[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 97 (Friday, July 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 4603, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and 
     related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations 
     for these departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation and willingness to come in early and start, once again, on 
some 60 amendments. Obviously, if we try to handle all 60, it will 
never be done in 1 day. Perhaps at least half of those will fall by the 
wayside, we hope. But we do appreciate the cooperation.
  This is the crime bill. There is no question. When you add some 436 
FBI agents, 311 DEA agents, 123 U.S. attorneys, some 900 Border 
Patrol--you can just go right on down the litany. Everything that is 
talked about and debated about with respect to crime authorization, now 
hung up in conference, is actually accounted for, provided for in this 
particular appropriations.
  We want to move this ahead under the emergency of the Small Business 
Administration, not just the crime features, because the crime bill's 
provisions are long overdue, but particularly with respect to SBA and 
the first 10 days of August. We have the emergency flooding down in the 
Southeast sector and unfunded needs now, and still the California 
earthquake. The Administrator of the Small Business Administration has 
put us on notice. So we have to move, we have to get this bill to 
conference and come back and get a measure to the President.
  I see the distinguished Senator from South Dakota on the floor, so I 
yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler].


                           Amendment No. 2353

     (Purpose: To require advance notification to Congress of any 
 Presidential determination that the United Nations has established an 
                independent Office of Inspector General)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the committee 
amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2353.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 94, line 12, before the colon insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That certification under section 401(b) 
     of Public Law 103-236 may only be made if the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House 
     of Representatives are notified of the steps taken to meet 
     the requirements of section 401(b) of Public Law 103-236 at 
     least 15 days in advance of the proposed certification.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment today which would 
protect the progress Congress has made regarding the establishment of 
an independent inspector general office at the United Nations. I wish 
to thank my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, 
for his comments earlier on the floor regarding language I authored on 
section 401 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  As he knows, we have expended great efforts in this body to establish 
section 401. In fact, my colleagues voted 93 to 6 to accept my original 
amendment. My friend, Senator Domenici, understands the great 
importance of creating a management and reform system at the United 
Nations which would be responsible independently for ending the rampant 
waste, fraud, and abuse which are now policy at the world body.
  Last week, I offered an amendment to the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill which my colleagues adopted by unanimous consent. 
That amendment reaffirms section 401 of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, now Public Law 103-236. The language in section 401 
makes portions of U.S. assessed contributions to the regular U.N. 
budget contingent upon the U.N. creation of an independent Office of 
the Inspector General, [OIG].
  I urged my colleagues to reaffirm the language of section 401, 
because the U.N. General Assembly, as my colleagues noted earlier, is 
considering currently the adoption of a resolution which would create a 
reform office subject to the authority of the U.N. Secretary General. 
Under the current General Assembly draft resolution, the Office of 
Internal Oversight Services [OIOS] would not be independent in all 
respects. This is an unequivocal violation of the language in section 
401, language which is now public law.
  According to the State Department and to Victor Morrero, chair of the 
U.N. group charged with the drafting of the current resolution, the 
OIOS will meet the standards pursuant to section 401 after the United 
Nations puts procedures in place to meet certain provisions in the 
resolution. In other words, the President would not be able to certify 
today that the OIOS meets all provisions in section 401. However, the 
State Department maintains that by September 30, the last day of the 
fiscal year and the point at which the President must make a 
certification to prevent a withholding of a portion of assessed 
contributions to the United Nations, all necessary procedures will be 
in place at the United Nations to meet the requirements of section 401.
  The State Department maintains that there is not a problem with the 
independence of the OIOS. They say the General Assembly, through the 
OIOS annual report, would be able to receive information about all 
investigations and recommendations, not just those approved by the 
Secretary General.
  I disagree with this interpretation of independence. The General 
Assembly must be able to receive all reports, approved or not, for the 
office to have true independence. Additionally, I am very concerned 
about the budgetary independence of the proposed office. As of now, the 
Secretary General, in his overall budget request, will determine if the 
OIOS will receive funds. If the Secretary General does include a budget 
request for the OIOS, it would then go before the General Assembly for 
approval. I believe the OIOS should be able to submit its budget 
request directly to the General Assembly. The OIOS needs a separate 
line item, similar to the appropriations for inspector generals in 
large U.S. Federal agencies.
