Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jon Taets, my legislative director, and his wife, Crystal, on the birth of their second child. On Sunday, January 10, 2010 Jon and Crystal welcomed John Patrick ``Jack'' Taets to their family. Little Jack was named in honor of Jon's late grandfather, Jack Gillespie.

At birth, Jack Taets weighed 7 pounds 9 ounces and measured 20 inches long, and will be welcomed home by his older sister, Elizabeth.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate The AlternativePress.com as it celebrates its one-year anniversary.

The AlternativePress.com was launched in October 2008 and currently serves as New Jersey's all-online alternative to local print newspapers.

In my congressional district, The AlternativePress.com serves residents in Berkeley Heights, New Providence, Summit and Westfield and features a wide array of news and information, from video streaming of local high school sports events to real estate listings and restaurant reviews, to objective local, regional and state news.

The AlternativePress.com is led by lifelong New Jersey resident and Rutgers University graduate Michael M. Shapiro, who serves as the outlet's chief executive officer and editor.

I would like to congratulate Michael Shapiro and the entire AlternativePress.com team as it celebrates its one-year anniversary. I commend the whole team for its tremendous service to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Florida, and I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her leadership on this issue as well.

I recently met with New Jersey cancer survivors, cancer care advocates for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure in New Jersey, and medical professionals at the Steeplechase Cancer Center at Somerset Medical Center in Somerset County, New Jersey. Constituents voiced their objections with the task force recommendations, including Kathleen Petrozelli of Whitehouse Station, Hunterdon County, who shared her personal story of being diagnosed in her 40s with breast cancer.

I strongly oppose the task force recommendations against yearly screening in women 40 to 49. My mother died of breast cancer when my twin brother and I were 12. Her cancer was diagnosed when she was 47.

Most disappointing about the task force conclusions is the fact that they come on the heels of the fall 2009 report published by the American Cancer Society indicating a large decline in breast cancer deaths in women under 50.

Breast cancer continues to be the most common form of cancer in women. We should be promoting a Federal health policy of encouraging, not discouraging, mammography screening and self-examination for women 40 to 49 years of age.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman Lummis, for your leadership. And certainly, it is a pleasure to be associated with this Special Order. And I commend you for your knowledge about what is occurring here in Washington. It's also a pleasure, always, to see our distinguished freshman colleague, Congresswoman Dahlkemper in the chair.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw this body's attention yet again to our ever increasing national debt. In the next day or so, we're going to be asked to vote to raise our Nation's statutory debt limit.

Back in April, the Democratic majority voted to raise the debt ceiling here in the House by $800 billion, and that would increase it to $13.29 trillion. That bill is still pending in the Senate. Now we are being told that due to the pace of spending of the administration and the congressional majority, an $800 billion increase in the debt ceiling will not be enough to get us through this fiscal year. We've been told that we will ultimately need to raise the debt limit by nearly $2 trillion, and that will be a total debt ceiling of roughly $14 trillion.

Some blame the previous administration and the previous majority for our current fiscal situation. The fact is that the $2 trillion increase needed for next year is roughly equal to the total budget deficits from 2001 to 2008. It is also true that prior to the onset of the economic crisis, the budget deficit had been decreasing for the previous 3 fiscal years, reaching a low of $160 billion in 2007.

2008 then saw a dramatic increase in the deficit as we started dealing with the fiscal crisis, and we hit a $454.8 billion deficit in 2008. Unfortunately, the deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30, nearly quadrupled to $1.47 trillion due to the TARP program, as Congresswoman Lummis has explained, and spending in the stimulus bill and other aspects of spending this year. Now we are being told that for 2010, we must go another $2 trillion in debt.

I implore our colleagues to stand with us in insisting that we get this spending under control and do so now. The pace of irresponsible spending is not only unsustainable; it is dangerous to the long-term viability of our economy and, indeed, it is a matter of national security. This Congress must impose some kind of restriction on spending, and I will not be supporting any increase in our statutory debt limit unless it is directly attached to implementation of a bipartisan commission tasked with advising Congress on how to get its spending under control as quickly as possible.

