Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the ranking member. I rise today in support of House Resolution 268 that affirms the United States' support for a negotiated solution to the Israel- Palestinian conflict. Setting preconditions on negotiations is just an excuse to maintain the status quo. If President Abbas is serious about peace, then he should focus all of his energies and all the energies of his people on negotiations with Israel. An agreement won't be easy, but the outlines of an agreement are well-known. All that is really necessary now is leadership from both sides. So this leadership sets firmly U.S. policy. We are a rock solid friend of Israel, and anyone else who seeks peace with them. But this also means that we stand against those who seek to circumvent the peace process by running to the U.N. General Assembly for a declaration that may score political points but is going to set back the peace process for years. Now more than ever, Madam Speaker, with turmoil on every border of Israel, we need to stand with them as an ally. We want peace. Israel wants peace. Peace can only happen with negotiations. All we are missing is a true Palestinian partner.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ensign- Bickford Industries on their 175th anniversary. Since 1836 Ensign- Bickford has called Simsbury, Connecticut home, where its employees have always strived for quality and innovation. Before setting up shop in Connecticut, William Bickford invented a miner's safety fuse in 1831 that would later make Ensign-Bickford Industries a pioneer of the safety fuse for both mining and military applications. As the years passed, the country and the company changed and adapted. Ensign-Bickford transformed into a leader in the aerospace industry. In fact, since the beginning of the American space program, the company has provided the technology that allows rockets to separate, and satellites to be launched into orbit. Ensign-Bickford has also served both our state and the nation by helping to protect our soldiers in battle. The company has developed important landmine clearing technology and strengthened armor for military vehicles. These innovations have undoubtedly saved lives, and taken together with the other industries they serve, Ensign-Bickford has provided thousands of jobs for American families through the years. For nearly two centuries, Ensign-Bickford Industries has epitomized the American spirit of innovation, perseverance, and responsibility that I believe we need to restore in American manufacturing. So I wish to congratulate Ensign-Bickford on this special occasion, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ensign-Bickford Industries on their 175th anniversary.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you about a young woman, a young woman named Sarah. She actually lives in a shoreline community in Connecticut in Representative DeLauro's district. She has got four kids. She was playing by the rules, did everything that we asked. She had a good job in purchasing, and last year she got laid off. She got laid off, like thousands of other Connecticut residents. She has four kids ages 7 to 15. Since that day, she has been confronted every day with a decision. She's got about enough money to put one meal on the table for her kids. They'll get one meal while they're at school. And so she makes the decision: Does she put breakfast on the table to make sure that they have food in their bellies when they show up to school or does she put dinner on the table when they come back. That's her daily challenge every single day. Now, she gets a little bit of help from a food bank, from a soup kitchen around the corner from her--a soup kitchen that likely gets money from The Emergency Food Assistance Program, one of the programs that is cut 25 percent under the President's proposed budget. That's her daily reality. Let me tell you a story about another American. His name is Tony. He lost his job last year as well. He was the CEO of a big oil company. On his way out he got about a $1.6 million salary payout and a $17 million pension payout. He might be spending part of his summer on his yacht that he's nicknamed ``Bob.'' He might be sailing in the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Isle Race, like he was a summer ago as one of his oil rigs collapsed in the Gulf. His struggle is that he's only been able to raise about $1.6 billion for his new oil exploration venture around the world. Franklin Roosevelt said, The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide for those who have little. I have listened to my friends on the Republican side try to create a choice here today; that because our children later on are going to have to pay back the debts that this country owes, that we have to sacrifice the lives of kids who are living today. That's a false choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact is we are making choices in the budget right now. We are making choices to give more and more money to the defense budget, which is already over-bloated, and cutting 25 percent from The Emergency Food Assistance Program. We are handing another $40 billion subsidy to the oil industry. And we're cutting back funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. As the Republican budget calls for, we are further cutting taxes for the richest 1 or 2 percent of Americans while we underfund the WIC program that gets badly needed nutrition to kids like Sarah's kids. In my district, the story is the same. We've got 17 percent of households in my district who have reported going hungry. At the Friendly Hands Food Bank in Torrington they've had a 40 percent increase this year. New Britain's municipal food pantry has seen a hundred new families come through the doors this year. And they are watching with horror as we try to create some false choice between feeding kids today and