Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not complex; it is very simple. If it is passed, we would get out of the United Nations, and there is a lot of people in this country who do not believe the United Nations has served us well and believe we should not be in the United Nations, and I think that we should consider this very seriously today.

The American people, many now are concerned that our sovereignty is being attacked in many ways; one by the United Nations membership in the United Nations. Today we have, of course, the IMF and the World Bank that we have been involved in a long time, and just recently we had joined the World Trade Organization, which is another international government agency and government body that usurps our rights and our privileges and interferes with our legislative process, especially in the area of environmentalism and labor law.

Our Constitution does not give us the authority to sell our sovereignty to an international government body, and even under the treaty provisions of the Constitution it is not permissible. The treaty provision does not allow us, for instance, to undermine the Bill of Rights. Therefore, giving up our national sovereignty through a treaty, an agreement to serve or participate in the United Nations, is not legitimate.

The movement we have seen here in the last several years has been toward managed trade. It has been managed trade in the name of free trade. But instead of free trade we get more government organizations and more international controls over our lives.

We have seen in the last several decades loss of American lives serving under the UN banner. The American people are now sick and tired of seeing U.S. troops serving under foreign commanders under the UN banner. We were humiliated in Somalia as dead American troops were dragged through the street, and it is time we question this, whether this is to our benefit. Our national sovereignty is not served.

Just recently the President gave a speech at the graduation ceremony at West Point. He says in the years ahead it means that one could be asked to put their life on the line for a new NATO member just as today one can be called upon to defend the freedom of our allies in Western Europe. That is not part of the American system.

Yes, we are obligated to provide a strong national defense, but there is no way that the American taxpayer is obligated to make an attempt to provide freedom throughout the world and defend everybody that has a problem. The whole notion that we can be the peacemaker where there have been wars going on for thousands of years is preposterous. This is one way for us to get very much involved in battles that we do not need to be involved.

I see our involvement in the United Nations and placing of troops around the world as a threat to our national security. We are low on funds, and we are spending way too much money. Since 1945, we have spent over a hundred or nearly $100 billion in UN efforts.

Some would say is that not wonderful? Look at what we have done. We have the Soviet Union has disintegrated over this type of policy and working through the UN, but that is not the reason the UN disintegrated, or the Soviet Union disintegrated. It is because they had bad economic policy and it was destined that they would disintegrate. We cannot be the peacemaker.

And there is another reason why we get so much involved with these UN organizations and UN functions, and that has to do with the many corporations that have influence with policy here. So when we go into Bosnia and we send troops there or send troops into Haiti, sure enough there are some very wealthy American corporations who are bound to get their contracts to go in, and they can very frequently be the strongest lobbyists for our intervention in these countries around the world.

Some argue that we are the only superpower left and therefore we must fill the gap. I think that is a very good argument for starting to bring our legions home. How long do we have to police the world? Will we ever come to our senses? Are we going to drive ourselves into a bankruptcy before we come to our senses and decide that maybe we have extended ourselves too far?

We have recently seen that under treaties by international treaties and UN treaties that even our parks are marked by UN functionaries; that is, there is an influence in the management and supervision coming from the United Nations. This is not permissible under our Constitution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, most respectfully I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I share with him a recent travel with reference to the actions of the United Nations.

The chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa [Mr. Royce], along with the ranking member of that committee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], myself and three other Members of the House of Representatives were just in South Africa and in Angola and in Zaire and in Zimbabwe. We needed to get to Zaire, and we were ferried there on a United Nations airplane. While there we saw United Nations efforts ongoing, and I remind the gentleman from Texas to not give the impression that only United States troops are involved in our methods of the United Nations, but the largest United Nations contingent in the world today is in Angola, and they have saved millions of lives and have kept the peace, at least momentarily, in that country.

I need not carry my colleague around the world, but this amendment in the final analysis would require, as the gentleman says, the United States to withdraw from the UN how much does he feel that we should contribute to peacekeeping efforts? How much should we be involved in ensuring that the vital interests of the United States around the world are protected?