I remain disappointed to hear that a $2 trillion increase may be attached to a bill to fund the military, including funding for our brave men and women currently serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. We all wholeheartedly support our military and believe it should be provided the funding it needs. The attempt, however, to use the military as a political tool to pass a potentially massive increase in our debt limit is terrible public policy. There should be an up-or- down vote on raising our debt ceiling.

As a matter of history, Madam Speaker, in this decade, in 2001 there was a budget surplus of $128 billion; in 2002 the deficit for that year was $157 billion; the next year $377; the next year $412; the year after that $318; the year after that $248; the year after that $160; and the year after that $454 for a total for the 8 prior years, from 2001 to 2008, of $2 trillion. That is 8 years. I am not excusing that. That is a great deal of money.

This year, however, in the fiscal year that ended on September 30, we had a 1-year deficit of $1.47 trillion. That's $2 trillion over the 8 years between 2001 and 2008, and in the fiscal year that ended this September 30, roughly $1.5 trillion. And that will be replicated again this year in the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves.

Certainly.

Thank you, Congresswoman Lummis.

Madam Speaker, Congresswoman Lummis has pointed out what we are going to face over the course of this decade. And we have to pay our interest payments first before we feed any hungry children, before we engage in housing for those who need housing and jobs for those who need jobs. Before we even fund the military we have

to fund our debt. It crowds out other needed spending. It also makes it much more difficult for there to be borrowing in the private sector, raising interest rates in the private sector to get this economy moving again.

It is also ultimately a matter of national security, because who is purchasing our debt? It is being purchased by foreign nations, by China, by Saudi Arabia and by other nations across the globe. And ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune. And this is a matter of national security. And undoubtedly the American people will recognize now what Congress has not yet recognized, and that is we have to get our Federal spending under control.

No one in Congress thinks that we can balance the budget this year. However, we need a glide path toward a balanced budget. And instead, we have a rocket in the other direction with ever-rising levels of annual deficits.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that by the end of this next decade, our total debt may approach $20 trillion. That is simply unacceptable. It places an undue burden on the next generation. For the first time in the history of this country, there is an open question whether the next generation will have a higher quality of life than this generation. The promise of America has always been that each generation works as hard as possible to make sure that our children will have a higher quality of life. Whether or not we will have a second American Century here in the 21st century the way the 20th century was an American Century is now in question based upon this fundamental issue that confronts all of us in Congress, and that is the issue of out-of-control Federal spending and a massive debt that is increasing enormously.

Let me state, Madam Speaker, that in the 1990s, with a Democratic President, President Clinton, and a Republican Congress, we did a better job. In 1997, the annual deficit that year was $21 billion. The next year, there was a surplus of $69 billion, the next year a surplus of $125 billion, the next year a surplus of $236 billion, that's in year 2000, the last year of the Clinton Presidency, and in the first year of the Presidency of George W. Bush, a surplus of $128 billion.

I want to give credit to President Clinton. I also want to give credit to the Republican Congress then in power. And I think that it is a responsibility of the Presidency and the Congress working together. In the 8 years of the Bush Presidency, 6 years with Republican control of the House and Senate, there was a combined debt in those 8 years, let me repeat, of $2 trillion, and in this last year, the fiscal year that ended on September 30, we had in that 1 year a deficit of over $1.5 trillion. And this year, we're going to have that amount yet again. I implore the White House to get serious on this issue of annual Federal deficits and the overall Federal debt.

We, the Republican freshmen, want to do our part. We came here to reform the system. We want to reform the system in a bipartisan way. And Congresswoman Lummis is taking the lead for the freshman class on this, in my judgment, the most important issue confronting the American Nation, as important as reforming the health care system, as important as the burden that we share with others around the world, including the brave young men and women who fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because this, the debt issue, is a matter of national security as well as a matter of economic prosperity.

