House Fight Expected Over U.N. Funding
BY BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 8, 2005

UNITED NATIONS - A battle along party lines at the House of Representatives today is set to erupt as the first in an expected war over American financial contribution to the United Nations.
The original version of a bill authored by the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, a Republican of Illinois, will be pitted against an amended one proposed by Tom Lantos, a Democrat of California. Both Republicans and Democrats predict that, to the chagrin of both the Bush administration and Turtle Bay, the Hyde bill will prevail.
Along with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican of Florida, Mr. Lantos introduced a separate bill that passed yesterday 409 to 2 on anti-Semitism at the U.N. An absurd series of anti-Israeli resolutions, Mr. Lantos said, continue to crowd the agenda of the United Nations, pushing aside long-overdue consideration of critical issues.
Mr. Lantos is the point man in opposing the Hyde bill. There is little argument over the need or the scope of the reform at the United Nations, a Republican congressional aide told The New York Sun. The fight is only over the amount of leverage Congress is prepared to use to achieve results, the aide, who requested anonymity on the eve of the vote, said.
The Hyde bill mandates up to 50% cuts in congressional-approved funds if the United Nations fails to enact reform measures. By contrast, Mr. Lantos proposes passing veto power on withholding funds to the executive branch. It is important to give the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether to withhold U.N. dues and how much to withhold, Mr. Lantos's spokeswoman, Lynne Weil, told the Sun.
The Republican aide countered that the introduction of the Lantos amendment proves that Mr. Hyde's U.N. Reform Act of 2005 represents a challenge to the U.N. that is greater than many up at Turtle Bay are ready to acknowledge.
The administration opposes linking American payments to U.N. reform. In general we welcome legislation that shows that the Congress stands strongly behind the administration's effort for reforms, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mark Lagon told the House committee on May 19 - adding that U.N. dues are an obligation we have signed onto.
It is doubtful, however, that President Bush would wield his first veto in office to protect the United Nations from Congress. One congressman expected to cross party lines in today's vote is Rep. James Leach, a Republican of Iowa, who in the past opposed tying American dues to reform. The bill is expected to be approved, according to both sides, and is also expected to pass on the House floor next week. In the fall, Senate Republicans might introduce similar legislation.
I do not have any intention of supporting such a unilateral move, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said Monday. It would tell the world that we still think that we can act unilaterally, and you just can't do that at the U.N. Many in Congress, he added, find it very easy to get applause lines back in their home states or districts by blasting the U.N.
America, by far the largest contributor, is responsible for 22% of the regular annual U.N. budget of $2 billion, and Turtle Bay is worried about Hyde, Chief of Staff Mark Malloch Brown said last week. So are member states. It's a matter of concern to us, Japan's U.N. ambassador, Kenzo Oshima, told the Sun yesterday. There is a U.N. procedure to deal with nations that are in arrears in their payments, he said, but beyond that, what can you do?
Mr. Hyde's bill proposes 39 specific measures for U.N. reform. If the world body fails to enact at least 32 of them, up to a half of American dues would automatically be cut. Fourteen of Mr. Hyde's benchmarks are mandatory, leaving no option for the secretary of state to waive cuts if they are not implemented, as opposed to Mr. Lantos's version of the bill, which states that any cuts would be at the secretary's discretion.
Those mandatory items include the establishment of a new oversight body, a reform in such U.N. bodies as the human rights commission and Ecosoc, and the complete elimination of General Assembly resolutions that refer to Israel only.
According to Democratic aides, they would be the toughest measures to implement by Secretary-General Annan, and the American mission to the United Nations would encounter strong resistance if it pushes them. But Republicans insist that they are doable.