Erik Paulsen

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Barbara Stoflet, a teacher at Gatewood Elementary School in Minnetonka. At a recent White House ceremony, Barbara was awarded the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, the Nation's highest honor for teaching in those fields. Barbara is one of only two Minnesota educators to receive such an honor. She used her cutting-edge teaching methods and passion in the classroom to develop each student's potential for more than 20 years, even earning a Minnesota Teacher of the Year Award along the way. Barbara's participation in the improvement of educational programs in the school as well as in the entire district ranges from instrumental classroom development to writing mathematical standards for Minnesota. For her development of innovative teaching strategies, her work to promote the key areas of math and science, and for her selfless commitment to an important profession, I am honored to recognize Barbara Stoflet before this body.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, last week the Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its final economic report for 2009. Unfortunately, the report showed the year ending on a very disappointing note: 85,000 more jobs lost and 10 percent unemployment for the month of December. It is very clear that the excessive borrowing and spending in Washington is not paying off where it is needed most: job creation. In fact, just this week, an investigation by the Associated Press found that large portions of the $787 billion stimulus plan had ``no effect on local employment.'' Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country have already made their 2010 New Year's resolutions. Congress now needs to make its own, and that is that job creation will be our number one priority. An economic recovery without jobs is not a recovery. I urge Congress, as we get back to work this month, to finally work together to enact real bipartisan solutions that will give the American people what they want: more jobs, without breaking the bank.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. A few months ago, a second nuclear enrichment site was discovered in Iran. The Iranian regime had withheld the disclosure of this facility from the International Atomic Energy Agency for quite some time--yet another violation of Iran's obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Furthermore, this second facility will allow Iran to produce more enriched uranium and at an even faster rate. There is no doubt that a nuclear Iran poses a dangerous threat to the United States and its allies throughout the Middle East and across the entire globe. We cannot allow the Iranian regime to continue threatening its neighbors and thumbing its nose at the world. And we certainly cannot let a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map even come close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Madam Speaker, the Iran problem is getting worse, not better. It is time we take action. Currently, Iran relies on foreign suppliers for 40 percent of its refined petroleum. The legislation before us would sanction foreign companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran, or help Iran with its own domestic refining capacity, by depriving those companies of access to the U.S. market. This will help put needed pressure on Iran to suspend its program and allow for verification of that action. Time and time again, Iran has been given the opportunity to prove they are not pursuing nuclear weapons and each time they have failed to do so. It is time for the U.S. to take action and send a message that the world will not sit idly by as tyrants in Iran buy time to enrich uranium and ultimately amass a nuclear weapon. Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the brave Iranian people who are peacefully going to the streets to protest the actions of the current regime. It is not only for our own security but also for these people--the students and dissidents who desire a better future for their nation--that this legislation should be passed. The status quo when it comes to Iran is no longer a viable option. This bill offers a peaceful, significant course of action that will set the world on a safer course when it comes to Iran. I urge adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, the bill before us establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Council that includes the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Federal banking and securities regulators. The bill also includes non-voting members, a State insurance commissioner, a State Securities commissioner, the head of the new Federal Insurance Office and a State banking supervisor, who would serve on the Council in an advisory capacity. My amendment ensures that the non-voting regulators are not excluded from any proceedings, meetings, discussions, and deliberations. I believe that is important to ensure that the Federal insurance office and other state regulators will have a seat at the table for any deliberations that impact the consumers they protect and institutions they regulate. If these institutions are going to be responsible for paying into the bailout fund, it is only fair that their concerns are represented. I urge adoption of my amendment.