to make sure that the un repudiates the report, because there was some in the un who want to go forward with the original report as if it were truth and we know it is not. secondly, unilateral declaration of a palestinian state which i know [inaudible] i know that we will. if the un general assembly passes it, it may be a political

statement but it has no effect. i think the recognition impedes a peace agreement because it tells the palestinians they need not sit down and negotiate but somehow they will get their state by refusing to negotiate. israel or any country cannot be put in a position of preconditions to sitting down and talking. these are serious issues that will be resolved in status talks but not as a precondition. i wonder if you can tell us how we can try to ensure goldstone is repealed and as the resolution was repealed several years ago and what is the administration doing to combat this terrible bias? what you hear in the frustration here is people say, why should

we continue to fund the united nations when time and time again, it comes out against what we think is in the best interest of the united states and our ally, israel? your argument that has credence that we have to stay and fight -- i am sure you understand how frustrating it gets printed when we pay the lion's share and we get spit in the face and our ally gets it in the face. i would appreciate your comment. >> thank you. i appreciate the spirit of your questions. we absolutely have been unequivocal in our condemnation of the substance and conclusions of the goldstone report in which we have been clear on from the outset. we are as i mentioned earlier, are in the process of talking to partners on this about how

best in light of both the subsequent actions we are [inaudible] as a result of goldstone and the "the washington post" that we might accelerate our efforts to put this entire sad episode to bed. our goal is twofold. one is to prevent follow-up actions in the security council and other bodies from materializing and secondly, we share your interest in trying to clear the record. whether that can be done through repudiation, that would require a new resolution of both the human rights council and the general assembly or whether there are procedural mechanisms we can employ. a mess to accomplish that and we're trying to consult with partners -- and our aim is to

accomplish that and we're trying to consult with partners to accomplish these goals. >> we hope we can get israel removed from the permanent agenda. >> we welcome the congresswoman from alabama. always welcome to our panel. >> i have three questions for you. two concerning the secretary- general and a third recount -- regarding funding. ban ki-moon appointed experts to advise him and make recommendations on the issues of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and the humanitarian law joins this bandage -- joins the stages [inaudible] will the u.s. pushed the united

nations to publish this report? the secretary-general has violated the rules and regulations of the un by appointing as his special envoy for libya out an official from the government of jordan. [inaudible]who b this is in violation from rules that no official may receive in come from no outside source. does it agree that the secretary general should not be violating the rules of the organization? can you explain to me why the united states is paying one had a% of the security upgrade cost at the united nations headquarters in new york? >> thank you. let me begin with your last question. about security upgrades. with regard to the un building and its renovation, we paid 22%. that is our regular budget share of the cost of the overall

renovation. it is important to note that american contractors have received the lion's share of the contracts that have been over the renovation. for every dollar we spent, there is $4 coming back into the united states into our economy. the second point, security upgrades. the city of new york at the newark police department -- and the new york police department recommended the renovation given the terrorist threats that face the building and given its geographic location over the fdr freeway and on first avenue. that there be additional security upgrades above and beyond what was envisioned when the original master plan was implemented. the estimated cost was hundred "

-- $100 million. the state department and administration in conjunction with new york authorities and the city as well as the police department made the judgment it was in our interest to get the security upgrades done and done in a timely fashion so the cost overruns were not accepted down the road. american citizens are most affected by the security of the u.n. building in terms of 40% of those in and out of the building are americans but it is americans driving under the it.lding, walking by a that was the decision to invest in our security and make those upgrades. with respect to the panel of experts, the report is coming forth. we look forward to it and we think it would be beneficial if it were available publicly. with respect to the secretary-

general pose a special envoy -- secretary general's envoy. he took on an important role. he briefed the security council and he is an excellent selection of special representative and he is in the process of working out with the secretary-general and his employment and remuneration. he has been out in the field twice to libya in the short time and we look forward to his employment circumstances being implemented in a fashion consistent with rules and regulations. >> my personal view, israel was

the best neighbor and friend we have in the world and we have to continue to make sure the u.n. does not use israel as a bully pulpit for their own agenda. >> i could not agree more. >> we have to make sure that their interests are protected. >> it is an important decision here that rarely gets made. [inaudible] an innocuous -- and inoculates children. there are member states to speak and vote in their interest but it is often not our interest. >> the ranking member on the subcommittee is recognized. >> thank you. again, i want to thank you for the great work that you have been doing in representing our country. i want to continue to make the

case in a ever shrinking world, it is important that we sit and engage with the rest of the world and that is for our security. if we acted unilaterally and would not have the allies we have and many of the nations that are in the un and other places -- >> the mic again. >> it is important that we do not have the go-alone talk of gunslinging attitude that we're working closely. when we ask individuals to come with us to iraq and afghanistan and to fight with us against terrorism where we need to work with one another to combat terrorism, we need the same allies of whom some would say that we just ignore.

