[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1213-S1219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF BILL RICHARDSON, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE THE U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Bill Richardson, of New
Mexico, to be the representative of the United States of America to the
United Nations with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America
in the Security Council of the United Nations.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, today the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty on
the nomination of Congressman Bill Richardson to serve as our country's
Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations met for almost 3 hours on
Wednesday, January 29, to consider the Richardson nomination. During
that hearing, the committee also heard from a bipartisan group of six
Members of Congress who introduced Congressman Richardson.
That group included the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee, Senator Domenici, the junior Senator from New Mexico,
Senator Bingaman, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Senator Hatch, the chairman and ranking member of the House
International Relations Committee, Congressmen Gilman and Hamilton, and
Congressman Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
During the hearing, Congressman Richardson was questioned extensively
by many members of the committee on a broad range of issues related to
the United Nations, and other foreign policy matters.
At the conclusion of the hearing, it was agreed to keep the record
open until close of business on January 31, so that Senators could
submit written questions to the nominee. Five Senators submitted 135
such questions, all of which were answered in writing by Congressman
Richardson. The administration also complied with a document request
concerning State Department involvement with negotiations to free
certain hostages in Southern Sudan.
Earlier today, after members had spent several days examining the
written replies, the committee met in a business meeting to consider
this nomination. By a vote of 17 to 0, the Committee on Foreign
Relations reported favorably the Richardson nomination.
Mr. President, Congressman Richardson has been nominated to one of
the Nation's top foreign policy posts. He has been nominated at a
critical time in the history of the United Nations. I believe that he
could very well make history as the U.S. Permanent Representative who
rolled up his sleeves and worked with Congress to bring true and
lasting reform to that dysfunctional institution.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the administration and the
international community about the need to pay arrearages to the United
Nations. U.S. contributions to the United Nations have been withheld by
Congress for a valid reason: to cause the U.N. bureaucracy to wake up
and smell the coffee. As I told Congressman Richardson, I believe
Congress may be willing to pay those arrears, but only--and I repeat
emphatically, only--if payments are tied to concrete reform.
Last month, the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had
a long and productive meeting with the new U.N. Secretary General, Kofi
Annan. I believe Mr. Annan genuinely wants to reform the United
Nations, and I genuinely want to help him. But like Ronald Reagan used
to say: ``trust but verify.''
That is why I told Mr. Annan that I intend to introduce legislation
shortly that sets benchmarks for U.N. reform, and that rewards reform
with payment of the U.S. arrearage. As each benchmark is met, money
will be dispensed, thus ensuring U.S. contributions will be linked to
concrete accomplishments.
I have asked the Secretary General for his ideas and input, as I work
with Senator Grams, who will chair the international operations
subcommittee during this Congress, and as I work with other Senate
colleagues to prepare this legislation.
Mr. President, Congressman Richardson has pledged to work with the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and with the Congress as a whole, in
implementing concrete reforms at the United Nations. We welcome his
input.
I believe that on balance, he is well qualified for the post of U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I look forward to
working with him in moving our agenda forward.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Who controls the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina controls the
time on his side.
Mr. HELMS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
for yielding me time on this nomination. I rise in support of this
nomination of Congressman Richardson to be America's Ambassador to the
United Nations. I had the pleasure of serving with Bill Richardson
while he was in the House. We arrived at nearly the same time.
He was a joy to serve with, and I have a lot of respect for what he
has done since that time, especially in the area of international
affairs where he has in a number of instances been able to extricate
Americans from very difficult situations.
However, on this issue of the nomination, I think we also need to
address the question of the status of the United Nations and especially
the relationship of this Government to the United Nations, and a few
caveats need to be pointed out.
Specifically, my concern, and I think the concern of a number of
Members of Congress, is with the payment of arrearages to the United
Nations. The administration, we hear by rumor, is going to send to this
Congress a supplemental, which supplemental will include in it a $900
million plus request for payment of arrearages to the United Nations.
There are two major issues raised by this. First, the question of
whether $900 million is the correct number. There is some serious
concern by those of us who have looked at this issue that that number
may be too high and that the proper number should be less because we as
a government have not received proper credit for costs of peacekeeping
which we have incurred and should have been credited for.
Second, independent of what the right number is relative to
arrearages, there is the question of what the money will be spent for
in the future. The United Nations has some very serious problems in its
management.
The new Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has made a commitment to try
to address those problems, and we respect that commitment. But we need
to go beyond verbiage. We need to go beyond language, and we need to
have specifics, and we need to have enforceable and identifiable and
ascertainable standards we can look to.
Specifically, we need to have from the United Nations a system to
review where the money is spent. There is not now available to those
who wish to review, those member countries that wish to review, an
effective accounting procedure for where the money goes once it arrives
at the United Nations, and we need to have that.
Second, we need to have an effective process for determining the
personnel policies of the United Nations. There is not now a structure
for adequately reviewing how personnel decisions are made at the United
Nations. There is a legitimate concern that there are a significant
number of political appointees at the United Nations, patronage, for
lack of a better word, and that these appointees do vote in many
instances. That is the representation. It may or may not be correct.
