[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S995-S996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                  LEGISLATION TO BAN U.N. TAX PROPOSAL

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to state my support for 
Senate bill 1519, the Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act of 
1996. This bill was introduced by Senator Dole, and referred to the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  This legislation bars the United States from making any voluntary or 
assessed payments to the United Nations if Secretary-General Boutros 
Boutros-Ghali imposes any tax or fee on United States citizens or 
continues to consider any such proposal.
  I find it outrageous that the United Nations could actually believe 
it has the sovereignty to raise and collect taxes on the people of this 
world to increase its coffers. The idea of a tax on any international 
action, whether it be a plane ticket, a letter mailed, or a currency 
exchange, is simply beyond my belief.
  This revenue would then be used by unelected, world bureaucrats to do 
what they want under the umbrella of the United Nations. This 
organization has repeatedly attempted to increase its power even as the 
U.S. Congress tries to limit its scope and authority.
  There are many questions about the U.N.'s responsibilities and its 
ever-growing role in international relations ranging from peacekeeping 
missions to international conferences on everything from children's 
rights to the environment.
  Recently, in my home State of Montana, a U.N. delegation visited 
Yellowstone National Park in order to promote a buffer zone that would 
prohibit mineral development in the area. It is bad enough that we have 
allowed the United Nations to set our international role, but now we 
are allowing it to come into our country and set national policy. I ask 
that the February 1, 1996 Washington Times article entitled ``U.N. 
`intrusion' stirs anger at Yellowstone,'' be printed in the Record.
  There are many cases that exemplify the degree to which to the United 
Nations is full of waste and uncontrolled spending. I cosponsored an 
amendment to the 1995 fiscal year State Department authorization bill 
that would establish the position of inspector general within the 
United Nations to seriously address the rampant corruption and 
inefficiency throughout the U.N. system and make it more accountable.
  While it is true that the United States owes in excess of $1 billion 
in membership contributions, it is also true that we provide a quarter 
to a third of the U.N.'s budget. Compare that to other countries who 
are still assessed membership dues at the same rate as they were when 
they were developing countries in the sixties.
  The last thing the United Nations should be given is the ability to 
raise revenue in order to increase its powers. 

[[Page S996]]
 I am disgusted with the U.N.'s arrogance in believing it can increase 
its budget by taxing our citizens. This proposal should not be 
permitted to go any further.
  S. 1519 concludes that the United Nations has no legal authority to 
tax American citizens. It prohibits U.S. payments to the United Nations 
if it attempts to impose any of the taxation schemes. And finally, the 
bill cuts off funds for any U.N. organization which develop or advocate 
taxation schemes.
  Once again, I support this bill to bar U.S. contributions to the 
United Nations if that organization continues to consider its scheme 
for taxation without representation.
  The article follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 1, 1996]

 U.N. `Intrusion' Stirs Anger at Yellowstone--Environmental Alarm Seen 
                              as Meddling

                        (By Valerie Richardson)