I yield back to the congresswoman.

Thank you, Congresswoman.

Madam Speaker, the fact that for a generation, spending has been at roughly 20 percent of gross domestic product for 40 years is noteworthy. And the chart that Congresswoman Lummis has is extremely informative and revealing. However, we are entering a new era where as a percentage of gross domestic product, governmental spending is rising dramatically to 25 percent. This is a significant and very disturbing difference. And the fact that over the next decade our projected deficits are so much larger than they have been historically as a percentage of gross domestic product is also disturbing. And in a bipartisan fashion, we have to have a glide path toward fiscal responsibility.

I think that it is impossible to balance the budget until we get out of this deep recession. But once we are out of this deep recession, and in my judgment we are still in the recession, because unemployment rates in this country are at 10 percent, the highest they have been since 1983, a generation ago--once we get out of this deep recession, we have to have a plan to make sure that we move toward the historic average of no more than 20 percent of spending in the governmental sector at

the Federal level as percentage of gross domestic product.

My own view is that we need a bipartisan commission to advise us, like the BRAC commission regarding the closing of military bases, and then there can be an up-or-down vote on what is recommended by that commission here in Congress. Some oppose that, but do not provide an alternative as to how we are going to do a better job. And to do nothing is to condemn the next generation to a lower standard of living. It is to condemn the next generation of businesses across this country with much higher interest rates because the government crowds out private-sector borrowing.

The government is the borrower of first resort.

And of course ultimately it could mean a lowering of the credit rating of the United States of America. Obviously, we now have the highest credit rating, but there are some who predict that over time that will not occur. And also, there are some who predict that there should be a new currency worldwide, that the dollar should no longer be the currency that is favored across the world. Obviously, all of us in Congress, including freshmen Republicans who are discussing this issue tonight, favor a continuation of the American currency.

The dollar is the currency that is honored across the world, but the Chinese, for example, have floated the idea that there should be a new international currency, not the dollar, regarding international trade. This is as a result of the fact of these ever-rising deficits year in and year out and the result of the fact of an overwhelming Federal debt, now at $12 trillion. In the next week before Christmas we're going to be asked to raise it to $14 trillion.

We are not going to be asked to raise it on a stand-alone vote on that issue. It is going to be part of a bill related, I believe, to the military. I call again for a stand-alone vote on this issue, and that stand-alone vote, Madam Speaker, should include the establishment of some sort of mechanism to get a handle on this situation, this, the most critical issue confronting us not only economically but also as a matter of national security.

I yield back to the Congresswoman from Wyoming.

Thank you very much for yielding, Congresswoman Lummis.

In 1982 and 1983, President Reagan established a bipartisan commission to deal with the issue of Social Security. Based upon that bipartisan commission, action occurred here in the Congress with the support of the administration that had the result of making Social Security solvent for almost a generation. We now have another challenge regarding Social Security, and particularly Medicare and Medicaid. I think we should replicate what occurred in 1982 and 1983 with a Republican President, President Reagan, and a Democratically controlled House of Representatives--and the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representative from 1954 until 1994, for 40 years. We should come together in a bipartisan fashion to establish another commission to deal with the enormous Federal debt. This commission could also have the responsibility perhaps to discuss and evaluate the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security issues. Perhaps there should be a second commission for that.

But it is clear, based upon the chart that Congresswoman Lummis has in

front of the Chamber, that Medicare and Medicaid are rising rapidly. The largest cohort is the baby boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964. Those of us who are on the floor this evening are in that generation. Obviously, Congresswoman Lummis is at the end of that cohort, whereas Congressman Coffman and I are in the middle of that cohort. Let me say that it is the responsibility of us working together to address this issue.

Let me also say that we count funds that go into the Social Security Trust Fund as part of Federal revenues. If we had segregated them separately, our annual deficits would be even higher than they are. And when I state that the deficit for the year that ended September 30 of roughly $1.5 trillion--precisely $1.47 trillion--that includes the monies that are paid into the Social Security Fund. So if we were to place them in a separate pot of money, the annual deficit would be even higher than it already is.