protecting this country's fiscal situation down the line. When I meet Republicans and Democrats in my district, regardless of their political persuasion, they want this body to start working together to solve the biggest problems in this country. But I have news for my Republican friends. They want us to solve Sarah's problem, not Tony's problem. This budget, this bill, is a travesty, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Bethlehem Grange on their 120th anniversary. The Bethlehem Grange Number 121 is one of nearly sixty National Grange chapters in the state of Connecticut. On January 6, 1891, the Bethlehem Grange was organized by 24 charter members. Through the years, the Bethlehem Grange has grown substantially, having at one point over 150 members. The Bethlehem Grange has maintained a strong commitment to the rural communities of northwestern Connecticut. The Bethlehem Grange has a rich history of promoting family farming and community service in rural Connecticut. In 1891 the Bethlehem Grange sponsored their first Grange Fair in the Town Hall. The fair has grown and expanded since then, eventually becoming the popular Bethlehem Fair, which I've had the pleasure of attending numerous times over the years. The Bethlehem Grange is committed to fostering a deeply-rooted sense of community. In addition to their monthly activities, the Grange supports their local food bank, donates dictionaries to the local elementary school, and provides scholarships to local high school students. Their dedication to civic responsibility doesn't end there: the Bethlehem Grange holds an annual community flea market and participates in the Adopt-A-Road program. Over its 120 years of existence, the Bethlehem Grange has done its part to preserve the cherished historical character of northwestern Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can all learn from the Bethlehem Grange's dedication to fellowship and service, and so I ask my colleagues to join with me, and the people of Bethlehem, in recognizing the Bethlehem Grange Number 121 on their 120th anniversary.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great woman and constituent, Gina Calabrese. Ms. Calabrese is the principal of the Rotella Interdistrict Magnet School in Waterbury, Connecticut, and was recently honored as the National Principal of the Year by the Magnet Schools of America. This award is presented annually to an exemplary school leader who has created and fostered innovative academic and extracurricular programs in magnet schools. The students of the Rotella Magnet School and the community of Waterbury as a whole are fortunate to have a leader like Gina Calabrese, and I am proud that the Rotella School is in my district. Her dedication to education and her students is remarkable. In fact, largely because of Ms. Calabrese's leadership, the Rotella Interdistrict Magnet School was also honored in 2008 with the Magnet Schools of America's Dr. Ronald P. Simpson Distinguished Magnet Schools of Excellence. Ms. Calabrese has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to innovation and education, and her efforts have raised the bar for magnet schools and educational institutions in Connecticut and across the country. Gina's achievements represent the highest dedication to success, and I am proud to recognize her contributions here today. Although the Rotella School only opened in 2000, it has quickly distinguished itself as one of the best Magnet Schools in the country. It embodies a dedication to a holistic education that incorporates a strong academic program and an emphasis on the performing and visual arts. This approach combines the most valuable aspects of the arts-- self-expression, creativity and practice--with academics, leading to a unique and valuable student experience. On behalf of the people of Waterbury, I want to congratulate Ms. Calabrese for this award and thank her for her tireless efforts to educate the future leaders of Connecticut.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the bicentennial of the birth of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Stowe was born on June 14, 1811, and was an integral figure in the abolition movement. She is best known for her anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin--a book that painted a human picture of slavery in the United States. Her writing stirred an international groundswell of support for abolition. Uncle Tom's Cabin, first serialized in the weekly National Era, became the best-selling book of the 19th century, with 10,000 copies sold in the first week of publication. In Great Britain, 1.5 million copies were sold in its first year. Uncle Tom's Cabin has since been translated into 60 languages and continues to be read around the world. Stowe leveraged the media of her day, demanding that America fulfill its promise of freedom and recognize the human face of bondage. Virulent criticism from slavery proponents prompted Stowe to publish A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, detailing her sources. Over the next decade, public attitudes toward slavery changed. Stowe's informal, conversational writing style inspired people in a way that political speeches and newspaper accounts could not. Many believe that Uncle Tom's Cabin helped 19th century Americans determine what kind of country they wanted. Harriet Beecher Stowe's legacy is proof that we all have the ability to make profound position changes to our world, no matter the obstacles. Her creativity and courage positively influenced the lives of many. I ask my colleagues to join with me in officially recognizing the bicentennial of the birth of an incredible American, Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently cast a ``no'' vote on rollcall No. 393, as part of the consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I would like to change my vote on the amendment to ``yea.''