i do not know how we ignore them when we will need them to help us and when they need help, we do not help them. that being said, i think you touched on this earlier. there is no secret the previous administration had at times rocky relationships with the un, but they never proposed withholding a significant amount of dos. i know you what -- were not in that position. could you tell us why even the bush administration did not withhold money? what is the significance? >> thank you. it was interesting that you had former ambassador mark wallace testified before this committee. he explained in his judgment and the judgment of the previous administration which he served, and has not been wise -- judge

dewyze are beneficial to use withholding as a tactic to implement change. he was the author to his credit of some energetic reform initiatives that we have sustained and augmented. the reason it is not wise is because it does not work. it has been tried in the past and as -- resulted in our isolation and the loss of a crucial seat on the advisory committee on budgetary -- administrative and budgetary questions. we get -- that is the body where we get to scrub the budget and we are not asked to pay for things that we think are unworthy. it is not the vehicle to achieve reform. we have achieved the greatest progress on reform under the previous administration and this administration. when we have worked to and been able to remain current on our

assessed contribution. >> are there consequences of not paying our dues? >> it violates our treaty obligations. secondly, if we are in arrears, we can lose our vote. in the general assembly. >> some members have proposed shifting our contribution to the un on a voluntary basis. can you tell us how do we [unintelligible] that the un must undertake? can you talk about that? >> voluntary contributions can work to a certain extent in field operations. it has worked for unicef and wfp. it does not work when you were talking about peacekeeping operations. [no audio] the two missions that have

contributed to increases in the u.n. regular budget have been the un missions in iraq and afghanistan. those two missions are directly serving our interests. they have been formed at our initiative largely to augment and support the work of our troops in the field. we pay under the regular budget 22% of the cost of those missions which together, over half a billion dollars. if we took the view we would pay for those missions that we like , our share is $500 million. we would find ourselves paying 100% or close of costly, important missions like that, rather than 22%. our net costs would quite likely be higher. as i mentioned, when it comes to the peacekeeping budget, there

is no thing that we're asked to pay for that we have not previously voted to create. all of those missions are created by a vote in the security council and u.s. can say yes because we want it and we believe it serves our interests, or no. >> thank you. mr. rivera of florida. >> thank you. i want to go back to the issue of the punching bags. our greatest ally of being a punching bag of the united nations which i agree with. i want to talk about the united states being a punching bag, particularly through u.s. policy toward cuba. i am wondering, we have a yearly vote, a yearly spectacle when the un uses the u.s. as a punching bag and votes against u.s. policy over isolating the

castro dictatorship economically. even though as has been mentioned previously, the castro regime is a recognized state sponsor of terror by our government. it is a regime harboring fugitives from u.s. justice, including cop killers, drove traffickers, for regime that has murdered americans in international airspace as occurred in 1996. what what efforts do you make personally to try to garner support for u.s. policy towards cuba? >> first of all, we firmly and unequivocally at every opportunity condemned for the very reason that you described cuba's human rights record and its longstanding record of abuses as well as its support

for terrorism. secondly, a year before a resolution comes before the general assembly, we work hard to garner as many votes in conjunction with our position of voting against the resolution as we can muster. we have a small core of countries, including israel, that regularly and loyally stands with us. we are making efforts to expand that. but as you well know, as we strongly make our case for our policy, which is a bilateral policy, we are in a minority -- a small minority. the embargo has limited international support. even our closest allies, like canada and european partners, do not share our views.

this is an issue that has been and will remain an annual your tent. that may also addressed -- your irratent. cuba, once upon a time, had a lot of jews at the united nations and a lot of support and influence. that infamous as dramatically diminished. it is increasingly isolated. it is increasingly isolated within the general membership. we have heard about the human rights council and our frustration with that, which we share. there are no more than five countries out of 47 of the human rights council at the present, cuba being one of them, whose record on human rights, we will all agree, is absolutely abysmal. they are either an outstanding

countries or somewhere in the middle. cuba is at the bottom, but it is losing ground. at the human rights council this year, cuba worked very hard to block the creation of a special raconteur on freedom of assembly. it was roundly defeated. that passed unanimously by the human rights council. it also tried to upset the process of our periodic review. other countries supported the condemned cuba. >> i only have a minute left. i appreciate those comments. i take it speaks to the -- if cuba is diminishing so much, it should allow space for you in your capacity to make even greater progress in bringing allies towards the united states position on cuba, in particular those allies to maybe

