Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 108, line 21, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this case to the attention of the body. I agree with the gentleman that whistle-blowers play a vital role in identifying and eradicating waste, fraud and abuse in government. Also, I agree that such individuals should be protected from reprisals and that we have a responsibility to support them in that respect. I want to assure the gentleman that we will take a close look at this particular case, and if it is determined that this person has suffered reprisals as a result of making the Congress aware of waste, fraud and abuse at the U.N., we will take appropriate action in conference.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Except for the two minor conditions in the bill that we had?

Mr. ROGERS. Is it also the gentleman's understanding that this amendment would undo all of that agreement?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman understand that the Helms-Biden agreement includes 18 conditions for the payment of the arrearages to the U.N. were agreed to by President Clinton?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The gentleman mentioned the WHO debt, the WHO. The WHO arrearage that the gentleman mentioned arose in 1989. It an old bill, and it is a fairly small amount, $35 million. We pay our annual contribution to the WHO annually. No one disputes that. We are up to date on our annual payments. There is an old arrearage in 1989, $35 million; that is still in dispute. This arrearage, it is small, it is an old bill, it does not impact current operations. I want to be sure that people understand that the WHO is up to date on our payments, with our annual payments. Let me try very briefly to try to put in perspective a very complicated matter. For the last 3 years mainly the Senate has been putting conditions on the payment of the arrearages, the so-called Helms-Biden bipartisan compromise on U.N. reform. There are 18 of those reforms signed off by the President. We are all in agreement on this. The President, Helms and Biden in the Senate, and we have deferred to that agreement. Those conditions for reform, I think most all of us can agree are legitimate and correct, recognizing American sovereignty, one; no taxation by the U.N.; no standing Army by the U.N.; no interest fees by the U.N.; recognition of U.S. real property rights; termination of borrowing authority; the assessed share for U.S. peacekeeping contributions not to exceed 25 percent; limitations on assessed share of regular budget; limitations on the other parts of the budget; inspectors general for certain international organizations; new budget procedures for the U.N.; a sunset policy for certain U.N. programs; U.N. Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary questions; access by the General Accounting Office; personnel rules; reduction in budget authorities to a flat budget; new budget procedures and financial regulations; limitations on the assessed share of the regular budget for the designated specialized agencies of the U.N. and so forth. There are 18 of those conditions; I think we all agree on them. That is really what we are talking about. The President has agreed, the Senate has agreed, the House has agreed. We are all in agreement on these 18 conditions for reform, and unless and until they are agreed to, the arrearages have been withheld. It is a fairly complicated thing, but it is simple in that respect. Mr. Chairman, I want us to be sure that we understand where we are. No one wants us to lose our voting rights in the U.N. I do not think we are at that point. We never will be at that point in the Security Council, I will point out to my colleagues, and that is the important place. But I think we all have to understand that in order to achieve these very creditable reforms that the administration and the Congress have agreed upon that we should make our moneys subject to, should be withheld until we see these substantial reforms. Now the amendment that is pending, if it passes, would say, no, let us forget all of the conditions that we have required before paying these moneys, and let us go ahead and pay the moneys and forget about reform. We have too many years invested, we have too much money invested. More importantly, we have too much of an international stake involved here to let the U.N. continue to be the bureaucratically entrenched organization that it is. We want, I want, a more effective U.N. We need a U.N. We need an effective U.N. It is not effective now, and I think we all can agree upon that. The only way that we have seen work has been to force change by the withholding of funds, Mr. Chairman, and that is what this debate has been about for these several years.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to note at this early stage of this discussion, there are actually two different types of conditions, if you will, that we are talking about the appropriation being subject to: One is the population control matter that is in the authorization process. The other is other types of reform of the operation of the U.N. that are unrelated to that population control matter. There is a whole series of those conditions for reform, such as reduction of the U.S. rate of assessment to 22 percent, such as guaranteeing a frozen budget in the out years, and various other procedural conditions that are in the authorization process. I want us to be sure we understand there are two different types of conditions that are being attached to the appropriation. One is the population control matter. The other are procedural reforms at the U.N. that I think most all of us would agree with.