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because there were numerous amendments which would have improved this bill, but they were not made in order in the Rules Committee. Now, many of these amendments were actually ``good government'' amendments. They were amendments that would have assured the reforms we were making were smart and would not be harmful to the economy. One amendment I offered with Representative Tiahrt would have guaranteed the end of the TARP bailout program at the end of this year, and it would have applied the remaining $200 billion-plus worth of taxpayer money towards reducing the Federal budget deficit. We all know that the TARP program has had a myriad of problems since day one. We have heard testimony in committee that has said the funds have not been properly monitored. This is the program that was used to fund executive bonuses by taxpayers. We have been told by the special inspector general that the program is ``almost certainly'' going to result in a loss to the taxpayers. Last month, it was just reported that now taxpayers could lose over $5 billion in investments in foreign banks. Rather than ending this flawed program once and for all, the administration announced just yesterday that they will extend the bailout for TARP for another 10 months. This was after the Treasury Secretary just said last month that he wanted to work to put TARP out of its misery. So the Treasury Secretary has kind of flip-flopped now, and taxpayers are going to be forced to stand idly by while this administration will have the ability with Congress to spend over $200 billion of taxpayer money as ``walking around'' money. What is even more alarming, I think, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the legislation before us creates a TARP second bailout program and more bailout authority. With all of the problems we've had on this first bailout program, why on Earth is the Federal Government pursuing a sequel? Without these amendments, the underlying legislation will make it harder to create jobs, harder to get credit for companies, and most importantly, it will make it more difficult for consumers to have freedom in their financial decisions. I would urge Members to oppose this closed rule, which has effectively limited debate on many good amendments.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4173 and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, the effects of this bill, as we have already heard, will further harm our economy, draining capital from our economy and reducing overall lending by over as much as $55 billion, as studies have shown. The effects of this bill further harming our economy will hurt small business and consumers alike. They are going to considerably find it much more difficult to access the credit they need in a very challenging economy in addition to dealing with more government bureaucracy. This bill, this legislation, will create a new credit czar with a mandate to limit consumer choice, to ration credit, and to increase the cost of financial transactions. Congress should be focusing on measures that will lead to job creation and encourage American prosperity, not implementing policies that will increase the unemployment numbers. Again, studies have shown that this legislation will literally cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in our economy. We should be putting an end to all Washington bailouts and the Washington bailout mentality. This legislation does not firmly put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts. Rather, it could increase the likelihood of future bailouts. This legislation should also be ending the ``too big to fail'' mentality that has dominated Washington. Instead, this legislation will institutionalize it. By creating institutions that are too big to fail, we are implying that certain financial companies will be sheltered by a Federal safety net. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Chair, unfortunately this bill only continues the culture of bailouts and encourages firms to engage in risky behavior. As far I'm concerned, all it will do is remove the element of surprise that we saw last fall with the first amount of selected bailouts we had, and this is not the right way to go. Just look at what this bill would do to the availability of credit. The bill before us, this 1,300-page bill, has provisions that actually take away capital needed by firms to help expand businesses, increase investments, and ultimately create jobs. Estimates show that the size of the fund could be more than $200 billion as a part of this fund. Now, this money has to come from somewhere, and this will place a significant burden not only on these firms but also on credit that will get dried up. During these tough economic times with record unemployment, 10 percent unemployment, why do we make it more difficult for getting credit for small businesses and job creation? Why should a company who is not deemed to be systemically risky have to pay for those companies that have been engaging in excessively risky behavior? Madam Chair, it's also worth mentioning the danger that's posed when we create institutions that are ``too big to fail.'' That's been a problem with Washington, the ``too big to fail'' doctrine. In doing so, we will also define those businesses, unfortunately, that are too small to save, and we're not helping those too-small-to-save businesses. It's unacceptable, unacceptable to have an economy, a two-tiered economy, economic system where the government is going to be picking winners and losers and it's codified into law. This bill does nothing to shelter companies from being swayed by the political winds like we saw in the previous round of bailouts. We've heard in testimony in committee that this bill will harm consumers from access to credit. It's going to make services even harder to get. In a time when businesses can't access credit, why would we further stunt jobs and hurt economic growth? But as studies have shown, that's exactly what this bill will do. The bottom line is, between the restrictions on capital, the jobs that would be lost, and the continued bailouts, this legislation is unacceptable.