Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Passes Bill to Slash Funds to U.N.
AP by Yahoo ^ | 6/17/2005 | JIM ABRAMS (AP)

Posted on 06/17/2005 12:10:30 PM PDT by SamFromLivingston

Edited on 06/17/2005 2:59:48 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON - Culminating years of frustration with the performance and behavior of the United Nations, the House voted Friday to slash U.S. contributions to the world body if it does not substantially change the way it operates.

The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts, was a strong signal from Congress that a policy of persuasion wasn't enough to straighten out the U.N.

"We have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the author of the legislation. "It's time we had some teeth in reform."

The legislation would withhold half of U.S. dues to the U.N.'s general budget if the organization did not meet a list of demands for change. Failure to comply would also result in U.S. refusal to support expanded and new peacekeeping missions. The bill's prospects in the Senate are uncertain.

Just prior to the final vote, the House rejected, 216-190, an alternative offered by the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos of California, that also would have outlined U.N. reforms but would have left it to the discretion of the secretary of state whether to withhold U.S. payments.

During the two days of debate, legislators discussed the seating of such human rights abusers as Cuba and Sudan on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the oil-for-food program that became a source of up to $10 billion in illicit revenue for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., won backing for an amendment under which the United States would use its influence to ensure that any member engaged in acts of genocide or crimes against humanity would lose its U.N. membership and face arms and trade embargoes.

Hyde was joined by lawmakers with a litany of complaints against what they said was the U.N.'s lavish spending, its coddling of rogue regimes, its anti-America, anti-Israel bias and recent scandals such as the mismanagement of the oil-for-food program in Iraq and the sexual misconduct of peacekeepers.

The administration on Thursday had urged the Republican-led House to reconsider the legislation. The administration said in a statement that it is actively engaged in U.N. reform, and the Hyde bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts."

Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, including Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also weighed in, telling lawmakers in a letter that withholding of dues would "create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed support earlier this week for another congressional effort to bring about U.N. reform. A task force led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell, a Democrat, recommended such changes as setting up an independent auditing board and weighted voting on financial issues for members who contribute more to the budget.

Also Thursday, the administration supported a measured expansion of the Security Council, but said widespread reform of the United Nations takes precedence.

"We are not prepared to have Security Council reform sprint out ahead of the other extremely important reforms that have to take place," Rice said at a news conference. She cited management, peace-building and halting the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology.

The bill, with amendments, lists 46 reforms sought. They include cutting the public information budget by 20 percent, establishing an independent oversight board and an ethics office, and denying countries that violate human rights from serving on human rights commissions.

The secretary of state would have to certify that 32 of the 39 reforms have been met by September 2007, and all 39 by the next year, to avoid a withdrawal of 50 percent of assessed dues.

U.S.-assessed dues account for about 22 percent of the U.N.'s $2 billion annual general budget.

The financial penalties would not apply to the U.N.'s voluntarily funded programs, which include UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; un; unreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 next last
To: schwing_wifey

Now, let's move them to Sheboygan.


81 posted on 06/17/2005 4:40:29 PM PDT by Dashing Dasher (I'm not feeling sexually harassed!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I hate unnecessary excerpting.

Good on you Dog. I do too.

82 posted on 06/17/2005 5:04:20 PM PDT by upchuck (If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paul_Denton

Courtesy of www.rightwingstuff.com

83 posted on 06/17/2005 5:12:59 PM PDT by DTogo (U.S. out of the U.N. & U.N out of the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SamFromLivingston
Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts

Probably State Dept. whining. This is the same garbage I hear about funding for the Palestinian Authority. Don't cut their funding or they'll get madder and be even less likely to come to the negotiating table. That's crap! You don't improve these people's behavior by giving them money, that's just enabling their stupid behavior.

America should enact a total U.N. ban including: completely defunding the U.N., deporting all members back to their home countries, bulldozing the monuments in front of all U.N. offices in America, and turn all U.N. buildings into leased office space.

84 posted on 06/17/2005 5:33:02 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Proud infidel since 1970.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hineybona
Notice the Dems were all against hurting their pet project the corrupt UN

Don't get too revved up---notice our esteemed new world order president is against this bill too.

85 posted on 06/17/2005 6:02:42 PM PDT by Founding Father ( Republicans control the Oval Office, Senate and House, but still can't govern.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Notice that this bill only "slashes" UN funding... it does not "eliminate" UN funding. I believe Paul's position is he will never vote to provide one cent to the UN.

And that is why Ron Paul is an ass.

Guess what? I'm pro-life but if a referendum was brought up for a popular vote that asked "Would you prohibit late-term abortions (considered to be those in the last trimester)?" you'd be damned sure I'd vote YEA even if it doesn't outlaw all abortions.
86 posted on 06/17/2005 6:02:56 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SamFromLivingston
This is great...now it needs to come through the Senate unscaithed and become the law of the land.

