Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment has been accepted en bloc, then?

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, there are some Members of Congress from New York that would perhaps like to see it leave New York City. The second point is that the sense of Congress is the only avenue we have available to try and put in place a feeling that the United Nations should look at another location. The United Nations does not have to be forever in New York City. So I think the fact that the United Nations could set up a commission to look at alternative selection sites is not an unreasonable sense of Congress, if you will, because that is the only avenue we have under this bill without it not being germane. This is the only way I could do it. We do sense of Congresses on the House floor all the time. It is not something that is new. I think the Members should realize that we have probably done 30 sense of Congresses in the last 60 days, so it is not a new type of parliamentary procedure, it is not a new type of procedure. Towards the idea of a United Nations as a part-time body, the United Nations should look at some of their agencies that could be part-time. They do not have to have every agency which is in this Web site that I have listed, which is line after line of different agencies; not every one of those has to be full time, 365 days, 52 weeks a year. I would urge my colleague to reconsider, and say basically that he is optimistic that the United Nations would find another location, and that they could do a commission report, and it would be a harmless yet an exploratory, an exploratory way for the United Nations to see is it the best value for taxpayers and for people from other countries to support the United Nations and to continue in New York City? Obviously that real estate is very, very valuable. There obviously could be other places where the United Nations could go that would be less expensive. Every corporation in America, every corporation in this country, looks at cost-saving ways to bring the cost down, and likewise the United Nations could do the same thing by looking at an alternative location. I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his courtesy.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what my colleague has just said. Both he and I read from the same document, and I certainly appreciate what he has to say. I think, since he has been more intimately involved with this, I can appreciate what he is saying. Somehow, when I read it, I did not read there that it was that clear. So the insertion of the word ``Congress'' instead of ``Secretary of State,'' of course, is very simple and is not thwarting the President from doing what he wants. When we go down to the paragraph that I believe he is citing here, which I think is line 19, ``Notice to Congress, the President shall notify the Congress when a decision is made to withhold any share of the United States assessed contribution and shall notify the Congress when the decision is made to pay any; a notification shall include appropriate consultation between the President and the President's representative.'' It is basically just a notification. There is no reaction from the Congress. There is no feeling that the Congress is involved. It is just the President and the Secretary of State making a decision to withhold 20 percent of the funds, and I think it would be nice to have Congress involved and actually have a vote on it.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding. I understand the gentleman's sympathy, being a Member of Congress from New York, and perhaps some people feel like the gentleman does, too. But obviously there are 49 other States. The cost and the amount of expense that is incurred in New York City certainly could be brought down by relocating the United Nations elsewhere. A lot of corporations have been in New York City and they have relocated because they found it less expensive. So while the gentleman might be partisan in this matter, but we are trying to think in terms of the other 49 States who realize that perhaps there is a way to bring the cost down for the United Nations by relocating it, by having a commission try to, shall we say, reform the United Nations, and finding areas where we can make it part time. This is not U.N. bashing, this is an attempt, like we are doing here in Congress, to reform the process, to reform the United Nations and to make it more effective. Does the gentleman not think after 51 years the United Nations needs some type of reform?

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. The gentleman and I both know that he had a football team, the Giants, that left New York and went to New Jersey. The New York Jets have left. Other athletic teams have left New York City. A lot of corporations have left. We are not saying in this amendment that it has to leave. We are asking the United Nations to study it, just to look at alternative locations that would be less expensive. All we are saying is set up a commission to look at it somewhere down the line, maybe 50 years from now, 20 years from now, 5 years from now. Somewhere down the line it might be advisable for the United Nations to put itself in a new location. That is all we are asking. The contrast the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] says between Disney World and the United Nations, Disney World and the United Nations, maybe some colleagues might think they are synonymous. They are not. Disney World is a for-profit operation. The United Nations is a not-for-profit operation. It is totally different. But I appreciate the gentleman giving me the time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand the actual bill, H.R. 1757. If my colleagues are interested, on page 156, I am just going to read what it says in the one word we are substituting. Of amounts authorized to be appropriated for ``Assessed Contributions to International Organizations'' by this act, the President may withhold 20 percent of the funds appropriated for the United States assessed contribution to the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies for any calendar year if the Secretary of State. My colleagues, all my amendment does is delete the words ``Secretary of State'' and put in the word ``Congress'' so that if the Congress determines that the United Nations or any such agency has failed to implement or to continue to implement consensus-based decisionmaking procedures on budgetary matters which ensure that sufficient attention is paid to the views of the United States and other member states that are the major financial contributors to such assessed budgets. Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple two-line amendment which deletes the words ``Secretary of State'' and puts in the word ``Congress.'' Members might ask, why should we have Congress instead of the Secretary of State? I believe that Congress has been the central driving force to reform the United Nations. Both colleagues on this side of the aisle and this side of the aisle have made that a clarion call. This section as it is ignores Congress' concern and wishes to administer some type of reform. We bring Congress into the mix here. By inserting the word ``Congress,'' the amendment would allow Congress to play a critical role in overseeing the pace of reform on budgetary and fiscal matters at the United Nations. Let me make this clear, particularly to my colleagues on the other side, this amendment does not force the President to comply. It is very simple. We are not saying the President has to comply. It just says it would give the President the option of withholding 20 percent of the funds for any calendar year and allows Congress to participate, to get involved. Since Congress is appropriating the money, giving the money to the United Nations, why not have Congress come back and, working through our committee here, determine that the United Nations is indeed adhering to implementing fiscal and budgetary reform? And then we could have a House vote recommending to the President that we withhold this 20 percent. So if my colleagues believe as elected Representatives from their districts that they want to be involved with this decision when the President decides to withhold 20 percent of the appropriated funds, the funds that belong to their districts, their taxpayers, then they should vote yes for my amendment. It is a very simple amendment.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is truly an historic amendment that I wish my colleagues would consider carefully. The United Nations has been located in New York City for 51 years. Why not have a new location for the United Nations? I am not sure the delegation from New York would agree, but if they will think about it, that property is very valuable, and it does not hurt for the United Nations to look at alternative locations. In addition, my amendment asks the United Nations for a study of ways to simplify, ways to move their body into a part-time, evolving United Nations. I pulled up on the web page, Mr. Chairman, the list of locations and system organizations that are part of the U.N., and it just goes on A through Z here, of all of the different locations that are just sort of reporting back to New York City. My point is that we need to bring the United Nations into a new location, to try and simplify it and look for ways to bring down the cost. Obviously it could be put in parts of the United States where the cost is not so high, or it could be put in Europe, it could be put in Asia. But I think after 51 years it is time to look at putting the United Nations in a new location. The current structure of the United Nations does not reflect the real world. Many corporations, after 51 years in one location, look at cost- saving devices and look at ways to move their headquarters somewhere else. In fact, in New York City there are a lot of corporate headquarters that move to Stanford, Connecticut, or Greenwich, Connecticut, or Omaha, Nebraska. Why cannot the United Nations look at the possibility of relocating itself? The world we live in today is much different than the post-World War II era that led to the creation of the United Nations. It has a monstrous bureaucracy, and I think we need to start the process of downsizing the United Nations just like we have downsized the United States Government. In 1994, we had a revolution here where we tried to change things, and we did. We created savings and we instituted new reforms here. We need the United Nations to come on board and start their reforms too. Individual States do it, countries do it, corporations do it. It is time the United Nations started to reflect the global changes and the need to institute reforms and to relocate the United Nations. So it is a very simple amendment here. I am sure the chairman might not necessarily agree about the relocation. I am not asking for it to go to Florida. I am just asking for the United Nations to put up a commission and say look, we are going to look at it. It is not a big deal here. Why can we not have new thinking at the United Nations, instead of having all of these delegates file into the United Nations year in and year out? I think we would not see these 131,000 parking tickets which were issued by the New York City police to U.N. diplomatic and consular vehicles, and none of them were paid. So maybe now is the time to look at this bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the United Nations to start the first step, to go ahead and establish preliminary plans to relocate the United Nations to another country, or perhaps they might think another location within the United States.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think that probably confirms that Omaha, Nebraska is out the window for the site location, but I would say that perhaps there are places in Europe or places in other parts of the world that might welcome the United Nations. I think the gentleman's point might be well taken. I am sure they feel the same way in Ocala, Florida, which is my home State, and other parts of central Florida. We do not want to see the United Nations certainly in New York City anymore. We would like to see it relocated, but more importantly, we would like to see the United Nations move in the direction corporations are doing today by downsizing; and like we see here in Congress and the Senate and the House, while we are downsizing and trying to make the government more efficient and less expensive, why not have the United Nations do the same thing? That is the gist of my amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it when we vote on it tomorrow, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the supplemental appropriations bill; specifically, the provision of the bill known as the automatic continuing resolution, or CR. Two weeks ago we left Washington without passing the supplemental appropriations measure. This was unfortunate. Unfortunately for all Americans, and in particular for the victims of the recent Midwestern floods, this important and well-meaning legislation has become a hostage because of the President and some Democrats who do not like this CR which was attached to this bill. During the floor debate on the bill, the House voted overwhelmingly to amend the bill to include an automatic continuing resolution, a failsafe provision that would automatically and fully fund the 13 appropriation measures, should any or all fail to be passed into law. In other words, we added a commonsense provision to an already fair measure. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it an insurance policy for the American people. The provision we are talking about that the President and some Democrats object to is quite simple and generous. Should any of the bills fail to become law by the end of the fiscal year, they would be fully funded at 100 percent of this year's funding level. In other words, there are no cuts, no elimination of any programs as a result of passage of the CR. The President objects to this. Does the President want the opportunity to spend more money? Does he want an increased level? Furthermore, the passage of this simple CR would balance the budget within 5 years set forth in the budget agreement. It is incredible that we have the claims that supporting a balanced budget could actually impose a problem. But simply, if the President was truly serious about balancing the budget he would support the CR provision and Congress could at long last pass a much-needed disaster relief act. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the President has promised to veto this important legislation. It is a very unfortunate situation we have because the people in the flood-ravaged Midwest need this money. We have set aside money for them but they need this bill. But again, we have a CR attached to it and the President seems more concerned with making sure we do not pass this CR. The troubling thing about the President's proclaimed opposition to this supplemental is that he claims to support the Republicans' efforts to preclude a Government shutdown. He has often stated publicly his desire to initiate a failsafe mechanism, but when push comes to shove and we present him with an opportunity, he refuses it. He claims that America needs a solution. The CR is such a solution. I urge the President to support it. It is a simple and reasonable effort to protect the American people from the kind of partisan political battles that shut down the Government and suspended essential Government services 2 years ago, the kind of political battle the President claims he opposes. Does the President want to shut down the Government? Does he want hardship and inconvenience? I do not think he does. In other words, as if it were not bad enough to say, I am against a CR, he is also against a simple supplemental to help the flood victims. The proclaimed opposition to the CR has really nothing to do with the supplemental. Rather, the President's opposition is that he wants a fail-safe mechanism itself, and he does not think the CR does it, so he is going to veto it. But, Mr. Speaker, the majority of people on the House floor overwhelmingly supported this CR. It was a very large vote. Let me conclude by saying to my colleagues, the Republican Party did not shut down the Federal Government in 1995, and we will not be responsible for a shutdown if it happens again. Back then the Congress sent to the President more than adequate appropriations bills, and he simply vetoed them. To preclude this from happening again we have included a simple insurance policy in the supplemental, and yet, Mr. Speaker, he is opposed to it. In other words, we have included within this bill a provision to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of vital services like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits. We have attempted to remove politics from the appropriations process, and yet the President unfortunately objects. For the good of our country and the peace of mind of her citizens, we should pass into law this commonsense insurance mechanism, a CR that will keep the Government operational when partisan conflicts arise. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and a longtime supporter of the ideals behind the CR. I urge the President to reconsider his position, not just for the immediate needs of the flood victims, but for the long-term good of the entire country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, many people ask me, how can you come to an agreement on the balanced budget with a President whose vision for America is so much different than your own? That is a fair question. I think we should address that this morning. The answer, of course, is with great difficulty. It is no secret that the Democrats and Republicans have honest fundamental differences in our view of the role of government in our lives. It is no secret that the Democrats want government to have a greater role in our lives, and Republicans think that the Government's role is far too great. It is no secret that the Democrats want to increase the size and power of government. Republicans want to reduce it. It is no secret that the Democrats think that more government can help to solve the problem of poverty. Republicans think that far from ending poverty, government welfare programs perpetuate it. Mr. Speaker, we disagree on matters of principle, but the American people have asked us to work together to balance the budget. Let us go forward and carry out their wishes.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about a bill that I will be introducing today. The bill I am referring to is the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. If this bill should become law, I say to my colleagues, it has the potential of saving thousands of lives each year. I am pleased to have this opportunity to work with the American Heart Association on this important measure. Passage of this act would go a long way toward making the goal of saving the lives of people who suffer from sudden cardiac arrest possible. It would ensure that what the American Heart Association refers to as a cardiac chain of survival could go into effect. Madam Speaker, the four links in a cardiac chain of survival are, one, early access to emergency care; early cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early defibrillation, which I will explain later; and early advanced life support. While defibrillation is the most effective mechanism to revive a heart that has stopped, it is also the least accessed tool we have available to treat victims suffering from heart failure. Perhaps it would be helpful for those of my colleagues listening and not