Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is saying when we think about it, my good colleague from Florida and New York, were the people in this country wrong for 200 years to protect the flag from desecration?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, now the gentleman, as a Congressman in this 21st century, is saying they were all wrong, the judge in the Johnson and Eichman case was absolutely right? He was not respecting the 200 years we had and now suddenly out of thin air he has decided to change the courts?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think we need a clarification who has the time. I understood that my side had given me 2 minutes.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think I have got the time now.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think I would ask my colleague why he is against 200 years in this country, when we protected our flag, why is he standing on the floor today not respecting the tradition of this country for 200 years and realizing that all 50 States want us to enact this legislation.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, we have been through this debate, and in all respect to the gentleman from New York, he has come down here and he pulls a box out and he has the American flag on handkerchiefs and he has got it on his tie. I respect him for doing that because he is really saying that the American flag comes in many forms and people use it to adorn, maybe even upholstery, but that is a little different. That is a little different than taking the flag and burning it. The fact that when this country was founded and we have all the States up until 1989 supporting the idea of protection of the flag, I mean, that tradition alone, by saying to the American people we are going to forget all that tradition, so have we been wrong?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, he has been very generous with my time. I do not want to take his time away because he is on the rule.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I have one question for the gentleman. If I went to the New York City firefighters who raised our flag on the rubble of the World Trade Center and I said to them, do you want to protect this flag from desecration and burning, what does my colleague think their answer would be?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I understand the gentleman is kind to give me this time. It is the gentleman's time, but the point is this is a constitutional amendment. It is not changing the first amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York would agree that we are not amending the first amendment or otherwise limiting in any way the guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Is that not true what we are doing?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from New York in his last presentation, for over 2 centuries the first amendment was already understood to permit flag protection. In fact, before the 1989 case, what he is talking about was not even germane because 48 States had already had in place that the flag was protected. Only Wyoming and Alaska did not have it; and now all 50 States, contrary to what the gentleman is talking about, want this amendment, H.J. Res. 10, to pass so that we have protections for our flag. So he is acting like there has not been historically, little protection for this flag, but historically, for 2 centuries, the first amendment was in place and the flag was protected. H.J. Res. 10 will not amend the first amendment. Let us not forget that we are not talking about amending the first amendment or limiting the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. So let us make that perfectly clear. As I pointed out, for 200 years in this country, the first amendment was understood to permit simple flag protection. That conduct has always and continues to be regulated by the United States Government. That is our job. Both State and Federal criminal codes prohibit conduct that could conceivably be protected by the first amendment; yet their constitutionality is not questioned. Let me give my colleagues an example. Defacing currency, urinating in the public, pushing over a tombstone, public nudity are all actions which can be utilized to express a particular political or social message, but are unquestionably, unquestionably illegal. Flag desecration was once included in that list as a form of conduct our society chose not to condone. However, the Supreme Court's opinion in 1989 in Johnson and Eichman usurped the people's will in this respect. So after 1989, then we had this problem. H.J. Res. 10 will simply return to where we were 200 years ago, overturn this erroneous decision. That is all we are doing here, restoring the original meaning to the first amendment that had persisted for over 200 years. As we stand here today, we have a flag behind us here in the House. That flag was like the flag that we saw on 9/11. Who can forget the iconic photo taken on the terrible day of September 11, 2001, of three New York City firefighters raising our flag from the rubble of the World Trade Center? What did that do? That symbolizes America's mourning, but also it symbolized a determination by the American people to pursue justice. How sad it would be to come to the point where we would allow this flag that projects the symbolism of American mourning and the symbolism of a determination to pursue justice, that we would allow it to be burned. So we are here to move forward on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. I do.