Floor Statements

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of delight and an honor for me to have my pastor, Dr. Ed Johnson, provide the opening prayer for the House of Representatives this morning. We were privileged today to hear his brief words of inspiration and guidance.

Dr. Johnson is the Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Ocala, FL, my hometown. This is a thriving church, and one of the largest in Marion County. My wife and I attend with our family, and we enjoy the warm and welcoming atmosphere.

Pastor Johnson has been with the First Baptist Church for 22 years, where he and his wife Hilda remain active in helping throughout our community. Before arriving in Ocala, Dr. Johnson served in churches in Texas, Tennessee and West Virginia.

While attending to the needs of his flock, Pastor Johnson has served as president of the Florida Baptist Convention, chairman of the Florida Baptist State Board of Missions and the chairman of the Board of Trustees of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Although this is a distinguished record of service, more importantly, he is a respected man of the Lord.

I appreciate this opportunity to share Pastor Johnson's wisdom with my colleagues this morning, and I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to taking him to the White House for the picnic.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

If the gentleman will yield, I will. I am reluctant to do it, but I would.

Let me just complete my presentation, then. I will be glad to withdraw it as long as I get the confirmation that there will be a GAO study before these moneys are issued.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do not need a lot of time. This is pretty simple, this amendment. It is basically an amendment to help our local law enforcement community. Mr. Chairman, it basically transfers $10 million from the Legal Services Corporation and gives it instead to the Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG, program.

I would like to thank the chairman for funding this critical program, especially in light that the administration's budget proposed a zero funding. So he is to be commended for funding this program, and I need to compliment him on that matter.

But in my district I have heard from law enforcement officials and across the State of Florida about how much this JAG funding helps them fight crime, and to protect and serve the citizens within their jurisdiction. The JAG program is set to receive about $348 million in funding under this bill. It is my hope that an additional, just simply an additional $10 million will help increase the numerous and substantial benefits under this program.

The Legal Services Corporation would still receive $321 million, which I and many of my colleagues would agree is still a reasonable amount of money to provide for legal services to the poor. In addition to this Federal subsidy, there are thousands of attorneys across the country who provide thousands of hours and hundreds of millions of dollars in service pro bono for these people.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out to my colleagues that the Legal Services Corporation has been providing free legal services to quasi-legal immigrants, despite the fact that we passed a restriction in 1996 that barred local legal service groups from using Federal money for these activities. This $10 million reduction in Legal Services Corporation funding would bring it more in line, of course, with the President's request, certainly in spirit.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an anti-legal service amendment, but merely a modest, a simple, modest, amendment to further help our local law enforcement combat drugs and fight crime. So I am not asking the Legal Services to justify its existence. I am just saying let us make a modest attempt here to send a message how important it is to keep the JAG program, and I urge my colleagues to support their local law enforcement and to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I heard the argument of my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. He is arguing that a 2 percent, 2\1/2\, 2.8 percent cut in the Legal Services Corporation is bad, is terrible. Put that in perspective. They are getting $321 million. We are just saying take $10 million out of that and give it to the Justice Assistance Grant program, which provides grants to States. And what do these grants do? They help the local law enforcement so that they can fight crime, fight drugs, and in the end they will not need Legal Services.

So my point, Mr. Chairman, is if we cannot cut the Legal Services by 2.8 percent symbolically and give it to a program like the Justice Assistance Grant, which is going to help these people so they do not need Legal Services, they do not need the government-run legal program, because they will be free of crime, then I think we are making a mistake.