I am glad the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] offered the amendment because it offers us the opportunity for a real debate on the United Nations. This amendment clarifies that debate. Simply put, do we stay in the UN and work to reform it, or do we just get out? And that is sort of really in the final analysis an isolationist view, getting out of this world as this economy globalizes. I would hope that some Members of this body remember and recognize that for all of its warts the United Nations does also serve important United States interests around the world.

Many of us often express doubts about the United Nations, but at the end of the day every United States President has decided that United States participation in the United Nations is in the interests of the United States, and I might add every means every since its inception. I believe that the United Nations is indispensable as one of many tools of United States foreign policy. As the only superpower, and my colleague so rightly points that out, the United States will be called upon more and more often to intervene in conflicts around the world to protect our vital interests. Unless we want to carry this burden alone, my distinguished colleague, and I do not think we can or should, we must be prepared to shift some of the responsibilities, as well as the costs, to other nations.

Do I favor a reformed United Nations? You bet. And have I told all persons with whom I have come in contact, including the Secretary of State of this great country, that? Yes, I have. I believe this means we must help to strengthen institutions such as the United Nations so that it can take the lead in peacekeeping operations and the United States can benefit from burden sharing. I hear that term used often.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that other United Nations programs also serve the United States interests. The World Health Organization, for example, led in the successful fight to eradicate smallpox from the face of the Earth and are busying themselves now working throughout the world in a variety of disease containment circumstances.

The International Atomic Energy Agency helps enforce crucial safeguards on nuclear materials. The International Civil Action Organization helps maintain safe air travel. Our payments to these agencies help to build a better and safer world.

Should we, as I say, work for major reforms in the United Nations? Yes. This amendment prejudges that question by saying we should just get out, wash our hands and turn our backs on the world.

I urge all Members to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].

[Page: H3337]

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman points out that every President since the inception of the UN has supported the UN, but I might suggest that every President prior to that supported a foreign policy which was considered non-interventionist, pro-American, and that should be taken into consideration as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and again with all deference and respect for my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] I do rise against his amendment. I think it would deny us an opportunity to promote world peace and do some of the things that we have been doing so well and not so well at times through the United Nations.

Let me just say that if his amendment were passed, we would no longer be participating in the UN Children's Fund, and there is $100 million in this bill targeted to UNICEF. UNICEF has been part of the global effort to eradicate preventable diseases that affect children, like pertussis, polio, tetanus, diptheria and other menacing diseases, measles, and it seems to me that if we were to take that money away, we would see more children die from these preventable diseases. The UN is not perfect, the UN Children's Fund is not perfect, but at least it gives us an opportunity to protect children and to tangibly stop mortality and morbidity among these victims of these diseases.

Refugees. The UN High Commission of Refugees tells us that they have some 26 million people of interest to the UNHCR. We would no longer and much of our money again that is in this bill, we have $704 million for refugee assistance goes to the UNHCR that provides the camps and the safe havens, if my colleagues will, for those who are escaping tyranny or other devastating situations in their countries.

The UNHCR again is not perfect, it has many flaws. I am one of its chief critics. But it does provide a very valuable humanitarian assistance that will be lost.

The ILO is another UN sponsored agency, the International Labor Organization. We have $20 million that is earmarked or put a designation for that money. When we marked up, it was part of my original draft bill to eradicate the exploitation of children around the world. We had 2 hearings in the subcommittee last year on this issue of the exploitation of kids, child labor.

We even heard from some of those who were in the news regarding it. We heard from a girl from Honduras who had been through the mill and exploited by her employer. The ILO has action plans in countries that work, that help to eradicate and sensitize government officials. To get us out of the ILO, I think, would be a mistake.

Peacekeeping; again, if we look at UNPROFOR, if we look at some of the peacekeeping missions that have gone awry, including Somalia, it gives a black mark to what the Blue Helmets do, but they have had many successful interventions. Had it not been for the U.N. peacekeepers, many, many people, civilians, would have been dead, and those long-term missions continue. We have combatants and people who would be at each other had it not been for the fact that these people interposed themselves to separate these warring factions.

The U.N. Security Council continues to provide us a way of mobilizing world support as we did in operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm to mobilize the world against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That became an international action because we had the capability to use the U.N. to make it a unified effort.