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Supreme Court overturned a law that prevented people from buying health insurance, that is, private health insurance, to pay for medical services available from and through Medicare, the publicly funded system. The ruling means that citizen residents can pay privately for medical service, even if the services are already covered under the state- provided health care system. Now, what does that mean? Perhaps you did not see this ruling, but that is because it was not the United States Supreme Court and Medicare and ``private contract'' we are talking about. It was the Canadian Supreme Court and Canada's socialized health care program under Medicare and Quebec's ban. Now, how did this come about? Well, a courageous Canadian doctor, Jacques Chaoulli, and his patient, 70-year-old Montreal businessman, George Zeliotis, waited for a hip surgery replacement, decided enough is enough, and challenged the constitionality of the Canadian ban on private payment. He argued that long waiting lines and times for surgery contradicted the country's constitutional guarantee of ``life, liberty and the security of the person.'' He argued that the wait was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on his constitutional rights. The Court split 3-3 over whether the ban on private insurance violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something like our Bill of Rights, but agreed in striking the ban, saying that, ``Access to a waiting list is not access to health care'', in its ruling. They went on further to say, ``The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequences of denying people vital health care results in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness.'' Now, my colleagues, while the ruling applies only to the province of Quebec, one wonders if this could fundamentally change the way health care is delivered across that country. Canada is currently the only major industrialized country in the world that does not allow any private administration of health care services that are provided by the public system. Now, John Williamson, President of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said with hope, ``This is a breach in government monopoly health care in this country''. That is in Canada. ``It is going to open up litigation across the country and the other nine provinces as taxpayers there press for their same right, which is the right to seek and buy insurance to cover private health care.'' And some Canadians worry that this is the beginning of the end of what they considered a national treasure. Well, this is not cause for alarm, or by those who have for years argued for our Medicare private contract ban here in the United States, it simply is not a threat, said the Court. ``It cannot be concluded from the evidence concerning the Quebec plan or the plans of the other provinces of Canada, or from the evolution of the systems of various OECD countries, that an absolute prohibition on private insurance is necessary to protect the integrity of the public plan.'' And I would argue, my colleagues, in fact, it is the Canadian middle class who have probably been most injured, not the very, very wealthy, because they just pay out of pocket. They can afford it. Remember that the ban is on private insurance, not private health care, so the very rich could still go on and get out of this waiting line that the rest of the middle class have to continue to participate in. And furthermore, a whole industry of medical tourism was spawned. For decades Canadians of means have been traveling to the premiere medical facilities here in the United States, especially in my sunny locales in the State of Florida to enjoy lovely weather, while they are also getting the benefits of health care facilities in Florida. This means that the Court, the Canadian Court, sees that a national comprehensive coverage program can peacefully coexist with private health insurance. My colleagues, we have been saying that in the United States for years.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have a chart here which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) prepared, and I think you can see all the scandals at the United Nations. This has been shown several times. I think it is a good reminder to all of us that the U.N. is obviously in need of serious reform. I commend Chairman Hyde and his reform bill for doing just that. I think it ensures the reforms that we need. My amendment is very simple. The main part of the Hyde bill is to withhold U.S. contributions to the regular assessed budget of the U.N. unless they make real and substantial reforms in the way they operate. So his underlying legislation calls for a 50 percent withholding, and my amendment simply increases that to 75 percent. I think you can think over it in terms of a glass half full, half empty, his 50 percent. My amendment would make it 75 percent empty, which I think for most people is a real clear sign we should do something. So it is not just adding more teeth, it is also one of symbolism. I think just to review, we all know the U.N. is not as effective as it could be, not to mention all these scandals. The number one scandal is the Oil-for-Food program that we are still investigating, and we still have not got to the bottom of this scandal. I think the American people, understandably, have sort of lost faith in the United Nations. It does not seem to be fulfilling its founding mission, as long as it continues to coddle dictators and appease terrorists. There is an ever-growing list of grievances against the United Nations, and suggested reform is desperately needed. If not, we will continue to pour hundreds of millions of American taxpayers' dollars down into what I call a bottomless pit. So leveraging our dues this way is the only way we can ensure the U.N. makes the necessary change. Now, the question would be what is the difference, as I mentioned, between 50 and 75 percent? I think in real dollars and real impact, this will be more important, to move it to 75 percent. For many of us who feel strongly about this, it gives a little more weight to it. I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that I had a dream last night, and this dream was of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the international Relations. In this dream he was puzzling how much to withhold from the U.N. until they enact the necessary reform--so in his great wisdom. As he sat in his chair in my dream, he set in a magnificent chair, and there were clouds and harps all around him, and he was deliberating very carefully whether to do 50 percent or 75 percent. He finally decided, after much deliberation, to do 50 percent. But I could tell in this dream that in his heart of hearts he wanted to have 75 percent. So, Mr. Chairman, the dream I had of you convinced me that I should come down to the House floor today and offer 75 percent as a humble way to extend your feelings that were in my dream.