So this is a very simple amendment with great symbolic reference here that one as a Member can say, I believe in my local community, I want to fight crime, I want to give grants to the States so that they can do it so that in the end they do not need these legal services. And good golly, if we cannot cut the Legal Services Corporation by about 2.8 percent, then really, Mr. Chairman, we are really not interested in trying to even look at fiscal responsibility, much less symbolic responsibility for helping our local police sheriffs in all of our congressional districts and all the counties throughout this country.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment. It is both symbolism and plus it helps the local police force. And, goodness gracious, the Legal Services Corporation is going to get roughly 2.7 percent less. I think that is a small amount considering the administration decided to zero out this program. It is only by the grace of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) that this program is back in place. So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and be on the right side of the angels.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. Legal Services has been political at times. The gentleman points out cases where they have been. I think it is a commendation to the gentleman, in light of the fact of how they politicize things, he is still here arguing for a complete budget. I am asking for a 2.7 percent reduction, on behalf of the communities.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 32: Page 22, line 21, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 23, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 81, line 19, after both dollar amounts, insert

``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, last December we created an independent panel to simply come up with ways to make the United Nations more transparent and more effective. Today it is being reported that the panel's work is done, and their 174-page report will soon be made available to all of us. I am very interested to see what this bipartisan panel has to say about changing and reforming the United Nations.

I understand from this report that its recommendations perhaps do not go far enough. It does criticize the U.N. for being too bureaucratic, but it hardly lays the blame where I think we all know it belongs, of course, to the Secretary General Kofi Annan. It squarely should be on his shoulders.

Here is what has occurred at the U.N. under Mr. Annan's watch: We have had genocide in the Sudan; countries such as Cuba, Libya, and China are on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; kicking the United States off the U.N.'s Narcotic Trafficking Commission; claims of sexual harassment in the United Nations; an attempt to impose global gun control. The U.N. even thought about sending observers over here to assess and evaluate our election process here in the United States.

It is noted also that our Supreme Court Justices are using a U.N. treaty to justify abolishing capital punishment for minors. And, of course, there is the infamous Oil For Food Program. This is a scandal. It is a program which has resulted in over $20 billion being stolen from those who need it in Iraq and which enriched the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein. And most recently, U.N. peacekeeping soldiers in the Congo have been discovered soliciting sex from local girls, some as young as 12 years old, in exchange for money and food.

Mr. Speaker, too many times the United Nations has gone against American values. I happen to believe that the American people should not be required to pay for this organization unless there is a huge amount of reform and change. We are the biggest donor to the United Nations, contributing 22 percent of the regular operating budget and nearly 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget.

How many American taxpayer dollars went to Saddam Hussein or are paying for immoral U.N. peacekeepers?

Now more than ever we need to reassess our involvement with this troubled organization. This week we will debate two measures that have to do with the United Nations. First, we will be debating the Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriations bill in which we propose to pay the United Nations over $400 million in our annual dues. I plan on speaking on this and perhaps introducing an amendment to make sure that none of these funds go to pay for new headquarters that Kofi Annan desires. This headquarters is estimated to cost $1.2 billion.

I have previously introduced legislation to move the United Nations headquarters out of New York City and out of the United States altogether. I still believe, in the aftermath of all of these scandals and all of these corruptions and all of this anti-Americanism, and this massive waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars, that Turtle Bay is no longer an appropriate place for the United Nations. There are many other cities in Europe that perhaps could have the headquarters, such as Paris, France; Geneva, Switzerland; or Bonn, Germany that would be perfect hosts for the United Nations. We should give these countries the opportunity to have the United Nations. I just hope they do not plan on collecting for parking tickets from the diplomats who do not pay.

Later this week we will also consider the Hyde proposal to enact serious and substantive reform at the United Nations. This bill appears to provide real reform with teeth, and I look forward to debating and discussing this measure.

Last, Mr. Speaker, in other U.N. reform related news, hopefully this week John Bolton may finally get his up or down vote in the Senate. The President's choice to be Ambassador to the United Nations is the right man at the right time to shake up the U.N. establishment and provide real reform to the institution before it becomes even more obsolete and outdated.

It is critically important that we enact these serious and substantive reforms, both for America and the rest of the world. As John Bolton once said, ``American leadership is critical to the success of the United Nations, an effective U.N., one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers.''