I certainly will.

Thank you.

It has been lent to the fact that we are funding these programs that we cannot pay, and really the deficit is much higher than that. And Medicare will be in the red in the next several years, and Social Security not too far beyond that.

Certainly.

I thank you for yielding, Congresswoman.

Absolutely, 100 percent accurate. It is not going for the purposes for which it was intended based upon the Social Security program established in 1935. I do believe that those who established the Social Security program--Franklin Roosevelt, distinguished Members of Congress, including Sam Rayburn, Francis Perkins, the Secretary of Labor--that that generation would be appalled by how we use Social Security funds in this year of 2009.

And I yield back to the Congresswoman.

This has the potential of bringing about generational conflict, because we rely on the working generation to fund programs through the taxes that they pay, not only the income tax, but also payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare. If the next generation, beginning in the workforce, is going to shoulder this tremendous burden regarding our debt, and, in addition, shoulder a tremendous burden regarding Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, there is the potential of generational conflict.

It is incumbent upon those of us who serve here to make sure that that generational conflict does not occur. It is the height of irresponsibility and, might I suggest, it is, indeed, immoral to place on the backs of the next generation this ever-increasing Federal debt. This is new in its percentage.

As you have rightly pointed out over the course of the last generation, spending has been at roughly 20 percent of GDP. It is going to expand greatly, and the chart indicates, to 25 percent, and some have indicated--some economists have made it, increased it to 30 percent of GDP. That is a dramatic and unprecedented expansion.

The yearly deficit for the fiscal year that just ended on September 30 was the most amount of money, as a yearly deficit, as a percentage of GDP, since 1945 at the very end of World War II, when we were fighting for our existence and, obviously, during World War II, the most extensive war in the history of the human condition. We were in a situation where we had to have deficit spending.

But the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2009, had the highest annual deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1945. Let me repeat: That I believe that in this new fiscal year that runs from October 1, 2009, until September 30, 2010, we are likely to have an annual deficit that approaches the $1.5 trillion annual deficit of last year.

This is simply unacceptable. Before we raise the debt ceiling, as the majority intends to do in the next week, we should have a fundamental discussion about where we are headed. We certainly should have an up- or-down vote in this regard.

I have written the Speaker of the House for an up-or-down vote. I am joined by freshman Republican colleagues in this request and, instead, we are likely to have a vote that is part of a larger appropriations act for the Defense Department.

I campaigned last year against the policies, when it was a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress that had these deficits. I point out that over the 8 years there was a $2 trillion deficit. That was too large. It's even larger now, and we have to work in a bipartisan fashion to get this under control.

Let me also say that I commend both the Congresswoman from Wyoming and the Congressman from Colorado, both having been State treasurers, because you had constitutions in your State that required a balanced budget.

Unfortunately, in New Jersey, we have had a system where we have borrowed without voter approval for about 15 years. That was put to an end last November when we changed our State Constitution. My constitutional amendment, the Lance amendment, that prohibits further borrowing in New Jersey without voter approval. New Jersey is in the equivalent situation of California, and we have not discussed here the fact that there are quite a few States, including California and New Jersey, that have tremendous annual deficits.

Of course, this comes out of the other pocket of taxpayers' in these States, and taxpayers are burdened not only here at the Federal level but at the State level as well.

I certainly agree that we have to work in a bipartisan capacity. I also agree with my colleague from Colorado that simply because, in the first decade of this century, the 8 years from 2001 to 2008, there was a deficit of $2 trillion, that does not mean that we should continue on this route and, indeed, accelerate on this route of irresponsible spending. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I agree with my colleague from Colorado. My late mother, when my twin brother and I were children in the little town of Glen Gardner, Hunterdon County, New Jersey we would say other children are doing this. My late mother would say, I don't care what other kids in Glen Gardner do. You are not going to do that.

