[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.

                          ____________________