  Furthermore, the OIOS will receive the budget and the personnel from 
what is currently the Office of Inspections and Investigations. I 
strongly disagree with this transfer because it does not allow the head 
of the OIOS to hire his own staff. Rather, he merely takes on a staff 
of current U.N. auditors and bureaucrats. To have true independence, 
the head of the OIOS should be able to hire his own staff without the 
approval of the Secretary General.

  In the pro forma U.N. resolution, there are two provisions which 
address the whistleblower requirements in section 401 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act. According to the mandate in section 401, 
the United Nations must have procedures in place ``to protect the 
identity of, and prevent reprisals against, any staff member making a 
complaint or disclosing information to, or cooperating in any 
investigation or inspection by the Inspector General.''
  The recent statement by the Belgian Ambassador at the United Nations 
to the chair of the draft resolution committee, however, indicates that 
staff-providing ``false accusations transmitted to the office according 
to the procedures established should also be considered as cases of 
wrongdoing.'' This statement seems to indicate a contradiction between 
what is outlined in section 401 and the U.N. resolution, in that 
section 401 seeks to protect staff who provide any information of 
misconduct, even if that information is not relevant to a particular 
investigation or if that information turns out to be false.
  The State Department claims that the Belgian Ambassador's statement 
on behalf of the draft committee is referring to those staff who 
maliciously provide false information. However, this is subject to 
interpretation. The State Department claims also that this provides a 
safeguard against receiving rampant foreign misconduct reports from the 
U.N. staff.
  Currently, procedures are not in place at the United Nations to 
provide adequate whistleblower protection. The State Department, 
however, claims that such procedures will be in place prior to the 
Presidential certification called for in section 401. Nevertheless, the 
effect of the Belgian Ambassador's statement in conjunction with the 
provision of the U.N. resolution may serve to dissuade U.N. staff from 
coming forward should the information of the staff turn out to be 
false. This cuts into the ability of the oversight office to gather the 
needed data to conduct adequate investigations. It decreases the chance 
of the office developing a pool of sources who could provide misconduct 
information.
  My amendment today would require a notification and explanation 15 
days prior to the President's certification that an independent U.N. 
reform office is in place. The amendment would allow the appropriate 
committees, House and Senate Foreign Relations and Appropriations 
Committees, to determine if the resolution and the created office meet 
all stipulations of section 401.
  My amendment would not create outlay and scoring problems in this 
appropriations bill. Nor does it move the goal posts of section 401. I 
am not trying to alter the intent of section 401, nor am I attempting 
to place an unfair burden on the President to provide certification 
information a mere 15 days prior to his official certification.
  This amendment simply affords Congress the ability to advise the 
President prior to a false certification. We have come this far. We 
cannot turn behind now and potentially have the President make an 
inaccurate certification. So, Mr. President, my amendment simply 
affords Congress the ability to advise the President to prevent a 
certification that is improper.
  While I believe the United Nations recent action is a good first 
step, I am very concerned about the current U.N. resolution. I only 
want to make sure that all stipulations in section 401 are met. I am 
not Ambassador Albright's nor the State Department's enemy on this 
issue. I want the United Nations to get all of its assessed U.S. funds. 
However, I do not want to release U.S. money unless I am absolutely 
certain that an independent inspector general office is in place. We 
have come too far in this body to stop just short of our goal. I do not 
believe the President would act on anything but good faith regarding 
the certification. Nevertheless, I do not want this body to be without 
recourse in the event a false certification were made.
  This amendment is only a safety guard for Congress. I am trying to do 
Ambassador Albright and the State Department a favor by helping to 
assure that all procedures for this office are in place. I wish to make 
sure our permanent representative to the United Nations has the 
strength of this reform office to back our U.S. efforts to end U.N. 
malfeasance.
