```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1623 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1623

To require the withholding of United States contributions to the United 
 Nations until the President certifies that the United Nations is not 
                  engaged in global taxation schemes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 2007

    Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
 Stevens, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Ensign, Mr. 
  Coburn, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
 Sessions, Mr. Thune, Mr. Bond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Burr, Mrs. 
  Dole, and Mr. Allard) introduced the following bill; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the withholding of United States contributions to the United 
 Nations until the President certifies that the United Nations is not 
                  engaged in global taxation schemes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protection against United Nations 
Taxation Act of 2007'', the ``PUNT Act of 2007'', or the ``Helms-Biden 
Reauthorization Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Congress has previously taken action in opposition to 
        United Nations taxation schemes in section 921 of the United 
        Nations Reform Act of 1999 (chapter 2 of title IX of the 
        Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act, 
        Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted into law by section 
        1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113 and contained in appendix G of 
        that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-478) (commonly referred to as 
        ``Helms-Biden'')).
            (2) The 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report, 
        released September 7, 2005, envisages ``raising additional 
        revenue through international taxation mechanisms''.
            (3) The 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report 
        states, ``Several governments are assessing the implications of 
        an international tax on aviation fuel. Even set at a low level, 
        such a tax could raise $9-$10 billion a year.''.
            (4) The 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report 
        states, ``Another proposal calls for a flat-rate tax on airline 
        passenger tickets,'' with several countries having ``reached an 
        agreement in principle to introduce a national air ticketing 
        tax to finance development spending''.
            (5) The 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report 
        states, ``Other countries have advocated a tax on currency 
        transactions. Indeed, Belgium has already passed legislation on 
        the adoption of a currency tax.''.
            (6) It has been estimated that a ``Tobin tax,'' named after 
        Dr. James Tobin who first proposed it, would raise 
        $13,000,000,000,000 from a small levy on international currency 
        transactions.
            (7) The 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report 
        states, ``Advocates for the use of international levies to 
        mobilize financing for development claim that the approach 
        would produce important benefits for the MDGs [Millennium 
        Development Goals] and beyond.''.
            (8) The 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report 
        highlights the fact that, in a 2004 report, the Government of 
        France argues that new international taxes and fees are a good 
        idea.
            (9) The 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report 
        recognizes that ``the United States, in particular, is opposed 
        to the approach'' of employing international taxation 
        mechanisms.
            (10) United Nations officials have made numerous and 
        repeated proposals to provide financing for the United Nations 
        outside the scrutiny of Member States of the United Nations, 
        including borrowing from international financial institutions, 
        assuming control of bonds issued by Member States, and imposing 
        taxes on an extensive range of transactions, goods, and 
        services.
            (11) The 1994 United Nations' Human Development Report 
        stated that ``[i]t is appropriate that the proceeds of an 
        international tax be devoted to international purposes and be 
        placed at the disposal of international institutions''.
            (12) On January 14, 1996, United Nations General Secretary 
        Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated that an international tax would 
        mean that ``[he would] not be under the daily financial will of 
        the Member States''.
            (13) The United Nations and its organizations are replete 
        with mismanagement, waste, corruption, and inefficiency which 
        cost American taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
            (14) The power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty.
            (15) The United Nations does not have the attributes of 
        sovereignty and is not a sovereign power.
            (16) The United Nations has no legal authority to impose 
        taxes on United States citizens.
            (17) On August 30, 2005, the United States Representative 
        to the United Nations wrote to colleagues at the United Nations 
        to caution against international spending targets ``which bear 
        no relation to countries' needs or ability to use aid 
        effectively'' and to warn against ``ignor[ing] the need for an 
        enabling environment at the national level for aid to be 
        effective in promoting development''.
            (18) The Report of the United Nations Commission on the 
        Private Sector and Development estimates that developing 
        countries have $9,400,000,000,000 in private financial assets 
        that cannot be fully mobilized because of corruption and 
        inadequate legal protection for property and contracts.
