Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, the media is portraying a very different story regarding what is going on in Iraq than what we saw. There is no doubt that Iraq is still a dangerous place. At least it was in August, it was in September, and it probably still is today. But as we flew over the city of Baghdad there were cars, buses and trucks on the streets. There was commerce. Much of the city of Baghdad was functioning. We met with a couple of divisional military commanders who talked about the thousands of projects that they had going on, rebuilding schools, cleaning irrigation ditches, working on clinics, and they talked about the progress that they were making. We met with a number of talented people. The second trip I had over there I met with Peter McPherson, who is the president of Michigan State. He is now back at Michigan State. He was kind of the shadow finance minister. I asked him, what about the plans? You guys did not have a plan for reconstruction. He said, What do you mean we did not have a plan? Did you see our currency collapse? No. He said there was a debate about whether Iraq should keep this currency that had Saddam Hussein's picture on it. He said, we made a conscious decision, we planned to keep that currency because we did not want the currency to collapse, we did not want a run on the banks. Commerce continued in Iraq after the war. The plan is in place. They now have a tax code, 15 percent top rate. They have a tariff structure, and they also now have one of the most progressive foreign investment laws in the Middle East. They have thought through all those things. Now they are working with the Iraqi Governing Council to implement it. Another individual from Michigan who was kind of their shadow health care minister, he said, ``What do you mean, no plan? Did you see a breakout of malaria? Did you see a breakout of cholera or diarrheal diseases after the war? That is very typical after you have had a military conflict. ``Those things did not happen. We had plans in place to try to prevent that, and we were successful in preventing those things from happening. We kept the clinics open. We kept the hospitals open. The doctors kept coming to work. We were able to treat the people. There were plans in place. We have got talented people who have run major universities, major businesses, major sectors of this country who are now helping put Iraq together.'' Does that mean everything has worked perfectly? Absolutely not. But these folks have a plan, they are implementing the plan and as they get new information they are adjusting it.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. We talked about the horrors of Saddam. I will give you one of the ones that I have not seen published anywhere, but that I heard on my last trip. I had the opportunity to go through the Ministry of Health. Then I had the opportunity to go through a hospital. We have heard about the mass graves, the slaughter of the Kurds and all of these types of folks. The one anecdote that somebody asked if I had heard about, they said, have you heard about our cornea transplant policy in Iraq? I said, no. He said, all the cornea transplants were done on Monday and Thursday. Executions were done Sunday night and Wednesday night. Just one other example and these are stories that come from the Iraqis. These folks are thankful that this man is gone. They are thankful that we are there, and they want us to stay because they trust us a whole lot more than they trust the U.N. We put together a good coalition in a very difficult situation, and as demonstrated by our colleagues here tonight, there are a whole lot of folks who have a lot more to add to this because we are going out and we are getting a complete picture by having this many Members participating in the debate, but also spending the time over in Iraq and everybody picking up their own little gems of information to give us a complete picture.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Let me add one thing. I do have another commitment. A lot of our colleagues are here tonight. That is great to see.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3087 to extend current law for 5 months to ensure that our Nation's highways and transit systems continue to operate as Congress deliberates on long-term reauthorization of Federal aid. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) for their leadership, as well as the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittee, for their vision for a transportation program that will not only maintain, but modernize and improve our Nation's ailing transportation system. I know it is not an ideal situation to be here today to consider a short-term extension; but recognizing the difficult issues involved in reaching a consensus on a robust and comprehensive 6-year bill, it is necessary to take this action. Although I support and recognize the urgent need for enacting this short-term extension, I must reluctantly point out that this legislation ties transportation funding levels to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. This means new money will be apportioned to States based on the same inequitable distribution formulas that have disadvantaged donor States such as Michigan for decades. For too long, the State of Michigan has sent more Federal fuel tax money to Washington than it has received in return. In fact, on a 4-year average under TEA 21, Michigan ranks 48 out of all States on the return of Federal highway funds. Michigan is not receiving its fair share. I continue to be encouraged by the willingness and desire of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) to pursue a plan that achieves equity for donor States such as Michigan as they address the serious infrastructure needs of this country. Hopefully, over the next 5 months, we will make progress on legislation to reach the goal of a 95 percent guarantee for all States. However, regardless of the next course of action at the end of February, it will be unacceptable for any transportation funding to neglect donor State equity. Again, I look forward to working with the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee and our ranking members to address the wide range of issues that they are wrestling with, and I look forward to helping them in any way that I can.