Fear of Car Bomb on FDR Off-Ramp Leads to Talk of UN Cafeteria Closing, May 2, Some Say

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 13 -- Of the labor problems within the UN, Inner City Press earlier this week covered the head of the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management ranting at staff members, "I'm warning you, I want respect!"

  Beyond abuse, for others in the UN jobs are on the line. Workers in the UN Cafeteria are worried about what they say is the impending but untransparent closing of the cafeteria, which they exclusively tell Inner City Press is slated to occur on May 2.

  Previously, Inner City Press has reported on fears that the UN there is vulnerable to a terrorist bombing by a vehicle on the FDR Drive off-ramp. The US diverted $100 million in withheld tax payments of US staffers, the so-called Tax Equalization Fund, to reconfigure the basement conference rooms for this threat from the FDR Drive itself. 

  But the City has declined to close down the off ramp, instead stationing a police car there apparently with the idea it would serve as a deterrent or marginal early warning system.

  That interim solution apparently not seen as enough, now there's impending closure - and job loss - on May 2, with some smaller alternative with fewer workers to remain. Watch this site.

  As the UN talks about workers' rights and collegiality, inside the Glass House things can be quite different. On July 31, 2014, Inner City Press reported how the head of the UN Department of General Assembly and Conference Management Tegegnework Gettu calling female critics "emotional," here.

 Now on March 9, multiple sources tell Inner City Press that Gettu told complaining staff "I am warning you," cutting them off while saying We are all equal, including me." Really? Leaked audio exclusively put online by Inner City Press here.

 What will Secretary General Ban Ki-moon do? Under his management, the UN Staff Union in New York has been broken. But is this rant appropriate? Previously, Gettu said, if we all fart together, it doesn't smell. Really?

 Back on July 31 Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced he is shifting Catherine Pollard from the Office of Human Resources Management over to become Assistant Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), replacing Franz Baumann of Germany.

  As Inner City Press previously reported, Pollard had declared herself the poster child of Ban's “mobility” policy, to only hold the same post -- or was it duty station? -- for five years. 

   No matter that, for example, Robert Serry has said on television he's been in his post six years. Pollard has made a lateral move, and Baumann's next move is not yet clear.

  What does DGACM do? As a sample, Inner City Press has already exclusively received a number of complaints about a meeting held by DGACM chief Tegegnework Gettu, also on July 31. According to sources, Gettu used the meeting to tell staff how well he is doing, how objective he is, that he has no personal agenda. (Click herefor previous Inner City Press report.)

  But when he opened the floor, the first staff member who dared make a suggestion -- that verbatim is now nearly identical to translation -- was cut off and told that his was only a personal opinion.

  A female staffer who made a criticism was told by Gettu to not be “emotional.” Eventually Gettu was telling the assembled staff that the UN “is good” and “if you don't like it, walk away.”

  In fact, it was in DGACM that the staff member elected vice president of the Staff Union in December was terminated -- Gettu says he didn't re-apply for a job so he clearly didn't need one -- and it was in DGACM that staff members were subjected to bed bugs, among other things, in the Albano Building.

  On July 31, the sources exclusively tell Inner City Press that Gettu told DGACM staff that they may remain in the Albano Building on 46th Street until 2017 when, he says, the UN may have a “DC5” building, proposed to be built on the Robert Moses playground south of 42nd Street. Click here for Inner City Press story.

  There are many hardworking staff in DGACM, and even some in management may mean well. 

   But the type of self-serving speechifying at staff described to Inner City Press by sources on July 31 is indicative of the same UN which, for example among the press, evicted the News Agency of Nigeria from its work area claiming a lack of space while giving a large room to its favored UN Censorship Alliance (UNCA) -- which now says it will leave the room empty and locked from August 1 to August 19. We and the new Free UN Coalition for Access will have more on this. We'll have more on this.

   

As Sudans Disagree on Abyei, France Talks Legislature, US Half on Syria

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 9 -- Amid the happy talk Thursday at the UN about Sudan and South Sudan, the lingering issue of Abyei was dodged by the US and to a lesser degree France.

  Inner City Press asked Sudan's Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman about the position expressed by his South Sudanese counterpart Francis Nazario: that the nomadic Miseriya should NOT be allowed to vote in Abyei.