But because there is no system to be able to review the personnel
policies of the United Nations, because they do not have a systematic
personnel policy system, it is impossible to evaluate the accuracy of
these representations.
[[Page S1214]]
Third, we need to have the process for evaluating the full services
delivered by the United Nations, the programmatic initiatives taken by
the United Nations and whether or not they are being efficiently and
effectively handled. This is a very genuine concern because there is a
very significant amount of anecdotal evidence, at least, that many of
the activities and dollars that have been spent to support those
activities may not have produced the results sought, or in many
instances the dollars may have just been misplaced in at least a few
cases that have been found by the present inspector general, even
misappropriated.
So until we get in place these three major accounting processes,
which are typical of any major structure of government or of the
private sector, an accounting structure for knowing where the money
goes, an accounting structure for knowing what the personnel policies
are, and an accounting structure that allows you to follow programmatic
activity as to its efficiency and effectiveness, until we get something
in place that shows us we are going to have those types of systems in
place that allow us to review and know whether or not our dollars are
being spent effectively, it is very hard for us as the fiduciaries of
our citizens' dollars, as the managers of our taxpayers' hard-earned
income that is sent here as taxes, to say to the United Nations you
shall have this money in a carte blanche type of approach.
So there will be a significant debate in the Senate, and I suspect in
the Congress generally, as to how we structure any payment on
arrearages, and it is going to be my position, which I intend to
aggressively pursue--and it really is a position where I follow the
lead of the chairman of the committee--that we have effective
accounting procedures in place and that they be ascertainable and that
they be structured in a way that we are sure we are getting our
dollar's worth of effective administration, personnel management and
services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes yielded the Senator have
expired.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy and the
chairman for his courtesy.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of our colleague,
Congressman Richardson, to become our Ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. President, I will very shortly yield back the remainder of the
time. I understand I have 15 minutes under my control.
Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank the chairman, Senator
Helms, for his willingness to bring this important nomination to the
floor so expeditiously.
I join Chairman Helms in endorsing the nomination of Representative
Bill Richardson to be the Permanent Representative of the United States
of America to the United Nations, with rank of Ambassador.
I commend President Clinton for having nominated him, and I strongly
urge my colleagues here today to vote to confirm this distinguished
Member of Congress who already has a long list of diplomatic
accomplishments to his name.
Congressman Richardson has ably represented the Third District of New
Mexico for 14 years, but it is his experience in successfully
negotiating the release of Americans and others in some of the world's
least hospitable locales that has brought his formidable diplomatic
skills to light. This diplomatic experience will serve him well at the
United Nations as he seeks to advance American interests in contacts
with 185 other nations.
Likewise, Congressman Richardson's personal background and political
experience have prepared him well to represent the United States in the
world body.
Bill Richardson was born in California and grew up in Mexico City. He
attended high school in Boston and remained there to attend Tufts
University, where he earned a bachelor's degree and a Master of Arts in
Law and Diplomacy.
Bill Richardson then came to Washington, working in the Legislative
Affairs Office at the State Department and as a staffer on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, where, like his predecessor, Secretary of
State Albright, he gained an appreciation for the role of the Senate in
helping craft American foreign policy.
In 1978, Bill Richardson moved to Santa Fe, and in 1982 he won
election to this first term as a Member of Congress. His vast district
has been described by one writer as a ``mini-U.N.,'' with a diverse
population that is 35 percent Hispanic and 25 percent Native American,
including members of 28 different tribes.
As a Congressman, he served on the Intelligence Committee and was a
fervent advocate of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the official biography of Bill Richardson.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Report for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate
Subject: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of
Demonstrated Competence--Foreign Service Act, Section
304(a)(4).
Post: U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
Candidate: Bill Richardson.
Bill Richardson has served as a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives, representing the state of New Mexico since
1983. He serves on the Commerce, Resources and Intelligence
Committees. Mr. Richardson is active on the North Atlantic
Assembly, the Helsinki Commission on Human Rights, the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the House Democratic
Steering Committee. In addition, Congressman Richardson
serves as Chief Deputy Minority Whip.
Congressman Richardson has been active in hostage
negotiations in a number of countries which include the
Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, and Iraq. His diplomatic skills
have been instrumental in the release of a number of American
hostages.
Prior to his election to the U.S. House of Representatives,
Mr. Richardson served as a Staff Member of the U.S. Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, a Congressional Liaison Officer
as the Department of State, and a Staff Member of the
Wednesday Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Richardson received a B.A. from Tufts University and an
M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts.
He is the recipient of honorary degrees from the University
of the Americas in Mexico, the College of Santa Fe, and the
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Mr. Richardson has
published a number of articles dealing with U.S.-Mexico
relations.
Born November 15, 1947, Mr. Richardson speaks Spanish and
French. He has won numerous awards including the Aztec Eagle
Award from Mexico Government in 1994. In 1995, he was
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Mr. Richardson's dedication to public service and his
strong diplomatic and leadership skills make him an excellent
candidate as U.S. Representative to the United Nations.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Bill Richardson has engaged in successful
diplomacy with some of the world's most recalcitrant regimes and
rebels. His humanitarian concern for individuals and his commitment to
advance this country's interests have led him to countries like North
Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Serbia, Nigeria, Burma, Haiti, and Sudan. My
colleagues will recall that he negotiated the release of an American
helicopter pilot in North Korea, three Red Cross workers in Sudan, and
two Americans imprisoned in Iraq.
