[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 7 (Monday, January 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S276-S279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Helms, Mr. Shelby, and
Mr. Coverdell):
S. 1519. A bill to prohibit United States voluntary and assessed
contributions to the United Nations if the
[[Page S277]]
United Nations imposes any tax or fee on United States persons or
continues to develop or promote proposals for such taxes or fees; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
the prohibition on u.n. taxation act
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, imagine a percentage of every international
airline ticket, every letter mailed overseas, every international trade
transaction, and every exchange of foreign currency being collected for
the use of unelected unaccountable international bureaucrats. Billions
of dollars available outside the control of any government. Is this the
paranoid fantasy in a science fiction thriller? No, it is the real
world plans of United Nations bureaucrats, led by the current U.N.
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to develop a network of global
taxation to fund the United Nations outside the scrutiny of the United
States or any other country.
For years, United Nations bureaucrats and their allies in special
interest groups and academia have dreamed about funding the United
Nations through global taxes and other revenue-raising schemes. Taxes
on air travel, military expenditures, postage, energy sources, currency
transactions could raise as much as $300 billion a year--subject only
to the whims of the bloated U.N. bureaucrats. Tax collecting would
allow the United Nations to do as it pleases, not as its member states
wanted. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali said earlier this month, such revenue
power would mean ``I will not be under the daily financial control of
the member states.''
While there has been tepid opposition to the taxation plans of
Boutros Boutros-Ghali from the Clinton administration, it is far from
certain even strong U.S. opposition could halt these U.N. schemes--the
United States has only 1 of 185 votes in the U.N. General Assembly. It
is not certain that any revenue raising initiative would be subject to
the U.S. veto in the U.N. Security Council.
It is true the United Nations is facing a serious shortfall of funds.
And it is true the United States owes a large part of this debt--in
excess of $1 billion. The Republican Congress has been unwilling to
provide funds to clear up this debt because of the absence of often
promised and never delivered reform. While Boutros Boutros-Ghali and
his supporters consistently point to the multibillion shortfall, they
ignore, cover up, and excuse outrageous abuses occurring regularly
throughout the U.N. system.
Let me give you a few examples.
In 1994 and 1995, more than one-half million dollars was spent on the
special committee on the situation with regard to the implementation on
the granting of independence to colonial countries and territories.
Long after decolonization was over, the United Nations was searching
for ways to liberate such territories as American Samoa and the U.S.
Virgin Islands--both of which have voting representatives in the U.S.
Congress.
The World Health Organization [WHO] spends 75 percent of its $1
billion budget on staff, and much of the rest on conferences, travel
and printing. Senior staff positions have increased more than 60
percent since the current director-general took office in 1988. When a
U.N.-commissioned 50th anniversary history discussed corruption in the
process of naming the current WHO chief, U.N. censors deleted the
references.
In April, 1994, the U.N. office in Somalia lost $3.9 million kept in
a cabinet with a poor lock. Despite repeated warnings, U.N. officials
took no action to secure the funds. A month later, a U.N. military
officer in Somalia lost $61,000 and another $76,000 was destroyed in a
flood in the drought-plagued country.
The International Labor Organization [ILO] will spend $30 million in
1994-95 on conference organization and printing for special events.
Mr. President, these are but a handful of examples of waste, fraud
and abuse at the United Nations. They waste real money every day.
Seriously addressing the rampant corruption and inefficiency throughout
the United Nations system is the way to resolve U.N. funding problems--
not taxing American citizens.
As today's Washington Times editorial and article make clear, the
U.N. tax idea is not an idle pursuit of some dreamers--it is a concept
that U.N. employees spend time developing, promoting and publicizing.
It is time for Congress to act. It is time to say no taxation without
representation in the United Nations and it is time to shut down U.N.
organizations which spend their time--and American taxpayers dollars--
scheming to get into American wallets for even more money.
Today, with Senators Gregg, Helms, and Shelby, I am introducing S.
1519, ``The Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act of 1996.'' The
bill does three things. First, it lays out congressional findings on
U.N. taxation and concludes the United Nations has no legal authority
to tax American citizens. Second, it prohibits U.S. payments to the
United Nations if it attempts to impose any of the taxation schemes.
