United Nations System Funding:
Congressional Issues
Marjorie Ann Browne
Specialist in International Relations
Kennon H. Nakamura
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
December 4, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33611
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Summary
The congressional debate over United Nations funding focuses on several questions, including (1)
What is the appropriate level of U.S. funding for U.N. system operations and programs? (2) What
U.S. funding actions are most likely to produce a positive continuation of U.N. system reform
efforts?
The U.N. system includes the United Nations, a number of specialized or affiliated agencies,
voluntary and special funds and programs, and U.N. peacekeeping operations. Participating states
finance the system with assessed contributions to the budgets of the United Nations and its
specialized agencies. In addition, voluntary contributions are made both to those agencies and to
the special programs and funds they set up and manage. For more than 60 years, the United States
has been the single largest financial contributor to the U.N. system, supplying in recent years 22%
of most U.N. agency budgets. (See Appendix C for an organizational chart that illustrates the
components of the U.N. system.)
Both Congress and the executive branch have sought to promote their policy goals and reform of
the United Nations and its system of organizations and programs, especially to improve
management and budgeting practices. In the 1990s, Congress linked payment of U.S. financial
contributions and its arrears to reform.
This report, which will be updated, tracks the process by which Congress provides the funding for
U.S. assessed contributions to the regular budgets of the United Nations, its agencies, and U.N.
peacekeeping operation accounts, as well for U.S. voluntary contributions to U.N. system
programs and funds. It includes information on the President’s request and the congressional
response, as well as congressional initiatives during this legislative process. Basic information is
provided to help the reader understand this process.
This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB86116, United Nations System Funding: Congressional
Issues, by Marjorie Ann Browne and Vita Bite.
Congressional Research Service
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Current Funding Information....................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
U.N. System Financing: Brief Overview ............................................................................... 2
Assessed Contributions ................................................................................................... 2
Voluntary Contributions .................................................................................................. 3
Current U.S. Funding .................................................................................................................. 3
FY2010 Funding ................................................................................................................... 3
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
Assessed Contributions ................................................................................................... 4
Voluntary Contributions .................................................................................................. 5
Peacekeeping Accounts ................................................................................................... 5
FY2009 Funding ................................................................................................................... 7
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 7
Assessed Contributions ................................................................................................... 7
Voluntary Contributions .................................................................................................. 9
Peacekeeping Accounts ................................................................................................... 9
Combined Discussion—Continuing Appropriations....................................................... 10
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (and FY2009 Bridge Funding) ......................... 11
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 ........................................................................ 12
FY2008 Funding ................................................................................................................. 12
Status............................................................................................................................ 12
Assessed Contributions ................................................................................................. 12
Voluntary Contributions ................................................................................................ 13
Peacekeeping Accounts ................................................................................................. 15
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental ................................................................................ 15
FY2007 Funding ................................................................................................................. 16
Assessed Contributions ................................................................................................. 16
Voluntary Contributions ................................................................................................ 16
Peacekeeping Accounts ................................................................................................. 16
FY2006 Funding ................................................................................................................. 17
Assessed Contributions ................................................................................................. 17
Voluntary Contributions ................................................................................................ 18
U.N. Peacekeeping Accounts......................................................................................... 19
Tables on U.S. Contributions: FY2004-FY2009 and FY2010 Request ....................................... 19
Other Basic Information............................................................................................................ 22
Scale of Assessments .......................................................................................................... 22
Arrearages .......................................................................................................................... 26
Funding the U.N. War Crimes Tribunals .............................................................................. 26
The United Nations Capital Master Plan.............................................................................. 27
Initial Solution .............................................................................................................. 28
Final Approved Solutions .............................................................................................. 28
Design, Planning, and Pre-construction Funding............................................................ 29
U.S. Contributions to the CMP and Congress ................................................................ 30
Problems and Issues ...................................................................................................... 32
Congressional Research Service
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Congress and Funding the U.N. System..................................................................................... 32
U.S. Withholding ................................................................................................................ 32
Contributions Reporting Requirement ................................................................................. 33
United Nations Reform ....................................................................................................... 35
Kassebaum-Solomon Provisions ................................................................................... 35
Office of Internal Oversight Services............................................................................. 36
The Helms-Biden Agreement and Payment of Arrears ................................................... 36
Task Force on the United Nations.................................................................................. 37
Congress and U.N. Reform: 2005-2006......................................................................... 37
Reform Initiatives in the United Nations........................................................................ 38
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Contributions to Recent U.N. System Assessed Regular Budgets .......................... 19
Table 2. U.S. Voluntary Contributions to U.N. Programs Financed Through the Foreign
Assistance Act (International Organizations and Programs) .................................................... 20
Table 3. Top 10 U.N. Regular Budget Contributors for 2009...................................................... 24
Table 4. U.S. Assessment Levels: U.N. Specialized Agencies and IAEA.................................... 25
Table 5. U.N. Appropriations for Headquarters Renovation, 2000-2006..................................... 30
Table 6. U.S. Contributions to the Capital Master Plan Account................................................. 31
Appendixes
Appendix A. Chronology of Major Actions in Calendar Years 2008 and 2009 Relating to
U.S. Funding for the U.N. System .......................................................................................... 41
Appendix B. Congress and Funding the U.N. System: FY2004-FY2005.................................... 43
Appendix C. The United Nations System: An Organizational Chart........................................... 47
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Most Recent Developments
On May 7, 2009, President Barack Obama requested $1,529,400,000 for the Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO) account, Department of State, including $452,560,000 for the
United Nations regular budget and $1,497,000,000 for the Contributions to International
Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, Department of State. The request also included
$356,550,000 for the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account, Foreign
Operations, which includes voluntary contributions to several U.N. system programs. He
requested, through the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
(NADR) account, $65 million for U.S. voluntary contributions to the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).
On June 26, 2009, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3081, the Department
of State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending
$1,697,000,000 for the CIO account; $395,091,000 for the IO&P account; $65,000,000 for IAEA
in the NADR account; and $2,125,000,000 for the CIPA account. The House passed H.R. 3081 on
July 9, 2009. On that same day, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1434, the
Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending
$1,697,000,000 for the CIO account; $393,000,000 for the IO&P account; $65,000,000 for IAEA
in the NADR account; and $2,125,000,000 for the CIPA account.
On October 1, 2009, the President signed into law a continuing resolution within the Legislative
Branch FY2010 appropriations bill (H.R. 2918/P.L. 111-68) that provided funding through
October 31, 2009, for those agencies for which an appropriations bill had not been enacted. On
October 30, 2009, a second continuing resolution, in the Interior FY2010 appropriations bill
(H.R. 2996/P.L. 111-88), was signed, continuing funding for the State Department and Foreign
Operations agencies and programs, among others, through December 18, 2009.
Current Funding Information
Introduction
The United States has been, and remains, the single largest financial contributor to the United
Nations (U.N.) system. For calendar year (CY) 2007, U.S. contributions to the U.N. system
totaled just over $4.8 billion.1 This included more than $895,982,000 in assessed contributions to
the regular budgets of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and $96,414,194 in
assessed contributions to the two war crimes tribunals.2 In CY2007, the United States contributed
$1,266,129,767 in assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Finally, U.S.
voluntary contributions to U.N. system special programs and funds totaled $2,560,429,000. In
recent years, however, Congress has been pressing to reduce U.S. funding for many U.N. system
programs. Congressional debate over U.N. funding has focused on several questions: (1) What is
1 The CY2007 figures in this paragraph are from two U.N. documents: Budgetary and Financial Situation of
Organizations of the United Nations System. Note by the Secretary-General. U.N. document A/63/185, dated July 30,
2008, and Status of Contributions as at 31 December 2007. U.N. document ST/ADM/SER.B/727.
2 U.S. assessed payments to the Universal Postal Union (UPU) are not included in this figure. The document source did
not include the UPU.
Congressional Research Service
1
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
the appropriate level of U.S. funding for U.N. system operations and programs? (2) What U.S.
funding actions are most likely to produce a positive continuation of U.N. system reform efforts?
and (3) How should the United States address its accumulated arrearages?
This report tracks the process by which Congress provides the funding for U.S. assessed
contributions to the regular budgets of the United Nations, its agencies, and U.N. peacekeeping
operation accounts as well for U.S. voluntary contributions to U.N. system programs and funds. It
includes information on the President’s request and the congressional response as well as
congressional initiatives during this legislative process. Basic information is provided to help the
reader understand this process.
U.N. System Financing: Brief Overview
The United Nations (U.N.) system is made up of variously interconnected components including
specialized agencies, voluntary funds and programs, peacekeeping operations, and the U.N.
organization itself.3 The system is financed by contributions from member and/or participant
states. The contributions are usually made in two ways: assessed contributions—required “dues”
at percentages established by the membership of each organization involved—and voluntary
contributions, which represent more than half of the total aggregated funds received by the U.N.
system.
Assessed Contributions
Assessed contributions finance the regular budgets of the United Nations, the specialized
agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Payment of the assessed
contribution is one of the legal obligations accepted by a country when it joins the organization.
In this way, the organization has a regular source of income for staffing and implementation of
authorized programs. Most U.N. peacekeeping operations are funded through special assessed
accounts.
U.S. assessed contributions are funded from the State Department’s budget. Congress authorizes
these funds as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act and currently appropriates the
money in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations
legislation.4 The regular assessed budgets of U.N. system organizations as well as regional and
other non-U.N. intergovernmental organizations are included in the Contributions to International
Organizations (CIO) account, while assessed peacekeeping contributions are funded in the
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account.
3 See Appendix C for organizational chart of The United Nations System, taken from the U.N. website:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html.
4 In the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee recommended appropriation of these funds in the
Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act while the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended appropriation of these funds in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act. Starting with the 110th Congress, both the House and Senate Appropriations committees
have a Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies.
Congressional Research Service
2
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Voluntary Contributions
Voluntary contributions finance special programs and offices created by the U.N. system, such as
the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the U.N. Democracy Fund
(UNDEF). Payment of these contributions is entirely up to each individual country; no country is
legally obliged to contribute to these programs.
U.S. voluntary contributions are financed through the foreign assistance authorization and
appropriation legislation, primarily through the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
account of what was formerly the Foreign Operations Act.5 This IO&P account does not fund
U.S. voluntary contributions to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the U.N.
Relief and Works Agency for Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the U.N. Narcotics Control
Fund, or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Current U.S. Funding
FY2010 Funding
Summary
On May 7, 2009, President Barack Obama transmitted to Congress the FY2010 budget. This
included $1,797,000,000 to finance U.S. assessed contributions in the Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO) account and $2,260,000,000 to finance U.S. assessed
contributions in the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. It also
included $356,550,000 to fund U.S. voluntary contributions in the International Organizations
and Programs (IO&P) account and $65,000,000 in the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism,
Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account to finance U.S. voluntary contributions to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
On June 26, 2009, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3081, the Department
of State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending
$1,697,000,000 for the CIO account; $395,091,000 for the IO&P account; $65,000,000 for IAEA
in the NADR account; and $2,125,000,000 for the CIPA account.6 The House passed H.R. 3081
on July 9, 2009. On that same day, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1434, the
Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending
$1,697,000,000 for the CIO account; $393,000,000 for the IO&P account; $65,000,000 for IAEA
in the NADR account; and $2,125,000,000 for the CIPA account.7
5 The House has, in the past, recommended funding through a separate Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. See
CRS Report RL33420, Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (Senate):
FY2007 Appropriations, by Susan B. Epstein. Starting with FY2008, Foreign Operations appropriations is not a
separate piece of legislation but included with State Department appropriations. See previous footnote.
6 H.Rept. 111-187.
7 S.Rept. 111-44.
Congressional Research Service
3
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
On October 1, 2009, the President signed into law a continuing resolution within the Legislative
Branch FY2010 appropriations bill (H.R. 2918/P.L. 111-68) that provided funding through
October 31, 2009, for those agencies for which an appropriations bill had not be enacted. On
October 30, 2009, a second resolution, in the Interior FY2010 appropriations bill (H.R. 2996/P.L.
111-88) was signed, continuing funding for the State Department and Foreign Operations
agencies and programs, among others, through December 18, 2009. (See Appendix A for a
chronology of major actions in 2008 and 2009 relating to U.S. fund for the U.N. system.)8
Assessed Contributions
On May 7, 2009, President Obama requested $1,797,000,000 for payment of U.S. assessed
contributions (CIO account) to the 45 international (including regional) intergovernmental
organizations to which the United States belongs. The CIO account request included the
following amounts for the United Nations:
• United Nations regular budget: $597,542,000
• U.N. Capital Master Plan (CMP): $75,535,000
• U.N. War Crimes Tribunal—Yugoslavia: $22,255,000
• U.N. War Crimes Tribunal—Rwanda: $18,624,000
The aggregated total for this category is $713,956,000. The amount requested for U.S. assessed
contributions to the regular budgets of 11 other separate U.N. system specialized agencies was
$519,998,000. The CIO account included, under Other International Organizations, proposed U.S.
contributions to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and the International Tribunal on the
Law of the Sea (ITLOS), two bodies created by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea that
the United States is not a party to.9
On June 26, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 3081, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending $1,697,000,000
for the CIO account, which is $100,000,000 less than the President’s request. The committee
provided $75,049,000 for synchronization of deferred payments and requested that the State
Department provide a report not later than 45 days after enactment on the status of deferred
payments for each organization funded in the CIO account. The committee “encouraged” the
Department to allocate funding provided for synchronization to “organizations whose missions
are critical to protecting United States national security interests, including NATO, the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the IAEA, and PAHO [Pan American
Health Organization].”10
The committee “continues to insist on reform and budget discipline as a priority for all of the
international organizations for which the United States is a participant,” and “directs the
Department to refrain from entering into new commitments without a commensurate increase in
8 Appendix A provides a simple timeline of the actions taken that affected funding in the State Department, Foreign
Operations and Related Appropriations Act for FY2008 Supplemental, FY2009, and FY2010. Detailed information on
these action sis found under the appropriate fiscal year discussion.
9 ISA: $1,377,000 and ITLOS: $2,706,000. The Convention is pending before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations in Treaty Document 103-39.
10 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 23.
Congressional Research Service
4
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
resources.” On United Nations reform, the committee “continues to encourage the Department of
State and the United States Mission to the UN to keep all aspects of UN reform high on the
agenda.... The Committee strongly encourages continued support for an independent OIOS
[Office of Internal Oversight Services] to improve internal controls, efficiency and effectiveness
of the UN.”11 The committee also expressed its concern “that the representation of Americans in
UN posts, in relation to geographic distribution, has remained relatively flat since 2001.”12 The
House passed H.R. 3081 on July 9, 2009.