       Denver.--A United Nations delegation to Yellowstone 
     National Park has spurred outrage among Westerners who accuse 
     the international body of meddling in domestic policy.
       After a three-day evaluation by international experts, the 
     World Heritage Committee, a bureau of the United Nations 
     Environmental, scientific and Cultural Organization, declared 
     Yellowstone a World Heritage site ``in danger.''
       Chief among the delegation's concerns was the proposed 
     reopening of the New World Mine, a gold mine located near 
     Yellowstone in Montana. But debate about the mine has been 
     all but overshadowed by the uproar over the delegation 
     itself.
       In areas of the West where the states'-rights movement is 
     flourishing and distrust of centralized government is at an 
     all-time high, the arrival of a U.N. committee has been 
     viewed as nothing less than an attempt to subvert U.S. 
     sovereignty.
       ``Will the New World Order sabotage the New World Mine?'' 
     the Montana Standard newspaper in Butte asked in an Aug. 27 
     editorial. ``Clinton administration officials appear to be 
     scheming to bring that about.''
       Sen. Alan K. Simpson, Wyoming Republican, called the 
     international delegation's role ``a terrible intrusion.'' He 
     and other Western lawmakers have blasted Interior Assistant 
     Secretary George Frampton for inviting the committee to 
     Yellowstone and urging the panel to lend its voice to those 
     fighting the New World Mine.
       Mr. Frampton issued the invitation at the request of 
     ``concerned citizens,'' said park spokeswoman Cheryl 
     Matthews. Those citizens include a coalition of 14 
     environmental groups working to halt the mine, including the 
     Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Sierra Club and the World 
     Wildlife Fund.
       ``When we made the request a year ago, we didn't anticipate 
     the black-helicopter arguments,'' said Bob Ekey, spokesman 
     for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Bozeman, Mont. 
     ``Frankly, some of our critics have been putting out 
     misinformation--that the U.N. is going to come out, claim the 
     area and run the park.''
       Other Western leaders have accused Mr. Frampton of badly 
     overstepping his authority by trying to kill the proposed 
     mine before the review process is complete. The U.S. Forest 
     Service and Montana Department of Environmental Quality are 
     now preparing an environmental-impact statement on the 
     project.
       ``It is astonishing that a group of extreme 
     environmentalists can invite a few folks from the United 
     Nations to circumvent laws that Americans and Montanans have 
     worked hard for and lent their voices to,'' said Sen. Conrad 
     Burns, Montana Republican.
       ``We have an exhaustive procedure in the books in Montana 
     to decide where mines can and cannot be cited. Why should we 
     allow the U.N. to pick and choose when these laws and rules 
     will be allowed to work?''
       Rep. Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Republican, noted that Mr. 
     Frampton is ultimately responsible for a ``fair'' review of 
     the project, ``yet he is the very person who requested the 
     United Nations interference within the borders of the United 
     States.''
       ``Does he want foreigners to determine our environmental 
     requirements?'' she asked. ``Doesn't he know that the United 
     States has the strictest environmental regulations on the 
     planet?''
       Marvin Jensen, Yellowstone National Park assistant 
     superintendent, stressed that the international delegation 
     has ``no legal authority'' to set domestic policy. ``The only 
     thing the World Heritage Committee can do is list and de-
     list,'' he said.
       ``To be listed as `in danger' raises questions about the 
     site's continued listing,'' he explained. ``To be de-listed 
     would be embarrassing to any country.''
       But some critics worry that the committee may have more 
     power than forest officials acknowledge. By signing the World 
     Heritage Treaty in 1972 and requesting Yellowstone's 
     designation as a World Heritage site in 1978, the United 
     States pledged to manage the park according to treaty 
     requirements, says the committee.
       The most controversial of those requirements is the 
     establishment of a buffer zone around each World Heritage 
     site. When Yellowstone was listed, officials agreed that the 
     seven national forests surrounding the park would serve as an 
     adequate protection. None of the other 17 listed U.S. sites 
     has a formal buffer zone.
       Past proposals for a buffer zone called for establishing an 
     18.2-million-acre perimeter around the park in which many 
     economic and recreational activities would be restricted, 
     including ranching, logging, snowmobiling, even auto traffic. 
     Most locals staunchly oppose such a zone.
       During the delegation's three-day tour in September, 
     however, committee President Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand 
     fed local fears when he suggested expanding the buffer zone 
     around the 2.3-million-acre park. That recommendation was 
     ultimately dropped from the final report.
       Those remarks notwithstanding, park officials still insist 
     the committee's role is strictly advisory, and, barring 
     another invitation from the Interior Department, over and 
     done with.
       Mr. Jensen admitted it's been difficult to convince some 
     local residents of that. ``One local fellow--a gardener--
     asked me, `So when's the U.N. coming to take over 
     Yellowstone?' '' said Mr. Jensen. ``I talked to him and 
     talked to him and I could not convince him that that wasn't 
     going to happen.''

                          ____________________