Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 20 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H563-H569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNITED NATIONS TAX EQUALIZATION REFUND ACT OF 2011

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 519) to secure the return to the United States the $179
million overpaid into the United Nations Tax Equalization Fund as of
December 31, 2009, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 519

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``United Nations Tax
Equalization Refund Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Approximately $180 million in United States taxpayer
funds overpaid to the United Nations remain in the hands of
the United Nations because the United States has not
requested the return of those funds.
(2) The funds were paid into the United Nations Tax
Equalization Fund (TEF), which is used to reimburse United
Nations staff members subject to United States income taxes
for the cost of those taxes.
(3) In recent years, the TEF has taken in considerably more
money than it has paid out, with the United States apparently
overpaying into the TEF by $52.2 million in the 2008-2009
timeframe alone.
(4) According to the United Nations Financial Report and
Audited Financial Statements released on July 29, 2010, ``As
of 31 December 2009, an amount of $179.0 million was payable
to the United States of America pending instructions as to
its disposition.''.
(5) That balance was allowed to accrue notwithstanding
United Nations Financial Regulation 4.12, which states that
any such surpluses ``shall be credited against the assessed
contributions due from that Member State the following
year.''.
(6) Allowing the United Nations to regularly overcharge the
United States and to retain those overpayments, or to spend
them on wholly unrelated activities, is a disservice to
American taxpayers and a subversion of the Congressional
budget process.

SEC. 3. REFUND OF UNITED STATES TAXPAYER DOLLARS FROM THE
UNITED NATIONS TAX EQUALIZATION FUND.

(a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States--
(1) to direct the United Nations to return to the United
States the $179,010,326 overpaid into the United Nations Tax
Equalization Fund (TEF) as of December 31, 2009, which the
United Nations itself has identified as ``payable to the
United States of America'';
(2) to use the voice and vote of the United States to press
the United Nations to reform its TEF assessment procedures to
reduce the repeated discrepancies between TEF income and
expenditures; and
(3) to annually instruct the United Nations to return to
the United States any TEF surplus funds payable to the United
States.
(b) Certification and Withholding.--Until the Secretary of
State submits to the appropriate congressional committees a
certification that the United Nations has returned to the
United States the $179,010,326 identified by the United
Nations in its July 29, 2010 Financial Report as payable to
the United States, the United States shall withhold
$179,010,326 from the United States contribution to the
regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act--
(1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the term ``United Nations Tax Equalization Fund'' or
``TEF'' means the fund established under the provisions of
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 973 (December 15,
1955) to equalize to net pay of United Nations staff members.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.

{time} 1240

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The American people have spoken. They overwhelmingly voted for
today's YouCut proposal calling for U.S. taxpayer funds overpaid to the
United Nations to be returned to the United States. The United Nations
holds about $179 million overpaid by U.S. taxpayers into the U.N. Tax
Equalization Fund. This is not about the U.N. finally doing the right
thing by paying for security upgrades at its headquarters in New York.
The U.N. is not paying for anything.
After years of avoiding its responsibilities, the U.N., with the
support of the Obama administration, is asking the American taxpayer to
bail them out once again and pay 100 percent of the proposed
construction costs. To make matters worse, allowing the U.N. to take
$100 million of the refund owed to U.S. taxpayers would be an increase
for the U.N. budget.
This YouCut not only ensures that U.S. taxpayers receive the funds
owed to the U.S. Treasury, but it prevents a $100 million increase for
the U.N. The U.N. doesn't want the American people to know this; so the
U.N. and the State Department are now stating that they should allow
this increase because it is for security upgrades. This is not about
security. This is the U.N. and the Obama administration looking for
another excuse to avoid making the difficult choices and requiring
accountability from the United Nations.
This is not like U.S. embassy construction projects where the needs
are assessed, where a detailed plan is developed on how the security
needs will be addressed, on how the funding request is presented, and
how the Congress will then allocate the funds, no. After months of
requests, my colleagues on the committee and I are still waiting for
the details on this proposed construction project and, more recently,
on how the U.N. would fund it.
In news reports, I read that the State Department may have already
handed over to the U.N. $100 million of our overpayment into the TEF.
The Tax Equalization Fund, TEF, is a roundabout mechanism premised on
the U.N. belief that U.N. employee salaries and benefits should be tax
free. The TEF has collected much more from the U.S. than it has paid
out.
The U.N.'s most recent biennial financial report states that the
amount of the U.S.-paid surplus has grown to $179 million. The U.N.
readily admits that it does owe the overpaid money to our U.S.
taxpayers. According to the U.N.'s official financial report, the TEF
surplus is ``payable to the United States of America pending
instructions as to its disposition.''
This YouCut proposal declares that it is U.S. policy to seek the
return of those funds and the reform of the TEF assessment process. And
until the Secretary of State certifies to Congress