do not have relationships with cuba. there are a lot of countries on the planet. i hope you make every effort to internationalize u.s. policy because it is the just policy considering what you just mentioned -- the abysmal human rights record of the cuban leadership. >> thank you, mr. rivera. mr. deutsch? >> thank you, madame chair. i want to turn to iran. as we look at recent events in the middle east, it seems that iran has been emboldened. tuesday, a rating ambassador to the un said the geopolitical picture is changing in favor of iran. iran continues to move towards what position. the continue to evade international sanctions.

i would like to commend you for the role you have played, first in the un sanctions against iran last year -- the efforts you help to spearhead to keep them all the human rights council, and the creation of the special session on human rights abuses. going forward, we the two events unfolding in the region and steps that can be taken to focus on the threats that iran -- if the regime continues to move ahead with its nuclear program, with the security council imposed another round of sanctions to joke of the energy sector? i wonder if there had been discussions about strength -- about strengthening existing sanctions. of greater concern to me, if you could address when you think it would take to get china, who

continues to make million dollar investments in iranian oil fields, to cooperate as support another resolution. >> for the ball, thank you for your kind words in support of our efforts with respect to iran. we have been very plain. we will stand up and condemn and seek to isolate iran for its human-rights record and its abuses on both multilaterally and nationally as we have continued to impose sanctions on individuals responsible for iran's human rights abuses. we will do all that we can to prevent iran from creating a new career -- from obtaining a nuclear capacity. i will come back to what more we can do. through your excellent legislation and national measures that we continue to

take to implement not only security council resolutions, but the measures and authorities given to us by congress. inside the un, in the short term there is scope for tightening enforcement and implementation of 1949 and previous resolutions which are having a significant and packed. we are regularly getting support of countries from nigeria to asia in blocking and intercepting iranian arms shipments. there is a panel of experts. there is a sanctions committee, all of which can help tighten enforcement on existing measures. it needs to be acknowledged that china and russia work with us to pass that important resolution. they have implemented it to the letter. we have asked them to do more.

russia has dealt with the s300s, which is above and beyond the resolution. china, we are asking them not to make investments. we are receiving good response to that sort of request. in terms of a new resolution in the short term, i think that is unlikely to be viable. obviously overtime and a given response to actions that iran may take, we will continue to keep multi-ethnic -- multilateral action on the table. >> i appreciate that. in addition to these resolutions on nuclear revelation activities, they have been found to be in violation of arms transfer resolutions. the interception and seizure of illegal arms shipments by nigeria in february.

iran has continued to violate the security council resolution 1747. i would request that you continue to look for ways to penalize iran for noncompliance with that resolution which prohibits iranian arms exports. >> thank you. >> thank you, so much. based on our previous arrangement you got to be back at the white house at 1:00. we appreciate your time. i give my deepest apologies to mr. kelly of pennsylvania to is our un representative from our committee. i hope that you work well with ms. burgle and mr. keating from massachusetts. thank you congresswoman for joining us.

madame ambassador, thank you for your excellent testimony. we look forward to working with you on un reforms and issues we are both passionate about >> thank you barry much for your leadership and your kindness and that of all of your colleagues. >> you are a good friend. the committee is now adjourned. thank you. host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> president obama said both sides were closer to an agreement, but a grip -- but an agreement has not been reached. erick kanter and steny hoyer fell to pass a spending measure today. the blight house said they would veto it. -- the white house said it would veto it. >> government funding is set to expire at midnight tomorrow. on washington journal, which will talk to house budget committee members for the

latest. we are also joined by tom shoop. he will discuss what happens during a government shut down and do it will affect. washington journal each morning here on c-span. now, an update from the present on federal spending negotiations. he spoke for five minutes tonight at the white house. >> i just completed another meeting with speaker john boehner and harry reid. i want to report to the american people that we made some additional progress this evening. i think the staffs of both the house and the senate as well as the white house staff had been working very hard. we made some progress today. differences have been narrowed.

once again, the staff is going to be working tonight around- the-clock in order to see if we can finally closed the deal. there are still a few issues that are outstanding. they are difficult issues. they are important to both sides. i am not yet prepared to express wild optimism, but i think we are further along today than we were yesterday. i want to reiterate to people why this is so important. we are now less than 30 hours away from the government shutting down. that means, first of all, 800,000 families -- our neighbors, our friends -- who are working hard all across the country in a whole variety of functions, they, suddenly, are not allowed to come to work. it also means they are not getting a paycheck. that obviously has a tremendous impact.