On July 9, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1434, the Department of State,
Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending $1,697,000,000 for the
CIO account, $100,000,000 below the President’s request. The committee noted that while it did
not provide full funding, it supported the goal of synchronization, “particularly for organizations
that are important to U.S. security interests, such as NATO, the IAEA, and the OPCW.”13
Voluntary Contributions
For FY2010, the President requested $356,550,000 for the International Organizations and
Programs Account (IO&P), to fund U.S. voluntary contributions to U.N. system programs and
those of other organizations. This request included $128,000,000 for UNICEF and $75,300,000
for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP). He also requested, through the Nonproliferation,
Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account of the Department of State,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriations, $65 million for U.S. voluntary
contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
On June 26, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee, in reporting H.R. 3081, recommended
$395,091,000 for the IO&P account, an increase of $38,541,000 over the FY2010 request of
$356,550,000. The increase included $132,000,000 for UNICEF and $100,000,000 for UNDP,
$24,700,000 over the President’s request for UNDP. The committee recommended IAEA
voluntary contributions in the NADR account at the requested level. On July 9, 2009, the House
passed H.R. 3081.
On July 9, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1434, the Department of State,
Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending $393,000,000 for the
IO&P account. This was $36,450,000 over the President’s request. The committee included
$132,500,000 for U.S. contributions to UNICEF and $101,000,000 for U.S. contributions to
UNDP. The committee recommended $65,000,000 as requested for U.S. voluntary contributions
to the IAEA, through the NADR account.14
Peacekeeping Accounts
On May 7, 2009, the President requested for FY2010, $2,260,000,000 to pay U.S. assessed
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations, in the State Department’s Contributions to
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. This request included $46,233,000 for the
11 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 23.
12 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 25.
13 S.Rept. 111-44, p. 21.
14 S.Rept. 111-44.
Congressional Research Service
5
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
two international war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) that are not peacekeeping
operations. It also included $135,100,000 for U.S. assessed contributions to a special assessed
account created by the U.N. General Assembly to support the African Union Mission in Somalia
(AMISOM).15
On June 26, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $2,125,000,000 for the
CIPA account; this was $135,000,000 lower than the request. The committee decided that most of
the funds requested for the U.S. assessment to the U.N. logistical support package for Somalia
($135,000,000 of the requested $135,100,000) be funded from the PKO account, used normally
for voluntary contributions.16 The committee provided $102,000,000 in the PKO account for
assistance for Somalia, including $55,000,000 to be used to pay assessed expenses.17 The
committee urged the Department to “give priority funding consideration” for the U.N.
peacekeeping operations in the Central African Republic and Chad (UNMURCAT) and the
Congo (MONUC) “during allocation of resources.”18 The committee directed the State
Department “to provide the necessary support to ensure that OIOS [U.N. Office of Internal
Oversight Services] oversight is systemically brought to bear on every UN peacekeeping mission,
including through the presence of resident auditors. The committee directs the Department of
State to request a performance report on the efforts of this Office to root out the causes of “waste,
fraud, and abuse.”19 In addition, the committee stresses “that the UN needs to press troop
contributing countries to seek justice” against those U.N. peacekeepers found to commit
trafficking in persons and illegal sexual exploitation.20 Finally, on the issue of the 25% cap on
peacekeeping assessments, the committee included a provision adjusting the level of U.S.
assessments for peacekeeping during calendar year 2010 from 25.0% to 27.1%. The committee
did not include the request increase for calendar year 2011, instead encouraging the Department
to “negotiate a lower assessment.” 21 The House passed H.R. 3081 on July 9, 2009.
On July 9, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1434, Department of State,
Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending $2,125,000,000 for the
CIPA account. This was $135,000,000 below the President’s request. The committee moved the
funding requested for the logistics support package for Somalia, “with modifications” to the PKO
account.22 The committee, in the PKO account, recommended up to $102,000,000 for
peacekeeping activities in Somalia, “of which up to $55,000,000 is for United Nations assessed
costs.”23
15 General Assembly Resolution 63/275, adopted April 7, 2009, for Financing of the Activities Arising from Security
Council Resolution 1863 (2009), adopted January 16, 2009. These resolutions provided for a logistical support package
to assist AMISOM and to enable the rapid deployment of a follow-on United Nations Peacekeeping Operation in
Somalia.
16 For background and ongoing information on the PKO account, see CRS Report RL33700, United Nations
Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress.
17 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 92-93.
18 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 25.
19 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 25.
20 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 26.
21 H.Rept. 111-187, p. 26.
22 S.Rept. 111-44, p. 22.
23 S.Rept. 111-44, p. 68.
Congressional Research Service
6
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
FY2009 Funding
Summary
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8). Division H of the Act was the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act and included funding for U.S. contributions to the U.N. system in
the CIO, CIPA, IO&P, and NADR accounts. CIO account funding totaled $1,529,400,000, in
addition to the $75,000,000 appropriated for FY2009 in P.L. 110-252. CIPA account funding
totaled $1,517,000,000, in addition to the $150,500,000 appropriated for FY2009 in P.L. 110-252.
Funding for the IO&P account totaled $352,500,000. A table in the joint explanatory statement
provides a program breakdown of the allocations.24 (See Appendix A for a chronology of major
actions in 2008 and 2009 relating to U.S. funding for the U.N. system.)25
Assessed Contributions
On February 4, 2008, President Bush requested $1,529,400,000 for payment of U.S. assessed
contributions (CIO account) to the 45 international (including regional) intergovernmental
organizations to which the United States belongs. The CIO account request for FY2009 included
the following amounts for the United Nations:
• United Nations regular budget: $452,500,000
• U.N. Capital Master Plan (CMP): $75,535,000
• U.N. War Crimes Tribunal—Yugoslavia: $21,571,000
• U.N. War Crimes Tribunal—Rwanda: $14,967,000
The aggregated total for this category was $564,573,000. The amount requested for U.S. assessed
contributions to the regular budgets of 11 other separate U.N. system specialized agencies was
$522,517,000. On May 2, 2008, President Bush requested, in an amendment to the FY2009
budget, an additional amount of $40,000,000 for the CIO account, to fund U.S. contributions for
the costs of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) [$10,000,000] and the U.N.
Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) [$30,000,000], both of which are special political missions
financed from the U.N. regular budget.
On July 18, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3288, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2009.26 The committee
recommended the appropriation of $1,529,400,000 for the CIO account, as requested by President
Bush, and in addition to the $75,000,000 already appropriated in P.L. 110-252, in Bridge Funding
for FY2009.27 The committee “directs OMB to request sufficient funds to pay annual U.S.
24 The text of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, as enacted, and of the joint explanatory statement may be found
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/09conappro2.html . This is a Committee Print of the House
Committee on Appropriations. Division H is in Book 2, pages 1779-1940. Page references hereafter are to this Print.
25 Appendix A provides a simple timeline of the actions taken that affected funding in the State Department, Foreign
Operations and Related Appropriations Acts for FY2008 Supplemental, FY2009, and FY2010. Detailed information on
these actions is found under the appropriate Fiscal Year discussion.
26 S.Rept. 110-425.
27 See section below, “Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008.”
Congressional Research Service
7
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
assessed dues and any accumulated arrears to international organizations and encourages the
Department of State to evaluate the benefit of U.S. membership on an annual basis.”28
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8), Division H of which was the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act and included funding for U.S. contributions to the U.N. system in
the CIO account. CIO account funding totaled $1,529,400,000, in addition to the $75,000,000
appropriated for FY2009 in P.L. 110-252.29 Section 7052, on the U.N. Human Rights Council,
provided that “none of the funds may be made available for a U.S. contribution to the U.N.
Human Rights Council.” This restriction shall not apply if (1) the Secretary of State certifies that
the provision of funds is in the interests of the United States, or (2) the United States is a member
of the Human Rights Council.
Under Transparency and Accountability, Section 7088, subsection (a) on the United Nations noted
that funds made available by this Act
shall be made available to continue reform efforts at the United Nations: Provided, That not
later than September 30, 2009, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committees
on Appropriations detailing actions taken by United Nations organizations under the
headings “Contributions to International Organizations” and “International Organizations
and Programs” to continue reform of United Nations financial management systems and
program oversight.
The joint explanatory statement, viewed as a conference joint statement, repeated the Senate
Appropriations Committee direction to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
sufficient funding and instruction to the Department of State on evaluation of the benefit to the
U.S. of membership.30 The statement continued that “the decision to incorporate the United
Nations (UN) Procurement Task Force (PTF) into the Office of Internal Oversight Services
(OIOS) must not result in a diminished commitment by the UN to continue effective fraud and
corruption investigations.” The statement concluded that
The UN should affirm its commitment to a strong oversight body, which is independent and
resistant to retaliation by UN employees and their respective governments. The Department
of State is directed to make procurement reform a top priority at the UN and to ensure that
sufficient resources are made available for vigorous procurement oversight and investigation
capabilities.
On a different subject, the statement directed the State Department to “report to the Committees
on Appropriations not later than 120 days after enactment of this Act on the voting practices of
UN member states for the current and past three years on matters regarding Iran, Israel, Sudan,
and Zimbabwe, as well as on the reform efforts of the UN.”
28 S.Rept. 110-425, p. 23.
29 See below,” Combined Discussion for information on the continuing appropriation for the period October 1,2008
through March 6, 2009 and “Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008” for discussion of Bridge Funding for FY2009.
30 See House Committee on Appropriations. Committee Print, p. 1884.
Congressional Research Service
8
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Voluntary Contributions
For FY2009, President Bush requested $276,900,000 for the International Organizations and
Programs account (IO&P), to fund U.S. voluntary contributions to U.N. system programs and
those of other organizations. This request included $124,500,000 for UNICEF and $75,300,000
for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP). He also requested, through the Nonproliferation,
Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account of the Department of State,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriations, $50 million for U.S. voluntary
contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
On July 18, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the appropriation of
$364,000,000 for the IO&P account, $84,100,000 above President Bush’s request of
$276,900,000. The committee’s table of its recommendations for this account included
$129,000,000 for UNICEF (an increase of $4,500,000 over the President’s request) and
$97,500,000 for UNDP (an increase of $22,200,000 above the request); the addition of
$2,000,000 for the U.N. Procurement Task Force; and no funds for the U.N. Democracy Fund
($14,000,000 had been requested). The report noted the committee’s support for “continuation of
an independent procurement task force to address fraud and corruption within the United
Nations.” The committee also requested “the administration to explain how a contribution to the
UNDF [U.N. Democracy Fund] fits into its overall strategy to promote democracy abroad.”31
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8). Division H of the Act was the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act and included funding for U.S. contributions to the U.N. system in
the IO&P and NADR accounts. Funding for the IO&P account totaled $352,500,000. A table in
the joint explanatory statement provided a program breakdown of the allocations. This included
$130,000,000 for U.S. voluntary contributions to UNICEF; $100,000,000 to the UNDP;
$10,000,000 to UNEP; $30,000,000 for the UNFPA (U.N. Population Fund); and $8,000,000 for
the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.32
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended, in the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism,
Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account, the appropriation of $66,000,000 for U.S.
voluntary contributions to the IAEA. That was an amount $16,000,000 above President Bush’s
request of $50,000,000.33 The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, included $61,000,000 for
voluntary contributions to the IAEA.34
Peacekeeping Accounts
On February 4, 2008, President Bush requested for FY2009, $1,497,000,000 to pay U.S. assessed
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations, in the State Department’s Contributions to
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. This request included $31,000,000 for the
31 S.Rept. 110-425, p. 66.
32 See joint explanatory statement, House Committee on Appropriations, Committee Print, p. 1923. The statement
added, “The funding for UNICEF under this heading does not preclude USAID from providing additional funding for
specific UNICEF projects, as appropriate.”
33 S.Rept. 110-425, p. 58.
34 See joint explanatory statement, House Committee on Appropriations, Committee Print, p. 1916.
Congressional Research Service
9
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
two international war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) that are not peacekeeping
operations.
On July 18, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1,650,000,000 in
appropriations to the CIPA account, an amount that is $153,000,000 above the President’s request.
This is in addition to the $150,500,000 provided in Bridge Funding for FY2009 in P.L. 110-252.35
The committee noted “that the budget request for U.S. assessed contributions to international
peacekeeping missions assumed a reduction in the cost of every mission below the fiscal year
2008 operating level.... The Committee recognizes the significant contribution to international
peace and stability provided by U.N. peacekeeping activities, without the participation of U.S.
troops. The Committee does not support OMB’s practice of under-funding peacekeeping
activities and relying on limited supplemental funds to support only a few missions.”
The committee bill included language, as requested by President Bush, to “adjust the authorized
level of U.S. assessments for peacekeeping activities for calendar year 2009 and prior years from
25 percent to 27.1 percent, consistent with the level set in fiscal year 2008 (P.L. 110-161).” The
committee expected “that future budget requests shall include sufficient funding to support such
authorization.”36
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8). Division H of the Act was the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act and included funding for U.S. assessed contributions to U.N.
conducted peacekeeping operation accounts. CIPA account funding totaled $1,517,000,000, in
addition to the $150,500,000 appropriated for FY2009 in P.L. 110-252. Section 7051, on
Peacekeeping Assessment, amended Section 404 (b)(2)(B) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 287e note), by deleting subsection (v) and replacing
it with “(v) For assessments made during each of the calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and
2009, 27.1 percent.”
The joint explanatory statement directed the Department of State to “provide full funding” for the
U.S. assessed contribution to the UN/African Union Hybrid operation in Darfur (UNAMID),
ensuring that UNAMID personnel receive training on prevention of and response to violence
against women. The State Department was also directed to “support oversight of peacekeeping
missions by the UN’s OIOS to identify waste, fraud and abuse, including sexual abuse within
every UN peacekeeping mission, and submit to the Committees on Appropriations a performance
report on the progress of these efforts.”37
Combined Discussion—Continuing Appropriations
The Senate did not consider S. 3288, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2009. On July 16, 2008, the State and Foreign Operations
Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee approved its FY2009 bill, which was
referred to the full committee. The subcommittee recommendation was never issued as a bill.
35 This is the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008.
36 S.Rept. 110-425, pages 23-24.
37 Committee Print, p. 1884-1885.
Congressional Research Service
10
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
On September 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.38 Division A of the Act, the
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, provided appropriations for nine regular
appropriations for FY2009, through March 6, 2009, at FY2008 spending levels, as apportioned by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).39 Funds available through March 6, 2009, for the
CIO, CIPA, and IO&P accounts were estimated to be as follows:
• CIO account: $577,808,968
• CIPA account: $525,800,000
• IO&P account: $136,297,473
The Continuing Resolution was extended through March 11, 2009, in P.L. 111-6.
