[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 THE U.N. OFFICE OF INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES: OPINIONS OF SOME U.S. 
                      STAFF AT THE UNITED NATIONS

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, on July 29, 1994, the U.N. General 
Assembly adopted a resolution to create a reform office. This office--
the Office of Internal Oversight Services [OIOS]--will be charged with 
the formidable task of cleaning house at the United Nations. Will this 
new office meet the mandates outlined in section 401 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act? Or will it be window dressing on behalf of 
the U.N. Secretariat?
  According to an urgent missive I received recently from certain 
unnamed U.S. employees at the United Nations, the reform office will do 
little more than slap bureaucratic wrists. This group of U.N. staff 
members were unable to sign their names to the document sent to my 
office for fear of reprisal against them from Secretary General Boutros 
Ghali and others in the U.N. bureaucracy. This is outrageous.
  U.N. staff should not fear coming forward to express their grave 
concern over the potential effectiveness of the OIOS. I am appalled by 
the culture that has been created by U.N. bureaucrats. This culture 
seems to encourage waste, fraud, and abuse, while it simultaneously 
seems to discourage whistleblowing.
  Because these courageous staff members at the United Nations chose to 
speak to me through a faxed message, I am compelled to include their 
views in the Congressional Record. I wish to document their disapproval 
of the recently approved OIO's. Their opinions and advice must not go 
unnoticed.
  I ask unanimous consent to place the views of certain U.N. staff 
members in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Subject: Establishment of the Independent Office of the 
         Inspector General of the United Nations Organization in 
         accordance with United States Public Law 103-236, 
         sections 401 and 102(d) of the Foreign Relations 
         Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995