Two weeks ago, Congressman Richardson came before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and outlined how the United Nations should be used
to advance American interests, while streamlining its bureaucracy and
reforming its structure. I ask unanimous consent that his statement
before the committee be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement by Representative William Richardson Before Senate Foreign
Relations Committee
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, it is
a pleasure to meet with you this morning. I would like to
begin by expressing my gratitude to President Clinton for
nominating me to this important and challenging position. I
am deeply honored by his trust and deeply conscious of the
fact that, if confirmed, I will be representing the United
States, and the interests and values of its people to the
world. This is a heavy responsibility that I do not undertake
lightly. But I assure you that, if I am confirmed, America
will have no more forceful advocate of its views and no more
forceful defender of its sovereign interests.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as
Senator Biden, for moving forward so expeditiously with my
nomination. I was very encouraged by the calls for bi-
partisan cooperation on U.S. foreign policy at Secretary
Albright's confirmation
[[Page S1215]]
hearing, and I look forward, if confirmed, to working with
you in the same spirit.
I also extend my appreciation to Senators Domenici and
Bingaman, and Representatives Gilman, Hamilton and Menendez,
for their kind introductions. It has been my privilege to
work with these distinguished individuals. In my tenure in
the Congress, I have also come to know a number of the
members of this Committee. I have seen how deeply committed
you are to advancing the interests of the America people. I
thank all of the members of the Committee for the courtesies
you have extended to me during the last few weeks.
I would like as well to express my great admiration and
respect for the work of my predecessor, whose resolve,
frankness, and just plain good sense made her four years at
the U.N. such a resounding success. If confirmed, I hope to
profit from her example and to work closely with her as a
member of the President's foreign policy team.
Finally, I wonder if I might take a brief moment to
introduce my wife Barbara.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my long-standing commitment to
public service. For seven terms in the House of
Representatives, I have sought to demonstrate that commitment
by serving my constituents and my country to the best of my
abilities. Those fourteen years of service, I believe,
provide me with a perspective and a sensitivity to issues
that will strengthen my working relationship with you, this
Committee, and the Congress.
We share a love for our nation and a determination to
preserve and strengthen America's global leadership, to
promote our goals of world peace and security. We want a
better world for our generation, our children's generation
and all those who follow.
The good news is that we live at a time of remarkable
promise. Our nation is at peace. Our economy is strong. And
our most fundamental beliefs are ascendant, as more countries
and peoples than ever before enjoy the advantages of open
societies and open markets. But we also face a host of
threats--from rogue states and the spread of weapons of mass
destruction to terrorism, drug trafficking and environmental
degradation--that can all too easily undermine our hard-won
gains and our hopes for the next century.
I believe the U.N. is at a crossroads--and so is America's
leadership in the institution. Both the U.N. and the U.S.
face fundamental choices: for the United Nations, to adapt
fully to new demands and changing times, or to suffer the
erosion of support from nations and peoples. For the United
States, the choice is to sustain our leadership in a
reformed, effective U.N. or lose our voice in an institution
that has helped us advance American interests for half a
century. The U.N. must do its part. But we too must make the
right choice. Let me explain why:
As a global power with global interests, the United States
must lead in seizing the opportunities and meeting the
challenges of this new era. And to lead, we must have all the
tools of leadership at our disposal. Sometimes, when our
vital interests are at stake, we have to be willing and able
to act alone. That's why we are determined to maintain a
strong military, and an assertive, well-funded diplomacy.
But the U.S. can't do everything; nor should we try. As
President Clinton has put it, ``we cannot sustain our
leadership or our goals for a better world alone.'' That is
why the U.N. is essential: not as an independent actor on
the world stage, but as an instrument that helps us
mobilize the support of other nations for goals the
American people support. Without it, we would face, more
and more often, the stark choice between acting alone and
doing nothing.
I know there are some who question whether our
participation in the U.N. serves American interests. The
question is a fair one--but the answer is clear: America's
most fundamental interests are best served by our active,
hard-headed leadership in the U.N.; they will be set back if
we drop out--either in the literal sense or by failing to
shoulder our fair share of responsibilities.
The values that inform the U.N. Charter are also American
values; the Charter's sentiments and, in many ways, its very
words echo the ideals so familiar to generations of
Americans: ``to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,
in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal
rights of men and women.'' This should be no surprise given
the role that Americans played in conceiving and drafting the
U.N. Charter.