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (and FY2009 Bridge Funding)
On June 30, 2008, President Bush signed H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-252). Congress provided additional funding for both the CIO and CIPA accounts for
both FY2008 and for FY2009 in this Act. Under the Department of State and Foreign Operations,
in Subchapter A-Supplemental Appropriations for FY2008, Congress appropriated $66,000,000
for the CIO account, to be available through September 30, 2009. This is for U.S. contributions to
UNAMA (Afghanistan) and UNAMI (Iraq) and to meet FY2008 assessed payments to
“organizations whose missions are critical to protecting United States national security interests,
including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”40 Congress directed the Department
of State to provide a report to the Appropriations Committees, not later than 45 days after
enactment, “detailing total United States-assessed contributions, any arrears for fiscal years 2008
and 2009 for each of the organizations funded under this heading.”41
In this subchapter, Congress also appropriated $373,708,000 for the CIPA account, not less than
$333,600,000 of which was for U.S. assessed contributions for UNAMID. The remaining
$40,108,000 was to “meet unmet fiscal year 2008 assessed dues for the international
peacekeeping missions to countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire,
Haiti, Liberia, and Sudan.”42
Under Subchapter B - Bridge Fund Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009, Congress
provided $75,000,000 for the CIO account, to be available October 1, 2008, through September
30, 2009. Congress provided $150,500,000 for the CIPA account, to be available during the same
time period. (See Appendix A for a chronology of major actions in 2008 and 2009 relating to
U.S. funding for the U.N. system.)
38 P.L. 110-329.
39 According to OMB Bulletin No. 08-02, dated September 30, 2008, the percentage of the year covered by the CR is
43.01 percent.
40 Congressional Record [daily edition], June 19, 2008, p. H5676.
41 Marjorie Browne has a copy of this report.
42 Congressional Record [daily edition], June 19, 2008, p. H5676.
Congressional Research Service
11
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
On April 9, 2009, President Obama submitted a supplemental request, most of which was for
military and security efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Under the CIPA account, he
requested an additional $836,900,000, to be available through September 30, 2010. He requested
that up to $50,000,000 be available for transfer to and merging with the Peacekeeping Operations
(PKO) account for peacekeeping in Somalia. It was anticipated that $454,529,000 of the request
for the CIPA account would be available for paying shortfalls in U.S. assessed contributions to
existing U.N. peacekeeping operations. The supplemental also requested $50,000,000 for the
PKO account that normally finances U.S. voluntary support for peacekeeping.
On June 24, 2009, the President signed H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-32), which provided $721,000,000 for the CIPA account, $115.9 million less than the
request. It provided $185,000,000 for the PKO account, including up to 115.9 million that may be
used to pay assessed expenses of international peacekeeping activities in Somalia.
FY2008 Funding
Status
On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008, Division J of which was the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). This Division provided funding for U.S.
assessed and voluntary contributions to the United Nations system. Funding for U.S. assessed
contributions to international organizations, including the United Nations, totaled $1,354,400,000
[$1,343,429,000].43 Funding for U.S. contributions to the assessed accounts of U.N. peacekeeping
operations was $1,700,500,000 [$1,690,517,000]. Congress provided $313,485,000
[$316,897,000] in funds for U.S. voluntary contributions to U.N. system programs.
Assessed Contributions
On February 5, 2007, President Bush requested $1,354,400,000 for payment of U.S. assessed
contributions (CIO account) to the 45 international (including regional) intergovernmental
organizations that the United States is a member of. The CIO account request included the
following amounts for the United Nations: the U.N. regular budget, $495,778,000; U.N. Capital
Master Plan (CMP), $85,435,000; U.N. War Crimes Tribunal—Yugoslavia, $19,128,000; and the
U.N. War Crimes Tribunal—Rwanda, $15,647,000 (aggregated total: $615,988,000).44 The
amount requested for U.S. assessed contributions to 11 other separate U.N. agencies was
$449,439,000. The President also requested an “additional FY2008 funding” for the CIO account
in the amount of $53 million. This would fund U.S. contributions for the costs in CY2007 of the
43 An across-the-board rescission of 0.81 percent reduced the amount available. The figure within brackets represents
the amount estimated to be available following application of the rescission. These figures are taken from the Joint
Explanatory Statement on H.R. 2764, Division J, found at http://www.rules.house.gov/110_fy08_omni.htm, click on
Division J under Joint Explanatory Statement.
44 The assessment for the CMP includes Year 1 of five equal payments of $75,500,000 each and a one-time payment of
$9.9 million for a working reserve fund. See Section on the “The United Nations Capital Master Plan”.
Congressional Research Service
12
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq
(UNAMI), both of which are special political missions financed from the U.N. regular budget.
On June 18, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2764, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008.45 The committee
recommended $1,354,400,000 for the CIO account. The committee did not include $53 million of
the funds requested for the U.N. regular budget, stating that this had been provided as part of the
FY2008 [sic] emergency funding, for costs for the U.N. assistance missions in Afghanistan
(UNAMA) and in Iraq (UNAMI). The House committee recommendation in the CIO account for
U.S. assessed contributions to the U.N. regular budget was $442,778,000. The House passed H.R.
2764, at the committee-recommended level, on June 22, 2007.
On July 10, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended, in H.R. 2764,
$1,374,400,000 for the CIO account and directed the Secretary of State “to request sufficient
funds to pay annual U.S. assessed dues and any accumulated arrears to international organizations
and encourages the Department of State to evaluate the benefit of U.S. membership on an annual
basis.”46 On September 6,2007, the Senate passed H.R. 2764 with the committee-recommended
amount for the CIO account, to be available through September 30, 2009.
On December 19, 2007, Congress sent to the President H.R. 2764, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, which included, in Division J, the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Appropriations Act, 2008. President Bush signed this Act on December
26, 2007 (P.L. 110-161), which provided $1,354,400,000 [$1,343,429,000] for the CIO account,
as requested.
Voluntary Contributions
For FY2008, President Bush requested $289,400,000 for the International Organizations and
Programs Account (IO&P), to fund U.S. voluntary contributions to U.N. system programs and
those of other organizations. This request included $123 million for UNICEF and $75,300,000 for
the U.N. Development Program (UNDP). He also requested, through the Nonproliferation, Anti-
terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (Nonproliferation) account of the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriations, $50 million for special programs
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
On June 28, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee, in H.R. 2764, recommended
$333,400,000 for the IO&P account, including not less than $128 million for UNICEF and not
less than $110 million for UNDP. The committee did not recommend the funds requested for the
U.N. Democracy Fund or for the U.N. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. The committee
recommended the requested $50 million in the Nonproliferation account for IAEA voluntary
contributions. These committee-recommended levels were passed by the House on June 22, 2007.
On July 10, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $313,925,000 for the
IO&P account, including $129 million for UNICEF and $100 million for UNDP. The committee
dropped the requested $14 million for the U.N. Democracy Fund and $10 million for the U.N.
Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. The Senate committee recommended $53 million for
45 H.Rept. 110-197.
46 S.Rept. 110-128, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service
13
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
IAEA Voluntary Contributions in the Nonproliferation account. In Section 667 (Transparency and
Accountability) of H.R. 2764, the Senate committee stipulated that before initial obligation of
funds for U.S. contributions to the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the Secretary of State
certify that UNDP is “giving adequate and appropriate access to information” to the U.S. Mission
to the United Nations “regarding UNDP’s programs and activities, as requested, including in
North Korea and in Burma.” The Secretary was also to certify that UNDP was conducting
“appropriate oversight” of its programs and activities globally.47 The Senate-passed bill provided
the committee-recommended amount for the IO&P account and for the Nonproliferation account.
Division J of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act, 2008,
provided $319,485,000 [$316,897,000] for the IO&P account. The President had requested
$289,400,000 for this account. While the law provides a single figure, the Joint Explanatory
Statement includes data on allocation of these funds, including $129,000,000 for UNICEF,
$98,160,000 for UNDP, and $10,500,000 for the UNEP. These allocations, however, may not be
firm because they are based on the IO&P account figure prior to application of the across-the-
board rescission.
Section 668 of the enacted bill, entitled Transparency and Accountability, provides that 10% of
the funds appropriated under the IO&P account to any U.N. agency may be withheld from
disbursement if the Secretary of State reports
that such agency does not have or is not implementing a policy of posting on a publicly
available website information such as: (1) audits, budget reports, and information related to
procurement activities; (2) procedures for protecting whistleblowers; and (3) efforts to ensure
the independence of internal oversight bodies, adopt international public sector accounting
standards, and limit administrative costs.
Section 668 (b) provides that 20% of the funds appropriated under the IO&P account for a U.S.
contribution to the UNDP “shall be withheld from disbursement until the Secretary of State
reports” that UNDP is—
(1) giving adequate access to information to the Department of State regarding UNDP’s
programs and activities as requested, including in North Korea and Burma;
(2) conducting oversight of UNDP programs and activities globally; and
(3) implementing a whistleblower protection policy equivalent to that recommended by the
United Nations Secretary General on December 3, 2007.
Congress provided $487,000,000 [$483,055,000] for the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism,
Demining and Related Programs account, including for the U.S. voluntary contribution to the
IAEA. The Joint Explanatory Statement allocated $51,500,000 to IAEA. That figure may be
subject to the across-the-board rescission. President Bush had requested $50,000,000 for the
IAEA.
47 H.R. 2764, as reported by Senate Appropriations Committee, p. 367.
Congressional Research Service
14
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Peacekeeping Accounts
On February 5, 2007, President Bush requested, in his FY2008 budget request, $1,107,000,000 to
pay U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations, in the State Department’s
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. This request included
$34,181,000 for the two international war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) that are not
peacekeeping operations. The House Appropriations Committee, on June 18, 2007, recommended
$1,302,000,000 for the CIPA account and included language increasing the peacekeeping
assessment cap to $27.1% for calendar year 2008. The House, on June 22, 2007, passed H.R.
2764, with the committee-recommended amount for the CIPA account, and with the increased
peacekeeping assessment cap language.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $1,352,000,000 for the
CIPA account. The committee report observed that the CIPA request “was unrealistic considering
the significant contribution to peace and stability provided by U.N. peacekeeping activities,
without the participation of U.S. troops.... The Committee does not support the administration’s
practice of under-funding peacekeeping activities and relying on limited supplemental funds.”
The committee included language raising the peacekeeping assessments cap from 25% to 27.1%
for “fiscal year 2008.”48 The Senate, on September 6, 2007, provided the amount recommended
for the CIPA account and kept the language on the peacekeeping assessment cap.
On October 22, 2007, President Bush requested in a FY2008 supplemental an additional
$723,600,000 for the CIPA account to remain available until September 30, 2009. This amount,
designated as “emergency requirements,” would fund the U.S. share of the start-up,
infrastructure, and operating costs of the new U.N. peacekeeping operation in Darfur (UNAMID).
This request brought the total amount requested by the President for the CIPA account for
FY2008 to $1,830,600,000. Division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, provided
$1,700,500,000 [$1,690,517,000] for CIPA, $468,000,000 of which was designated emergency.49
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental
President Bush also requested FY2007 supplemental funding for CIPA. The CIPA supplemental
request of $200 million was to pay U.S. assessed contributions for “unforeseen” U.N.
peacekeeping expenses. President Bush, on May 1, 2007, vetoed H.R. 1591, Making Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2007, which had included $288 million for the CIPA
account. Congress then passed H.R. 2206, a replacement FY2007 emergency supplemental bill,
which President Bush signed on May 25, 2007, as the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.50 H.R. 1591 had included
funds in the CIO account (originally in the Senate-passed bill [$59 million] but not in the House-
passed version) for payment of U.S. arrears to the assessed budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, the IAEA, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, International
Civil Aviation Organization, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and
the Pan American Health Organization. The conferees had agreed to $50 million. H.R. 2206
provided $50 million for the CIO account and $288 million for the CIPA account.
48 S.Rept. 110-128, p. 19-20.
49 P.L. 110-161.
50 P.L. 110-28.
Congressional Research Service
15
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
FY2007 Funding
Assessed Contributions
On February 6, 2006, President Bush requested $1,268,523,000 for payment of U.S. assessed
contributions to international organizations (CIO account) of which $922,970,000 was for
assessed U.N. system organizations including $422,761,000 for the U.N. regular budget. In
addition, the President requested $1,135,327,000 to pay U.S. assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping activities (CIPA account). On June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5672,
including State Department appropriations for 2007, and providing $1,151,318,000 for the CIO
account.51 On July 10, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5522, to provide
appropriations for the State Department, including $1,151,318,000 for the CIO account.52 The
Senate did not act on this bill in the 109th Congress.
Voluntary Contributions
The appropriate level of funding for U.N. voluntary programs continues to be a congressional
concern. For FY2007 the Administration requested $289 million for U.S. voluntary contributions
to programs in the international organizations and programs (IO&P) account. In addition, $50
million was requested in another account for IAEA voluntary programs. On June 9, 2006, the
House passed H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, providing $327,570,000 for
the IO&P account.53 The Committee recommended the requested $50 million for IAEA voluntary
programs, which is found in the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs account. On July 10, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5522,
providing $306,125,000 for the IO&P account. No further action was taken on H.R. 5522 in the
109th Congress.
Peacekeeping Accounts
Issues relating to U.S. support for U.N. peacekeeping operations including financing of such
activities have been the source of particular congressional concern. In 1994, Congress enacted
legislation (Section 404 of P.L. 103-236) which limited U.S. assessed peacekeeping contributions
after October 1, 1995, to 25% of total U.N. peacekeeping assessments. P.L. 107-228 amended this
provision for calendar years 2001-2004, allowing U.S. assessments of 28.15% in 2001, 27.9% in
2002 and 27.4% in 2003 and 2004. P.L. 108-447 raised the cap to 27.1% for calendar year 2005.
On December 13, 2005, Senator Biden introduced S. 2095, to raise the U.S. peacekeeping cap to
27.1% for calendar years 2005 and 2006. On June 22, 2006, the Senate passed S. 2766, the
Defense Authorization Act for FY2007, including an amendment that would set the cap for U.S.
contributions at 27.10% for assessments made for U.N. peacekeeping operations for CY2005,
2006, and 2007. On October 5, 2006, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
51 H.R. 5672, Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2007; reported
June 22, 2006, H.Rept. 109-520.
52 H.R. 5522, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2007; reported July
10, 2006, S.Rept. 109-277.
53 H.R. 5522, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2007; reported June 5,
2006, H.Rept. 109-486.