you have millions more people to end up being impacted because they are not getting the services from the federal government that are important to them. small businesses are not seeing their loans process. folks who want to get a mortgage through the fha may not be able to get it. that is not good as we get the housing market is. -- as weak as the housing market is. you have people trying to get a passport for a trip they had been planning for a long time. they may not be able to do that. millions more people will be significantly inconvenienced in some ways. they may end up seeing money or opportunity lost because of the government shut down. finally, there will be an effect on the economy overall. one of our nation's top economists said "an economic disadvantage what about very quickly. the longer it goes on, the greater the odds of a renewed

recession." we have been working hard over the last two years to get this economy on its feet. we have seen 13 months of job growth. 1.8 million new jobs -- the best jobs report we have seen in a long time. for us to go backwards because washington could not get its act together is unacceptable. again, 800,000 federal workers and their families will be impacted, millions of people who are reliant on government services not getting those services, businesses, farmers, veterans, and, finally, the overall effect on the economy -- it could severely hamper our recovery and our ability to put people back to work. that is what is at stake. that is why it is imported for the american people.

that is why i am expecting that as a consequence of the hard work done by our staffs tonight, which can reach an agreement tomorrow. let me point out one last thing. what i have had to the speaker and what i said to harry reid is because the machinery of the shutdown is starting to move, i expect an answer in the morning. my hope is that i will be able to announce to the american people relatively early in the day that a shutdown has been averted -- that a deal has been completed that has very meaningful cuts in a wide variety of categories. we are moving in the direction to live within our means, but preserves our investments in education, innovation, and research. what i hope to be able to announce tomorrow -- there is no certainty yet. i expect an answer sometime

early in the day. thank you, everybody. >> the current spending resolution expires at midnight tomorrow. next, we'll hear from house majority leader eric cantor and democratic leader steny hoyer. this was before the house passed the temporary funding bill which the house said they would be -- which the president said it would be too. majority leader rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute to inform members of a change in the upcoming legislative schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: i'd like to inform my colleagues that the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for

legislative business tomorrow. as the members know, this is a change from the original calendar. due to ongoing negotiations, mr. speaker, surrounding continued appropriations for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, i believe it is both appropriate and necessary for the house to be in session tomorrow. i expect legislative business to include but may not be limited to h.j.res. 37 a resolution of disapproval regarding the f.c.c.'s recent internet and broadband industry regulation ruling. votes are possible at any time ter noon tomorrow. at this time, it is too early to tell whether the house will need to be in session this weekend. in the case of lapse in appropriations, i fully expect the house to meet. mr. speaker, we will not leave town until we fulfilled our obligation to cut spending to begin getting our fiscal house in order --

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, we are -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, we are committed to getting our fiscal -- the spker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, we are committed to getting our fiscal house in order and keep the government functioning. therefore members should keep their schedules for this weekend as flexible as possible and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the majority -- m hoyer: i thank the majority leader for yielding, i share his sue we ought to keep the government running fonot only the sake of our economy but for

the sake of all those that rely on the federal government. my friend has made the observation in the past that shutting down the government and i believe the speaker made the same observation, was not a national policy for us to pursue. i ask the gentleman because i believe that the resolution that we will be considering will not either pass the senate nor be signed by the president. in light of that, and in light of the fact that the majority leader of the senate and the speaker have both indicated that negotiations are ongoing, woul the gentleman agree to a unanimous consent that we, as we have done so often in the past, when the majority democrats were in control of the house and the senate, disagreed with president bush, that we would have a hold in place unanimous consent

continuing resolution, not changing the status on either side of the negotiations, for seven days, which would give the parties the opportunity to come to an agreement? my understanding from the leader of the senate is that we have agreed to some $70 billion in cuts which is a substantial way toward what you wanted and a show that we share the view that we need to have fiscal restraint. so i ask my friend if i made a unanimous consent request that we continue the government authority to stay running until next friday without changing the status quo so that neither party would be disadvantaged and that our government would in fact, as the gentleman observes is his objective, be

able to stay in service to the american people. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, first of all i'd rpond to the gentleman to say there's no indication in any definite way that the senate would not take up and pass the piece of legislation that we would bring up today. as a response to the second part of his inquiry, regarding our going along with the unanimous consent, i would say to the gentleman, no, we don't accept the status quo. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, america is broke. that is why we are trying to address the need -- that is w