But U.S. participation in the U.N. is not merely a question
of values. U.S. participation has made a positive difference
in meeting an extraordinary range of challenges around the
world. It enables us to build international support for our
foreign policy goals at a lower price; during the Gulf War,
this multiplier effect meant that the international community
shared the costs and responsibility of defeating Iraq. We see
peace in Cambodia, El Salvador, Angola, Namibia and
Mozambique thanks in no small part to the powerful
combination of effective U.S. leadership and sustained U.N.
engagement.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen for myself how the United Nations
can help us further America's interests: today, IAEA
inspectors help to verify that North Korea is living up to
its commitment not to produce nuclear weapons; in remote
parts of Sudan to which Americans have little or no access, I
have seen how U.N. affiliated organizations help protect and
feed the innocent victims of a terrible humanitarian
disaster. In Burma, I have seen how the nations of the world
at the U.N. General Assembly and led by the United States,
have brought hope to embattled democrats by justly condemning
a repressive regime.
As the President said last week, ``our well-being at home
depends on our engagement around the world.'' U.N. agencies
contribute to the safety and security of Americans; they even
protect U.S. jobs: the ICAO's aviation safety and security
standards disproportionately benefit Americans (who make up
40 percent of all international air travelers); labor
standards set by the ILO help ensure that U.S. exports remain
competitive overseas; trademark and copyright protections
overseen by the World Intellectual Property Organization
protect billions of dollars in U.S. exports of movies,
software, music, books, and industrial inventions; the FAO
and the WHO set international food product safety and quality
standards that benefit our agricultural exporters as well as
our consumers.
Increasingly, we use U.N. bodies to gain international
support for addressing such dangerous transnational scourges
as terrorism, crime, and narcotics trafficking. We work with
and through the U.N. to achieve our objectives on human
rights, the environment, and child labor--all issues of great
importance to the American people. The U.N. has helped bring
the world together in caring for refugees, feeding starving
children, eradicating smallpox and battling AIDS. If we can
maintain our leadership within the organization, this will
continue to be so.
During the last several years, Secretary Albright worked
tirelessly on U.N. reform, and she produced results: a new
Secretary General was appointed, committed to accelerate the
pace and widen the scope of reform; the U.N. was persuaded to
adopt no-growth budgets--both currently and for the
foreseeable future--and to reduce the number of people
working in the U.N. Secretariat by several hundred.
Furthermore, we have persuaded the regional economic
commissions to begin initial re-prioritizing, and we have
taken at least the first steps toward streamlining the
specialized agencies.
Make no mistake, the U.N. has serious problems to surmount.
There should, for example, be better coordination of its
activities, consolidation of related programs and bodies, and
elimination of redundancies and low-priority activities. The
specialized agencies must learn to live within their means.
And the whole U.N. system must take a page from the business
community's handbook and learn to do more with less. The
High-Level Working Group on U.N. reform proposed by President
Clinton at the 49th General Assembly to address key economic,
social and administrative issues has made little progress,
and changes so far at the specialized agencies have been ad
hoc and tentative.
Secretary General Kofi Annan has publicly committed himself
to achieving the kind of reform that will make the U.N. more
effective. His appointment presents us with an opportunity to
push for reform and solve our arrears problems. He appears
receptive to changing the way the U.N. operates; in his
public remarks since being appointed he has stressed the need
to make the U.N. ``leaner, more efficient and more
effective.'' I know his words have been applauded up here on
the Hill and I was very encouraged by the series of meetings
he held last week here in Washington--in particular by his
meeting with you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
His job will be a difficult one, but with will and effort, it
can be done. If confirmed, I will press relentlessly to make
sure that reforms are undertaken, both in the U.N. and the
specialized agencies, and that our priorities are key factors
in U.N. decision-making. At the same time, I'll ask your
support for America's leadership in the U.N.--and for
fulfilling the commitments that will enable us to lead.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of Congress, I know perfectly
well that while our constituents want to see America involved
in the world, they are not interested in seeing tax dollars
wasted on programs that are inconsistent with American
interests or values. A central part of my job will be to make
this reality absolutely clear to the U.N. and its 184 other
members.
In four years, I hope this Administration will be able to
say that by working with you and other key committees in
Congress we: Helped the U.N. and its specialized agencies
make the transition to smaller and more efficient
organizations; put our U.N. assessments on a sustainable
financial footing that preserves U.S. influence within the
U.N. system; paid America's debt to the U.N.; and rebuilt
bipartisan support in the United States for continued
American leadership within and through the U.N.
To accomplish these far-reaching changes, we envision a
reform package consisting of five elements: Maintaining at
least zero growth in the U.N. budget, streamlining the U.N.
Secretariat in terms of personnel and organizational
structure, streamlining the U.N.'s ``big three'' affiliated
agencies: the Food and Agriculture Organization, the
International Labor Organization, and the World Health
Organization, negotiating lower U.S. scales of assessment for
the U.N. regular budget, the budgets of affiliated agencies,
and the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and negotiating the kind of
Security Council reform that preserves its efficiency and
protects the prerogatives of the current Permanent Members,
while adding Germany and Japan.
To see these reforms implemented, however, I will need the
help of the Congress.
[[Page S1216]]
The administration is prepared--even eager--to work with you
to help achieve our U.N. goals. But our efforts are
increasingly hampered by international resentment over our
arrears. As the U.N. cleans its house, we must do our part.