There are consensus-breakers. And my subcommittee oversees, I say to my friend, the U.N., and nobody criticizes them more than I do. They have had recent conferences like the recent conference in Cairo and Beijing where some very egregious policies were being promoted and foisted on the developing world. These are consensus-breakers. The gay agenda, the abortion rights agenda, the developing world does not want it. And there will be amendments later on today that I will offer that will say specific agencies, like U.N. Population Fund, get out of China where we have co-managed and been part of the coercion of women to have forced abortions and forced sterilizations, that is where the U.N. goes awry. We ought to target our opposition to those that commit these very serious crimes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned the UNICEF program, $100 million. It is well motivated and I think the intentions are very good, and my colleague does admit that sometimes the consequences are not exactly what we want. But the question is, do we have this authority to take money from poor people in this country and make these attempts to do these social programs overseas. I do not see the authority, and I do not think the programs work that well.

The gentleman mentioned fighting the Persian Gulf war. We were serving oil interests there. I mean we went in there for that, oil interests. They said it was our oil, it was not our oil. But now, who is paying the cost? Thousands, 34,000, 40,000, 50,000 Americans now suffer from gulf war syndrome. So I would say there is a much higher cost than anybody realizes and we cannot ignore that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman making those points.

On UNICEF, I myself on a number of occasions have talked to leadership people, including Carol Bellamy, who is director of UNICEF.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Smith of New Jersey was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have asked her and relayed a message that there is a growing concern in Congress, among the American people that, if they move in or evolve into some kind of abortion promotion, which some of their people would like to see, it is over. We will find other ways of using our money to advance the child survival revolution. We need to continue, I think, to give those messages in a very real way, and I will offer the amendment on the floor, if anything, to curtail that funding and make sure that it is given to other child survival programs throughout the world.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer a segue off of what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] said, and refer to the assertions of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] with reference to oil and Desert Storm and carry him back to my remarks regarding Angola, which we just visited under the aegis of the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.

I would say to my colleague from Texas [Mr. Paul] that we get 7 percent of our oil in the United States from Angola. The U.N. peacekeeping mission there does not have one American soldier involved at all, and that helps us to maintain that level of civility.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me conclude, and again, there are consensus-breakers, and I think the diplomats and the leaders of the U.N. need to be on notice that, if they continue the social engineering, one, they will not get their arrearages; and, secondly, the efforts that the gentleman from Texas is undertaking will gain support among the American people, and I think at some point there will be an effort to take us out of it and to severely restrict our funding to it. But right now I think we ought to try to reform it.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will support some of these reforms, especially in curtailing some of these funds going to abortion. Certainly that would be repugnant to me. But still, I go back to the issue of the cost. Yes, we want to do good, but can we do this by harming poor people in this country, because when we tax and take money from this country, we really do contribute to problems in this country, unemployment, inflation, deficits; and this is all part of the picture.

So can we morally justify injuring our people here at home with the pretense that we are doing good overseas?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, the bottom line is, it is a very modest commitment. When we juxtapose foreign aid to the rest of the budget, it is about 1 percent, it is not very much. We are talking about, and I believe we ought to be our brother's and sister's keeper. There are times when we need to become involved. And when there is a humanitarian crisis, it behooves us to be out there first and foremost with all of the possible medicines, foods and the like.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I certainly agree that we should have concern. If we left more money in the hands and pockets of the American people, they would be charitable, and I do believe we would help them. I believe when we take money from poor people, put it in the hands of government and give it to another government, that is when we get into trouble. If we left more money in the hands of the American people and allowed them to be charitable, I believe the outcome would be much better.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's proposal. He certainly has made a lot of strong arguments that we recognize. However, I just want to remind the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] that there is a test force at work to try to put severe conditions into reforming the United Nations, to make it more effective, to make it more cost-effective as well.

We will have a separate bill on the U.N. arrearages coming up very shortly, and we will have an opportunity to debate that at that time. But in that bill I hope the gentleman will watch closely for the conditions that we are trying to impose on the United Nations to do some of the things the gentleman is concerned about, to make certain there is not going to be waste and that there is going to be a more effective administration.

