House Passes Bill to Slash Funds to U.N.

[maddezmom]

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
15 minutes ago



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.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050617/ap_on_go_co/us_un_reform;_

[LostInAnomie]

1. Republicans: Guilty of kneecapping the League of Nations...

... and now the UN.

These petulant children will sabotage any organization that doesn't bow to their will.

[Straight Shooter]

2. "It's time we had some teeth in reform." Repub definition of reform ...?

Dismantling, eradicating, destroying, eliminating, breaking, tearing down, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

[bluedog]

3. but but but.the UN was useful when

the US kept spouting of resolution 1441....and the big media drama over the Iraq needs to be invaded..........bullshit...use them then toss them out......thats the GOP motto

[Alacon]

4. The UN does need reforming.

[u2spirit]

6. What reforms would you suggest?

I have been hearing from Smirk and his chief clown Mcclellan how the UN needs Bolton so the "reform" can begin. However, I haven't heard any details on what those "reforms" should be. My guess would be that when Bushco wants to reform the Un, it is code for making the UN a rubberstamp for his endless wars.

[geomon666]

7. I agree...know what needs to be done?

Get rid of the Security Council. Make it a majority vote. You know....like the good ole US of A.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[justinsb]

13. Like taking away all veto powers? n/t

[Occulus]

35. Period! And without explanation or elaboration!

:sarcasm:

[MichiganVote]

5. Preemptive stinginess or preemptive withdrawl?

[sabra]

8. House G.O.P. Rebuffs Bush on Plan for U.N. Dues

<<SNIP>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17cnd-nations.html?hp&ex=1119067200&en=472fbee93448315c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

House G.O.P. Rebuffs Bush on Plan for U.N. Dues

By DAVID STOUT
Published: June 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 17 - Going against President Bush's wishes, the House of Representatives narrowly approved a bill today that would withhold half the United States' dues to the United Nations unless the organization adopted significant internal changes.

The measure, passed by 221 to 184, is not necessarily close to final Congressional approval, since there is no companion bill pending in the Senate. Moreover, the margin in the House was far short of the two-thirds necessary to override a veto, should Mr. Bush have to cast the first of his administration.

But the House action was significant enough that the administration tried hard to keep it from happening. President Bush has repeatedly said that reforms are needed in the United Nations, but he and his top aides have insisted that withholding Washington's dues from the organization would be counterproductive.

Critics in the administration and on Capitol Hill have expressed dismay over scandals like the one involving the oil-for-food program for Iraq and over rotating-membership rules that allow countries that abuse human rights to have seats on the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

<</SNIP>>

[Politicub]

9. There's a whole lot of push back going on

The boy king Bush must be pissed!

I love it.

:kick:

[Nickster]

10. So very glad to see the Congress is working on things important

to the welfare of the citizens of the US. Dear God, can it be 2008 already? Heck, I'll take November 2006 even....

[Guckert]

11. Add to the growing list. Stem Cell, Budget, Infrastructure, Judge comp.

[No Michael Savage]

14. Narrowly?

221 to 184 is narrow?

In case you're wondering:

Among all the house republicans:
Yes: 213
No: 7
No vote: 10

Among all the house democrats:
Yes: 8
No: 176
No vote: 18

And the one independent voted no.

[northzax]

12. well since we're notorious

for not paying our due in the first place, I bet they aren't quaking down at HQ. Whatever will the peacekeepers do without our support? It's not like we're Canada or anything.

[justinsb]

15. I almost wish...

The conservatives would just go ahead wit hthe "us out of UN , UN out of US" plan, maybe then the UN could actually get some things accomplished. The US has been one of the most obstructionist forces in the organization.

[rocktivity]

16. Good idea

They can start with Bolton's salary!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Maple]

17. No one mentions

that a massive reform package has been in the works for a long time, and is due to be voted on by the UN members in September.

All of this posturing is quite unnecessary.

[Mark E. Smith]

18. House Passes Bill To Cut U.N. Funds In Half

Washington Post 6/17/05

The House of Representatives, defying strong objections from the Bush administration, voted today to cut U.S. contributions to the United Nations in half unless the organization implements a list of reforms.

The House passed the Republican-sponsored bill by a vote of 221 to 184 after rejecting a Democratic version that stopped short of an automatic withholding of U.S. dues payments to the world body.

In approving the United Nations Reform Act, the House ignored administration warnings that the bill would hamstring President Bush's ability to conduct foreign policy, undermine U.S. leadership at the United Nations and actually strengthen the hand of those resisting U.N. reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061700982.html

The dogs have slipped their leash.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Bull*cough*shit.

If Chimp supports the UN he wouldn't try to send someone like Bolton there.

The dogs are doing their master's bidding.

[chknltl]

20. Thoughts inre: removing violators from Human Rights bodies.

That might prove interesting. Would America's violation(s) of human rights qualify or is Hyde and co. in denial? I keep feeling that I am missing something here. I watched the debates on C-SPAN on both bills this morning. Whenever a republican brought up the notion that Human Rights violators needed to NOT be involved on U.N. Human Rights (investigative) bodies, I wondered that very thought. If they want to deny the "fox" guard duty at the "hen house", then wouldn't that apply to "chicken-hawks" as well? How would it look if this bill passes into law and America gets barred from those same U.N. Human Rights bodies because of our actions with depleted uranium munitions, or our treatment of "terrorist" p.o.w.s at Gitmo and other holding facilities? Seems to me that this bill could shed some unwanted spotlights on some of bushcos bad policies. That explains to me one reason why this potus would be against this bill. What I don't get is this was one of the terms of the republican bill which they seemed to WANT left as is. Some of the Dems in the debate were OK with it, most of them concentrated against the withholding of money punitively as proposed in the Hyde Bill. I realize that I am no mental giant but I still feel that I am missing something here. Seems to me passing this bill into law may be good for America if it does as I just suggested.