[[Page H564]]

that those funds have been returned, the bill withholds from our U.N.
dues an amount exactly equal to the overpayment identified by the U.N.
That's the simple question, Madam Speaker, framed by today's vote.
Should the 179 million taxpayer dollars, which the U.N., again, admits
it has no right to keep, be returned to the United States taxpayers?
Should the American people be asked to foot the entire bill for the
U.N. construction project?
Since this issue has begun receiving public attention, there has been
a great deal of misinformation that I would like to address briefly.
Last week, the Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs reportedly said that, ``The $179 million in
overpayments are in the form of credits, not cash, and thus cannot be
refunded per se.'' Madam Speaker, this is simply not true. Not only
does the statement by the IO Assistant Secretary conflict with what the
State Department budget professionals have most recently told the
Congressional Budget Office, but it conflicts with the U.N.'s own
position. They can't even get their stories straight.
The U.N.'s most recent financial report makes clear that the $179
million surplus is a distinct account payable to the United States of
America. So the question is, should the U.S. pay an additional $100
million to the U.N.?
I first raised the TEF surplus issue in a letter to Secretary Clinton
on November 18 of last year. The State Department response since that
time has been tardy, incomplete, and evasive. At a November 18
briefing, the State Department mentioned for the first time that it was
considering whether to allow the U.N. to spend part of the U.S. surplus
on an unrelated construction project at the U.N. headquarters in New
York. Nothing certain. The Foreign Affairs Committee requested detailed
plans, cost estimates, for the proposed construction project so that we
could credibly assess the claimed $100 million pricetag. I repeated
that request on December 22, then on December 29, then on January 4,
and on January 25. We're still waiting for those details. The only
thing that we have gotten, Madam Speaker, other than a few PowerPoint
slides, the only figures we have received is this: Less than a single
page of summary totals, with no supporting documentation. This is it.
The State Department has admitted that this construction proposal, in
the words of the Under Secretary for Management, ``is primarily the
responsibility of the United Nations,'' but they want to stick the
American taxpayers with the bill.
I disagree with the State Department. And the American people, they
know that we should not be penalized because the U.N. failed to
adequately plan for its own security needs. If the administration wants
to fund this project, the State Department should identify cuts to U.N.
programs to offset the cost and then ask Congress to pay for it
directly, explicitly, and clearly. Whatever the merits of this
proposal, it should not be taken from a refund owed to U.S. taxpayers.
My colleagues, let's join together in support of this week's YouCut.
With that, Madam Speaker, I respectfully reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation, and I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
This is called the YouCut agenda. It's the second bill on the YouCut
agenda. If this is the kind of bill that's going to be on the YouCut
agenda, I would suggest that we name it the ``YouCut what?'' agenda.
The CBO says, in its official cost estimate, implementing H.R. 519
would have no effect on the Federal budget, no effect. Not $1 is saved
by this particular proposal.
So we are faced with a piece of legislation that jeopardizes critical
security upgrades at the United Nations headquarters, and let me just
point out here, there's a large improvement plan for the U.N. building
that's going on now. That is not paid by the U.S. It is paid by the
apportioned assessed dues of all the member countries.
This is about a perimeter cost dealing with FDR Drive that our
colleagues Mr. Thompson and Mr. King and the other New Yorkers who will
speak on this will go into more detail on, that's a host country
obligation. There is not $180 million in that fund because $100 million
of it has been committed to the request of the New York City Police
Department to securitize the perimeter of the U.N. building where FDR
Drive goes under the U.N.
Secondly, it puts us back in arrears at the U.N. We tried that once.
That doesn't get our agenda through. We have a big agenda and a big
reform agenda at the U.N. Failing to pay our obligation is not the
answer, and because of the nature of this fund and the commitments
already made, I repeat what the CBO says: H.R. 519, this legislation,
would have no effect on the Federal budget.