  This amendment is by no means an indication that I believe the State 
Department, Ambassador Albright, and President Clinton have not made 
every attempt to act in good faith to comply with section 401. I 
support their efforts. I will continue to support their efforts. I do 
not want my colleagues to view this amendment as an attempt to 
discredit the administration. Rather, it is an attempt to maintain and 
continue the progress made on behalf of the administration regarding 
U.N. reform.
  I urge my colleagues to take one last step today to ensure that an 
independent U.N. reform office is established. As a friend and critic 
of the United Nations, I firmly believe this amendment is necessary to 
help guarantee U.N. reform.
  Mr. President, let me state some things that my amendment does and 
does not do.
  First of all, my amendment does not move the goal posts of section 
401. All it would do is give Congress 15 days advance notice of the 
President's certification pursuant to section 401 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act.
  My amendment would not change the intent of section 401. I am not 
trying to give Congress the ability to withhold funds until the 
President fully certifies that a U.N. reform office is in place. In 
fact, I wish to see the funds released if I am assured that all 
procedures are in place to create a functioning, effective, independent 
U.N. oversight and reform office. All this amendment would do is 
require the President to report to appropriate congressional committees 
15 days before he certifies, if he certifies, that a U.N. reform office 
has been established and meets the specific criteria of section 401.
  In this advance report to Congress, the President simply would need 
to provide an explanation of how his proposed certification meets 
section 401. According to my amendment, if the President cannot 
indicate to Congress in his advance notification that a certification 
meets all the requirements of section 401, Congress would not be able 
to withhold any obligation or expenditure of U.S. peacekeeping, 
assessed or supplemental funds. All the amendment does is to ask for an 
advanced notification and explanation. I have faith in the President to 
make a proper and legitimate certification, one that indicates that all 
stipulations in section 401 are met. My amendment in no way implies 
that the President would act in bad faith just to make the 
certification. This is not the intent of my amendment.
  The intent of my amendment is to give Congress notification of the 
certification process and to give Members an explanation of how 
mandates in section 401 are being complied with. My amendment offers 
Congress one last opportunity to ensure that adequate steps are being 
taken to end flagrant U.N. waste, fraud and abuse so that our U.S. tax 
dollars are no longer wasted on mismanaged and fraudulent U.N. 
practices.
  Mr. President, I conclude by saying that I am a strong supporter of 
the United Nations. I want it to succeed. I want it to be able to 
deliver medical supplies without having them stolen or lost along the 
way. I want the United Nations to be able to do its job, to be able to 
deliver food and services, to have a good management system, and to 
have a good personnel system that will enable it to accomplish its 
goals. That is the goal of this administration and of this Senator.
  But we have found that our taxpayers have been reading stories over 
and over of waste, fraud, and abuse. We now learn that after this 
Congress has threatened to withhold a portion of U.S. contributions to 
the United Nations unless there is an independent inspector general to 
clean up some of that waste, fraud, and abuse, the United Nations is 
moving toward adopting an inspector general that is really not an 
inspector general as we know it. There are indications that our 
President will certify on September 30 that this is OK. But that will 
not satisfy this Senator at least, and it will not satisfy the American 
taxpayers.
  My amendment will give the appropriate congressional committees 15 
days in which to comment or give feedback to the White House. 
Otherwise, we will have lost another year. We are finally on the verge 
of having an independent inspector general at the United Nations. We 
are finally on the verge of being able to say to American taxpayers, 
who provide most of money for the United Nations, that there is some 
system of checks and balances, that there is some system to account for 
personnel abuses, some system that allows whistleblowers within the 
United Nations to point out fraud and abuse, some system that allows 
the U.N. unbiased audits. We are on the verge of having such an office 
in place at the United Nations.
  The adoption of section 401 and the reaction at the United Nations 
proves that the U.N. bureaucracy will respond to the United States if 
we ask. But we have not even asked. And if we allow an inspector 
general to be put in place as they have now defined it according to the 
committee, the will of Congress will have been circumvented. That is 
the purpose of this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Hollings].
