Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, following the stirring address of the President of Afghanistan this morning, this Member rises to address the urgent need for NATO to augment the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF.

This Member cannot overstate how critical the next few weeks will be for the future of Afghanistan and for the credibility of the North Atlantic Alliance. Unless the NATO allies quickly remedy the grave shortfalls in military personnel and equipment, the NATO mission in Afghanistan faces a real danger of failure. There will be no security for the upcoming elections in the hinterland of Afghanistan.

Actually, this is a crucial failure of will, political will, purely and simply. We are not coming up in other countries with the pledged personnel and equipment. Make no mistake about it,

this is a failure that jeopardizes the success of our mission to Afghanistan and jeopardizes the very credibility of the Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, we often say that failure is not an option. Alas, in Afghanistan failure is a distinct possibility, and unless allied leaders in the next few weeks demonstrate the political will to deploy the necessary assets in Afghanistan, failure gradually will become a reality.

Two weeks ago, this Member returned from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Bratislava. Recognizing the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan, the leaders of the 26 national delegations-- in an unprecedented action--authorized this Member, as the President of the Assembly, to send a letter to our national leaders, expressing the concern of the Assembly and urging governments to provide the necessary resources for ISAF.

Mr. Speaker, this Member will also raise these concerns with those national leaders in an address to the Istanbul Summit later this month. Likewise, the Bush Administration at Istanbul must press our allies to dig deep and find the extra personnel and resources that are needed to make this mission a success.

Mr. Speaker, on June 1 and 2, 2004, this Member unavoidably missed nine rollcall votes due to official business serving as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. On the following eight votes, this Member would have voted ``aye,'' had he been present. The eight votes were:

(1) Rollcall No. 210, passage of H. Con. Res. 295, a resolution congratulating the Focus: HOPE program on its 35th anniversary;

(2) Rollcall No. 211, passage of H. Res. 612, a resolution recognizing and honoring the firefighters, police, public servants, civilians, and private businesses who responded to the devastating fire in Richmond, Va., on March 26, 2004;

(3) Rollcall No. 212, passage of H. Con. Res. 417, a resolution honoring the Tuskegee Airman and their contribution in integrating the United States Air Force;

(4) Rollcall No. 213, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 657, the rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 83, which proposes a constitutional amendment regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.

(5) Rollcall No. 214, passage of H. Res. 657, the rule for H.J. Res. 83.

(6) Rollcall No. 215, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 656, the rule for the consideration of H.R. 444, the Back to Work Incentive Act.

(7) Rollcall No. 216, passage of the Pryce amendment to H. Res. 656.

(8) Rollcall No. 217, passage of H. Res. 656, the rule for H.R. 444.

On Rollcall No. 218, a motion to recommit H.J. Res. 83 with instructions, this Member would have voted ``no'' had he been present.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the May 20, 2004, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial highlights the findings in a recent report issued by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. As the U.N. report noted, biotech foods have been found to be safe and hold the potential to alleviate world hunger and disease. Biotech crops have already provided improved crop yields and reduced the demand for chemicals. While reasonable safeguards must remain in place, the continued research and use of biotech foods should be expanded. Those suffering from hunger in developing countries should not be deprived of the benefits of biotech foods simply due to irrational and unscientific fears.

[From the Omaha World-Herald]

Biotech's Benefits

A United Nations food agency's new report offering a

positive outlook on biotech foods should spur more thoughtful

research and regulations on the world stage.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's report found

that genetically modified crops have been a help to the

world's small farmers without posing any food safety threats.

In fact, the group said, the major problem is that the

technology hasn't spread fast enough or focused enough on the

most beneficial crops.

Basic food crops of the poor such as cassava, potato, rice

and wheat receive little attention from scientists, the

agency said. Biotechnology holds promise for other important

applications, too, such as animal vaccines and breeding.

The recent U.N. report notes that scientists are almost

universally agreed that GM crops currently on the market are

safe to eat. Even the European Union, where activists have

poisoned consumers with fears of GM foods' hazards, has bowed

to science and recently ended a moratorium on approving new

biotech crops. (Approval of new crops will likely continue to

be slow, however, and consumer acceptance limited.)