{time} 1250

So we are not saving money. We are spurning the important security
requests, and we are going back into a pattern of arrearages that
undermines our efforts at the U.N. and does not help to achieve those
goals.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and sponsoring
this legislation.
Madam Speaker, it seems fairly simple to me: The American taxpayers
have overpaid the U.N. The U.N. didn't tell anybody about it. The
Heritage Foundation found out about it and published it last year; and
all of a sudden, the U.N. admits, Oops, yes. We have $180 million of
American money that was overpaid. The State Department has intervened
in a letter today by saying that we not only have intervened, but we
have kind of told the U.N. to spend $100 million of that money on
security in New York.
Now, no question about it, New York probably needs more security
around the U.N. That's a different issue. This issue is basic honesty.
It's an overpayment by taxpayers. The U.N. got caught, and they should
return the money to the United States. And the United States should
decide if we want to appropriate more money for security around New
York City or the U.N. That is a different issue. But this is an issue
of honesty.
First of all, the State Department didn't have the authority to go
ahead and say, Keep a little of that money--$100 million of it--and
spend it on security. They didn't have that authority. And now there is
only $80 million left.
So I submit, we should pass this legislation. We should expect that
the U.N., like everybody else, deal in basic honesty. If you make an
overpayment in your private personal business, whoever you sent that
money to owes you that money. Somebody else can't come in and say, Go
ahead and spend it on security or something else because they overpaid
the money. The money returns to that individual, just like this
taxpayer money should return to the American public, and we should
decide whether we want to spend more on the U.N. or not spend it or
send that $180 million someplace else.
So I am somewhat dismayed that the State Department has taken a
position against basic honesty in saying that money should go ahead and
stay in the U.N. because it's already spent. Somebody needs to return
the $180 million.
If the State Department spent part of it without authority by
Congress, then they need to fork over another $100 million and we get
our $80 million back from the U.N., because it's an issue of basic
honesty. Then we will deal with the issue of security. And if we need
more security around the U.N., then let's have legislation to deal with
that and let Congress pass that legislation or vote on that legislation
one way or the other. But it's simply not the U.N.'s money.
Give us back our money. It doesn't belong to the United Nations.

U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC.
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of
Representatives.
Dear Madam Chairman: I write to express the Department of
State's strong opposition to House passage of H.R. 519, the
``United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act of 2011''.
The Department agrees with the goal of reducing the fiscal
burden on Americans during difficult economic times and has
been working with the United Nations to ensure that the UN
improves its methods for estimating U.S. assessments and that
UN credits attributable to U.S. contributions are applied in
a fiscally responsible manner. The

[[Page H565]]

approach taken in this bill, however, would undermine those
efforts and thus, we oppose passage of the bill.
Contrary to assertions in the bill, the UN Tax Equalization
Fund (TEF) balance attributable to U.S. contributions is now
approximately $80 million. The Administration believes that
these credits should be used as offsets against future
assessments for UN activities, thereby reducing the need for
appropriated funds to meet vital U.S. foreign policy
interests.
As the Department of State notified the Congress in
December 2010, the United Nations advised the Department of
its intent to apply up to $100 million of previously existing
TEF credits attributable to United States assessed
contributions to fund critical security enhancements at the
UN Headquarters complex in New York. New York City and the
New York City Police Department had requested such
enhancements given the increasing threats the United Nations
has come under globally, and given the obvious potential
impact of these threats on the United States, as the UN's
host country, and on its citizens. The Department notified
Congress of its view that upgrades are the only practical
means to mitigate potential threats emanating from the public
streets surrounding the UN complex to protect the safety and
security of staff, visitors, delegates, and senior U.S. and
foreign officials present there every day, and that the
United States and the UN have a strong shared interest in
having increased security against threats emanating from
public rights of way along First Avenue and the FDR Drive.
Additionally, the Department of Justice advises us that
subsection 3(b) of the bill, which purports to declare the
``policy'' of the United States with respect to the TEF
overpayment, implicates the President's exclusive authority
to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international
negotiations or discussions and therefore would be construed
by the Executive Branch as declaring the sense of Congress
but not imposing binding obligations on the conduct of the
President's diplomatic efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The
Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the presentation of this letter from the
standpoint of the Administration's legislative program.
Sincerely,

