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.
YAHHHHOOOOOO!!!!!!
Its a start!!!! Please let it pass the Senate!!!!
Hope they stick with it.
Abrams is one of the few good AP writers. This article seems fairly well balanced.
| Ayes | Noes | PRES | NV | |
| Republican | 213 | 7 | 10 | |
| Democratic | 8 | 176 | 18 | |
| Independent | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 221 | 184 | 28 |
| Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bass Beauprez Berkley Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Bonilla Bonner Boozman Boustany Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Chabot Chocola Coble Cole (OK) Conaway Costello Cox Crenshaw Cubin Culberson Cunningham Davis (KY) Davis, Jo Ann Deal (GA) DeLay Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Ehlers Emerson English (PA) Everett Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick (PA) Flake Foley Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach |
Gibbons Gilchrest Gohmert Goodlatte Granger Green (WI) Green, Gene Gutknecht Hall Harris Hart Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Hobson Hoekstra Hostettler Hulshof Hunter Hyde Inglis (SC) Istook Jenkins Jindal Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Kuhl (NY) LaHood Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moran (KS) Murphy Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Ney |
Northup Norwood Nunes Nussle Osborne Otter Oxley Pearce Pence Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pombo Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Ramstad Regula Rehberg Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Saxton Schwarz (MI) Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Sodrel Souder Stearns Sullivan Sweeney Tancredo Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walden (OR) Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) |
| Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Baca Baldwin Bean Becerra Berman Berry Bishop (NY) Boehlert Boren Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brown (OH) Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carnahan Carson Case Castle Chandler Clay Cleaver Clyburn Conyers Cooper Costa Cramer Crowley Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (TN) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards Emanuel Engel Eshoo Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Ford Frank (MA) Gonzalez Goode |
Gordon Green, Al Grijalva Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Herseth Higgins Hinchey Hinojosa Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kind Kucinich Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Leach Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Maloney Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy McCollum (MN) McGovern McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Menendez Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) |
Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reichert Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sabo Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz (PA) Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Shays Sherman Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Spratt Strickland Stupak Tauscher Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Weiner Wexler Woolsey Wu Wynn |
| Andrews Baird Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Boehner Bono Brown, Corrine Cuellar Davis, Tom Gillmor |
Gingrey Graves Hooley Issa Johnson, E. B. Kennedy (RI) McDermott Millender-McDonald Pelosi Reyes |
Sessions Simmons Skelton Slaughter Stark Tanner Walsh Waxman |
Now let's arrest Annan and kick the rest of the "diplomats" back home.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Next, we should send Bolton there.
We ought to slash the UN itself from the uS...Notice the Dems were all against hurting thier pet project the corrupt UN.
Throw the bums out of NYC..NOW !
Ping.....
Sadly, the Senate is full of wimps and Bush will never sign this either.
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.
That would be SOOOO sweet... the day that happens (UN out of the US) everybody can come to my house for a major party... I'll just tell my husband I decided to invite about 60 million of my closest freinds over ;)
What would put me ROTFLMAO is if whomever had the lease on their buildings didn't renew it... I keep hoping for that one too...
Better yet, make them pay up on their unpaid parking tickets.
"Please let it pass the Senate!!!!"
we should live so long :(
Anyone really believe the Senate will pass this?
Didn't Bush say he'd veto it? Or maybe I just read that he voiced displeasure over the idea.
We have to chip away at the UN step-by-step. At the present moment, the UN could call on the world to do all kinds of things that would wipe out our economy. So this is an ideal, well-measured slap prior to sending Bolton.
As the UN is further discredited in the eyes of the world, we can chomp them more quickly.
He said as much, but he's never VETO'd anything so who knows if he would if the Senate passed it. Which they won't.
Here Here.
Ya-Hooty---
The only Rep. I was surprised about was Goode---but I did notice that Pelosi did not vote...what a chicken!!!
Didn't the White House, though, tell the Reps that they could not go along with reducing the money to the UN, because the UN is on our soil, we are the biggest givers, etc.?
It doesn't make a difference what Bush and the Senate do or don't do..becasue next eyar the Hosue will only appropriate a much lesser amount. The Senate casn't spend what the House doesn't pass
NO---just like they won't vote on Bolton---the dems LOVE the UN>>>
and you know that now the dems will also attach this onto the demands re: a vote on Bolton...
Slash funds, they will say, and we won't vote on ANY body that Bush sends them....
AND, the White House isn't going to back the bill..darn it!!
Good to hear......Thanks!
Ron Paul voted NO????? WTF???
You raised an excellent question. All funding programs originate from the House:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec7
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
[end quote]
As I understand it, the Senate can only negotiate through threatening to vote down the entire budget if the House does not include something.
But I could be mistaken.
If it somehow got past the senate, it would sure make an appalling first veto.
Carolyn
If the US would stop funding the un period, it would most likely die which is what i'm hoping for.
The US is paying someone to basically bad mouth and try to destroy them while doing nothing else.
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.
Let's just send them to France! Or better yet, to the Sudan...let all the delegates go there for their meetings!
Should be 100% but still it's the best news I've heard all day.
Yahoo! Get-r-DUN!
I hate to have to inform you of this, but this bill most definitely does not put us on track to getting out of the UN, as your accompanying image suggests. The "reforms" that the bill calls for are about making the UN more powerful (or "effective", in the current Newspeak). I recommend reading the link at #34.
I'll bring some extra chips...just encase there aren't enough. :-)
Good. This is *good* news.
Great way to finish Friday!
Part way there...Now..bring in the D-9 CATs
This isn't so much a slash payments bill as it is a reform bill. Go read the bill. Do you really want said reforms? From Henry Lamb's "Rethink U.N. Reform": "The reform measures proposed by the Hyde bill do nothing to limit the function of the U.N. Instead, they work to expand the governing power of the U.N., by attempting to squeeze out some of the inefficiency. The proposed reforms actually strengthen the U.N.'s power to govern."
Ron Paul isn't interested in reforming the UN, he wants to get rid of it altogether.
ping
Yeeeeehhhhhhiiii -Now kick their money grabbing butts outa the US altogether.
I love how they are thumbing their nose at the White House. the people have spoken!
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst061305.htm
NeoCon Global Government
June 13, 2005
This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.
The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves-- specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.
The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.
What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.
What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance-- even resistance to the UN itself-- is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?
This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.
Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?
The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures-- as this legislation does-- and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.
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.