I think this amendment could harm our vital interests. If we can keep people talking to each other and keep them apprised of some of the problems around the world, we are going to save them from going into hostile action, that would cost us even more than the U.N. problems are costing us today. I hope that the distinguished gentleman will bear that in mind as he looks forward to what we can do about reforming the United Nations.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I do not serve on the Committee on International Relations, and I have deferred in the past to debates on these issues. However, sincere as I believe my colleague from Texas is, I think he is absolutely dead wrong. I would just say that I believe in the sincerity of the amendment; I just think it is dead wrong.

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I do not want to live in these United States the way I lived and saw the absolute abject poverty that exists around the world. There is no poverty close to the kind of poverty we see in Africa and other areas of the world. We need the United Nations. We need not be the world's policeman, we need not be the world's peacemaker; we need to join with others in sharing that responsibility.

I was here during the awful tragedy in Somalia, and that was not the fault of the United Nations; that was the fault of our own policy and how we carried it out. I agree with those who say the United Nations needs to be more efficient, the United Nations needs to be more effective. We need to be active partners in the United Nations. Frankly, we need to pay our debts to the United Nations and be the world leaders that we should be and set the example we should. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York controls the time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have no false illusions about the amendment, but I think it is very important to talk about these issues, because I do believe that I am on the right track when it comes to what is authorized in the Constitution and, also, what is very popular with a lot of Americans. I think that is important. People have a hard time when they see money going to programs like this, they have a great deal of trouble accepting it.

The end of this will come, not because I say so or not because my amendment will pass, but all great nations finally fall when they get too stretched out financially and in their foreign policy and in their military, and we are vulnerable to that. We have great deficits, bigger than are admitted, and we are on a course. We have not really attacked the budget, we are not cutting back.

It was suggested earlier that this was just a small amount. Well, every bill is just a small amount when we look at a $1.7 trillion budget; so it is a small amount, but it continues to add up. Eventually great nations fall when they overextend. I fear for that, I fear for America, because I believe we are on the wrong track.

I do not believe we should be the policeman of the world. I do not believe the programs have been all that successful, and we should do our very best to debate this. If nothing else, maybe some of the reforms will do some good if we do not have my way now. But someday we will, because we are going to run out of money.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we are in a situation where with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, some people in this country, some Members of Congress, feel as if we can crawl back into a continental shell and ignore the rest of the globe. The reality is, unlike at any time in history before today, this economy and the survival of America as a leader of the world is dependent on our international involvement. When we look at the jobs that are produced as a result of trade globally, it is because of America's foreign policy leadership that we have markets in the world unmatched by any other country.

The U.N. is an instrument of America's interest. We have a control in that body unlike most international organizations that give us veto power. The question is whether or not this country is better off dealing with the crises and problems that challenge the world community through an organization that debates the issues, or should we leave all of our debates to the battlefield? The U.N. is an institution important to America's national interests. People who care about our future economy and our security and the values that we believe in ought to support the U.N. We ought to try to make it as efficient as possible, but there is no question that America's interests lie in a United Nations that is efficient, that is strong, and that deals with the challenges we face in a multilateral manner.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Yes, I am concerned about the same things. I want peace and security for our country. That is our number one responsibility here, not to socialize the world and run a welfare state. But a policy of neutrality has been more consistent with that of peace throughout our history and throughout the history of the world. It is when we are interventionists, when we impose our will on other people; that is how America gets a black eye.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there was a time we were neutral through World War II until Pearl Harbor brought us into that war. I cannot tell my colleague what would have happened if the League of Nations had survived and this country had stayed active politically in the world, whether we could have avoided the horrors of World War II. But there is no question in my mind that, if we withdraw from the United Nations, it will increase the likelihood that America's men and women will fall on battlefields and face challenges economic and military that we can avoid when we have a place to have a dialogue.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate, I think that there is something that the Paul amendment clearly misses. It misses the very pivotal roll that the United Nations plays in the concept of peace.