Richard R. Verma,

Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking member of the Middle East and
South Asia Subcommittee of House Foreign Affairs.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am opposed to this bill for one simple
reason: It's not a smart thing to do. It recklessly jeopardizes the
security and safety of the people of New York City, and it does so for
no reason.
This is a national security issue. It will irresponsibly and
indefinitely delay the vital security improvements to the perimeter of
the U.N. campus in the city that the State Department wants to
undertake and has the resources to commit. Why do this? Only a radical,
wild-eyed obsession with taking a pound of flesh out of the U.N., which
at times deserves it, and to do so no matter what the cost to our
national security.
Where is the common sense in clawing back money that is going to be
used for desperately needed, long overdue security upgrades that we
have the money for anyway and have the responsibility to do anyway?
Where's the benefit to the taxpayer for maintaining the vulnerability
of the most prominent international target which happens to be in al
Qaeda's most highly targeted city?
I can see how the terrorists benefit from reduced security. But I'm
having a terribly hard time seeing how New Yorkers or Americans or the
1 million tourists to the building or even the multitudes of
international representatives at the United Nations, whom we have
undertaken to keep safe, will benefit. The U.N.'s Capital Master Plan
calls for $100 million in security upgrades.
As the host nation, that's something about which we should be proud.
We are the guarantors of the U.N.'s physical security. We have the
money in the Tax Equalization Fund that we can use for the security
upgrades. The State Department has already committed to do it. The U.N.
wants us to do it. New York City needs us to do it. The New York City
Police Department is literally on its knees begging us to do it. We
have the money. We don't need further appropriations. All we need to do
is to stop this bizarre and radical effort to derail the whole effort.
And you want to eliminate $100 million in jobs? Why?
Security in New York is something I take very seriously. I think most
Members do. But as this bill shows, some clearly don't. They are all
too happy to rush to the floor every September 11 and boast about the
amazing heroism of our police, our firefighters, our first responders.
One day a year, they think New York City is part of America.
The rhetoric is all patriotism and bombast, full of promises to do
``whatever it takes.'' And then comes the time to start paying for it.
And then, Madam Speaker, some Members have a change of heart. Proudly
remembering 9/11 heroism for some Members was no impediment to telling
workers deathly ill from their time on ``the pile'' to go ahead and
die. Congress didn't have any money for them--at least not until the
story got out.
Those of us from New York haven't forgotten all the so-called
``patriots'' who fought tooth and nail to stop the passage of the James
Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. So now, instead of fighting
to get Congress to do the minimally decent thing, we find ourselves on
the floor of the House fighting to prevent Congress from doing the
maximally stupid thing. I'm not sure this constitutes progress. Taking
money from vital security upgrades is radical, irresponsible, and
reckless. It's stupid.
Vote ``no'' on stupid.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I wish to rebut some of the arguments. To my colleagues, I ask, if
this was so urgent, why didn't the Obama administration request these
funds legitimately last year? Why didn't the last Congress fund it?
Secondly, the CBO needs to have the actual funds reimbursed so that the
savings can be tabulated.
And also, Madam Speaker, I hold out this letter from the Under
Secretary of State for Management, which says that this construction is
primarily the responsibility of the United Nations. They, themselves,
are saying that this is not a U.S. host country responsibility.
And less than 2 hours ago, we received a letter, finally, from the
State Department--even though we've asked for it repeatedly--claiming
for the first time ever that the current TEF surplus is ``now
approximately $80 million.'' It's either the new math or it took the
scheduling of the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives to
get the administration to effectively admit for the first time that it
has already given away $100 million owed back to the U.S. taxpayers.
This is an outrage, Madam Speaker.
Even now, the State Department doesn't have the honesty to admit its
decision but tries to hide behind the U.N. In that letter, they write,
``As the State Department notified the Congress in December 2010, the
United Nations advised the Department of its intent to apply $100
million of previously existing TEF credits to fund critically important
security enhancements at the U.N. Headquarters complex.''
But the U.N. can not and will not do any such thing without express
instructions from the U.S. Don't take my word for it. This is what the
State Department told Congress when we started asking these tough
questions a few months ago. The U.N. ``applies credits consistent with
requests from the relevant member states and will not move forward with
using them in other ways.''
So the administration owes Congress a long overdue explanation of:
One, who instructed the U.N. to keep and spend $100 million that were
payable to the United States?
Two, when did they do it?
Three, on what basis did they make that decision?

{time} 1300

After 3 months of repeatedly asking for the detailed plans and the
costs and the estimates, we have received only, again, a single piece
of cursory figures. This is it.
The U.N. should give U.S. taxpayers back the $179 million that we
overpaid, plain and simple. If the State Department gave most of that
away to the U.N. in some backroom deal, then we will make sure that we
can recoup these funds from the Department.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the chairman of the Homeland Security

[[Page H566]]

Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
legislation. And I say that as one who has voted continually for reform
at the U.N., has been critical of funding procedures involving the U.N.
But I'm here today to save lives. The fact is, contrary to what has
been said, I don't want to get caught in an accounting debate. I don't
want to get caught in a fight between Democrats and Republicans,
between the Obama administration, the State Department, the U.N.,
between chairman and ranking members.
I am here because of the fact that this is not something that started
3 months ago or 4 months ago or 5 months ago. This has been an ongoing
matter between the New York City Police Department and the U.N. and the
State Department.
The results of an attack in this area would be catastrophic. I am not
going to go into details. But anyone who wants to check the series of
correspondence going back long before this became an issue here in
Congress about how vital it was to have this $100 million in
construction changes and hardening made, whether we are talking about
First Avenue or FDR Drive or the perimeter, the fact is, this is a
disaster waiting to happen.
And I would say to Members on both sides, if there is an attack, if
there is a vehicle bomb, if there is an attack in these areas that have
been designated by Commissioner Kelly, and we see hundreds of lives
lost or thousands of lives lost, we're going to come back and say well,
that could have been taken care of, but it was in this account rather
than that account; it was authorized but not appropriated, or it was
spent by the U.N. at the direction of the State Department and Congress
didn't have time to act in time.
The fact is, this is a matter of life and death. This is a serious
matter. I was on the phone late last night at midnight with the
highest-ranking people in the New York City Police Department, and how
vital this is to them.
We can have our debate back and forth. We can go back and forth as to
when it should have been done, who was hiding what. The fact is, I'm
concerned with saving lives, not just for New Yorkers, but all the
tourists that visit there, the impact this would have.
And if people are concerned about saving money, put it in very harsh
economic terms what this would do to our economy if a car bomb went off
in the vicinity specified by Commissioner Kelly and we saw lives being
lost, people being burned to death, we saw buildings coming down
because we felt the money wasn't done exactly the appropriate way as
far as which part of the balance sheet it came off.
So I am urging my colleagues to save lives, to do what has to be done
for security, put partisan politics aside. And it's not just important
to know the cost of something. It's important to know the value of
something and the damage that can be caused if that value is impaired.
So I urge the defeat of this legislation.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
want to congratulate her on being the new chair of the Foreign Affairs
Committee. I know she is going to do an outstanding job.
Madam Speaker, let me just start off by saying the U.N. has been a
scandal-ridden mess for as far back as I can remember. I've been in
Congress 28 years, and we've had scandal after scandal after scandal.
The people over there that have been overpaid, comparing it to the
private sector for accountants, for business, for all kinds of things,
and we raise Cain about it on this floor, but nothing ever changes.
Remember the oil scandal involving Iraq? Remember Saddam Hussein and
the deals that were cut and how the U.N. was involved in that?
Nothing ever changed. We keep throwing the money in the same
direction and the same amounts, year after year after year. We give
them 22 percent of their budget. Now, if you take all the countries in
the world that are involved in the U.N., you'll find that we're sending
a real disproportionate amount of money to them. Our share should not
be 22 percent. Nevertheless, we do it year after year after year.
And now we find out that the U.N. Tax Equalization Fund, the TEF, was
overpaid $179 million. Why in the world should we allow them to keep
our money? We're already paying them more than we should, in my
opinion.
I heard what my colleague said about the security of the place and
all that. We give them more than enough money to take care of the place
and to pay the salaries and to do what needs to be done over there.
That is, if you support everything the U.N. does.
But to allow them to keep almost $180 million of our money when it's
an overpayment makes no sense whatsoever. So what we're saying here
today is, you know, we're just going to hold this money back if they
don't return what they already owe us.
Now, if we had any other creditor that owes us money, or if you had a
creditor in your hometown, you would expect that creditor to pay you
back. You'd expect them to pay what they owe.
But the U.N. is a different thing. Why? It makes no sense to me
whatsoever.
I've been here long enough to know that there has been problem after
problem after problem with the U.N., and we've complained about it. We
have done very little to correct that, but we've complained about it
time and again.
But at the very, very least, at the very least we should expect them
to pay us back the money that they owe us. So I wish my colleagues
would think about this from a logical point of view. Why should we let
them keep money that they owe the United States, especially at a time
when we have a $14 trillion, get that, $14 trillion national debt?
We're going to be $1.5 trillion short this year, and the legacy we're
going to leave to our kids and grandkids is unbelievably bad. And so
this is a drop in the bucket, no question about it. But I think we
should get our $170 million back, and I hope my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will concur.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, this is a fundamental
principle that we developed in the Homeland Security Committee, where
we work with our stakeholders to protect this country. The notion of
taking the resources away from the New York City Police Department, a
major stakeholder in keeping this country safe, does not make sense.
Representative King, the new chairman of the committee, outlined in a
very passionate statement how this would devastate New York City. That
partnership we've created has rendered results. All of the statistics
that we have gleaned on this committee indicate that New York City is
the number one terrorist target in the United States. This $100 million
investment with the New York Police Department is an investment in
security.
What we have here is smoke and mirrors that ultimately will render
the citizens of New York City vulnerable to any potential attack. So I
call upon my colleagues to oppose this unfortunate cut in the name of
getting paid back, and look at it in what ultimate damage it will
cause.
The New York City Police Department is known worldwide for its
security investments and enhancements, but that's because of the
partnership it's had with the Federal Government. We shouldn't punish
the good people of New York for some ostensive reason with the United
Nations.
And let's talk a little bit about the United Nations. We're fortunate
to have them on our shores here in the United States. That's worth a
lot. We bring a lot of people to this country. Thousands of tourists
visit that building every day. And so why all of a sudden do we want to
limit the security of those individuals, among others who visit that
building, just because we're trying to ``get some money back.''