Third, the bill cuts off funds for any United Nations organization
which develop or advocates taxation schemes. Companion legislation will
be introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman
Gerald Solomon and others. Congressman Solomon has a long record of
involvement in United Nations reform issues, and I thank him for his
leadership on this issue.
I know both Chairman Helms at the Foreign Relations Committee and
Chairman Gregg at the Appropriations Committee plan to hold Senate
hearings on the taxation plans of the United Nations. I expect to
discuss the possibility of hearings with Finance Committee Chairman
Roth as well. I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Helms for their
leadership on this issue as well as our other original cosponsor,
Senator Shelby.
The Clinton administration has begun to discuss the possibility of
U.N. reform. Many of my colleagues have been involved in the effort to
bring serious change to the United Nations. But as long as the United
Nations spends its time on global taxation and not on its severe
shortcomings, real reform will be impossible. And as long as Boutros
Boutros-Ghali has visions of becoming the tax collector for the U.N.
state, real reform will be impossible. The out-of-control pursuit of
power by the United Nations has made the Prohibition on United Nations
Taxation Act of 1996 necessary. I am confident it will be enacted this
year.
I ask that the editorial from today's Washington Times and the letter
to GAO sent by Senator Helms, Senator Gregg, and myself be printed in
the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
I say to my colleagues that we certainly welcome additional
cosponsors.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1519
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Prohibition on United
Nations Taxation Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) in 1948, the average United States family with children
paid only three percent of its income in Federal taxes;
(2) in 1996, the average United States family with children
paid more than 24 percent of its income in Federal taxes;
(3) United Nations officials have made numerous and
repeated proposals to provide financing for the United
Nations outside the scrutiny of Member States of the United
Nations, including borrowing from international financial
institutions, assuming control of bonds issued by Member
States, and imposing taxes on an extensive range of
transactions, goods, and services;
(4) the 1994 ``Human Development Report'' of the United
Nations Development Program stated that ``[i]t is appropriate
that the proceeds of an international tax be devoted to
international purposes and be placed at the disposal of
international institutions.'';
(5) on January 14, 1996, United Nations General Secretary
Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated that an international tax would
mean that ``[he would] not be under the daily financial will
of the Member States.'';
(6) American taxpayers have paid approximately
$30,000,000,000 to the United Nations since 1945;
(7) the United Nations and its organizations are replete
with mismanagement, waste, corruption, and inefficiency which
cost American taxpayers millions of dollars each year;
(8) the power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty;
(9) the United Nations does not have the attributes of
sovereignty and is not a sovereign power; and
[[Page S278]]
(10) the United Nations has no legal authority to impose
taxes on United States citizens.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF IMPOSITION OF GLOBAL TAXATION OR
MULTILATERAL BANK BORROWING.
The United States may not pay any voluntary or assessed
contribution to the United Nations or any of its specialized
or affiliated agencies if the United Nations--
(1) attempts to implement or impose any taxation or fee on
any United States persons; or
(2) borrows funds from the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (commonly referred to as the
``World Bank''), the International Monetary Fund, or any
other similar or regional international financial
institution.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF
GLOBAL TAXATION PROPOSALS.
The United States may not pay any voluntary or assessed
contribution to the United Nations or any of its specialized
or affiliated agencies (including the United Nations
Development Program) unless the President certifies in
writing to the Congress 15 days in advance of such payment
that the United Nations or such agency, as the case may be,
is not engaged in any effort to develop, advocate, promote,
or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on
United States persons in order to raise revenue for the
United Nations or any such agency.
SEC. 5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Payments prohibited under this Act include disbursements to
the United Nations pursuant to any undertaking made by the
United States before the prohibition becomes effective.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``person'' has the meaning given such term in
section 7701(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26
U.S.C. 7701(a)(1)).
(2) The term ``taxation or fees on United States persons''
includes any tax or fee assessed on United States persons on
a per capita basis or on a transaction or user basis,
including but not limited to any tax or fee on international
air travel, foreign exchange transactions, the mails, or
extraction or use of natural resources.
____
U.S. Senate,
Office of the Republican Leader,
Washington DC, January 17, 1996.
Hon. Charles Bowsher,
U.S. Comptroller General, General Accounting Office, 441
``G'' Street Northwest, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bowsher: In recent months, there has been
increasing attention to various proposals which would allow
the United Nations and its affiliated organizations to
independently raise revenue by taxing American citizens.
