On June 17, the United States House of Representatives voted 221-184 to pass The United Nations Reform Act of 2005, which would take a counter-productive approach and automatically stop U.S. payment of UN dues pending certain UN reforms. Prior to the vote, a bipartisan substitute bill from Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Representative Chris Shays (R-CT) was rejected 190-216 that called for comprehensive UN reform without withholding measures that would harm reform efforts, instead of help make the UN more accountable and effective. The passage of this legislation, by the House of Representatives, is only the first step in a long legislative process -- the Senate has yet to bring up the bill for consideration and the Bush Administration has clearly signaled their opposition to its passage.

“The Administration has serious concerns with H.R. 2745 as reported, which could detract from and undermine our efforts, and asks that Congress reconsider this legislation. The Administration objects to the bill's certification requirements which could result in a 50-percent reduction in the United States-assessed contribution to the UN.”
–Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2745, United Nations Reform Act of 2005, from the Executive Office of the President, June 15th, 2005

“We specifically cannot agree to the withholding provisions. We are the founder, host country and leading contributor to the U.N. [Withholding] would deal a great blow to our credibility in the U.N. system and it would have ramifications for the reliability of the United States as a friend and partner to the countries that compromise the U.N.”
–Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, June 15th, 2005

“Withholding US dues to the UN threatens to undermine our leadership and effectiveness at the UN and the reform effort itself – as well as the UN’s ability to take on responsibilities critical to protecting our national security. Reforming the United Nations is the right goal. Withholding our dues to the UN is the wrong methodology. It would create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform. It would place in jeopardy the reform initiatives most important to U.S. interests.”
–Letter to Congress from a bipartisan group of eight former U.S. Ambassadors to the UN, June 14th, 2005

“With so many good ideas for reforming the United Nations set for discussion later this year, this is not the time for Congress to be threatening to bludgeon the organization into submission by withholding the United States' legally required dues. We hope the Bush administration's newly explicit opposition kills this meat-ax approach. Congress has tried this approach before, piling up such deep arrears for dues in the 1990's that it put Washington's voting rights and the United Nations' ability to meet its responsibilities at grave risk.”
–The New York Times, June 16th, 2005

“Nobody says the United Nations is perfect. In fact, the organization’s top bureaucrats are pressing for reform. But some demands for change are unproductive. The extreme bill sponsored in the House by Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) is case in point. This is like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into an antique table: Even if you’re aiming at the right nail, you’re going to cause damage. The United Nations, for all its flaws, is needed. Hitting it with a sledgehammer is the wrong way to go.”
–The Washington Post, June 11th, 2005

“In past piques over policy, the United States has withheld dues when the international body hasn’t smiled its way. A bill introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., brings the U.S. closer to making this mistake again at a time when its involvement on world stages can least afford to be further minimized. Withholding U.S. financial support isn’t going to accomplish reform. If the United States wants to make a difference, then it must keep its voice –and dollars– in the game.”
–Dallas Morning News, June 16th, 2005

“The House is expected to vote today on Mr. Hyde’s counterproductive bill to withhold U.S. dues unless reforms occur. Mr. Hyde’s remedy would not only break America’s promise to pay its dues, but also backfire on U.S. effectiveness. The problems the world faces are too numerous and complex for the world’s superpower to pick up its marbles and go home.”
–St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 16th, 2005

“Reform is needed, but the threat in this bill sends the wrong message to the world, particularly at a time when good will toward America is in short supply. Once again, it would have Washington act on the world stage as a bully rather than a collaborator.”
–The Charleston Gazette, June 16th, 2005

“The House should defeat this bill when it comes up for a vote, possibly as early as today. So far, the White House has opposed it. If the U.S. withholds its dues until reforms are enacted, then it will become part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
–The Republican, March 28th, 2005

"Here we go again. Four years after the United States agreed to pay back dues to the United Nations, the U.S. House again will consider a measure that ties dues payment to passage of U.N. Reforms. While reform of the United Nations is needed, and under way, Congress would be wrong to tie dues payments to specific changes. Should such legislation pass, the United States would be breaking its promise to the United Nations. It would also be signaling its unwillingness to work with other nations to achieve needed reform.”
–San Antonio Express News, June 16th, 2005

“For U.N. reform actually to occur, this counterproductive bill must be defeated. Returning to a dues-withholding strategy would be both ineffective and unseemly for a nation that, as Burns points out, is both founder of and host to the United Nations. The United States should instead use its ample diplomatic weight to exert leadership within the world body.”
–Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 16th, 2005

“Significant reform is the answer, not a congressional move to withhold United States' dues. The measure doesn't begin to do what its name would imply. The Hyde bill wants to bludgeon the U.N. into change. But the effect would be to deprive the organization of the U.S.' legally required dues. It would also send us back to the 1990s, a period when the U.S. withheld its dues and lost credibility among its allies.”
–The Seattle Times, June 17th, 2005

“The United States cannot dictate reform to a world body. Real change must come from a process that builds international consensus, a patient path that's already been designed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Even the Bush administration understands the importance of process. Congress should be engaged with other nations in global governance and U.N. reform. But not by saying ‘or else.’”
–Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 17th, 2005

“Meanwhile, a move has surfaced in the House to withhold a portion of the U.S. financing until the United Nations subjects some of its programs to automatic review and until it places limits on the growth of its budget. This tactic, incidentally, earns no endorsement here. The House has enough to do without trying to take over the nation's foreign policy.”
–Omaha World-Herald, June 18th, 2005

“The House passed a bill Friday to withhold half this country's UN dues if the world body doesn't meet every reform goal Congress set out on Congress' timetable. This arrogant maneuver will do nothing to advance reform and everything to undercut the diplomacy needed to make the organization work. It [United States] can choose to lead reform efforts -- or derail them with fiscal bullying. Only one avenue is constructive.”
–Detroit Free Press, June 18th, 2005

“Penalizing the U.N. by holding back promised funding, however, will only guarantee that the organization will not have the financing to implement reform or necessary missions and that the United States will be seen as working to destroy the world body it worked hard to establish 60 years ago this month. We hope the Senate, where the bill's fate is considered uncertain, will agree.”
–Star Ledger, June 20th, 2005

“Unless the United States gets its way at the United Nations, it will unilaterally withhold 50 percent of its membership dues. If other governments made similar demands, the United Nations would collapse. U.N. bashers wouldn't mind that, but they had better be prepared to live in a less safe world. The House's choice of an instrument to bring about change -- a machete -- is reckless. The Bush administration's welcome advice to the House leadership to cool it is more likely to be heeded in the Senate, whose leadership has already expressed grave doubts about the Hyde bill.”
–Hartford Courant, June 20th, 2005