[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     REMAIN VIGILANT: CONTINUING THE FIGHT AGAINST U.N. MALFEASANCE

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor 
repeatedly both to praise and to admonish the United Nations. 
Peacekeeping operations, humanitarian aid, management and budgetary 
reform, procurement reform--I have raised questions about all of these 
U.N. issues. Some of my questions have been answered. Still, others 
remain.
  Specifically, I have focused considerable effort on U.N. management 
and budgetary reform. As my colleagues know, for years I have been 
outspoken about the waste, fraud, and abuse that have become standard 
policy for U.N. managers. Most recently, I included language in the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which President Clinton signed 
into law on April 30, 1994, to promote the creation of an independent 
Office of the Inspector General [OIG] at the United Nations. 
Additionally, President Clinton's acknowledgment of this measure in 
Presidential Decision Directive 25 [PDD 25] is an excellent step on 
behalf of the administration in addressing the United Nations' rampant 
management abuses.
  As the General Assembly debates the adoption of a resolution to 
create an OIG, the administration should keep a watchful eye on the 
terms of any such resolution. The language I authored in the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act regarding the establishment of an 
independent OIG should be followed closely as the General Assembly 
debates OIG resolutions. The language is clear and unequivocal.
  Recently, I wrote to Ambassador Albright, urging her to work 
diligently to ensure the independence of the OIG. Ambassador Albright's 
insistence and pressure to reform U.N. mismanagement must be 
unwavering. Now is a critical time for Ambassador Albright to 
demonstrate to the General Assembly the U.S. commitment to end U.N. 
malfeasance. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
letter I recently sent to Ambassador Albright.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 1994.
     Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
     U.S. Representative to the United Nations, U.S. Mission to 
         the United Nations, United Nations Plaza, New York, NY.
       Dear Ambassador Albright: I understand that the U.N. 
     General Assembly currently is considering measures to meet 
     the requirements of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
     (P.L. 103-136) regarding the creation of an Office of the 
     Inspector General (OIG). I urge you to monitor closely any UN 
     Resolutions involving the OIG.
       As you know, I was instrumental in crafting the language in 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act which calls for the 
     establishment of an independent UN Inspector General. If UN 
     budgetary and management reform is to be meaningful, the 
     terms of any UN resolution authorizing an independent OIG 
     must be clear, unequivocal, and must reflect the 
     Congressional intent of Section 401 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act as well as President Clinton's position in 
     Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25).
       In Section 401, Congress outlined clearly its 
     specifications for an OIG. This office should ``conduct and 
     supervise objective audits, inspections, and investigations 
     relating to the programs and operations of the United 
     Nations.'' Additionally, the Inspector General should report 
     to the UN General Assembly any findings relating to UN 
     management and operations. Above all, however, this office 
     should remain independent and must not be subject to the 
     control of UN bureaucrats.
       I am concerned about the current OIG initiatives being 
     debated by the General Assembly. Specifically, I am wary of 
     any UN proposals to establish an OIG which draw from the 
     existing Office of Inspections and Investigations (OII). It 
     has been my understanding that the OII has not issued any 
     reports to the General Assembly which were promised by 
     Secretary-General Boutros Ghali. Furthermore, I question the 
     overall effectiveness and objectivity of the OII. During a 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, I 
     submitted questions to Secretary Christopher regarding the 
     current status of both the OII and the OIG. I still am 
     awaiting his reply.
       Again, Ambassador Albright, I cannot stress enough the 
     importance of establishing a strong, independent, reform 
     office at the UN. As U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, 
     you should work to ensure that the General Assembly adopts a 
     resolution reflective of the Congressional initiatives 
     recently signed and endorsed by President Clinton. We must 
     not forego the opportunity to help craft and influence the 
     UN's creation of an OIG.
       I look forward to continuing our efforts to bring rampant 
     waste, fraud, and abuse to an end at the UN.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry Pressler,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased also that PDD 25 
acknowledges the United States should not pay more than 25 percent of 
assessed U.N. peacekeeping costs--another endorsement of language in 
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This assessment cap is 
extremely important to ensuring accountability at the United Nations. 
If the United Nations is to be an effective international body, United 
States support and funding are necessary. However, if the United 
Nations fails to reform and continues to mismanage operations, the 
United States cannot remain silent.
  Mr. President, despite these efforts to reform the international 
world body, a recent United Nations Association occasional paper 
criticizes the creation of an independent U.N. inspector-general. 
Jeffrey Laurenti, in a paper entitled, ``Strengthening U.N. Fiscal 
Oversight Machinery: The Debate on an Inspector-General,'' argues that 
the creation of an independent inspector-general is a reactionary move 
in the fight against U.N. waste, fraud, and abuse. According to 
Laurenti, who quoted the Panel of External Auditors:

       [T]he U.N. debate ``has focused too much on the role of the 
     internal oversight mechanisms in uncovering waste, fraud, 
     corruption and compliance with rules and regulations.'' While 
     acknowledging that this is admittedly ``an essential element 
     of control,'' the reality is that it is better to prevent 
     waste, fraud, and abuse before they occur rather than detect 
     them after the event.

  While I agree that preventative actions should be taken to thwart 
U.N. mismanagement, I disagree strongly with Laurenti's assessment that 
reformers have placed too much emphasis on the creation of internal 
oversight mechanisms. If the United Nations were functioning 
efficiently in the first place, the need for fiscal oversight measures 
would be far less pressing. But, as we all know, that has not been the 
case. The United Nations has not operated efficiently for many years.
  Laurenti went on to criticize congressional measures to withhold U.N. 
payments as a way to enforce the establishment of an OIG. According to 
Laurenti:

       * * * the withholding seems an extraordinary inversion of 
     priorities; and the increasingly promiscuous resort to 
     withholding is deepening resentment and resistance among 
     other member states and risks becoming counterproductive.

  Again, I disagree with Laurenti's analysis. As the largest 
contributor to the United Nations, the United States holds great 
financial leverage over the United Nations. Anymore, it seems that only 
money talks at the United Nations. The withholding of U.S. 
contributions speaks louder than any diplomatic words.
  It frustrates me, as a supporter of the United Nations, to read a 
document from the U.N. Association that is so critical of congressional 
measures to end U.N. corruption. This organization wishes to paint 
idyllic pictures of the efficiency of the world body. Unfortunately, 
reality paints a grim picture of gross institutional inefficiency.
  I urge my colleagues to maintain their support for U.N. management 
reform. We owe it to our constituents to make the most of their 
taxpayer dollars when Congress considers funding for U.N. operations.

                          ____________________