Our U.N. debt continues to hurt our efforts to press for
reform and damages our influence in the U.N. and its
affiliated agencies. The United States needs to get out of
debt and stay out of debt. As the President said just last
week ``We cannot expect to lead through the United Nations
unless we pay what we owe.''
For that reason, at the same time as I make America's case
at the U.N. I will be making the case to the Congress and the
American people that a reformed, effective U.N. serves our
interests in concrete ways and that our arrears have harmed
our ability to press for reform. As Secretary Christopher
used to say, ``we can't reform and retreat at the same
time.''
Clearly, the Administration and the Congress must work
together on a bipartisan basis to advance U.S. interests
through a reformed United Nations. In addition to my
commitment to pressing for U.N. reform, I also pledge to you
to make every effort to reinforce the unfailing commitment of
the American people to democracy and human rights around the
world.
I believe that one of my highest responsibilities will be
to confer, cooperate, and consult with the Congress across
the board on the widest range of U.N.-related issues, both in
Washington and in New York. If confirmed, I will welcome your
advice, Mr. Chairman, and that of every member of this
Committee and of the Congress. I extend to you individually
and collectively a standing invitation to come to New York
and see for yourselves what we are doing there. My door will
always be open.
On one thing we can all agree: the U.N. can and must do
better and since we are part of the U.N. we must together be
part of the solution. If, with your consent, I am confirmed,
I can pledge to you that you will find no one more committed
to getting the job done.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Congressman Richardson reminded us that
while U.N. reform is important, we must never lose sight of the
fundamental value of the United Nations for our national interests. We
rely on the United Nations to provide humanitarian assistance to
millions who otherwise would have no source of food or shelter. We rely
on the United Nations to eradicate disease and improve health. We rely
on the United Nations to prevent nuclear proliferation. We rely on the
U.N. to facilitate and maintain peace. The United Nations allows us to
combine our resources with those of others to bring about outcomes that
are in our national interest.
We must pursue reform, but we should not use reform as a stalking
horse to undermine the United Nations' ability to carry out tasks that
serve our fundamental interests.
We must maintain our leadership in the United Nations. Doing so
entails meeting our commitments to the United Nations; specifically, it
means paying our back dues. We cannot expect others to fulfill their
international obligations if we do not fulfill our own.
The President's request for a $921 million supplemental
appropriation. to be disbursed 2 years from now, is a good place to
begin a bipartisan effort to pay off our debt and encourage meaningful
U.N. reform.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with Congressman Richardson
over the next 4 years to ensure that the United States continues to
play a leading role at the United Nations so that the United Nations
continues to work in America's interests.
Let me just suggest that I think since I have been here--and it has
been 24 years--we have not had anyone who by temperament, experience,
background, and education is any more qualified to be our Ambassador to
the United Nations than Ambassador Richardson. We, all of us who have
served here, at least for 2 years or more, have come to know him
personally or have become acquainted with his incredible record of
special missions, where he has not gone off on his own but gone off
under the aegis and umbrella, at least, and being told by informing
administrations what he has been doing, and the remarkable negotiations
that he has undertaken with such remarkable results.
The reason I mention that is not that that qualifies a man or woman
to be the Ambassador to the United Nations in and of itself, but it
indicates that this is a man who understands how to assess his
opposition's interests and how to try to meet that interest without
yielding on any principle that is important to this country. I think
Madeleine Albright did that job well, as others have, and I think that
Bill will do it equally as well.
I also think that he goes there equipped with a firsthand knowledge
of the concerns expressed by the chairman of the committee, the Senator
from North Carolina, and our distinguished colleague from New
Hampshire, who just spoke. This is not something he has to divine or
guess about. This is not just in terms of our arrearages. Our
involvement with the United Nations--and the future relationship the
United States will have with the United Nations--is something that he
is personally aware of, in terms of the intensity, the extent to which
the concern exists, and the detail of the concern as emanated from the
U.S. Congress, both in the House and the Senate.
So, he is a man who will arrive on the scene fully aware of both
sides of this equation. He is not just a very gifted academic or
diplomat who will serve us there. He is not someone who has just
learned academically of the concern of the Congress and the simple,
basic, legitimate political concerns that we have. I don't mean
partisan political, I mean political in the sense that we have to
answer to our constituencies as to what we are going to do about paying
arrearages, if we pay arrearages, and how we pay them. And I think that
is a particularly useful background for a man to have at this moment,
going to that job.
He is, as I said, academically qualified. He is qualified by
temperament. He is qualified by experience. And he is qualified,
uniquely qualified in what is probably the single most significant
issue that has faced our relations with the United Nations, probably
since the United Nations has come into existence. That is: What is the
relationship and role of the President's authority to make commitments
relative to the use of American dollars and forces in other parts of
the world, and how does that interrelate with the Congress and the
Senate, in particular, and how and under what circumstances should we
be making up our arrearages and looking out for our longer term
interests at the United Nations?
So for those reasons and many others which I have not mentioned here
today, I think Bill Richardson is the right man for the job at this
moment, although I suspect he would be qualified for the job at any
moment. But I think he is particularly qualified to take over this job
at this time.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the new chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Operations, I am pleased to offer my support for the
nomination of Bill Richardson to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations.