       We citizens of the United States working for the United 
     Nations Organization have always respected and hold you to 
     the highest esteem and integrity. Your demonstrated abilities 
     and competence on relevant issues facing our national 
     security and domestic policy in general, geared our Nation to 
     the centrist position of world leadership. As one of our most 
     respected senior Senators, we continue to commend your 
     tireless efforts for a thankless job.
       We were very gratified when you rightly proposed your 
     amendment S. 1281 on the above mentioned subject, which now, 
     is statutory in our law as a matter of fact and reality. We 
     applaud your efforts and we express our heart-felt thanks of 
     appreciation.
       We write to you concerning the recent United Nations 
     resolution establishing the Office of Internal Oversight 
     Services (OIOS), so-called as a ``first step'', but in 
     reality and in fact, this new office is clearly a substitute 
     for the ``immediate establishment of a permanent, fully 
     Independent Office of Inspector General with oversight 
     responsibility that includes peacekeeping'' (see, PDD25). We 
     are reminded of President Clinton's statement to the 48th 
     United Nations General Assembly, of September 27, 1993, when 
     the President stated ``* * * now we all must do even more to 
     root out waste. Before this General Assembly is over, let us 
     establish a strong mandate for an Office of Inspector General 
     so that it can attain a reputation for toughness, integrity 
     and zeal * * *.''
       Consequently, the OIOS as is, clearly abridge the intent, 
     scope and purpose of United States Public Law 103-236, 
     sections 401 and 102(d), PDD25 and the very essence of 
     President Clinton's statement to the effect. The OIOS, is 
     totally ``business as usual'' for the United Nations, 
     sanctioned by our administration, to continue the flagrant 
     waste, abuse, and fraud, and mismanagement of expenses on 
     United Nations activities, programs and operations.
       We deeply regret to inform you of the most pathetic event 
     concerning the above mentioned subject matter that upon the 
     advise and consent of both Douglas Bennett (IO/State) and 
     Victor Marrero, the United States Mission to the United 
     Nations have clearly sold out the national interest of the 
     United States and added more financial burden on the American 
     taxpayers by accepting an empty, toothless and all smoke and 
     mirror resolution purported to establish the OIG. In fact, it 
     is a major disgrace to the credibility and leadership role of 
     the United States in world affairs, and direct affront to the 
     United States Congress, to wit, Public Law 103-236.
       We were deeply disturbed to see our most distinguished 
     Senator Hollings, on July 22, 1994, to defend the State 
     Department's position on the floor of the Senate. Guessing 
     from the senior Senator's remarks, we firmly believe that the 
     Senator has been willfully misled to the facts, merits and 
     truth by the State Department concerning the so-called 
     ``first step'' approach and concept in establishing the OIG. 
     In our view, the State Department is only concerned with its 
     appropriations and certification process and not prepared to 
     accept the truth of its total failure to the ``immediate 
     establishment of a permanent, fully Independent Office of 
     Inspector General (OIG)''.
       The State Department is deliberately confusing and lying 
     outright to the United States Congress as to the substance, 
     scope, intent, and purpose of United States Public Law 103-
     236 and policy. If the State Department consider its position 
     to be factual, why is it that it is totally opposed to the 
     ``Pressler amendment'', proposed on the floor of the Senate 
     on July 22, 1994, to H.R. 4603, and adopted unanimously by 
     the Senate? The only reason is that the State Department does 
     not want to be publicly exposed to its total failure, knowing 
     fully well that the purported Office of Internal Oversight 
     Services (OIOS), it is in support of, does not in any way, in 
     form or substance represent the so-called ``first step'' 
     approach to the required establishment of a real, Independent 
     Office of Inspector General (OIG). We reject the argument 
     presented by the State Department in all its aspects, as 
     baseless and not on point or representing facts.
       The State Department in this context, is shifting its 
     overall responsibilities to the United Nations, for that 
     system to prepare relevant rules and regulations affecting 
     the expenses, activities, programs, and operations of the 
     organization. This, despite the seriousness of the situation, 
     it is obvious that the system will not be reformed from 
     within.
       The United Nations, is full of too much dead wood that can 
     be entrusted with such far-reaching tasks. The system has 
     become too entrenched over too long a period of time, and 
     inefficiency has become self-perpetuating, and antiquated 
     management structure, with budgeting practices that are 
     surreal. It is thus, the direct responsibility of the member 
     State who's initiative it is, (the United States Government) 
     to promulgate the relevant rules and regulations on the 
     expenses, financial and budgetary arrangements, to the 
     activities, programs and operations for a real permanent 
     Independent Office of the Inspector General of the 
     organization (OIG). This is consistent with article 17 of the 
     United Nations Charter (emphasis added).
       We, as American taxpayers, as much as we demand proper 
     accountability of our Government expenditures, we equally 
     demand that the United Nations must be held reasonably 
     accountable. Yes, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in our 
     Government. The difference is we have Independent Inspectors 
     General to conduct proper, objective and balanced 
     investigations of fraud, and recommend punishment of 
     wrongdoers. Further, the U.S. attorneys can indict any one in 
     the United States Government for violating the law. This is 
     not the case with the United Nations, with or without the so-
     called Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which is 
     clearly a substitute for the required ``Fully Permanent, 
     Office of the Independent Inspector General (OIG),'' within 
     the meaning of Public Law 103-236.
       We write to urge you to press the United States Congress to 
     adopt a very forceful amendment to sections 401 and 102(d) of 
     United States Public Law 103-236, to the Current Foreign 
     Relations Appropriations Act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. 
     First, withhold 30 percent of United States assessed 
     contributions to the United Nations regular budget for this 
     fiscal year and 50 percent by fiscal year 1995. Second, the 
     administration should proceed to formulate comprehensive and 
     analytical rules and regulations relating to the expenses, 
     activities, programs, and operations within the proper and 
     structural and consolidated format for the office of a real, 
     independent inspector general. Fourth, have a public hearing 
     to certify compliance to new sections 401 and 102(d) of 
     Public Law 103-236. No person or Department is above our law 
     and Congress is duty bound to see that the State Department 
     is no exception.
       What about the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Deficit 
     Reducing Act? Think about the ongoing waste, fraud, abuse, 
     and mismanagement of funds relating to the program and 
     operations of the United Nations against the lack of 
     expenditures to curb crime on the streets of the United 
     States; think about the lack of funds to assist the flood 
     victims of the Midwest last year and the South this year; 
     think about the $3.9 million cash stolen by U.N. officials on 
     April 17, 1994, in Somalia; think about the estimated costs 
     submitted by UNPROFOR of $2.8 billion for one year; and think 
     about the fact that the United States of America contributes 
     27 percent to the U.N. regular budget and to each specialized 
     agency; think about our assessed contribution to each 
     peacekeeping operations to be 32.7 percent. These are only 
     examples. We need proper and immediate independent OIG and 
     not the so-called OIOS that was adopted in the resolution on 
     July 15, 1994, which Congress must reject as a whole. We hold 
     our Representatives in Congress directly responsible for 
     their ``pasty'' action toward the State Department and the 
     United Nations Organization.
       In summary, we citizens of the United States, working for 
     the United Nations unequivocally reject the narrow and 
     selective approach and concept of establishing the Office of 
     Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). It is our view that the 
     very concept and approach draws heavily on the existing 
     office of inspections and investigations which is fatally 
     flawed in every aspect. It is vague and ambiguous. First and 
     foremost, the scheme is constitutionally impermissible to 
     Public Law 103-236, the United Nations Charter and PDD25 and 
     therefore, is not certifiable. By linking the OIG to the OII 
     and OIOS, we have been doomed to failure should Congress 
     allow it to happen. It will continue to be business as usual. 
     Whatever happened to the speech President Clinton made in 
     UNGA last fall calling for the immediate establishment of an 
     independent, OIG? Whatever happened to PDD25 goals and 
     objectives? How sad the end is to the image, credibility, and 
     leadership of the United States of America.
       We salute you and those of your colleagues in the Congress 
     who continue to fight for American national interests. We 
     commend all the staffers who contributed so effectively to 
     Public Law 103-236, in particular, to title IV, part A, of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 
     and 1995.
       We are unable to sign our names on this document since 
     there is no protection, as required in section 401, for staff 
     members for reporting perceived cases of this nature and 
     magnitude. We therefore, respectfully request that this 
     document be inserted at the appropriate place in the 
     Congressional Records.

                          ____________________