[RedEarth]

21. House Passes Bill to Slash Funds to U.N.

The House voted Friday to issue an ultimatum to the United Nations: reform or lose U.S. financial support. Lawmakers also made clear to the White House that its more diplomatic approach wouldn't do.


Led by Republicans, the House voted 221-184 for a bill that would withhold one half of assessed U.S. dues, currently around $440 million a year, if the U.N. doesn't accomplish nearly four dozen steps to improve its accountability and root out corruption. Failure to comply would also result in U.S. refusal to support expanded and new peacekeeping missions.


"History shows that when Congress stands tough, when it says that if you don't reform we are not going to pay, then change occurs," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., author of the legislation.


The Bush administration, while applauding the House for pressing for changes at the U.N., said the automatic withholding of payments could "detract from and undermine our efforts" to work with U.N. members to improve the organization.


The House rejected, on a 216-190 vote, an alternative offered by Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., that would have made similar demands for reform but left it to the discretion of the secretary of state to decide whether to withhold up to 50 percent of payments.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/06/17/national/w115437D17.DTL&type=printable

[NorCalDem]

22. Should we withhold half of our taxes

until our government has improved its accountability and roots out corruption too? Just trying to understand the thought process here.

[Straight Shooter]

28. Excellent point.

Perhaps our esteemed members of Congress would like to address B in B's question?

[rocktivity]

23. Cool! They can start

with Bolton's salary.

:headbang:
rocknation

[OneBlueSky]

24. the US Congress is calling the UN on corruption????? . . .

[Up2Late]

25. Funny how different papers Spin this, here 2 headlines (NYT and IHT)

U.S. House defies Bush on UN dues - International Herald Tribune
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/18/news/nations.php>

House G.O.P. Rebuffs Bush on Plan for U.N. Dues - New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17cnd-nations.html?ex=1276660800&en=581918176cf8c4d1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>

But they are the same Article. (Yes, I know the New York Times owns the International Herald Tribune

[NVMojo]

26. the March to complete the NEOCON agenda continues before IMPEACHMENT!!

they are scared!!!

[meganmonkey]

27. NPR presented this as unlikely

and that it will fail in the Senate or Bush won't sign it...

I hope they're right. The demands for 'reforms' are flat-out neo-con new world order plans.

:scared:

[chknltl]

29. bush won't sign it

I believe, because 1 of those improvements which is in that bill calls for the removal of human rights violator nations from all UN Human Rights bodies. That make good sense to me. bush knows that American human rights violations would be looked at, (bush's own policies), because there would be so many other member nations within the U.N. crying foul. What I still do not understand is why this particular "improvement" was so important to those authors of this bill. Don't they know the consequences to their pres. and his administration or am I just missing something here. (I posted this earlier in a diff. thread but that thread has now been combined with this one. Still seeking help on this).

[BadNews]

30. Simple coolaid drinkers don't see any U.S. human rights violations.

It's all those arabs, chinks, and a few taco eaters that do those kind of things. Anything that may seem similar was done out of necessity.

SARCASM!!!

[chknltl]

33. perhaps you are right....

...I sense something very sinister here. What if the authors of this
bill are secretly setting their puppet up for the fall which they already sense is about to happen anyway..?..,yet that one doesn't feel right either. Of all of the notions spinning around in my tiny little mind the only one which works is what you say: Perhaps those who authored this bill really are in fact naive(sp?) about their presidents crimes against humanity. Even so one would think that their repugnant brethren would have set them straight prior to that bill ever hitting the floor. The smoke is just TOO thick here!

[Jack Rabbit]

31. I think they're trying to get the US tossed out of the UN

The House approved some two dozen amendments, all offered by Republicans, that pinpointed further ways to improve the U.N. Among them were directions to suspend member states engaged in crimes against humanity . . . .

Crimes against humanity? Like what takes place in Bush's network of gulags?

[chknltl]

32. EXACTLY!!!

...and the use of depleted uranium munitions. bushco can not possibly want ANY extra spotlighting of these horrendous policy decisions. Seems to me any bill supported by repukes would have kept that firmly in mind. They may be the "asses of evil" but stupid they are not. I refuse to believe that the authors of this bill missed the memo which said, "Thou shall not rat out the potus". Something smells EXTRA (x2) fishy here.

[Deja Q]

41. Good. Then the UN can enact a war resolution against US.

:popcorn:

[Adelante]

36. Hey, mom

They let you out of the box :hi:

[maddezmom]

38. LOL

Yup I did 6 months. :D

[Overseas]

37. Maybe they're gonna run John Bolton for Pres in 08 ?? n/t

[Chauga]

39. The White House has already said it opposes this bill.

[Deja Q]

40. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Does the UN need this blackmail?

n/t