Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. 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.

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

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong, unanimous vote for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. 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. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to share with his colleagues the following editorial regarding cattle testing from the April 22, 2004, Omaha World-Herald. USDA's Stubborn Stance The absurdity of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mad cow no-testing policy was highlighted recently when a small Kansas meatpacker wanted to export its products to Japan. Japan's government is edgy about the deadly disease, which in rare instances appears to have been transmitted from infected cattle to beef-eating people. When a cow with the disease was found in Washington state in December, Japan and more than 50 other nations banned American beef. Japan has since said it will take beef from tested cows. Then the USDA arbitrarily decided (after heavy lobbying by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and at least one big U.S. packer) that it wouldn't allow anyone but its laboratory to do the testing. And it would test only a limited number of cows. Creekstone Farms, the aforementioned Kansas packing plant, is a small, upscale operation. It has spent more than $500,000 on a lab and testers, and it wants to test all of the 1,000 cows a day its slaughters. It says it can test for $18 a head rather than the $325 a head the USDA claims it would cost. The government says no. Because, the agriculture agency rationalized, false positives might worry beef consumers. And testing all cattle might ``confuse'' consumers into thinking there was something wrong with beef. There is no scientific justification for testing all cattle, the government reasoned, so no one may do it. Creekstone is in serious trouble. It could close. Its 800 employees would be put out of work. And its suppliers--it buys premium cattle--would have to find other outlets. All courtesy of the USDA. And all contrary to the most basic of business rules: Give the customers what they want. Creekstone is considering shipping the brain stems of the cattle slaughtered to Japan for testing. It had better watch out--the USDA will most likely come up with an objection to that, too. Meanwhile, Australia, which hasn't had a mad-cow case and where no cattle are tested, moves in on the world beef market once served by U.S. growers and packers. What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with the USDA?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. 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?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, 53 years ago, acting on a vision conceived by French businessman Jean Monnet and proposed by Robert Schuman, six nations of Europe agreed to create what we now know as the European Union. On Saturday, May 1, there will be yet another historic milestone toward achieving the dreams of Monnet and Schuman. Ten nations, eight of which just a few years ago were trapped behind the Iron Curtain, will become members of the European Union. Mr. Speaker, the commitment of those 10 nations to shared values, to the pursuit of political and economic reforms and to solidarity with each other have helped facilitate these changes. The historic enlargement of the EU along with that of the recent NATO enlargement has resulted in a giant step towards a Europe that is whole and free, democratic and dynamic, and at peace. Mr. Speaker, the newest members of the EU have done a remarkable job preparing for this day. On the eve of this historic enlargement of the European Union it is appropriate, as we did recently with the newest members of NATO, to congratulate Estonia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member agrees with the sentiments expressed in an April 12, 2004, Lincoln Journal Star editorial entitled ``Credibility at Stake in Probe of Oil-for-Food.'' This Member commends the article to his colleagues. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Apr. 12, 2004] Credibility at Stake in Probe of Oil-for-Food If the United Nations is to retain credibility as an effective force in international affairs, it cannot afford a slipshod and superficial investigation into its handling of the oil-for-food program. Rumors of corruption in the program have been floating around for years, but more specific charges have been leveled recently. The charges are especially troubling at a time when the United Nations is being encouraged to take a larger role in the stabilization of Iraq. The oil-for-food program, established and operated by the United Nations, was begun in 1996 to ease hardship imposed on ordinary Iraqi citizens by economic sanctions. Under its guidelines, Iraq was allowed to sell oil to buy goods that had humanitarian purposes, such as food and medicine. Iraq sold about $67 billion worth of oil before the program ended, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. The program was set up to pay for itself. The United Nations earned a 3 percent commission. Most of the money went to cover the United Nation's costs, and the remainder was to go to the weapons inspection program. But GAO officials said recently that Saddam Hussein's government pocketed more than $10 billion in proceeds from oil sales. About $5.7 billion came from oil smuggled to its neighbors. Another $4.4 billion came from illegal surcharges and kickbacks on legitimate contracts. Several months ago, an Iraqi newspaper said it had documented proof that oil revenue was diverted to more than 200 businesses, organizations and individuals, including French and Russian politicians and Benon Sevan, the U.N. official who ran the oil-for-food program. U.N. officials attempted and succeeded in blocking some of the smuggling ventures, but the recent charges portray the corruption as much more extensive than previously suspected. One of the ticklish aspects of the corruption charges is that U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, worked for one of the companies that are implicated in the scandal. Suggestions that Kojo Annan was involved in the corruption seem dubious, however, since he left the company before it became involved with the program. Kofi Annan initially was slow to respond to the new charges, but he won U.N. Security Council permission last month to establish an independent investigation into the charges. The approval was less than enthusiastic, however. Russia agreed only to ``take note'' of the investigation. The United Nations has filled an invaluable role over the years in addressing humanitarian problems and helping to resolve conflicts. In order to retain the trust of the international community, the United Nations must be willing to thoroughly investigate these charges of corruption. If results warrant, the international organization also must take decisive action against any of its own officials who may have been involved.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, last summer this House overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling on the citizens of Cyprus to accept a U.N.-sponsored plan designed to end 29 years of separation and to unite the island. During the floor debate, this Member expressed the sincere hope that in 2004 we would be celebrating the first anniversary of a united Cyprus, not the 30th anniversary of a divided one. Regrettably, this hope may not be realized. Although the U.N. plan is scheduled to be voted on in a referendum on April 24, the recent very disappointing decision by the president of Cyprus to recommend a ``no'' vote to Cypriots may have doomed the best chance to reunify that country in a very long time. Turkish Cypriots today appear to be strongly in favor of the referendum, and Ankara has played a most positive role in moving the process forward. Both should be commended for their actions and resolve. It is unfortunate that, in a reversal of positions, it may now be the Greek Cypriots who will block unification. In Athens it is believed that both the current government and the opposition remain supportive of the U.N. plan. A strong public statement of support from Athens would be very helpful in this critical time. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, this Member believes there is still a chance that Cyprus may enter the EU on May 1 as a united country. The U.S. has pledged $400 million to help implement the U.N. plan. To the Cypriots, I say do the right thing for their own sake.