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 16: Page 22, line 12, after the dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 81, line 19, after both dollar amounts, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill, add the following

title:

Madam Speaker, recent reports paint an unfair picture of the United States Air Force Academy. It has been characterized as a place where religious intolerance is the norm. As someone who has spent considerable time with Air Force personnel and cadets, I know that the academy has always been a place that has indeed taught religious tolerance.

After discovering perceptions of religious bias during a survey in 2004, the academy made considerable efforts to address issues of religious intolerance and has implemented a proactive plan to address this very issue. The academy leadership instituted a new training program for all cadets, staff, and faculty to address the diversity of the Air Force and the need for each person to respect others, regardless of their beliefs or faith.

Like any other university, cases of perceived religious intolerance do occur. But any attempt to brand the academy as a place where intolerance is accepted is just plain false. I applaud the United States Air Force for taking the proper steps to investigate and correct any problems regarding allegations of religious intolerance.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues, I come from north central Florida, and we have a lot of beautiful Indian-sounding names like Ocala, Okhumpka, Micanopy, Oklawaha.

Just for a moment, let us say I walked down anywhere from Jacksonville through these wonderful small towns and I walked up to somebody on the street and I said, Do you think we should allow the Department of Defense medical facilities to be turned into abortion clinics?

Now, if I asked that to anyone in north central Florida, I bet you almost 99 percent of the people would say, Why are we turning our military medical hospitals into abortion clinics?

That is why here on the House floor we have voted time and time again and overwhelmingly defeated it. In fact, going back to 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 right on up to currently we have defeated this amendment. It will be defeated on the House floor too.

So I really find this debate one of persuasion on this side who wants to turn medical facilities or medical military hospitals into abortion clinics. I think, for many of us, that is just wrong, and that is why I am against this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge all of my colleagues to support this very simple amendment to the Defense authorization bill. This amendment does two very important things.

First, it expresses the sense of Congress that any college or any university that denies equal access or discriminates against ROTC programs or military recruiters should be denied certain Federal taxpayer support, especially funding for many military and defense programs. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it requires the Secretary of Defense to issue a report to Congress on those colleges and universities that are denying equal access to military recruiters and these ROTC programs.

In 1996, Congress enacted a provision of law that became known as the Solomon Amendment. Representative Solomon, as you remember, was a colleague from New York who was chairman of the Committee on Rules. This provision provided for the Secretary of Defense to deny Federal funding to colleges and universities if they prohibited or prevented ROTC or military recruitment on campuses.

Mr. Chairman, a number of universities and colleges today are denying equal access to military recruiters. For example, at Yale University students who wish to participate in the ROTC program must drive to the University of Connecticut in Storrs at least once a week. That is like you and me driving down to Richmond once a week while attending a university here in Washington, D.C. This trip could take up to an hour and a half each way.

Perhaps worse, Yale accepts ROTC dollars, but refuses to grant credit for ROTC courses; so if you are an ROTC scholarship and taking courses at Yale and attending at Storrs, the Air Force, the Army and the Navy will pay for your courses at Yale; but, again, Yale says you have to go to Storrs and denies access to the ROTC program right there at Yale.

While students at Harvard can participate in ROTC programs at nearby MIT, ROTC courses may be taken only on a noncredit basis. This banishment of ROTC led Harvard President Lawrence Summers to say, ``We need to be careful about adopting any policy on campus of nonsupport for those involved in defending this country. We should be proud that we have in our midst students who will make the commitment to the

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With the United States engaged in a global war on terrorism, it is more important than ever before for the Armed Forces to recruit high- quality, well-qualified, and well-trained personnel. This amendment ensures in a larger sense that this Congress is on record saying we support them and we think the universities and colleges in this country should also support them by giving access.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 810, which I believe promotes human embryonic stem cell research at taxpayers' expense.