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Grand Valley State University Pioneer Class of 1967. The first graduating class of Grand Valley State University assembled on the Allendale Campus in September, 1963. There were 226 members of the class, with 156 ultimately graduating with baccalaureate degrees from the institution. The college in that first year consisted of only two fully completed buildings: Lake Michigan Hall and the Seidman House student center. During the four-year journey of the Pioneer Class through Grand Valley State College (as it was then known), the campus was constantly changing as new buildings and facilities were added. The class was comprised primarily of students from the West Michigan area who were carefully selected for academic aptitude and other indicators of potential success at the new, largely non-residential college. They concentrated and succeeded in their college programs despite the distractions of the increasing turmoil of the Vietnam War and the American cultural revolution that began in the mid-1960s. The students were challenged by a rigorous curriculum, coupled with shortages of facilities and equipment, rudimentary library and audio- visual resources, and a virtual absence of traditional student life opportunities during their four years on the campus. The college did not receive academic accreditation from the North Central Association until late in the Pioneers' senior year. Members of the Pioneer Class competed on Grand Valley's first intercollegiate athletics teams, and inaugurated new housing, arts, writing, intramural sports, and community service programs at the college. They truly paved the way for generations of Grand Valley students to come. Nevertheless, the Pioneer Class met all academic expectations and graduated in June, 1967. Class members have gone on to succeed in business, industry, education, religion, science and government. They met the challenges of life and study at the new college and are the first in a long line of distinguished, accomplished graduates from what has become a major regional institution of higher learning. They are saluted upon the occasion of the 40th anniversary of their arrival at Grand Valley with a gala reunion in connection with Grand Valley State University's Homecoming 2003 on Oct. 3 and 4. The theme of this year's celebration honors them and all those who came after them at Grand Valley: ``Grand Valley State University: A Pioneering Spirit.''

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, authorizes Federal assistance to museums and libraries through fiscal year 2009. The bill before the House today maintains the modest, but essential, Federal support for museums and libraries; encourages model cooperation between museums and libraries; and authorizes funds for the one Federal agency, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, devoted exclusively to museums and libraries. Last Congress, the Committee on Education and the Workforce reported a bipartisan authorization bill that had 94 cosponsors. It was supported by the administration, and it was endorsed by the American Library Association, the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, and the American Association of Museums. To complete our work from last Congress, at the start of this year I introduced H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. This year's bill has 126 cosponsors and makes several modifications to current law to streamline and strengthen museum and library services and builds on the bipartisan progress made by the committee during the 107th Congress. In March, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 13 by a vote of 416 to 2. Since then, we have been working with the Senate to reach agreement on a consensus reauthorization bill that we could get to the President as quickly as possible. Today, the House will consider that consensus bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on August 1, 2003. Generally, this legislation authorizes the Federal Library and Museums program under the Institute of Museum and Library Services. More specifically, the bipartisan, bicameral version of the Museum and Library Services Act prohibits projects that are determined to be obscene from receiving funding; ensures that library activities are coordinated with activities under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; consolidates museum and library advisory board activities under a single statute; and ensures that administrative funds are also used to conduct annual analyses of the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under funded programs. In addition, H.R. 13 contains provisions to increase indemnity caps under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act. These changes to the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act are designed to better facilitate the international exchange between museum exhibitions in light of increased commercial insurance costs for international museum exhibitions since September 11, 2001. The Library and Services and Technology subtitle of this legislation is the only Federal program solely devoted to supporting libraries and will assist libraries in providing crucial services to the communities they serve. Throughout our Nation, libraries are at the forefront of reading and family literacy programs. Additionally, libraries serve as essential links to the business community, assisting with job creation, training programs, and business development initiatives. They are also critical for many people with disabilities, providing them with specialized materials and resources that are obtainable in a single location. For older Americans, libraries