            (19) On August 30, 2005, the United States Representative 
        to the United Nations observed, ``Prosperity requires 
        institutions at the national level that generate wealth and 
        enable countries to participate in the global economy.''.
            (20) As a matter of prioritization, foreign national and 
        international corruption and legal protection for property and 
        contracts must be addressed before additional spending of 
        American taxpayer dollars on foreign aid exacerbates these 
        problems.
            (21) On August 30, 2005, the United States Representative 
        to the United Nations observed, ``Development is about putting 
        into place a complex set of policies and institutions that will 
        generate economic growth and sustain it over the long haul to 
        the benefit of all countries.''.
            (22) On August 30, 2005, the United States Representative 
        to the United Nations observed, ``A global partnership is 
        predicated on the acceptance by developing countries of their 
        national responsibility to undertake specific reforms to 
        improve their economic governance and respect for human rights 
        and the rule of law.''.
            (23) On August 30, 2005, the United States Representative 
        to the United Nations stated clearly and firmly that ``the 
        United States is unable to agree'' to ``new open-ended donor 
        financial commitments''.
            (24) On August 30, 2005, the United States Representative 
        to the United Nations stated clearly and firmly that ``the U.S. 
        does not accept global aid targets or global taxes''.
            (25) Any activity by United Nations officials, personnel, 
        agents, or contractors to develop, advocate, or promote 
        international taxes or fees, except as noted in section 
        3(b)(4), is unacceptable and must be thoroughly investigated.
            (26) On August 30, 2005, the United States Representative 
        to the United Nations cautioned against ``global governance'' 
        and objected to ``assert[ing] a primacy for the United Nations 
        in international economic governance without respecting the 
        roles and mandates of other institutions''.
            (27) On March 21, 2005, United Nations Secretary-General 
        Kofi Annan addressed the General Assembly to present a report 
        entitled, ``In Larger Freedom'' that advocates, ``Global 
        development assistance must be more than doubled over the next 
        few years. ... Each developed country that has not already done 
        so should establish a timetable to achieve the 0.7% target of 
        gross national income for official development assistance no 
        later than 2015, starting with significant increases no later 
        than 2006, and reaching 0.5% by 2009. The increase should be 
        front-loaded through an International Finance Facility, and 
        other innovative sources of financing should be considered for 
        the longer term.''.
            (28) The term ``innovative sources of financing'' involves 
        developing, advocating, endorsing, publicizing, promoting, and 
        collecting international taxes and fees.
            (29) According to the ``In Larger Freedom'' report, the 
        United Nations proposes to create an international revenue 
        service named the International Finance Facility.
            (30) This proposed international revenue service would 
        extract long-term binding financial commitments from developed 
        nations and collect this money.
            (31) This proposed international revenue service would also 
        issue debt on the global market for bonds issued by 
        supranational institutions and agencies and transfer wealth to 
        developing nations.
            (32) The January 2003 proposal of the United Kingdom for an 
        International Financing Facility, which the United Nations has 
        endorsed, states, ``There have been other proposals for new and 
        innovative ways to raise funds to meet these goals, including a 
        Tobin tax, arms tax and an issue of IMF special drawing rights 
        (SDRs).''.
            (33) On Friday, June 10, 2005, at the United Nations in New 
        York, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), in cooperation with 
        the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs 
        (Financing for Development Office), organized a panel 
        discussion entitled, ``Promoting innovative sources of 
        financing for development: What role for parliaments?''.
            (34) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, laid the 
        lobbying groundwork for global taxes and fees, stating ``The 
        panel aimed at providing the United Nations with a first direct 
        impression of the political support that currently exists at 
        the parliamentary level or that may be mobilized in future for 
        innovative sources of development financing.''.
            (35) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, concluded 
        that ``most proposed new sources of financing will eventually 
        require a legislative framework either to regulate existing 
        financing mechanisms or to create brand new ones''.