Many of us have followed Congressman Richardson's globe-trotting
missions to assist captured Americans in hostile circumstances. I want
to express my personal appreciation for the successful effort he made
two years ago to obtain the release of Bill Barloon in Iraq, since Mr.
Barloon's brother lives in my home State of Minnesota.
We were very grateful. I have no doubt that the lessons Bill
Richardson has learned from these missions, which one newspaper dubbed
``daredevil diplomacy,'' will serve him well at the United Nations.
Often, it seems the United States must use just the right mix of
aggressive persuasion and diplomatic negotiations to convince the other
184 member states at the United Nations to go along with even minor
reforms.
As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have long had an
interest in the reform and revitalization of the United Nations. But
late last year, I was given the opportunity to become personally
involved in some of the controversial issues surrounding this body when
President Clinton appointed me to be a congressional delegate to the
U.N. General Assembly.
From October to December, I made three trips to the United Nations to
participate in its activities. These included not only meeting with a
wide range of U.N. officials and representatives from other nations,
but also speaking before the U.N. budget committee--known as the Fifth
Committee--and also the General Assembly itself.
This experience reinforced my two key beliefs about the United
Nations. First, that a properly structured United Nations can be a
useful international forum and a vital tool for
[[Page S1217]]
American foreign policy. And second, that it is also an unbelievably
complex and bureaucratic organization which is crying out for an
overhaul.
Last month, I was encouraged by the visit to Washington of the new
U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and by his assertions to Congress
that additional reforms are in the offing. I know many of us look
forward to reviewing the reform package he has promised to develop by
September of this year.
During both his public testimony and in a private meeting with me,
Bill Richardson pledged unprecedented consultations with Congress on
U.N. issues. I deeply appreciated that promise and know that Mr.
Richardson, as a member of Congress himself, understands the importance
of genuine interaction between the executive and legislative branches
on foreign policy.
In that vein, there are some matters at the United Nations that I
believe require immediate attention and I hope to begin working
promptly with soon-to-be Ambassador Richardson to address them.
To begin with, I am alarmed by the lack of resources currently being
made available to the U.N. Inspector General, known as the Office of
Internal Oversight Services, or the OIOS. This office is one that would
not exist without American advocacy and, I might add, without the
pressure of legislation mandating that some United States contributions
to the United Nations be withheld until it was created.
The OIOS is charged with rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement at the United Nations. According to the Undersecretary-
General who runs the office, it does not always receive the cooperation
it needs from all U.N. staff and member states.
This is unfortunate because the purpose of the OIOS is to save money
and make more effective use of U.N. resources. All member states should
remember that money wasted is money that will not help meet the goals
of programs that they themselves mandated the U.N. undertake.
My immediate concern is that the budget of the OIOS has been cut
dramatically this biennium, including a reduction of $700,000 just in
1997. It also has 12 posts which have not been filled, giving it an
especially high vacancy rate for U.N. offices. In fact, my
understanding is that the OIOS has only about 10 trained investigators
to handle the massive job of U.N. oversight.
Not only is this simply unacceptable, but it causes us to question
whether the U.N. Inspector General's office is truly independent.
Now I hope one of Mr. Richardson's first priorities will be to sit
down with Secretary-General Annan and figure out how to bring the OIOS
up to full strength.
This means not only filling vacant posts for 1997, but making sure
there is funding in the 1998-99 budget outline to continue those posts
into the next biennium. It also means making sure the OIOS has
sufficient resources to support the activities of its investigators.
We have heard enough excuses on this issue and it's time for it to be
resolved. The United States has declared that one of its reform goals
is to expand the U.N. Inspector General's authority to all agencies and
programs throughout the U.N. system. I strongly support this reform
goal, but question how it can be accomplished when the OIOS is having
great difficulty meeting its current responsibilities.
Another issue which has caused deep congressional concern is the loss
of the U.S. seat on the U.N. Advisory Committee on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions, known as the ACABQ.
This is the first year since the founding of the United Nations that
the United States has not had a position on this crucial budget
committee. Without this seat, it will be even more difficult for the
United States to get access to important technical budget information
at the very time we are trying to enforce fiscal restraint and a no-
growth budget at the United Nations.
I would recommend Mr. Richardson take three important steps with
regard to the ACABQ: First, he must make sure the U.S. mission to the
United Nations and Congress will continue to have access to important
budget information whenever necessary.
Second, he should ensure that any matters involving the commitment or
reprogramming of U.N. funds are considered in the General Assembly's
Fifth Committee, on which the United States still has a seat, rather
than only by the ACABQ.
Now third, it is clear the United States must regain its seat during
the next elections for the ACABQ in 1998. Given the stunning loss of
the last U.S. candidate, Mr. Richardson and the State Department need
to fully consult with Congress before nominating our next ACABQ
candidate.
Mr. President, before I close, I want to say a few words about the
major U.N. issue facing Congress this year, which is the President's
request for $1 billion to pay United States arrears to the United
Nations.
Given what I understand so far of the President's plan--and I still
have yet to see anything on paper from the administration--I must
express my disappointment with his U.N. reform proposal.