well versed on the subject if I just take a moment and walk you through what we mean when we use the term ``defibrillation.'' A large number of sudden cardiac arrests are due to an electrical malfunction of the heart called ventricular fibrillation, or VF. When VF occurs, the heart's electrical signals, which normally induce a coordinated heartbeat, suddenly become chaotic and the heart's function as a pump abruptly stops. Unless this state is reversed, then death will occur within a few minutes, 160 seconds. The only effective treatment for this condition is defibrillation, the electrical shock to the heart. My colleagues might be interested to know that more than 1,000 Americans each and every day suffer from cardiac arrest. Of those, more than 95 percent die. My colleagues, I find that unacceptable, because we have the means at our disposal to change those statistics, and that is why I am committed myself to this cause. Studies show that 250 lives can be saved each and every day from cardiac arrest by using the automatic external defibrillator [AED]. Those are the kinds of statistics that nobody can argue with. Right now, the chance of survival due to sudden cardiac arrest is less than 1 in 10. We could change those odds for people through the development of model state training programs for first responders. Madam Speaker, did my colleagues know that for each minute of delay in returning the heart to its normal pattern of beating it decreases the chance of that person's survival by 10 percent? Currently, only 14 States offer CPR training in schools and 28 States authorize first responders to use automatic external defibrillators. However, less than one-half of emergency medical technicians and less than one-fourth of nonemergency medical technician first responders in the United States are even trained or equipped with a defibrillator. Fortunately, one of those States is my State of Florida. No one knows when sudden cardiac arrest might occur. According to a recent study the top five sites where cardiac arrest occurs, and I will list them in order of prevalence, at airports, county jails, shopping malls, sports stadiums, and golf courses. I believe we all should take great comfort in knowing that those who are rushed to help us, to resuscitate us, have the most up-to-date equipment available and are trained to use it. Some of my colleagues might ask, if 27 States have laws authorizing nonemergency medical technician first responders to use AED's, why do we need to pass this legislation? The reason is quite simply that prehospital medical care, which includes training, equipment, and standards of care, experiences variations from State to State, which in turn delivers inconsistent care to the public. Some might say that this is just another Federal mandate. They would be wrong in that assumption. This legislation merely directs the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute to develop and disseminate a model State training program for first responders and bystandards in lifesaving first aid, including CPR, and direct the development of model State legislation to ensure access to emergency medical service. Several of my colleagues might ask, will this not cost a lot of money? No, it will not cost the Government any money because we would encourage the private sector, such as those working in the medical community, to form a partnership with industry to help defray the costs. Overall, we envision this as a joint venture, with this legislation providing the model program for States to use if they so desire and the private sector picking up the additional costs involved. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important bill whose stated goal is to prevent thousands of people suffering sudden cardiac arrest from dying by making the equipment and trained personnel available at the scene of such emergencies.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to inform my colleagues that after one of the most exciting races in the history of the Preakness Stakes held Saturday, Silver Charm, sired and trained in my hometown of Ocala, FL, is two-thirds of the way toward winning the Triple Crown. I congratulate Bob and Beverly Lewis, the owners of Silver Charm, and I congratulate Jack Dudley, owner of Dudley Farms in Ocala, where Silver Charm was born. Not since 1978 has there been a Triple Crown winner, and that fine animal was another Ocala-bred horse, Affirmed. Thoroughbred horse racing is unique among competitions, a combination of skilled riders and these carefully bred and trained animals. Increasingly, Florida is producing champion horses. The horse farms of Ocala and Marion County are bringing well-deserved recognition to our State. On behalf of the people of Marion County, I wish Silver Charm all the best in the Belmont Stakes in June.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, this goes back to 1972.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman that I have here that under the leadership of the Democrats, they shut the Government down 17 times. I have the list right here, and the gentleman is welcome to look at it. Is that not true?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have here a Congressional Research report. It shows we shut the Government down 17 times since 1972. Even under the Carter administration in 1978 we shut it down three times. This was when the Congress was controlled by the Democrat Party. We need this Gekas insurance to prevent another Government shutdown. All Members should realize that this bill sunsets in 1998. What is the big deal? We are going to try and use it as insurance to protect veterans, the elderly, military and Government employees, and others who depend on continued payment. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that even in the State of Wisconsin, his State has a law which automatically maintains government operations in the next fiscal year, automatically. So basically we get great ideas from the States, including the State of Wisconsin. I'm surprised he would be against this amendment. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, it is good insurance. It does not cut or increase any funds. It is just insurance for the American people. It does not preclude Congress from passing additional resolutions. It has bipartisan support. Lastly, it is supported by the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Federal Managers Association, the Americans for Tax Reform, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Concord Coalition, all of these are bipartisan groups. I urge support.