We have to acknowledge that, what occurred in the past, recognize that there has been overspending. There is overspending now. It has accelerated, a yearly deficit of $1.5 trillion, to be replicated, in my judgment, this year. This will mean leadership will pass to China or to some other Nation in the world. And all of the democratic values we share together, freedom of speech, in which I am now engaged, freedom of association together here on the floor of the House of Representatives, freedom of religion and all of the other values we share together, is ultimately based on American leadership.

We do not want that leadership to pass to some other place on Earth, to China, to India or to some other country as a result of these massive Federal deficits year in and year out and an overall Federal deficit now of $12 trillion and rising, based upon nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis, to $20 trillion in the course of the next 10 years or so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Summit Hilltoppers who captured the New Jersey Group 2 North 2 State sectional football title on December 3 at Giants Stadium.

Coached by John Liberato, the Hilltoppers won a 28-19 victory over the Orange Tornadoes. On offense, the Hilltoppers were led by quarterback Joe Jaskolski and running back Matt Rea. For the game, Jaskolski ran 17 times for 119 yards while completing six pass attempts for 134 yards. Rea finished with 167 yards on the ground and two touchdowns on 16 carries.

The Summit defense was anchored by Pat Birosak, Michael Steinberg, Mike Watts, Ryan O'Malley, Kevin McNany and Danny Feeney, holding Orange to just 19 points.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Coach Liberato and the entire Summit Hilltoppers football team for their victory over Orange to win the State sectional title.

Madam Chair, the current regulatory structure is not lacking authority. The Federal Reserve and the other banking agencies had all of the powers needed to address problems in consumer protection. What was lacking was coordination, improved disclosure, and an ability to fill the gaps in the system.

This amendment solves those deficiencies without installing a new bureaucracy that would make rules with little or no input from the cops on the beat--the banking agencies. That is why I am strongly supportive of Mr. Minnick's amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Sessions.

I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and in opposition to the underlying legislation.

This bill will have severe negative consequences on our financial sector and economy as a whole. Specifically, I am strongly opposed to title I, which would create a permanent bailout fund at the FDIC, paid for in part by companies that will never see any real benefit. Furthermore, while every Member of this body supports increased consumer protection, title IV of the bill related to that important issue could do more harm than good by restricting choice and further tightening consumer credit markets.

The language of this title is far too broad and ill-defined. Its uncertainty will only hurt consumers while financial companies retreat from the market to avoid running afoul of a new Federal bureaucracy.

I am also concerned with the title's insistence on completely separating consumer protection regulation from prudential safety and soundness regulation. In my judgment, to accomplish either, regulators should be looking at both. This bill does not accomplish that.

Finally, I want to express my disappointment that this body will not be allowed to debate and vote on an issue of importance to all taxpayers, renewing the Troubled Asset Relief Program set to expire on December 31. I offered an amendment last evening in the Rules Committee to ensure that TARP ends as scheduled and any funds repaid or not yet spent are used for the statutorily mandated purpose of debt reduction and not for further spending. The amendment failed on a purely partisan basis.

The President's plan announced earlier this week to use TARP to fund more governmental spending violates the intent of the law, does very little to create jobs, and further adds to America's ever-growing debt burden. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe we need to end TARP. This body should have been allowed to have a substantive debate on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this health care proposal would be harmful to New Jersey's taxpayers, senior citizens and businesses, and contains no malpractice insurance reform.

Mr. Speaker, this evening members of the U.S. House of Representatives are being asked to vote on legislation that dramatically revamps our Nation's health care system.

This 2,000-plus page, $1.3 trillion Democratic health care proposal is a measure that raises individual and business taxes and reduces funding for Medicare.

H.R. 3962 increases spending by more than $1 trillion at a time when our levels of debt and deficits are at all-time highs.

The bill imposes a 5.4 percent ``surtax'' on thousands of individuals and families in my congressional district during an economic recession and when New Jerseyeans are paying some of the highest federal, state and local property taxes in the country.

The health care bill levies at 2.5 percent tax on the Garden State's medical device industry that employs more than 300,000 in New Jersey alone at a time when New Jersey's unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent.

The measure ignores common-sense malpractice reforms while cutting Medicare by nearly $500 billion leading the Medical Society of New Jersey and its doctors and medical professionals to come out in opposition to H.R. 3962.

In short, this bill, If signed into law, will be harmful to New Jersey's taxpayers, seniors and businesses. As such, I rise in strong opposition to this measure.

But make no mistake--I support health care reform.

Like the majority of my colleagues I strongly support health care reform. But not the reform we will be voting on this evening.

I stand in support of common sense steps to broaden health care access and responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care.

I believe reform ought to include portability--allowing people to keep their health insurance whether they change jobs or move to a different state. And no one should be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.

Yet the call for common sense health care reform should be one that our Nation can afford.

The Republican substitute offered by House Republican Leader John Boehner is a fiscally responsible alternative health care reform measure that reduces costs and expands insurance coverage without raising taxes, rationing care or putting the government between patient and doctor.

The Republican reform bill includes medical liability reform that will seek to end junk lawsuits that force doctors to practice defensive medicine driving up health care costs.

The GOP alternative will allow families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines while also allowing individuals, small businesses and trade associations to pool together and purchase health insurance at lower prices.

It levies no taxes on New Jersey's medical device industry and includes important safety provisions concerning innovative biologic drugs by requiring research and clinical trials before the Food and Drug Administration can approve generic biologics.

To maximize safety, I believe that research and those clinical trials should be conducted within the United States. By creating this process for approval of innovative biologic drugs we protect the health and safety of patients, lower health care costs and provide adequate incentives for innovation to ensure that New Jersey continues to be the ``Medicine Chest of the World.''

These are ideas that have strong, bipartisan support but most are absent from the Democrats' new reform legislation.

Instead of focusing on fiscally responsible reforms that have bipartisan support, the Democratic Leadership has chosen a path that ignores good ideas from the Republican side of the aisle.

The Republican substitute is the only health care reform measure that improves what is working in our health care system and fixes what is broken in a fiscally responsible manner without raising taxes or increasing our ever-growing debt and deficit.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the House for one minute.

On Wednesday, November 11, Veterans' Day, there will be a special celebration entitled a Salute to Old Glory in Woodbridge Township, New Jersey. The goal of the program is to refurbish all American flags and flag poles throughout the Woodbridge Township School District. This is a huge undertaking; Woodbridge Township is the largest municipality in New Jersey's Seventh Congressional District.

A Salute to Old Gory began is a vision of Woodbridge Board of Education Member George Yuhasz, a lifelong resident of Woodbridge Township. With the help of community activist Charlie Shaughnessey of Colonia, New Jersey the program to replace and preserve American flags throughout the Township has become a huge success.

Veterans as well as civic organizations have joined in this effort in making Salute to Old Glory a positive initiative throughout the community.

The American Flag stands for many things in our beloved Nation. It also serves as a great inspiration for those who want to become part of our great democracy.

Educational involvement incorporated into the program included student essays and artistic presentations that allowed for involvement of students throughout the school district.

The program has been successful because it has been a total community effort. In fact, Salute to Old Glory will become an ongoing effort not only for the Woodbridge Board of Education but for all public buildings in Woodbridge Township that may need a replenishment of an American flag or flagpole.

All of those involved in with the Salute to Old Glory program in Woodbridge Township should be commended for their efforts.

I am pleased to share their hard work with my colleagues here in Congress and with the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend three outstanding citizens in my Seventh Congressional District--Carl, Ted and Martin Resnick of Hunterdon County, New Jersey.