{time} 1310

Well, we are bigger than that. We have to lead by example. The best
example we can do here today is to defeat

[[Page H567]]

this unwarranted, mean-spirited deal that does not provide any security
for the good people of New York or the people who work in and around
the United Nations building.
That building was put here in 1951. It has been here a long time. We
have been that beacon of hope for world order. And now, all of a
sudden, we jeopardize it in a document that clearly we understand will
not really cost any more money. So I ask for a vote in opposition to
H.R. 519.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in whose district these
security perimeter improvements are being made.
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for
leading on so many important issues for the safety of our country and
world peace.
I rise in strong opposition to this legislation which would, I
believe, make New York City more vulnerable to terrorist attacks; and
this includes people that I represent who are visiting or live around
the U.N. compound.
The bill would divert funds that the U.N. has that the State
Department, United Nations, and the New York City Police Department
have planned to use for much-needed security enhancements to the U.N.
compound and surrounding perimeter in Manhattan.
I just spoke earlier today with Police Commissioner Kelly, who says
these funds are absolutely critical to maintain homeland security.
Homeland security should be the number one priority for this country,
and not having these funds would put at risk the lives of people who
work there, people who visit, and people who live in the area.
We know that threats of terrorist attacks are real. New York City has
been attacked twice. And the police commissioner told me today that
there have been 11 attempted attacks since 9/11, which they have
stopped. So it is a real threat. And as a host country, we have a
responsibility to protect the diplomats and those who work in and visit
the United Nations. And we know that the U.N. is a terrorist attack
target across the world, most notably in 2003 the attack in Iraq and in
2007 the attack in Algeria. So this is important. This vote, if you
support the funding and the continued homeland security, will save
lives.
I would like to point out very importantly and place in the Record a
statement from the nonpartisan CBO. They have said that this ``will not
provide any savings to taxpayers.'' So if we are not providing savings
to taxpayers, why are we not willing to speak out and vote for saving
lives and security? I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this legislation.
Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, February 9, 2011.
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 519, the United
Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act of 2011.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sunita
D'Monte, who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 519--United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act of 2011
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 519 would have no
effect on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 519 would not
affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply. The bill would establish a new
policy to direct the United Nations (U.N.) to return $179
million that the United States overpaid to the U.N. as well
as any similar over-payments in future years. Under the bill,
if the Secretary of State is unable to certify that the U.N.
has returned $179 million, the State Department would be
required to withhold the same amount from its assessed
contributions to the U.N. Those contributions are funded
through annual appropriations acts.
Based on information from the Administration, CBO expects
that the State Department would not seek the return of those
funds and that the Secretary would thus be unable to make the
necessary certification. CBO estimates that amounts
appropriated in 2011 for assessed contributions to the U.N.
will be obligated and expended before this bill would be
enacted; therefore, there would be no funds available this
year to withhold pursuant to the bill's requirement. Under
current law, there are no appropriations authorized or
provided for 2012 or future years for assessed contributions
to the U.N.; therefore, CBO also would not attribute savings
to H.R. 519 in future years. Thus, CBO estimates that
implementing the bill would have no effect on the federal
budget. If future appropriations are reduced by $179 million,
CBO estimates that discretionary outlays would be reduced by
a corresponding amount.
H.R. 519 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sunita D'Monte.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Minnesota, a former member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Mr. Ellison.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, H.R. 519 is wrongheaded and should be
defeated. This bill cuts the United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act
as part of a gimmicky House Republican YouCut proposal.
According to the CBO, our nonpartisan official scorekeeper, H.R. 519
has absolutely no effect on the Federal budget. It saves nothing. Not a
penny.
So what would this bill do if enacted? It would put urgently needed
security upgrades to the United Nations headquarters at risk. This bill
would undermine the protection that we are trying to provide to the
people who live in New York. Haven't they suffered enough already?
In fact, the State Department has already committed $100 million from
this fund to help the New York Police Department, which requests the
support to secure the perimeter against terrorist threats. And these
threats are serious, Madam Speaker. U.N. facilities in Iraq and Algeria
have already been attacked. And I must say, Madam Speaker, this is part
of an extreme agenda that is anti-United Nations from the start.
So let me just say in conclusion, often my colleague Mr. King and I
don't agree, but we agree on this one 100 percent. Mr. King said, and I
quite agree with him, that this bill would undermine security in New
York City; it is wrong and indefensible. And I would say that I think
he is absolutely right.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack), a
gentleman you may be familiar with, who is the chairman of our Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee.
(Mr. MACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MACK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of what the chairwoman is
doing on the U.N.
I think it is a disgrace that we continue to fund an organization
like the U.N. when in fact they tend to hinder progress instead of help
it.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Speaker, as a New Yorker and a member
of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in strong opposition to this
misguided, ill-advised legislation which would limit the New York
Police Department's ability to protect American citizens in the
Nation's most at-risk city.
According to the State Department, up to $100 million of the $179
million that the other side is seeking to cut from the U.N. Tax
Equalization Fund has been reprogrammed to help enhance security around
the U.N. complex in New York City.
As the only member of the Committee of Homeland Security from New
York City, I know firsthand the vital role that the NYPD plays in
protecting not only U.N. workers but city residents and millions of
tourists that visit each year. I have a particular concern to ensure
that the NYPD is adequately funded to meet the challenges of defending
the U.N. and New York City.
With the broad array of threats that New York City faces, it is
unfathomable that we would consider hindering the NYPD's ability to
protect one of the most important areas of

