[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.

                          ____________________