provide a place to interact with others, use the Internet, and receive services. For those persons of limited resources or who live in remote areas, libraries provide access to books and reference materials, computers and the Internet and community-based social services that are often available nowhere else. The Museum Services subtitle of this legislation supports museums and their educational role and assists museums in modernizing their methods and facilities so that they are better able to conserve the cultural, historic, and scientific heritage of the United States. Museums play an important role in the education of people of all ages. Many American museums provide K through 12 educational programming, with most using local and State curriculum standards to shape their programs. Additionally, museums increasingly partner with libraries to offer joint educational opportunities for adults as well as children. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 makes commonsense reforms to authorize museum and library activities. This consensus bill includes provisions important to Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate. We have worked hard to ensure that views from all interested parties were considered as we crafted our compromise. I would like to thank all of those who participated in this process, which actually began in the last Congress, including the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). I thank him again for his support in getting us to the point where we are today. The Institute of Museum and Library Services, the American Library Association, and the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies and the American Association of Museums, they deserve a great deal of credit for the bipartisan bill that is before us today. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the full committee, for their support of this legislation, and also to the committee staff on both the minority and majority side in both the House and the Senate that did a tremendous amount of work to get this bill to the floor today. Today will complete the work on the Museum and Library Services Act. This bill will go to the President; and once it is signed into law, we can ensure that our Nation's museums and libraries are getting the best assistance we are able to provide from the Federal level. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. We have had a very successful year in the full committee. We are glad to contribute a bill that also has now made it through the committee. I would like to recognize one of our colleagues on the minority side who is not here but who is the only librarian in Congress, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), for the assistance that he has provided in putting this bill together. I know he has been very interested in what we have been doing and has helped craft this final bill based on the background and the experience that he has had. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for his help, and I look forward to working together with him on other pieces of legislation.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 13.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 13) to reauthorize the Museum and Library Services Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the former Official State Historian of the State of Michigan.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we stand here today with the opportunity to join Mayor Williams, the President of the D.C. School Board, the chairman of the city council's education committee, and numerous parents who are all excited about the opportunity for Congress to provide $10 million in an innovative pilot program for education in D.C. Educational equality for all of our children regardless of their family's income is a fundamental principle of the American education system. However, too many low-income families find themselves in a position where they are unable to send their children to the school of their choice simply because they are poor. Families living in poor neighborhoods are unable to make the education choices that many of us can afford to make for our own children when we buy a house in a suburb with high-performing public schools or send our own children to private schools. The D.C. choice pilot program offers hope and empowers parents and students in the District of Columbia by giving them the opportunity to select a school that meets their educational needs while the competition school choice brings will improve the overall educational atmosphere for the parents, teachers, and administrators who continue to work to improve the public school system within the District. This debate today should be about doing everything we can to better educate all of our children. In 1996 and 1997, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce embarked on a project called Education at a Crossroads. We went around the country. We talked to parents, we talked to teachers, and we talked to administrators. Now, people say that we have to focus on improving public education, and we are doing that; and we are investing significant dollars both at the Federal level and at the State level to make that happen. But I still remember the father who came to me in New York City and said, they are just embarking on another 5-year plan. He had a 7- or 8-year- old son with him. He said, you know, a few years ago they embarked on a 5-year plan, and I had hoped that my son would be going to a better school. The schools are now as bad if not worse than what they were 5 years ago. And now they are embarking on another 5-year plan, where we are not guaranteed or we do not really know what this 5-year plan will bring, but I do know what it will mean for my son. If it is no better at the end of this next 5-year plan than it was at the end of first 5- year plan, the product that we will lose is my son. My son will have been in schools that did not help him learn what he needed to learn to compete. Please