  If he is repeating that position, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman told Inner City Press, then "it will not lead to any success in resolving the issue."

  The issue of who can vote in Abyei is one on which much rides. US Ambassador Susan Rice after the two Sudan sessions came out and took four questions; as selected, two of them were not about Sudan but rather Syria.

   After this Syria-heavy stakeout, Inner City Press went and asked Ambassador Rice which groups the US thought should be able to vote in Abyei. She smiled but did not answer. 

   By most accounts, it was the US which prevailing on South Sudan to make the oil transfer fee agreement. What is the US thinking, and what will it do, about Abyei? The question should have been answered, or at least taken, on Thursday. But it was not.

 Ominously, another Council member told Inner City Press than many of the supposed "agreements" have yet to be signed, and Sudan's Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman told Inner City Press that nothing is solved until everything is solved.

   French Ambassador Gerard Araud, this month's Council president, did take and partially respond to the question, off camera in front of the stake out. Inner City Press asked him about Abyei, and he said the voting there is not up to France. (Some would say the position is not the same on Cote d'Ivoire, but that's another story."

  But Araud went out to note the disagreement about naming what he called the final "legislator," saying that once this is decided, the problem is resolved. That may not turn out to be entirely accurate, but at least he answered.

  Another major Council member told Inner City Press that yes, Abyei is "the big one," to be resolved only in the face to face meetings of Presidents Omar al Bashir and Salva Kiir.

   Neither Ambassador Francis Nazario nor the South Sudanese present on Thursday came to the stakeout to take questions. Earlier this week at the Cote d'Ivoire national day reception, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Nazario if the Kafia Kingi enclave in Western Bahr al-Ghazal is in South Sudan according to maps of Jan 1, 1956. We'll report the South Sudanese answer upon receipt.

   Inner City Press asked Sudan's Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman, on camera, if the repair of the oil facilities at Hegligwould be covered by the $3 billion lump sum (which may or may not ever be paid), or if Sudan is looking for separate compensation.

  Separately compensated, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman said.

   Inner City Press asked, Do you have an estimate?

   Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman said a team needs to go out and estimate it. South Sudan says that their role in the destruction still need to be proved. 

  What does the US think? For a few days, Inner City Press has asked or tried to ask US Ambassador Rice, who should pay to fix Heglig? She has smiled but not answered. These then, and not always Syria, would seem to be questions for the stakeout after the Security Council meetings about Sudan.

   Or, for example, what does the US Mission think of the prospective use of US Tax Equalization Funds to cover the $400 million "associated costs" overrun of the UN's Capital Master Plan? In the past, Rice took a TEF question at the stakeout. In August 2012, would or will she? Watch this site.

At UN, US $100 M Savings Is Offset by Tax Equalization Fund, FOIA Stalled 10 Months

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 29 -- Five days after a $5.153 billion two-year budget was adopted by the UN General Assembly, the US Mission to the UN on December 29 put out a "fact sheet" declaring that "when factoring in the difference between the likely budget level based on historic patterns and the budget approved last week, this budget represents a savings to American taxpayers of as much as $100 million."

Even this inflated savings figure, however, is entirely offset by $100 million that had been due to the US Treasury from the UN, but that the UN was stealthly allowed to keep early this year, the so-called "Tax Equalization Fund." Click here for that story.

Faced with stonewalling about the legality of this equalization, and even about how the funds would be used, Inner City Press on February 11, 2011 filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the US State Department, for

"copies of any and all letters or emails or other records between or among Under-Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy and/or his subordinates and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and/or his subordinates concerning balances due to the United States from the Tax Equalization Fund, including the request by the UN (and the subsequent concurrence by the Department of State) for the so-called 'repurposing' of US-owned Tax Equalization Fund credits for security purposes, including as related to the UN Capital Master Plan. I am covering this TEF issues at the UN, asked Ambassador Rice about it this week - this is for news gathering purposes and is entitled to fee waiver, as receive from Federal Reserve and other gov't agencies."