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, these reforms are essential and we should all insist upon them as our responsibility to the U.S. taxpayer, and the Congress has gone along with our recommendations for the last several years. The gentleman's amendment would give an unauthorized $244 million to the U.N., and send the signal to the U.N. and the rest of the world that we are no longer committed to reform. That is exactly the wrong message that we should be sending. I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I agree with the gentleman that this country should pay the amounts that we owe to the U.N. and other international organizations, but we cannot do so at the cost of abandoning the progress made on reforms at U.N. From the beginning, our approach has been to provide the arrearages only upon the achievement of real and substantial reforms. Over the past 2 years, we have made available a total of $575 million for arrears. That funding remains available, pending authorization. It has been this subcommittee's position for many years now, under bipartisan leadership, that the United Nations needs to reform. We are after a more effective United Nations. We think that only by reforming the bureaucracy, streamlining the processes at the U.N., only then can we achieve an effective United Nations. That has been the policy goal of this subcommittee and of this Congress, both bodies. That drive for U.N. reform continues even today. Thus, we have conditioned the payment of the arrearages upon effective, real reform at the U.N. I must say it is working. There are achievements that we can point to at the United Nations that we can be proud of in reforming the process, in streamlining the way they do business, in cutting unnecessary and wasteful costs. The bill provides the final installment of $351 million to arrive at a total of $926 million in arrearages, the full amount that has been agreed to by the administration in the pending authorization. The reforms that have taken place thus far at the U.N., as I say, have been due in large part to the fact that this subcommittee, the Committee on International Relations of the House, and of the Congress, because we have insisted on these reforms just as we continue to do in this bill. Reform has been a priority of this Member since I have been chairman of this subcommittee and, like it or not, the only leverage that we have to ensure that these reforms take place is by making them a condition of arrearage payments. We have deferred to the authorization committee as is the rules of the House. And we defer to the authorization committee in this bill with this very language, making the payment subject to authorization. I think that is the appropriate way to handle this matter, just as it is the appropriate way to handle all matters. The Committee on Appropriations, of course, defers to the authorizing committees of the House except where they are in consent for some change that they would like in the appropriations bill. The pending authorization bill passed by the Senate reflects that. It sets out an extensive series of necessary reforms, including reducing the U.S. share of assessments and maintaining a zero nominal growth budget, that is, a freeze. The rates of assessments that are being paid to the U.N. are based on 1945 standards. I submit to the Chair that the condition of the nations that make up the U.N. have changed dramatically in that period of 50-plus years. There are new world economic powers that did not exist at that time, i.e., Japan, Germany, and, yes, even China, to name a few. Yet the assessment level has not changed in all that time. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we achieved a change, a reduction, in the rate of payment that the U.S. has to pay to support the U.N. It is a modest change, from 25 percent down to 22. I would like to see 20. But, nevertheless, it is a substantial change.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment pending to this title in the bill. The offeror is on his way to the floor as we speak, and I did not want to let this title pass without the gentleman being able to offer his amendment. I am wondering if we can secure unanimous consent that when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) arrives on the floor he would be able to offer his amendment out of turn.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has worked with us and the Committee on Resources in proposing this amendment. I also continue to hear from alumni and families of current students at the academy about the dire state of the facilities there. I believe this amendment will help to address that problem, particularly to improve the living conditions of the midshipmen. I have no objection to the amendment and support its adoption and commend the gentleman for his fine work.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am told momentarily.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It is the intent of the committee that the Maritime Administration will continue to pay certain administrative costs related to the academy in the same fashion as in 1999.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is preparing to offer an amendment to this title. We moved rather swiftly on the preceding matters, and he is on his way to the floor as we speak. I am hoping that we could be able to proceed and do his amendment, even out of turn, when he arrives.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has brought to the Committee's attention a very important matter. We have examined the amendment and agree with the gentleman and thank him for bringing this matter to our attention and support the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.