In listening to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], a member of the Committee on International Relations, let me join him in acknowledging on a recent visit to southern Africa how vital the United Nations was in bringing about democracy to southern Africa, how vital the United Nations was in protecting life and limb and human rights, and how vital the United Nations was in bringing parties together that could not speak.

Therefore, I would simply say that, albeit well-intended, the United Nations is a body where disparate voices can be heard. It is a body where rising and growing and important African nations have a stake, along with other members of this world family.

The United Nations is a place where China meets India, where South America meets African nations, where the United States and Canada draw together, where the European nations come together. There is not one other body that brings all of the world's countries together. It is unlike the European Union, it is unlike the OAU. It is certainly unlike the organization that deals with South America and Latin America. It is unlike any other organization. So it would be unlike us to thwart the actions of the United Nations in bringing peace now and tomorrow.

I would ask that this amendment be defeated because I think it is important to recognize what the United Nations stands for. It stands for drawing individuals together, and it stands for an opportunity for dialogue for those who could not dialogue otherwise.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I must rise to oppose the amendment. In fact, I think it is preposterous to even think at this stage of the game, in 1997, that we would even consider such an amendment to pull the U.S. out of the U.N. We ought to take the U.N., after the struggle to defeat the Soviet Union and to defeat communism, and we were successful, we ought to take the United Nations and utilize the United Nations to help further United States' interests, to help further United States' foreign policy.

When I was a member of the Committee on International Relations and Madeleine Albright was the U.N. rep, she came and said that. I agreed with her 100 percent. Now, now that the fight against the Soviet Union has been won, the Cold War has been won, the U.S. has emerged as the world's last remaining superpower, are we going to just take that and throw it all away?

We claim in this body that we want the world to emulate the United States. We want other nations to have free market economies. We want other nations to practice democracy. We say we want to promote democracy all over the world. What better ways to do it than through an international body like the United Nations?

As my friend and colleague from Florida said, yes, the U.N. needs to be reformed, the U.N. needs to be changed, the U.N. needs to tighten its belt. There are lots of things the U.N. needs to do. But will the U.N. do it if the United States, the leader of the world, is not part and parcel of that driving force? I would say no.

I would say, furthermore, that it is an embarrassment that the United States owes more than $1 billion in dues, in arrearages, to the U.N. That is an embarrassment. That undermines the United States' effectiveness and leadership in the United Nations, because it is very difficult for us to say to nations of the world what we think they ought to do when we are the biggest deadbeats, unfortunately, in the United Nations.

So rather than pull out of the United Nations, I think what we should do is pay our U.N. dues, pay the money we owe, and make sure that the U.N. reforms itself. Mr. Chairman, I think that the United States, as the last remaining superpower on this Earth, has an obligation not to the world but to ourselves.

Is the world not safer if democracy prevails with the United States there as a strong force in the U.N.? Is the world not safer if free market economies begin to flourish across the globe with the United States as part of the U.N., being the most influential member in the U.N.?

I can tell the Members, in countries that I have visited, they are literally begging us for a little bit of assistance. A little bit of aid would go a long, long way. I think the direction that this Congress has been taking is a wrong direction. We ought to be expanding foreign aid. It helps the United States. Three quarters of the aid that we send or give to other countries is put back into the United States in the purchase of goods and services, American goods and services. So we help ourselves and we help the world, and we make sure that democracy flourishes and free market economies flourish.

Pulling us out would be just absolutely preposterous, and would be terrible not only for the world but for the United States. We need to lead. We do not need to recoil. We do not need to be isolationists. The world is shrinking, and I believe that the United States continues and should continue to play a vital role in ensuring that democracy and free market economy is spread.

Again, it is in furtherance of our own self-interest. Now that the Soviet Union is no longer around, we can grab the bull by the horns. We can shape the United Nations. We can shape the world in terms of what we would like to see. That is done with a strong U.S. presence, not with U.S. removal from the United Nations. So I believe this is just the absolute wrong direction in which we ought to move. I really think that this is, frankly, one of the silliest things I have seen since I have been in Congress.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned that the Soviet Union disintegration might be attributed to the United Nations, but quite frankly, it was because the U.N. did not deal with them as much as others. Think about the first episode of the U.N. troops going into Korea. We still have a dictator in North Korea, we have a government in South Korea that we protect that is not necessarily civil libertarian. Yet that is as a result of U.N. action. The Soviet system collapsed because they had a failed economic system.