The State Department confirmed receipt and said that "the process for completing your request will now begin" --

Subject: FOIA Request Letter
From: Freedom of Information Act [at] state.gov
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:42 AM
To: matthew.lee[at] innercitypress.com

Thank you for filing your FOIA request online on 2/11/2011. The process for completing your request will now begin. Here is a review of your request: [for] copies of any and all letters or emails or other records between or among Under-Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy and/or his subordinates and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and/or his subordinates concerning balances due to the United States from the Tax Equalization Fund [etc]

Despite US Ambassador for Management and Reform Joe Torsella's repeated statements about transparency, and contrary to the time lines applicable to FOIA, ten and a half months later the State Department has yet to provide a single documents responsive to the FOIA request they acknowledged receiving on February 11, 2011.

Torsella at the Fifth Committee's first meeting on the budget spoke eloquently and even live tweeted about making the process visible to taxpayers around the world. But in the final 20 hours of the budget process, when deals were cut and votes taken, Torsella stopped any tweeting, and has not responded to tweeted questions since.

Rather than being described by him or the US Mission, Torsella's backroom moves, such as at the eleventh hour proposing increased flexibility for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon whom a number of budget committee diplomats referred to as a "tool of the US" on this issue, were only made public by other delegations.

Beyond the one page "deal sheet" which a non-US delegation provided to Inner City Press on the evening of December 23, Inner City Press has now exclusively obtained a copy of a spreadsheet from the UN budget negotiations, reflecting that the US was not the one proposing the largest cuts. We will have more on this -- watch this site.

Footnote: Ban Ki-moon has, as an echo, made similar claims about cost savings and doing more with less -- while for example his Spokesperson's Office on December 29 declined to answer simple questions about violence in Egypt, Turkey and Sudan, where the UN spends more than $1 billion a year, click here for that story.

As US Doesn't Fund Slavery Memorial at UN, Tax Equalization Fund $100M Q-ed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 25 -- To build at the UN a memorial to the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, a committee is seeking to raise $4.5 million. So far the big donors are India with $260,000 and Australia with $100,000.

What about the United States, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Raymond Wolfe of Jamaica on Friday.

Ambassador Wolfe said he discussed the matter with US Permanent Representative Susan Rice but that she said the US Mission does not have money to make such contributions, it would have to go through Congress.

Inner City Press pointed out to Ambassador Wolfe that the US Mission and State Department recently allowed the UN to keep $100 million in US Tax Equalization Funds without any Congressional approval. Wolfe indicated he may look into that route.

Later in the Delegates' Entrance to the General Assembly, Wolfe and the Ambassador of Cameroon noshed on a sort of three bean salad and other Cameroonian specialties like dried bananas -- Inner City Press was told there's exploration of packaging for export. And so it goes at the UN.

UN Corruption Scandal in ERP Extends from Hiring & PWC to Capital Master Plan

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive upload

UNITED NATIONS, February 28, followed up March 5 -- A year ago in March 2010 Inner City Press asked the UN and wrote about corruption in the UN's Enterprise Resource Planning or UMOJA program, with the UN dodging questions about detailed hiring irregularities.

On March 9, 2010, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: Umoja, which is the ERP or Enterprise Resource Planning, Inner City Press received these documents that seemed to, that indicate that the head of the program, Mr. Paul van Essche, hired a colleague or friend of his, John Solem, who doctored his PHP, Personal History, to delete all references to Mr. van Essche having been previously his supervisor. These are documents. What I want to know is whether you can confirm that OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] was informed of this, if there is an investigation of this and when it will be finished, and what the penalties are in the UN system for altering documents in order to be able to hire friends and cronies?

Spokesperson: Let me find out.

The UN's own Office of Internal Oversight Services investigated the hiring violations and confirmed them, also finding procurement irregularities in contracts to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

When a short article on this appeared, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky for the UN's response. He said that one would be forthcoming, then later declined to comment.

Now Inner City Press has obtained and is publishing the OIOS report, which is worse than previously reported. PWC was not the low bidder; the UN's Department of Management won't even commit to adopting rule about soliciting and taking Best and Final Offers.

The irregularities extend to the UN Capital Master Plan, into which an additional $100 million in US Tax Equalization Funds are being poured, so far with no paperwork.

Not addressed in the report is that UMOJA chief Paul von Essche took New York Knicks basketball tickets from PWC just when they were getting the contracts despite not being the low bidder.