United Nations revenue-raising proposals under discussion
include commercial and non-commercial borrowing, imposition
of fees, issuance of bonds, and taxation of airline, postal,
currency energy or other transactions.
We are deeply concerned about the legal, financial and
policy implications of independent revenue-raising authority
available to the United Nations or its affiliated
organizations. Accordingly, we would appreciate your
answering the following questions concerning various United
Nations proposals:
What funding sources are available to United Nations
organizations apart from contributions from Member states?
What authority does the United Nations have for each of these
sources?
How much revenue is raised by United Nations organizations
through private contributions or through commercial sales of
goods and services?
Which United Nations organizations currently have
commercial or other borrowing authority? To what extent has
borrowing occurred and under what legal authority?
What is the status of United Nations efforts to secure
borrowing authority from the World Bank or other
international financial institutions? Is there legal
authority for such borrowing?
What is the status of the Secretary General's proposal
concerning the issuance of bond or obligations made at the
time of the 1995 G-7 meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia?
What tax or fee proposals have been made by United Nations
officials? By what officials and under what authority have
these proposals been made? What action has been taken on
these proposals (including the so-called ``Tobin tax'' on
currency transactions endorsed by the United Nations
Development Program)?
How much have United Nations organizations spent
developing, publishing and advocating revenue-raising
proposals?
What impact would each of these revenue-raising proposals
have on U.S. obligations under any bilateral or multilateral
agreements to which the U.S. is a party, including any trade
agreements?
What role have American citizens employed by the United
Nations played in advocating taxation and other revenue-
raising proposals? Are there any circumstances under which
United Nations revenue-raising proposals could be binding on
United States citizens without an Act of Congress?
What is the process for approval of revenue-raising
proposals by United Nations organizations, including the role
of the Security Council and General Assembly? Are there any
circumstances under which United Nations taxation proposals
could be adopted over United States opposition?
What is the status under United States domestic law and
relevant international law of each of the United Nations
revenue-raising proposals?
What is United States government policy on each of the
revenue-raising proposals, and how effectively has it been
carried out?
The issue of United Nations plans to raise revenue outside
the scrutiny of Member states will be the focus of serious
attention by Congress in the coming weeks. We appreciate your
expeditious response to our request.
Sincerely,
Bob Dole.
Jessie Helms.
Judd Gregg.
____
[From the Washington Times, Jan. 22, 1996]
How Not To Fund The U.N.
What do D.C. Control Board Chairman Andrew Brimmer and U.N.
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali have in common? Well,
beyond trying to reform overgrown and ineffective
bureaucracies, they both apparently have commuter taxes on
their minds. The same week Mr. Brimmer hauled out that deader
than dead political rabbit out of his chairman's hat, Mr.
Boutros-Ghali was mulling over the same subject in an
interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. It must be
something in the air.
As reported by The Washington Times' Cathy Toups, Mr.
Boutros-Ghali suggested that a $1.50 surcharge on
international airline tickets might help the United Nations
solve its fiscal troubles. ``We would not be under the daily
financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay
up,'' Mr. Boutros-Ghali said, thinking no doubt of the United
States which currently owes $1.2 billion in back dues. Mr.
Boutros-Ghali also suggested a levy on currency transactions
and has previously proposed borrowing money from the World
Bank to cover the organization's shortfall. All of which
understandably has set alarm bells ringing here in
Washington.
In a letter to the editor printed nearby, U.N. spokesman
Joe Sills, writes that no commuter tax is currently under
consideration by the United Nations and that Mr. Boutros-
Ghali only spoke as someone heading a large organization with
difficulties making ends meet. Further, Mr. Sills writes, the
United Nations cannot raise or spend money without the
approval of its member nations, which means that the United
States has the power to veto a U.N. commuter tax any day.
Accordingly, there is no reason to get unduly exercised about
Mr. Boutros-Ghali's statements.
But even if no such formal proposal has been brought to the
floor of the General Assembly, Mr. Boutros-Ghali himself is
obviously considering it. Nor is Mr. Boutros-Ghali just any
old U.N. official. As secretary-general, he has a great deal
to do with setting the organization's agenda. Just look at
the area of peacekeeping; it has grown manifold under his
leadership, for better and sometimes for worse. In the
absence of firm international leadership from the United
States, Mr. Boutros-Ghali's views have in fact carried
unusual weight.