we are trying to address the need to get our -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. mr. cantor: that's why we're trying to address our fiscal crisis and to get the debt under control. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, will the gentleman yield. mr. captor: i yield. mr. hoyer: the white house -- i want to inform the gentleman the white house has just issued an intent to veto the resolution you are offering. i tell my friend that if in fact the gentleman wants to keep the government running while negotiations proceed, we have already agreed to a substantial billions of dollars in reductions in spending for 2011. we did so and we've agreed on that. as the gentleman knows, i have

voted for both of the previous resolutions. i believe that beth of those could pass and in fact i was correct they did pass. i tell my friend, this resolution in my view will not -- that both of those could pass and i was correct and ty did pass. i tell my friend this resolution in my view will not pass. however, we are having discussions. we never shut down the government when we had the majority and president bush was in power and the reason -- and i tell my friend the reason we did not shut it down is because -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order, the gentleman will suspend. mr. hoyer: we agreed with the premise you have stated and the premise the speaker has stated that shutting down the government was not a process that was useful for our economy, for jobs, for our people, or for the services th are expected of us.

what is useful is for us to rationally provide a cntext in which negotiations which quite obviously have not yet been completed are completed. now, you've heard me talk about the perfectionist caucus. you can't get it all your way, we can't get it all our way, but in fact, the american public overwhelmingly elected president obama for a four-year term. he's in office. mr. gingrich said that we were ignoring the 2010 election results. we observe that the 2008 election results were regularly ignored by your side of the aisle the last two years. what i am saying to my friend, there is a rational way for us to proceed and very frankly, when we were in your shoes, we did so. when we couldn't reach agreement with president bush.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be come to order. mr. hoyer: the tea party on your side, as is so often the case -- mr. cantor: mr. speaker, mr. speaker -- reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reclaims his time. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say let us look at why we are mr. speake the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. mr. hoyer: we have lite doubt on our side of the aisle why we are where we are today. mr. cantor: reclaiming my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: i say, mr. speaker, we are trying to do the business of the american people. we do not want to shut the government down. we don't accept the status quo. we don't want to bankrupt this nation. we believe there's a fiscal crisis demanding urgent action, >> that was republican majority leader eric kanter and steny hoyer on the house floor. the current funding measure will expire tomorrow at midnight. today the house passed a budget extension, but the white house said it would veto the measure. congressional leaders and the white house are trying to work out an agreement. the measure would find the house for another week -- would find the government for another week and the military for the rest of

the year. here is the house debate. olleagues, madam speaker, to support this bill so that we can avoid a government shutdown and provide the necessary time to finally complete negotiations on a final funding agreement for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year. this bill funds government operations for one week while reducing spending by $12 billion . these cuts include funding rescissions, reductions, and program terminations from nearly all ars of the government. virtually all of these cuts were also included in h.r. 1, many were included in the president's budget requests, the senate's alternate -- alternative to h.r. 1 or the recent o.m.b. c.r. proposal. most importantly, madam speaker, this bill supports our troops

and our national security by providing funding for our national defense for the remainder of this fiscal year. our troops and their families deserve to have the fincial security we promised them while we continue to work towards a final budget agreement. after months of uncertainty, it's high time we provide for our national security in a responsible way. this means commonsense funding that ensures the safety of our war fighters and the success of our missions abroad. however, while this legislation points us in the righ direction on security and spending cuts, what we all want right now is to wrap up these negotiations, complete the process for 2011, and move our many other important legislative items on to the table.

as i have said many times before, madam speaker, short-term measures like this are not the preferable way to fund the government. so while no one wants to fund the government in one or two week bursts, this short-term c.r. is one we must do to prevent a government shutdown and allow time to pass a smart and thoughtful bill for the rest of the year. mr. speaker, coming into this congress the democrats left us with a financial mess, soaring deficits, unchecked spending, and no budget, not a single appropriations bill for 2011. and now that we are ix months into the fiscal year, the senate democrats have yet to produce any plano help clean up this mess. despite all the roadblocks we faced throughout this process,