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? As 
I understand the Senator from South Dakota, assuming the President now 
has given the 15-day notice to the various committees, what action or 
penalties or process is taking place? He gives notice. Then what 
happens? Is there any penalty if we do not like the notice?
  Mr. PRESSLER. The committees make their views known. But 
constitutionally we cannot add any force of law to it. As I understand 
it, constitutionally the President could still go forward. But it would 
give the committee a chance to comment on it 15 days before.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  I have read the amendment several times. The Department of State 
objects to the amendment. I understand that the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], has some concern about it, and was 
momentarily detained. I do not want to rush forward. To this Senator it 
seems like the amendment is not engaged in mischief.
  I have been informed that this could be some Foreign Relations 
Committee politics. Mr. President, they say over in the House it is the 
``Foreign Affairs Committee,'' but over here in the Senate it is the 
``Foreign Relations'' because we do not have any affairs.
  This Senator is not aware of any untoward interest or intent, and I 
think the Senator from South Dakota has expressed himself very well. I 
keep reading the amendment and trying to learn why others object. I 
think perhaps because the Department of State and the Clinton 
administration and Madeleine Albright, our Ambassador to the United 
Nations, have done an outstanding job. I think that is what maybe 
disturbs them, because rather than gratitude they are receiving formal 
legislation asking for reports when on Tuesday of this week, July 19, 
the Fifth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly adopted this 
resolution, a landmark resolution establishing an office with the 
function, responsibility, and powers of an independent inspector 
general to conduct investigations, audits, and inspections of the U.N. 
system along the lines of the IGs within the U.S. Government.
  It will be known as the Office of Internal Oversight Services, and 
the office will be at the rank of undersecretary general, the second 
highest level rank within the U.N. system.
  Incidentally, I understand this idea is even of a more stringent 
restrictive nature than the present IG system that we have here in the 
U.S. Government. That is just the committee, Mr. President, and then 
they have to go to the full assembly for approval. But having worked 
this out, it represents a major achievement for both the administration 
and Congress.
  The Congress said here in our peacekeeping funds that they are fenced 
so to speak or conditioned upon the establishment of an inspector 
general. This Senator as the chairman of the State, Justice, Commerce 
appropriations subcommittee has been urging this now for the past 5 or 
6 years. What was going on up there came out in the previous 
administrations. We are paying an inordinate amount, and they ought to 
be paying double the amount. As we look at it, the truth of the matter 
is they have had no real auditing and accounting for the moneys 
expended.
  So I congratulate the Senator from South Dakota on his concern and 
leadership in this score. The members of our Foreign Relations 
Committee, Chairman Pell, Senator Kerry and others--let us make sure 
and understand that an independent inspector general has been the 
centerpiece of the United States reform efforts to improve the United 
Nations' management and its accountability to member States. It is part 
of a process by which the United States and other members of the United 
Nations can satisfy themselves that resources are not wasted, and that 
limited taxpayer dollars are well spent.
  We are particularly pleased about the extent of the independence of 
the new office in the Secretary General of the United Nations, similar 
to the offices of Inspector General of the United States. The Clinton 
administration has fought hard to ensure that the resolution contains 
the provisions that will provide independence.
  I talked yesterday to Under Secretary of State Richard Moose on this 
matter. He said that there is no question about the independence. It 
has all the features of independence, for instance that they cannot be 
removed unilaterally. But the independence of that office has been 
assured.
  For example, the resolution assures qualified candidates appointed to 
the undersecretary general post by the Secretary General with the 
approval of the general assembly. It provides for the removal of the 
office head by the Secretary General only for cause; that is, 
malfeasance or corruption, and only with the approval of the General 
Assembly. It requires that the annual report and other reports deemed 
useful to provide insight into U.N. management effectiveness and the 
protection of assets will be forwarded unchanged to the U.N. General 
Assembly through the Secretary General.