The U.N. agency offers no blank check for genetic

engineering, however, nor should it. Careful environmental

scrutiny is needed for each new crop, as the possibility of

genes' reaching wild populations exists. Keeping medicinal

crops, like those which erroneously reached an Aurora, Neb.,

co-op elevator a few years ago, in proper channels also must

be considered.

But GM foods have brought real help already to the world's

poor farmers--more money from improved crop yields, fewer

dangers through the reduced use of pesticides. On the horizon

is the promise of more nutritious foods and crops that grow

in water-parched areas.

World efforts and research dollars should be funneled into

those areas.

At the very least, we hope the U.N. report chokes off the

fears that have left donated foods rotting in ports while

African populations starve.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to inform our colleagues about grave shortfalls in NATO's International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan and about efforts to ensure the mission has the resources needed for success.

This Member returned to Washington yesterday from Bratislava, Slovakia, where the spring session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was held. This Member serves as the President of the Assembly, which for the last 50 years has served as the parliamentary adviser and support organization for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time and for his statement.

It is people that make an institution function, that make it great, that sustain and build respect for it; and Charles W. Johnson is certainly one of those people. He has helped the Congress respect and assert the best traditions and decorum of the House.

I said to him, Charlie, you cannot retire before I do. I will miss you too much. And yet I guess we were born in the same vintage year. Nevertheless, we have great respect for John Sullivan, and we look forward to his service here as Parliamentarian.

I think it was just a few minutes ago that the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said Charlie Johnson is not only a knowledgeable man but he is a wise man and a caring man, and that is certainly the case. I respect the contributions so much that he has made to help young people who have less advantages than most others.

Charles Johnson has had a tremendous and very positive impact on the U.S. House of Representatives during his service here, 40 years to the month in the Office of the Parliamentarian, and 10 years as our Parliamentarian. Tremendous service!

I remember a day back on January 21, 1997. I do not preside over the House that much, but it has been my lot to preside on some of the most difficult days, and I recall that difficult and historic day. And it was the strategy and advice of Charles Johnson that helped set the tone and the order and demeanor of the House that day, through me, which was so crucial. I thank him for that and for so many other occasions.

It has been my privilege to travel with Charlie as I led the House delegation to the NATO-Parliamentary Assembly, and not only going to Brussels but, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) said, visiting the House of Commons where Charles Johnson is very well known. Charlie has lots of friends there and in the leadership of the House of Representatives.

If Charlie and this Member ever talk about nonessential things here, like sports, we have talked about college football. And I have never until yesterday really known how much of an interest Charlie Johnson had in baseball. But I think I am shortly going to join him as a fan of the San Francisco Giants. A couple of years ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece on the chronic shortage of left-handed batting practice pitchers in major league baseball. So shortly thereafter, Charlie's ability to throw strikes from the port side was tested as he auditioned and then he started pitching for the Los Angeles Dodgers when they came to Camden Yards to play the Orioles. Then he pitched for them in Philadelphia, helping the Dodgers, and soon they became better hitters of left-handed pitchers.

If it had not been for yesterday's rework of the schedule because of rain, I understand he would have been doing the same thing for the Dodgers in the Phillies' new stadium. So that is a remarkable side of Charlie that I did not know about at all.

Mr. Speaker, as he leaves here, our outgoing Parliamentarian is going to be working with the recently retired Clerk of the British House of Commons, William McKay, on an updated comparative book on Parliament and Congress. Charlie's appreciation of the value of comparative studies through his work with counterparts in other countries, especially with that Mother of all Parliaments, has played an essential role in the development of programs of mutual exchange. You have heard that already referenced. People on every continent know Charlie Johnson because they have worked with him in their parliamentary efforts. So he is going to be working with Sir William in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, if it were consistent with American tradition, we would make you Sir Charles. But, nevertheless, we know that this is going to be another major contribution and it has some impact here. As you leave the House, Charlie Johnson should feel good to know that the recently established Office of Interparliamentary Exchange reflects his interest in improving not only the conduct of activities here in this parliament but in parliaments around the world.

So Charlie Johnson, best wishes to you and your family. Thank you for your public service and your service to the U.S. House of Representatives. You will be greatly missed.

Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly is pleased that H.R. 4200 provides authorization for funding for a very important project in Nebraska's 1st Congressional District. The bill includes $614,000 for a national guard and reserve center headquarters building at Lincoln Airbase, Nebraska. This is the second year that this Member has requested this funding for this necessary project. This Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished Ranking Member (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) who serves as Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and the Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for their assistance in this important matter.

These funds will be used to complete the design process associated with the construction of a new headquarters and emergency operating center for the Nebraska Army National Guard. The existing headquarters facility must be relocated due to the new Antelope Valley highway/flood control infrastructure project in the City of Lincoln, Nebraska.

While this project was included in the Department of Defense's (DoD) FY2009 Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP), it needs to be accelerated due to the unanticipatedly expeditious progress on the Antelope Valley Freeway and Flood Control project which will very soon necessitate the abandonment of the current headquarters. It appears that the National Guard Bureau agrees since initial design funding was allocated last year from existing funds, even though it was not authorized or appropriated.

The new facility will house the Joint Forces Headquarters, the Army National Guard Emergency Operating Center, the 24th Medical Company, the 105th Personnel Service Detachment, the Nebraska State Patrol dispatch and communications systems and the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency. Building a multipurpose facility on an existing military installation increases security for all of the components. Furthermore, housing several Federal, state and local agencies in one facility allows the Department of Defense to save scarce military construction funds. Also, bringing those various components within close proximity would facilitate better coordination among the agencies on issues of national and homeland security. Indeed, it is critically important to enhance these relationships in the current post-September 11th environment. The authorization included in H.R. 4200 will allow this important project to move forward.

In addition, this Member is pleased that $497,000 in design funds is authorized in H.R. 4200 for a critically important runway repair at Offutt Air Force Base which is immediately contiguous to the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska. This repair project has been championed by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who represents Offutt, with this Member, and the two U.S. Senators from Nebraska.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to submit, for the Congressional Record, an editorial from the Omaha World-Herald edition of May 6, 2004, which recognizes that prescription drug reimportation is inevitable. Clearly, American consumers should not be forced to pay the world's highest prices for the medicines they need. We must open the drug markets so Americans can obtain the prescription drugs they need when they need them most and at affordable prices. This Member commends this editorial to his colleagues.

``Yes'' to Drugs From Canada

The Bush administration has adamantly resisted allowing

Americans to legally import substantially cheaper

prescription drugs from foreign countries. Therefore, a top

official's apparent capitulation on Tuesday was a surprise.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, long a

chief player in barring entrance to lower-cost medicines from

Canada and elsewhere, said Tuesday that legalizing imports

was inevitable. Congress will almost certainly pass

legislation this year, he said. What's more, he will advise

President Bush to sign it.

``Inevitable'' is a good word; a recent Associated Press

poll showed that two-thirds of the people surveyed wanted the

government to make it easier to get cheaper drugs from

foreign countries. Many already do: An estimated 2 million

American senior citizens have illegally purchased U.S.-made

drugs from Canadian pharmacies.

In Canada, drugs can cost less than half what they do in

this country. This is because drug manufacturers load all

research and similar costs onto U.S. buyers. Other

governments, by contrast, regulate drug prices.

Thompson, backed by President Bush, most congressional

Republicans and the pharmaceutical industry, has staunchly

resisted importation. He has maintained that the safety of

drugs that have been out of American hands can't be assured.

In accepting reality, though, Thompson bristled with

caution. Legalizing foreign imports will be expensive,

Thompson said--his department will have to increase

inspections of foreign pharmaceutical plants and of the drugs

as they enter this country, negating some of the savings

consumers might expect.

Then, too, the Congressional Budget Office predicted

minimal savings for consumers. The limited availability of

drugs for import, added insurance costs and similar economic

factors would mean savings of only about $40 billion over 10

years, or 1 percent, the federal agency suggested.

In addition, several drug companies have already acted to

shut down supplies to Canadian pharmacies that resell to U.S.

customers. That kind of marketing tactic could

become more widespread and hence further limit imports. Our

companies might simply demand increased prices from other

governments.

Thompson's recognition of reality was a relief for many

people who have spent years battering the administration's

stone wall on this issue. That wall has been damaged but not

breached. Americans will need to press their elected

representatives to devise, pass and ensure implementation of

reasonable, responsible legislation.

The current situation, as Thompson recognized, is

untenable. Some kind of reimportation will almost certainly

become law. But, for the millions of Americans whom it could

benefit, whether they realize any savings will be in the

details.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 352) recognizing the contributions of people of Indian origin to the United States and the benefits of working together with India towards promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom among all countries of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 352 recognizes the contributions of people of Indian origin to the United States and the benefits of working together with India toward promoting peace, prosperity and freedom among all countries of the world. This is a noncontroversial resolution which was easily approved by the Committee on International Relations. It points out the many areas and disciplines to which Americans of Indian origin have contributed to a stronger America. Indeed, in communities throughout the U.S., we can find Indian Americans who are active citizens participating in all avenues of life. America is strengthened by ethnic diversity and a climate of achievement and progress.

This measure points out the ever-growing relationship between India and the United States and the benefits to each country resulting from increases in trade, cultural exchange, and the sharing of democratic values. This is indicative of U.S. relationships with the other countries of South Asia. These relationships are evolving; and we should encourage this progress, not only for the individual benefits to each country in the region but because it supports the collective goals of regional stability and economic development. I urge a strong ``aye'' vote on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong, unanimous vote for the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 577) recognizing 50 years of relations between the United States Government and the European Union, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 577, as amended. I would note for my colleagues that two amendments were made to the original text of this resolution. One more precisely addresses the history of the EU and one notes that an event at the Department of State regarding the anniversary has now taken place.

Mr. Speaker, 53 years ago, in an effort to rebuild and integrate a war-devastated economic system throughout Europe, six nations of Europe came together and signed the European Coal and Steel Community treaty (ECSC) in Paris on April 18, 1951. Since then, the coal and steel community has evolved to become what we now refer to as the European Union. In 1953, the United States government sent its first diplomatic observers to the European Coal and Steel Community and one year later, in 1954, the High Authority of the ECSC established its first official presence in the United States. This resolution which we have under consideration today recognizes 50 years of formal relationship between the United States and the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, relations with Europe have been an integral part of our own history. The importance of that relationship became even more clear as the Euro-Atlantic community entered the postwar period in 1945. During that period and throughout the Cold War, the United States and Europe developed a strong set of shared values, common interests, mutual political goals, and fully integrated economies. The cooperation which has developed between the United States and Europe has resulted in an effective partnership which has met the global challenges of building a peaceful, secure, democratic and prosperous world.

Yet as we all know, the relationship has not always been cordial. We have had our differences of opinion on many issues. The relationship has had what some might consider ``defining moments.'' But as we have seen over these past 50 years, the melding of our common interests and the strength of our partnership has far outweighed the differences we have encountered.

Last November, the U.S. Mission in Brussels, led by Ambassador Rockwell Schnabel, held an event to kick off the 50th anniversary of relations between the United States and the European Union. Secretary of State Colin Powell attended the ceremony and dedicated a plaque commemorating the anniversary. In his statement, the Secretary noted that the ``United States embraces the European Union as a global partner for peace and security and that the world's best hope for meeting global challenges still rests, in large part, on a deep, broad and lasting partnership between Europe and the United States.''