I would like to just mention, and I feel very lonely here in the Congress, but take a look at this. This is a stack of petitions, thousands of petitions by the American people who disagree with our policy and would like us to at least address it, and not call it silly.

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was one of the Democrats that broke with my party and supported President Bush in the Persian Gulf war. And because we had the United Nations and other people, we were very, very effective.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Engel was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I supported President Bush in Operation Desert Storm. I think that was one of the times we utilized the United Nations, and we utilized the international community to further U.S. foreign policy interests. It was good for this country and it was good for the world. I want to say that we can do that again, and we can do that again if the United States is a vital force in the United Nations, not pulling out of the United Nations. That would be the opposite thing we ought to do.

Mr. PAUL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me point out that authority came from the United Nations.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. With all respect for my colleague, I think we have an obligation as Members of Congress to lead. I understand that there are constituents of the gentleman's and perhaps constituents of mine who are concerned with daily life. They are worried about how they are going to pay the bills, they are worried about how they are going to send their youngsters to college, they are worried about how they are going to pay the mortgage. These occupations consume them.

But as Members of Congress, I think we have a responsibility to explain to those constituents that the United States plays a key role in this world, and we are the leaders of the free world. For those of us who have an opportunity to see the important works of the United Nations, we have to speak out loudly and clearly that by raising the economic standard, by raising the standard of living of people in countries that many of our constituents have never visited, we are helping ourselves here in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly that we have to pay our U.N. dues. We have to pay our arrearages. We have been a leader in the United Nations, and the fact that we have not paid our dues and have not met our responsibility does harm to our position in the United Nations.

When we look at the programs of, for example, the United Nations development program, and we see that this program has a real impact in many of the areas of the world in health care, in education, in giving people the opportunity to work and get a job and raise their standard of living, this helps us. Ignorance breeds violence too often in distant corners of the world.

Therefore, I think we have to explain to our constituents that if we give a person in Kenya, for example, or Botswana the opportunity to create a job for themselves, sometimes $300 to a microcredit program helps a woman stand tall, and this supports a whole family. This can support a whole community. We have an obligation, Mr. Chairman, to help educate our constituents.

Now, the United Nations is not perfect. There are many things that I would agree with my colleague on. We have to work, work with the new Secretary General, to make sure that these areas are reformed. But I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and in fact, take a strong position to support the United Nations and to make sure that the United States can stand tall and fulfill our responsibilities as a leader in the world by paying our arrearages.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentlewoman's desire for the United States to be a leader. It is just that my concept of leadership is different. We have troops in 100 countries of the world. That does not have very much to do with our national security. I am for neutrality. I want to be friends with everybody. Some say this is an isolationist viewpoint. It has nothing to do with isolationism, if we combine it with free trade.

This whole notion that we are isolating and drawing back, yes, we would like to draw some of our troops back, maybe because we are not authorized, it is not part of our national security, we do not have the funds, and it gets us into trouble. Those are the reasons why the American people are sick and tired of all this adventurism overseas.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], my distinguished colleague, those 100 countries the gentleman asserts we have troops in are not all under the aegis of the United Nations. Many of those are our bilateral responsibilities, and some are unilateral.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], again I would like to respectfully disagree. It has been our policy that educating the populations of the world, spreading democracy, has been in the interests of the United States. I would like to close by saying that it is in the interest of our country, of our constituents, that we do what we can to strengthen the United States, to invest in world peace. Hopefully this will keep our community safe here at home.

I would like to work with the gentleman to invest in our communities at home, to help our families be strengthened through education and through housing and health care programs. But in order to keep our constituents safe at home, we have a responsibility, in my judgment, to strengthen our role in the United Nations, to be sure that we have a United Nations that can continue to work for world peace. That is in the interest of our constituents here at home.

Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I think a lot of American people want to feel secure. That is obviously part of our responsibility. But a lot of people in this country now would feel more secure if they could keep more of their own money and we were not so adventurous.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.