While the OIOS report leaves names out, here's an insider's account and exegesis of the OIOS report:

Procurement Issues

1. PWC was once a major player in ERP system integration business but sold that practice to IBM in October 2002 (http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/491.wss). This was after the Enron-Arthur Andersen scandal and there was a call to separate audit and consulting practices. When PWC bid for the UN contract in 2008, it was re-entering the integration market.

2. The UN uses two-envelops bidding process (technical and financial), which is normal in public sector. The panel for the technical evaluation, which was set up by the Project Director, was deemed as unfit. The high ratings of the panel gave PWC an advantage even though as a new player it was not the lowest cost bidder, as typical of new entrants.

3. There was no BAFO or cost for deliverables - meaning there is no true cost or time limit for PwC services. When the UN failed to reach a contract with SAP, PwC continued to report to work even though there was no application to work with. The negotiation with SAP ultimately lasted for 16 months. During that time, PwC continued to work

4. Each contract in the UN has an NTE (not-to-exceed) amount which serves as a ceiling for amount to be expended. To exceed that amount, the Headquarters Committee on Contract must approve. Mr. van Essche exceeded the amount with PwC without HCC approval. (Audit Report)

5. In submitting its bid, PwC used profiles of people who did not show up. (Audit Report)

6. A typical ERP implementation requires a single system integrator that stays with the project till conclusion. The project director changed broke the integration services into (Design and Build). That piece-meal approach that favored PwC, as a new entrant, which quite simply did not have the resources for a life cycle integration services at the time of bidding.

7. To curb any unfair advantage PwC may have for the next phase (Build), Procurement Division proposed that PwC does not participate in the next phase. But again, Mr. van Essche persuaded the UN that PwC would install a firewall to ensure that its staff preparing for the next bid have not worked on the project or information about the project aren’t transferred from current project staff to those preparing proposals for the next bid. Unfortunately, there are no mechanism to ensure the integrity of that firewall. Is the UN monitoring PwC emails or movement of its people?

8. A separate contract for the provision of strategic services was entered into with Deloitte. However, many of the deliverables agreed to under this contract were assigned to PwC by the Project Director. The lack of BAFO, conversely the open-ended service contract under which the Project Director can assign anything to PwC makes all of this possible. All PwC has to do is submit attendance and other administrative charges and the UN pays. Some of the deliverables assigned to PwC are project charter, business case, project plan and strategy.

9. After winning the contract, PwC provided free office accommodation to the project for over three months. When questions were raised about the practice, the Project Director altered an invoice for services (man-day) in order to show that accommodation was actually paid for.

Hiring Corruption

1. Mr. Jon Solem and Mr. van Essche have been friends for more than 15 years. In fact, the VA was specifically tailored to Mr. Solem’s expertise. The title was changed; Mr. Solem changed his resume as well removing any mention of Mr. van Essche as his previous supervisor and the fact that he was a P4, two levels below the level of the new post he was applying to. It should be noted that Mr. van Essche chaired the two panels the interviewed Mr. Solem for the P5 and D1 posts and was fully of aware of the changes of Mr. Solem’s resume.

2. The other D1 VA was used to hire Ms. Ann Kerney, another friend of Mr. Paul van Essche.

3. Some of the friends he brought in include: Mr. Robert Holden as a P5 and without any selection. Under a special arrangement made solely for Mr. Holden, he works two weeks in NYC and two weeks in Geneva because his family refused to move to NYC. Mr. Holden and Mr. van Essche have been friends for 17 years now dating back to Cambridge Technology where they worked in early 90s. Mr. Holden did not participate, even remotely, in preparation of the business case for the project.

4. Since the audit, the practice has continued. Mr. van Essche has also brought in two more friends – Ms. Patricia Dann as a P5 and Mr. Ronald DeGroot (a naturalized Canadian of South African descent) as a P5 as well. This was based on temporary VAs. Each of these VAs were specifically tailored to suit these external candidates. Mr. deGroot is also listed on Paul’s best friend Jon’s PHP as a reference.

