[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.

                          ____________________