Congressional Research Service
16
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122) was presented to the President, without the peacekeeping cap
provision.54
On February 6, 2006, the Bush Administration requested $1,135,327,000 for U.S. assessed
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA account). On February 16, 2006, President
Bush, in a FY2006 supplemental, requested an additional $69.8 million for CIPA, including funds
for U.N. peacekeeping in the Sudan. On June 15, 2006, H.R. 4939, providing $129.8 million for
CIPA, was sent to the President, who signed it the same day.55 On June 29, 2006, the House
passed H.R. 5672, including in State Department appropriations for 2007, the requested amount
for the CIPA account. On July 10, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in H.R. 5522,
reported appropriations for the State Department that included the same requested amount for the
CIPA account.
On February 15, 2007, Congress sent President Bush H.J.Res. 20, the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, to fund the FY2007 budget through September 30, 2007, which
he signed on the same day, P.L. 110-5. For FY2007, Congress provided $1,151,300,000 for the
CIO account, $1,135,275,000 for the CIPA account, and $326,200,000 for the IO&P account.
FY2006 Funding56
Assessed Contributions
On February 7, 2005, the Bush Administration requested $1.296 billion for U.S. assessed
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) of which $931,362,000 was for assessed U.N.
system organizations including $438,952,000 for the U.N. regular budget. President Bush
requested $1.035 billion for U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA).
Another $780 million was requested for U.N. peacekeeping operations in supplemental FY2005
appropriations.
On June 16, 2005, the House, by a vote of 417 to 7, passed H.R. 2862, which would appropriate
$1.166 billion for U.S. assessed contributions to CIO. This was more than $130 million below the
Administration request. In addition, by a voice vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered
by Representative Garrett which increased funding for state and law enforcement grants by $22
million that was made available by reducing U.S. contributions to the United Nations by that
amount. An amendment offered by Representative Paul prohibiting any U.S. contribution to the
United Nations or any affiliated agency was defeated by a vote of 65 to 357.
H.R. 3057 as passed by the Senate on July 20, 2005, included $1.166 billion for U.S. assessed
CIO (more than $130 million below the Administration’s request), and $1.035 billion for assessed
peacekeeping activities.57 The Senate also agreed to an amendment expressing the sense of the
54 For detailed discussion, see CRS Report RL33700, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by Marjorie
Ann Browne.
55 H.R. 4939, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006; signed June 15, 2006, P.L. 109-234.
56 See CRS Report RL32919, Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (Senate):
FY2006 Appropriations, by Larry Nowels and Susan B. Epstein.
57 H.R. 3057 was passed by the House as the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act but the Senate used this bill, H.R.
3057, as its vehicle for appropriating funds for Foreign Operations and for the State Department.
Congressional Research Service
17
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Senate that the use of funds for any loan to the United Nations for the renovation of its
headquarters in New York not exceed $600 million. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
requested a number of State Department reports during its consideration of the legislation:
information on assessment rates and other economic data on the 15 U.N. member countries with
the greatest gross domestic products; an evaluation of U.S. participation in non-treaty obligated
international organizations; and information on changes in the World Tourism Organization
(WTO) since U.S. withdrawal and potential benefits of any future U.S. participation in the
WTO.58
On March 10, 2005, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported S. 600, authorizing
appropriations for foreign relations for FY2006 and FY2007 (S.Rept. 109-35). This bill
authorized $1.296 billion for U.S. assessed contributions to international organizations (CIO), and
$1.035 billion for U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA) account. On
June 9, 2005, the House Committee on International Relations voted to report H.R. 2601, to
authorize appropriations for the Department of State for FY2006 and 2007 (H.Rept. 109-168).
The House passed H.R. 2601 on July 20, 2005. The Hyde United Nations Reform bill, H.R. 2745,
had been added to H.R. 2601 on July 19, 2005, prior to its passage. Congress did not complete
action on a Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2006-2007.
H.R. 2862, appropriating funds for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce for
FY2006, was signed on November 22, 2005 (P.L. 109-108). It included $1.166 billion for
assessed contributions to international organizations (CIO), and $1,035,500,000 for assessed
contributions to international peacekeeping activities (CIPA). The Secretary of State, at the time
of the President’s budget submission to Congress, is to transmit to the Appropriations Committees
the most recent biennial U.N. budget and notify the same committees of any U.N. action to
increase funding for any U.N. program without identifying an offsetting decrease elsewhere in the
U.N. budget and cause the U.N. budget for the 2006-2007 biennium to exceed the revised U.N.
budget level for the 2004-2005 biennium.
Voluntary Contributions
On February 7, 2005, the Bush Administration requested $281,908,000 for voluntary
contributions for the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account including $114
million for UNICEF and $95 million for UNDP. Fifty million dollars for IAEA voluntary
programs was requested in another account.
On June 28, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3057, including $328,958,000 for voluntary
contributions for FY2006 for the IO&P account as had been recommended by the House
Committee on Appropriations in its report, H.Rept. 109-152. The Committee also recommended
that of the amounts appropriated in the account, not less than $110 million be for the U.N.
Development Program (UNDP), not less than $127 million for the U.N. Children’s Fund
(UNICEF), $5 million for the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) (of which $3.5
million for the Fund and $1.5 million for the Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate
Violence Against Women), and noted the importance of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP)
work in the Palestinian territories.
58 In this instance, the WTO is the World Tourism Organization, not the World Trade Organization. On December 1,
2005, the General Assembly of the World Tourism Organization changed the acronym of the organization in English
and Russian to UNWTO.
Congressional Research Service
18
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
H.R. 3057 as passed by the Senate on July 20, 2005, included a total of $330 million for FY2006
for U.S. voluntary contributions to programs in the International Organizations and Programs
(IO&P) account as had been recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in its
report, S.Rept. 109-96. The Committee also recommended that of the amounts appropriated in the
account, $128 million be for UNICEF, and $110 million for UNDP. The Committee
recommended $10 million for the proposed U.N. Democracy Fund in another account, and
recommended that $10 million for the World Food Program (WFP) come from funds for
USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance.
On March 10, 2005, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported on S. 600 (S.Rept. 109-
35), authorizing $281,908,000 for voluntary contributions for the International Organizations and
Programs (IO&P) account. An authorization bill was not passed.
The Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY2006, H.R. 3057, signed
November 4, 2005, P.L. 109-102, included $329,458,000 for U.S. voluntary contributions to the
International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account. The conference report (H.Rept. 109-
265) recommended that $127 million be for UNICEF and $110 million for UNDP; $50 million
was recommended from another account for IAEA voluntary programs.
U.N. Peacekeeping Accounts
The Bush Administration requested $1,035,500,000 for FY2006 for U.S. assessed contributions
to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA). P.L. 109-108 included the requested $1,035,500,000 for
FY2006 U.S. assessed peacekeeping activities.
Tables on U.S. Contributions: FY2004-FY2009 and
FY2010 Request
Table 1. U.S. Contributions to Recent U.N. System Assessed Regular Budgets
(in millions of $)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
United Nations (U.N.)
340.472
362.193
438.909
422.699
495.704
452.560
597.542
U.N. Capital Master
Plan (UN/CMP)
—
6.00
9.825
22.110
81.365
75.535
75.535
U.N.—War Crimes
Tribunals 32.656
35.039
31.606
32.556
35.303
37.842
40.879
Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO)
72.457
89.716
84.661
93.382
96.927
110.611
110.901
International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA)
68.462
79.829
79.092
84.753
97.996
94.067
100.216
International Civil
Aviation Agency
(ICAO)
12.629 12.650 14.894 15.149 16.688 15.345 15.703
Congressional Research Service
19
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
International Labor
Organization (ILO)
68.055 63.107 62.064 67.743 74.200 79.571 81.912
International Maritime
Organization (IMO)
1.366
1. 479
1.571
1.630
1.431
1.197
1.233
International
Telecommunication
Union (ITU)
7. 976
7.655
7.746
8.083
8.625
9.290
9.437
United Nations
Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural
Organization
(UNESCO)
84.138
76.754 70.924 73.479 77.624 75.153 78.134
Universal Postal Union
(UPU) 1.697
1.770
1.710
1.736
1.857
2.055
2.065
World Health
Organization (WHO)
93.615
96.110
95.680
101.421
101.421
106.573
106.573
World Intellectual
Property Organization
(WIPO) 1.058
1.137
1.086
.944
1.031
1.049
1.075
World Meteorological
Organization (WMO)
9.963
12.143
10.538
11.236
12.344
12.437
12.749
Total 794.542
845.598
910.306
936.921
1,102.516
1,073.285
1,233.954
Table 2. U.S. Voluntary Contributions to U.N. Programs Financed Through the
Foreign Assistance Act (International Organizations and Programs)
(in millions of $)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
U.N. Development Program
(UNDP)
101.398 108.128 108.900 108.900
97.365 100.000 75.300
U.N.
Children’s
Fund
(UNICEF) 119.292 124.000 125.730 125.730 127.955 130.000 128.000
U.N. Development Fund for
Women
(UNIFEM)
0.994 1.984 3.218 3.218 3.571 4.500 1.500
UNIFEM
Trust
Fund
— 0.992 1.485 1.485 1.785 2.500
—
UNESCO Intl. Contributions for
Scientific, Educational, & Cultural
Activities
1.889 0.837 0.990 0.990 0.992 1.000 1.000
WMO
Voluntary
Coop.
Program 1.988 1.984 1.881 1.881 1.885 1.900 2.200
U.N. Environment Program
(UNEP)
10.935 10.912 10.159 10.159 10.415 10.500 11.000
Montreal Protocol Multilateral
Fund
20.876 21.328 21.285 21.285 18.846 21.000 25.500
Congressional Research Service
20
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
International Conservation
Programs (includes CITES, ITTO,
Ramsar, U.N. Forum on Forests)
6.362
6.349
5.890
5.890
6.447
7.000
7.000
U.N. [Voluntary] Fund for
Victims
of
Torture
5.468 6.944 6.517 6.517 6.943 7.100 6.000
Climate Change Fund for IPCC
and
UNFCC
5.567 5.952 5.940 5.940 5.455 8.000 12.500
ICAO Aviation Security Fund
0.994
0.992
0.941
0.941
0.942
0.950
0.950
U.N. Voluntary Funds for
Technical Cooperation in the
Field of Human Rights
1.491
1. 488
1.485
1.485
1.413
1.400
1.400
U.N. High Cmsner/Human Rights
—
—
—
—
6.944
8.000
—
IAEA Voluntary Programsa
52.687 52.
576 49.500 53.300 51.083 62.500 65.000
U.N. Center for Human
Settlements
(UN-HABITAT)
0.746 0.149 0.149 0.149 0.992 2.000 2.000
IMO Maritime Security Programs
—
0. 099
0.396
0.396
0.397
0.400
0.400
U.N. International Democracy
Fundb (UNIDF)
now U.N. Democracy Fund
(UNDEF) —
[10.000]
10.000
—
—
3.000
14.000
U.N. Office of the Coordinator
for Humanitarian Affairs (UN
OCHA)
—
— 0.805 0.805 2.976 3.000 3.000
U.N. Capital Development Fund
(UNCDF)
— — — — — —
5.000
U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)
—
—
—
—
—
30.000
50.000
Total
355.540 344.714 367.546 349.071 346.406 404.750 411.750
Note: Does not include U.S. contributions to U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Programs ($255
million in FY2002) and to U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
($119 million in FY2002), both financed through the Migration and Refugee Assistance Account; World Food
Program commodities donations; WHO Special Programs; U.N. Volunteers; and U.N. International Drug
Control Program.
a. Requested and Appropriated under Non-Proliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs
account.
b. Funded from other accounts in FY2005 and FY2006.
Congressional Research Service
21
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Other Basic Information
Scale of Assessments
Article 17 of the U.N. Charter requires each U.N. member state, including the United States, to
contribute to the expenses of the organization, as assessed by the General Assembly.59 The U.N.
General Assembly has adopted a scale of assessments—which is based generally on a country’s
capacity to pay—that requires the United States to pay the maximum or 22% of the U.N. regular
budget, while 53 members pay the minimum or 0.001%. If there were no maximum and
minimum assessment levels for the U.N. regular budget and assessments were based exclusively
on a ratio of a country’s gross national product, the United States would be assessed about 30%
and some very small and poor countries might be assessed less than 0.001%.
Regardless of the size of assessment, each member has one vote on U.N. budget decisions,
although budgets since 1988 have been adopted by consensus.60 Some experts have maintained
that the General Assembly budget decision process, by one nation, one vote, that commits a few
member states to pay a major percentage of that budget, is unfair and that other principles should
replace one nation, one vote on budget issues.61 When this issue came up between 1985 and 1988,
the Assembly decided that every effort would be made to adopt the U.N. regular budget by
consensus. In this way, any member state, including the major contributors, might prevent
consensus on a budget resolution. The intention was to give major contributing nations a stronger
voice in budget matters.
On April 28, 2006, however, this practice of consensus on U.N. budget matters was broken when
the Fifth Committee (on administrative and budgetary matters) voted, 108 in favor, to 50
(including the United States) against, with 3 abstentions, on a resolution that would define how
Secretary-General Annan would carry out the 23 proposals he had presented in his report,
Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger organization worldwide. The resolution was
sponsored by the Group of 77 and China. This vote in the Fifth Committee was followed, on May
8, 2006, by a vote in plenary on the same resolution.62
In December 2007, during General Assembly consideration of the 2008-2009 U.N. regular
budget, the United States voted against a related resolution—A/RES/62/236, Questions relating
to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009, but joined the consensus on the
resolution that approved a biennial budget of $4.17 billion.63 U.S. representatives characterized
the budget resolution as an initial budget, with items to be added to the original budget later in the
59 The United Nations Charter was ratified by the United States August 8, 1945 and entered into force October 24,
1945. There are currently 192 members of the United Nations.
60 Article 18 of the U.N. Charter: “Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.” Paragraph 2 of this
article states that “Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of
the members present and voting. These questions shall include ... budgetary questions.”
61 Some have suggested weighted voting in the Assembly, based on population or other criteria.
62 The vote in plenary was 121 in favor, to 50 (including the United States) against, with 2 abstentions.
63 A/RES/62/237. Programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009. The Fifth Committee acted on both draft resolutions
on December 21, 2007; they were adopted in a plenary meeting of the General Assembly on December 22, 2007. See
also, U.S. Department of State. Voting Practices in the United Nations, 2007, pages 138 and 154-155.
Congressional Research Service
22
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
62nd session. The United States was particularly concerned over the “piece meal” and “ad hoc”
approach.64
On December 11, 2007, when U.S. Ambassador Mark Wallace addressed the General Assembly’s
Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) on the status of the 2008-2009 budget, he made
the following observations:
The Secretary-General has proposed an “initial” budget of $4.19 billion for the biennium
2008/2009. As we all know, this $4.19 billion proposal represents only a part of the actual
budget. In addition the Secretary-General simultaneously but separately identified various
“add ons” to the base budget that would bring the actual 2008/2009 budget up to
approximately $4.8 billion. The 2006/2007 approved budget was $3.799 billion though it
ultimately totaled $4.17 billion. The 2008/2009 projected budget of $4.8 billion represents a
15% increase over the 2006/2007 budget.