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) that tonight I will try to get more sleep, because I have spent so much more time dreaming, and perhaps tonight he will be in my dreams. And I will be dreaming that he wished that we would have had the amendment at 95 percent instead of the 50 percent. My colleagues, when you come down to the House floor to vote on the amendment, I want you to vote ``yes'' for the Stearns amendment because in your heart of hearts, in fact in the heart of hearts of Chairman Hyde in my dream, he wanted 75 percent. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reclaim my time, because the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is very eloquent, and I would like to continue to have a little less say on my amendment. If he is accepting my amendment, I would sure appreciate his support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is more symbolic than it is substantive. It is really giving an opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle who feel frustrated with the increased cost for things that happen around here. We know that we start out with a project that costs $40 million, and it ends up costing $550 million, and I am talking about the tourist center right outside the Capitol. We saw what happened in Boston with the Big Dig. Basically, my amendment says before we give any money to the United Nations, $1.2 billion, that we should have a study. We should have a GAO audit. We should have some kind of reference put down before they go out and spend this money. The U.N. wants to spend $1.2 billion in renovating the New York City United Nations headquarters. Then they want to spend $650 million to house the organization in the meantime for rental purposes or existing office space in Manhattan and elsewhere, so we are roughly up to $1.8 billion. It could be $2 billion. It could be $3 billion. I think before we allow the United Nations to spend any of this money, why do we not have a GAO audit, or why do we not at the very least impanel a panel to determine how they are going to spend this money? Because we know the rental price of real estate in New York, it costs a lot of money. It keeps going up every year. There is no doubt that the estimate that the U.N. gave of $1.2 billion and roughly $650 million to relocate while they renovate is very small. These initial financial estimates probably are not accurate. As I mentioned earlier, look at the Big Dig in Boston, the money we put up there, it is still going on. It is just a total overrun. I just urge my colleagues to look at this, not so much as substantive because the money was appropriated. It was in last year's bill. This is basically saying, before we go ahead and give this money, we should tell the United Nations, give us a plan, let us have an opportunity to review the cost before you go ahead, and then we can look at it more carefully. This is not an amendment that is against the United Nations. It is just an amendment asking for some kind of fiscal responsibility by these people before they spend the money. The amendment that I am offering today proposed a very simple goal. It merely states that none of the funds made available in this act shall be used to renovate and modernize the U.N. headquarters in New York City. As we all know, the United States already pays roughly 22% of all U.N. expenses. We do so despite the fact that the U.N. often goes against American values and American interests. Now the U.N. is planning a $1.2 billion renovation of its New York City headquarters. They are also considering either the construction of a new building costing $650 million to house the organization in the meantime, or the rental of existing office space in Manhattan or elsewhere in the city. No doubt this rental of prime real estate will also cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So we are talking a renovation costing approximately $2 billion, at least. I say ``at least'' because these are just the initial financial estimates, and there's a good chance the costs will increase substantially, as these projects often do. Just look at the Big Dig in Boston, or even the Capitol visiting center, to see projects that were only expected to cost a billion or two, but have since far exceeded their initial cost expectations. I'd like to note that even though Congress voted last year to offer a $1.2 billion loan to the U.N. for the purpose of renovation, several member countries complained that we charged interest on the loan, a modest 5.5%. As such, the U.N. General Assembly has not yet accepted the loan and its conditions, so it is possible that may find different financing. Either way, American taypayers will end up paying the lion's share of this renovation. Mr. Chairman, there are serious questions about the costs of this renovation project. It is considered wasteful by Donald Trump, who, whatever his faults, knows a thing or two about real estate in New York City. ``The United Nations is a mess,'' said Trump recently, ``and they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily on this project.'' In fact, according to published reports, Mr. Trump recently met with Kofi Annan and offered to manage the renovation of the U.N. building for the much lower total of $500 million, yet he never received a response from the U.N. Several other real estate experts have concluded that renovations in New York City should cost a fraction of what the U.N. is claiming is necessary to fix their buildings. I submit these press accounts detailing the opposition of New York City real