Now, we have already spent $60 million. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) says, no, it is not $60 million; it is $25 million. But we have spent a lot of money, and I think $60 million is the right number.

The gentlewoman says no government taxpayers; money will be used. Once a human stem cell is destroyed, who pays for the research thereafter? The U.S. Government does. The taxpayers do.

I remind my colleagues that despite all this money, embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in any documented success whatsoever as compared to the astounding success of adult stem cells.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) pointed out he could not even find any success. He had to go to some obscure manuals publications to find notice of even the experiments. I also notice that there is no CBO estimate on this legislation H.R. 810. How much will this bill cost? We do not know.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Nearly 4 years ago, in August 2001, President Bush announced his Executive order limiting Federal funding to studies on existing cell lines.

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having today is about slippery-slope fears come tragically true. But the slope can get far more steep from here.

Just last week, it was reported that scientists in South Korea created scores of cloned human embryos that they then destroyed to produce 11 stem cell lines. The age of cloning is upon us.

Also recently in the news is the creation of man-animal hybrids, or chimeras, using animal sperm and human eggs, or human sperm and animal eggs.

The apocalyptic creations are the inevitable result of what happens when Man and government believes it can foster good medical ends from ethically dubious means.

It is bad enough that our government allows embryonic stem cell research, or that we have not yet outlawed cloning. The least that we can do is prevent the further spending of taxpayer dollars on these ill-advised experiments.

Mr. Speaker, had either, or both, of the respective stem cell research bills appearing before us for debate and been ruled amendable, I had intended to offer an amendment regarding another alternative to embryonic stem cell research: stem cells from teeth.

Another promising field of stem cell research comes from our very teeth: stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth, SHED, aka ``baby'' teeth. Last week a constituent of mine, Marc W. Heft, DMD, PhD, Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial and Diagnostic Sciences of the College of Dentistry at the University of Florida, pointed this out to me. The intramural program of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, IDCR, of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, has been a leader in this exciting line of research. On April 21, 2003, NIH scientists reported that for the first time, ``baby'' teeth, the temporary teeth children begin losing around their sixth birthday, contain a rich supply of stem cells in their dental pulp. The scientists said that ``this unexpected discovery could have important implications because the stem cells remain alive inside the tooth for a short time after it falls out of a child's mouth, suggesting the cells could be readily harvested for research. According to the scientists, who published their findings online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the stem cells are unique compared to many ``adult'' stem cells in the body. They are long lived, grow rapidly in culture, and, with careful prompting in the laboratory, have the potential to induce the formation of specialized dentin, bone, and neuronal cells. If followup studies extend these initial findings, the scientists speculate they may have identified an important and easily accessible source of stem cells that possibly could be manipulated to repair damaged teeth, induce the regeneration of bone, and treat neural injury or disease. ``Doctors have successfully harvested stem cells from umbilical cord blood for years,'' said Dr. Songtao Shi, a scientist at NIH's National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIDCR, and the senior author on the paper. ``Our finding is similar in some ways, in that the stem cells in the tooth are likely latent remnants of an early developmental process.'' This article is titled, ``SHED: Stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth,'' and the authors are Masako Muira, Stan Gronthos, Mingrui Zhao, Bai Lu, Larry W. Fisher, Pamela Gehron Robey, and Songtao Shi.

In addition to the studies of stem cells from dental pulps of deciduous, ``baby'' teeth, there are ongoing studies of stem cells from the periodontium, the region where teeth connect to bone. July 8, 2004, again, NIH scientists also say these cells have ``tremendous potential'' to regenerate the periodontal ligament, a common target of advanced gum--periodontal--disease. The enthusiasm is based on followup studies, in which the researchers implanted the human adult stem cells into rodents and found most of them had differentiated into a mixture of periodontal ligament--including the specific fiber bundles that attach tooth to bone--and the mineralized tissue called cementum that covers the roots of our teeth.

