First of all, we have a lot of conservatives who do not like foreign aid. And anything that reeks of the U.N. is tainted and that involves us overseas, and we ought not to get into those sort of entanglements. So we have a mountain to climb on our side to get enough people to support this. After all, this pays our U.N. arrearages, not perhaps in the manner in which the Democrats would like it paid, but it is $819 million plus $107 million in debt forgiveness over 3 years. That certainly beats where we are now, with zero. So if you think our membership in the U.N. is useful, I would think this is the best opportunity to get caught up on the arrearages. I have always had a couple of fantasies about the U.N. One is I would like to move it from New York to Beijing. I think that would be a wonderful headquarters. We have had the glory of the U.N. being in New York and avoiding and evading our parking tickets. Let us give the rest of the world a chance at it. But I do not decry the U.N. I think it is useful. I think we should belong to it. I think we are a world leader, and we should lead in the U.N. And so if we belong to it, we should pay our dues, and this is a medium by which we pay our dues.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing U.S. foreign aid and U.N. arrearages during a debate on international relations.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
Members of this Committee know the story of how Congressman Henry Hyde changed his mind when the 1982 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act was in play by virtue of the facts and the testimony that he saw.
the question was asked, whose side are we on? I am on the side of the family. It seems to me the practice of ferreting some pregnant girl who is a minor out across the State line so that parents will not know about it is an assault on the…
I enclose two letters relating to the consideration of H.R. 3100 The East Asia Security Act.'' House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, July 12, 2005. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, House Committee on…
this is a killer amendment. If you vote for it, you vote to kill this entire initiative, because this imposes limits on India's nuclear weapons program, but India already possesses nuclear weapons and is extremely unlikely to give them up…





