James A. Leach: “as so ably demonstrated by the gentlemen from California (Mr. Lantos and Mr. Rohrabacher), the U.N. is crying out for…”

“as so ably demonstrated by the gentlemen from California (Mr. Lantos and Mr. Rohrabacher), the U.N. is crying out for reform. But let us not forget that the only oath we as Members take is to the Constitution and votes should reflect this obligation, not pique, not ideology, not well-intentioned concern for reform. Unfortunately, the approach contained in the bill before us contravenes the United Nations charter and undercuts the rule of law. It also misreads the constitutional prerogatives of Congress. It is true that under article 1 we have been given purse-string authority. It is not true that we have been provided the power to negotiate. That authority resides with the executive branch. There has been a suggestion made that only by threatening the withholding of resources can progress be made at the U.N. This assertion at first blush sounds like commonsense realism. But counterintuitively to utterers of this precept, historical experience reveals that prior U.S. withholding tactics have frequently embarrassed the United States and weakened, rather than strengthened, our diplomatic positions. Nobody likes to be threatened, especially when threats represent breaches of the law of nations. It is no accident that the Bush administration has voiced opposition to this bill and warned that unilaterally backing out of our financial obligations will undermine our credibility and effectiveness at the U.N.…”