Last week, on May 6, a similar event was held here in Washington at the Department of State which continued the celebration. One difference between the November event and this month's event is the fact that by virtue of the enlargement of the European Union which took place on May 1, the celebration here in Washington was with 25 nations of Europe rather than 15. As we welcome those 10 new members of the European Union, we welcome the opportunity to develop an even stronger partnership with the EU and its member states.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, H. Res. 577 recognizes the 50th anniversary of U.S.-EU relations. It reaffirms the importance of cooperation between the United States and Europe. It encourages closer institutional linkages in order to facilitate a more direct and continuous dialogue with Europe and its union. Finally, the resolution supports an enhanced dialogue between this institution, the Congress, and our colleagues in the European Parliament.

I urge the adoption of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the distinguished gentleman from California, I was thinking how remarkable this must look to him in particular since as a boy and a young man, he grew up in a very different part of Europe and a different kind of system in Hungary and what a contribution the gentleman has made. I recall in my second or third term, I became, fortunately, a member of what we then called the U.S. House-European Parliamentary Exchange, and the gentleman was the chairman for all of those years in which his party was in the majority; and I remember the outstanding leadership and education he gave this Member in those years.

And I think back to how remarkable it is for all of us, but perhaps especially for the gentleman, that the line drawn across Europe at Yalta which brought down the Iron Curtain to which Winston Churchill referred. It separated the countries that had been a part of a whole, and now gradually we have seen that curtain lifted and we have a united Europe.

Just this morning I had a chance to examine a proposed welcome from one of our Slovak parliamentary colleagues, Josef Banas. Mr. Banas was preparing his welcome to our spring meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which will be in their capital city, Bratislava, Slovakia, over the Memorial Day recess to drive his point home how much things have changed and how much joy is in his country as one of the 10 new members of the European Union, one of the seven new members of NATO.

He talked about his mother, who has lived and is yet living in a small village near Bratislava. She was born in that village before World War I, and he was tracing how many different countries and different political systems she has lived under in her time, even though she has never moved from that village. It has been that kind of remarkable change in Central Europe which we have witnessed in the years since World War I, but especially remarkable changes since World War II.

I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership all these years on European issues, and I want to say that I am enthusiastic about the current leadership, both Democrat and Republican, on what is now called, and I am still having a hard time with the new name, the Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue. And the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) has a statement which will be submitted under General Leave. She would have liked to have been here today to participate in this dialogue, and I very

much wish the gentleman well as he continues this dialogue with European parliamentarians.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks, and I know that Europe will be in good hands. That is why I am moving my focus to a different continent.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2004, due to official business, this Member unavoidably missed rollcall vote number 146 on H. Res. 605 that recognizes the importance of increasing autism awareness. Had this Member been present, he would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, this Member is absolutely not satisfied with the language of H. Res. 627, as I believe it does not adequately convey how intensely this House and the American people feel about the exceptionally repugnant, insensitive, and damaging the alleged, but obviously documented, actions of the abusers of the Iraqi detainees are to all of us.

From Abu Ghraib prison, and perhaps from elsewhere, we have reports, with photographs, graphically telling and showing the outrageous abuses of Iraqi detainees by U.S. military personnel and possibly by military contractors. The international damage to the credibility and reputation of our country and our military absolutely cannot be overstated, especially in the Arab and Islamic communities. The alleged actions by at least a few members of our military, already confirmed by very recent disciplinarian action, makes the job being done by our dedicated and courageous military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan just that much harder and much more dangerous. The extraordinary gravity of this matter, the insensitivity and the degrading abuse, which has apparently been visited upon Iraqi detainees, call for swift and just accountability.

What has allegedly happened is so foreign to our country's principles and traditions and

those of our Armed Forces that these people conducting or condoning such abuse do not deserve to be called Americans. If the use of such tactics of physical abuse and sexual humiliation is not dishonorable conduct, this Member does not know what is. If supervisors of such military personnel were inappropriately unaware or unconcerned about such conduct, then this is a clear case of dereliction of duty, and this accountability should apply several levels up the chain of command. If military contractors were involved, at a minimum, the contracts with the firm which employed them should be immediately terminated.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine a more politically damaging set of actions, hopefully by just a few individuals, for American and for coalition efforts to replace the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We must have swift accountability, justice, and a demonstration that the American people repudiate such conduct and will not let it continue or happen again.

While the resolution fails to convey an important part of what needs to be said, or is at least inadequate in the aforementioned manner, it is probably impossible to vote against this resolution without seeming to denigrate the dedicated, courageous, and patriotic actions of the members of the armed forces of the United States. This Member wants our armed forces to know that their extraordinary service is greatly appreciated by this Member and the American people despite the horrendous conduct of a few service personnel, despite the failures of command and active notification procedures. Therefore, this Member will vote for the inadequate resolution as his only choice to avoid a misunderstanding by the members of our armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 27) to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt small public housing agencies from the requirement of preparing an annual public housing agency plan, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 27, the Small Public Housing Authority Act. The bill, which was introduced by this Member on January 27, 2003, will be considered under suspension of the rules. This legislation, which addresses the annual plan requirements for small public housing authorities passed the Committee on Financial Services by a unanimous, bipartisan voice vote on March 17, 2004. It is important to note that this Member introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress as well.

First, this Member would like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking minority member, for their efforts in bringing this measure to the floor.

Indeed, following some concerns and suggestions from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), compromise language was agreed upon to ensure unanimous support for this legislation. It should be noted for background that the Public Housing Reform Act requires PHAs to submit both a 5-year plan and an annual plan to HUD. The 5-year PHA plan addresses the Agency's mission and their plan to achieve their mission. The annual plan requires PHAs to provide details about updates or changes to the 5-year plan.

Specifically, the annual plan, among other things, has typically asked for the following information: Housing needs of the families in the jurisdiction; strategies to meet these needs; statement of financial resources; and PHA policies governing eligibility, selection, and admissions. HUD has made the effort to streamline this annual planning for small PHAs and for high-performing PHAs. However, incredibly, an example of a streamlined plan was still 47 pages with extensive attachments.

This legislation would exempt small PHAs from being required to submit that annual plan to HUD. Under the bill as it passed the House Committee on Financial Services, a small PHA is defined to be one which has 100 or fewer combined public housing units and section 8 vouchers. PHAs, which are exempt from the annual planning requirement, would still have to prepare a 5-year plan. Moreover, a small PHA which is designated as a troubled housing agency by HUD would still be required to submit that annual plan.

This legislation also includes a provision that tenants of small PHAs which are exempt from the annual planning requirement must continue to have an adequate and comparable opportunity for participation and notice regarding the establishment of goals, objectives and policies of that PHA.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is needed to simply provide some regulatory burden relief to small PHAs which do not have the time, staff or resources to do these annual HUD plans by themselves. Many of these small PHAs only have a part-time executive director. Currently, small PHAs are forced to hire consultants since they do not have the computer software package to complete these annual plans, and these consultants are expensive costs for small PHAs which already face some daunting financial challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that these small PHAs are located across the entire Nation. Today this Member will focus on the small PHAs in Nebraska because I am most familiar with them. For example, in this Member's district, there are 23 PHAs which would qualify under the definition used for small PHAs. There are approximately 60 PHAs in Nebraska statewide which qualify as small PHAs under this bill, especially in the district of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and he will speak on that.

To give a not-atypical example from this Member's congressional district, the village of Beemer is a community of 773 people, according to the last census. They have a PHA which administered just 20 public housing units and no section 8 vouchers. Under the current law, the Beemer PHA is required to submit the extensive annual plan to HUD which I have mentioned.

In conclusion, this bill contains reasonable provisions regarding PHA annual plans which enjoy bipartisan support. This Member would urge his colleagues to support H.R. 27, the Small Public Housing Authority Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her supportive comments as we try to meet the Nation's diverse housing needs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and currently the president of the assembly, I have frequently had to reassure parliamentarians that the outrageous and false allegations they had heard about the way detainees were being treated by the U.S. at our Guantanamo detention facility were not true. Since I had been part of a small number of Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence members to visit Guantanamo, actually the first congressional delegation to visit, since the HPSCI members and staff have made several such trips and have given oversight to this interrogation and detention facility, and since I am a former military intelligence officer, I knew I could conscientiously give such an assurance.

Now, however, from Abu Ghraib prison, and perhaps from elsewhere, we have reports, with photographs, graphically telling and showing outrageous abuses of Iraqi detainees by U.S. military personnel and possibly by military contractors. The international damage to the credibility and reputation of our country and our military absolutely cannot be overstated, especially in the Arab and Islamic communities. The alleged actions by at least a few members of our military, already confirmed by very recent disciplinarian action, makes the job being done by our dedicated and courageous military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan just that much harder and much more dangerous. The extraordinary gravity of this matter, the insensitivity and the degrading abuse which has apparently been visited upon Iraqi detainees call for swift and just accountability.

What has allegedly happened is so foreign to our country's principles and traditions and those of our Armed Forces that these people conducting or condoning such abuse do not deserve to be called Americans. If the use of such tactics of physical abuse and sexual humiliation is not dishonorable conduct, I do not know what is. If supervisors of such military personnel were inappropriately unaware or unconcerned about such conduct, then this is a clear case of dereliction of duty; and this accountability should apply several levels up the chain of command. If military contractors were involved, at a minimum the contract with the firm which employed them should be immediately terminated.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine a more politically damaging set of actions, hopefully by just a few individuals, for American and for coalition efforts to replace the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We must have swift accountability, just accountability, and a demonstration that the American people repudiate such conduct and will not let it continue or happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I include an editorial at this point from this morning's Omaha World Herald.

Ugly Americans

When U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison (and,

some documents suggest, elsewhere) abused and humiliated

prisoners of war, they committed two serious wrongs.

First, in sheer human terms, there is a code to be followed

for prisoners' treatment. It exists for good reasons,

starting with simple decency and progressing to the hope that

rules observed by one side will be observed by the other.

These soldiers trashed such considerations.

Second, they did immeasurable harm to the goals of America

and its allies to bring about a peaceable and effective

transfer of limited self rule to Iraqis. They rendered

considerably more dubious the prospect of inculcating a

stable, beneficial democracy in the Middle East. (If this is

what democracy brings, who would want it?)

The six men who engaged in the actual acts (pyramids of

naked detainees, false electrocution threats and more) face

criminal charges. They should. In addition, six supervisors

will receive a reprimand that can end their careers by

rendering promotions impossible. A seventh will draw a lesser

penalty.

An internal Army report in February pointed to flaws in the

command structure at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. For one thing,

an intelligence officer whose duty was eliciting information

from the prisoners was effectively put in charge of their

day-to-day jailers--a dangerous practice, as events have

shown. Additionally, the military policy responsible for the

prisoners appear to have had little or no training in proper

handling of detainees.

Such flaws cry out to be remedied, and apparently that will

now happen. But that still leaves the question, what happened

to common sense? America, for all its good intentions, is

already regarded with suspicion by many in the Middle East

and in Iraq in particular. Who could suppose that when

knowledge of these abominable acts leaked, as was bound to

happen, it would do anything less than throw gasoline on an

already smoldering fire?

The United States needs to find some way to make clear in

Iraq that this is not the norm, and that Americans, too, are

repelled by what they saw. This isn't supposed to happen.

We're the good guys. But try telling that today to the

average Iraqi

Mr. Speaker, this Member agrees with the sentiments expressed in an April 22, 2004, Omaha World Herald editorial entitled ``A New Fight Against Slavery.'' This Member commends the article to his colleagues.

A New Fight Against Slavery

Slavery has long been officially illegal in most of the

world. Yet de facto slavery continues for hundreds of

thousands of women and children kidnapped and exploited as

prostitutes, domestic servants or forced laborers.

The revenues generated for criminal enterprises total a

staggering $7 billion a year. The U.S. Intelligence community

projects that within a decade, the worldwide returns from

criminal trafficking in human beings will exceed those from

the sale of illegal narcotics or guns.