estate developers for the record. If these real estate experts are right, then it appears that hundreds of millions of dollars may be unaccounted for, either through incompetence or corruption. We are still trying to get to the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal, in which $20 billion in U.N. funds were also somehow ``lost.'' The U.N. does not have the best track record for competent and legitimate spending. Mr. Chairman, there are obviously serious questions about the U.N.'s renovation project, which, along with their plans for temporary housing, will cost close to $2 billion. The questions involved with this renovation project are not dealt with in Chairman Hyde's bill, in the Gingrich-Mitchell report. This amendment is not an anti-U.N. amendment. What this amendment is attempting to do is make sure that American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. We need to make sure that this renovation project is being run in a transparent and cost-effective fashion. If we waste hundreds of millions of dollars on this renovation, that's money that won't be able to go toward peace and humanitarian efforts. So what this amendment will do is tell the U.N. that we will have no part of financing this renovation until we see some sort of action taken to ensure that there is financial accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support financial accountability. [From the Weekly Standard, May 16, 2005] Trouble At Turtle Bay (By John Hinderaker) The United Nations has been in the news of late. As usual, most of the news is negative: evidence suggesting that one or more members of the Security Council were bribed by Saddam; an inability to deal effectively with various crises in Africa; the embarrassing presence of nations such as Iran, Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, and Saddam's Iraq on U.N. commissions on human rights, proliferation and weapons of mass destruction; the oil for food scandal. In the midst of these controversies, the United Nations is proceeding with plans to upgrade its Manhattan headquarters. The organization's headquarters at Turtle Bay were completed in 1950 and renovated in the 1970s. The United Nations now believes that another renovation project is necessary, and has prepared a $1.2 billion plan to carry out the work. While the construction is underway, the organization will need to be housed elsewhere. In its original form, the U.N. plan included construction of a new, 35-story building over Robert Moses Playground, a park near Turtle Bay, at a cost of an additional $650 million. This new building was slated to be the U.N.'s home during the renovation project, and to continue in use by the organization thereafter. It was the construction of this new building--for which approval by the New York legislature was required--that first drew public criticism of the project. Bipartisan opposition to the new building stalled legislative action in the New York Senate. With no sign that senators opposing the project would relent, Kofi Annan, on May 10, issued a statement urging the United Nations to abandon its plan for the new building, on the ground that it could not now be completed in time for its projected use as a temporary home. Instead, the United Nations will look for existing office space elsewhere in Manhattan. There has been little debate over the broader issue of the renovation project itself, perhaps because so few people are aware of it. Establishment figures such as Colin Powell, Ed Koch, and Mortimer Zuckerman have been enlisted to head a committee to lobby for the project. With the notable exception of the New York Sun, however, the press has been virtually silent. This seems odd, in view of the serious questions that have been raised about the cost of the renovation. The U.N.'s Capital Master Plan states that a total of 2,651,000 square feet will be renovated. Assuming that figure to be correct, the per square foot cost would be $452. But, as reported by the Sun, real estate experts question whether the U.N.'s facilities contain anywhere near that amount of space. According to the U.N.'s web site, the organization's headquarters include four main structures, whose size has been estimated as follows: Secretariat Building: 39 floors and three subfloors, approximately 500,000 square feet. General Assembly Building: Five total floors, approximately 380 ft. by 160 ft., or 304,000 square feet. Conference Building: Four stories, approximately 115,000 square feet. Dag Hummarskjold Library: Four stories and two sublevels, 219 ft. by 84 ft., total 110,376 square feet. If these estimates are correct, only around 1,029,000 square feet will be renovated under the U.N.'s proposal. At a total cost of $1.2 billion, the project would then weigh in at over $1,100 per square foot. Either of these figures is regarded by local real estate developers as stunning. The New York Sun reported on February 4, 2005: The United Nations has said its plans to renovate its headquarters at Turtle Bay will cost $1.2 billion. That strikes Donald Trump as far too much. ``The United Nations is a mess,'' the developers said yesterday, ``and they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily on this project.'' And he's not the only one. Several Manhattan real-estate experts told The New York Sun this week that renovating premium office space should cost a fraction, on a per-square- foot basis, of what U.N. officials expect to pay. An executive managing director at the commercial real- estate firm Julien J. Studley Inc., Woody Heller, said a thorough renovation of an office building would probably cost between $85 and $160 per square foot. An executive vice president at Newmark, Scott Panzer, said renovation prices could range between $120 and $200 per square foot. Mr. Panzer, who works with many corporations to redevelop their buildings for future efficiency and energy cost savings, put a price of $70 to $100 per square foot on infrastructure upgrades. Those would include heating; ventilation; air conditioning; replacing the central