The proposed regular budget with just the “add ons” already identified by the Secretary-
General makes this budget the largest regular budget in the history of the U.N. This budget
also represents the largest increase in the history of the U.N. on a dollar basis. Moreover,
even this $4.8 billion figure is not what any of us expect as the final budget because it does
not take into account additional proposals that have more recently been identified or which
we can expect during the course of the biennium.
We expect that the final actual total budget of the 2008/2009 biennium to be in excess of
approximately $5.2 billion. Accordingly, such a final budget is likely to represent an increase
of 25% or more from the 2006/2007 budget. And lets remember what such an increase
actually funds. As my colleagues from the G77 and China rightly point out in paragraph 30
of the Draft Resolution before us: “approximately 75 percent of the budget resources are
related to salaries and common staff cost....” The budget increase does not go directly to
humanitarian or development aid but rather to increasing the size of the UN Secretariat
bureaucracy.
We all agree that the piecemeal, ad hoc approach of the current budget is inconsistent with
sound budgeting practices. See paragraphs 9, and 35 of the Draft Resolution on the
2008/2009 biennium budget. Moreover, we are concerned that no substantial cuts or offsets
have been proposed by the Secretary-General or member states to this largest of all U.N.
budget increases.65
For calendar year 2009, the top three contributors (United States, Japan, and Germany) were
assessed a total of 47.201% of the U.N. regular budget. The top 10 contributors, which include
four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, pay 76.092% of the total U.N.
regular budget according to the scale of assessments adopted in December 2006 by the General
Assembly for CY2007-2009.
64 Wallace, Mark. Explanation of vote, December 22, 2007, in the Fifth Committee. U.S. Mission to the United Nations
(USUN) Press Release #387 (07).
65 Statement by Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, U.S. Representative for U.N. Management and Reform, on the
2008/2009 U.N. Budget, in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, December 11, 2007. See materials attached
to statement.
Congressional Research Service
23
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Table 3. Top 10 U.N. Regular Budget Contributors for 2009
Assessments for 2009
Member State
Percentage of Budget
in U.S. $
United Statesa 22.00 598,292,101
Japan 16.624
452,091,268
Germany 8.577
233,252,334
United Kingdoma 6.642 180,629,824
Francea 6.301
171,356,297
Italy 5.079
138,123,890
Canada 2.977
80,959,799
Spain 2.968
80,715,043
Chinaa 2.667
72,529,320
Mexico 2.257
61,379,331
a. Permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
For 2009, the other permanent member of the Security Council, the Russian Federation, was
assessed at 1.20%, or $32,634,115.66
In 2006, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton suggested that the U.N.
General Assembly consider the use of different economic data, in forming the scale of
assessments. Ambassador Bolton proposed that the scale of assessments be based on
purchasing power parity (PPP) in our calculation of gross national income. PPP is the
numbers of units of a country’s currency needed to buy in the country the same amounts of
goods and services in a different country. At this time, the assessment is based on Gross
National Income (GNI) as determined by Gross Domestic Product. ... The World Bank
currently uses PPPs as an analytical tool, but not for income comparisons.67
In its July 10, 2006 report, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended “that the current
rate of assessment should not be increased, and that the United Nations consider economic factors
such as purchasing power parity and foreign currency rates.”68 The House Appropriations
Committee, noting that China’s “U.N. assessment rate” was low relative to its “real GDP
growth,” directed the State Department to report “as to whether the current assessment formula
should be revised.”69
The U.N. Committee on Contributions is a standing committee of 18 members selected by the
Assembly on the basis of broad geographical representation, personal qualifications and
experience. This Committee advises the Assembly on the scale of assessments, recommending
assessment levels for new member states, reviewing appeals for a change of assessment, and
66 See Assessment of Member States’ Contributions to the United Nations Regular Budget for 2009. U.N. document,
ST/ADM/SER.B/755, pages 3-7.
67 Statement to House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce, April 5,
2006, p. 3, at http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/64140.htm.
68 S.Rept. 109-277, p. 33.
69 H.Rept. 109-520, p. 121.
Congressional Research Service
24
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
examining applications of Article 19 against countries in arrears on payment of their assessed
contributions. Each third year, the Committee reviews the scale and, based on instructions from
the Assembly, recommends revisions in the scale for the next three-year period. The Committee
met June 5 to 30, 2006, to carry out this review and to recommend a scale for the period 2007-
2009.70 A U.S. national is a member of this committee.
On December 22, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly, without a vote, approved a new scale of
assessments for the period 2007-2009.71 The U.S. assessment remained at 22%, while other
assessment levels were changed. The level for Japan was set at 16.624%, down from 19.468% in
2006; the level for China was increased from 2.053% to 2.667% for 2007. In all, the assessment
levels for 78 U.N. member states were increased, while the assessment levels for 51 U.N. member
states were reduced. The assessment levels for 62 states, including the United States, remained
unchanged. During the fall of 2009, the 64th session of the U.N. General Assembly will determine
the scale of assessments for the period 2010-2012. At the same time, it will consider approval of a
U.N. regular budget for the biennium 2010-2011.
Specialized agencies, while linked to the United Nations, are autonomous organizations, with
their own executive, legislative, and budgetary powers. Some agencies follow the U.N. scale in
making assessments; other agencies use their own formulas, which often result in lower U.S.
assessments. The U.S. assessment levels for these agencies for CY2006, CY2007, CY2008, and
CY2009 are as follows:72
Table 4. U.S. Assessment Levels: U.N. Specialized Agencies and IAEA
Agency CY2006
CY2007
CY2008
CY2009
International Labor Organization
22% 22% 22% 22%
(ILO)
Food and Agriculture Organization
22% 22% 22% 22%
of the United Nations (FAO)
U.N. Educational, Scientific, and
22% 22% 22% 22%
Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
International Civil Aviation
25% 25% 25% 25%
Organization (ICAO
World Health Organization
22% 22% 22% 22%
(WHO)
Universal Postal Union (UPU)
5.69%
5.69%
5.87%
5.76%
International Telecommunication
8.759% 8.809% 8.759% 8.76%
Union (ITU)
World Meteorological
21.64% 21.64% 21.64% 21.64%
Organization (WMO)
70 Its report, issued on August 4, 2006, did not recommend a scale for 2007-2009 (see U.N. document A/61/11).
71 A/RES/61/237.
72 The CY2005 percentages are from the U.N. System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, Budgetary and
Financial Situation of Organizations of the United Nations System. Note by the Secretary-General.... , U.N. document,
A/59/315. The CY2006 and CY2007 figures are from information transmitted to Congress by the Department of State
in the Congressional Budget Justification, for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009. The CY2009 figures are from A/63/185,
cited above in footnote 1.
Congressional Research Service
25
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Agency CY2006
CY2007
CY2008
CY2009
International Maritime Organization
3.44% 3.4% 3.24% 3.24%
(IMO)
World Intellectual Property
6.59% 6.608% 6.608% 6.54%
Organization (WIPO)
International Atomic Energy
25.95% 25.95% 25.72% 25.72%
Agency (IAEA)
Arrearages
Under Article 19 of the U.N. Charter, countries with arrears totaling more than the member’s
assessments for the two preceding years lose their vote in the U.N. General Assembly. As of
September 4, 2009, six countries were in that status.73 On October 8, 2009, however, the U.N.
General Assembly decided that the six countries would be permitted to vote in the Assembly until
the end of its 64th session, in September 2010.74
According to the United Nations, despite U.S. arrears payments, the United States, as of
December 31, 2008, owed assessed contributions of $1,348,960,182. These arrearages broke out
in the following way:
$394,484,638 for the U.N. regular budget;
$18,898,016 for International Tribunals;
$75,534,800 for the Capital Master Plan; and
$860,042,728 for peacekeeping assessed accounts.75
Funding the U.N. War Crimes Tribunals
The U.N. Security Council has created two war crimes tribunals to investigate and prosecute
those accused of serious crimes against humanity under specified circumstances. The
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (ICTY) was set up in 1993
to investigate and prosecute those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, or violations of
international humanitarian law on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. The
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was created in November 1994 to investigate
and prosecute persons accused of genocide and other serious violations of international
humanitarian law in the territory of Rwanda between January 1 and December 31, 1994, and also
Rwandan citizens suspected of such acts or violations in the territory of neighboring states. Each
73 See U.N. documents A/64/345 and General Assembly Resolution 64/2. See also at http://www.un.org/ga/art19.shtml.
74 In 1999, the United States “narrowly avoided” losing its vote in the U.N. General Assembly. Enactment of the
Helms-Biden agreement in late 1999 enabled the United States to pay nearly all of its 1999 regular budget assessment
before the end of the year and some of its previous arrearages (see Department of State. United States Participation in
the United Nations for 1999, pp. 99-100, at http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rpt/1999/c5700.htm in part 7.
75 These figures are taken from a release issued by the Office of the Spokesperson of the U.N. Secretary-General.
Congressional Research Service
26
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
tribunal is under the Council requirement and timetable to complete its work by December 31,
2010.
The General Assembly decided that each tribunal would be financed through a special assessed
account and that U.N. member states would be assessed to contribute to those accounts in a
unique way. Half of the annual budget of each would be paid on the basis of the scale of
assessments used for contributions to the U.N. regular budget, and half of each account would be
funded on the basis of the scale of assessments used for contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
operation accounts. For the United States, this means that half of its contribution to each
tribunal’s account is based on 22%, its regular budget assessment rate, and half is based on its
peacekeeping account assessment rate in the current calendar year. Thus, the U.S. contribution for
each tribunal is funded from both the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account
and from the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account.
The United Nations Capital Master Plan
On December 22, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously approved a budget of $1.88
billion ($1,876.7 million) for the U.N. Capital Master Plan (CMP) to be completed during the
period 2006 to 2014. The financing plan approved in the same resolution (A/RES/61/251) was
based on a mix of one-time and five equal multiyear assessments, using the regular budget
assessment scale for 2007 for all multiyear assessments. This action by the Assembly marked the
end of six years of discussion, debate, study, reports, and negotiations on both a strategy for
renovating the 50 year-old U.N. headquarters complex and a plan for financing that project.
On December 10, 2007, the U.N. General Assembly, by consensus, approved an accelerated
strategy for the renovation of the U.N. complex, with completion scheduled for 2013 instead of
2016. Under this plan, the entire Secretariat building would be emptied in one phase instead of
four phases. The increased cost of leasing additional swing space would be offset by the lowered
cost of the Secretariat building renovation. The Assembly authorized the leasing of additional
swing space but kept the budget and payment schedule unchanged.
The main buildings in the United Nations headquarters complex in New York City were
constructed between 1949 and 1952.76 The Dag Hammarskjold Library was completed in 1961.
Since that time, no substantial renovation of the buildings has occurred. An examination of
conditions in the complex was made by architects, engineers, and other consultants in 1998 and
1999. According to a 2001 report by the then U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S.
Government Accountability Office), the major systems in the buildings—plumbing, electrical,
and chilled and hot water—had passed their “economic life expectancy” and the buildings no
longer met New York City and State safety, fire, and building codes.77
76 This includes the Secretariat building, the General Assembly building, and the Conference building.
77 U.S. Comptroller General, United Nations: Planning for Headquarters Renovation is Reasonable; United States
Needs to Decide Whether to Support Work, June 2001, GAO-01-788 (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting
Office, 2001), p. 23.
Congressional Research Service
27
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Initial Solution
After his initial June 2000 Capital Master Plan proposal for the renovation of the headquarters
complex, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented a second report to the U.N. General
Assembly in August 2002. This report served as the basis for General Assembly approval in
December 2002 of a plan for the CMP renovation (A/RES/97/292). That plan involved the
renovation of the seven buildings on the site, including the Secretariat building, General
Assembly building, Conference building, Dag Hammarskjold Library, and South Annex. The plan
envisioned construction of a “swing space” building located close to the headquarters complex to
provide space for all of the staff in the Secretariat building and for meetings. The swing space
building cost was not included in the CMP financing. It would be built and financed by the
United Nations Development Corporation, a separate public benefit corporation set up by New
York State in 1968 to develop offices and other facilities for U.N.-related activities.78
In September 2005, direct CMP costs were estimated at $1.2 billion. The initial financing plan
called for a loan from the host government, the United States. Early discussions had envisioned
that this might be an interest-free loan, as was the $65 million loan from the United States to
finance original construction of the headquarters complex. In March 2005, the U.S. government
offered to the United Nations an interest-bearing loan of $1.2 billion to finance the Capital Master
Plan and to be provided in three installments over a period of three years. The loan would be
repaid to the United States over 30 years with interest charged at 5.54% annually. The U.N.
membership, through a General Assembly resolution, would have to authorize the Secretary-
General to sign a loan agreement. Once signed, the U.S. loan offer would be kept on the table as
an option for financing the CMP. The Assembly did not authorize the Secretary-General to sign
the loan agreement. In addition, the New York State Legislature did not approve construction of a
swing space building.
Final Approved Solutions
On July 19, 2005, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Louis Frederick Reuter, IV, of
the United States, to the post of Assistant Secretary-General-Executive Director of the Capital
Master Plan. On November 17, 2005, Mr. Reuter reported to the General Assembly,
recommending a phased approach under which the Secretariat building would be renovated in
four phases, in 10-floor increments, starting at the top.79 Affected staff would be relocated to
leased office space. The General Assembly building would be renovated in a single phase, with a
large temporary building constructed on the North Lawn as the site for Assembly activities during
the renovation. That North Lawn facility would then serve as a site for conferences while the
conference building was renovated in two phases.80
The total cost of this approach was estimated at $1.587 billion. In examining possible financing
for the project, Mr. Reuter determined that the “most viable” would be through a multiyear
assessment of U.N. member states to a special assessed account for the CMP. He also
78 Development of this swing space building, to be located on a portion of a public park at First Avenue between 41st
and 42nd Streets, required state legislative approval. The New York State Legislature did not approve development of
this “swing space” or Consolidation building.
79 Original plans envisioned that the Secretariat building would be entirely vacated during its renovation.
80 United Nations. Secretary-General. Third Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the Capital Master Plan.
New York, United Nations, 2005. U.N. document A/60/550.