give me the opportunity to send my son to a high- performing school. In D.C. last summer we had the opportunity to meet with the parents of the D.C. scholarship program who are enthused and excited about the opportunities that they had had to make decisions for their children, to get them in a school that enabled their children to get the education that they needed, and they saw dramatic progress. I laugh about the accountability, saying we have to put in the accountability standards so that these schools will be accountable to an education department down on Independence Avenue. All we have to do is look into the face of the parents in New York City, in Cleveland, in Detroit, or in Washington, D.C. and you can see that the accountability that we need is not to a bureaucrat in Washington, not to a bureaucrat in one of our State capitals. The accountability that we need is of a school district to a parent. A parent sees and knows what is happening with their child each and every day. This is about giving D.C. the chance to experiment with this change so that low-income children in our Nation's capital can get a better education now, which we all know is a critical predicate for their future success in life. It is exactly what the parents in the park told us last summer. This debate has been sidetracked by political ideology, and in the process we are further condemning the students in the District of Columbia to an education system that has left a majority of its students nonproficient in reading and math. It has left these students behind. I urge Members to support the D.C. appropriations bill and to oppose the Norton amendment on this legislation. Many parents in D.C. cannot afford any other choices for their children, and we have the opportunity today to make $10 million available, and allow 7,500 families who are on the waiting list for this possibility to truly choose what will work for their children.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk again about the right that is taken away in this substitute, the right of religious organizations to retain their religious character while receiving Federal funds. It takes away something that even Al Gore supports. Al Gore during the campaign said that ``faith-based organizations can provide jobs and job training, counseling and mentoring, food and basic medical care. They can do so with public funds, and without having to alter the religious character that is so often the key to their effectiveness.'' Churches should be allowed to compete for Federal social services funds and to remain churches while doing so. The only way a church can remain a church is if it can staff itself, to the extent it desires, with those who share the same faith. The underlying bill, unlike the substitute, provides for the equal treatment of religious organizations. Members of faith-based organizations should enjoy the same rights to associate with others sharing their unique vision as other nonreligious groups currently enjoy. To deny them that right is to discriminate against people simply because they are religious and have a religious, rather than a purely secular, way of looking at the world. The underlying bill provides for equal treatment. The amendment singles out religious people for adverse treatment, and that is wrong. The Supreme Court has upheld the title VII exemption for religious organizations. In fact, the Supreme Court decided the Amos case on grounds that support the constitutionality of the title VII exemption as applied to employees of religious organizations that receive Federal funds. In Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the exemption permitting religious organizations to staff on a religious basis in matters concerning employment. Finding that the exemption did not violate the establishment clause, the Supreme Court has made clear that it is a permissible legislative purpose to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions. Even where the content of their activities is secular, in the sense that activities do not include religious teaching, proselytizing, prayer or ritual, Justice Brennan in the Amos case recognized that the religious organization's performance of such functions is likely to be ``infused with a religious purpose.'' He also recognized that churches and other religious entities ``often regard the provision of such services as a means of fulfilling religious duty and of providing an example of the way of life a church seeks to foster.'' Perhaps one of the greatest liberal Justices, then, recognized that preserving the title VII exemption when religious organizations engage in social services is a necessary element of religious freedom.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, amen, Brother. I notice that none of the folks that are opposed to the bill are willing to answer the single most important question tonight which is, why do drugs cost 40 percent more in the United States than they do in Canada and in Europe? That question is not being answered. It is about safety, but they are missing the big elephant in the room. They do not want to talk about pricing. We have to realize that when working Americans pay 40 percent more for prescription drugs than the rest of the world, our workers are subsidizing the health care costs of the rest of the world. If we reject this bill, once again this Congress will undercut America's workers, will force American workers to continue to subsidize foreign workers' prescription drugs; and then we will go out and ask them to compete in global markets. No wonder America is facing a crisis in manufacturing. This is blatantly unfair. How long do we believe American workers can survive under this burden? Tonight, we have a wonderful opportunity to support working Americans, let them have access to fairly priced products and improve their global competitiveness.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald of the Michigan Air National Guard for his exemplary service to our Nation during Operation Iraqi Freedom. On April 8, 2003, during one of the 30 sorties he flew over Iraq, Major Ewald's aircraft was struck by a surface-to-air missile. Major Ewald managed to continue flying the damaged aircraft for 12 minutes, eject before it crashed and evade capture until he was rescued. In the face of extreme danger, Major Ewald's composure and commitment to fulfill his mission never faltered. Major Ewald is a tribute to the success of the Michigan Air National Guard. Throughout his career in the United States military, Major Ewald has been unselfishly devoted to securing the safety and liberty of the American people. On behalf of Michigan's Second Congressional District, I welcome Major Ewald home and offer appreciation for his heroic service to our Nation.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. It is the pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Not only on the surface is it ridiculous, but as we peel the onion, it gets even more absurd. They say that these are Canadian drugs, who knows where they manufactured. No, they were not manufactured in Toronto. These things were manufactured, produced in our own factories.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is talking about, if you are buying pork or hog bellies from Canada, they were raised and grown in Canada and exported to the U.S. These drugs that we are talking about shipping into the U.S. were probably made in the U.S. under the FDA, they were shipped to Canada, and this is kind of a reverse NAFTA. We are shipping this stuff out, and they are selling it at these phenomenal discounts in Canada. Then the American consumer would like to buy American product back, and they are saying that it is too dangerous, illegal, and plus you will promote abortion.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Fifty-two percent. One of my pharmacists called me this morning, and he is outraged because he opens his morning newspaper, and he is seeing this ad and says, how do I compete? And I said, I want you to do a press conference with me next week. On Monday morning we are going to do this, and we are going to talk about that and expose the dirty little secret. This is not about drug safety. This is not about abortion. This is about the American taxpayers being gouged by greedy drug companies which I think was the headline in Illinois.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If my colleague will yield, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very, very critical point. We are fighting in a world economy for every job. Every American worker faces not only competition, but in Michigan we face competition from Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, and Ohio, each and every day. And each and every day they fight competition from Canada, from Europe, and the Far East. Now, not that long ago we had a plant close in my hometown and move to Canada. One of the reasons they moved was due to the ridiculous sugar subsidy we have here that inflated the price of sugar in the U.S. The other reason was that the cost of labor, which includes the cost of health care and other benefits, was higher in the United States. And so not only is it that health care costs more here, it is because the workers here were covering their own health care and paying a portion of the health care costs for the very people that ended up putting them out of a job. We are subsidizing other companies to compete against U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. We cannot lose that point through this debate. It is absolutely critical that the American people need to recognize that when we are paying triple or four times the prescription drug prices in the U.S. versus what they are paying in other countries, it is the U.S. worker who is subsidizing foreign workers who are trying to take their job each and every day. That is why this is absolutely so critical. The gentleman and I have been here for a period of time, and we are always talking about free trade. Let us have free trade. Because we say, hey, competition works. But when it comes to this area where it is so clear that competition would work, because we have this discrepancy between Detroit and Windsor, where all we have is a river with a bridge over it and a tunnel underneath it, and you have to go a couple of miles and you can save 70, 60, 50 percent, yet we will not let them do it, that tells use that there is something wrong.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. And if the gentleman will yield briefly, I just have to say that I do believe this will be the first time that I have ever been joined on a Special Order by my colleague from Vermont. So welcome.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. So much of the debate has been about ensuring that seniors have access to health care, and that is important, that they have access to affordable health care. But what has been lost in the debate, and my colleague from Illinois brought this up briefly before he left, was that small businesses and others are struggling with the cost of health care. When a small business is expected to pay these kinds of prices that are double or triple what would be paid in Canada, what happens is, and it is not too difficult to figure out, the health care cost for a small business in Canada that is paying $33 for a prescription and a company in Michigan that is paying $100 for that exact same prescription, and prescriptions are becoming a much greater percentage of the total cost of health care, well, naturally, the insurance costs are going to be higher for that company in the U.S. than what they are in Canada. In the manufacturing sector today, companies are competing on the basis of pennies. If I can make this widget for a few cents less in Canada or in Europe versus the U.S., guess what, I am moving. That is how competitive the market is. Markets work. Sources of supply shift. And so, in effect, not only are we subsidizing the health care costs in Canada and in Europe for the seniors, our