Oh, I can't wait to hear the howling and complaining from the marxists amongst us, and especially from the UN!

87 posted on 06/17/2005 6:04:30 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I googled it. There are several things that would be very disturbing except for one. All I saw were on fringe right wing web sites. Normally when something’s real, I can at least find it in the Washington Times or WSJ, but 99% of what I saw was from places like News Max. (I have zero patience for kook sites, agenda sites or “news” sites that run multi part headliners predicting a surprise Russian attack like News Max.)

I only had a couple of minutes to look. I’ll check it out again later. This is at least worth a second look.

88 posted on 06/17/2005 6:06:20 PM PDT by elfman2 (This space is intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

nice graphic :)


89 posted on 06/17/2005 6:07:29 PM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and U.S. out of the U.N.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
And that is why Ron Paul is an ass.

That person gave you the wrong reason why Paul voted against the bill. To read his own reason, follow the link at #34. It's a very good reason. I would have voted against it as well.

90 posted on 06/17/2005 6:07:33 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
I have zero patience for kook sites, agenda sites or “news” sites that run multi part headliners predicting a surprise Russian attack like News Max.

Faulty predictions are one thing, but that doesn't mean they have faulty reporting. Newsmax is linked on the FR's homepage, and FR's owner doesn't have much patience for fringers, so they can't be that far out in their reporting. It's not like they're part of the black-helicopter, Holocaust-denial crowd.

Do you know of any instance where they've falsely reported any facts?

91 posted on 06/17/2005 6:13:12 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: SamFromLivingston

This is not enough.

The UN serves no purpose for the benefit oif the United States. It is a giant anti-American redistribution of American dollars scheme.

We gain no benefit. Other nation reap American dollars.

We do NOT need the UN for anything.

Get out of the UN totally. Withold ALL dolars, Mr. Hyde.


92 posted on 06/17/2005 6:17:14 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The Republican'ts have no spine--they ALWAYS cave-in to the RATs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat
This bill is nothing more than a bone thrown to the right --- while the bastards continue to smile to their left.

Yes, it's all show biz. But I'd settle for a few more bones provided they came from the spine of the UN...with enough vertebrae missing, that august body would crumple in a heap on the floor and ooze in to the East River where it belongs. But spinless is a quality shared by too many congresscrits, so they'll just nibble around the edges.

93 posted on 06/17/2005 6:20:54 PM PDT by Veto! (Opinions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I see there’s another site to the claim of that UNCLOS creates a taxing body redistribution of wealth:
“As a member of the Council the United States will have a veto over the adoption of rules and regulations for seabed mining, the distribution of any revenues collected by the Authority, and any amendments concerning the Authority;

“The United States would also have the ability as a member of the Finance Committee, which adopts all rules of substance by “consensus,” to veto financial decisions of the Authority”

There are things in this treaty that I don’t like, but I don't like one sided misinformation that wastes my time. Life’s short.
94 posted on 06/17/2005 6:33:07 PM PDT by elfman2 (This space is intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Great lies are built solely on selective use of “facts”.


95 posted on 06/17/2005 6:34:28 PM PDT by elfman2 (This space is intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
The fact that the U.S. (executive branch) would have veto power over the taxing and spending provisions of LOST means that there are no such provisions, or that they don't pose any kind of danger?
96 posted on 06/17/2005 6:37:38 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

You consider the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation 'fringe right wing'??

Okey-dokey...


The Heritage link is congressional testimony, and all the information on the other links stands up on its own.

And that was only a tiny sampling of what's available out there that proves what I said. I don't think you're googling too hard.


I'll stand with Jeane Kirkpatrick on this one, dude. I think she knows the subject pretty well.


97 posted on 06/17/2005 6:44:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Quality of Life': another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Ok, let me explain what LOST is really about.

The Law of the Sea is about land use control. LOST will be used to justify new land use regulations "to protect the marine environment." It isn't hard to see. Many oceanic species breed in estuaries within the United States. Estuarine health isn't doing very well for a number of reasons (many of which politicized science will conveniently miss). The estuaries are fed by rivers. The rivers are lined with cities.

Marine sanctuaries and global biospheres have already been used for this precise purpose and are effectively the model for what is planned for LOST. If all we accomplish is to alter the treaty to gain protection for our military or access to seabed mining we have anyway, we will have missed the point.

LOST has the potential to be a straitjacket, fully capable of crippling this nation economically (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself). According to the email I get from ALRA, the White House (particularly Dick Cheney) and Chuck Hagel have been the instigators in trying to push this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.

98 posted on 06/17/2005 7:05:16 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SamFromLivingston

If the senate ever passes this (doubtful), we will be witness to Bush's first veto.


99 posted on 06/17/2005 7:09:33 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Mark Levin and Ann Coulter for SCOTUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
The same Bush that nominated Bolton?
100 posted on 06/17/2005 7:12:48 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson