S. Hrg. 109–497

U.S. FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN RENOVATION

OF U.N. HEADQUARTERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 21, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

U.S. FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN RENOVATION OF U.N. HEADQUARTERS

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–164 PDF 2006

S. Hrg. 109–497

U.S. FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN RENOVATION

OF U.N. HEADQUARTERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 21, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA D. TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

KATY FRENCH, Staff Director 

SHEILA MURPHY, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Dayton ................................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 43

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2005

Hon. James Inhofe, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................ 5

Hon. Jeff Sessions, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ........................... 6

Christopher B. Burnham, Under Secretary General Department of Management, United Nations .......................................................................................... 8

Anne W. Patterson, Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States 

to the United Nations, U.S. Department of State ............................................. 20

Martin J. Golden, New York State Senator .......................................................... 29

Donald J. Trump, Chairman and President, the Trump Corporation ................. 31

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Burnham, Christopher B.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 59

Golden, Martin J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 312

Inhofe, Hon. James: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Patterson, Anne W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 243

Sessions, Hon. Jeff: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Trump, Donald J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 315

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Coburn entitled ‘‘United Nations Headquarters 

Renovation’’ ........................................................................................................... 45

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Burnham .................................................................................................... 72

Ms. Patterson .................................................................................................... 250

(1)

U.S. FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN 

RENOVATION OF U.N. HEADQUARTERS 

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2005

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Coburn and Dayton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. The Federal Financial Oversight Committee 

will come to order. 

The topic of this hearing is one that many are interested in. 

There is not a debate on whether or not there needs to be structural repair and reform and remodeling of the U.N. headquarters. 

This is not intended to be a hearing where we take advantages of 

the weakness in operation that are noticed and recognized, and the 

problems inherent in some of the management difficulties, but 

rather the purpose of the hearing is to look at the Federal taxpayers, who are going to pay a large portion of this over the next 

30 years, are getting value for the dollars. The American people are 

quite generous. It is the obligation of the U.S. Congress and this 

Subcommittee, Federal Financial Management in particular, to review and to look at the costs associated with our participation in 

this organization. In 1952, the United Nations complex cost $65 million to build. In today’s currency that is a little less than $500 million. Today, 

the U.N. occupies seven buildings located in downtown Manhattan, 

New York, spanning over 2.6 million square feet and housing office 

space for thousands of employees. 

It is anticipated that the renovation would include the remodeling of the General Assembly, the Conference Building, the Library and 39 floors of the U.N. Secretariat. To renovate the complex, the U.N. is asking the American taxpayers to provide a loan 

in the sum of $1.2 billion. Over the life of that loan that will come 

to over $600 million in cost to the American taxpayer. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine that price-tag and determine if the loan would meet the standards that this Subcommittee demands of all Federal expenditures: Accountability, 

2

transparency, fair and open competition, spending discipline, and 

priority-setting. 

U.S. commitment to the U.N. is already more than most people realize—$3.8 billion just this last year. That is almost a million 

dollars for every U.N. staffer occupying the Manhattan headquarters. Americans are a generous people, but when a recent 

Luntz poll in July 2005 asked a random sample of Americans how 

they felt about this loan, 69 percent opposed it, and over half of the 

respondents strongly opposed it. 

Americans expect Congress to look closely at major expenditures 

like this, and that is what this Subcommittee is about. This is our 

10th hearing on Federal spending in this Congress, and we take 

oversight very seriously. We are committed to accountability at all 

levels of the Federal Government and all levels in which this government is involved. 

The first principle of accountability is transparency. I would like 

to talk about transparency at the U.N. for a moment. Unlike our 

Federal agencies, the U.N. rarely makes any of its internal audits 

public. It simply declares its audits to be sufficient without supplying proof. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s spokesman is on the 

record as bragging that the Oil-for-Food Program had been ‘‘audited to death.’’ But these audits were only released under intense 

pressure from the U.S. Congress. 

That culture of secrecy continues today. The U.N. has not cooperated in good faith with this Subcommittee’s investigation. The U.N. 

has kept details of competition for contracts in the dark. We do not 

know how or why the contractors who won awards were selected 

over other bidders. We cannot even get a straight answer on the 

size of those contracts. Was the contract for the design work on the 

renovation $8 million, $33 million, or $44 million as claimed by Fox 

News based on internal U.N. documents? 

Another principle is timeliness. That is a core principle of accountability. Our relationship with the U.N. needs to be a two-way 

dialogue. The U.N. is asking for a massive loan from the American 

taxpayers. When Congress asks for information about that loan, we 

expect to receive it in a timely fashion. As of this morning, the 

U.N. had still not submitted its testimony to the Subcommittee. 

That is understandable. That happens a lot from our own Administration. But it is still not a good way for us to be able to do an effective job in evaluating the information given to this Subcommittee. 

Another building block of accountability is spending discipline. 

This loan will not exactly be paid back in full to the American people. The loan will be paid back by the U.N., and the U.S. is the 

largest contributor to the U.N. budget. What that means is that 

Americans will be paying themselves back, with interest. After interest accrues on this loan over 30 years, Americans will have been 

on the hook for in excess of a half a billion dollars. It also means 

that dollars which pay for things that are not necessary and are 

not needed for the servicing of this loan, will not be available for 

core U.N. missions like food, water, development, treatment of diseases, malaria, or HIV. 

I note that no other country has stepped up to offer help with 

this loan. Until recently, until last year’s Omnibus bill, there was 

3

a statutory ban for the U.S. Congress and this government in 

terms of participating in such borrowing. Conveniently, that law 

was repealed in the 2005 appropriation process. 

With the Federal deficit encroaching on the future of our children 

and our grandchildren, the Medicare and Social Security programs 

actually in the tank in the very near future, this loan to the U.N. 

is a serious commitment of money and time, and it requires an 

equally serious commitment to oversight by Congress. 

When leading experts in real estate development publicly criticize the U.N. renovation project, Congress has to pay attention. We 

have been told that this project should be half the cost the U.N. 

is citing. Let us look at the breakdown on those costs. Labor and 

materials bring the cost to $482 million, but contingency fees and 

other fees on top of that core are driving the overall cost up over 

a billion dollars. We will look under the hood a bit today and examine some of that padding. 

But this will not be the end. Congressional oversight on this 

project is only beginning. Before we write checks for any loan, Congress needs to be convinced that fair and open competition has occurred, and that every item in the renovation plan is critical to the 

U.N.’s core central missions. That may mean some hard choices 

need to be made, because another principle of accountability is priority-setting. Does the U.N. really need $1.2 billion to refurbish 

this building, or could the essential renovations be completed at a 

much lower cost? 

We might not be paying such close attention if it were not for the 

regrettable fact that the U.N.’s credibility on financial management 

is at an all-time historic low. Is the Oil-for-Food scandal simply a 

symptom of systemic mismanagement? U.N. election monitors 

failed to prevent election fraud in Venezuela. U.N. Peacekeepers 

are now infamous for raping civilians rather than protecting freedom. In these cases and others, the U.N. has demonstrated an accountability deficit in matters of life and liberty, sound procurement, and program management. I wonder if this is really the best 

time for the U.N. to pass the collection plate around America, asking the taxpayers to once again open their wallets for what looks, 

to many outside observers, like a corruption-riddled bureaucracy. 

The loan matters, because we can not forget the important mission of the U.N. Will an investment in a new building really buy 

the world more consensus in the Security Council? Will better conference space lead to more international cooperation after natural 

disasters? Or would they believe that, if only the U.N. 6,000 annual 

meetings were held in nicer, more climate-controlled, more secure 

rooms, that the world would find the will to stop the genocide in 

Darfur? Would the U.N. be able to end child abductions in Northern Uganda, forced abortions in China, or religious persecution in 

Saudi Arabia? Might there be needs more pressing than excessive 

contingency fees on the renovation project? 

I believe that our Nation, and this Congress in particular, will 

be judged for how we steward the vast dollars that are entrusted 

to us. Ultimately, this renovation must help the U.N. fulfill its core 

mission—to bring help, hope, freedom and peace to the darkest corners of the earth. All renovation expenditures must be justified in 

the context of that most urgent mandate. 

4

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as Congress 

tries to determine if sound justification can be made for the cost 

of this renovation and the proposed U.S. loan. All our witnesses 

have traveled from New York City, with the exception of our Senators, and I am very pleased to welcome them, and I thank them 

very heartily for their willingness to participate. 

Senator you will be recognized for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I commend you for the discipline you are imposing 

on this process and for your oversight. I could not agree with you 

more, it is important to make sure that every dollar that is asked 

of the American taxpayer is well expended. I am glad that you recognize appropriately near the conclusion of your remarks the enormous importance of the United Nations. It is probably unfortunate 

that right now is the time for this transaction because of some of 

the practices of the United Nations programs that have come to 

light. My colleague, good friend from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, 

has chaired one of the Subcommittees that has looked into that and 

I sit on that Subcommittee. 

I think it is very important for all of us here to separate the 

practices of the United Nations from the institution of the United 

Nations and to recognize that as important as it has been in the 

last 60 years, despite its deficiencies which need to be overcome, 

it is going to be even more critical over the next 60 years. 

If we think the cost of this loan is expensive, we should look at 

the cost of war, cost of unilateral engagement in war, which we are 

learning in Iraq, versus a multinational approach under the auspices of the United Nations. We talk about Darfur and others, 

places where to be effective, to bring about any possibility of peaceful resolution, not to mention eradication of hunger and famine and 

disease, pestilence through the world, we are going to have to do 

a better job to be sure, but we are going to have to do it with other 

nations, and the United Nations is vital to that. 

It is a great symbol of our leadership in the world, that it has 

been originated and is housed in the United States, in New York. 

It is a phenomenal asset to the city. It brings people from around 

the world. It enhances the city. It enhances our country in the leadership role which the rest of the world properly looks to us to play. 

The only thing worse than the United Nations as it is perhaps now 

is a world without the United Nations, and the United Nations not 

located, as it should be, in the United States. 

It is important to do this project right, important to do it well. 

I hope this hearing will serve that purpose. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Dayton. 

It gives me great pleasure to recognize two U.S. Senators, both 

of which are my heroes, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Jim Inhofe, and the Senator from Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions. You are recognized each for the length of your testimony, 

and which ever would like to go first is fine with me. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would defer to our senior Senator and distinguished Chairman from Environment and Public Works Committee. 

5

1The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe appears in the Appendix on page 46. 

Senator INHOFE. You did not say senior citizen. [Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. Senator Inhofe, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES INHOFE,1 A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very 

much, and as I have told you privately, I am glad that you are 

doing something about this. You and I share the same State, we 

hear from the same people. But I would suspect in the State of Alabama, you get the same comments that we do. 

I will be very brief because we are doing our highway bill right 

now, and of course, as you know, I know that you have some very 

distinguished panel members that need to be addressing this specific subject. 

Before addressing that subject, I would only mention to you that 

it has been my experience in the 19 years that I have been here, 

that the United Nations in its performance is not getting better. It 

has been my experience that public opinion is more and more 

aware, at least they call it to my attention, the problems that exist. 

I have been very active in my chairmanship of the Environment 

and Public Works Committee and dealing with the climate control 

issues. It is kind of interesting that it all started with the United 

Nations, the Kyoto Protocol. I will not argue that issue right now, 

but I would say this: In the various meetings that they have had 

around the Nation, every year they have a meeting. It is in different places. They are fine places, Milan, Italy, for example, Mr. 

Chairman. I was there during one of the climate meetings sponsored by the United Nations, and I will not mention the name of 

the West African country, but when I talked to the person who was 

representing that country there, I said, ‘‘You know, I did not think 

you were really buying onto this whole climate change argument.’’ 

He said, ‘‘Oh, I am not, but this is the biggest party of the year.’’

I have yet to find out how much that cost, but we are talking 

about every year it is some exotic place. They all go in there, crowd 

in there, and it is the big party of the year for these people. I do 

not think there is really any accounting of what is going on. In fact, 

I made a request about 6 months ago. I said, ‘‘I would like to have 

an accounting, a statement as to expenditures,’’ and I specifically 

asked for these things. I was told by them that I was the first one 

ever to have made establishment requests. 

One area that I am very familiar with is Africa, as the Chairman 

knows. There is an organization, a part of our government called 

the African Development Foundation. It is something that I stumbled onto by accident, and it is one of the rare examples of just one 

that is operated perfectly. Every cent that goes in to incentivize 

businesses, small businesses, is done and is done very well. Ward 

Brehm is the chairman of that. I am proud that I was one who recommended him to the President, and he became chairman of that 

organization. Paul Kagame, a good friend of mine, the President of 

Rwanda, was talking about comparing the ADF, the African Development Foundation, with the various entities in the United Nations as to how much money actually gets to the problems. I am 

6

going to submit that and have all of that in the record because 

there is not time to go over it all. 

But when you hear things about Kofi Annan knew about Rwanda 

before the genocide took place, about the Oil-for-Food scandal, the 

sex misconduct and all of this. I happened to be up in Uganda, up 

at Gulu, where up there for some 25 years now one individual is 

heading up a group that takes kids out of their families, 14-, 12-

year-old kids, teaches them how to be soldiers, and if they do not 

go home and murder their families, they bring them back and cut 

their ears off. I said, ‘‘Where is the United Nations?’’ They are not 

really addressing that problem. It has been there for 25 years. 

If you look at what is happening in Western Sahara, Mr. Chairman, 175,000 people taken from their countries, and supposedly we 

are trying to get an accounting of how much of the money that is 

expended by the United Nations actually reaches Western Sahara, 

and I can assure you it will be very disappointing when we find 

out. 

Now, really quickly, rather than to go into some of the things 

that will be in the record, I would like to say that when we were 

considering the Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Act, I put together 

14 amendments that would require transparency, and would require business practices in the big renovation that is coming up. I 

am very glad that Senator Lugar and his staff agreed to accepting 

11 of the 14, and then we passed the others in a modified form. 

Of course, that is not out yet. Hopefully that will be of some help. 

In cost comparisons, because I chair the Environment and Public 

Works Committee, we have GSA, we deal with new buildings. We 

spend a lot of time trying to see how much we can get from this. 

I know that later on people will be testifying more specifically, but 

I would only say that if you take the capital master plan and look 

at what they are talking about in the cost of $452 per square foot 

of renovation in those buildings that we have built—not renovated, 

but torn down old buildings, built new buildings, in the Berkland 

Courthouse, the Islip Courthouse, Ronald Reagan Building, and so 

forth. I have these listed. It is considerably less in every case to 

build a new building than the renovation costs that we are looking 

at now. 

So I am hoping that you, Mr. Chairman, can get something done 

about this, and I hope that while we are trying to do a better job 

in this renovation, that we could also look at the overall problems 

that exist in the United Nations and address those at the same 

time. 

I thank you very much for allowing me to appear before you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Senator Sessions. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your eloquent opening statement and your commitment to good 

management. 

You are a fresh face here, and it is a fresh approach, and we 

need more of it. All of us in this Senate ought to feel bad that we 

do so little oversight, because if you do not watch the taxpayers’ 

7

money, somebody will get it and it is unlikely that you will get the 

full bang for the buck that we are entitled to. 

Mr. Chairman, the United Nations can play a more important 

role in making the world a safer and better place. I am pleased its 

headquarters is in New York. I do not dispute the fact that the 

U.N. building is in need of renovation and do not oppose its renovation in principle, nor do I oppose the United States making a loan 

at a fair rate for that purpose. 

My concern arose after a New York Sun news article presented 

shocking construction cost numbers. Importantly, the article quoted 

several prestigious New York developers, including Donald Trump, 

as saying the reported renovation cost of the 39-story building and 

other buildings would far exceed what they listed as the highest 

possible legitimate cost. To finance the renovation of the 39-story 

U.N. building, they are seeking a $1.2 billion loan from the United 

States. 

Taking the entire square footage of the project, including the parking garage, the total cost per square foot is $453. As we calculate it, excluding the parking garage, which would be appropriate, the cost is $568 per square foot. It is clear that renovation 

should cost less than new construction, but here renovation costs 

more than new construction. Mr. Trump built the brand new topof-the-line, state-of-the-art 90-story Trump World Tower almost 

across the street for $350 million. How could this renovation cost 

1.2 billion? We hope this hearing today will provide information on 

this issue. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, the United Nations can and has done good 

work in this troubled world eradicating hunger, peacekeeping missions, reducing child mortality, combating AIDS and malaria and 

other diseases, opposing genocide in the Sudan. But it can do much 

more, and it must not waste any of the precious funds entrusted 

to it from the world’s nations, including the largest contribution, 22 

percent, from the United States. 

The truth is that the U.N. financial management has been poor 

at best. In fact, the individual who was charged with managing 

this renovation recently resigned after allegations of conflicts of interest. Further, I am sincerely concerned that when Mr. Trump 

met with the Secretary General Annan to discuss his belief and 

concerns about the cost, not much interest was shown in his observations. 

New York is a tough place to do business. Any major project that 

is not managed well can result in exorbitant costs quicker than you 

can bat an eye. We must not allow that to happen here. Ambassador Patterson, who is our Acting U.N. Ambassador, in her statement has cited two GAO reports to defend the cost estimates. But 

the first GAO report was preliminary and early on and is of little 

value to us, but the second never purported to verify the actual cost 

estimates. They never went behind the papers submitted to them 

by the U.N. employed companies, and their report cannot tell us 

whether this is a $1.3 billion project or a $600 million project. They 

did not determine fair market value and could not. 

Both of the firms that provided the figures to justify the cost estimates refused to provide any information to my staff when they 

asked. In that regard at least it is not transparent. 

8

1The prepared statement of Mr. Burnham with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 

59. 

So there are many concerns and questions. The world’s nations 

who support the U.N. are entitled to know this will be a well-managed project and one that does not waste one dime, and on the 

sweets for high officials that could be saved to help the poor, the 

ill, and the oppressed. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing. Every dollar 

saved can save lives around the world. Since the renovation is to 

be financed by a U.S. loan and since we are the host country, the 

United States does have a special responsibility to ensure that our 

distinguished guests are getting top dollar and not taken to the 

cleaners. I hope this hearing will make sure that happens. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Dayton, do you have any questions of our esteemed colleagues? 

Senator DAYTON. I just want to thank both for their initiative 

and their leadership. Senator Inhofe, thank you for mentioning a 

good Minnesotan, a friend of mine, Ward Brehm, of the African Development Foundation. Your sponsorship was outstanding. Thank 

you both. 

Senator COBURN. I would invite you both to be a part of the dais, 

and without objection, your additional comments and materials will 

be made a part of the record. 

I believe Ambassador Patterson would like to have Mr. Burnham 

go ahead of her, and we would be happy to honor that. To do that 

we need to recess the hearing, because under U.N. protocol, they 

do not testify before Congress, but will give us an advisory briefing. 

And with that I would like to introduce to you, when I find my 

script, Christopher Burnham. I want to say at the outset I have a 

lot of confidence in the leadership of President Bush in placing him 

in this position. He recognizes the significant problems that lie 

within the U.N. in terms of financial management, transparency, 

priority setting, and accountability. 

And I am disappointed. I did not actually go through your testimony prior to this hearing because it was not made available to me 

until about an hour and 40 minutes ago. Nevertheless, I look forward to your briefing for us, and would hope that you would entertain some questions from that. 

His title is the Under Secretary General from Department of 

Management. Prior to this position, Mr. Burnham was Acting 

Under Secretary of the United States Department of State for Management. 

Mr. Burnham, you will be recognized, and please give us your 

briefing. 

BRIEFING BY CHRISTOPHER B. BURNHAM,1 UNDER SECRETARY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT, UNITED 

NATIONS 

Mr. BURNHAM. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I do apologize that the testimony was not up here sooner. I wrote it myself. 

As you point out, the President recommended me for this position, 

9

although Kofi Annan selected me for this position, and as such, 

having served in the Bush Administration for the last 4 years, my 

family is down here, and without pulling too many heartstrings, I 

went home last night to see my 5- and 7-year-old daughters and 

my 10-year-old son, and that interrupted the completion of my 

drafting my testimony last night, so, Senator, I apologize. 

Senator COBURN. That is a great excuse. [Laughter.] 

It is better than the ones I get from the Administration. Thank 

you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BURNHAM. Mr. Chairman, Members of this Subcommittee, it 

is my high honor to be here, and I want you to know that anytime 

you want me to come back down here, either to brief you in this 

setting or to meet with you one-on-one individually, I am absolutely 

pleased to do that. 

For the past 4 years, as I mentioned, I have been with the Bush 

Administration. This spring I resigned to take this position, and I 

did so because I believe in the United Nations. I believe that we 

need to make it a better place. I believe we need to make it a more 

efficient, effective, accountable, and transparent place, and a place 

that embraces fully, ethics and ethic standards. 

Of the many tasks the Secretary General has assigned to me, few 

are more important than the capital master plan. You need not see 

the movie ‘‘The Time Machine.’’ Simply walking into the headquarters of the U.N. is a nostalgic return to the 1950s. Its architecture, furniture, design, function and systems are charmingly retro. 

Unfortunately, it is also egregiously in violation of any reasonable 

level of efficiency and safety. 

My colleague will put up a slide which reviews some of the reasons for this project which you have already mentioned, Mr. Chairman. I will not dwell on them here. Instead I would like to address 

the solution and my shared concerns with this Subcommittee that 

we accomplish this economically and with the best value to all the 

taxpayers around the world who will fund this project. 

In addressing the CMP, I am reminded of the standard five-paragraph order of the U.S. Marine Corps: Situation, mission, execution, administration, and logistics and command. 

Here is the situation. We have seven buildings with over 21⁄2 million square feet of office, conference and support space on 17 acres 

located in the middle of the most expensive city in America. Constructed in 1950 with later editions in the 1960s and 1970s, this 

complex fails to meet minimum fire code, building code, safety 

code, and lacks modern sufficient security. It is riddled with asbestos, including dripping from the insides of my air conditioning unit 

just 3 feet from my desk. It lacks proper fire detectors, a sprinkler 

system. If one of the massive steam pipes, which are now lead, 

were to blow, there is a real potential that a large area surrounding the U.N. would be contaminated with asbestos, requiring 

the evacuation of the area until cleaning crews could decontaminate it. 

The building lacks a high-tech backbone that leads to greater efficiency and cost savings. It is unsafe for the employees of the U.N., 

including the more than 1,200 Americans who work there, members of the General Assembly, and potentially for the city. 

10

Here is our mission. With the greatest efficiency and the lowest 

cost to the global taxpayer, move thousands of employees and delegates out of the complex and into swing space by June 2007. Renovate, modernize and secure all facilities and systems as quickly as 

possible. 

This is how we are going to execute: We have hired a leading 

construction project manager, Gardiner and Theobald, founded in 

1840. Their responsibility will be both project management and 

cost management. This is the same group that has worked on Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, the New York Times, Standard and 

Poors, all their headquarters, and I also might add, Windsor Castle. 

The Secretary General announced Tuesday the hiring of a new 

Assistant Secretary General to oversee this project, Fritz Reuter, 

whose brief bio I have attached to my remarks, sir. Most recently, 

he was in charge of the massive $1 billion plus New York Weill 

Cornell Medical Center project that was built over the FDR Drive 

next to the East River. Fritz Reuter brought that project in early 

and under budget. Assistant Secretary General Reuter will have a 

skilled and experienced old New York hand overseeing the day-today leadership of the U.N. renovation, and reporting directly to me. 

Slide three. We have done four separate cost estimates for the 

project using four different groups. The project costs have been estimated throughout the process by major New York construction 

management and construction consulting companies, and I point 

out that Turner Construction is the largest in the United States. 

In addition, the costing methodology was reviewed by GAO, as Senator Sessions has spoken about. With our cost estimates in place 

and vetted four times, the next thing to do is to make sure we are 

not out of line with other projects of similar type and scope. This 

can be difficult, although this is not a lot different than my days 

as an investment banker in New York with CS First Boston and 

the kind of comparables we would do between companies to try and 

find what is the fair market value of a company. 

In this case I went back and looked at total cost renovations of 

the U.S. Capitol, another historic building, between 1950 and 2001, 

exclusive of the Visitors Center. Although it is more than $1.3 billion in 1950, 1960s and 1970s dollars—not today dollars—it is 

quite difficult to compare this renovation project to the U.N. on a 

per square foot basis. I also took a look at the State Department, 

where we have an ongoing 10-year more than one billion dollar 

renovation project going, also difficult to use on an apples to apples 

basis, moreover, there in Washington, and the U.N., as we all 

know, is in New York. 

When we are doing this we also have to ask, what do we mean 

by the cost? Do we mean the cost of the U.N. Secretariat Building, 

the 38-story building? Do we mean just the construction, the trade 

and material costs, or do we also mean planning, design, the construction costs, swing space cost, rental space, salaries of the capital master planning team, salaries and overhead as well as asbestos abatement, and security measures necessary to make the complex meet modern security standards? Very difficult to do that on 

an apples-to-apples basis, Senator, although I am trying. 

11

Slide four does show the per square foot estimates that we have 

had using the four companies I have already mentioned. Proliferation the proposed construction and the comps we do have, for example, on the U.N. Development Corporation, slide five, the all and 

fully-loaded costs for that were $545 per square foot. Gardiner and 

Theobald, based on their database of dozens of large-scale new 

building projects, estimate construction costs of New York headquarters’ buildings with the owner as the occupier, also a difference 

to note, runs in the range of $550 per square foot to $650 per 

square foot. 

By contrast, the new U.S. Capitol Visitors Center, with increased 

security costs—and I do not mean to just point out the Capitol 

costs here—but that U.S. Capitol Visitors Center are running, according to the GAO, $950 per square foot. The new U.S. Mission 

to the U.N., we demolished the building just a few months ago and 

are constructing a new 140,000 plus building. The building costs of 

that building, the new mission to the U.N., will be $600 a square 

foot, and if you include the cost of swing space, as well as the demolition costs, it is more than $910 a square foot. 

Senator Sessions already said that we have—and I respect that 

sir—that we have $365 per square foot. I will tell you what I am 

going to do tomorrow or tonight when I get back up to New York. 

I am going to take a look at those per square foot costs and we are 

going to figure out whether or not it is appropriate to include the 

garage in there, sir, and I will come back to you personally if there 

is any issue there. I promise you, as not only a former chief financial officer, former chief executive officer of a Wall Street firm, as 

well as a State treasurer and a former member of an appropriations committee, we are going to find out what those true numbers 

are, sir. 

Slide five shows the proposed budget that we have constructed 

using these four firms. The swing space figure is one I want to note 

because it is based on an estimate made 3 years ago for what the 

cost of the swing space would be if the New York legislature had 

approved the application of the U.N. Development Corporation to 

construct a new building for the U.N. next to the existing campus 

first to be used as swing space and then as consolidation space 

from other buildings that we now currently occupy around midtown 

Manhattan. This number, $96 million, is based on an old estimate. 

Because the U.N. will not have the advantage of using the UNDC 

as a landlord for this, we are now going to have to rent commercial 

swing space in New York at market rates. So I anticipate this 

number will climb. 

Finally, slide 6 shows the full per square foot cost broken down 

by area. What do we need to get the job done? The United States 

has generously agreed to lend the United Nations the money for 

the project. I need this approved by the General Assembly at 

United Nations this fall. We are going to move from the planning 

phase to the design phase that we are now in, and by August we 

expect to have these designs 60 percent complete, enough to begin 

seeking indications of interest from construction companies, culminating in a bid competition sometime in the fourth quarter of next 

year or early 2007. I expect to move out of the existing buildings 

12

no later than June 2007, and the renovation to begin shortly thereafter. 

While the plan is to currently be back in 2011, I have asked my 

team to accelerate this schedule and to shoot for 2010. 

How will we ensure command and control? I am involved on a 

daily basis. Two days ago we hired one of the most accomplished 

project managers in New York, Fritz Reuter, to oversee our inhouse team. I plan to create a high-level advisory board of experts 

on this type of project from the New York community, an example 

I have taken from the renovation and new construction efforts by 

New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. We have hired an external 

construction and cost manager, one of the most respected, and we 

have brought in other firms to validate our assumptions. We will 

continue to work with the GAO as they also opine on this critical 

renovation project. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I served 6 years on my Connecticut House 

of Representations Appropriations Committee, for the past 4 years 

Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of State, and I bring 

a passionate desire to make sure that our taxpayer money is not 

wasted. I intend never to drop my guard on this project, and you 

can rest be assured, I am going to run a lean and efficient operation. 

Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely honored and thrilled to answer 

any questions you or the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Burnham. First of all, your 

frame of reference is not one that is accepted by this Subcommittee 

in terms of how the U.S. Government does it, because we know we 

are in a world of hurt, and the Capitol Visitors Center is the boondoggle of the century in this city in terms of its cost overruns, mismanagement and inappropriate contracting and bidding. So using 

it as a frame of reference, if that is what we are going to compare 

to, you are never going to be successful in New York City with 

that. 

I am also reminded by staff, based on U.N. headquarters renovation and GAO document—this is a GAO document—and it said 

that the total cost for the new construction on the U.S. mission was 

$309 a square foot, not $600 a square foot, by GAO’s testimony to 

us. 

The other thing that comes to mind, my thought is, why do you 

have to evacuate the building? Why can you not do it in a staged 

process? Why do you have to spend $100 million on leased space 

when in fact the Pentagon was redone by moving people around, 

the U.S. Senate Capitol Buildings redone by moving people around? 

And asbestos abatement goes on here all the time, lead paint 

abatement goes on here all the time. Why has the decision been 

made already that this project cannot be done in a sequential fashion? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I, in fact, have asked 

that question, and I have asked whether or not it would be cheaper 

for us to do it in thirds, not only because of what it would take in 

terms of less swing space I have to rent, but also whether or not 

it would be easier on the men and women who work at the United 

Nations. Based on that assessment, which I have done in the last 

30 days, I do not want to spend years doing this. We have done 

13

this at the State Department. It is a 10-year project to renovate the 

State Department. They move out hallways, renovate it, move it 

back. The State Department also has asbestos issues. These are 

concerns for the employees, it is morale issues for the employees. 

It is much easier just to take the skin off that building to take the 

asbestos out, to—I am speaking now of the Secretariat, to renovate 

it and to move everybody back in. 

As far as the General Assembly is concerned, and others, we are 

working very diligently to do those as quickly as possible as well. 

Senator COBURN. So your testimony is that is not necessarily an 

economic but a management decision based on what is best for the 

organization? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I believe it would be both of those because there 

is an acceleration to costs as you lengthen a project from 3 to 4 

years to 10 years. 

Senator COBURN. Has an economic model been looked at? Is it 

$100 million? Again, I want to go back. If it is only $60 million additional cost, that is $40 million that can go to treat HIV around 

the world. We can cure malaria in Africa with $40 million in terms 

of treatment, nets and spraying. I mean there are a lot of things 

that $40 million can do. So that kind of decision is paramount in 

terms of how the dollars are spent. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. We have looked at whether or not the 

right decision is to do it in thirds or to do it all at once. I believe 

it is do it all at once, but I have been encouraged by others to review that. I did review it. And on your encouragement today, sir, 

I will review it again, and I will ask this question, whether or not 

we have fully vetted the management decisions versus the economics decisions on that, and I would be happy to get back to you on 

that, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much. Let me ask you just 

some very specific questions. How much has the U.N. in total already committed to this renovation project, which is outside the 

$1.2 billion figure? 

Mr. BURNHAM. It is under $30 million currently. We were just 

authorized by the fifth committee of the United Nations to spend 

an additional $25 million to finish the design project. So I believe 

the actual figure is $39 million. Do we have the total figure? I will 

take it for the record, sir, but it is under $40 million. 

Senator COBURN. Can you account for Fox News’ release of this 

$44 million in terms of being committed for design? 

Mr. BURNHAM. That is the first we have heard of it today, sir. 

I will have to peel the onion back on that one. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. In terms of the procurement officer 

in charge of the capital plan recently resigned due to some allegations of impropriety related to the Oil-for-Food scandal. He oversaw 

the contract to Renato, the Italian design firm who did the renovation plan. This just raises some questions, and not necessarily accurate, but the questions ought to be asked. Has Renato done any 

renovation international projects outside Italy or in New York before? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I am not aware of that. Renato is no longer contracted with us. That was before I arrived at the United Nations, 

and none of the contracts with which the individual that Fox News 

14

wrote about, none of those contracts are we currently still contracted with. 

Senator COBURN. Are there problems with the Renato bid in 

terms of transparency, economics, cost, effectiveness? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. That was, I think, 

years before I got here, and——

Senator COBURN. But you are not aware of that? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Renato is no longer under contract with the 

United Nations. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Is it inappropriate for this Subcommittee to ask for the bidding process and contracting process 

associated with the U.N. renovation? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Is it inappropriate to ask for it, or is it inappropriate to ask that I ensure that it is going to be run in the most 

transparent and open process we can? 

Senator COBURN. No. I am asking very specifically, as the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate, is it 

inappropriate that we ask you for those documents so we look as 

a Subcommittee, at the transparency, at the evaluation, at the bidding process for those contracts? Since in fact, the American people 

are going to pay a half a billion dollars on this project? Is that inappropriate in your mind? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I do not know the answer to that, Senator, because I do not know the protocol of the United Nations. I do know 

the protocol of the State Department, where I worked for the last 

4 years, and I know that some of the issues we had with internal 

budget documents that the GAO have wanted and Members of 

Congress have wanted, and that we pushed back then. But this is 

a question I would love to take for the record, sir, if you will permit 

me. 

Senator COBURN. I would be happy to. I would tell you the American people will not think it is inappropriate that we assure that 

our cost of that building renovation look at in terms of just openness, transparency and fairness, and I would appreciate you getting back to me. My time has expired. 

Senator Dayton, you are recognized for questions. 

Senator DAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the point you just made, I mean 

any commercial lender would be asking for that kind of financial 

information from anyone asking to borrow any amount of money, 

certainly $1.2 billion, and would not just take at face value the representations of the borrower. So I think given the difficulty we 

have had in the last few months getting information from the 

United Nations, if you want to make this a really serious, controversial and almost impossible matter to get approval of, that 

would be the surest way to do it, if you would pass that on. I mean, 

diplomatic communications and protocols are one thing; dollars are 

dollars. And as you say, we are the lender, I think we are entitled 

to that information. 

You said that it is going to be June 2007 before people are moved 

to the swing space. Given the seriousness of the asbestos problems 

and others that you mentioned, that seems like far away removed 

from now. 

Mr. BURNHAM. My understanding is, is that this is the amount 

of time we need to: (A) finish the design phase of the renovation; 

15

(B) go out and solicit bids from first indications of interest and then 

bids from the construction companies; and have——

Senator DAYTON. But if it has unsafe, unhealthy conditions, sir, 

do you not want to get them out into some better space immediately even if the preliminary matters are not completed? It just 

seems like a contradiction. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Absolutely, and if I can accelerate it, I will. 

Senator DAYTON. There is one report here at our table, talking 

about the estimated costs of swing space options. I do not know if 

this envisions a particular option, but it has the leasing, 62 million; 

commercial space, 69 million. Then it has: Construction, addition 

to an existing building, 73 to 91 million; a new low-rise building, 

e.g., north lawn area, 67 million; new building off site, 78 million. 

Are you renting space or are you building? 

Mr. BURNHAM. There is no new construction within this. There 

will be come new features within the existing facilities such as two 

or three or four conference rooms. In addition, I have concerns 

about the library. I think that we can make better utilization of 

125,000 square feet. I have raised this before in past issues associated with libraries’ usage in the Federal Government. I am not 

anti-library. I just think that using the Internet and using new 

methodologies for managing library facilities, that we can condense 

that and reutilize that space for things, perhaps that are more important to pursuing the mission of the United Nations. As such, we 

have hired a consultant who is an expert in libraries to advise us 

on how we can move forward on that. 

Senator DAYTON. So this document I have before me, the United 

Nations General Assembly Capital Master Plan, page 17, that talks 

about construction costs as part of the swing space, that is outdated and part of the present plan? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I would have to get clarification of exactly what 

you are speaking. There is no construction of swing space. There 

was originally planned construction of swing space known as DC5, 

built by the United Nations Development Corporation, which was 

going to build a building one block south of the existing complex. 

To do so, that would have required approval by the New York General Assembly. That approval was not forthcoming, and thus, that 

is no longer an option for swing space. I have to go out into the 

marketplace in central Manhattan for——

Senator DAYTON. Do you have to be in central Manhattan? I 

know there is considerable space——

Mr. BURNHAM. Well, I have also been looking at Brooklyn. I have 

considered Governor’s Island. I am looking at southern Manhattan 

as well for these things. 

Senator DAYTON. South Bronx? 

Mr. BURNHAM. The Bronx, sir? 

Senator DAYTON. South Bronx, yes. 

Mr. BURNHAM. South Bronx. 

Senator DAYTON. There actually, the construction——

Mr. BURNHAM. Well, we are missing a couple stadiums these 

days up there. It might be appropriate to look beyond those borders 

of Brooklyn and Manhattan. 

There may come a time when the New York General Assembly 

approves U.N. Development Corporation to use that plot of land, 

16

that park known as Robert Moses Park just south of the U.N., and 

to build on that plot, and to be able to—for the United Nations to 

consolidate space that we now rent out there in Manhattan, commercial space, and to consolidate our operations right there, next 

door to the existing campus. And I would certainly encourage the 

New York State Legislature to do so because I think that also 

would be important, and in dealing with the United Nations Development Corporation and their chief executive officer, Senator Roy 

Goodman, retired of the New York State Legislature, and an old 

friend of mine, as well as George Klein, who is a developer in New 

York, who is the chairman of that organization. I think it could be 

very useful to the United Nations in the future, but it is not part 

of this plan any more. 

Senator DAYTON. I comment you for your public service. Anyone 

who would leave the private sector to take on the U.S. Congress 

and the New York Legislature deserves our thanks. I wish you well 

with this project as we will be overseeing it. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Just a couple of comments before I recognize 

Senator Sessions. The scientific literature today shows that the cost 

per life saved on asbestos abatement is $1 billion per life saved in 

this country. That is an interesting phenomenon, when if we spend 

a billion dollars on breast cancer we could save thousands of lives. 

So as we use those things, it is important for us to recognize the 

price we pay for lack of scientific clarity in what we do. 

The other thing I wanted to make just a note of, Senator Dayton, 

is the swing space was not part of the $1.2 billion. It had nothing 

to do with the $1.2 billion, the new building. That was not part of 

the $1.2 billion. I will come back after you finish, with a couple 

other little items. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Burnham, you are a stand-up guy. You did not even really 

emphasize that you just took office June 1 in this position, and 

what has happened before, happened before your watch. But we 

have to think about those things rather seriously. 

I noted you are involved in a daily basis, reading from your 

statement, and 2 days ago you hired an accomplished project manager from New York. So I have a sense that you realize that this 

project has some serious problems and that you have a responsibility to get it back on track; is that correct? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Senator, thank you. I have the responsibility to 

ask all the questions you are asking, to carry your questions with 

me because this is my money, and I anticipate that I am going to 

continue to ask the kinds of questions that you would expect when 

a new Under Secretary General for Management who has been 

tasked with overseeing this project would ask. Are we on the right 

path here? Are things too expensive here? Is the scope too big? Is 

the scope too little? Do we have enough focus on the security which 

is inadequate right now? You know, ensuring that we have adequate security for the United Nations facilities going forward. I am 

approaching this very much in my training as the Chief Financial 

Officer and as a former banker, sir. 

17

Senator SESSIONS. If you will let me interrupt. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. But you have the responsibility in your new 

position with the U.N. You are with the U.N. now. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. And is it your responsibility to supervise this 

project? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would just advise you that at some point 

along this process, you may be asked to provide information for the 

Secretary of State because legislation I offered and that we all 

agreed on, said that it is the sense of the Senate that the amount 

of any loan for the renovation of the United Nations headquarters 

building located in New York should not exceed $600,000, provided 

that if any loan exceeds $600,000, the Secretary of State shall notify the Congress of the current cost of the renovation and cost containment measures. And in fact, to get more than that, she is going 

to have to certify that she is firmly convinced and has firm numbers to justify that extra cost. 

So I guess I am saying to you, are you prepared to get to the bottom of this and give her those numbers if you expect to ask for 

more? 

Mr. BURNHAM. One hundred percent, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that would be important, and we will 

be counting on you for that. Also I am concerned about the design, 

the architectural firm from Milan, Italy. Are you not aware now 

how much they have been paid and what their contract price is? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Is that the Renato firm? 

Senator SESSIONS. Renato firm. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes. We no longer have a contract with Renato. 

That happened before I arrived at the United Nations. I have seen 

a figure for how much they received, a few million dollars. But we 

have in fact asked for a review of all those contracts, and we have 

asked for that review specifically because of the Fox News piece on 

the procurement officer who was involved with a piece of that, so 

we are—I am continuing to pursue that, but we do not currently 

have a contract with it, and I do not think we will going forward. 

Senator SESSIONS. We have heard figures, $7, $10, $15, or $44 

million to be paid to them. If they have a contract, they may be 

entitled to funds even if they have been terminated. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Senator, I will get to the bottom of that for you, 

and I will call you tomorrow. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that figure is important. As I understand it, we are still using their cost figures for this project; is that 

correct? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I believe those are one-fourth of the cost estimates we have utilized, yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to the GAO report, particularly 

the second one—and that has been referred to to defend the cost 

that we have here—you would agree, would you not, that GAO did 

not go behind the cost estimates that were submitted by firms 

hired by your predecessor at the U.N., and that those are the cost 

estimates they are relying on; is that correct? 

18

Mr. BURNHAM. I do not know the answer to that, Senator, but 

I presume you are correct in that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is correct, and so therefore I do 

not believe that the GAO report can be utilized to say this is a fair 

market value for the project. 

Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

I just want to follow up again with you, Mr. Burnham. The contract with Renato developed the cost estimates for this project, correct? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I believe we have four firms that have done the 

cost estimates. In my mind, the most important were Turner Construction. 

Senator COBURN. So you have four firms that have done cost estimates for this project? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. All four of those were subsidiaries of Renato; 

is that not true? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Turner Construction is not a subsidiary of 

Renato. Turner Construction is the largest United States based 

construction company. 

Senator COBURN. I will give you a document from the GAO Report, architect engineering firm, Renato Sarno Group; consulting 

engineer, Ove Arup and Partners; cost estimating subconsultant 

was Turner, all working under the Renato Group. Cost estimating 

consultant, Hill International; Security Subconsultant, Ducibella, 

Venter and Santore; Project Management Consultant, Atkins, 

Hanscomb, Faithful and Gould. 

These were all subconsultants to Renato, so the cost base came 

through the contract with Renato, correct? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes. To the best of my knowledge, Senator, we 

have four different methodologies that we have used to estimate 

the construction costs here. And moreover, construction costs are 

not—construction estimates in this case are not what we are actually going to pay. Just the way, when we say what we think the 

value of a stock is as bankers may be one thing, but the marketplace is going to determine what the cost of that stock is, and ultimately the marketplace or the construction managers who bid on 

this are going to be the ultimate determiners of how much this 

project will cost. 

Senator COBURN. If that is the case, how did we come to a $1.2 

billion loan from the U.S. Government? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Because my understanding is, and before I got 

here, Senator, that they had four different ways of estimating what 

the costs were. That methodology was validated by one of those, 

which is our cost and project manager, Gardiner and Theobald. So 

we have taken some of the best and the brightest we have here. 

We have taken Turner Construction, we have taken Gardiner and 

Theobald, who have come up with a cost estimate plan. 

Ultimately what we have to do now is complete the design phase. 

When you go through the design phase, things can change, the 

scope can change, estimates can change. Once we accomplish that, 

we can then go out for indications of interest. If there are construction firms—and I want to assure you I welcome anyone to bid on 

19

this project and to try and protect my American taxpayer dollars, 

which are 22 percent of this project—that if we can do this more 

inexpensively, and if there is a firm out there that can do it more 

inexpensively because we have overestimated or because Gardiner 

and Theobald or Turner overestimated the cost of this project, then 

we will know that. We will know that when the bids come in and 

we will be able to choose the low bidder and we will be able to save 

the world taxpayers some money. 

Senator COBURN. I want to go back to your $365 figure and make 

a note for us and those in the room, us that just represents 50 percent of the cost associated with this project because 50 percent of 

the cost of this project is based on contingencies. Is that correct? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I will take your word for it, sir. 

Senator COBURN. So if we look at it, so the $365 is not an accurate figure of the total cost, it is more like $560 to $580 total cost. 

And so like you made a good point which I think is valid, you have 

to compare apples to apples, and apples to apples is not $365, it 

is this chart right here. The apples to apples is, based on what 

GAO has given us and what you have given us, the actual labor 

and materials cost is $482 for a refurbished building. The design 

contingency is $72 a square foot. Actually, those are dollars, not 

square foot. General conditions and all the rest as you go through 

that, you come up to the billion and 49 million dollars. And then 

you end up the scope of options that are associated with it. So I 

think it is important that if you divide the 2.6 million square feet 

into the total, you are talking about $580 per square foot. 

The whole question of this hearing is with your security needs 

and with the needs of the building’s shape that it is in today, could 

somebody else provide what you all need at a lower cost than $580 

per square foot? Could somebody build you a brand new building 

with all your needs for less than $580 per square foot? I think that 

is a legitimate question. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. We ought to talk about what the real costs are 

per square foot because it is not $365 per square foot because you 

all have built in another $600 million in those costs for contingencies. So we cannot use $385 when the real cost—and you say 

as scope may change, the price may go up and the market may go 

up. And so one of the criticisms that I have heard on the street of 

this project is $1.2 billion is not going to be close to what it is going 

to cost. It is going to cost a whole lot more than that. That is of 

some concern to this Subcommittee as well, because whatever cost 

overrun is going to be there, ultimately we will pay through dues 

to the United Nations. 

I would just like your comment on that. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Senator, I am absolutely obligated to you to come 

back to this Subcommittee and to clarify an apples to apples comparison. I do not believe that at this time, with nearly 60 percent 

of the design done—and we will reach that point I believe by late 

August—that it makes sense to try to go out there and estimate 

what the cost of this project is going to be going forward. If there 

are contingency costs in there, the contingency costs are in there 

because that is what I am told is the best practice of how you do 

a renovation and construction project like this. 

20

1The prepared statement of Ambassador Patterson with attachments appears on page 243. 

Senator COBURN. That is a good answer because that is an honest and transparent answer, and I want to tell you I appreciate it. 

Senator Dayton, do you have other questions? 

Senator DAYTON. No, thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. No, thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Let me thank you so much for being here. You 

have committed to send us a couple of things. I want to just follow 

up one last thing and that is on transparency. Do you believe that 

the U.N. has a right to keep its finances secret? 

Mr. BURNHAM. No. 

Senator COBURN. Do member-states have a right to know exactly 

how money is being spent by the U.N.? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Will you work and dedicate in your office to 

make sure that transparency is the No. 1 goal of the finances of 

the United Nations? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Under the leadership of Colin Powell, and 

through Colin Powell my work as Chief Financial Officer, David 

Walker awarded the U.S. Department of State this year the transparency award for all of Federal Government just a few months 

ago. I carry the same mission to the United Nations. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Burnham. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. The Subcommittee will reconvene back into 

hearing. I invite Ambassador Patterson to come and testify. 

Anne Patterson became Acting Permanent U.S. Representative to 

the United Nations in January 2005. She became Deputy Permanent Representative in August 2004. She is a career minister in 

foreign service. She is from a great part of the country, real near 

Oklahoma, Arkansas. We welcome you and your comments. 

Ambassador, please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF ANNE W. PATTERSON,1 DEPUTY PERMANENT 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE UNITED 

NATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Dayton and Senator Sessions. I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on the planned renovation of the U.N. headquarters facility in New York. I would like 

to summarize my statement for the record. 

As the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, the Administration has a particular responsibility to ensure 

that costs are reasonable, and we welcome your engagement on 

this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Burnham has described the state of 

the U.N. headquarters and the number of——

Senator COBURN. Could I interrupt you for just a moment? I 

think it is very important for some of Mr. Burnham’s personnel to 

stay here if they in fact want to hear a balanced view on others 

opinions about what is going on. I would just interrupt you to make 

that point, and I see that they have all left. Is anybody with Mr. 

21

Burnham still in the audience? That is part of our problem, is we 

only want to hear one thing. 

You are here and you are going to take notes? 

Audience Member: [Inaudible.] 

Senator COBURN. OK, thank you. 

I am sorry, Ambassador. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. No. Mr. Chairman, I will skip the description of the building, but let me just say that I took a tour of 

the building to prepare for this testimony, and I found it in scary 

condition, and particularly some of the fire abatement procedures. 

After I went there I was almost worried to let my people go there 

for meetings, so it is in quite bad shape, and Mr. Burnham has 

gone through the details. 

But I know that you and your colleagues are very concerned 

about the cost and I want to tell you what we are doing to ensure 

that these are monitored and consistent with industry standards. 

When I arrived at the U.S. mission about a year ago, I was 

pleased to find the apparatus in place to provide a high degree of 

oversight, both within the U.N. structure and within our own government. The United Nations had established a new separate office 

under the authority of the Under Secretary General for Management, and I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the United States always seeks, because of our large contribution to the United Nations, to have an American as Under Secretary General for Management. 

The U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services—that is the 

U.N.’s IG—had established a permanent linkage to the project and 

was reviewing the project regularly. We believe the United Nations 

has structured an organization in a way that is well suited to administer this project. 

Just as importantly, Senator, the Administration has exercised 

oversight of the Capital Master Plan for a number of years. The 

U.S. Mission’s Management and Reform Office has been involved 

in reviewing this project since its inception. But given its unique 

nature, the Administration decided to create a task force based in 

Washington to manage overall U.S. participation in the project. 

This task force includes staff from the State Department and OMB, 

as well as an expert consultant with years of experience managing 

major U.S. Embassy construction projects. 

U.S. oversight, as Senator Sessions had mentioned, also extends 

to the Government Accountability Office, which has undertaken 

two reviews of this project. GAO reviewed the processes being followed thus far by the U.N.’s Capital Master Plan team, and found 

them to be consistent with best industry practice. 

How were the costs for this project evaluated? The U.N. contracted with three internationally known construction firms. Our 

task force has also looked carefully at the bidding and contracting 

process for the design work that is currently under way. I understand that the GAO is soon initiating a third review of the Capital 

Master Plan, and again, I welcome GAO’s involvement. 

In sum, Mr. Chairman, the costs were developed in a transparent 

manner, and bids for the $19 million spent to date were let by competitive transparent procurement practices. Costs were reviewed by 

22

reputable world-class firms, and reviewed repeatedly by the U.N.’s 

internal auditors and GAO. 

Mr. Chairman, the United Nations needs the United States, and 

we believe the United States needs the United Nations. We work 

in the United Nations to get the Syrians out of Lebanon or to send 

peacekeepers to Haiti and Sudan. As host country we have a special responsibility to ensure that the facilities used by the United 

Nations are adequate to meet its needs and are safe and secure for 

all its employees and delegates. I believe our offer of a loan at an 

interest rate of up to 5.5 percent to finance this project is fair, and 

provides a way forward to accomplish the renovation. But I am also 

mindful we need to ensure that the project is carried out in a cost 

effective and transparent manner. 

I believe this has been the case to date, and assure you that we 

will remain vigilant in our oversight throughout the course of this 

renovation to see that the best interests of the United States are 

served. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would look forward to your 

questions. 

Senator COBURN. Ambassador, thank you so much for taking 

time out of your schedule to be here. I want to tell you that I appreciate it. 

A couple of things. We understand that there are problems with 

the building. There is no debate that things need to change in 

terms of the facilities of the United Nations. Nobody here is questioning that, and there is no debate that the security concerns at 

the United Nations need to be of paramount importance to protect 

the lives of those that are guests in this country, and that is not 

a debate. 

We actually went through square footage cost last night, talking 

about the security concerns of about $35 a square foot. That is a 

legitimate cost for that facility. All those points you have made, we 

do not have any problem with. That is not what we want to look 

at. We are concerned, first of all, at the frame of reference of cost, 

and the U.N. renovation is estimated to cost somewhere between, 

I think probably closer to $550, $580 a square foot. It depends on 

how you want to play for the numbers, but having built several 

manufacturing plants, and unfortunately was in the home building 

business for a time when it was not quite so good as it is today, 

I can tell you, cost estimates are important because the financing 

is important. 

The U.S. Mission to the U.N. is also getting a new building, correct? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Can you tell me where that project is as of now 

and how far along it is in terms of its completion? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Yes. The building is demolished and we 

are in the process of seeking bids. Since we are in the actual process of seeking the bids right now, I can give you quite a bit more 

information, but I would frankly prefer not to give it in an open 

session. 

Senator COBURN. Absolutely, and I will take you up on that and 

we will have a conversation about that. Thank you. 

23

In looking at the U.N. renovation project, did the United States 

do a cost comparison of what we think we are going to be paying 

for the U.S. Mission in New York? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Again, I would rather not get into the 

cost per square footage, but it has frankly been on our minds, yes. 

Senator COBURN. Then you would testify that there is probably 

a significant cost differential between those two facilities per 

square foot? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. No, there is not, Mr. Chairman. And 

again——

Senator COBURN. Well, that concerns me even more. Maybe we 

will have a little hearing on the U.S. Mission to the U.N. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. We can discuss that. As I say, we are 

in a sensitive stage there with the letting of the bids, but I would 

rather discuss that with you privately. 

Senator COBURN. All right, and I will defer my next question on 

that. 

In your comments you alluded to the GAO studies of the U.N. 

renovation projects. Is it not true that the GAO studies did not look 

at the procurement contracts, nor did they conduct a cost analysis 

of the renovation project? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but let me sort of 

back up and start from scratch on the development of the cost. 

Renato Sarno was the Italian design firm that did the original cost. 

My understanding is that Turner Construction was a subcontractor 

and a world class firm is estimating cost. They evaluated those. 

Hill International came in later. That too is a world class construction firm with thousands of employees and billions of dollars under 

contract. They estimated the cost independently. Now we have Gardiner and Theobald, which is likewise a world class firm who has 

estimated the cost, and all these estimates were very close together. 

In addition, GAO examined the processes. There have been two 

internal audits by the IG of the U.N., and their auditors are embedded with the Project, and the Board of Auditors, which oversees 

the entire U.N. system, has also done an audit. So there have been 

a number of reviews and fail safes I think built into this process 

that should give us a fair degree of confidence, and we will remain 

vigilant that these costs estimates are within the ballpark. 

Senator COBURN. Are those audits available to the Subcommittee? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Absolutely. I think I have them in my 

bag. 

Senator COBURN. Wonderful. I thank you for that. 

Again, to make the point, GAO did not look at the procurement 

contracts, nor did they themselves do a cost analysis of the renovation project. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. They did not, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. The United States has offered to provide a $1.2 billion 30-year loan at 5.5 percent interest. What 

happens if interest rates go to 10 percent? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Well, I guess that is the difficulty we 

run with any loan that we make at any time. I mean most commercial loans—and this is close to commercial—the rate we made at 

24

the time was close to the commercial rate. It is a 30-year loan, interest only for 5 years and then repayment over 30 years. 

Senator COBURN. And the subsidy cost to the American people by 

statute? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. The insurance of $6 million. I think interest rates, frankly, Mr. Chairman, have been lower than we anticipated. 

Senator COBURN. Would that imply that there is some padding 

then in the cost estimate for the interest cost of this project? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Well, no, I do not think—I think interest rates were lower than we anticipated. They have been below 5.5 

percent. 

Senator COBURN. Up until recently U.S. law prohibited taxpayers’ money being used to pay interest on any U.N. loan. Last 

year’s Omnibus Appropriation Bill waived this prohibition at the 

request of the Administration. Does the Administration think it is 

generally a good idea to weaken law that protects the American citizen from footing the interest cost of the U.N. loan? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, because 

I was not involved in that process. I can only speak to the fact that 

I think this is a worthy use of the taxpayers’ money, a 30-year loan 

at basically a commercial rate. 

Senator COBURN. None of the funds appropriated through the appropriations to the United States available for U.S.’ contribution to 

an international organization for the U.S.’ share of interest cost 

made known to the United States Government by such organizations for loans incurred on or after 1984 through external borrowings. And here is the change: Except that such restriction shall 

not apply to loans to the United Nations for renovation of its headquarters. 

So we made a specific separate exception for this project; is that 

correct? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Yes, and I think for two reasons. One, 

we did not want to pay it directly out of assessments, that it would 

be more economic for us as well. And keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, 

that there are many other countries involved in this, too, who are 

worried about cost control. The Japanese pay almost 20 percent of 

this, and they have been very aggressive in seeking cost control on 

this project as well. 

But, yes, for renovation. I think another factor too, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, is that 90 percent of this money will be spent 

in the United States. 

Senator COBURN. Good point. We are going to employ people with 

it. But there are a lot of advantages and disadvantages. We do not 

want the United Nations to go anywhere. We want them to stay 

in New York City. That is not what this debate is about. 

But are the other countries contributing to the loan? In other 

words, is this a fractionated loan? Is Japan offering to cover $300 

million of this? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Well, no. The loan is from the United 

States, but the repayments will be in percentage to your assessment. We pay 22 percent, Japan pays 19.6, Germany pays 8.7. So 

these other countries just are not getting a free ride at our expense. They are contributing to this effort, and I think the really 

25

special factor here, unlike some other loan that would be taken out 

for some other activity, is it is basically an American expenditure. 

Senator COBURN. I want to ask this last question for my grandchildren. So we are going to borrow the money to loan to them, 

right? We do not have the money, correct? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Right. 

Senator COBURN. United States, we have a $452 billion on-budg- et deficit. We have $7.9 trillion in debt. We have a bankrupt Medicare, Social Security system. So we are going to go into the market 

and we are going to borrow from the Japanese the money, and so 

we are going to hedge this. We are going to pay whatever the going 

rate is, which is going to rise over the next few years, and then we 

are going to loan it to United Nations. So we are going to subsidize 

the loan at multiple points interest rate over what projected rates 

are going to be in the future on short-term rates. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. I guess that depends on what interest 

rates are. Actually, we thought they would go up, and they have 

gone down. I do not know what interest rates are going to do. But 

when we made this loan agreement, when it was put in the appropriations 5.5 percent seemed like a reasonable rate of interest. 

Senator COBURN. Our longest maturity right now is about 10 

years, and that is what the trading parameter is, it is at 4.2 percent? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. At 4.19 precent, yes. 

Senator COBURN. And it is projected to somewhat sneak higher, 

so the point is, is at best it is a wash. My point is, we are not in 

the financial position to loan money to anybody. We are a net borrower. And if individual, it is difficult for us to rationalize putting 

additional debt on our children when we are going to add $1.3 trillion to their debt this year. You do not have to answer that. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. I do want to answer that, Senator, because let me make a point about the project. I think the other option was basically coming up with the money out of our current 

poor fiscal situation. In other words, we would have to come up 

with an assessment, because as Senator Dayton mentioned, this is 

really an urgent project for a lot of reasons, not to mention the 

safety and security issues that are so much on our minds. So we 

would have had to come up with $144 million, which was our estimated cost in 2006. We are not budgeted for it. Given our severe 

financial situation, I think people thought it was easier to finance 

with a long-term loan. 

So it is not just the U.N. and the member-states. It is also our 

own inability to come up with this on an assessed basis in the 

short run. The longer we delay, Senator, the more the cost will go 

up. I mean people in New York tell us that construction costs are 

rising very rapidly. 

Senator COBURN. I understand. Thank you very much. Senator 

Dayton. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

excellent questions and probing. I share your concern about our 

overall fiscal situation, and I voted against the budget resolution 

for that reason. But of those many billions which I could not justify 

to my children or grandchildren, this project, if it is handled properly—and I think with your oversight looks very promising that it 

26

will be—I would say to my grandchildren it is a very sound investment in their future and in the world’s future. 

Given again this issue about the asbestos, the exposure of staff 

and others, is the move out of this building possible to accelerate? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Thank you, Senator. I think as Mr. 

Burnham mentioned, they are going to do this as quickly as possible, and I know that they are actively engaged in the search for 

office space. But more than asbestos, what really worried me was 

fire, because when you take a tour you can see that the fire prevention standards are such that they could not identify where a fire 

breaks out in the building. 

So I think, as Mr. Burnham said, they are going to move this forward as quickly as possible. And another factor too, another reason 

to move it very rapidly ahead is the increasing cost over time. 

Senator DAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Ambassador or Mr. Burnham or both keep the Subcommittee advised of 

the timetable for moving the staff out of there. June 2007, to me, 

is too far into the future. I am not an expert on how you move a 

large number of people like that in a city like New York City, but 

it seems to me that is a long time away, so if we could see what 

you can possibly do to accelerate that for their safety and wellbeing. 

I would also just ask, is there anything we can do here, or not 

do to make your job better or easier or facilitate your success? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Thank you very much, Senator Dayton. 

I think we will be happy to keep you advised, and I would urge you 

to come up. That is always useful. We have had many of your colleagues there. They take a tour of the facilities. They see for themselves, and you can also see the work that the U.N. does in the Security Council and humanitarian issues and a broad range of other 

issues. 

Senator DAYTON. I taught public school in New York City for 2 

years. I have seen my share of New York’s fire traps, but thank 

you anyway. 

Is there anything that we can do? I mean that sincerely. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. No. Thank you for your—we welcome 

the attention of this Subcommittee to monitor this project. It is always a help when you engage with the U.N. Committee structure 

and with the other nations. 

Senator DAYTON. I thank you for the service you are rendering 

to our country and your post. Thank you. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Thank you. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ambassador, have you personally—I assume 

you have not—but have you ever personally developed and managed the construction of a major project in a metropolitan area? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Certainly not, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is not your or my expertise for sure. I 

know you have relied on this GAO report, and cited it, the project 

as being, ‘‘subject to in depth, on site reviews by the Government 

Accountability Office.’’ Have you read that report carefully? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Yes, sir. 

27

Senator SESSIONS. Is it not true that GAO did not look at the actual numbers of the project, but really the process that these numbers are developed and did not go behind those numbers to see if 

they represented actual, competitive fair market value cost for construction? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Yes, Senator Sessions. That is what 

auditors do and that is what they did in this case. 

Senator SESSIONS. So they are just auditing the thing, and to 

really say that tells you what a fair market value is, is not correct. 

They are just repeating what the firm hired by Renato——

Ambassador PATTERSON. No. And I did not mean to imply that. 

What I was trying to say, Senator Sessions, in my reply to Senator 

Coburn, was that the process of development involved multiple 

firms and multiple world class firms who evaluated these costs, 

and took a second pair of eyes and a third pair of eyes and a fourth 

pair of eyes on these costs. It was audited repeatedly by not only 

the GAO but also internal auditors. 

Senator SESSIONS. Audited, I am not sure what audited means. 

You can read somebody’s paperwork and add it up and say that is 

accurate, but if you go behind that to say was it really valid to 

begin with is a different thing. So they did not do that. 

Now, the Renato architect/engineering firm that did this estimate, do you know how much they have been paid or how much 

the contract——

Ambassador PATTERSON. I believe $8.5 million, Senator, but I 

will double check that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you know what their contract—what about this $40 million figure? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. I am unfamiliar with that figure, but I 

will check on this figure, but my recollection is that Renato Sarno 

was paid $8.5 million. And the Turner firm that validated the cost, 

was a subcontractor to Renato Sarno. 

Senator SESSIONS. Did they get additional funds? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. I do not know, Senator, but we can 

check on that, but it is about $8.5 million, and I do not know where 

the $44 million figure came from. I believe it came from a Fox 

News story. 

Senator SESSIONS. I have a report from the CRS that indicates $26 million has been paid for that. Are you aware of that? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. I will check if I was mistaken. 

Senator SESSIONS. And that 5.7 percent of that came from the 

United States. You note that the figures are in the ballpark. But 

even the GAO report says on page 12 that there could be a plus 

or minus 30 to 50 percent variation in those figures, does it not? 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Yes, sir, and I believe the GAO report 

also says that that is fairly customary at this stage of design, but 

let me assure you, Senator Sessions and Mr. Chairman, that we too 

have oversight procedures in place within the U.S. Government to 

look at this. I most assuredly am not a construction engineer, but 

we do have experts that we have particularly assigned, specifically 

assigned to this project within the U.S. Government, whose job it 

is to be sure that the taxpayer’s dollar is well spent on this. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is just hard. I think this is the Big 

Apple and if you can make it there you can make it anywhere, but 

28

you better be good or they will take you to the cleaners. It is tough 

to know and get good information. I think we need to listen to some 

of the people who have actually built buildings there who maybe 

can give us some information based on firsthand experience. 

Thank you for your service. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is all I have. 

Senator COBURN. Ambassador, thank you for being here. We 

have about three questions we would like to ask you, as well as discuss some of those other things that you were not prepared to discuss in open hearing today, and I would like just your assertion 

that you will grant us that privilege of doing that. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Of course I would be honored, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much. 

Ambassador PATTERSON. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend 

of mine. He is a member of the House of Representatives from New 

York, Congressman Vita Fossella, who will introduce our next 

panel. 

Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Senators. 

I appreciate the opportunity to come to introduce to you two 

great individuals, two friends, and indeed, two great New Yorkers. 

One has dedicated much of his life to the public sector, serving as 

a New York City Police Officer, and then making the transition to 

the private sector successfully, and then back to the public sector 

where he has served with distinction in the New York City Council 

in the Bay Ridge–Dyker Heights section of Brooklyn, and now is 

a New York State Senator. His name is Marty Golden. 

The other has a reputation, a good reputation at that for being 

a successful, urbane businessman, but above all, he is, I think, a 

great American and a great New Yorker. 

And the one thing that both Donald Trump and Senator Marty 

Golden have in common is that they believe in New York City, they 

believe it is the greatest city in the world, and they are great 

Americans. And in this case, they believe that—and they share my 

view—that the United Nations can play a positive role in this 

world, and it should remain in New York City, but it also has an 

obligation to the U.S. taxpayer to be accountable, transparent, and 

when it does what it does, it should do so with the highest degree 

of responsibility to all of us. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of you for convening this very 

important hearing, for shedding light on what I think is an important matter, not just in New York, but across the country, and 

allow me to introduce to you, my good friends, Marty Golden and 

Donald Trump. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. For our audience, State Senator Marty Golden 

is a conservative and independent Republican, representing Southwest Brooklyn, was first elected on November 5, 2002, and was reelected to the New York State Senate on November 2, 2004. 

Mr. Trump is a world-renowned real estate developer, entrepreneur, author, now television producer and star of the reality 

29

1The prepared statement of Mr. Golden appears in the appendix on page 312. 

show ‘‘The Apprentice.’’ You know, there is something I want to say 

here, but I dare not say it. [Laughter.] 

State Senator Golden, if you would, keep your remarks to 5 minutes. We have read your testimony, appreciate your hard work. I 

would also remind everyone, our whole purpose is what the United 

Nations is doing with this building. All of us have some strong feelings about the United Nations, but I would like for us to focus our 

attention on the process here of what we are directing to, and not 

all of the other problems that we are all aware of at the United 

Nations. 

Please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN J. GOLDEN,1 NEW YORK STATE 

SENATOR 

Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this 

opportunity to speak before you, Chairman. Senator Sessions, Senator Dayton, thank you also. Members of the Subcommittee and invited guests, I am the New York State Senator, Martin J. Golden 

from Brooklyn, and on behalf of the State Senate Majority and Senator Joseph Bruno, the Majority Leader, I want to thank you for 

this opportunity here to testify and explain to the Subcommittee 

Members my efforts to put a stop to a crucial piece of the New 

York State Legislature necessary for the United Nations planned 

renovation and expansion. 

Typically, a New York State Senator rarely engages in issues of 

international organizations, but late in the fall of 2004 it was 

brought to my attention that a bill was poised for passage in the 

New York State Senate which would eliminate a children’s playground adjacent to the United Nations, and a swap for another 

site, thereby allowing the United Nations and expansion project to 

move forward. 

Land swap deals that improve public space are fairly commonplace in New York State because they have community support, 

and in some instances municipalities are required to get the approval for that legislation. 

Supporters of the bill believe that the continued viability of the 

United Nations site is important to the city of New York, the State 

and to the world community. The intent of the bill is to force in 

appropriate planning process with due deference to the need of the 

local community for parks and historic preservation. 

I agree with the continued vitality of the United Nations is important to the city of New York, the State and to the world community. But I objected to rewarding the United Nations with taxpayer 

dollars and the privilege of expanding in New York because it is 

a mismanaged and deeply troubled organization. 

United Nations leadership is responsible for the organizational 

mismanagement and the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of 

Secretary General Kofi Annan and his failure to implement a 

standard of accountability and transparency. 

You have heard that here today from several of the people who 

have testified. Everything just seems to be in a mishmash. There 

is nothing that has been vetted. Everything seems to be out there. 

30

Nobody seems to be able to pinpoint a dollar figure, and you have 

pointed it out very well, Senator Coburn, this is going to impact 

our children for many years to come. 

Under Kofi Annan’s tenure, he presided over the shameful Oilfor-Food program in what appears to be the largest dollar-for-dollar 

humanitarian scandal in world history. I simply could not trust 

United Nations under Kofi Annan’s leadership with taxpayer dollars, and will not support this legislation to allow the privilege of 

expanding the United Nations in New York. 

I believe that Kofi Annan’s office should have been more forthcoming in the inquiries of Senator Sessions, Senator Coleman, and 

you, sir, Senator Coburn, as well as the inquiries from other Senators about the United Nations renovation and the expansion 

project. Senator Sessions’ inquiries were for the benefit of the 

American taxpayer, who is responsible for the proposed $1.2 billion 

loan and yearly operating costs. 

It is your hearing today, Senator Coburn, that will also bring out 

the cost. What a lot of people do not understand is what this country puts into it, the 2006 operating dollars for the U.N. is $469 million, and we put in $1.2 billion in humanitarian relief, and $1.5 to 

$1.6 billion to go to $2 billion annually. That is what this country, 

what the taxpayers put into this. 

Ultimately this stonewalling is indicative of mismanagement and 

a potential for the United Nations to waste millions of taxpayer 

dollars on this renovation and expansion plan. 

The world’s premier developer, Donald Trump, estimates that the 

world body stands to waste hundreds of millions of dollars due to 

incompetency and theft. I value Mr. Trump’s opinion and share his 

concerns. 

When I first expressed my opposition to the United Nations’ expansion, Secretary General Kofi Annan probably had no idea where 

Bay Ridge, Brooklyn was, and for that matter, who I was. He had 

no idea how seriously I take my oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of New York. 

Yet this issue has brought me here today before this Subcommittee because expanding the United Nations under Kofi 

Annan’s leadership is not reflective of New York’s diverse population, which is represented by a majority of State Senators with 

conservative value. 

Some New York State Senators have objections based on terrorism concerns, like Senator Michael Balboni of Long Island, who 

pointed out that the plan to upgrade the United Nations involves 

putting a 35-story building on top of what is listed as a major terrorist target, the Queens Midtown Tunnel. Every driver going 

through there would be burdened by whatever security precautions 

are put into place. Over 80,000 vehicles pass through that Queens 

Midtown Tunnel daily. Restricting use of the tunnel is not just an 

inconvenience, but also an economic hardship. 

Other State Senators such as Senator Serf Maltese of Queens 

had deep philosophical objections toward the United Nations because of its anti-Americanism, its anti-semitism, human rights violations by U.N. staffers, unpaid parking tickets and many other 

issues. 

31

1The prepared statement of Mr. Trump with attachments appears in the appendix on page 

315. 

And the issue which we all agree upon in this room today is the scandalous United Nations Oil-for-Food program, $60 billion, billions wasted, gone, corruption. 

My opposition and the amount of negative publicity associated 

with getting the bill passed in the New York State Senate set off 

an intense lobbying effort. 

Despite intense lobbying efforts, I told the people supporting New 

York State Senate, passage of the legislation that my request is 

simple: Kofi Annan must resign and the standard of accountability 

and transparency be instituted before I will support this bill. The 

resignation of Kofi Annan would be the beginning of a systematic 

change to the management and oversight of the United Nations. 

I understand that the United Nations generates tax revenue and 

adds to the international appeal of the city of New York. However, 

in my opinion, I firmly believe that the United Nations will remain 

in New York City despite my staunch opposition to State legislation. Kofi Annan’s leadership, the use of taxpayer dollars, and my 

philosophical objections towards the United Nations will not stop 

the United Nations from staying here. 

In my heart I know I made the right decision for the people in 

my Senate District, the city, the State of New York, and to the future children that are going to pay this debt here in America. 

The debt will just continue to mount. The money that this Nation 

will put into the U.N. will continue to mount. We need an institution that is capable of managing itself, and we have heard testimony here today that tells you it cannot manage a simple project 

of building a building in Manhattan. Why would we want to pour 

hundreds of millions and billions into that facility, into that organization without accountability and transparency, so it can be effective. 

Thank you, Senator Coburn, Senator Sessions, and Senator Dayton. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Golden. 

Just a little housekeeping chore I want to thank Mr. Burnham’s 

staff for returning. I appreciate your willingness to listen to the 

other viewpoints. 

Now we would like to hear from you, Mr. Trump. We, first of all, 

appreciate that you would take time out of your schedule to come 

down here. I think it is an important area. We recognize your success in the very areas that we are talking about, and look forward 

to hearing what you have to say about your opinions, but also what 

you have heard here today. 

TESTIMONY OF DONALD J. TRUMP,1 CHAIRMAN AND 

PRESIDENT, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION 

Mr. TRUMP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members 

of the Subcommittee. It is a great honor to have been invited, and 

if I can lend a hand, I would certainly love to do so. 

I have to start by saying I am a big fan, a very big fan of the 

United Nations and all it stands for. I cannot speak as to what has 

been happening over the last number of years because it certainly 

32

has not been good, but the concept of the United Nations and the 

fact that the United Nations is in New York is very important to 

me and very important to the world as far as I am concerned. So 

I am a big fan, such a fan in fact that at great expense I built a 

building across the street. It is the tallest apartment house in the 

world. It has been a tremendously successful building, sold out, and 

I am very proud of it. And if the United Nations were not there, 

perhaps I would not have built it in that location, so it means quite 

a bit to me. 

My involvement with the United Nations began with a letter, 

which I will give to the Subcommittee, from the Ambassador to the 

United Nations from Sweden, and it is a long letter and a very 

beautifully written letter, and essentially he read an article about 

the success of Trump World Tower, which is the building that I can 

show you right here, which is, as you can see, very substantially 

taller than the United Nations, bigger than the United Nations. 

And he read an article in the New York Times saying that the 

building cost approximately $300 million to build. 

So he wrote me a letter and ultimately called me and said, ‘‘Is 

it possible that that building cost $300 million, because it just 

seems so much bigger and so much better and so much more expensive and so much more luxurious, and how could you have done 

that for $300 million?’’ When at that time, Senator, they were talking about $1.5 billion to renovate the United Nations and this was 

around December 2000. I said, well, there are only two reasons, either gross incompetence or something far worse than that, and you 

know what the something is, and that is corruption, because there 

is absolutely no way that that building could have cost $1.5 billion 

to build. 

And I did a chart, and I looked at other buildings, and I heard 

the numbers today. I am very impressed with Mr. Burnham, but 

Mr. Burnham, it is not his business. Mr. Burnham is in a different 

business. The man he hired who has done some work, I guess, has 

just been on the payroll for 2 days, so perhaps he will be a great 

genius and he will bring down the cost to what it should be, which 

I think is about $700 million tops, and that is complete. 

But I did a little chart, and I looked at buildings that were comparable that I built, and I looked at fees also, architectural fees. 

The architectural fee for this building—and you have to understand 

a residential luxury building is far more complex than an openfloor office building to build. It is much more. You have many more 

bathrooms, you have many more kitchens, you have many more 

rooms. It is more complex. An office building is essentially open 

space with subdividers. 

So I looked at it and I added up some of my costs, and for Trump 

World Tower, across the street, built not long ago, I spent approximately $258 a foot. It is the tallest residential building in the 

world, $258.32 a foot. I have 871,000 feet. It cost $225 million to 

build. 

Anybody that says that a building of renovation is more expensive than building a new building does not know the business, because you have a frame built, you have your foundations built. You 

have in many cases elevators that can be reutilized in their enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:57 Jul 28, 2006 Jkt 023164 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\23164.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
33

1The letters submitted by Mr. Trump appears in the Appendix on pages 324–332. 

tirety, but fixed. You have many components that can be used, and 

it only costs a fool more money. 

I did the Grand Hyatt Hotel from the old Commodore Hotel. I did 

Trump International Hotel and Tower from the old Gulf and Western Building at 1 Central Park West, if you remember. I did the 

Trump Park Avenue Building from the Delmonico Hotel. I love 

doing renovation because it costs you half. It does not cost you 

more, it costs you less if you know what you are doing. 

Now, if you do not know what you are doing, it can be fraught 

with cost overruns, etc. 

So I looked at a couple of other buildings, 40 Wall Street is a 

building which is unfortunately and sadly now the tallest building 

in downtown Manhattan, sadly because the World Trade Center 

came down. It replaced 40 Wall Street. It was actually the tallest 

building in the world for a period of 1 year, and then superseded 

by the Chrysler Building and then the Empire State Building. But 

downtown Manhattan, it was superseded by the World Trade Center, 40 Wall Street is approximately 72 stories tall. It was a complete gut renovation identical to what you are doing. We put all 

brand new windows, brand new everything in it, and I have a renovation cost of, let us say, $100 a foot if you add everything, and 

that would mean that your job would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of half the number that you are talking about, and even 

less. 

The way I look at it, the number that they are talking about— and I agree with Senator Sessions—is close to $600 or $700 a foot. 

They are not adding garages. And by the way, garages are very inexpensive to renovate, so that brings the number way down. They 

are not adding a lot of things that have to be added. 

When I went to see the Administration, and when I went to see 

Kofi Annan, I was actually quite excited because I thought that I 

could save this country, this world, everybody including myself, a 

lot of money just by sitting down and having a meeting. Unfortunately, as our great Senator to my right said, there was just no response. They did not really care. It got a lot of press. I walked into 

the room and I sat down. I felt like a head of State. I was sitting 

with Kofi Annan, and a door opened, and there were literally hundreds of reporters taking my picture. I said, ‘‘What are we doing? 

I just want to tell you I can build a building a lot cheaper.’’ And 

that was the end of it. 

I wrote letters, and you have copies of the letters.1 I wrote letters 

after the meeting. I thought the meeting went amazingly well. I 

was expecting a call the following day from—whether it is Kofi 

Annan or his people—at that time it was a man named Conners. 

I met with Mr. Conners. 

Mr. Conners did not know the first thing about what he was 

doing. He did not know whether or not the curtain wall was going 

to be new, old, and did not even know what a curtain wall was. 

I said, ‘‘What are you going to be doing with the curtain wall?’’ He 

said, ‘‘What is a curtain wall?’’ Now, he was in charge of the 

project. The curtain wall is the skin of the building. I said, ‘‘Will 

it be new or old?’’ He said, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ I said, ‘‘Are you using 

34

New York steam or are you using a new boiler system?’’ He said, 

‘‘I don’t know what New York steam is.’’ It is a very common form 

of heating in the building. He had no clue. The price, at that time, was $1.5 billion. I do not know why it 

came down because the world has gone up, but it came down. That 

was in the year approximately 2000 to 2001. So he did not have 

a clue. I do not know if he is still there. Perhaps he is. 

The one thing I found him very good at is that he did not want 

to lose control of this project. He was a man that absolutely wanted 

to keep control of the project, but he did not have even the slightest 

inkling of what it was all about, knew nothing about it. 

He then told me that he may move people out, he may not move 

people out. He did not know. He thought he might. He was not 

sure. He just did not know. So I went through a whole list of questions for him, and then I realized that the United Nations is in serious trouble, because the $1.5 billion that they were talking about, 

there was no way it was going to happen for that. And I say today that the $1.2 billion, which they brought down 

even though it is basically the same work and even though things 

have gotten more expensive, so I do not know why they brought it 

down because I do not think they brought it down for any particular reason. But the $1.2 billion, in my opinion, I will be sitting 

here in 3 years, and I will be saying—and I am going to predict 

that it will cost over $3 billion because they just do not know. 

I was very impressed with Mr. Burnham, but again, you have to 

deal in New York City construction to see what tough people are 

all about, to see what tough contractors are all about, and if you 

have not done it, you are going to go to school and they are just 

going to take you to lunch, and you are just not going to even know 

what happened. So this project at $1.2 billion, will cost in my opinion $3 billion. 

In my own opinion, however, in my real opinion, it should cost approximately $700 million. 

I have been listening to a couple of different things, first, swing 

space. I do not think you need swing space. First of all, what landlord in New York is going to rent space for a year and a half or 

2 years? Who is going to do that? You are going to give up a building for a year and a half or 2 years and say, oh, good, you just go 

in, mess up my building for a short term and then move out. Nobody is going to do that unless they are totally desperate, and you 

do not have to be desperate in New York. It is the hottest real estate market in the world, today probably, and I am saying where 

are they going to find this space to start off with? It is going to be 

a disaster. And if you know New York City landlords, and some of 

you do, there is no worse human being on earth. [Laughter.] 

They are going to have more fun with these folks from the 

United Nations when it comes to signing that lease, and the United 

Nations, their heads will be spinning. Assuming there is honesty, 

their heads will be spinning. 

So I do not know where they are going to get the space. They 

are going to have to pay so much, and no landlord is going to fix 

the space. You know, I am listening to these people that are very 

naive, and I respect them, but they are very naive in this world. 

Now, I might be naive in their world, but in this world they are 

35

naive to think that they are going to go into a building and rent 

hundreds and hundreds of thousands of feet of space—if they can 

find such a building and I do not know of any building like that—

and then they are not going to have to pay for the renovation of 

that space and fixing up the space for a couple years. 

Now, people do that but they sign 25- and 30-year leases. I do 

not mind going into an office building and fixing up space, but I 

sign a 30-year lease or a 20-year lease or at least a 15-year lease. 

These people are going to sign a 1-or a 2-year lease. It is ridiculous. 

So their concept of swing space, in my opinion, does not work from 

an economic—and the number of $98 million is a joke because that 

number will be hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in just 

the renovation cost alone. 

One of the things that I had mentioned to Kofi Annan and the 

whole group, when I was at the meeting, was that there was no 

reason to move anybody out. In New York City we have a lot of 

asbestos buildings, and there is a whole debate about asbestos. I 

mean a lot of people could say that if the World Trade Center it 

would not have burned down, it would not have melted. A lot of 

people think asbestos, a lot of people in my industry think asbestos 

is the greatest fire-proofing material ever made, and I can tell you 

that I have seen tests of asbestos versus the new material that is 

being used, and it is not even a contest. It is like a heavyweight 

champion against a lightweight from high school. But in your great 

wisdom you folks have said asbestos is a horrible material, so it 

has to be removed. 

Space is constantly being renovated. Asbestos is constantly being 

gotten rid of with tenants in possession. You sit there. They wrap 

it, they conceal it, they do it. There are many professional firms. 

They move the asbestos. Estee Lauder’s company, they did it while 

they were in possession. I could name a hundred tenants where it 

has been done while they sit in their offices, literally working. 

Sometimes it is done over weekends. Sometimes it is done at a little different time. They take sections of offices and they do it, and 

the people move from that section to another section and they are 

inconvenienced for a day and a half. And then they rebuild the office. 

So the concept of moving to swing space, dealing with New York 

City landlords, is absolutely ridiculous. 

Now, you can do the entire building. You can put new skin on 

the building. You can put new piping, you do not have that much 

piping because the bathrooms are all centralized. Not every office 

has a bathroom. It is not like an apartment house. But you can do 

this entire building, like I did the Grand Hyatt Hotel. I took the 

old Commodore Hotel and I made it into the Grand Hyatt Hotel on 

42nd Street and Park Avenue. It is a great success. I have done 

this with many buildings. But it is not necessary to have everybody 

leave the building in order to rebuild a building, and you do not 

have to necessarily even do it at one floor at a time. You can either 

fix the skin or put a new skin on the building, and what you do 

is you do the roof first, and you seal it, and you get a 30-year guarantee. And what I do best in life is build, even better than ‘‘The 

Apprentice,’’ I must say. [Laughter.] 

36

The thing I do best is build. But you put a new roof, as I did with 

the Commodore Hotel into the Grand Hyatt, you put a brand new 

20- or 30-year roof that is a guaranteed roof, and now your roof is 

done, like an umbrella, and then you bring the skin down, and as 

you are bringing the skin down, you are taking the old skin off. So 

by the time—and you literally have very little gap, very little 

space, but you are bringing the new skin down and just think of 

an umbrella. You are bringing the—and you should put new skin. 

This skin has been up there for 60 years, it is over. You can copy 

the skin identically. You can copy the color of the glass identically. 

You can bring in all the modern technology including triple pane 

or double pane glass in terms of heat and cooling and everything 

else, but you bring the skin down and—you have scaffold—and as 

it is coming down, the old skin is coming off, everything is sealed 

up beautifully. 

In the meantime, inside, your pipes are going up, your asbestos 

is coming out, your electric is being redone. You have companies 

that do nothing but redo electric. Now, these are different companies. You have companies that do new electric, they would not 

know how to redo electric. Then you have companies that redo electric, they do not know how to do new electric. I mean it is just a 

specialty. 

But you have special people that redo apartments, which are 

being renovated all the time with people in possession, that redo 

all sorts of buildings. I just built a building on Park Avenue and 

59th Street. I had tenants in possession when I did it. I mean I 

built a major building, essentially brand new, the old Delmonico 

Hotel, and I had people living in the building when I did a major 

$100 million job. It is a $200 million building. So the concept of 

moving to another location and getting everybody out of this building is absolutely asinine and will cost you so much money you are 

not even going to believe it, and then you are going to have to move 

in. 

Many other things. When I did the Wollman Rink, the City of 

New York was boggled down for a period of 7 years. They had 

spent $21 million. It was a tremendous embarrassment to the Koch 

administration. And I said, ‘‘I would like to take over the project.’’ 

And they said—the New York Times came out with an editorial, 

the New York Post came out with a great editorial, and they said, 

‘‘Let Trump do it,’’ and finally the city let me do it. And I rebuilt, 

and believe me, I used nothing that was there before. Everything 

had to be gutted out because it was totally incompetently done, 7 

years, $21 million. I redid it—and the Senator remembers this very 

well I guess—I redid it in 3 months for $1.8 million, and it opened, 

and I still run it today, and that was quite a while ago. 

This is no different, and in fact, in a certain way this is even 

easier. All week long you have tenants in New York renovating 

their space, you have buildings being renovated with what we call 

tenants in possession. There are tenants in possession, they are in 

possession of the space. Now, I listened to one thing and I have 

seen one thing and one number that sticks out more than all of the 

rest, because whether or not somebody does not know what New 

York steam is or what boilers and whether or not they have boiler 

rooms, which the people at the United Nations did not do. But the 

37

number of $44 million for an architect is one of the great numbers 

in the history—in fact, I think this man is a genius, whoever he 

may be, wherever he may be in Italy. I think he is a great genius. 

I would like to meet him. [Laughter.] 

He is without question the richest architect in the world. And as one person said, ‘‘I think they only got $500,000.’’ Another person 

said, ‘‘I think they got a million dollars,’’ and then changed their 

mind and it was $7.8 million. And then I listened to Senator Sessions, who actually did his homework, said they got paid $27 million, because you were able the check the books. So they got paid 

$27 million, have not done anything. They do not even have plans. 

Nobody even knows what they are building, and they got paid $27 

million. 

Now, I have respect for a lot of people, and I have great respect 

for architects, but I am going to give you an example. The tallest 

residential building in the world my architect got paid approximately $1.5 million. This architect got $44 million. A building at 

40 Wall Street, my architect got paid, believe me, peanuts, I think, 

less than $1.5 million. In Chicago, where I am building a building 

of 92 stories at the old Sun Times site, 2.7 million square feet, 

which is more than the United Nations if you add up all of the 

projects that they are talking about, it is larger, substantially larger. I am spending $600 million and they are saying they are going 

to spend $1.2 billion, so they are spending much more, and this is 

a 92-story building with brand new structure, brand new foundations. I am building all the roads. Mayor Daley made me build 

roads around the building. I had no choice. Otherwise, if you know 

Mayor Daley, you are not going to build the building. He is a great 

man but he made me do that. So all of this is $600 million, and 

they are spending $1.2 billion. Now, there is no way they are spending $1.2 billion, in my opin- ion, and based on what I have heard. When they have spent $27 

million and terminated the architect, there is big trouble, because 

I do not think they have a new architect. So if they do not have 

a new architect, who is going to do the plans and who is going to 

do the bidding? Because in order to do a job, you have to have a 

complete set of plans and specs. If you do not have a complete, finished, set of plans and specs, you have nothing to bid on, there is 

no way you can bid. The worst thing you can do—and you said you 

were in the home building business for a while—the worst thing 

you can do, as you know, is start a job without complete plans and 

specs because the subcontractors will eat your lunch. So it is one 

of those things. 

So they do not even have an architect. They spent $27 million 

and they do not have an architect. Now, I have asked on numerous 

occasions, to go in and I would help them. I would love to help 

them. I do not want any money. I want nothing. I have made a lot 

of money. I do not care. I want nothing. If somebody said, what 

would be your dream on this site? Well, my dream is a dream that 

will not happen, but it is a dream that I might tell you. It is a 

dream to take the United Nations—the Senator over here is probably going to go crazy—move it to the World Trade Center as a 

brand new United Nations, sell the United Nations site—which is 

one of the greatest sites in the world—for much more money than 

38

the whole thing would cost—and you end up building a free United 

Nations at the World Trade Center, where I do not think anybody 

is going to want to stay anyway. I think it is going to be a very 

hard rent up at the World Trade Center. 

But let us assume that is not going to happen—not a bad idea 

though——

Mr. GOLDEN. Got no problem with it. 

Mr. TRUMP. Not too bad. He has no problem. Most people do not 

have——

Mr. GOLDEN. Put Kofi Annan on the top floor. [Laughter.] 

Mr. TRUMP. OK. I will not get into—I did not say that. But the 

fact is that the United Nations building, with all of its buildings, 

with its parking, should be completed—and I mean completed—at 

a cost of $700 million. And it is my opinion that it will not be completed for less than $3 to 3.5 billion. They do not know what they 

are getting into. And please remember this, as somebody that has 

probably built as much as anybody my age anywhere—I do not 

know of anybody who has built more—if you do not have a complete set of plans and specifications, there is no way you can build. 

And from what I understand, they do not even have an architect. 

One final point. They give you some nice firms, Turner and this 

one, and Gardiner and Theobald. The fact is that I can take those 

same firms and tell them the way I want it built, and those same 

firms will come up with prices that are half the price that they are 

coming up with. They are being told what to do by people who do 

not know what they are doing. So if I take Turner Construction, 

which is fine, or if I take a couple of other—and by the way, when 

I say ‘‘fine’’, fine but Rolls Royce. They spend money. But if I take 

a couple of those firms, and if I show them the right way to do it, 

and if I lead them down the right way—which is really what a good 

developer does—that number that they are coming up with will be 

cut in half. 

So that is it. Congratulations, you have yourself a mess on your 

hands, and it is only going to get worse. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Trump, thank you very much. Let me ask 

you a couple of questions. Your renovation cost per square foot on 

an average building, and let us say with asbestos abatement, what 

is it, $100 or $150? 

Mr. TRUMP. I think any professional—I was speaking to somebody very professional, Richard LeFrak before. He said he just gave 

out an architectural contract on a million foot building for $1.5 million, not $44 million, $1.5 million, so it is the same size, $1.5 million. 

I would say that because of the United Nations in terms of security and some enhanced needs, let us assume it is beyond even 

your normal high-grade office building—which it is really not; essentially it is an office building. But let us add something for security. I would think you should easily do it for $250 a foot, easily. 

And that means complete. That is not adding up all of this other 

stuff, which by the way was not given to you. You have many 

things listed on that board that were not given to you. 

Senator COBURN. Right. When you say $250 a square foot, that 

is in today’s dollars, so if we wait 2 years, there is going to be some 

price inflation in that? 

39

Mr. TRUMP. They do not even have an architect so how can they 

start sooner than that? First of all, to do a good set of plans and 

specs is going to take you a good year, so if you do not have an 

architect even hired yet because the last one ripped you off or did 

whatever he did—that guy is unbelievable. I mean this guy, I want 

to meet him. I can learn from that guy. So you have a man that 

got paid $27 million that you are not going to use. So now let us 

assume you have to start all over because no architect is going to 

take over somebody’s plans in the middle. You just do not want to 

do that, OK? 

The other thing is, how do you hire an architect from Italy? I 

love Italy. I love the Italians. How do you hire an Italian architect? 

What happens? Every time he wants to check the building, he gets 

on a plane and flies for 81⁄2 hours, and he goes to the New York 

City Building Department and he does not even speak English? I 

mean it is ridiculous. 

So what they have is they really have a problem and I do not 

see how they can ever start. Now, if you put a developer like myself 

or like any one of five other people—and I can only think of five—

in charge of a job like that, you could have that job started immediately. You could have the asbestos removed with tenants in possession. You could have the entire building rebuilt in less than 2 

years. 

You know, Kofi Annan asked me one question. At the time—and 

I am only increasing it because of the fact that when I met him 

it was 4 years ago—but at the time I said I could do it I think for 

$400 million versus their $1.5 billion. Slightly different number, 

right? He said, ‘‘What would be the difference in the building?’’ I 

said, ‘‘The difference would be my building would be better, be 

much newer, much richer.’’ I was putting in all brand new marble 

floors on the ground—I like marble—I was putting in all brand 

new marble floors. They have all broken up terrazzo floors. Under 

their plan they were leaving these all broken floors. They are broken, old, and terrazzo is not exactly a great material, it is garbage. 

But I was putting in all brand new marble. I was putting in an all 

new curtain wall. They were going to fix their curtain wall. If you 

fix that curtain wall, it is a disaster. You have to put in a brand 

new curtain wall. You will get another 50 years. If you fix it, it is 

not the answer. It is going to leak, it is going to be a problem. 

So he asked me the question, and I said, ‘‘The answer is it is 

going to be better. It will be brand new in its entirely. You will not 

have to move anybody out. You will not have to go and build’’—at 

that time they were talking about, as you remember, building a 

new building to house the people, and they were going to—and 

they were actually thinking about then ripping the building down, 

so that is a real beauty. But they do not know what they are doing, 

so here I am. 

Senator COBURN. So if the United Nations decides to go ahead 

on the track that they are going now, and go out for a $1.2 billion 

contract, you going to go get that business? 

Mr. TRUMP. No, I am not going to get it. First of all, they do not 

know what they want. They do not know what they have. They 

have no idea what they are doing. It is a problem where you cannot 

bid on a job like that. And I would not bid on it anyway. I offered 

40

my services free. I wanted to save close to a billion dollars, actually 

$1.1 billion at the time. I wanted to save a billion dollars for the 

United Nations, for the world, in a sense. I wanted to do it. I liked 

doing the Wollman Skating Rink. I mean this is a bigger version 

of the Wollman Skating Rink, that is all it is to me. And I said, 

‘‘I do not want a fee, I do not want anything.’’ They did not like 

the idea. 

Now, the Senator would have his own reasons. He is stronger on 

it than me, but they did not want the idea. 

Senator COBURN. Are you surprised, Senator, about that? 

Mr. GOLDEN. No. I think that would be a good location, and I 

spoke in jest, and I apologize for the jest, but I think the downtown 

Manhattan would be a good site or where it presently is, and I 

think you could do an outstanding job. Anybody could, as long as 

you have accountability and you have real transparency, and you 

have real bids going on and real people managing these projects. 

Mr. TRUMP. I think that is not going to happen. I think it is a 

very interesting idea, but I think it is not going to happen. I love 

the idea of the downtown switch. Sell the land. You will make such 

a fortune on the land, etc. It is not going to happen from a practical 

standpoint. It should happen, but it is not going to happen. But 

just in terms of the renovation itself, you have to get the right architect. I mean there are architects and there are architects. You 

have to get the right architect, and you have to know who those 

architects are. I mean I can only think of five architects who would 

do a great job on this building. You have to know who the architects are. You have to get your plan started. You have to do it as 

a renovation, and the renovation should be done quickly, effectively, and in my opinion, by the end of 2007, this whole job should 

be complete. It can be started immediately because of the fact that 

you are doing it the way I am saying. Within 3 to 4 months of planning, you can start your contracts without extras. In other words, 

you can start what I call hard contracts, contracts without fluff and 

without extras. 

I think the entire job can be done by the end of 2007. I promise 

you, Senator, they will not even have the people moved out by 

2007. 

Senator COBURN. One little follow up. They gave us $1.2 billion, 

$482 million going to labor and materials, and $471 million set up 

for contingency and professional fees. 

Mr. TRUMP. Nobody has ever heard of such a number. 

Senator COBURN. In your experience, when you plan a project, 

what do you figure for contingencies, the whole thing, the cost overrun, liability, the whole works, what do you figure? 

Mr. TRUMP. Their contingency number was what, $400 and some 

odd million? 

Senator COBURN. Yes, $471 million. 

Mr. TRUMP. Craziest number I have ever heard. My building in 

Chicago is $600 million. I believe we have a $30 million contingency, and of the $30 million, if I use any more than $3 or $4 million, I am going to be very angry at my people. That is a 92-story 

building. I have a $30 million contingency, and I do not expect to 

use it. I set aside $30 million. I expect that if I use more than $3 

41

million, I am going to be a very unhappy camper. To have a $400 

and some odd million contingency is totally unheard of. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Senator Dayton. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, you build good buildings, Mr. Trump. 

Mr. TRUMP. Thank you. 

Senator DAYTON. I go to Napoleon’s. 

Mr. TRUMP. Very good. 

Senator DAYTON. When can you start? [Laughter.] 

Mr. TRUMP. I would like to do—it was amazing. The Swedish 

Ambassador just piqued my attention, and he should get a lot of 

the credit for this. I mean his letter is here. It is such a beautifully 

written letter, and it is written by a man—I do not even know 

him—it is written by a man of great common sense. 

Senator DAYTON. And you met with the Secretary General 4 

years ago? 

Mr. TRUMP. Four years ago. 

Senator DAYTON. And I see here the United Nations General Assembly Capital Plan I referred to before is dated June 2000. So I 

mean this project now on 5 years is going nowhere. 

Mr. TRUMP. Right. I could have built it twice. 

Senator DAYTON. How does the United Nations, or how does whoever it is, the lender if we are going to be the lender, how do you 

regain control of the project? Do you start with a developer? 

Mr. TRUMP. Well, actually, Mr. Burnham said, ‘‘I would like to 

call you tomorrow,’’ and I thought that was terrific. Honestly, I 

thought that was terrific. This is what I do. This is what I do the 

best. And I am in New York. And as the Senator said, Senator Sessions, New York is a tough place to do business. You know, I have 

had great success, and sometimes you take your lumps. You have 

to know the contractors. I know ever contractor in New York. I 

know the ones that are going to—I am not going to say the words, 

there is too many wonderful women in the room—but I know the 

contractors that are going to, ‘‘take advantage of you. I know the 

contractors that are slow. I know the contractors that are fabulous, 

that do not ask for extras. I know all of them. I know the good ones 

and the bad ones.’’

I told a friend the other day—he was doing his apartment, he 

told me the contractor—I said, ‘‘Do not use them.’’ This was about 

a year ago. He got killed by this guy. He got killed. I said, ‘‘Use 

somebody else.’’ He came to me the other day, he said, ‘‘I should 

have taken your advice.’’

The United Nations people do not know. We have major slime in 

New York, and much of that is in the form of contractors. Is that 

not a sad thing to say? And every one of them, I guarantee you, 

will find their way to the United Nations. [Laughter.] 

Senator DAYTON. When would you like to take over rebuilding 

the Visitors Center and a few other projects? 

Mr. TRUMP. That is true, you have had your own difficulties with 

that. 

Senator DAYTON. We have. But it shows the difference between 

someone who knows what he is doing and people who do not. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. TRUMP. Thank you, sir. 

42

Senator COBURN. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for caring enough about the American taxpayers’ money to have this 

hearing, and I think you have got something planned. Mr. Trump 

is a breath of fresh air for this Senate. And it ought to embarrass 

all of us because all of us have oversight committees that are not 

doing a very good job, and if we could save $1 million, Mr. Trump, 

that is a million dollars that can be used for good cause, and I 

think there is a potential to save a lot more than that. 

You have given us a tutorial on reconstruction and renovation 

and construction in big projects. I hope people were listening, and 

I think the main point is you have got to know what you are doing 

in this city and this kind of construction project or you can be 

taken to the cleaners. Your contributions are going to help us save 

money, and I believe help us have a better U.N. building, and you 

would not have said that if you did not believe in the institution 

and want it to be better, and want it to have the best building it 

can and the best balance sheet it can. 

So I just want to thank you for it, and we will note that you said 

it could be completed by 2007. The plans are at this date to begin 

moving people out by June 2007. So once again, we have longer 

time frames and more costs. Again, I want to thank you for your 

courage, your willingness to speak out on an issue that a lot of people would have avoided, but you brought your expertise to bear and 

I believe it will help the U.N. do a better job. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. TRUMP. Thank you, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Trump, if someone in your organization 

paid twice the amount for a project than it should have cost, in two 

words or less, what would you say? 

Mr. TRUMP. You’re fired. [Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. We are dismissed. 

[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very timely hearing. 

Since its establishment on June 26, 1945, the United Nations and its agencies 

have played integral roles in addressing global issues ranging from peacekeeping to 

human rights. 

Since its inception, a number of geopolitical milestones have resulted:

• The State of Israel was created by a vote of the United Nations partitioning 

a section of Palestine to make a permanent home for the thousands of Jewish 

immigrants, displaced by the Holocaust prior to and during World War II. • In September of 1960, the U.N. accepted 16 African states as members of the 

U.N. who had seceded from colonial rule and established their independence. • Additionally, the U.N. was major factor in bringing about the downfall of the 

apartheid system in South Africa, by imposing measures ranging from an 

arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events.

The U.N. is important not only to the international community, but also right 

here at home to the U.S. and to the city of New York. The U.N. employs over 40,000 

people, including 1,400 Americans, making it one of New York’s largest employers. 

New York City lists the U.N. as one of its major tourist attractions, with approximately 40 million visitors having toured the building since 1952 and contributing 

by some estimates $800 million yearly to our economy. 

The U.N.’s presence in New York creates an inherent solidarity with New Yorkers 

at a time of peril from terrorism. Both the General Assembly and the Security 

Council of the United Nations quickly and forcibly condemned the terrorists’ September 11th attack on New York, and the Security Council mandated a strong program of anti-terrorism measures binding on all 190-member states. 

The tasks assigned to the U.N. by its member states since the end of the Cold 

War have grown and evolved in ways that the U.N.’s founders could not have envisioned; unfortunately, the physical structure of U.N. Headquarters does not reflect 

this growth. 

The U.N. Headquarters was designed to accommodate 70 member states; there 

are now 191 member states occupying the building. The U.N. Headquarters were 

designed for 1,500 meetings per year; it now accommodates approximately 5,800. 

Both the U.S. and New York City fire and safety codes and accessibility standards 

have changed significantly since the 1950s; the U.N. is unable to meet either. 

Problems within the U.N.’s infrastructure include the existence of: asbestos; lead 

paint; poor fire separation between buildings; falling and leaking ceilings; a lack of 

sprinkler systems; and spaces that would be inaccessible to emergency responders, 

such as firefighters. 

The U.N. Headquarters also lacks enhanced security measures like shatterproof 

glass windows and blast-proof General Assembly building walls which are essential 

in a post 9/11 world. 

To address these hazardous work conditions, the United Nations has created a 

Capital Master Plan to refurbish and modernize its headquarters. The U.N. has 

hired experts to offer counsel on the development of the design and construction 

plan. The GAO has examined the progress of the Capital Master Plan in 2001 and 

again in 2003:

• In its May 2003 General Accounting Office Report: Early Renovation Planning Reasonable, but Additional Management Controls and Oversight Will Be 

Needed, the GAO found that: ‘‘U.N. officials followed a reasonable process consistent with leading industry practices and recognized guidelines in developing the headquarters renovation plan—the first phase of a five-phase renovation process.’’ (GAO REPORT, May 2003 03–566) 

44

• In its June 2001 General Accounting Office Report: Planning for Headquarters Renovation Is Reasonable: United States Needs to Decide Whether to 

Support Work, the GAO found that: ‘‘The planning efforts for the proposed 

renovation of U.N. headquarters in New York City have been reasonable and 

have conformed to industry best practices. U.N. officials have identified critical problems in the buildings that need to be remedied and developed options 

for correcting the deficiencies. They have also developed preliminary, but reasonable, cost-estimates for them.’’ (GAO REPORT, JUNE 2001 01–788)

Additionally, the U.S. Mission’s Management and Reform Office has conducted ongoing reviews of this process since its start. Also, a task force has been created that 

includes the State Department, OMB, and consultants that have worked on U.S. 

embassy construction projects. 

I am confident that testimony from our witnesses today will demonstrate the severity of the hazardous conditions under which U.N. employees work on a daily 

basis. I believe that our witness from the State Department and our briefing from 

Under Secretary General Burnham will assuage any concerns expressed about the 

fiscal responsibility of the Capital Master Plan. I look forward to learning how Congress and the Administration can work together to ensure that the Capital Master 

Plan is implemented without delay. 

However, I must also take some time to relay some things that have troubled me 

about this hearing. 

First, the timing for this hearing seems somewhat odd considering that just last 

year Congress approved a $1.2 billion market-rate interest loan at 5.54 percent, 

which has already been offered to the U.N. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has 

encouraged the U.N. to accept the loan by the September 30, 2005 deadline. Additionally, Congress just a few months ago approved a $6 million loan guarantee to 

prevent losses in the event that the U.N. should default on the loan. It seems that 

a hearing of this nature would have been more timely before these Congressional 

actions took place. 

Second, I am unclear as to why GAO, a neutral observer who has conducted two 

rigorous oversight studies on this issue and is planning a third, is not testifying 

today. Instead, we are faced today with a series of witnesses who have little insight 

into the nuts and bolts of this process. For instance, one witness says that he is 

against the project simply because Kofi Annan is heading the U.N. and that he will 

support the project if Annan steps down. 

I’m told that Kofi Annan will no longer even be the Secretary General by the time 

the construction of this project begins. I’m sure there are countless individuals we 

could have called before us today who have strong opinions about the U.N. and what 

it does. But at a hearing of this nature, I’m interested in facts, not opinions, so I’m 

disappointed that some of today’s witnesses know very little about the details of the 

Capital Master Plan and the costs associated with the plan. 

If there truly is a problem with this project, I’d be among the first members of 

this subcommittee to say that we should do something about it. But it seems clear 

to me that this is a sound project that GAO and other parties have a close eye on. 

That being said, I look forward to hearing testimonies from our witnesses today that 

really address the nuts and bolts of the renovation and any related issues of concern. 

Thank you.

45


23164.001
46


23164.002
47


23164.003
48


23164.004
49


23164.005
50


23164.006
51


23164.007
52


23164.008
53


23164.009
54


23164.010
55


23164.011
56


23164.012
57


23164.013
58


23164.014
59


23164.015
60


23164.016
61


23164.017
62


23164.018
63


23164.019
64


23164.020
65


23164.021
66


23164.022
67


23164.023
68


23164.024
69


23164.025
70


23164.026
71


23164.027
72


23164.028
73


23164.029
74


23164.030
75


23164.031
76


23164.032
77


23164.033
78


23164.034
79


23164.035
80


23164.036
81


23164.037
82


23164.038
83


23164.039
84


23164.040
85


23164.041
86


23164.042
87


23164.043
88


23164.044
89


23164.045
90


23164.046
91


23164.047
92


23164.048
93


23164.049
94


23164.050
95


23164.051
96


23164.052
97


23164.053
98


23164.054
99


23164.055
100


23164.056
101


23164.057
102


23164.058
103


23164.059
104


23164.060
105


23164.061
106


23164.062
107


23164.063
108


23164.064
109


23164.065
110


23164.066
111


23164.067
112


23164.068
113


23164.069
114


23164.070
115


23164.071
116


23164.072
117


23164.073
118


23164.074
119


23164.075
120


23164.076
121


23164.077
122


23164.078
123


23164.079
124


23164.080
125


23164.081
126


23164.082
127


23164.083
128


23164.084
129


23164.085
130


23164.086
131


23164.087
132


23164.088
133


23164.089
134


23164.090
135


23164.091
136


23164.092
137


23164.093
138


23164.094
139


23164.095
140


23164.096
141


23164.097
142


23164.098
143


23164.099
144


23164.100
145


23164.101
146


23164.102
147


23164.103
148


23164.104
149


23164.105
150


23164.106
151


23164.107
152


23164.108
153


23164.109
154


23164.110
155


23164.111
156


23164.112
157


23164.113
158


23164.114
159


23164.115
160


23164.116
161


23164.117
162


23164.118
163


23164.119
164


23164.120
165


23164.121
166


23164.122
167


23164.123
168


23164.124
169


23164.125
170


23164.126
171


23164.127
172


23164.128
173


23164.129
174


23164.130
175


23164.131
176


23164.132
177


23164.133
178


23164.134
179


23164.135
180


23164.136
181


23164.137
182


23164.138
183


23164.139
184


23164.140
185


23164.141
186


23164.142
187


23164.143
188


23164.144
189


23164.145
190


23164.146
191


23164.147
192


23164.148
193


23164.149
194


23164.150
195


23164.151
196


23164.152
197


23164.153
198


23164.154
199


23164.155
200


23164.156
201


23164.157
202


23164.158
203


23164.159
204


23164.160
205


23164.161
206


23164.162
207


23164.163
208


23164.164
209


23164.165
210


23164.166
211


23164.167
212


23164.168
213


23164.169
214


23164.170
215


23164.171
216


23164.172
217


23164.173
218


23164.174
219


23164.175
220


23164.176
221


23164.177
222


23164.178
223


23164.179
224


23164.180
225


23164.181
226


23164.182
227


23164.183
228


23164.184
229


23164.185
230


23164.186
231


23164.187
232


23164.188
233


23164.189
234


23164.190
235


23164.191
236


23164.192
237


23164.193
238


23164.194
239


23164.195
240


23164.196
241


23164.197
242


23164.198
243


23164.199
244


23164.200
245


23164.201
246


23164.202
247


23164.203
248


23164.204
249


23164.205
250


23164.206
251


23164.207
252


23164.208
253


23164.209
254


23164.210
255


23164.211
256


23164.212
257


23164.213
258


23164.214
259


23164.215
260


23164.216
261


23164.217
262


23164.218
263


23164.219
264


23164.220
265


23164.221
266


23164.222
267


23164.223
268


23164.224
269


23164.225
270


23164.226
271


23164.227
272


23164.228
273


23164.229
274


23164.230
275


23164.231
276


23164.232
277


23164.233
278


23164.234
279


23164.235
280


23164.236
281


23164.237
282


23164.238
283


23164.239
284


23164.240
285


23164.241
286


23164.242
287


23164.243
288


23164.244
289


23164.245
290


23164.246
291


23164.247
292


23164.248
293


23164.249
294


23164.250
295


23164.251
296


23164.252
297


23164.253
298


23164.254
299


23164.255
300


23164.256
301


23164.257
302


23164.258
303


23164.259
304


23164.260
305


23164.261
306


23164.262
307


23164.263
308


23164.264
309


23164.265
310


23164.266
311


23164.267
312


23164.286
313


23164.287
314


23164.288
315


23164.268
316


23164.269
317


23164.270
318


23164.271
319


23164.272
320


23164.273
321


23164.274
322


23164.275
323


23164.276
324


23164.277
325


23164.278
326


23164.279
327


23164.280
328


23164.281
329


23164.282
330


23164.283
331


23164.284
332

Æ


23164.285