United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act of 2011

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.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

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?

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.

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.)

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rivera).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security

Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

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).

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

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.