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, recently I met with representatives of Dakota Communities--an award-winning 37 year old non-profit organization that helps people with disabilities realize their potential in their lives and communities. In Minnesota's Third Congressional District, there are over fifty direct support professionals who have dedicated their careers to working for several group homes. These hard-working, talented men and women have repeatedly demonstrated their dedication to caring for those with disabilities. For their efforts and the positive impact these efforts will have in the lives of so many, I am extremely grateful.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great example of the academic and business communities working together to create new lifesaving technologies. The Medical Devices Center at the University of Minnesota is a shining example of what can happen when innovation is encouraged and sought out by an educational institution and aided by partnership. Last week I visited the University's Medical Devices Center and learned about this unique program that focuses on development of devices that have the strongest lifesaving impacts, partnering with others to also bring these products to market in the fastest manner possible. And you know what? The results speak for themselves. From just 1 year in the fellowship program, we've had 15 new provisional patents, 12 new available technologies, one licensing deal with a local business, and one new startup among the program's fellows. The center's collaborative approach between academics and business makes this a valuable program as well as a model for both Minnesota and the entire Nation to follow.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I believe the status quo of our nation's health care is unacceptable. We need real reform in this country that will lower costs and keep health care decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors. This bill would establish a new government run bureaucracy and a public-plan that will drastically expand the role of government into personal health care, at a massive cost of more than $1 trillion. And it's important to note, that like nearly every other entitlement program, the costs from this bill will only skyrocket. The bill raises taxes on small businesses, individuals and medical devices like pacemakers and stents. Indeed, this bill would impose $729.5 billion in higher taxes. $135 billion in taxes will be levied on business. $20 billion in taxes will be levied on medical device manufacturers. Using President Obama's economic measuring stick, as many as 5.5 million jobs could be lost from the taxes in this bill. We all heard over and over again that, ``those of you who like your health care plan can keep it.'' What is not mentioned is that every plan will need to meet government requirements for a government seal of approval. This plan cuts $500 billion in Medicare benefits to seniors, including over $170 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage--a plan that is used by more than 19,000 seniors in my district. These seniors will no longer get the same care and coverage that they need. Mr. Speaker, in the bill before us there is no provision in this bill to allow small businesses to pool together, no protection for those who want keep the coverage they have, and no medical liability reform. The health care plan I support lowers health care premiums for all Americans, guarantees affordable coverage for patients with preexisting conditions, protects seniors, Medicare benefits, includes no tax increases, enacts real medical liability reform, empowers the doctor- patient relationship, and reduces the budget deficit. I also want to point out that I offered five amendments to the healthcare bill, but none were made in order. The first amendment would have removed the onerous medical device tax from the bill and replaced it with unobligated stimulus funding. It makes no sense to me that this bill taxes innovation and our job creators and takes away funding for life saving technology. I had another amendment that would have required a study of the harmful effects the innovation tax would have on the medical technology industry. Americans should know the implications of the negative effects on life saving technologies in this nearly 2,000 page bill. Yet another amendment I offered would have removed the seasonal and temporary workers from the employer mandate. This amendment would have helped to lessen the heavy burden this legislation imposes on small businesses. In addition, I offered an amendment that would have improved and expanded health savings accounts. This would have helped make health care more affordable for the millions of people covered by high deductible health plans. Finally, I offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in this bill would have infringed on the healthcare that was promised to our nation's veterans. Unfortunately, this health care bill makes massive changes and our nation's veterans are owed the assurance that they will have adequate care. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that I oppose this bill because it puts the government in between the decisions of a patient and their doctor. This is simply unacceptable. Patients should have the right to make their own choices regarding the medical care they need without government interference. Whether it is taking care of your children, parents or grandparents, there is no issue that is more personal to a family than health care. No special interest group, Member of Congress or federal bureaucrat should stand between a patient and their doctor. Americans continue to lose jobs and faith in their American government each day. This bill is not only the wrong direction for our economy but also the wrong direction for America.