5. Mr. van Essche has also sent resumes of friends for recruitment by consulting companies he has hired to work for the project. Two of such candidates are Brad Manila and Hugh Jetha. These friends were hired by PWC and another was hired by Deloitte. By recruiting them through the consulting companies, they can maximize their renumeration such as paid travel and hotel as well as a hefty $175 per hour. Brad and Hugh reside in Florida and commute weekly to NYC.

6. It is true that there were no background checks done on Mr. van Essche hiring. There was an anonymous letter claiming that he had inflated his background. Including claims that he owned a company called Left Brain when the company was founded by one Richard King. When auditors requested a record of the background checks, they were informed that he got lost while offices were being relocated as a result of CMP.

7. The audit alleges the hired persons were qualified based on a review of their PHP but that is because the VA/TVAs were specifically designed for these people.

Now what will the UN do? The spokesperson's office has so far refused to comment. Angela Kane, who applied for and it's said was initially give post at the top of the UN in Geneva, now won't get that post, which is being given an Italian spokesperson says to Carlo Trezza. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked that Ms. Kane belatedly give a briefing and take questions but this hasn't happened. Watch this site.

Update of March 5, 2011: we have published in full a belated submission by the UN, and responded to it -- click here.

As UN Refuses to Account for $100 M, Ban Ki-Moon Doggle Alleged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 10, 1pm -- On the $100 million of US Tax Equalization Funds that are being “re-purposed” for use at the UN, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky repeatedly told Inner City Press this week to “ask the US State Department.”

While Inner City Press did ask US Ambassador Susan Rice, it seemed strange for the UN to refuse to provide information about its own plans and use of $100 million.

On February 10, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about a statement by US Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, that “In this case the United Nations notified the State Department that it intended to use [TEF funds] for security enhancement.”

Inner City Press asked Nesirky who in the UN told the State Department that the UN intended to repurpose the $100 million in US funds: was it Capital Master Plan director Michael Adlerstein? Department of Management chief Angela Kane? Or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself? Nesirky would not answer.

Inner City Press asked if the $100 million will be paid to the UN selected contractor Skanska, recently charged in New York City with defrauding minority sub-contractor rules and involved in South America in what is called the Skanska Scandal. Nesirky would not answer.

Given that the Capital Master Plan is ostensibly subject to UN General Assembly oversight, with reports that purport to disclose cost overruns, Inner City Press asked if this $100 million is anywhere in the UN budget documents. Nesirky would not say.

Cutting off the questions, he said that this should be dealt with “off line” - that is, not in the press briefings. But Inner City Press has submitted a number of written questions to Nesirky's office that have not been answered.

Beyond the above, there is unclarity about the TEF. Inner City Press on February 9 asked in writing, with no acknowledgment much less answer:

What are the sources of funds which are deposited into the TEF? Isn't the TEF funded only through the Staff Assessment? You seem to be saying that the TEF is funded through the Staff Assessment AS WELL AS through "reimbursements" from the United States. Please provide a balance sheet of the TEF which shows the deposits made into it as well as the disbursements made from it for 2009 and 2010.

You answered that the "net balance of $179 million" was "due to the United States" from the TEF as of 31 December 2009. What was the net balance due to the United States from the TEF as of 31 December 2010, and what is the net balance due to the United States as of today, 9 February 2011?

You stated that "The US levies taxes on its nationals in respect of their UN earnings, and reimburses the UN for the same." Are you saying that the US makes payments to the UN which are deposited into the TEF, and that these payments are equal to the amount it receives in taxes from its nationals who work for the UN?

Regulation 4.12 of the UN Financial Regulations states that --

“In accordance with regulation 3.2, any balance on a Member State’s tax equalization account after the obligations referred to in regulation 4.11 have been satisfied shall be credited against the assessed contributions due from that Member State the following year.”

Were the balances from 2009 credited toward the US' assessment for 2010, as required by UN Financial Regulation 4.12? If not, then why? Was the UN not following its own financial regulations when it allowed the "balances due" to the US to reach $179 million as of the end of 2009? Please explain.

None of these questions have been answered. One problem here is that by refusing to state which UN officials notified the US State Department about the re-purposing of $100 million, responsibility must go to the top. And when Ban said that 99% of his officials make public financial disclosure and Inner City Press showed this is untrue, Nesirky said it was all a metaphor. Watch this site.