Paula J. Dobriansky, U.S. undersecretary of state for

global affairs, described the scale of this problem during a

recent speech. ``Each year,'' she said, ``an estimated

800,000 to 900,000 human beings--mostly women and children in

search of a better life--are bought, sold or forced across

international borders.''

Although most of these cases involve developing and middle-

income countries, some of the exploitation reaches U.S.

shores. Between 18,000 and 20,000 women and children are

coerced into the United States annually by traffickers,

Dobriansky said.

Despite the challenge in tackling such a global phenomenon,

progress is being made. When a State Department report listed

friendly countries such as South Korea, Greece and Turkey

among those failing to address human trafficking, those

governments soon ratcheted up their law enforcement efforts.

Greater international cooperation has led to significant

arrests. One operation involving 12 countries led last year

to the apprehension of 207 suspected traffickers.

In this country, Congress and the White House have

cooperated to sharply increase the penalties for such crimes.

In early 2004, the federal government was pursuing more than

300 human-trafficking investigations.

Private aid agencies as well as governments are

contributing millions of dollars to help resettle women and

children and provide them with educational assistance or

other help.

The official abolition of slavery was one of the milestones

of the 19th century. Successfully choking off the

opportunities for human traffickers would be one of the great

achievements in the 21st.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to submit, for the Congressional Record, an editorial from the Omaha World Herald, which questions the skyrocketing cost of Norvir, an essential antiretroviral drug prescribed to AIDS patients. According to the editorial, the drug previously cost $1,500 annually, on average. The cost has now risen to approximately $7,800 per year--which is a 420 percent increase! Yet, Europeans are paying a fraction of this price for the very same drug.

While this Member believes pharmaceutical manufacturers should be able to recoup the costs of researching, developing, and marketing pharmaceutical products, American consumers should not be forced to pay the world's highest prices for the medicines they need.

Norvir has raked in more than $1 billion dollars for Abbott Laboratories since its debut in 1996. Apparently, such profit is not enough, as the company has quintupled the price of the medication. This is just one example of how the pharmaceutical industry is working to line its pockets with dollars from hard-working Americans.

Government officials and consumers cannot allow the pharmaceutical industry to continue to charge Americans such egregious prices for medical treatments, especially when most drugs, like Norvir, are researched and developed with assistance from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As taxpayers, we deserve and demand much better.

If Not Now, When?

When Abbott Laboratories quintupled the price of its vital

AIDS drug, Norvir, it didn't upset merely the patients whose

health depend on their daily meds. The action also set off

activists already demanding drug reimportation from Canada

and other countries.

Norvir is a key ingredient in the drug ``cocktail'' that

helps AIDS patients keep their disease under control. The

drug previously costs $1,500 a year, on average. That has

risen to about $7,800 a year--in the United States. Europeans

pay a tenth of that; Belgians, for instance, spend the

equivalent of $720 a year.

Abbott can't raise its drug prices overseas because nearly

all other governments control pharmaceutical prices. Not only

does the U.S. government not generally cap drug prices (nor

are we saying it should), but Congress specifically forbade

federal agencies from negotiating drug prices in the recently

passed Medicare drug-benefit bill.

Even more outrageous: Norvir was developed with federal

money.

Work on the drug began in 1988 with a grant from the

National Institutes of Health to Abbott's AIDS drug research

program. The former head of that effort called the federal

money ``critical'' in the drug's rapid development. Norvir

debuted in 1996 as only the second protease inhibitor on the

market.

It has earned more than $1 billion since then for Abbott.

And the company expresses its thank-you by quintupling the

cost of the drug. It's reason? Well, company spokesmen said,

patients are using smaller doses of Norvir and the price

increase is needed to make up lost revenue. And, of course,

there is the overseas price-cap ``problem.''

The federal government needn't be helpless in the face of

such gall.

In the boilerplate wording that companies agree to when

they accept NIH money, it says that the government can

require ``reasonable'' prices for drugs developed with

federal grants.

The clause isn't often invoked. But if not now, when?