            (36) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, stated, 
        ``[T]he role of parliaments is essential to mobilize the 
        required political support for the various innovative 
        mechanisms on the table.''.
            (37) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, lobbied to 
        maximize new international taxes, ``The seven parliamentarians 
        on the panel agreed that no single innovative proposal alone 
        would suffice to fill the financing gap left open by 
        traditional sources (estimated between 50 and 100 billion 
        dollars a year). It was important therefore that a number of 
        proposals be advanced at the same time.''.
            (38) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, explained 
        the rationale behind the first, most promising way to levy new 
        international revenues from the likes of United States 
        nationals, stating, ``Among these, the IFF was likely to be a 
        favourite because it did not require universality, could 
        mobilize considerable sums, created a more predictable and 
        stable flow, and could easily be scrutinized by contributing 
        countries' parliaments. Because the IFF can be implemented in 
        the short term, it constitutes the most rapid response. ... The 
        first IFF, to raise $4 billion ... will be launched this 
        year.''.
            (39) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, lobbied to 
        find the most efficient way to transfer wealth out of the 
        United States, stating, ``On remittances, the impression of the 
        panel was that it should not be too difficult to find some 
        creative solution to reduce the average 20 percent transaction 
        fee, and thus increase the overall flow.''.
            (40) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, lobbied to 
        make life easier for illegal immigrants, stating, ``A more 
        intractable problem, however, has to do with facilitating money 
        transfers for illegal migrants who fear exposure to the 
        authorities. The situation has become particularly difficult in 
        the United States, the largest remittance-sending country, 
        following the tightening of security measures since the 
        September 11th attacks.''.
            (41) The United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, confronted 
        the challenges of international taxation and offered some 
        glimmer of hope, ``When it comes to discussions about 
        international taxation, some of the parliamentarians on the 
        panel felt strongly that this would for several years to come 
        be a political non-starter in too many legislatures (although 
        the Canadian House of Commons did adopt a motion on an 
        international currency transaction tax that expressed support 
        for such a tax `in concert with the international community'). 
        The reasons adduced for this negative assessment were the 
        classic ones: international taxes can distort investment and 
        trade flows, can undermine national sovereignty, may be 
        impossible to universalize, and may even tamper with a 
        country's defence capacities (in the case of taxes on arms 
        sales).''.
            (42) In order to tax with the greatest of ease, the United 
        Nations panel of June 10, 2005, advocated the following: ``For 
        other panelists, however, at least some new fiscal levies could 
        be instituted without seeking a universal consensus. The best 
        example of this is given by flight departure taxes; these can 
        be implemented at the country level and can generate a fairly 
        predictable and rich stream.''.
            (43) On August 28, 2005, Asia-Europe Dialogue & Partner 
        offered their Declaration on Innovative Sources of Financing 
        for Development, ``At the initiative of President Luiz Inacio 
        Lula da Silva, of Brazil, we gathered in New York, on 20th 
        September 2004, to ... increase financing for development. ... 
        [T]he international discussions of innovative sources of 
        funding have gained momentum. The issue has become a regular 
        feature in UN discussions on financing for development and has 
        been in the agenda of multilateral financial institutions and 
        other important international fora.''.
            (44) The United Nations General Assembly agenda item dated 
        on October 15, 2004, and titled ``Follow-up to and 
        implementation of the outcome of the International Conference 
        on Financing for Development'' states the determination of the 
        General Assembly ``to continue to implement and build further 
        on the commitments made and agreements reached at the 
        International Conference on Financing for Development and to 
        strengthen the coordinated and coherent engagement of all 
        relevant stakeholders in the financing for development 
        process''.
