<<  <  >  >>

Page 4

Despite the defeat of the Bartlett amendment, the money was never provided to

the United Nations. Funding of UN "arrears" was included in a bill that became stalled

when its passage was linked to abortion-related family planning legislation. The adminis-

tration, working with Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Rela-

tions Committee, and ranking Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), had constructed a

legislative package combining requirements for UN reforms and payment of "arrearages"

of $819 million to be paid over three years. Later, the amount was increased to $920

million. However, the House voted to attach to its version of the legislation a measure

introduced by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) that prohibited U.S. foreign aid from

going to organizations that perform abortions. When the White House refused to accept

that language, House Republican leaders removed the money for U.N. "arrears" from the

legislation.

That legislative impasse in the first session of the 105th Congress has set the stage

for the current debate. In March 1998 Smith offered a "compromise" to provide $926

million to the United Nations in exchange for a prohibition on U.S. subsidies for organiza-

tions that lobby for abortion abroad or violate the laws of any foreign country with respect

to abortion. Smith skirted the issue of the validity of the debt by saying that the $926

million was for "alleged" arrears.11

At his Capitol Hill news conference on January 27, 1998, Bartlett vowed, "The

Congress will not roll over to pressure--no matter how great and from whom--to pay a

phony debt with American taxpayers' hard-earned money. Congress didn't do it in 1997.

Congress won't do it in 1998."12 The congressman once again promised to offer legisla-

tion to delete payment of the alleged debt. As this debate was taking place, new reports

were emerging on the cost of various UN-authorized "peacekeeping" operations. For

example, the Washington Times reported that the Pentagon had spent $3 billion in 1997

alone for U.S. military operations to implement UN Security Council resolutions on

Bosnia and Iraq. The story noted that critics of the United Nations contended that such

incurred expenses "far exceed" any claimed U.S. debt to the world organization.13

Thus, the lines are drawn in a battle that has become one of the most contentious

in Congress. And the facts and figures could not be more at variance. At issue are billions

of taxpayer dollars at a time when President Clinton and congressional leaders want the

public to believe the United States is on the road to achieving a balanced federal budget.

The UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution

Although the Clinton administration, Speaker Gingrich, the United Nations

Association, and others strongly and passionately argue that the Congress has an obliga-

tion to pay the money, Bartlett insists that the president "has gone beyond his constitu-

tional authority" by providing billions of U.S. tax dollars "for UN missions that contribute

little or nothing to our national security and by failing to receive proper credit for them

from the world organiza-