At UN, Re-Purposing of US $100 M Defended by Susan Rice, Noone Else Paid

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 9 -- When US Ambassador Susan Rice came to the UN Security Council stakeout late Wednesday morning, she was prepared to answer questions about the Tax Equalization Fund, some of which Inner City Press submitted to the US Mission Tuesday morning.

In the House of Representatives a proposal is being considered to get the $179 million owed to the US applied to future UN dues. At some date still undisclosed, some US State Department official told the UN it could keep $100 million for security upgrades in the Capital Master Plan renovation, beyond the CMP security elements already approved by the General Assembly, for which the US pays 22%.

Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice who had approved this, and if any other country would be contributing toward the $100 million in additional security.

Ambassador Rice said that the Obama Administration opposes the House legislation. She cited Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island as supporting this position. Her answer implied that no other country is contributing to the $100 million -- she spoke only about $79 million of the $179 million being put toward UN dues. She did not say who had approved the $100 million.

Inner City Press began asked what Ambassador Rice would say to those who now consider the $179 million, or at least $78 million of it, to be a slush fund -- Ambassador Rice asked, “Slush fund? There is no slush fund,” and her spokesman moved on to another questioner. Transcript below.

Minutes later at the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky who the UN had spoken to within the US government to conclude that these $100 million could be spent, and if it had ever been approved or presented to the UN General Assembly.

Nesirky again said, ask the State Department -- we have -- and said he would look into whether there are other Capital Master Plan related funds that have not been disclosed or voted on by the General Assembly.

When asked to explain why the $100 million was so urgent it could not go through regular budgeting (and disclosure) procedures, Nesirky said to ask the State Department.

Earlier, Inner City Press had asked Nesirky's office

Ultimately, who within the Secretariat is responsible for spending this money? DM? DSS?

Has the General Assembly given its approval to this project? Is there a mandate from the GA for this activity?

How was the referenced money “repurposed”? Did the US Mission or State Department indicate how it could be repurposed? How? What other countries have allowed extra budgetary money to be similarly repurposed and how much?

Answers will be reported when they are received. Watch this site.

From the US Mission to the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: On Sudan, what do you make of this fighting in Malakal? The army, there are several dozens of people who have been killed of late, what does the US think of that? And I wanted to ask, on the Tax Equalization Fund—there’s a dispute in the House about this $100 million that the State Department has told the UN it can use for security improvements. Who approved that at the State Department and are other countries going to be contributing to that, or is the US paying the whole $100 million with no offset on the CMP payments?

Ambassador Rice: Well, let me start with Malakal. Obviously we’re very concerned about the violence in Malakal and along that border area. This is a function, as you know, of the need for these units that have been joint to now separate, and it is of concern that lives have been lost and violence has occurred, and it underscores the need for this process of disintegrating the joint units to be done carefully and with some supervision.

Let me turn now to the Tax Equalization Fund, and the application of these credits. The legislation that is pending in the House today is a piece of legislation the administration strongly opposes. And we do so because it was the City of New York that underscored the vital importance to US national security to enhance security—physical security—in this structure, above and beyond what was originally contemplated during the Capital Master Plan. We have thousands of New Yorkers who pass through this building and under this building every day. We have school children, we have members of the public, we have the President of the United States, come in this building on a regular basis. And the City of New York and the State Department and the administration feel that it’s in our national interests and in the interests of the people of New York that steps be taken swiftly to upgrade the physical security of this building. And that is what we have done, in coordination with the United Nations. That is also why Representative Peter King—a New Yorker—who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House, said very plainly yesterday that this is a crucial commitment that we’ve made, one that should be honored, and he opposes this legislation because it unwisely would make that impossible.

Let me just say also, Matt, we share, however, the spirit in which the legislation is offered, which is to reduce the deficit and to address the need for spending reductions. But the other portion of those credits—the $79 million—will do just that, because we intend to apply those to assessments that we would otherwise have to request resources from Congress to pay. So this is a way of ensuring that we are utilizing taxpayer dollars wisely.

Inner City Press: So it’s kind of a slush fund, there’s no approval?

Ambassador Rice: Slush fund? No, there’s no slush fund.