            (45) The World Federalist Movement Web page on Global 
        Economic Governance states that organization's position on 
        global levies or taxes, noting the United Nations' calls for 
        major efforts to mobilize additional financial resources and 
        stating that a treaty or convention for collection of revenues 
        for funding is in the works: ``For multilateral institutions to 
        be effective and independent they must have stable and adequate 
        funding. There is a fundamental need for new financial 
        mechanisms to provide for a strengthened and democratized 
        multilateral system. Since the U.N. conference on Financing for 
        Development in 2002, more intergovernmental attention has been 
        given to the possibility of innovative sources of finance such 
        as environmental charge, currency transaction taxation, 
        taxation of arms trade, International Financial Facility as 
        proposed by the British government, and remittance's benefits 
        as well as voluntary contributions through credit cards and 
        lotteries.
            ``Several reports have been written on the feasibility of 
        some of these innovative sources of finance by Member-States 
        and U.N. bodies. In the note by the U.N. Secretary-General on 
        innovative sources of financing for development, he calls for 
        `major efforts by developing countries and the international 
        community to mobilize additional financial resource'. Brazil, 
        France, Chile and Spain have taken the lead in a campaign for 
        Action against Hunger and Poverty emphasizing the need for 
        innovative finance mechanisms if the Millennium Development 
        Goals (MDGs) are to be accomplished.
            ``Whereas the current intergovernmental debate about 
        innovative sources of finance is placed within the framework of 
        financing development and more specifically the MDGs, WFM 
        believes that the debate should be seen in a broader 
        perspective to also include the element of independent funding 
        of multilateral organizations.
            ``At present the most powerful countries provide the vast 
        majority of funding for international organizations and possess 
        an immense and unbalanced control over the political decisions 
        of these organizations. To reverse this trend, WFM calls for a 
        mixture of state and independent funding of international 
        organizations to ensure fair and democratic decision-making 
        processes exempt from power politics. WFM thus believes that 
        independent funding for multilateral organizations would 
        address the challenges and obstacles for achieving democratic 
        global governance.
            ``WFM specifically consider the global taxation of 
        transnational currency transactions to be the most important 
        source of independent funding and advocates a global 
        implementation of the Tobin tax. Eventually, in cooperation 
        with other NGOs and legal experts, WFM hopes to draft a treaty 
        or convention for collection of revenues for funding the 
        multilateral system that can be proposed and carried forth in 
        intergovernmental processes.''.
            (46) The International Financial Institutions in Latin 
        America state on their Web page the following: ``Another study 
        on innovative sources of financing for development, 
        commissioned by the U.N. from WIDER (The World Institute for 
        Development Economics Research), was published in August 2004. 
        Undertaken by Professor Anthony B. Atkinson of Nuffield 
        College, Oxford University, the study examines some of the same 
        potential sources for additional aid as well as considering how 
        international taxes might be administered by national 
        authorities.
            ``In addition to the Tobin tax, it considers a global 
        environmental levy, a carbon-use tax, applied at a rate of 
        US4.8 cents a US gallon (E 0.01 per litre). This tax `levied 
        only on high-income countries could indeed raise some US$60 
        billion a year'.''.
            (47) On August 17, 2004, the United Nations General 
        Assembly distributed a document entitled, ``Innovative Sources 
        of Financing for Development'', which stated the following:
                    ``The General Assembly, in its resolution 58/230 of 
                23 December 2003, decided to consider at its fifty-
                ninth session possible innovative sources of financing 
                for development, and requested the Secretary-General to 
                submit the result of the analysis on this issue as 
                called for in paragraph 44 of the Monterrey Consensus 
                of the International Conference on Financing for 
                Development. In the Consensus, heads of State and 
                Government recognized the value of exploring innovative 
                sources of finance provided that those sources did not 
                unduly burden developing countries, and agreed to 
                study, in the appropriate forums, the results of the 
                analysis requested from the Secretary-General on 
                possible innovative sources of finance.
                    ``In this connection, it should be recalled that 
                the General Assembly, in the context of the five-year 
                review of the implementation of the outcome of the 
                World Summit for Social Development, adopted resolution 
                S-24/2 of 1 July 2000, on further initiatives for 
                social development, in which it called for a rigorous 
                analysis of the advantages, disadvantages and other 
                implications of proposals for developing new and 
                innovative sources of funding, both public and private, 
                for dedication to social development and poverty 
                eradication programmes.
