[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1789-1790]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           U.N. GLOBAL TAXES

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last session of the Congress, I introduced 
a bill, along with 30 other Senators, to prevent the imposition of 
global taxes on the United States. The bill would withhold 20 percent 
of our contributions to the United Nations' budget should the 
organization continue in advancing its global tax goals.
  There are a lot of things they do. I know this body is divided in 
support of the United Nations. I, frankly, don't see a lot of good that 
they do. In fact, many of the things I find offensive all get started 
in the United Nations. But the fact is, there is an effort to get out 
from under any type of supervision from any of the member states of the 
United Nations.
  The current efforts of the United Nations--and we are talking about 
organizations which are trying to replace the dues system so that we 
can no longer threaten to withhold 20 percent of our dues and come up 
with some type of a global tax independent funding system so they don't 
have to answer to anyone. The current efforts of the United Nations and 
other international organizations to develop, advocate, endorse, 
promote, and publicize proposals to raise revenue by instituting 
international taxes are unacceptable.
  Last year, United Nations Ambassador John Bolton summarized the U.S. 
position in stating that although the U.S. fully supports increased 
development assistance, ``the U.S. does not accept global aid targets 
or global taxes.''
  My bill is the latest development in a decade-long struggle against 
the desire of the United Nations to implement a global tax regime.
  First, to articulate openly the U.N.'s movement toward global taxes 
was none other than Boutros-Boutros Ghali, and that was in 1996 in a 
speech he made at Oxford University in which he hopefully embraced the 
consent of global taxes and authoritarian world government. The then-
Secretary General expressed the U.N.'s desire not to ``be under the 
daily financial will of member states.'' Now, what he is talking about 
is the United States.
  This statement warranted and resulted in congressional action, and I 
cosponsored Senator Dole's bill at that time--this is 1996--to prevent 
U.N. global taxes, which passed both Houses of Congress and became law.
  Our efforts were met with continued resistance and arrogance on the 
part of the United Nations. In that same year, the concept of global 
taxes was fully debated. That was after we passed our legislation.
  A little later, the U.N. Development Programme Research Project 
resulted in a push for the Tobin Tax, which is a tax on international 
monetary transactions to go directly to the United Nations. This tax 
would net trillions of dollars annually.
  The 2001 Zedillo report concluded that ``there is a genuine need to 
establish, by international consensus, stable and contractual new 
sources of multilateral finance''--world taxes.
  Over the next few years, the U.N. pushed for a tax on international 
arms sales and military expenditures, taxes on international airline 
tickets, taxes on international trade through an ocean freight tax, a 
global environmental levy, and all other types of global taxes.
  The list goes on and on, but here are just the most recent examples 
of this movement: A 2004 United Nations University study on global 
taxation; the U.N.'s 2005 book called ``New Sources of Development 
Finance'' edited by A.B. Atkinson; a September 2005, United Nations 
``Millennium Development Goals'' meeting addresses international 
airline ticket tax; Peter Wahl of the German organization, WEED, says 
international currency transactions taxes are ``ready,''; and 
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which is an 
affiliation of the AFL-CIO, supports international taxes. The Clinton, 
Ford, and Gates Foundations participated in U.N. conferences pushing 
global taxes. George Soros's Open Society Institute and Oxfam America 
met at the ``New Rules for Global Finance Coalition.''
  The U.N. is fascinated with these global tax schemes. It would be an 
unprecedented accumulation of power for the United Nations. We cannot 
concede any ground on this issue. Conceding on even one of these 
initiatives will only embolden the United Nations to go for more.
  The same rules that apply to bureaucracies in the United States--
gradual accumulation of more and more power and resources and coercive 
ability--apply to the United Nations in an even more dramatic manner. 
The IRS is a model of confidence, moderation, and responsibility when 
compared to the United Nations.
  Unfortunately, the United Nations enjoys support from another 
international bureaucracy which has endorsed global tax efforts. It is 
the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 
In addition to its support of U.N. global tax schemes, the OECD, which 
receives 25 percent of its budget from the United States, has used U.S. 
taxpayer money in turn to encourage and support higher taxes on U.S. 
taxpayers.