Congressional Research Service
28
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
recommended establishment of a working operating reserve fund at the level of 20% of
anticipated annual expenditures to ensure a stable cash flow, believed to be an essential
precondition for uninterrupted financing of project costs. This reserve fund should be set up
before the construction phase of the project and total at least $45 million, financed through a
separate assessment. It would be phased out at the end of the construction phase and credited
back to member states.81
While the Assembly, in May 2006, considered some aspects of the CMP, it did not approve a new
strategy and financing plan until a year after they were recommended.82 On December 22, 2006,
the Assembly, in A/RES/61/251, approved the CMP, including scope options, to be completed
from 2006-2014, at a total revised project budget not to exceed $1,876.7 million. The Assembly
apportioned, for the period from 2007 to 2011, the amounts applicable, based on each member
states’ assessment option of either a one-time payment, based on its share of $1,716.7 million or
equal multiyear payments over five years, in accordance with the regular budget rates of
assessment applicable for 2007 for all assessments for the CMP, using the scale of assessments
for the period 2007-2009.83 The Assembly also appropriated $42 million for 2007 for the design
and pre-construction phases of the capital master plan, including swing space requirements. The
Assembly approved establishment of a working capital reserve of $45 million under the CMP
account. Member states were to make advances to the working capital reserve in accordance with
the regular budget rates of assessment applicable for 2007. Finally, the Assembly approved
establishment of a letter of credit facility, with the stipulation that any drawdown on the letter of
credit should be a last resort and solely for the purpose of funding the CMP.
Design, Planning, and Pre-construction Funding
Between 2000 and 2006, the U.N. General Assembly appropriated $160 million for various pre-
renovation activities. In December 2002, the General Assembly in A/RES/97/292 had created a
special assessed account for the CMP. The following table from a November 2006 GAO report
provides an annual breakdown:
81 Mr. Reuter listed a number of changes that had a “serious impact on the viability” of the original CMP strategy.
These included failure of plans for the UNDC-5 building (the swing space building); significant increases in swing
space costs (commercial lease costs continued to rise); additional costs resulting from updating the project
documentation (these included changes in building code requirements and in security and redundancy systems and
rapid inflation of construction costs); and significant changes in costing parameters (construction inflation accelerated
to 11% and tight labor and material markets). The last change was attributed to major increases in construction activity
in the City after the events of September 11, 2001, as well as the demands for construction materials after major
hurricane activity.
82 In May 2006, CMP Executive Director Louis Frederick Reuter resigned, explaining, “I have been frustrated by a
number of factors, all working together, including the lack of clear support by many major stakeholders and difficulties
of working within UN practice as it applies to a large building project.” U.N. News Service, May 4, 2006, at
http://www.un.org/apps/news/printnews.asp ?nid=18358
83 This amount, $1,716.7 million, plus the $160 million in pre-renovation activities already appropriated, totals
$1,876.7 million, which was approved by the Assembly as the budget cost for the CMP.
Congressional Research Service
29
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Table 5. U.N. Appropriations for Headquarters Renovation, 2000-2006
(dollars in millions)
Appropriation
Year Purpose
Amount
2000
Design concepts and cost analysis
$8.0
2003
Continued design, project management and preconstruction services
25.5
2005
Continued design, project management and preconstruction services
17.8
2005
Continued design, project management and preconstruction services
8.2
2006
Design, preconstruction and swing space
23.5
2006
Construction and fit-out of North Lawn building; lease, design and fit-out of off-
77.0
site library and office space
Total
$160.0
Note: Except for the $8 million appropriated in 2000 “through an allotment from the U.N. regular budget,” all
amounts were funded “through cash assessments on member states specifical y for the CMP.” See U.S.
Government Accountability Office, United Nations, Renovation Planning Fol ows Industry Practices, but Procurement
and Oversight Could Present Challenges, Report to Congressional Requesters, November 2006, GAO-07-31, p. 17.
U.S. Contributions to the CMP and Congress
The initial anticipated plan for financing implementation of the CMP was to have been a $1.2
billion loan from the United States. Congress, in 2004, appropriated a $6 million U.N. Capital
Master Plan Loan Subsidy in P.L. 108-447, signed December 8, 2004.84 U.S. contributions to the
assessed budgets of the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations are financed in
the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account under the State Department. The
language in P.L. 108-447, is
... of which up to $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be used for the cost of
a direct loan to the United Nations for the cost of renovating its headquarters in New York:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loan, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize total loan principal of up to $1,200,000,000....
In short, Congress appropriated an amount to subsidize the cost or the “assumed default risk”
(from the State Department appropriations justification for FY2005) of the $1.2 billion interest
bearing loan, not the $1.2 billion amount of the loan.
A second category of contributions, also financed under the State Department Appropriations Act,
the CIO account, relates to the design and pre-construction planning and activities for
implementation of the CMP. According to State Department budget information, the following
U.S. contributions have been made available for CMP assessments:
84 Division B, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State ...
Appropriations Act, 2005
Congressional Research Service
30
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Table 6. U.S. Contributions to the Capital Master Plan Account
Fiscal
Year
Amount Comments
FY2003 $5,550,000
FY2005
$6,000,000 Actual
Loan subsidy to cover assumed default risk of a $1.2 billion interest bearing loan
FY2006 $10,595,000
[$5,720,000 + $4,875,000 (1st yr of interest cost on the loan)] The loan was not
Requested
activated.
$9,825,000 Actual
FY2007 $22,100,000
Estimate
FY2008 $85,435,000
Would provide for U.S. share of first annual assessment ($75,500,000) plus the
Requested
U.S. share of a working reserve fund ($9,900,000 [adjusted to $4,070,000]) [The
$81,365,000 Actual
total U.S. assessment over the five-year period is $377.7 million.]
FY2009 $75,535,000
Second annual payment toward construction costs.
Requested
FY2010 $75,535,000
Third annual payment toward construction costs.
Requested
Congress also provided that funds be available for a U.S. government inter-agency task force to
examine, coordinate, and oversee U.S. participation in the U.N. headquarters renovation project.
Up to $1,000,000 was set aside for such a task force, which had been recommended by the then
General Accounting Office (GAO) in June 2001.85 The Department of State Appropriations Act,
2003, included a provision that “funds ... may be available” for such a task force.86 This provision
has been included in each subsequent appropriations act, including in Division J of H.R. 2764, the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008.87 In
addition, Section 412 of the Department of State and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2006,
includes the following language:
It is the sense of the Congress that the amount of any loan for the renovation of the United
Nations headquarters building located in New York, New York, should not exceed
$600,000,000: Provided, That if any loan exceeds $600,000,000, the Secretary of State shall
notify the Congress of the current cost of the renovation and cost containment measures.88
This provision is in both the House-passed and the Senate-reported versions of the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Act, 2008, H.R. 2764, section 697. This
provision was not in H.R. 2764, as it was passed by the Senate and it is not in the final Act as
passed by Congress and signed by the President.
85 The $1,000,000 was included in the FY2003 request.
86 117 Stat. 86 in P.L. 108-7, February 20, 2003 (Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003).
87 P.L. 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008).
88 119 Stat. 2327, in P.L. 109-108, November 22, 2005 (Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
31
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Problems and Issues
As of the end of November 2009, the U.N. Secretary-General has not yet set up an advisory board
that would advise him on financing matters and on overall project issues relating to the CMP.89
This board, suggested by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in June 2000 was approved by the
General Assembly in December 2002 as an independent and impartial advisory board.90 The U.N.
Board of Auditors, Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), and the Assembly’s Advisory
Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions all urged the appointment of such an
advisory board. In 2005, the U.N. Board of Auditors noted that prominent candidates had
declined to serve on the Board. The explanations included that service on the board would require
enormous knowledge of the plan itself and an ongoing time commitment, that board members
would take on an implied liability that was seen as undesirable, that such advice would be better
obtained from working experts in the respective fields, and that those persons prominent in the
respective fields might also be potential competitors and participation in the advisory board
would make them ineligible to compete as contractors.91
Also cited as problems were the lack of an executive director for the CMP for significant periods
of time and under-staffing in the CMP office. On July 2, 2007, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon appointed Michael Adlerstein, a U.S. architect and project director, as Executive Director
of CMP. After his appointment, Mr. Adlerstein evaluated the strategies approved by the Assembly
in 2006 and recommended an accelerated strategy and other changes that were approved by the
Assembly in 2007.
Congress and Funding the U.N. System
Congress has, over the years, sought to influence the direction of the United Nations and U.S.
policy at the United Nations and in its agencies. A variety of tools have been used, from “sense of
Congress” resolutions to restrictions placed in authorization and appropriations legislation.
Congressional committees have held hearings to educate and to carry out their oversight
functions. U.S. nominees to be ambassadors at the United Nations or its agencies have been
queried on various aspects of U.S. policy and U.N. activity. Congress has reduced or increased
executive branch funding requests, has withheld funding of the U.S. proportionate share that
would finance particular programs or tied release of U.S. contributions to executive branch
certifications once certain policy goals had been met.
U.S. Withholding
Beginning in 1980, Congress prohibited contribution of the U.S. proportionate share for a number
of U.N. programs and activities of which Congress did not approve, including the Special Unit on
Palestinian Rights, for projects benefitting the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the South
89 According to the Seventh annual progress report on the implementation of the capital master plan; Report of the
Secretary-General. U.N. document A/64/346, p. 12, the “creation” of the advisory board is “ongoing and is expected to
be completed no later than 31 December 2009....” The U.N. General Assembly in A/RES/63/270, para. 41, had decided
that if a board had not been established by 31 December 2009, it “will appoint five members, one from each regional
group....”
90 A/RES/97/292.
91 U.N. document A/60/5 (vol. V), p. 10, para. 39. See also, A/60/550, p. 20-21.
Congressional Research Service
32
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), construction of a conference center in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, the Second Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, and for
implementation of General Assembly Resolution 3379 (XXX) (Zionism equals racism). In
addition, the Administration withheld the U.S. proportionate share of funds for the Preparatory
Commission for the Law of the Sea and funds relating to taxes paid by U.S. citizens employed by
the United Nations. The only current U.S. legislative-based withholding for the U.N. regular
budget is for programs relating to the Palestinians.92
In addition, beginning in 1993, the United States recognized a lower peacekeeping assessment
level than that applied by the United Nations, and since October 1, 1995, was limited by U.S. law
(sec. 404 of P.L. 103-236) to a 25% peacekeeping assessment level. Section 402 of P.L. 107-228,
signed into law on September 30, 2002, raised the 25% cap on U.S. peacekeeping assessments
allowing payment of U.S. current peacekeeping assessments in full. In addition, since no waiver
of the 25% cap on U.S. contributions for U.N. peacekeeping was enacted for CY2006, the United
States was withholding from its contributions for U.N. peacekeeping the difference between the
U.N. assessment of about 26.7% and the U.S. statutory limit of 25%.93
Section 7051 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2009 (in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, P.L. 111-8) amended
Section 404 (b)(2)(B) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22
U.S.C. 287e note), by deleting subsection (v) and replacing it with “(v) For assessments made
during each of the calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, 27.1 percent.” This had the
effect of enabling the United States to pay any peacekeeping account arrears attributed to the cap
for assessments made during five calendar years.
Contributions Reporting Requirement
On June 22, 2006, the Senate passed S. 2766, the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2007. Section 1213 would require the President to submit to Congress an annual report on all
U.S. government contributions, both assessed and voluntary, made during each fiscal year (FY) to
the entire U.N. system. The report would include (1) the total amount of all U.S. assessed and
voluntary contributions to the United Nations and U.N. affiliated agencies and related bodies; (2)
the approximate percentage of U.S. contributions to each U.N. affiliated agency or body in such
FY when compared with all contributions to such agency or body from any source; and (3) for
each contribution, the amount, a description of the contribution (including whether assessed or
voluntary), the department or agency responsible for each contribution, the purpose of each
92 In addition, a policy dispute exists with the United Nations over the amount the United Nations reimburses to U.S.
citizens who are U.N. employees for taxes they pay to the United States on their U.N. income.
93 On December 13, 2005, Senator Biden introduced S. 2095, which would raise the U.S. peacekeeping assessment cap
to 27.1% for calendar years 2005 and 2006. On June 22, 2006, the Senate passed S. 2766, the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2007, including an amendment that would set the cap for U.S. contributions at 27.10% for
assessments made for U.N. peacekeeping operations for CY2005, 2006, and 2007. This provision was dropped during
conference consideration of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, H.R. 5122.
Thus, at the start of the 110th Congress, the cap on funds available for U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
accounts was 25%. On January 25, 2007, Senator Biden introduced S. 392, a bill providing that for assessments made
during calendar years 2005 through 2008, U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping assessments would be at 27.1%.
President Bush’s FY2008 budget request included language identical to that in S. 392, which was not acted on by the
Senate. H.R. 2764 was enacted with a provision recognizing 21.7 % as the cap for payment of peacekeeping
assessments made in calendar year 2008.
Congressional Research Service
33
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
contribution, and the U.N. or U.N. affiliated agency or related body receiving such contribution.
This provision was an amendment proposed by Senator Warner for Senate Inhofe, was agreed to
by Unanimous Consent, and received little, if any, debate. This provision became law as section
1225 of P.L. 109-364 (H.R. 5122), John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007, signed by the President on October 17, 2006.94
On June 28, 2006, during House consideration of H.R. 5672, the State Department Appropriations
Act, Representative Scott Garrett offered an identical amendment. Representative Garrett pointed
out that Congress cannot make decisions on funding the United Nations without knowing the
“total amount of money that we are spending for the U.N. and its programs and its services.”
After a point of order was raised, that the amendment “constituted legislation in an appropriation
bill,” Representative Garrett withdrew his amendment.
Over the years, two or three reporting requirements have provided data on annual U.S.
contributions to international organizations; some of them still exist while one has been
terminated. An annual report on U.S. contributions to international organizations for a fiscal year
has been issued by the State Department since the first one, which covered FY1952, was
transmitted to Congress in January 1953. This report is required by P.L. 81-806, September 21,
1950 (64 Stat. 902), section 2 which requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the
extent and disposition of all U.S. contributions (assessed and voluntary) to all international
organizations in which the United States participates. The report does not include the international
financial institutions, organizations with fewer than three members, the cost to the U.S.
government of salaries and expenses of U.S. employees detailed to such organizations, loans
which are to be repaid, and two-party contractual or other arrangements between an U.S. agency
and the organization.
The report was last published, as a House document or State Department publication, in July
1993, for FY1991. The final published report was 170 pages and included three tables of special
interest: U.S. Contributions to International Organizations, FY1946-1991; U.S. Contributions to
the United Nations, Specialized Agencies, International Atomic Energy Agency, Calendar Years
1946-1991; and United Nations, Specialized Agencies, Special Programs, and the International
Atomic Energy Agency: Total Program (Expenditures or Authorizations), Calendar Years 1946-
1991. As issued for FY2004, this 10-page report might be viewed as a minimum response to the
reporting requirement and the absence of the last three charts means that information on U.S.
contributions to the U.N. system in an organized fashion no longer exists.