businesses and our workers carry this additional burden of increased health care costs. Our companies and our workers in America are subsidizing the very workers that they have to compete with in Canada and in Europe based on health care. Our workers not only have to be productive enough to cover the cost of their own health care, but they also are picking up a part of the health care cost of the very people that are trying to put them out of work each and every day in Canada, in Europe, and, as my colleague likes to refer to them, the starving Swiss. Those are the folks our people are competing against each and every day, and they are now being asked to pick up part of the burden for their health care costs. It is absolutely outrageous. Manufacturing is under assault in the U.S. Talk to a small businessperson today and the first thing they will bring up is the competitive nature of the market that they are in. There is no safe market any more. It is not like we found our niche; we are going to have a good year. Competition is tough each and every day, and they have to go out and fight to get a customer and to keep a customer. The second thing they will say is that the fastest rising cost in our business is health care. And a big component of it is that they are paying more so that Canadian companies and Canadian workers can get their health care cheaper. There is no reason why mom and dad, who go to work during the day and want to raise their family, that while they are working they are subsidizing the health care costs of competitors across and outside of our borders. This is one of the things that we need to deal with as we try to resurrect and strengthen manufacturing in the U.S. This is one small step, but it has to take place. We have to equalize those health care costs.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think what my colleagues have both alluded to is the dishonesty or questioning the motives of the pharmaceutical companies. My mom and my in-laws are mid-80s, and they take prescription drugs. They are paying four times what somebody in Canada or Europe will pay. How in the world can a drug company justify those numbers and say just the very simple fact of a border means if you need a life-saving prescription in Canada, it is going to cost you $17 and in the United States it will cost you $80? It is absolutely outrageous that that is what these folks are doing each and every day. For whatever reason, they are pricing people and seniors out of the market here in America. They go to bed at night feeling perfectly comfortable doing that and then throwing this garbage out there to justify it. We may differ on life, but you are absolutely right, the folks that developed RU-486 are the ones that are paying for the ads that say, how terrible, they are going to promote abortion. It is like, excuse me, you are the ones that came up with this drug. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for leading the fight and being a staunch supporter on this and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) coming to join us tonight. I cannot wait until we have a vote on this. I think we are going to win in overwhelming fashion, and we are going to demonstrate that different parts of this Congress can come together and stand up for the consumers.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, what my local pharmacist said today was we would have not that great of a drug crisis in the United States if we had Canadian pricing or German pricing or other EU pricing. The three reasons that Mr. Trewhitt gave my local newspapers as to why this reimportation is a failed strategy, there is no guarantee any savings would be passed on to consumers. The Lipitor, save 43 percent. My belief is that if you have reimportation, my pharmacist in Holland, Michigan, or my pharmacist in Ludington, Michigan, if he can access these drugs through a purchasing agreement with a reputable pharmaceutical house in Canada, do I think he is going to buy or stay in business if he is paying $288 for it and the pharmacy down the street can get it for $165? I am sorry, he is going to be buying it, and the consumers will see the savings. The consumers in Canada obviously are seeing the savings. The savings have moved down. It is uncertain whether the safety of reimported drugs can be assured. Give me a break. You told me how many pounds or tons of bananas we import and these types of things. The technology exists where we can put the controls in place that we can maintain the integrity. But the bottom line is reimportation will not happen. What will happen is that we will see an equalization of the prices between the Canadian and the U.S. markets and the European markets and the U.S. and the U.S. seniors and the U.S. government. But, also, U.S. manufacturers will no longer be subsidizing the health care costs of the rest of the world. The third argument that Mr. Trewhitt raises, the third major reason he argues against reimportation is that, in essence, he said the U.S. also would be importing someone else's failed price controls. It does not look like failed price controls to me. It looks to me like price controls or whatever mechanism Canada is using appear to be working pretty well, because the folks who are manufacturing these products are perfectly willing to sell these products in Canada at these prices, and they are not willing to sell these same drugs to American consumers at the same price. It appears to be working for Canada. If this were a failed price control, these drugs would not be available in Canada. If these companies could not make money at these prices, what they would say is we are not going to distribute these products in Canada because we cannot make a profit at it so we are not going to distribute them there until we get a fair and reasonable price for these products. They are not going to available in Canada, and Canadians would be having to come to the United States to buy these quality drugs, but it is exactly the opposite.