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that increases taxes on small business.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Edina High School girls tennis team who won the Minnesota 2-A State Championship just last week. Their final victory, a 6-1 triumph over a strong Elk River team, continued a string of dominance by the Edina program that has clearly become one of the most successful high school athletic programs in the entire State of Minnesota. The Hornets' victory marked the 13th consecutive State tennis championship, a streak in which Edina has impressively won 248 of their past 249 dual matches. Led by coach Steve Paulsen, the Hornets finished the 2009 season with a record of 24-0 in dual matches. To all of the student athletes, to the coaches and the parents, I offer my congratulations on a great accomplishment and for an impressive run of championships that is truly a tribute to everyone involved. The streak is still alive, and I am proud to represent a school and athletics program with such a longstanding commitment to success.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, today I rise to commemorate and pay tribute to a great American, Stephen H. Mahle, a man who achieved great personal and professional success through courage, dedication and an unwavering commitment to improving the human condition. Steve Mahle received his bachelor of arts degree in physics from Beloit College in 1967 and his master's degree in physics from Pennsylvania State University in 1969. He served in the U.S. Army, where he held the rank of Captain while serving as a research scientist at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. In 1972, Steve Mahle began what would become a highly successful 37- year career with Medtronic, Inc. where he held numerous leadership positions, including serving as president of Cardiac Rhythm Disease Management, CRDM. Steve played a key leadership role in many important milestones in cardiac rhythm disease innovation. He was the product development manager on the first Medtronic pacemaker programmer, and was instrumental in developing the world's first rate responsive single chamber pacemaker, which revolutionized and advanced cardiac pacing technology. He expanded Medtronic's international presence and was an integral part of growing the implantable cardioverter defibrillator business in the late 1990s. He is credited with creating cardiac resynchronization therapies that address heart failure, as well as establishing CareLink, a patient management system, that now serves more than a quarter of a million patients in the United States. Under his leadership the CRDM business grew from $500 million to just under $5 billion. Madam Speaker let us join his friends, family, and colleagues in congratulating Stephen H. Mahle on his many accomplishments, and wish him well as he begins his retirement from a lifetime of leadership and innovation, and starts the next chapter in his life where he will undoubtedly continue his own personal mission to ``make a difference in the lives of people throughout the world.''

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, I thank you for yielding. I just want to go reference back to the comment that the gentleman, my good friend from Pennsylvania, had made on the tax on medical devices. I have the privilege of being the co-Chair of the House Medical Technology Caucus. So just about 2\1/2\ to 3 weeks ago I conducted a field hearing in Minnesota in my district and we heard directly from those that would be impacted by this very onerous tax, because the Senate originally proposed a $40 billion tax on medical devices, and now the House, Speaker Pelosi's bill, the 1,990-page version has a $20 billion tax. I want to tell you what we heard directly from people. One, we heard directly from small companies. I have a medical alley in my district that employs about 20,000 people in this sector, this economy, and these are folks that are producing these new lifesaving technologies that really give families and individuals the peace of mind that they are going to be taken care of in their elder years, or for their children, for instance. Some of these companies, one in particular that just turned profitable, was very direct in saying, You know what? If we get hit with this tax, unfortunately, we are going to have to take that reduction in payroll. That is where the tax is going to hit us is in payroll and in layoffs and out of research and development. So we are actually stifling innovation. It is an innovation tax. Then we heard from a venture capitalist who is involved in new startups to try and get these little companies going again, some that have five employees, some that have nine. They are hoping to come up with the ``next best thing.'' We are putting another nail in the coffin for them, as it was explained. We are making it that much tougher, because it is kind of a lottery right now. It is so difficult for a company like this to get the venture capital and then bring a product to market. Finally, we heard from patients. We heard from patients that would be directly impacted. In particular, there was one individual that has an artificial limb, a prosthetic, that now as a patient we are making health care more expensive for him by having a tax on his products. And the tax that we have now as part of the Pelosi bill is going to put a tax on wheelchairs, on hearing aids, on the bandages that hospitals purchase. So it is absolutely a move in the wrong direction. It is going to make health care more expensive.

Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentlelady for helping coordinate the opportunity for all of us tonight as freshmen to express some of our concerns and certainly opposition and reservations to the bill that has been put now before us that we will likely be voting on later this week. We talked about why this bill is bad for the American public. I just want to recap. Number one, we talked about why this bill is bad for small business. It raises their taxes. It's going to cost jobs. We've talked about why this bill is bad for individuals. It mandates that they will have to buy coverage or else they're going to have to pay a penalty. We've talked about--not at great length but why the bill is, indeed, bad for seniors. That is no doubt. I talk to a lot of seniors in my district that are under Medicare Advantage right now, and they are very concerned about having to give up the health care plan that they're under right now. These Medicare Advantage plans, they offer a lot of what the President himself in this very Chamber talked about, good services that benefit a lot of these seniors, going for regular checkups without having to pay an additional copay, having vision care, having dental care. That is what Medicare Advantage plans offer. And to cut Medicare by $500 billion, to me, makes absolutely no sense. If you really think about it--and my good friend from Tennessee, the doctor, mentioned earlier--some of the good provisions we should be supporting, like allowing young adults to be put on their parents' policies--I mean, that's common sense, and we support that initiative. We just wish that we could hit the reset button and not have a 1,990- page bill where we would have just a provision where we could do that, as well as allowing the small businesses to pool together. We can absolutely cover preexisting conditions. That is something we absolutely should do and we support doing. So there are some good things that we should focus on. Unfortunately, those aren't the priorities of this bill, unfortunately. And ultimately, the American want people want to have the peace of mind that they can get the coverage that they need when they need it, and they want to ensure that they--not the government, not special interests, not Members of Congress--are not going to stand between a patient and their doctor. In short, I think we all agree that the bill before us is the wrong approach. It's a very dismissive wave of the hand by Congress to those who have raised the voice on this most personal issue in their lives. There's no other issue that affects families more personally than health care, whether it is taking care of your children, thinking about how you're going to care for your parents or grandparents down the road. There is a better way, as you mentioned. There is a better way, and the gentlelady from Wyoming had gone through a great detail of other proposals that are out there that, quite honestly, there's bipartisan support for. The truth is, with the right reforms, we can absolutely control health care costs and lower premiums. This bill does not lower health care premiums. It will be a massive intrusion from the Federal Government on our individual and personal economic freedoms, though. I yield back for our closing.

Mr. PAULSEN. I will yield to the gentleman, but in particular, my colleague from Tennessee, whom I have learned a great deal from, one of the things that I appreciate about you is you're a former mayor and you know how to get things done, and certainly I think Members of Congress could take some lessons from you. Coming from this great State of Tennessee, you've got some of those medical technology companies in your great State. And we should hear from you as a physician as well. You've got a very unique perspective, and you can offer a lot to this Congress. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PAULSEN. If the gentleman would yield, he raises a good point, because having visited Pennsylvania and knowing there are some technology sectors right in your district in particular, and there are many States, and maybe that is because some States don't have these medical device technologies growing, they are not being incubated. It is Massachusetts, it is California, it is Tennessee and Minnesota, which surprises me, because the Speaker being from California is proposing this tax. It is actually going to hurt many of these devices. Again, we talked about the nature of the economy, almost 10 percent unemployment. We are going to be making it tougher to have very well, high-paying jobs, tougher for those companies to keep those jobs. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, I am going to just gander a guess. It is going to be several inches thick, which is too thick for us to read in a short period of time, unfortunately, and probably for the public to have that right to know.

Mr. PAULSEN. Just to mention, I mean, it sounds like it just defies common sense. With unemployment at near 10 percent--I know there are going to be some new job figures that will be released in the very near future--but it defies common sense of why we would really hit the small business community even harder and make it tougher for them to raise jobs. As the gentlewoman mentioned earlier, the Republicans have a proposal to allow small business to pool together through these associated health care plans to actually help small businesses provide health insurance for their employees.

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you. Maybe I will ask the gentleman from Colorado a question, because he makes a really good point about this bill, that the proposed 1,990-page bill by the Speaker is bad for small business. Why would the Congress in a tough economy want to further penalize small businesses when they are struggling to get by and a third of all small businesses are going to be impacted by this surtax that you had mentioned? We want to help small businesses grow, knowing that they are the engine of economic growth for this country, and we are making it tougher and tougher on them. Why would Congress even consider that?

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you for yielding. Well, I think, as you just mentioned, there is no doubt that there have been other Republican plans that have been offered. There are a variety of bills, 50-some bills that have been out there. In fact, all of these, nearly all of these pieces of legislation have actually been introduced prior to this mammoth nearly 2,000-page bill that has been dropped on our desk just last week. I want to go back to some of the comments you made earlier about the deficit, because as someone who came to Washington fully acknowledging and recognizing that Republicans were part of the problem on deficit spending many years ago, that is no reason to continue to do the same. Seeing ourselves now face our very first trillion-dollar budget deficit is of great concern to me. I know it is of great concern to my constituents, for their children and their grandchildren, thinking the share of the national debt for each person now has gone up to about $38,000. Compared to when I was born, it was about $1,500 per person. At some point we are going to have to pay back that debt, and that's a heavy burden that's going to fall, unfortunately, on our children and our grandchildren. The bill that is being proposed by the Speaker does not address health care costs. You mentioned earlier there is not a good track record of government introducing legislation and having it be cost-effective or innovative. The reality is, if you look back at 1965, congressional forecasters predicted at that time that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Do you know what its actual cost came in at? The actual cost came in at $90 billion. Today, just like Social Security, it is now on a path to insolvency due to runaway costs. We have massive problems with existing entitlement programs. It doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense to have a new entitlement program that the government doesn't have a good track record on.