  The resolution provides for prompt and effective implementation of 
the recommendations made by the office. It protects the whistle blowers 
by establishing a mechanism that is designed to ensure due process and 
facilitate reporting by staff members without fear of reprisal. It 
mandates resources adequate to ensure the independent action of the 
office, and enables the undersecretary general to comment on the 
sufficiency of the office's budget resources.
  Moreover, Mr. President, the implementing procedures and regulations 
for the office will be put in place by the Under Secretary General of 
Administration and Management, an American, Joe Connor, who used to be 
with McKenzie. We are confident that this reform package will meet the 
certification requirements set forth in the State Department 
authorization bill.
  In this respect we will be working closely with Joe Connor and other 
U.N. officials to ensure that they will meet our understanding of how 
the new office will function. With the adoption of the resolution by 
the General Assembly, we look forward to an expeditious appointment of 
a highly qualified independent to fill the purpose.
  This is a major achievement, Mr. President, for both the Congress and 
the administration. An independent inspector general at the United 
Nations similar to the U.S. Government inspectors general was a goal 
which both branches sought, and soon will achieve.
  As I say, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South 
Dakota just asks for the 15-day notice of what I am reiterating here 
now relative to what has been adopted just Tuesday of this week. No 
doubt when it passes the General Assembly, the President would be 
ready, willing and able to easily give the 15-day notice provided for 
in the Foreign Relations authorization bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield?
  I praise the statement just made by my friend from South Carolina. I 
agree that Ambassador Albright is trying very hard. She has run into an 
immense amount of bureaucracy at the United Nations.
  I thank my friend for yielding. The State Department believes my 
amendment will allow Congress to withhold funds after a Presidential 
certification. My amendment does not do that. It just does not give the 
committees this power. It is a matter of notification and explanation.
  I twice served on the Fifth Committee as a delegate to the United 
Nations. They were talking about getting an office of inspector general 
as early as 1986. Nothing has happened. This is 1994; 15 years have 
passed.
  Now, we are on the verge of getting an inspections office, and it 
seems the United Nations is not taking it very seriously. They just 
want the U.S. money. We want to send them another signal that we are 
serious about this. This Office does not have budgetary independence. 
The funding can be taken away from the Secretary General on a moment's 
notice. That is quite different from our inspectors general. There are 
a lot of other differences. I am rising in frustration. This amendment 
is a reminder to everybody that nothing has happened, nothing has 
changed at the United Nations. This was first proposed in 1986 by the 
U.S. Government. I was critical of the Bush and Reagan administrations 
for delaying actions. The Third World runs the United Nations, and they 
see it as a way to get money out of the United States. Our taxpayers 
are up in arms.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. You and I are in agreement. This is the first 
administration that has really done it. It started in the late days of 
President Carter, and then Reagan and Bush, and now we are getting it 
done. I think the notification is well taken so long as there is an 
understanding that we do not put in a roadblock to the funds. As you 
say, you can point to the Belgian Ambassador or delegate. We can pass 
bills, but we will never pass measures to change personalities. There 
are all kinds of personalities in the Congress and in the United 
Nations. Comments are made, and sometimes they are not appropriate. But 
the fact of the matter is that this effort on Tuesday was really a 
resolution and a victory for the U.S. efforts to get that independent 
inspector general.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Let me say that the Senator from New Mexico has done a 
great deal of work on this, as has the Senator from South Carolina. I 
thank them both.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me say to the Senator from South Dakota, 
your amendment is just a continuation of our excellent work in trying 
to make the United Nations responsive. That is responsive in terms of 
how it uses money that is contributed to them. Although we are the 
biggest contributor, all contributing nations should be concerned.
  It seems to me that the sponsor of this amendment and others have 
been on the right track in trying to get some fiscal accountability in 
New York. I put it this way. At this moment, it would seem that the 
United States is going to rely on the United Nations more than it ever 
has before. It looks like peacekeeping is going to be involving the 
United Nations and some of their people more than ever before. That is 
now our President's policy.