Another reporting requirement, adopted in 1980 (P.L. 96-533, Title VII, section 703) and
terminated in 1998 (P.L. 105-362, section 1301 (b)(2)), required a semiannual report on all U.S.
government voluntary contributions to international organizations. One weakness of the resulting
reports was that they were just sheets of paper from any U.S. government agency involved in the
exercise, provided without organization or analysis.
A third report required annually on U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations
(22 U.S.C. 287b (c)) was added to the United Nations Participation Act. It includes data on U.S.
assessed and voluntary contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations on a calendar year basis
and was originally required from the President (now the State Department). This report is not
94 The State Department’s report on U.S. contributions to the United Nations and U.N. system for fiscal years 2006 and
2007 was received in the House on June 9, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
34
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
published but is transmitted to the appropriate committees. The 2008 Annual Report to the
Congress on United Nations Peacekeeping has been transmitted.
United Nations Reform
Reform of the United Nations has been a persistent issue over the history of the organization. The
drafters of the Charter anticipated that changes might be required and provided, in Article 109 of
the Charter, for the convening of a conference of U.N. member states to review the Charter at
least at the ten-year mark of its entry into force. That conference was never convened. Article 108
of the Charter provided for formal amendment of the Charter which has occurred on three
occasions. One involved enlargement of the Security Council and two involved enlargement of
the Economic and Social Council. Congress has also sought change at the United Nations. Recent
congressional efforts, especially in the post-Cold War era, have been directed toward a more
effective and efficient organization that works within budgetary constraints.
Kassebaum-Solomon Provisions
Between 1985 and 1988, a number of factors combined to create concern among some in
Congress over the use of regular budget funds and the direction of voting in the U.N. General
Assembly. Some in Congress viewed many U.N. member states as voting “against” the United
States in the Assembly. In 1985, Congress adopted the Kassebaum-Solomon amendment (Section
143, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY1986-1987, H.R. 2068, P.L. 99-93, August 17,
1985) that reduced U.S. assessed contributions by 20% unless steps were taken by the United
Nations to give the major contributors to the U.N. regular budget an influence on budget
questions proportionate to their rates of assessment.95
In December 1985, in response to the issues raised by the Kassebaum-Solomon amendment and
accompanying congressional debate, the U.N. General Assembly established a Group of High-
Level Intergovernmental Experts to “review the efficiency of the administrative and financial
functioning” of the United Nations and to offer recommendations for streamlining the
organization. This Group of 18 proposed 71 recommendations, most of which were approved by
the 1986 Assembly session. In addition, the 1986 Assembly adopted a revised “planning,
programming and budgeting process” that sought to ensure an influential role for major
contributing countries by, among other changes, using consensus as a basic decision-making
mechanism.
On December 22, 1987, Congress recognized that both the U.N. membership and the U.N.
Secretary-General had started to respond to its concerns. Title VII of the State Department
Authorization Act, FY1988-1989, H.R. 1777, P.L. 100-204, created a new payment schedule that
tied full funding of U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget to further progress toward
reform by providing that:
• 40% of the contribution could be paid on October 1, of each year;
95 This amendment applied to the United Nations and to any specialized agencies for which the United States was
assessed more than 20% in regular budget contributions. For specialized agencies, 1987 legislation revising the original
provision required a Presidential determination to Congress that each affected agency made substantial progress toward
adoption and implementation of reform budget procedures before any contribution over 20% could be paid.
Congressional Research Service
35
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
• a second 40% could be paid when the President certified that progress was being
made in implementing U.N. reform in three areas:
(1) consensus decision-making on budget questions,
(2) reductions in U.N. secretariat staffing, and
(3) reductions in the number of Soviet U.N. employees on fixed-term contracts.
• the remaining 20% could be paid 30 days after Congress had received the
certification, unless Congress passed a joint resolution prohibiting the payment.
Although no deadline was given for submission of the President’s certification report, release of
up to 60% of the funds appropriated for the U.N. regular budget was dependent on submission of
the report and its acceptance by the Congress.
On September 13, 1988, President Reagan certified that progress had been made, and announced
release of an initial $44 million in calendar year 1987 regular budget contributions to the United
Nations; a later certification resulted in release of $144 million in calendar year 1988 regular
budget funds. Reagan also called on the State Department to develop a plan to pay over $500
million in arrears to the entire U.N. system over the next three to five years. It would take several
years, however, for the U.S. arrears built up over time to be paid to the United Nations.
Office of Internal Oversight Services
In 1993, Congress provided that 10% of the U.S. assessed contribution to the U.N. regular budget
be available only when the Secretary of State had certified to Congress that “the United Nations
has established an independent office with responsibilities and powers substantially similar to
offices of Inspectors General authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978....”96 Many in
Congress believed that an independent mechanism was needed to reduce and eliminate instances
of “waste, fraud, and abuse” at the United Nations. On November 16, 1993, U.S. ambassador
Madeleine Albright proposed that the United Nations establish such a post. On July 29, 1994, the
General Assembly established an Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) headed by an
Under-Secretary General appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General with the approval of the
General Assembly.97 Eleven annual reports on the activities of the Office through June 30, 2005,
have been submitted to the General Assembly, and the Office has undertaken an increasing
number of monitoring, auditing, and investigative activities.98
The Helms-Biden Agreement and Payment of Arrears
The U.S. government pressed for U.N. reform in the 1990s, linking payment of past arrears to
reforms. These arrears, to both the United Nations, U.N. specialized agencies, and a few non-
U.N. organizations originated from the non-payments of the mid-1980s; others derived from the
placement of a cap on U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping account contributions. High-level
96 Department of State Appropriations Act, 1994, H.R. 2519, P.L. 103-121, October 27, 1993.
97 U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/218B.
98 See OIOS website at http://www.un.org/Depts/oios/ for links to annual reports to the Assembly and to other reports
issued publicly.
Congressional Research Service
36
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
negotiations between the Clinton Administration and congressional leaders led to agreement on
an arrearage payment plan linked to reform “benchmarks,” popularly known as the Helms-Biden
agreement. The 106th Congress enacted P.L. 106-113 including the Helms-Biden agreement
conditioning arrears payments on U.N. reforms.99
P.L. 106-113 incorporated the Helms-Biden agreement and authorized appropriations for payment
of some U.S. arrears to international organizations provided certain conditions were met and
certified by the Secretary of State. The agreement authorized payment of $819 million ($100
million of FY1998 funds, $475 million of FY1999 funds, and $244 million of FY2000 funds),
and authorized $107 million owed by the United Nations to the United States for peacekeeping to
be forgiven provided the United Nations applied the $107 million to reduce U.S. peacekeeping
account arrears.
Among the U.S. conditions was reduction of U.S. regular budget assessments to 22% (from 25%)
and reduction of U.S. peacekeeping assessments to 25% (from about 30%). In December 2000,
the U.N. General Assembly agreed on a financial restructuring of both the regular and
peacekeeping assessment structures. As a result the U.S. share of the regular budget was reduced
from 25% to 22% and for peacekeeping from about 30.4% to 28.14%, initially, and falling in
subsequent years to about 26.5% currently.
Task Force on the United Nations
Appropriations legislation (P.L. 108-447) for FY2005 included a provision directing that $1.5
million of the money appropriated for the U.S. Institute for Peace be used for the expenses of a
Task Force on the United Nations. The Institute was directed to create a task force consisting of
no more than a total of 12 experts to study U.N. efforts to meet the goals of its Charter and
recommend an actionable agenda for the United States on the United Nations. The Task Force
was co-chaired by former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, and former
Senate majority leader, George Mitchell. The Task Force report was released on June 15, 2005.100
Among its recommendations, the Task Force suggested: creation of an Independent Oversight
Board and a Chief Operating Officer; authorizing the U.N. Secretary-General to replace top
officials without Assembly approval; sunset provisions for all programs and activities; disclosure
standards for top officials; greater independence for the Department of Peacekeeping; and
improvement of the U.N. capacity to stop genocide and mass killing.
Congress and U.N. Reform: 2005-2006
On June 17, 2005, the House, by a vote of 221 to 184, passed H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde
United Nations Reform Act of 2005. The wide-ranging and complex measure would require
numerous State Department certifications and reports. The measure would withhold 50% of U.S.
assessed dues to the U.N. regular budget beginning with calendar year 2007 (financed from U.S.
FY2008 funds), if 32 of 40 changes were not in place, including 15 mandatory reforms. Among
the changes sought by the legislation were: changing funding for 18 U.N. programs to be totally
99 Title IX, The United Nations Reform Act of 1999, in the State Department Authorization Act, FY2000-2001, as part
of an Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY2000, P.L. 106-113, signed November 29, 1999.
100 See http://www.usip.org/un/index.html for home page of the Task Force and links to its June 2005 report: American
Interests and UN Reform and its December 2005 update: The Imperative for Action: An Update.
Congressional Research Service
37
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
voluntary; creation of an independent Oversight Board; establishment of a U.N. Office of Ethics;
barring membership on human rights bodies to countries under U.N. investigation for human
rights abuses; reduction in funding for U.N. General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services
as well as for public information; and reform in U.N. peacekeeping and establishment of a
Peacebuilding Commission. No new or expanded peacekeeping operations would be allowed
until the Secretary of State had certified that U.N. peacekeeping reforms had been achieved.
During floor debate on H.R. 2745 in 2005, a number of additional provisions were adopted
including limiting U.S. contributions to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
in the Near East (UNRWA); calling for zero nominal growth in the assessed budgets of the United
Nations and its specialized agencies; requiring the Independent Oversight Board to evaluate the
final report of the Independent Inquiry Committee on the Oil for Food Program; requiring the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget to provide Congress with a report on all U.S.
contributions to the United Nations; and calling for lifting the prohibition on use of gratis military
personnel. The Bush Administration expressed reservations about the House legislation because
of its withholding provisions and because it would infringe on the President’s authority to carry
out foreign affairs. H.R. 2745, as passed by the House, was included in H.R. 2601, Foreign
Relations Authorization for FY2006 and 2007 as passed by the House on July 20, 2005.
A U.N. reform measure was also introduced in the Senate, S. 1383. The Senate measure would
allow the President to withhold 50% of U.S. contributions to the United Nations if the President
determined that the United Nations was not making sufficient progress on reforms. No Foreign
Relations Authorization Act was passed in 2005.
Reform Initiatives in the United Nations101
In 1997, Kofi Annan, after being elected U.N. Secretary-General on a reform platform,
announced a two-track reform program. The first track included immediate managerial changes
within the Secretary-General’s authority to execute, while the second track included reform
measures requiring consultation and/or approval by U.N. member governments. Among the first
track initiatives were: reducing the budget, staffing levels, and documentation; creating a code of
conduct for U.N. staff; reorienting the Department of Public Information; consolidating
administrative, financial, personnel, procurement and other services; consolidating economic and
social departments; streamlining technical support; and improving integration of development
activities at the country level.
Second track proposals focused on U.N. core missions and on improving management and
efficiency. They included creating a new management and leadership structure by establishing a
Deputy Secretary-General, a Senior Management Group, and a Strategic Planning Unit;
overhauling human resources policies and practices including changing the management culture,
eliminating 1,000 jobs and reducing administrative costs; and promoting sustainable development
as a central U.N. priority. The proposals also called for improving peacekeeping and
strengthening post-conflict peace-building capacity; bolstering international efforts to combat
crime, drugs and terrorism by consolidating activities in Vienna; establishing a Department for
Disarmament and Arms Regulation; enhancing humanitarian activities by replacing the
Department of Humanitarian Affairs; and revamping public information functions. The proposals
also called for the following: refocusing the work of the General Assembly on priority issues and
101 See http://www.un.org/reform/ for background, chronology, and links to major U.N. reports.
Congressional Research Service
38
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
reducing the length of sessions; establishing a ministerial-level commission to review the U.N.
Charter and specialized agency constitutions; and designating the General Assembly session in
the year 2000 as “a Millennium Assembly” to focus on preparing the United Nations for the 21st
century.
The U.N. General Assembly in 1997 affirmed many policy formulations and management
changes proposed by Secretary-General Annan including establishing a Deputy Secretary-General
post.102 In December 2000, the U.N. General Assembly authorized implementation of results
based budgeting for the 2003-2003 biennium budget. On June 29, 2001, Secretary-General Annan
was elected to a second five-year term, to start January 1, 2002. Urging the United Nations to
align its activities to doing what matters in the 21st century, in September 2002, Secretary-General
Annan submitted a report, Strengthening of the United Nations: An Agenda for Further Change,
calling for additional reforms.103
On December 2, 2004, a group appointed by the Secretary-General, called the High-level Panel
on Threats, Challenges, and Change, issued its report, A More Secure World: Our Shared
Responsibility.104 The report acknowledged failures and shortcomings in the organization and
offered many recommendations for significant changes including enlarging the Security Council,
creating a Peacebuilding Commission, and strengthening the role of the Secretary-General. Many
of these recommendations required implementation by U.N. member states. Drawing on some of
the proposals in the High-level Panel’s report, the Secretary-General on March 21, 2005, issued
his own report, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All.105
The Secretary-General hoped that these reform proposals would form the basis for discussion and
final decision at a U.N. summit, scheduled for September 2005.
This meeting, at the start of the 60th session of the General Assembly, also commemorated the
organization’s 60th anniversary.106 The 2005 U.N. Summit, meeting September 14-16, 2005,
agreed, without a vote, to the 2005 World Summit Outcome resolution which included some
reform measures, but the details of such measures were mainly left for continued discussions
during the 60th and into the 61st (to start September 2006) session of the U.N. General
Assembly.107
The Bush Administration also expressed support for U.N. reforms. It called for measures to
improve internal oversight and accountability, to identify cost savings, and to allocate resources
to high priority programs and offices. It expressed support for creation of a Peacebuilding
102 Louise Frechette of Canada was Deputy Secretary-General from March 2, 1998 through March 31, 2006. British
national Mark Malloch Brown served as Deputy from April 1 through December 31, 2006. See http://www.un.org/sg/
deputysg.shtml for information on the position and current Deputy.
103 U.N. document A/57/387.
104 http://www.un.org/reform/highlevelpanel/index.shtml.
105 http://www.un.org/largerfreedom.
106 See http://www.un.org/summit2005/.
107 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 60/1 [A/RES/60/1]. Additional changes include the following: In May 2005, the
Secretary-General appointed Christopher Burnham to be U.N. Under Secretary-General for Management. (Burnham
had previously been at the U.S. Department of State in a similar capacity). This U.N. position has been held by
Americans in recent years. Burnham’s predecessor, Catherine Bertini, had been preceded by Joseph Connor. The
number of U.N. Secretariat staff had been cut from about 12,000 in 1985 to about 9,000 today. The U.N. regular budget
for the 2000-2001 biennium was $2.562 billion (or a little less than $1.3 billion per year). The regular budget for 2002-
2003 was $2.891 billion; and the regular budget for 2004-2005 was $3.608 billion.