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, thank you. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for organizing this little discussion tonight, and I know we're going to have some of our freshman colleagues joining us. I think, first and foremost, it's important for me to outline--and I think you share this view. You know, no one is denying that our health care system is in need of reform. Certainly, as a freshman Member, I know that the Members of our class, actually both Republican and Democrat, know that there need to be changes in the status quo. I know the Republicans, in particular in the freshman class, have been very frustrated that the media may not center or focus on some of the proposals that we actually have offered because, as you indicated, there are some very incremental approaches and piecemeal approaches which actually could be done and could be done bipartisanly to show success and progress in helping lower premiums for families, for individuals, and for small businesses. As most of the public is well aware now, I think, just as early as last week, we had dropped on our desks a 1,990-page bill, which is a huge, mammoth bill, and we can bring that up a little later for a prop. It is a big piece of legislation, and I know we're going to be voting on that later this week. I think I've come to realize in my first few months in office, as probably you have, that Washington is a place where actions are often taken without properly weighing the consequences and the impact of those actions. I think the bill that has been laid before us is very misguided in that it's going to have a heavy tax load put on the small business community. It's going to tax medical device companies in particular and medical device products, which impacts my district very greatly and the jobs there. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a little bit. Our goal also is to make sure we are providing adequate coverage and are lowering the costs of health care premiums for all Americans--for individuals, families, and small businesses--because it is a pocketbook issue; but I think the approach that the majority is taking is a very misguided approach, and we're going to have some discussion about that tonight and about some of our alternatives, which, I think, make absolute common sense. I would like to yield back.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the resolution before us calling for the unequivocal opposition to any endorsement or further consideration of the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. This report, more commonly known as ``the Goldstone Report'' continues the U.N.'s misguided treatment towards Israel. Madam Speaker, this report and its findings have been skewed from the start. Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, condemned the mandate to initiate the report as being one- sided and ``guided not by human rights, but by politics.'' Therefore, the results are not surprising. The report gives a one- sided account of the conflict and does nothing to promote or bring about stability in the region. While seeking to condemn Israel with outrageous accusations, nowhere in the misguided report does it recognize the fact that Israel has a right to defend itself from violent terrorist attacks. Adopting this resolution will go a long way in sending a message to the U.N. that the American people will not stand for this biased and misleading action. I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their thoughtful work on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and move towards real, meaningful peace in the Middle East.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, with the new health care bill that spends $1 trillion and creates over 100 new bureaucracies and projects, I believe all the focus is in the wrong place. The bill still raises taxes on small business, hitting many with a 5.4 percent surtax when they are struggling in a tough economy. The bill imposes a new tax on medical devices, which will increase costs for patients by adding costs on hearing aids, bandages, and wheelchairs. This will also result in lost jobs for medical technology companies that employ over 20,000 people in my State of Minnesota. The bill will hurt seniors with $500 billion of cuts to Medicare, including eliminating Medicare Advantage programs for over 19,000 seniors in my district. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't ram through a 2,000- page bill on the backs of small businesses and seniors. There is a better way. We should be working on commonsense reforms that will actually lower premiums for families, individuals, and small businesses.

Mr. PAULSEN

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call attention to November as American Diabetes Month. Today, 24 million Americans have diabetes, and in this 1 minute that it takes me to give this speech, three more Americans will be diagnosed. The rate of diabetes cases is definitely on the rise, and it is becoming more severe. Based on our current trends, one out of every three children will eventually suffer from diabetes. Unlike cancer, heart disease and strokes, the death rate due to complications from diabetes has actually increased. Diabetes not only exacts great personal harm; it imposes financial harm as well. Diabetes in the United States costs $174 billion annually, and the cost of caring for someone with diabetes accounts for $1 out of every $5 in total health care costs. Changing this trend begins with raising awareness about diabetes. So, Mr. Speaker, let's all commit to doing more to educate Americans on the seriousness of this disease.