[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      OFFICE OF INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES AT THE UNITED NATIONS

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to raise my 
continued concerns about the United Nation's inadequate attempt to 
create an inspector general office. As my colleagues know, I repeatedly 
have fought for the establishment of an independent reform office at 
the United Nation. Last January, my colleagues overwhelmingly supported 
me during floor debate on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act by 
voting to make U.S. contributions to the international body contingent 
upon the United Nation's creation of an independent inspector general 
office. In April, the President signed the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act into law, making binding my amendment--known as 
section 401.
  As a result of section 401, the President is required to certify to 
Congress that all procedures are in place at the United Nation 
regarding the establishment of the independent inspector general 
office. In July, my colleagues again supported me by adopting my 
amendment to the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. This 
amendment required the President to notify Congress 15 days prior to 
his certification pursuant to section 401. I offered this amendment to 
ensure Congress the ability to comment on the proposed Presidential 
certification. That, Mr. President is why I am here today.
  One week ago, Ambassador David Birenbaum, U.S. Representative to the 
United Nations for Management and Reform, met with my staff to discuss 
the administration's willingness to certify that procedures are in 
place at the United Nations. The administration is prepared to certify, 
shortly, that the United Nations is prepared to clean up its act. I am 
not completely convinced the recently created Office of Internal 
Oversight Services [OIOS] will have the independence necessary to 
function effectively. The Department of State is willing to certify 
that all procedures are in place and in compliance with section 401. I 
fear the OIOS does not have full independence to conduct needed audits 
and investigations. I am disappointed the United Nations is not willing 
to construct a truly independent and functional office.
  I am not attempting to bash the United Nations, nor am I attempting 
to discredit Ambassador Albright's efforts to fight U.N. waste, fraud, 
and abuse. I simply do not believe that the OIOS is fully independent. 
Without true independence, the reform office will be a sham.
  Two key components of section 401 are the requirements for procedural 
independence and whistle blower protection. Neither mandate appears to 
be fully operational in the OIOS. First, the OIOS merely will inherit 
the budget and the staff from the current U.N. Office of Inspections 
and Investigations. In other words, the newly created OIOS will be 
staffed with the same U.N. bureaucrats--bureaucrats who have done 
little to conduct investigations and audits for the Office of 
Inspections and Investigations. Additionally, the OIOS cannot submit 
its budget directly to the General Assembly for approval. Rather, it 
must be approved by the Secretary General before the General Assembly 
has the opportunity to vote on it. Is this independence? To me it 
sounds more like dependence on the Secretary General. Furthermore, the 
OIOS currently has a scant $12 million budge for the biennium. Given 
the monumental size of the overall U.N. budget--including both the 
regular budget and peacekeeping assessments--$12 million is a pittance, 
a mere drop in the bucket.
  Second, in order for the OIOS to function, U.N. employees must feel 
free to comment on acts of malfeasance. While the OIOS will have some 
procedures in place to accommodate the confidentiality of whistle 
blowers, there is a potential for reprisal against those employees 
whose information turns out to be false. It will be left up to the U.N. 
bureaucrats to determine whether false information had knowingly been 
provided. This procedure certainly will not serve as an incentive for 
U.N. staff to disclose information.
  Another issue of contention is the fact that UNICEF and UNDP will not 
be subject to OIOS audits and investigations. Certainly, these U.N. 
appendages should be subject to the same budget and management scrutiny 
as the rest of the U.N. Secretariat. The OIOS does not have the reach 
necessary to uncover fully the rampant cases of U.N. malfeasance.
  While I applaud the efforts of the United Nations and the 
administration, I feel the administration has missed a monumental 
opportunity. Once U.S. contributions begin flowing into the United 
Nations after formal certification, what incentive will remain for the 
international bureaucracy to put their house in order? The United 
Nations has dressed enough windows. It is time for genuine reform. It 
is time for the United Nations to clean up its act.

                          ____________________