[[Page H568]]

the city. The NYPD has protected visiting dignities and the city during
the United Nations General Assembly for decades, and we must support
our public safety officials and invest in the training and equipment to
prevent and respond to emergencies. We should not take away the
resources needed for the NYPD to protect citizens, and prevent and
mitigate terrorist threats.
As we near the 10th anniversary of
9/11, we are reminded that New York City has been the target of
multiple significant terrorist plots. United Nations facilities located
around the globe have been targeted by terrorists. A vote for this
legislation is a vote to expose New York to extreme risk and
recklessness at best.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided and potentially
harmful legislation.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
You need to look more carefully at the YouCut program. You know, the
U.S. can't withdraw from the world, nor can we be the policemen of the
world; but we can protect the people who work at the U.N. in New York.
Is this a YouCut for sovereignty? Will you seek to cut funds for the
WTO which doesn't allow Buy America?
Let's talk real sovereignty. Will you withdraw from China trade? No.
Will you withdraw from NAFTA and GATT? No. Reduce the power of the Fed?
No.
Let's talk real savings. Will you cut funds from the Pentagon? No.
Will you cut money for the war in Iraq? No. Will you cut funds for the
war in Afghanistan? No. Will you cut money for U.S. bases around the
world? No. But you are going to cut funds for the New York City Police
to protect citizens. When you do that, you cut off your nose to spite
your face.

{time} 1320

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as we meet here this afternoon, there are
15 million Americans unemployed, and yet we are passing up yet another
opportunity to work together to try to create jobs in our country. And
what are we doing? We are passing a spending reduction bill that the
Congressional Budget Office says doesn't have any impact on the budget
at all, so we are not saving any money.
We are passing a bill, or some of us are going to pass a bill, that
the New York City Police Commissioner, who is entrusted with defending
people around the U.N., says is dangerous because it impairs his
ability to do that. And at a time when the most dangerous area of the
world is literally in flames and calling out for cooperation between
our country and other countries around the world to try to calm things
down, we are sending a signal to the most important international
institution that our participation is somehow contingent upon domestic
politics.
We should be doing a jobs bill, not putting our imprimatur today on a
bill that is yet another exercise in politics. The right vote for the
country is ``no.''

General Leave

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 519.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade.
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, we do get $179 million back into the
Treasury, which the CBO does not count as a savings, but if we pass
this, we do get the money back. It is obvious that these security
upgrades should be funded through the U.N. capital master plan, that
is, the $2 billion 5-year effort to renovate the U.N. headquarters in
New York. We do know that by raiding the TEF overpayments owed to
American taxpayers, rather than funding the construction properly
through the capital master plan, we do know that the State Department
and the U.N. will stick American taxpayers with 100 percent of the bill
rather than the 22 percent we would owe if it was funded through proper
channels.
That is what this debate is about. It is not about whether U.N.
headquarters in New York should have adequate security. It is about how
the costs of that security should be apportioned and whether the
funding process can bear even minimal scrutiny. U.S. overpayments into
the tax equalization fund are owed to the United States and the State
Department should instruct the U.N. to return that money.
Now, when the U.N. is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars--in
this case the U.N. actually told us about it. That is good to know. But
one thing has kept it from being returned to the Treasury, and that is
the U.S. hasn't asked for its money back. When we Americans are
overassessed or overpay the IRS, we get a refund. Well, when the Obama
administration overpays the United Nations, they say, keep the check.
We had a Foreign Affairs meeting the other week. We were told the
U.N. can't really give us an honest accounting of their annual budget.
The budget is somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion annually.
Hundreds of millions is literally considered a rounding error there.
But this is no rounding error to U.S. taxpayers. It is $179 million.
We carry 22 percent of that budget over there. China carries less
than 3 percent. They should at least be asked to carry their 3 percent
of the costs going forward.
So let's take this step. Let's ask for the money back that they have
told us at the U.N. that we have overpaid, and let's put it into
Treasury at a time when we are running a $1.5 trillion budget deficit.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to
my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rivera).
Mr. RIVERA. I thank the chairman.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of making it policy that the
U.N. return the $179 million. The U.S. is the United Nation's largest
financial supporter. We pay most of the costs of U.N. peacekeeping
operations, we pay for most of its security costs, and now the Obama
administration refuses to let the United Nations pay us back.
Just one example: in 2005, then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
acknowledged the core failings of the U.N. Human Rights Council by
stating that the countries who sought membership on the Human Rights
Council did so not to strengthen human rights, but to protect
themselves against criticism. This is still the case today as some of
the world's worst terrorist regimes and enemies of freedom and
individual liberty, including Cuba and China, hold powerful seats on
the Human Rights Commission.
The U.N. needs to reform. It is time to end their dependency on the
U.S. They should be an organization for peace, human rights, and
freedom across the world.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, let's go through some of the issues and sort of
disaggregate all of this.
We have a bill that seeks to withhold funds unless the Secretary of
State certifies she has gotten back $179 million from the fund. The
fund doesn't have $179 million, because $100 million has been
designated to this perimeter security on FDR Drive at the request of
the New York Police Department. Why did they do it that way? Because to
do it now in the context of the overall U.N. reconstruction will save
at least $100 million over doing it when we finish appropriating.
Well, why didn't we do an appropriation? Well, if anyone has noticed,
the Congress didn't exactly do appropriations this fiscal year. So we
are left in a situation where the administration