                    ``In response to the decisions of the Assembly, the 
                Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United 
                Nations Secretariat commissioned the World Institute 
                for Development Economics Research of the United 
                Nations University (UNUWIDER) to undertake, during the 
                period from 2003 to 2004, a study of new and innovative 
                sources of development finance. The purpose of the 
                study was not to devise new financing mechanisms for 
                development but to consider some of the better-known 
                existing proposals, focusing on their design and policy 
                implications. An international expert on fiscal issues, 
                Professor Anthony B. Atkinson, Warden of Nuffield 
                College, Oxford University, led the project, which 
                engaged a number of academics to prepare separate 
                papers on a selection of innovative financing 
                proposals. The UNU-WIDER study, entitled New Sources of 
                Development Finance, will be published by Oxford 
                University Press in 2004.
                    ``An edited version of a policy-focused summary, 
                entitled `New Sources of Development Finance: Funding 
                the Millennium Development Goals', prepared by 
                Professor Atkinson in his capacity as director of the 
                UNU-WIDER study, is contained in the annex to the 
                present note. It presents the analytical framework, 
                short summaries of the seven proposed sources of 
                funding (i.e., global environmental taxes, tax on 
                currency transactions, creation of new special drawing 
                rights, an international finance facility, increased 
                private donations for development, a global lottery and 
                global premium bond, and increased remittances from 
                emigrants), an overview of the key findings, and some 
                conclusions.''.
            (48) The foreword to the United Nations University book 
        entitled ``New Sources of Development Finance'' observes that, 
        ``Proposals for any form of global taxation meet immediate 
        opposition from powerful elements in the US Congress. On the 
        other hand, there is widespread appreciation of the need for 
        new resource flows ... .''.
            (49) The foreword to the book also explains that earmarking 
        of taxes for particular uses can be an effective tactic for the 
        implementation of new taxes, stating that ``[w]e can learn from 
        the analysis of the ear-marking of taxes ...''.
            (50) The foreword to the book also clearly explains the 
        lobbying goal of the book, stating, ``The ultimate aim is to 
        help break the present impasse in external finance for 
        developing countries, and we believe this study will make an 
        important contribution to the debate.''.
            (51) One contributor to New Sources of Development Finance 
        suggests that taxes be collected by national governments and 
        then provided for international purposes, perhaps through ``an 
        international agency''. Another contributor suggests the 
        establishment of a ``World Tax Authority'' under the United 
        Nations system.
            (52) In June 2001, Ruben P. Mendez, formerly of the United 
        Nations Development Programme, presented a paper entitled ``The 
        Case for Global Taxes: An Overview'' to the United Nations ad 
        hoc Expert Group Meeting on Innovation in Mobilizing Global 
        Resources for Development.
            (53) In ``The Case for Global Taxes'' Mr. Mendez claims 
        that as a percentage of gross national product, official 
        development assistance from the United States to foreign 
        nations ``runs at about 0.22 per cent, or less than one-third 
        of the universally accepted norm of 0.7 per cent'' and explains 
        that the public transfer of resources from the United States to 
        foreign nations could be brought to 22 to 28 percent, or one 
        hundred times what it is now, through a formal system of 
        international taxation of the United States.
            (54) According to Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Special Advisor to 
        United Nations Secretary-General Annan on the Millennium 
        Development Goals, the rate of United States assistance remains 
        at 0.15 percent and, therefore, ``We are short by $65 billion 
        each year.''.
            (55) In his 2001 United Nations paper, Mr. Mendez states, 
        ``Permits to pollute, in fact, are a form of corrective, or 
        `Pigovian', taxation and could presage the acceptance of global 
        taxation per se in view of the interest of the big industrial 
        polluting nations in this approach.''.