we must continue down the path to fiscal solvency, and this c.r. both affos us the time required to complete negotiations as well as makes the spending cuts needed to continue to help balance our budgets. we are committed to making real spending cuts like these to reduce our deficits both now and in the future. we are determined to complete this work where democrats failed to do so. while answering our constituents' calls to reduce excessive government spending, this bill provides time to negotiate in an honest wayo do what is not only right for our constituents, our nation, and our financial future, let's pass this bill and finally get this leftover work from last year behind us once and for all. thank you, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. . the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks is recognized. mr. dicks: yield two minutes to the distinguished former whip, mr. clyburn who is now the assistant majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, i thank my friend for yielding me the time. madam speaker, my republican friends bring to the floor today a transparent political ploy that's an insult to our men and women in uniform and their families. it sa that the republican majority is willing to put up the funding to arm and equip our troops fighting overseas for the remainder of the year. but they won't find a way to fund the rest of the federal

programs that assist their spouses, children, and parents who are making significant sacrifices keeping the home front together while their loved ones give all that they have to keep all of us safe and free. no, they are happy to submit them, their families, to the whims of a budget debate that i'm concerned is rapidly moving toward a shutdown that many of their supporters are clamoring for and seem pleased to have happen. this is no peace of mind for a soldier fighting in the field to defend our freedoms and interest if his or her spouse or parents are being furloughed at home or their children are

being denied essential services. is this bill going anywhere in the senate? i don't think so. certainly hope not. this kind of insensitivity should never be codifi. madam speaker, the v.a.'s backlog is expensive and growing. let's stopasting time and raising anxieties. let's get back to the negotiating table to avoid the government shutdown and the damage it will do to american families. thank you very much, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: this keeps the government operating. i yield three minutes to the

chairman of the defense propings subcommittee, mr. young of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: thank you very much, madam speaker. make no mistake about it, this is a defense appropriations bill. this bill is based on one that was written under chairman dicks last year and should have been brought to this floor and passed into law last year. but for some reason, this one, along with every other appropriations bill, didn't see the light of day. this may not be the most perfect defense bill we've ever produced here, but iis a good bill. it will keep the defense department functioning. here's the problem that for those of us that work every day of our lives in national defense, we see what's happening. under a continuing resolution, the defense department is

getting terribly close, dangerously close to affecting readiness, troops and their families. this is not something we can allow to continue. put away the politics. understand the importance of taking care of our soldiers and our sailors and airmen and marines. and their friends. don't make them go without a paycheck. because most of them move from paycheck -- live from paycheck to paycheck. that's not right but that's the way it is. let's pass this bill. put politics aside. let's move the department of defense away from a continuing resolution that's having a very, very negative effect on our readyness and training. i want to compliment senator rogers for the good job he's done to gets to this point today. let's pass this bill and let's get on to the business of the country and especially

defending our country an defending those who defend our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished -- four minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer, my good friend from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. how i miss my magic minute. i want to say to the chairman of the appropriations committee, how often he and i have said, you know, when we have these impasses, we need a clean c.r. this c.r. is unclean. this c.r. will not get us to where you say you want to get, mr. chairman, and that's not shutting down the government. because you know and i know the president will not sign this bill.

why? because you put in poison pills that you know are unacceptable to him. why? so you can get the votes on your side of the aisle to vote for your bill to keep the gornment open. y is that difficult? because so many of your folks, unless they get 100%, are prepared to shut down the government. you and i both know that, mr. chairman. i have great respect for you. i think you and i could go in a ram and solve this in 30 seconds but you and i are not in that room. it is time, as the speaker has said, to be adults. why is this a viable piece of legislation on the floor. -- on the floor? because you think you can hold the government ransom for an adecisional $12 billion. -- additional $2 billion. i said i would not support, after supporting the first two, which i thought were reasonable to try to give us an

opportunity to solve the differences that exist between us, that i would not vote for a third onele. an i'm not going to vote for this one. it won't matter because it's dead anyway, you all know it's dead. but you're banking on the fact that you know we don't want to shut down government. what's the proof in the pudding? we did not shut it down when we had disagreements with george bush. because we believe that reasonable people elected by a diverse community in america who have different opinions were expected by our public to come together, reason together and act productively together. very frankly, i don't take a back seat to anybody on this floor in my support of defense or the men and women in uniform and mr. young knows that, my dear friend. not a back seat to anyone. and yes, we pass a unanimous

consent request to fund at present levels, defense would continue. should we have passed the defense bill last year? i think we should have. i'm sorry we didn't. i urge that we do it. but the senate, as you might recall, would not allow any bills to come to the floor. any bills. th is the republicans in the united states senate would not allow that to happen. so now we are faced with not a let's reason together bill, but an additional $12 billion in cuts. which means that week by week by week, you'll think you will get to what you want. not a compromise, not an agreement, but what you want. and you'll do it $5 billion a week, $2 billion a week, this one is $12 billion a week.