[[Page 1790]]

  Now, keep in mind, this is something we are supporting, to encourage 
increasing U.S. taxes. For these reasons, I had the following language 
included in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill:

       None of the funds made available in this act may be used to 
     fund activities or projects undertaken by the Organization 
     for Economic Cooperation and Development that are designed to 
     hinder the flow of capital and jobs from high-tax 
     jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions, or to infringe on the 
     sovereign right of jurisdictions to determine their own 
     domestic policies.

  Of course, we know what has happened to the appropriations bills 
currently. It is very simple and straightforward. If you want to 
advocate for higher taxes and global taxes on U.S. taxpayers, U.S. 
taxpayers would not be forced to foot the bill.
  Let's quickly look at some of the reasons for this language and the 
case against the OECD. The OECD has endorsed and encouraged higher 
taxes, new taxes, and global taxes no fewer than 24 times in reports 
with titles such as ``Toward Global Tax Cooperation'' in which the OECD 
identifies 35 nations guilty of harmful tax competition. I am quoting 
there: ``Guilty of harmful tax competition.''
  In other words, they want us to have taxes as high as any of the 
other countries have.
  They have advocated that the U.S. adopt a costly and bureaucratic 
value added tax, a 40-cent increase in the gas tax, a carbon tax, a 
fertilizer tax, ending the deductibility of state and local taxes from 
federal taxes, new taxes at the state level, and a host of other new 
and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens.
  It's not only the recommending of higher taxes which concerns us; the 
ultimate concern is the movement towards undermining U.S. sovereignty. 
Ecogroups such as the Friends of the Earth want the OECD to declare 
that dam building for flood control and electronic power is 
unacceptable as sustainable energy. In May 2005, the OECD ministers 
endorsed a proposal at the UN to create a system of global taxes.
  The OECD has stated explicitly that low-tax policies unfairly erode 
the tax bases of other countries and distort the location of capital 
and services.
  What we have here are Paris-based bureaucrats seeking to protect high 
tax welfare states from the free market.
  That's why the OECD goes on to say that free-market tax competition 
may hamper the application of progressive tax rates and the achievement 
of redistributive goals. Clearly, free market tax competition makes it 
harder to implement socialistic welfare states. The free market 
evidently hasn't been fair to socialistic welfare states. Well, it is a 
good thing that they have the OECD and nearly $100 million in U.S. 
taxpayer money to protect them.
  Noted economist Walter Williams clearly sees the direction in which 
this is headed when he says that the bottom line agenda for the OECD is 
to establish a tax cartel where nations get together and collude on 
taxes.
  Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill seconded that when he said that he 
was troubled by the underlying premise that low tax rates are somehow 
suspect and by the notion that any country . . . should interfere in 
any other country's tax policy.
  And John Bolton argued that the OECD represents a kind of worldwide 
centralization of governments and interest groups. Who do you think 
bears the costs for all this? Mr. Bolton answers and you probably 
guessed it--the United States.
  America's proud history of independence was driven in no small part 
by the desire for sovereignty over taxation powers. In this context, it 
makes no sense to relegate our sovereignty over tax policy, in any way, 
to international bureaucrats.
  It's very simple. U.S. taxpayers are being forced to fund a bunch of 
international bureaucrats who write, speak, organize, and advocate in 
support of higher taxes, global taxes, and the gradual erosion of 
American sovereignty over its domestic fiscal policies.
  If individual Americans want to give their money to an organization 
which is dedicated to raising taxes, they can. It is called the 
Democratic Party. But most Americans would be outraged to learn that 
they are forced to subsidize these types of activities with their tax 
dollars.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________