            (56) The 2001 United Nations paper continues, ``In the 
        international economy, however, the global commons are 
        generally used free of charge. It is therefore only logical to 
        have a system of global taxes, or user charges. The global 
        commons may be defined as those physical attributes of the 
        universe that fall outside national jurisdiction or ownership. 
        In addition to the traditional, tangible kinds of geographical 
        space and features, e.g., land, bodies of water, ocean depths, 
        air, natural resources and ecosystems, they include impalpable 
        but nevertheless important physical facts such as the different 
        levels of outer space, the orbits of geostationary satellites, 
        and the electromagnetic spectrum.''.
            (57) The 2001 United Nations paper reflects, ``Nobel 
        Memorial Prize-winning economist James Tobin of Yale has 
        proposed taxing foreign exchange transactions ... . Professor 
        Tobin has noted that it could also be a `terrific fund raiser' 
        that `could cover everything'--a potential that has not been 
        lost on people concerned with international fund raising, who 
        have now latched on to the `Tobin tax' bandwagon.''.
            (58) Journalist Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at 
        Forbes Magazine, estimates that the Tobin tax ``might net some 
        $13 trillion a year''.
            (59) The 2001 United Nations paper alternately advocates 
        the creation of a foreign currency exchange to replace the role 
        banks currently play and to levy user charges.
            (60) The 2001 United Nations paper also advocates an ad 
        valorem tax on international trade, which the paper claims is 
        justified, arguing, ``trade uses the global commons, and 95 
        percent consists of goods transported by ocean freight. It 
        would be a form of user fee. An alternative would be a tax on 
        ocean freight.''
            (61) The 2001 United Nations paper also advocates, 
        ``Military expenditures and arms transfers could also be 
        taxed.''.
            (62) The 2001 United Nations paper also advocates, ``Taxes 
        could also be on specific traded commodities, for instance, 
        internationally traded oil, other exhaustible materials ... or 
        manufactured goods.''.
            (63) The 2001 United Nations paper also advocates ``serious 
        attempts to compensate [developing countries] for the 
        opportunity costs of conservation or to promote the generation 
        of positive externalities whose returns these countries are 
        unable to capture''.
            (64) The 2001 United Nations paper also advocates taxing, 
        overflight, stating, ``Like the high seas, international air 
        space provides a passage for international transport. Since it 
        lies outside national jurisdiction, is used by aircraft of 
        various nations and is congestible, there is logic behind 
        having the international public sector assert global ownership 
        and charge user fees. One way this could be accomplished is 
        through a surcharge on international air tickets, a proposal 
        suggested by former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, 
        but not repeated since an outcry by a group of US 
        congressmen.''.
            (65) The 2001 United Nations paper also advocates, ``In 
        addition to taxing and tapping foreign exchange transactions, 
        discussed at the beginning of this section, there are two 
        measures of a monetary nature, with considerable possibilities 
        for fund raising, that are worth revisiting: Special drawing 
        rights (SDRs) and IMF gold holdings.''.
            (66) The 2001 United Nations paper also advocates, ``The 
        `Bhagwati tax' is one of many which have an economic and 
        ethical rationale but must be appraised in terms of political 
        and national juridical considerations. Although not presented 
        initially within a public economics framework, it can be seen 
        as a way for the developed countries to compensate generators 
        of positive externalities--the countries of origin of the 
        highly trained emigrants, who benefit the receiving countries 
        and do not produce returns that can be captured by their home 
        countries. Such taxes have existed for some time, such as the 
        exit taxes of the Russian Federation and the former USSR, 
        although Bhagwati's point is that it is the beneficiaries, 
        including the recipient countries, which should pay the 
        taxes.''.
            (67) In the 2001 United Nations paper, Mendez declared 
        that, ``The concept of automaticity in international public 
        financing [mandatory international taxation] was first 
        discussed in an official international forum in 1977, at the 
        United Nations Conference on Desertification (UNCOD) in 
        Nairobi. It was developed and incorporated in concrete 
        proposals in subsequent studies and reports, in 1978 and 1980, 
        by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the 
        Secretary-General to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) 
        and the General Assembly on financing the UNCOD Plan of Action. 