plant; fenestration (specifically, switching from single-pane to thermal-pane windows); upgrading elevator switch gears, mechanicals, and vertical transportation; improving air quality, and making security upgrades. On top of that amount, another $50 to $100 per square foot would take care of the inside office improvements. The chairman of global brokerage at commercial real-estate firm CB Richard Elis, Stephen Siegel, said high-end commercial renovation usually runs $50 to $100 per square foot. For a renovation that does not include new furniture-- according to the 2002 Capital Master Plan, the United Nations' will not--but does provide for improved heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment, as well as work on the building exterior, the cost would be closer to the $100 end of the range, Mr. Siegel said. Even accounting generously for upgrades that might be peculiar to the United Nations, Mr. Siegel added, he would set $250 per square foot as the absolute maximum. I would appear, then, that hundreds of millions of dollars are unaccounted for, even on the most generous assumptions. Trump has gone further, expressing the view that the expenses projected by the U.N. can only be the result of graft or incompetence. In a speech on the Senate floor on April 6, 2005, Senator Jeff Sessions recounted his conversation with Trump: Let me share this story with you, which is pretty shocking to me. The $1.2 billion loan the United Nations wants is to renovate a building. Some member of the United Nations, a delegate, apparently, from Europe, had read in the newspaper in New York that Mr. Donald Trump . . . had just completed The Trump World Tower--not a 30-story building like the United Nations, but a 90-story building, for a mere $350 million, less than one-third of that cost. So the European United Nations delegate was curious about the $1.2 billion they were spending on the United Nations. He knew he didn't know what the real estate costs are in New York. So, he called Mr. Trump and they discussed it. Mr. Trump told him that building he built for $350 million was the top of the line. It has the highest quality of anything you would need in it. They discussed the matter, and an arrangement was made for Mr. Trump to meet Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, to discuss the concerns. . . . So according to Mr. Trump, who I talked to personally this morning, they go meet with Mr. Annan, who had asked some staff member to be there. . . . When the European asked how these numbers could happen, Mr. Trump said the only way would be because of incompetence, or fraud. That is how strongly he felt about this price tag because he pointed out to me that renovation costs much less than building an entirely new building. So he has a meeting with Mr. Annan, and they have some discussion. And Mr. Trump says these figures can't be acceptable. He told me in my conversation this morning, he said: You can quote me. You can say what I am saying. He said they don't know. The person who had been working on this project for 4 years couldn't answer basic questions about what was involved in renovating a major building. He was not capable nor competent to do the job. He went and worked on it, and talked about it, and eventually made an offer. He said he would manage the refurbishment, the renovation, of the United Nations Building, and he would not charge personally for his fee in managing it. He would bring it in at $500 [million], less than half of what they were expecting to spend, and it would be better. . . . Yet he never received a response from the United Nations. It appears there are serious questions about the U.N.'s renovation project. Depending on which assumptions one accepts about cost and square footage, anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion in expense is unaccounted for. Given the U.N.'s history, is there any reason to doubt that the costs projected by that organization include substantial sums representing, as Trump put it, incompetence or fraud? Given what we know about the oil-for-food program, is there any reason to trust the U.N.'s business or accounting practices? American taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing the answers to these question. The renovation is to be financed by a low-interest, 30-year, $1.2 billion loan from the U.S. government. (Kofi Annan's original request for an interest-free loan was turned down.) And, of course, the loan will then be repaid largely by American taxpayers, who foot a little over 20 percent of the U.N.'s bills. A few congressmen and senators have finally begun to ask whether the U.N. building project is a boondoggle. It's about time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. These are serious questions when you spend $1.2 billion. Obviously we are going to pay one-fourth of this. At the very least, with all this kind of waste we have seen and fraud in some of these estimates around here, it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to have some kind of control over this. We are just trying to make sure that American taxpayers' dollars are used wisely, and that the renovation project is being run in a transparent and cost-effective manner, and, in fact, when these employees go to other places to live while they do the renovation, that they do not waste hundreds of millions of dollars in doing so. I think the United Nations has had several offers from developers in town, in New York City, to say we will do this for one-third of the cost. I think the United Nations has to tell us, if you are going ahead with this project, we have got to have assurance that there is going to be a fixed-cost basis on this contract and not procurement on a cost- plus fee basis or cost-plus-plus basis. These are the kind of contracts that just roll out of pocket. We need to tell the United Nations that they have to be accountable and provide good financial accountability, not just for United States dollars, but also for all the dollars.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.