[[Page H569]]

makes a decision to designate $100 million from the fund to do
something that if they don't do it now will cost twice as much to do it
later through the appropriations process and to take the rest of that
fund and offset it against our fiscal year 2012 dues.
But the strangest part of this bill, in addition to all the arguments
that have been made, it seeks to withhold the payment of dues that the
CBO says will have already been paid and there will be nothing to
withhold. Fiscal year 2011 dues will be paid before this bill is ever
law. You can ask the Secretary and require the Secretary to withhold a
certain amount of dues, but once you have paid it all, there is nothing
to withhold.
It is really a poorly crafted bill, not contemporaneous with the
situation that exists now that seeks to jeopardize an important
security project and start us going down the road towards simply trying
to not pay; but it won't even work to not pay the dues that we owe
through our assessed contributions.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is
recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Only in Washington can we have the
debate over how desperately New York and the U.N. needs $100 million,
while simultaneously arguing that not giving that money to the U.N.
would not result in any savings for the U.S. taxpayer. If money is
vital in one account, how can it be worthless in another?
The truth is that CBO is restrained in its analysis; and because of
those rules it is forced to observe, it reached the conclusion that
having the U.N. repay the U.S. $179 million would have no impact on our
balance book. How can getting $179 million from the U.N. not be counted
as savings? Does any person who has ever balanced a checkbook believe
this to be true? Of course not.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the legislation introduced by House
Republicans to return $179 million from the United Nations Tax
Equalization Fund, TEF, is both factually inaccurate and diverts
Congress' attention from far more pressing national security
considerations facing the 112th Congress, such as Afghanistan.
The bill incorrectly states that there is $179 million in the TEF to
date, when in fact there is $79 million. The legislation fails to take
into account the $100 million that United States has already committed
to support critical security upgrades at the U.N. Headquarters, as
requested by the City of New York. Forcefully transferring $179 million
to Treasury--as this bill dictates--would make it impossible for the
U.S. to follow through on our commitment to fund necessary security
enhancements that we as the host nation are responsible for, not to
mention place U.N. personnel at risk.
At a time when U.S. taxpayers are spending a staggering $100 billion
per year in Afghanistan, it seems odd that the Republicans would choose
this as a top priority.
I do not support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
I also urge my Republican colleagues to follow through on their number
1 campaign promise and focus on creating jobs and growing our economy--
something they have yet to do in any meaningful way since assuming
control of the House.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I will vote against H.R. 519.
This bill would direct the United Nations to return $180 million of
previously allocated credits to the United States.
U.S. citizens who work at the U.N. pay taxes on their salaries--
unlike other nations. To offset this difference in pay and put American
employees on an equal level with their foreign counterparts, we pay
money into the United Nations Tax Equalization Fund. Over the years,
the U.S. has overpaid by $180 million in credits. Since the TEF funds
are in the form of credits, not cash, they cannot simply be refunded as
H.R. 519 proposes.
As a result, the State Department--in consultation with both
Democratic and Republican members of Congress--has offset future
appropriations by shifting the funds towards areas of spending that
ought to be a high priority for everyone: American security and peace
keeping operations abroad. $100 million will be directed towards
enhanced security at the U.N. Headquarters in New York to better
protect the men and women who work there. The remaining $80 million
will reduce future spending on U.S. peacekeeping dues, a policy
supported by the current and previous administrations.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states that this
bill will not save taxpayers one dime. The money has long been
allocated for other purposes and should not be taken away. In this
protracted recession, Congress should spend its time on legislation
creating jobs and strengthening our economy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 519.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________