and you have no expectation that that will pass or be signed by the president. but you do it to pretend you want to keep government in operation. newt gingrich said, don't worry about shutting down the government as he shut it down in 1995 and over christmas for three weeks in 1995 and 1996. ladies and gentlemen, on my si of the aisle, we ought to reject this specious political act which pretends we want to keep the government open. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: 30 additional seconds. mr. dicks: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: ought to do what you and i have done in the past as members of the appropriations committee. say we haven't reached an agreement, we a clean c.r. at present level while we continue to negotiate on behalf of the american people to do what we all want to do, we've

got to bring this deficit down, we can point fingers at one another as to -- mr. dicks: if we had a clean c.r., the president would pass it into law. mr. hoyer: and the president would sign it. i urge my colleagues to reject this c.r. and adopt a clean c.r. that will keep the government in operation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair needs to remind members that remarks in debate must be addressed to the chair and not to other members in the second person. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: insofar as as the military is concerned, this is

not a c.r., this funds the rest of the year. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mccann. -- mckieon. the speaker pro tempore: the geneman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i rise in strong support of this continuing resolution to fund the rest of the year, cut federal spending and prevent a government shutdown. fail wrur to pass this resolution would intentionally harm those who made great sacrifices in defense of our ideals and values. we cannot have our fighting forces on the front line in iraq, afghanistan, and libya wondering if their families at home will be provided for. it would be a grave injustice and a gross affront to the civil-military relationship. their pay cannot, should not be disrupted. not for a week, not for a few

days, not for a second. our men and women in uniform deserve better. i don't even want to contemplate a government shutdown. but if it should happen, people need to know that the pay to our military one suspended. this means we would have our troops on the front lines, risking their lives with their families at home with bills to pay and mouths to feed andhey wouldn't get their paycheck. as secretary gates has said, many of our youngest sailor, soldiers, airmen and marines live from paycheck to paycheck. while wives and husbands are off fighting to keep this nation safe, we cannot have them left wondering what's happening to their families. i think we're mature enough to fix this problem, but if we don't, failing to properly resource the defense partment during the difficult tries of war could arrest the momentum that's been achieved through

blood, sweat, and tears of our troops. the military is already overstretched. overdeployed and overworked. should this resolution fail, they'll also be underpaid. we have too much riding on these young men and women to sell them short. let's work together to figure out this budget but let's get this military pay issue off the table first. i encourage all members to send a clear message to our military men an women supporting this -- by supporting this critical troop funding appropriations bill. this congress believes in yo we support you, we honor your dedication. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky continues to reserve. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the diinguished gentleman from virginia mr. moran, the forr chairman of

interior, now the ranking democratic member of the interior and environment subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: i thank the distinguished former chair of the appropriations committee and now ranking member of the committee as well as defense. madam speaker, none of us want any of our soldiers to go unpaid for one day or one moment. obviously they should not. but there are also representatives of virtually every agency in the government that are working for our goals and objectives throughout th world in combat situations, many of them, ny of them in hardship situations, and much of the essential work of the government, our people in the military would be the first to say, is performed by people who don't have to be in uniform.

. none of them should go without pay. this government represents the most important nation in the world, and we are responsible for funding it. we represent the people and they work for the people. the problem with this bill is that the decision to bring it up now is tantamount to shutting down that government. what we should be doing is exactly what mr. hoyer and mr. dicks have suggested, bringing up a clean, continui resolution, letting us get through the weekend, come up with a long-term resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. then fight out these ideological battles in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills. this is no way t run a government, madam speaker. but we do have some precedent.

the last time the republican party took over the congress back in 1995, some of my colleagues will recall, we also shut down the government. during the christmas period, 27 days, and we know what happened then. 800,000 federal government workers were furloughed. it cost the taxpayers more than $1.4 billion. let me just mention some of the things that happened then and will happen again. the minerals management service had to shut down. many of the rigs that produce oil that powers this economy. it estimated that the companies who own those rigs had to pay at least $525,000, couldn't get any oil. they wershut-in. d in fact, we had 200,000 u.s.

applications for passrts which went unprocessed. 30,000 applications by foreigners for visas, much business, that had to be done this country, was closed down. u.s. tourist industries and airlines sustained millions of dollars in losses. that's what will happen again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: can i have another 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. morerian: toxic waste cleanup was stopped at 609 sites. 368 national park service sites were closed down. seven million visitors weren't able to visit the parks. there were more than two million visitors who couldn't to national museums or monuments. the smithsonian will be shut down federal contractors will furlough. throughout this country not just in the federal government, this economy took a deep hit. jobs were lost.