Congressional Research Service
39
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Commission, for replacement of the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller action-oriented
Human Rights Council, and support for a Democracy Fund (originally proposed by President
Bush in September 2004). The U.S. government expressed its openness to Security Council
reform and expansion, but not at the expense of effectiveness.
As of August 9, 2006, several reform measures have been put into place. These include creation
of the Peacebuilding Commission, establishment and operation of a new U.N. Human Rights
Council to replace the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, U.N. Democracy Fund, U.N. Ethics
Office, strengthened financial disclosure requirements and whistleblower protections, and Central
Emergency Response Fund. In addition, the General Assembly has held at least 20 meetings of an
Informal Plenary on Mandate Review. This review involves 9,000 mandates that are five years or
older, with the goal of eliminating or reducing those tasks no longer relevant. No decisions have
been taken as a result of this review. (See CRS Report RL33848, United Nations Reform: U.S.
Policy and International Perspectives, by Luisa Blanchfield, for a further and updated discussion
of U.N. reform issues.)
Congressional Research Service
40
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Appendix A. Chronology of Major Actions in
Calendar Years 2008 and 2009 Relating to U.S.
Funding for the U.N. System
Date Event
February 4, 2008
President Bush requested funds in the FY2009 budget for the Department of State,
Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations, including the Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO), the Contributions to International Peacekeeping
Activities (CIPA), International Organizations and Programs (IO&P), and
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR)
accounts.
May 2, 2008
President Bush requested, in an amendment to the FY2009 budget, an additional
amount of $40,000,000 for the CIO account, to fund U.S. contributions for the U.N.
Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq
(UNAMI).
June 30, 2008
President Bush signed H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-252), providing additional funding for the CIO and CIPA accounts for both
FY2008 and for FY2009 under the Department of State, Foreign Operations and
Related Programs Appropriations Act. Subchapter A - Supplemental
Appropriations for FY2008 included $66,000,000 for the CIO account and
$373,708,000 for the CIPA account, including to “meet unmet fiscal year 2008
assessed dues” for U.N. peacekeeping missions. Subchapter B - Bridge Fund
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009 provided $75,000,000 for
the CIO account and $150,500,000 for the CIPA account.
July 16, 2008
The State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee approved its FY2009 bill, which was referred to the full Committee but
never issued as a bill.
July 18, 2008
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3288, the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2009 (S.Rept. 110-
425). The Senate did not consider S. 3288.
September 30, 2008
President Bush signed into law H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329).
Division A of the Act, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, provided
appropriations for nine regular appropriations for FY2009, through March 6, 2009.
The Continuing Resolution was extended through March 11, 2009 in P.L. 111-6.
March 11, 2009
President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8). Division H, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, included funding for U.S. contributions to the U.N.
system.
April 9, 2009
President Obama submitted a supplemental request, most of which was for military
and security efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq but included an additional
$836,900,000 for the CIPA account, to be available through September 30, 2010.
May 7, 2009
President Obama submitted the FY2010 budget, including for the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs.
June 24, 2009
The President signed H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-32), which provided $721,000,000 for the CIPA account and $185,000,000
for the PKO account, including up to $115.9 million that may be used to pay
assessed expenses of international peacekeeping activities in Somalia.
Congressional Research Service
41
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Date Event
June 26, 2009
The House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3081, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending
$1,697,000,000 for the CIO account; $395,091,000 for the IO&P account;
$65,000,000 for IAEA in the NADR account; and $2,125,000,000 for the CIPA
account (H. Rept. 111-187).
July 9, 2009
The House passed H.R. 3081.
July 9, 2009
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1434, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act, 2010, recommending
$1,697,000,000 for the CIO account; $393,000,000 for the IO&P account;
$65,000,000 for IAEA in the NADR account; and $2,125,000,000 for the CIPA
account (S. Rept. 111-44).
October 1, 2009
The President signed into law a continuing resolution within the Legislative Branch
FY2010 appropriations bill (H.R. 2918/P.L. 111-68) that provided funding through
October 31, 2009 for those agencies for which an appropriations bill had not been
enacted.
October 30, 2009
A second continuing resolution in the Interior FY2010 appropriations bill (H.R.
2996/P.L. 111-88) was signed, continuing funding for the State Department, Foreign
Operations and related agencies and programs, among others, through December
18, 2009.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Congressional Research Service
42
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Appendix B. Congress and Funding the U.N.
System: FY2004-FY2005
Assessed Budgets
FY2004
For FY2004, President Bush requested $1,010,000,000 for the CIO account, of which $745.8
million was for assessed contributions to U.N. system organizations (of which $340.7 million was
for the U.N. regular budget), and $550.2 million for assessed contributions to the CIPA account.
On September 5, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee, reporting in S.Rept. 108-144 on S.
1585, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, recommended
$921,888,000 for the CIO account and $482,649,000 for the CIPA account. The Committee
deleted $71,429,000 requested funding for a U.S. return to membership in the U.N. Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), noting that the Committee did not consider
UNESCO reformed. The Committee directed that the Inspector General of the Department of
State conduct an annual audit of UNESCO to determine the status of reform, the qualifications of
UNESCO’s staff, its procedures for hiring and promoting personnel, a detailed breakdown of
expenditures, and how U.S. membership would advance the goals of the UNESCO and U.S.
priorities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee also deleted $11,779,000 from requested funding for the
U.N. regular budget because the Committee did not want to provide funding for the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights which, in its view, had too long been dominated by known human
rights violators. In addition, of the funds made available for the U.S. contribution to the U.N.
regular budget, $10 million was to be used to reimburse New York City for unanticipated costs in
providing protection to foreign officials associated with the United Nations in the aftermath of
September 11, 2001. The Committee also expressed its views on war crimes tribunals, directing
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to complete its work by 2004 and the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to complete its work by 2006.
The Committee also expressed its support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone and Directed the
U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) to provide the necessary support for the Court.
On July 23, 2003, the House, by a vote of 400 in favor, to 21 against, passed H.R. 2799, making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State for FY2004, providing the
requested $1.010 billion for assessed contributions to international organizations (CIO) and
$550.2 million for assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA). In its report
(H.Rept. 108-221) on this measure, the House Committee on Appropriations had included the full
amount requested by the President for a U.S. return to membership in UNESCO. The Committee
noted that it expected the Department of State to work aggressively to ensure that UNESCO
employs more Americans, especially at senior levels. The Committee also noted that if the 2004-
2005 UNESCO budget is increased, that increase should focus on management and
administrative reforms identified by the General Accounting Office. The Committee urged the
Department of State to consider the appointment of a single representative with the rank of
ambassador to represent the United States at UNESCO and at the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, both at Paris, France. During floor debate on H.R. 2799, an
Congressional Research Service
43
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
amendment offered by Representative Ron Paul to strike funding for UNESCO was defeated by a
vote of 145 in favor of the amendment to 279 against the amendment.
P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673, signed January 23, 2004), the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2004, included $1,010,463,000 for U.S. contributions to international organizations (CIO)
account, and $550,200,000 for U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA) account,
as requested by the President. The measure included a requirement that non-defense spending be
cut by 0.59% across the board.
FY2005
On February 2, 2004, the Bush Administration requested $1.194 billion for U.S. assessed
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO), of which $819 million was for assessed U.N.
system organizations including $362.2 million for the U.N. regular budget and $6 million for the
U.N. Capital Master Plan, a loan subsidy relating to the renovation of the U.N. headquarters
complex in New York. In addition, he requested $650 million for assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping activities (CIPA).
On July 1, 2004, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 4754 as an original
measure. The Committee recommended full funding of the request for CIO and CIPA. The
Committee expressed its support for the U.S. policy of zero nominal growth budgets for
international organizations and noted that if the United Nations proposed exceeding its $3.16
billion biennial budget, the Committee should be notified before consideration and adoption of
such a proposal. While recommending full payment of U.S. assessed U.N. budget dues, the
Committee expressed concern about allegations of corruption in the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program.
It noted that the United Nations needed to do more about the crises in Sudan. It also expressed
concern over charges of sexual abuse of minors by some associated with U.N. peacekeeping
operations. The Committee included $6 million for costs of a direct loan of up to $1.2 billion to
the United Nations for renovating U.N. headquarters in New York.
On July 8, 2004, the House, by a vote of 397 to 18, passed H.R. 4754, appropriating $1.194
billion for U.S. assessed Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and $650 million for
U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA). During House floor
consideration of the bill, a number of amendments were offered to reduce or cut CIO funding. On
July 7, 2004, Representative Ron Paul’s amendment to prohibit funds for UNESCO failed by a
vote of 135 to 333, and his amendment to prohibit U.S. contributions to the United Nations or
U.N. affiliated agencies failed by a vote of 83 to 335. The next day, Representative Smith’s
(Michigan) amendment to reduce CIO funding by $20 million to express concern about the
alleged corruption in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program failed by a vote of 129 to 291.
On September 15, 2004, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported (S.Rept. 108-344) on
S. 2809, funding the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State for FY2005. The Committee
recommendation of $1.020 billion for U.S. assessed Contributions to International Organizations
(CIO) was $173,380,000 below the amount requested by the Administration; and the $574 million
recommended for assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA) was $76 million
below the amount requested by the Administration. The Committee recommended allocation of
$70 million for the IAEA, $12.7 million for the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
$1.35 million for the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and $1.1 million for the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Committee also recommended $6 million to
subsidize the cost of a $1.2 billion loan to the United Nations for renovation of its headquarters.
Congressional Research Service
44
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
The Committee also recommended that the Department of State urge the United Nations to make
available to congressional committees investigating the Oil-for-Food program all relevant
documents, and ensure that the Volcker Inquiry was conducted rigorously.108
The conference committee in H.Rept. 108-792, expressed concern that the U.N. Oil for Food
Program was marred by allegations of corruption and that it abetted a tyrannical regime and
undermined the international community’s good will. It directed the Department of State to bring
all necessary resources to bear on investigation of the Oil for Food Program and provide all
requested documents to the U.S. Congress and to provide any requested assistance to the U.N.
Secretary-General’s Independent Inquiry Committee.
P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005 included $1.182 billion for U.S.
assessed contributions to international organizations (CIO) account of which up to $6.0 million
may be used for the cost of a direct loan of up to $1.2 billion to the United Nations for renovating
U.N. headquarters in New York; and $490 million for assessed contribution to U.N. peacekeeping
activities (CIPA) account. The Secretary of State was to provide the Appropriations Committees
with a copy of the most recent U.N. biennium budget and to notify the Committees of any United
Nations action to increase funding for any U.N. program without identifying an offsetting
decrease elsewhere in the U.N. budget. This caused the United Nations to exceed its adopted
biennium budget for the 2004-2005 of $3.16 billion. The measure included a rescission of 0.54%
for any discretionary account in the act.
As already discussed, the measure directed that $1.5 million of the money appropriated for the
U.S. Institute for Peace be used for the expenses of a Task Force on the United Nations. The
Institute was to create the task force consisting of no more than a total 12 experts drawn from the
American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Hoover Institution, and the Heritage Foundation. The task
force was to study U.N. efforts to meet the goals of its Charter and submit its report within 180
days of enactment.
U.N. Voluntary Programs
FY2004
President Bush requested $314.6 million for FY2004 for voluntary contributions to the
International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account. An additional $50 million was
requested for IAEA voluntary contributions in another account.
On July 23, 2003, the House, by a vote of 370 to 50, passed H.R. 2800, making appropriations for
foreign operations including $194,550,000 for voluntary contributions to the IO&P account. H.R.
2800 included $120 million for UNICEF and $52.9 million for voluntary IAEA programs in other
accounts. During House consideration, an amendment by Representative Nadler to withhold
funds for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
failed when a point of order was sustained against it.
108 Following press accounts of serious allegations, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in April 2004 set up the
“Volcker” Independent Inquiry Committee. Endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, the mandate of the Committee was
to investigate the administration and management of the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq. Paul Volcker chaired the
Committee of three. See http://www.iic-offp.org for further information.
Congressional Research Service
45
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2004 (P.L. 108-199, signed January 23, 2004) included
$321,650,000 for voluntary contributions to the International Organizations and Programs
(IO&P) account, including $120 million for UNICEF and $102 million for the U.N. Development
Program (UNDP). Appropriated in another account was $53 million for voluntary contributions to
the IAEA.
FY2005
The Administration requested $304.45 million for voluntary contributions for the International
Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account for FY2005. In addition, $53 million was requested
for voluntary contributions to IAEA in another account.
On July 13, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee reported (H.Rept. 108-599) H.R. 4818 as
an original measure. The Committee recommended $323.45 million for voluntary contributions to
the international organizations and programs (IO&P) account, $19 million more than requested
by the Administration. The Committee recommended not less than $107 million for UNDP; not
less than $7 million for the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; not less than $125
million for UNICEF; and $3 million for UNIFEM (of which $1 million would be for a first time
contribution to the Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women).
On July 15, 2004, the House, by a vote of 365 to 41, passed H.R. 4818, including $323.45 million
for U.S. voluntary contributions to the international organizations and programs (IO&P) account.
The bill included $53 million for a voluntary contribution to the IAEA in another account. During
House floor debate on H.R. 4818, Representative Buyer introduced an amendment that prohibited
any funds appropriated by this measure to be used by any U.S. government official to request the
United Nations to assess the validity of elections in the United States. The amendment was agreed
to by a vote of 243 to 161.
P.L. 108-447 included for FY2005, $319,494,000 for voluntary contributions to the International
Organizations and Programs account (IO&P) as well as $53 million for voluntary contributions to
IAEA appropriated in another account.
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
FY2004
P.L. 108-199, appropriating funds for the State Department, included $550.2 million for FY2004
U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities (CIPA), the amount requested by the
President.
FY2005
The Administration requested $650 million for FY2005 for U.S. assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations. Another $780 million was requested for U.N. peacekeeping in
supplemental FY2005 appropriations. H.R. 1268, signed May 11, 2005, as P.L. 109-13, included
$680 million. The State Department Appropriations Act, FY2005, P.L. 108-447, included $490
million for FY2005 U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities.
Congressional Research Service
46
Appendix C. The United Nations System: An Organizational Chart
Source: http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart_en.pdf.
CRS-47
United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues
Author Contact Information
Marjorie Ann Browne
Kennon H. Nakamura
Specialist in International Relations
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
mbrowne@crs.loc.gov, 7-7695
knakamura@crs.loc.gov, 7-9514
Congressional Research Service
48