        These proposals were first analysed in an international public 
        finance framework in my 1992 book on the subject ... .''.
            (68) The global tax proposals have thus been developed from 
        1977 to the present, calling into question the validity of the 
        Helms-Biden certification required under section 921 of the 
        United Nations Reform Act of 1999 (chapter 2 of title IX of the 
        Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act, 
        Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted into law by section 
        1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113 and contained in appendix G of 
        that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-478) (commonly referred to as 
        ``Helms-Biden'')).
            (69) The 2001 United Nations paper concludes simply that 
        ``the dawn of global taxation appears to be at hand''.
            (70) The handling by the United Nations of the global tax 
        issue is discussed in the book, ``World Democratic 
        Federalism,'' by Myron J. Frankman, who says that one factor 
        behind the ``hostile reaction'' of the United States Congress 
        ``to activity by the UN aimed at the promotion of any global 
        taxes was the publication by the United Nations Development 
        Program of a 1996 book titled, `The Tobin Tax'''.
            (71) The United Nations and international organizations 
        have developed, advocated, endorsed, promoted, and publicized 
        proposals concerning the imposition of taxes and fees on United 
        States nationals in order to raise revenue for the United 
        Nations and international organizations.

SEC. 3. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS CONTINGENT UPON CERTIFICATION 
              OF NO UNITED NATIONS TAXATION SCHEMES.

    (a) Withholding of Portion of Assessed Contributions.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, until the President submits 
the certification required under subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the 
United States shall withhold during such year 20 percent of assessed 
contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations and other 
applicable international organizations.
    (b) Certification.--
            (1) Certification required.--The certification referred to 
        in subsection (a) is an annual certification made by the 
        President to Congress that the following conditions have been 
        met:
                    (A) No united nations legal taxation authority.--
                Except as provided in paragraph (2), neither the United 
                Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated 
                agencies nor any other international organization has 
                the authority under United States law to impose taxes 
                or fees on the United States Government or on the 
                several States or on United States corporate citizens 
                or on United States nationals.
                    (B) No taxes or fees.--Except as provided in 
                paragraph (2), a tax or fee has not been imposed on the 
                United States Government or on the several States or on 
                United States corporate citizens or on United States 
                nationals by the United Nations or any of its 
                specialized or affiliated agencies or any other 
                international organization.
                    (C) No taxation proposals.--Except as provided in 
                paragraph (2), neither the United Nations nor any of 
                its specialized or affiliated agencies nor any other 
                international organization has developed, advocated, 
                endorsed, promoted, or publicized any proposal 
                concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United 
                States national or any income earned in the United 
                States in order to raise revenue for the United 
                Nations, any foreign government, or any international 
                organization.
            (2) Exception.--The conditions in subparagraphs (A) through 
        (C) of paragraph (1) do not apply to--
                    (A) fees for publications or other kinds of fees 
                that are not tantamount to a tax on United States 
                citizens;
                    (B) the World Intellectual Property Organization; 
                or
                    (C) the staff assessment costs of the United 
                Nations and its specialized or affiliated agencies.

SEC. 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

    (a) Enforcement of Restrictions.--
            (1) In house of representatives.--It shall not be in order 
        in the House of Representatives to consider any bill, joint 
        resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report suspending, 
        waiving, or repealing the requirement in section 3(a).
            (2) In senate.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
        consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
        conference report suspending, waiving, or repealing the 
        requirement in section 3(a).
    (b) Waiver of Rule in Senate.--Subsection (a) may be waived or 
suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of 
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
    (c) Appeals.--
            (1) Procedure.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
        the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
        limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
        controlled by, the mover and the manager of the bill, 
        resolution, amendment, or conference report, as the case may 
        be.
            (2) Sustainability of appeal.--An affirmative vote of 
        three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
        required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
        the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
                                 <all>
```