money was lost. people couldn't pay their mortgage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: don't let it happen agai madam speaker. let's pass a clean c.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the member of our committee from texas, mr. cotter. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tas is recognized for nts minutes. mr. cart -- is recogned for two minutes. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. this past week or so ago we had the n.c.o.'s of the armed services come in to appear before the milcon committee and the question was aed, i believe, by my friend on the other side, that what is the numb one concern of the united states military that are fighting our wars today? our wars in afghanistan, iraq, and now libya? what is their number one concern? every top n.c.o. of every

service said, losing their paycheck. and not being able to care for their families back home. now, the democrats are holding our poor troops hostage so that they can have this agenda that will result in shutting down the government. let's make ts clear. what we are offering today is to continue the government in action for the next week, but to make sure that our troops know that their pay will be save because we are going to fund the defense department for the next five months. this is intoleble. we have offered in house resolution 1 to fund the entire government and to fund our troops. the democrats reject it. we are offering agn today to fund our troops and make sure that they are going to get paid and make sure the contracts are met and essential training

services are there. they refuse it. we ask them -- we have a backup bill, 1297, which just guarantees the troops get paid. they refused it. now the commander in chief of the military in this country has annound he is going to veto a bill that would see to it that our soldiers get paid. what is the number one worry of men and women in combat toda will my folks back home have a paycheck? that's not me saying that. that's the n.c.o.'s. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carter: we need to respect that. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, who is the ranking member on the homeland security subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. price: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this continuing resolution. all of us know we are having

this debate at a difficult and challenging and tense time. we are facing an entirely unnecessary governmental shut down. a shut down that's already been disruptive to critical governmental functions and our communities and may become radically more so, but we all know, everyone in this chamber knows, this could have been avoided. this is a politically generated crisis. in december this house faced the possibility of passing an omnibus appropriations bill, 12 subcommittee bills assembled with party cooperation with substantial savings relative to the presidens budget request, and republicans in the senate refused to even consider that omnibus bill. so failing that, we said, what about a year-long continuing resolution? again again -- again, republicans in the senate said they would fibuster such a bill. so here we are. what our friends on the other side of the aisle opted for

instead was a potential march shutdown that they thought they could use to leverage the tea party agenda. now, i and many others on this side of the aisle, have been willing in recent weeks to vote for two short-term continuing resolutions to give the process more time. we accepted additional cuts, cuts that avoid real damage to the recovering economy. or to critical investments. but this resolution before us today, my colleagues, breaks with that pattern. it attempts to hold the house and the country hostage to an extreme ideological position to which the republican conference has unfortunately caved in. this resolution proposes $12 billion in unacceptable cuts, cuts that would damage this fragile recovery and cuts that would damage critical national investments. it would take $200 million from

the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. it takes hundreds of millions from federal law enforcement. it would take millions from the department of energy's environmental cleanup programs. it would -- in the homeland security area with which i'm most familiar because of the subcommittee i chaired and now serve as ranking member, it would reduce fema's state and local grants by 20% below 2010 levels. and both the state homeland security grants and the urban area security grants would go to historically low levels. the continuing resolution would decimate the land and water conservation fund. it would radically cut the clean water and drinking water revolving funds. it cuts centers for excellence for veteran students. it cuts from the centers for disease control critical funds. it would cut a billion and a half from a critical national

investment, high-speed rail. 20 additional seconds. mr. dicks: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has an additional 30 seconds. mr. price: madam speaker, these cuts are serious business. they have the potential to damage this fragile recovery and to compromise critical national investments. we cannot be held hostage. this country, this congress cannot be held hostage. this crisis has been artificially created for political purposes, but that doesn't mean we need to go along with it. we can pass a clean continuing resolution and continue the discussions, but we cannot do this kind of damage to our economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the chairman on our committee, the subcommittee for transportation and h.u.d., the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham,

two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: i thank the -- madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from kentucky. the idea that this is somehow artificially created is unbelievable. is there any memory over on the other side here about what happened last year for the first time since the budget act of 1974 that you didn't even attempt to pass a budget last year? you initiated at the majority on your side both in the house and senate and the presidency did not pass one bill into law. that's why we are here today. you know it's not artificial. and i'm glad they got the talking points out from senator schumer about being extreme. i'll tell you what's extreme is to continue to spend this country into oblivion. you're going to have our kids and grandchildren working for the chinese if you continue this. and that's why, madam speaker, and that's why, madam speaker, today i rise in