First of all, I am dismayed by the reluctance, if not outright
refusal, of the administration to link incremental payment of U.S.
arrears to specific U.N. reforms mandated by law. Clearly, this general
approach has been successful on a series of reforms ranging from the
creation of the U.N. Inspector General to the ongoing implementation of
a no-growth budget.
Second, I am concerned the administration is focusing narrowly on
simply reducing U.N. budgets and assessments to the United States.
While I agree that mandating budget reductions can force U.N.
bureaucrats to prioritize funding and programs, this is only part of
the picture.
There are a whole series of management reforms that also deserve to
have the leverage of U.S. arrears behind them. The point is that we
don't just want a less expensive United Nations, but one that is more
manageable and efficient.
Third, I have reservations about the President's request for $921
million as an advance appropriation for fiscal year 1999. These
reservations are heightened if such funding will not be legislatively
conditioned on mandatory reforms.
My personal view is that this appropriation should not be rushed
through Congress just so the President can have it in his pocket for
safekeeping. We should consider this funding in the normal
authorization and appropriations process so that it can be examined in
the context of all budget priorities.
I understand that Secretary Albright will be coming to Congress
tomorrow to discuss the President's proposal so I will defer other
comments until after that meeting. However, as an opening bid in the
negotiations over how to resolve U.S. arrears and guarantee U.N.
reform, the administration's plan seems to be falling short.
Therefore, Mr. President, I hope negotiations between Congress and
the administration can proceed quickly so that we can begin discussing
a serious, comprehensive U.N. reform agenda. To that end, I look
forward to working with our next United States Ambassador to the United
Nations, Bill Richardson, on a close and productive basis to strengthen
the relationship between the United States and the United Nations.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
Bill Richardson to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
But, Mr. President, I must express my concern about the United
Nations, particularly the imminent discussion about a multibillion-
dollar bailout of this body.
My thoughts can best be summed up by an article which I will ask to
have printed in the Record. This excellent opinion piece, written by
Cliff Kincaid, raises serious questions about the United Nations that
need to be answered.
In addition to the wasteful spending practices of the United Nations,
in my opinion, the organization in recent years has begun to pose a
threat to U.S. foreign policy and the command and control of the U.S.
Armed Forces. It needlessly delayed the conflict in Bosnia and was
partly responsible for the debacle in Somalia.
The role of the United Nations in dictating the foreign policy of
this country, and its role in the military affairs must be confronted
and stopped.
I hope that Mr. Richardson could address these and other issues
during his coming tenure as our Ambassador.
I ask unanimous consent that the article by Mr. Cliff Kincaid be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S1218]]
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 19, 1997]
Who's Soaking Whom?
(By Cliff Kincaid)
Kofi Annan is coming to town. Unlike Santa Claus, who gives
gifts, Annan wants them. The new secretary general of the
United Nations is scheduled to be in Washington this week to
ask members of Congress to provide another $1 billion or more
for the world organization. Members of Congress may wish to
ask him some tough questions about U.N. finances.
First: Why has the position of U.N. secretary general
enjoyed a 70 percent increase in pay over the past six years
while the United Nations has been going broke? U.N. figures
show the position was paid $156,429 in gross salary in 1991,
with an entertainment budget of $22,500. By May 1995, the
secretary general's gross salary had risen to $280,075, with
$25,000 for entertainment. If Annan is sincere about reform,
he should set an example by taking a pay cut.
Second: Why is former U.N. secretary general Kurt Waldheim
still getting a $102,000 annual pension? In 1986 journalists
exposed his collaboration in the Nazi extermination campaign
in southern Europe during World War II, and he was barred
from the United States. Since Waldheim got his U.N. job under
false pretenses, why is the United Nations still obligated to
pay him out of its $15 billion pension fund? Moreover,
doesn't it look bad for the U.N. to prosecute suspected war
criminals in Bosnia and Rwanda while continuing to pay
Waldheim?
Third: What is the real U.S. ``debt'' to the United
Nations? The General Assembly came up with the requirement
that the United States pay 25 percent of the U.N. operating
budget and 31 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Over the
course of the past decade, congressional appropriations for
the U.N. have fallen short of these ``requirements,'' which
are based on national wealth and responsibilities in world
affairs. If we don't pay what the U.N. wants, its only option
is to deny us a vote in the General Assembly. Members of the
assembly haven't done this because they know we're still the
biggest contributor to the U.N. regardless of the ``debt''
talk.
The United States makes many contributions to the world
organization for which it receives no credit or
reimbursement. A March 1996 General Accounting Office (GAO)
report on peace operations found that, during fiscal years
1992-95, U.S. government costs in support of U.N.-backed
peacekeeping operations amounted to $6.6 billion. About $4.8
billion of this amount was never counted as part of our
official U.N. assessment, according to the GAO. The United
Nations did reimburse the United States for about $79 million
of these expenses, leaving $4.7 billion that has effectively
been provided as a gift. If this sum is applied to our $1
billion-plus ``debt,'' as seems logical, then the United
Nations owes us money, not the reverse.