The problem with a U.N. commuter tax--indeed reason why it
so appeals to the secretary-general--is precisely that it
would give the U.N. bureaucracy a measure of independence
from its member governments. Why such a scheme should never
come to fruition is clear. Most importantly, only sovereign
governments can levy taxes and the United Nations is not a
government, no matter the aspirations of its leaders and
minions. Secondarily, an independent source of revenue would
alleviate the pressure on the organization to reform itself,
which is currently being applied by the United States. In
principle, member states may have the last word on how the
money is spent, but so do they now, and the organization is
still riddled with corruption and waste as recorded
meticulously by its new inspector general.
Knowing all of this, Senate Majority leader Bob Dole,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms and
Judd Gregg, chairman of the Senate appropriations
subcommittee responsible for U.N. payments, have announced
their intention to introduce legislation to prevent the
Clinton administration from pursuing Mr. Boutros-Ghali's
train of thought any further. All three have written to
Charles Bowsher, U.N. comptroller general, to determine the
status of proposals out there, such as U.N. commercial and
non-commercial borrowing, imposition of various fees,
issuance of bonds, and commuter and international transaction
taxes. And Mr. Helms' committee is planning to hold hearings
on the matter.
All of which seem like perfectly reasonable precautions.
Mr. Sills reassures us that the United Nation's is only an
instrument of the will of its member nations. That's fine, It
should stay that way, which means that the governments of its
member nations must continue to hold the purse strings.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I can assure the distinguished majority
leader that consideration of this will be rapid, and I think I can
predict the outcome of the Foreign Relations Committee's action on it.
It is an interesting thing about Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Dot Helms
and I had dinner with the Secretary General, and his wife some weeks
back, and
[[Page S279]]
he discussed with me a number of problems he was having with the United
Nations, including financial problems. But he certainly did not mention
anything about giving the U.N. authority to impose taxes upon the
American people. I think that maybe the Secretary General has
overspoken himself in asserting his belief that the United Nations
should be allowed to collect taxes directly from American citizens.
I was astonished, Mr. President, when in an interview with the BBC,
U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali made the absurd suggestion
that the United Nations should be allowed to collect taxes directly
from American citizens--and citizens of other sovereign nations--to
finance the operation of the United Nations. His stated reason for
creating such a U.N. tax, Mr. Boutros-Ghali said, would be so that the
U.N. ``would not be under the daily financial will of member states.''
In the first place, the gentleman obviously has scant knowledge of
the Constitution of the United States. I have heard a lot of disturbing
suggestions coming out of the United Nations over the years, but this
one--with all respect to the Secretary General--is among the most
unacceptable yet. The United Nations will never be able to tax the
American citizens, certainly not as long as Senator Dole is in the
Senate or elsewhere in the Government, nor as long as I am here. And I
am happy to join Senator Dole in offering this legislation today, S.
1519, bearing the title of the Prohibition of United Nations Taxation
Act, requiring the United States to cut off all funding to the United
Nations if the United Nations does intend or attempt to impose such a
scheme.
Despite what the U.N. Secretary General and the international
bureaucrats may want to believe, the United Nations is not a sovereign
entity. It is not a world government, and the Secretary General is not
president of the world. No Secretary General in the future should
entertain or even express such foolish notions. The United Nations is
purely a consultative body, made up of sovereign nations, who did not
check their sovereignty at the U.N. door when they sent representatives
to the functions and deliberations of the United Nations.
Furthermore, the American people absolutely would not stand for any
form of U.N. taxation; they are already paying more than 24 percent of
their income to the U.S. Federal Government. They do not need nor will
they accept paying another dime to fund a world government in New York
led by a nonelected bureaucrat.
The Secretary General has several times advocated a standing U.N.
military. His idle sugestion giving the United Nations the power of
direct taxation is a matter that invites a worldwide rejection and
distrust of the United Nations.
Mr. President, I again assure the majority leader that I will
schedule hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the
purpose of investigating this matter, and to make clear that the United
States must oppose any and all efforts to give the United Nations such
unprecedented powers. And, Mr. President, if the Secretary General
somehow succeeds securing either the powers of direct taxation, or a
standing military, then the United States must withdraw immediately
from the United Nations.
I yield the floor.
____________________