While most of this work is coming out of the intramural program of NIDCR, Dr. Heft shared with me that two involved extramural scientists are Dr. Mary MacDougall, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio--also President of the American Association for Dental Research--and Dr. Paul Krebsbach, University of Michigan.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we continue to foster existing, promising, stem cell research that is regenerative, not destructive.

Mr. Speaker, since 1994 China has pegged its currency, the yuan, to the United States dollar. Many economists contend that for the first several years of this peg, the fixed value was likely close to market value, but in the past few years, economic conditions have changed, such that the yuan would likely have appreciated, like virtually every other currency, if its exchange rates were determined by simple market forces. This policy constitutes a form of currency manipulation and is intended to give China an unfair trade advantage. Also, it is contributing to the loss of United States manufacturing jobs.

China's currency is significantly undervalued vis-a-vis the United States dollar. Some experts contend that it is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, making Chinese exports to the United States cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive than they would be if market forces determined the exchange rates.

Furthermore, the undervalued currency has contributed to the large U.S. trade deficit with China. It has hurt United States production and employment in several U.S. manufacturing sectors, such as textiles and apparel and furniture, that are forced to compete domestically and internationally against artificially low-cost goods from China.

If the yuan is undervalued against the dollar, imported Chinese goods are cheaper than they would be if the yuan were market-driven. This lowers prices for United States consumers and diminishes inflationary pressures, but in turn, lower priced goods from China hurt U.S. industries that compete with those products, diminishing their production and eventually their employment. In addition, an undervalued yuan makes U.S. exports to China more expensive, thus diminishing the level of U.S. exports to China and job opportunities for U.S. workers in those particular sectors.

Pegging the yuan to the dollar has large implications for the United States-China trade. When a fixed exchange rate causes the yuan to be less expensive than it would be if it were floating, it causes Chinese exports to the United States to be relatively inexpensive and U.S. exports to China to be relatively expensive. As a result, U.S. exports and the production of U.S. goods and services that compete with Chinese imports fall in the short run. Many of the affected firms are in the manufacturing sector. This causes the U.S. trade deficit to soar, to rise, and reduces aggregate demand in the short run.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, China became the United States' second largest supplier of imports. A large share of China's exports to the United States are labor-intensive consumer goods such as toys and games, textiles and apparel, shoes, and consumer electronics. Because the manufacturing of these products have, over the past several years, shifted overseas, many of these exports do not compete directly with the United States domestic producers.

However, there are a number of small- and medium-sized firms, including makers of machine tools, hardware, plastics, furniture, and tool and die that are concerned over the growing competitive challenge posed by China. An undervalued Chinese currency contributes to a reduction in the output of these industries.

In addition, the low value of the yuan is forcing other East Asian economies to keep the value of their currencies low vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar in order to compete with Chinese products, to the detriment of U.S. exporters and U.S. domestic industries competing against foreign imports.

Furthermore, while China is still a developing country, it has been able to accumulate a massive foreign exchange reserve, approximately $660 billion at the end of March, and thus, it has the resources to maintain the stability of its currency if it were fully convertible.

Appreciating the yuan would greatly benefit China by lowering the cost of imports for Chinese consumers and producers who have used imported parts and machinery.

Finally, China's accumulation of large amounts of foreign exchange reserves in order to maintain the currency peg could be better spent on investment in infrastructure and development of poor regions in their country.

Recently, the Treasury Department issued a strongly worded report warning China over its pegging its currency to the dollar. The report called the Chinese currency peg highly distortionary, but the report stops short of designating China as manipulating its currency for a trade advantage. This designation would have triggered formal negotiations between the Bush administration and Chinese officials that potentially could end this peg.

The administration has taken the right steps in taking a harder line against China. While I welcome the tough language in the Treasury Department report regarding China, Mr. Speaker, the time has come for China to act, which will result in freer, fairer trade for both countries.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my distinguished chairman of the full committee, for yielding me this time.