  All we need to turn the American people against these multilateral 
efforts is for a scandal to arise involving waste, fraud, abuse, or 
using assessments for unpropitious activities. We want to continue 
supporting the United Nations The American people seem to want to 
support the United Nations But let some reporter come forth and show 
the United Nations has been throwing money away, and that support will 
evaporate.
  Some U.N. officials have been totally unaccountable to anybody. From 
this distance, it looks like there is somebody there playing games with 
our payments and those of Japan and Europe. I am not alleging that, 
although there seems to be some reason to be suspicious. We don't want 
that perception to become a reality.
  The United States, through efforts like the managers of this bill 
undertook and efforts in the appropriations bill of last year, has 
tried to make the United Nations accountable. Last year, I asked our 
chairman and he wholeheartedly agreed, to put a condition on funds to 
the United Nations In fact, the United Nations had to have begun 
working on an inspector-general-type arrangement in order for moneys 
withheld to be released. That was followed up by more severe restraint 
in the Foreign Relations authorizing bill, which increased the 
percentage to be withheld.
  Yesterday, when the amendment was presented as an idea by our 
distinguished colleague from the Foreign Relations Committee, who is 
here this morning proposing this amendment, obviously we recognized 
that the initial draft of his amendment was a second bite at the apple 
by Congress in terms of reprogramming of money. In other words, the 
administration could meet all of the congressional conditions, and the 
Senate could still have another opportunity to deny them funding.
  Obviously, the State Department objected to that. The letter they 
have sent to us is based on the ideas incorporated in a draft 
amendment, not in the amendment that the Senator is offering here 
today. I believe the State Department ought to accept this amendment. 
Frankly, it is nothing more than the U.S. Senate saying that we have 
been working on this for so long, we are kind of ``Doubting Thomases.'' 
Will it really happen?
  The President is doing everything possible. Our Ambassador, 
Ambassador Albright, is doing a tremendous job on this matter, in order 
to secure the $670 million in title VII before the authority expires at 
the end of September.
  What is wrong with asking the administration to send a notification 
15 days before they intend to certify that they have complied with the 
law we passed here earlier this year? Ambassador Albright tells us that 
she must have certain things in the procedures and regulations 
governing the inspector-general-type agency or department before she 
will recommend to the President that he issue the certification and 
release the supplemental money.
  The President is going to have to certify that the conditions in the 
law have been met regarding a United Nations inspector general. Why can 
he not tell us precise how those conditions in the checklist have been 
met by the U.N. at least 15 days before certification?
  At present, Congress has no rights and committees have no rights to 
review and understand the new U.N. procedures and regulations that will 
make the difference between substance and sham in the new inspector 
general's office. With this amendment, the President will just notify 
the committees, say here is how the United Nations is empowering the 
new inspector general, and 15 days later they certify, and $335 million 
is released to pay our assessment. I think it is a way of making sure 
that Congress is on board.
  If I were advising the President, this is what I would say: ``Let us 
do it the way the Senate recommends. Because that way, Congress can 
take a look at it, and they cannot do anything, legally, to stop the 
release of the supplemental money withheld. But it would be good to 
have them totally on board.''
  So, I recommend to those who are sending the messages for the 
administration to us who are managing the bill, that they will see that 
this is a dramatically different approach than the ideas encapsulated 
in the draft amendment yesterday. This is a simple, forthright and, I 
think, fair-to-the-Congress approach. While admitting that Ambassador 
Albright is doing a good job, let us help her through this effort by 
saying we are standing ready to accept this certification when the 
United Nations has done what it told her it will do with the 
procedures. We just want to look at them, and then you can go right on 
ahead with the certification.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, perhaps I will ask for a quorum, but 
first I wonder if it would be all right with the leadership on the 
other side and the Senator from South Dakota if we accept this 
amendment on the understanding that if the Senator from Massachusetts, 
who has been detained, wants it back up, I do not mind moving to 
reconsider. Is that all right?
  Mr. PRESSLER. That is fine with me.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. He was unavoidably detained.
  Mr. PRESSLER. The managers can accept it now without moving to 
reconsider, and later in the day we can move to reconsider.