On Wednesday, November 11 these three outstanding individuals will receive the 2009 Distinguished Citizen Award from the Central New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

All three of these men are receiving this prestigious award for their commitment to the Boy Scouts in Hunterdon County and their strong commitment to the entire Hunterdon County community. Whether it be their involvement in local sports teams, clubs, service organizations, wildlife refuge efforts, the arts, or area first responders, the Resnick family has made significant contributions to our community.

As a lifelong resident of Hunterdon County, I have known Carl, Ted and Martin Resnick and their family for most of my life. In addition to owning the Flemington Department Store--which is a family-owned business--the Resnick family has been active members of the Hunterdon County community for more than 50 years.

In addition to his role at the Flemington Department Store, Carl Resnick is a strong advocate for blood donor programs and has donated more than eight gallons of blood to help others. Ted Resnick may be best known for his 40-year involvement in the Hunterdon County wrestling program where he still volunteers as a coach, mentor, referee and supporter. Martin Resnick has been very active in community affairs such as organizing a collection center for relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina victims.

Because of their hard work and devotion to the entire Hunterdon County community, I am pleased to join the Central New Jersey Council Boy Scouts of America in commending Carl, Martin and Ted Resnick. I am also pleased to share their good efforts and contributions with my colleagues in the United States Congress and with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, later this week we will be voting on legislation that dramatically revamps our Nation's health care system. The 1,990-page, $1.055 trillion Democratic health care proposal is a measure that raises individual and business taxes and reduces funding for Medicare.

The bill, if signed into law, will be harmful to New Jersey's taxpayers, senior citizens, and businesses. And as such, I will be voting against Speaker Pelosi's health care bill.

Instead, I will be supporting a fiscally responsible alternative that includes medical liability reform, small business insurance pooling, and letting families and businesses buy insurance across State lines, ideas that have strong bipartisan support but are absent from the Democratic plan.

The Republican alternative is the only health care reform measure that improves what is working in our health care system and fixes what is broken in a fiscally responsible manner without raising taxes or increasing our ever-growing debt and deficit.

I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.

I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the committee and the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the United States, the medical technology sector employs more than 350,000 workers, many of them in firms with fewer than 100 employees. This includes more than 3,000 jobs in the congressional district I have the honor of representing, the Seventh Congressional District in New Jersey, which many believe to be the medicine chest of the entire Nation and of, indeed, the world.

These jobs are tied heavily to research and development, helping to keep the United States at the forefront of medical innovation. We must consider the importance of these lifesaving technologies, especially as we move forward with health care. It is vital that we do not forget the valuable impact medical technology has on lowering the costs of health care, on expanding access to lifesaving cures, and on creating jobs. That is why I believe we should be making investments in this field.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, for decades the U.S. dollar has been used to price virtually all of the world's commodities, with nearly every country having U.S.-backed securities in reserve; yet this could all change.

There is growing evidence suggesting that foreign investors are losing faith in the dollar as a secure instrument. Several important countries like China, India, Russia, France, and the Arab States voiced their concern over the role of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency in world trade. Many have suggested a new world currency take its place.

A primary concern for those investing in the United States is the growing U.S. debt and staggering deficits. Yet, despite this, the majority party continues to push ahead with an agenda that taxes, spends, and borrows, including a health care proposal that could cost as much as $800 billion to $1 trillion over the next decade.

How many alarm bells must be set off before Washington gets serious about tackling our ever-growing debt and budget deficits?

Madam Speaker, the Federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts announced late yesterday.

According to the Congressional Budget Office this year's budget deficit is a level not witnessed since World War Two.

The deficit amounted to almost 10 percent of the nation's economy, triple the size of the shortfall for 2008.

While tax revenue fell by $420 billion, or 17 percent, to the lowest level in more than 50 years, Federal spending rose by 18 percent.

Despite this sobering economic report, the White House and its allies in Congress continue to press ahead with health care overhaul legislation that could cost at least $900 billion over the next decade.

How many alarm bells must be set off before Washington gets serious about tackling our ever-growing budget deficits?