U.N. supporters may argue that the United States is
obligated to appropriate money directly to the United
Nations, not just to direct U.S. agencies to support U.N.
operations. But U.S. support, including housing, humanitarian
supplies and other goods and services, is paid for by
congressional appropriations and directly enables the United
Nations to carry on its work. Why shouldn't these
contributions count?
Fourth: Why are U.N. officials continuing to push global
taxation? The U.S. Congress was shocked when former U.N.
secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed
international taxation schemes to fund the United Nations.
Legislation to derail these plans was voted on by the Senate
last year. Not surprisingly, global taxes for the United
Nations went down by a 70-28 margin.
Nevertheless, officials at the United Nations Development
Programme have now edited a 300-page book, titled ``The Tobin
Tax,'' on how to implement a global tax on international
currency transactions. (James Tobin is the Yale University
economist who came up with the idea.) This tax could affect
IRAs, pension funds, mutual funds and other investments of
ordinary Americans. Will Annan make sure that work on these
schemes stops immediately?
If the new U.N. secretary general wants to make a
convincing case on Capitol Hill, he should answer these
questions to the satisfaction of the U.S. Congress.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has been very fortunate over
the years to have had distinguished, capable representatives serving as
our Ambassadors to the United Nations. It is my honor today to speak on
behalf of yet another distinguished American, Bill Richardson, who has
been nominated by the President to serve in that capacity.
Let me offer a few words of strong endorsement for my colleague. Bill
Richardson and I first campaigned together in 1982, when he was running
for the House of Representatives and I was running for the Senate.
Starting with that 1982 campaign, and in the 15 years since then, I
have continued to be impressed by his resourcefulness, by his energy,
by his talent for winning the trust and respect from people of diverse
backgrounds with widely varied points of view.
Much has been made of the successful diplomatic efforts that he has
engaged in in the last few years, but I would like to say just a few
words about his performance on his so-called day job, that is, his job
as Congressman for the State of New Mexico.
As you know, Mr. President, New Mexico is a State of many cultures.
We have a very large native American population, a very large Hispanic
population, a community such as Los Alamos, which has the largest
number of Ph.D.'s per capita of any city in the world.
Bill Richardson has managed to gain the trust and support of each of
these as well as many other groups and has been a very effective and
successful Congressman receiving very large majorities each of the
eight elections that he has stood for in our State.
Bill will demonstrate the same resourcefulness, energy, and skill in
building trust and rapport in the United Nations that he has
demonstrated in New Mexico. We in New Mexico will be losing a very
capable and effective Representative in Congress, but the country will
be well served by having Bill in this key position of advocacy in the
world's key international institution.
Mr. President, I strongly recommend to my colleagues that they vote
to confirm the nomination of Bill Richardson for the U.N. Ambassador
position.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I do not see any other of my colleagues
seeking to speak on this nomination. Therefore, I am prepared to yield
back the remainder of my time and am prepared to vote anytime the
chairman deems it appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina yield
back his time?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have not been obtained
for this nomination, have they?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Cloakroom would do well to advise
Senators that there shortly will be a rollcall vote. I will explain to
the Chair, while we are delaying just a little bit, Senator Domenici,
who is a New Mexican, as is Mr. Richardson, is on his way to the floor
and he wants to say a few kind words about his fellow New Mexican. So,
pending the arrival of Senator Domenici, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will time be equally divided?
Mr. HELMS. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Does the Senator from North Carolina yield time to the Senator from
New Mexico?
Mr. HELMS. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise just to say a few words in behalf
of my good friend, the U.S. Representative from the State of New
Mexico, Bill Richardson. I think I would have been remiss if I did not
come to the floor today and say to soon-to-be Ambassador Richardson in
behalf of New Mexicans, we wish you the very best good fortune. We know
that whatever you have tried, you have succeeded at it in your life.
And now, through that achievement and because New Mexicans have sent
you to the U.S. House in numerous elections and for a number of years,
we all think you are ready for a much bigger role and a much bigger
mission in behalf of our country.
Most of us who know you, and most New Mexicans who have observed you,
are confident you are going to do a splendid job in behalf of our
country. The fact that you came from a State that has multiple
cultures, that clearly accepts the diversity that no other State in the
Union has like ours, bodes
[[Page S1219]]
well for your work with people from all over the world.
While I could stand here and speak for a long time in your behalf, it
is not necessary today because you are clearly going to be confirmed
and your name is going to be sent to the President as the next
Ambassador to the United Nations. But I believe I will close with just
a couple of words in Spanish. Buena suerte, Bill. That's the simplest
way of saying good luck and good fortune in Spanish. I have been
privileged to work with you. I hope you will continue to work with
those of us in the U.S. Senate and House who are interested in the
United Nations succeeding. We think you have a big mission. We hope you
can establish some inroads, in terms of the United Nations being a more
effective and efficient body, so that the United States can truly
continue to support its efforts and your efforts in behalf of our
country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest
we go to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of
Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, to be U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 9 Ex.]
YEAS--100
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith, Bob
Smith, Gordon
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the President will be
notified of the action of the Senate.
____________________