  Can we have the understanding that if he does strongly object, I can 
get a rollcall vote on this amendment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Sure.
  Mr. President, there being no further debate, I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am delighted to co-sponsor amendment No. 
2353 of the able Senator from South Dakota, which inserts a 15-day 
notification process into the President's decision to certify whether 
or not the United Nations has established an independent office of an 
inspector general.
  I worked with the minority leader and with Senator Pressler, during 
consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act this year, to 
push the United Nations into setting up an inspector general. Time and 
time again U.N. agencies and affiliated groups are found to be wasteful 
and fraudulent in their actions.
  Regardless of these findings, the United States continues to pump 
hundreds of millions of dollars up to New York every year. One would 
think that an organization with a monthly spending budget of $310 
million would have established some sort of internal control mechanism 
years ago--but not the United Nations.
  In this year's State Department bill, Congress finally got tough. As 
a result, if the United Nations doesn't have an independent inspector 
general in place by September 30, it stands to lose up to $400 million. 
That's some incentive.
  The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote this week on a 
resolution that would move toward establishing an IG. From what the 
administration says, this resolution is a first step in a many-step 
process at the end of which it is expected that the United Nations will 
have created an office that meets up to the requirements for an office 
as were set forth in section 401 of our bill this year.
  The administration has also promised that it will not certify these 
requirements have been fulfilled until, among other things, the 
resolution has passed, the inspector general's budget has been adopted, 
the Secretary General has promulgated regulations and guidelines 
governing the new office, and the inspector General has been nominated 
and confirmed by the General Assembly. That is a lot to accomplish by 
September 30 but the administration thinks it can do it by then.
  Four hundred million dollars is a lot of money. If the United Nations 
doesn't get everything done it says it's going to in a short 2 months, 
then the President will be unable to certify and they won't get our 
money. My colleague's amendment ensures that the Congress is allowed to 
scrutinize the President's determination for 15 days before we release 
the money. If we are talking that amount of money, that's the least 
Congress is entitled to.
  Before I close, I want to reiterate the fact that Senator Pressler's 
amendment does not move the goal posts we have already identified in 
law. All it does is inject a bit more congressional leverage in a 
process that involves the transfer of a lot of money and, therefore, 
needs some legislative oversight.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2353) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Chairman Hollings and the Senator from 
New Mexico have been besieged by requests from fellow Senators that we 
expedite this matter. Many senators do not want to be here in 
Washington late into the day or into the night.
  We do have more than 30 amendments. We have been looking through the 
list and we note that there are four or five that obviously, from past 
experience and what we have heard yesterday, are going to be debated at 
length with rollcall votes.
  TV Marti, about which we understand Senator Baucus has an amendment, 
seems to us to be one of those. There is a Bumpers-Brown amendment on 
the National Endowment for Democracy. Senator Craig's amendment on law 
of the seas and the Northwest salmon issue, which is Senator 
Kempthorne's amendment, will take time to discuss.
  The Senators who are the proponents of those amendments might be 
helpful to the managers and to the Senate if they would come here to 
the Senate floor as soon as possible and offer their amendments. We 
stand ready to talk with the Senators or their representatives to do 
some scheduling so we do not have all of them waiting in line.
  But as of now, we do not have word from any Senator that she or he is 
planning to come down and offer one of these controversial amendments.
  I repeat: Would the Senators who have the amendments that I have just 
described, begin to carry on a conversation with those who are managing 
this bill, so we can begin to allot some time to them and get these 
amendments before the Senate?
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Republican 
leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I tell the manager I am prepared to offer 
one of those amendments in a few minutes. I know the difficulty 
managers have trying to keep things going. I will be happy to start 
off, and ask my staff to do that.
  I wonder in the meantime if I might use my leader's time. Was leader 
time reserved?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Leader time is reserved.
  Mr. DOLE. OK. Could I use my leader time, and my statement not 
interfere with the ongoing debate?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leader may proceed.

                          ____________________