This is a very important bill. We have passed this bill once before, so it is clear the House is going to pass this. The question is, we have got to appeal to the Senate to pass this thing and move forward.

During the hearings we had on this bill, there were lots of witnesses that talked about this spyware Internet-based technology that can be used to defraud Americans today. So this bill is very important. We need to move it, and we need to move the Senate to move it. That is what we need to do.

This bill describes a broad array of activity, including keystroke logging, which tracks all of a computer user's keystrokes, they are recorded and then sent to a third party; homepage hijacking, in which spyware can take control of a computer and hijack the user's homepage to a commercial site or even to a pornographic site; and phishing, in which spyware directs a computer user with false messages purporting to be from some reputable merchant to basically steal the credit card, steal the credit card numbers and other financial information from a user.

In all of these cases, Mr. Speaker, spyware is downloaded without the knowledge and without the consent of the user. It is just not another cyber nuisance. It is a major Internet plague that threatens the privacy of the American consumer, and of course the very integrity of the Internet marketplace, on which we are relying more and more. I continue to meet people who have had their Web pages hijacked, their browsers corrupted, in some cases, their children exposed to inappropriate material from these dangerous programs hidden in their family computers.

Mr. Speaker, the Spy Act will bring control back to the consumer and give the on-line computer experience a positive message. It will preserve confidence in the Internet and its related technologies that make the lives of the consumer better and more convenient, more productive, and, of course, more secure. The Spy Act strikes a right balance between preserving legitimate and benign uses of this technology, while still, at the same time, protecting unwitting consumers from the harm caused when it is misused and, of course, designed for nefarious purposes.

The Spy Act prohibits keystroke logging, hijacking, and phishing. I mentioned that. It also provides a well-crafted opt-in for consumers before personal information is collected or prior to collection of Web history information. We in the Committee on Energy and Commerce think that is extremely important to have an opt-in for consumers. The legislation specifies that monitoring software should be easily disabled and requires companies that deliver ads to simply identify themselves. Further and more importantly, it gives the Federal Trade Commission the power to severely sanction violators with significant monetary penalties. In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation creates a uniform Federal regulatory regime that will provide clear and consistent regulation in this area.

At the bottom, the elimination of spyware and the preservation of privacy for the consumer are critical goals if the Internet is to remain safe and reliable and credible.

As I mentioned earlier, the House passed the bill H.R. 2929 by a vote of 399 to 1. This year this legislation was passed unanimously out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 43 to zero. I expect the same strong showing this afternoon.

So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 29, the Spy Act, has been a great exercise, as mentioned by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), ranking member, of our bipartisan leadership. Leadership that has been focused on achieving equitable results, that is good for the consumer, good for business, and good for America.

With that in mind, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, particularly the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), whose leadership provided this bill, for their consistent and, of course, their longstanding leadership in this area. I would also like to acknowledge the superb bipartisanship of my staff working with the staff of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

And, of course, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for his support.

So, all in all, Mr. Speaker, we have a great bill. We need to move the Senate forward. Our bill will make America greater, and I urge support for the Spy Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 149, honoring the 57th anniversary of Israel's independence and thank the gentleman from South Carolina for introducing this resolution. From the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel rose to become a shining example of democracy and liberty in a neighborhood otherwise dominated by totalitarian and dictatorially regimes.

The United States and Israel have had a special relationship since modem Israel's founding in 1948. The U.S. was the first country to recognize Israel, only 11 minutes after it was officially created. Since then, the two countries have developed a rock-solid friendship based on shared values and the fundamental principles of freedom and equality.

A strong U.S.-Israel relationship is in the best interest of both countries. Israel stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S. in countering the greatest threats to American interests in the region. When terrorists strike U.S. targets in the region or elsewhere in the world, Israel does not duck for cover but stands by the U.S. Additionally, no other country in the region supports the American position at the United Nations as consistently as Israel.

Israel's 57th anniversary is a great day for not only Israel but for freedom loving people all around the world.