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 364, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I think this is a very important debate to have to show who is really focusing on the best use of taxpayer dollars for the creation of U.S. jobs. I appreciate the opportunity to have this debate on the floor of the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I will make three quick points in response. First, the amendment does not require that contractor to be debarred. It just simply allows for the possibility of debarment if they have significantly undersold or oversold, frankly, the amount of jobs that are going to be created. It is just an ability, frankly, that would exist under current law as to permissive debarment. Second, I think my constituents are reflective of most people's constituents here. I think they expect that when they send their taxpayer dollars to Washington that there will be a preference for U.S. jobs. Most people I talk to are surprised that it's not a factor. And third, we have to look at the holistic cost about sourcing to the Federal Government. It may be so that a particular part for a jet engine is 10 percent cheaper to buy it from a Chinese shop than an American shop. But when that American shop goes out of business, it costs the U.S. Government more money, not less, because we then have to pay unemployment compensation. We lose all of the tax revenue. We likely have to pay other social safety net costs. So we have to start being smart about how we use taxpayer dollars and recognize that when we buy something overseas, the contract price may be 10 percent less, but the overall cost to the U.S. Government is much more. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House now is a relatively simple one. We have, over the last 10 years, lost 42,000 factories in this country. We have lost 5 million jobs in manufacturing. And we've had a long discussion here in this Congress over the past 3 years as to what we can do to stimulate that engine of middle class job growth and security. This amendment seeks to increase our defense industrial capacity without spending any additional money. What the amendment before us simply allows is for the Federal Government to be able to consider at their leisure the amount of jobs being created here in the United States by a particular bid for U.S. defense work. Frankly, most of my constituents think this already happens. Most of my constituents think that there is an ability for the Federal Government today to factor in, when awarding a particular bid, which bid is going to create more jobs here in the United States versus overseas. This amendment is purely permissive. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would make it mandatory. But this amendment, which in bill form came out of the Government Oversight Committee last Congress unanimously, allows an individual contractor in their bid submission to state how many American jobs they are going to create, and then simply allows the contracting agency to factor that into their bid award, and then requires a report back to Congress as to how often that information, that job impact statement was used. This seems like common sense to me. The reason to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent through the Defense Department on U.S. jobs is certainly economic in nature. At 9 percent unemployment, we should be better stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars, on making sure that to the extent possible they are spent on U.S. jobs. But it is also a very important strategic defense policy for this Nation. As our supply chain for DOD gets internationalized on a daily and weekly basis, we're putting this country at jeopardy. In my own district, I have one of the last--in fact, the last American company that makes copper-nickel tubing for the sub-fleet. Because there is one foreign manufacturer that is on the verge of putting them out of business, we are about to lose our only domestic capability for a critical component of that sub-fleet. It makes sense to give them some capacity to at least make the case to the U.S. contracting agencies that this work should stay here. I think this is an important amendment for job creation but, frankly, just as important for U.S. strategic purposes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first airplane flight at Robertson Airport in Plainville, Connecticut. A century ago this month, young inventor and pilot Nels Nelson made the first powered, sustained flight in Plainville--and one of the first in Connecticut--in a small buckwheat field in the northwest section of town. Though only a few minutes in duration, Nelson's flight marks Robertson Airport as the oldest airfield in the State of Connecticut. Coming on the heels of the Wright Brothers' seminal launch at Kitty Hawk in 1903, Nelson's feat was the beginning of what remains a long and storied history of flight in Plainville. During the first half of the previous century, a number of small airstrips dotted the town's landscape. In fact, one location on the current site of Plainville High School was frequently utilized by Governor John Trumbull, the ``Flying Governor,'' who was a Plainville native and pilot. The field on which Nelson made his historic flight did not become a formal airport until 1941, when Stamford Robertson purchased the property. For years Robertson operated a flight school at the airport and remained involved in its operations, even after selling it to Tomasso Brothers, Inc. in the late 1970s. In 2009, the Town of Plainville purchased the airport, in large part to preserve this historic site and to ensure its continuation as a functioning airfield. Today, I want to commemorate Nelson's flight and to recognize all of those who have contributed to the preservation and operation of Robertson Airport over the years. From the late Stamford Robertson and the Tomasso Brothers to the Plainville Historic Society and the Plainville Aviation Commission to the pilots, citizens, and elected officials who have supported the airport, I would like to commend all of you for your commitment to this important landmark--one that continues to be a vital and thriving piece of Plainville's history and identity.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Central Connecticut State University's Institute for Technology and Business Development (ITBD), which is being inducted into the Connecticut Business Hall of Fame. Since its inception in 1986, ITBD has provided business and aspiring entrepreneurs with various support services to help them start and grow successful companies throughout Connecticut. For nearly a quarter century, ITBD has been driven by its mission to help Connecticut businesses and their employees meet the demands of the global economy. To that end, the Institute, located in the heart of my district in downtown New Britain, has offered a full array of employee training courses, manufacturing process improvement, government procurement assistance, and small business development and conferencing services. Its business incubation program has provided dozens of start- up companies with a cost-effective means to grow their fledgling businesses. Several of these one-time incubator clients are now thriving companies that employ scores of people across the state. Throughout its existence, ITBD has partnered with various community organizations to work collaboratively in achieving its goals. From the state's five workforce boards, to several chambers of commerce, to various regional planning agencies and community service organizations, ITBD has actively engaged a litany of organizations in the furtherance of its efforts to assist the business community and Connecticut's workforce. While the State of Connecticut and the entire nation strive to recover from the Great Recession, ITBD continues to focus on helping Connecticut companies and their employees prosper in the global marketplace. Its commitment to excellence and service to the business community is reflective of the leadership of the President of Central Connecticut State University, Dr. Jack Miller, and Richard C. Mullins, Jr., Executive Assistant to the President. I want to thank ITBD for all that they have done over the past 25 years, and I am pleased to congratulate them on their induction into the Connecticut Business Hall of Fame.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Representative Richmond. I know we're joined on the floor by a few of our other colleagues here. I would just underscore the remarks of Representative Shuster. Although Americans clearly are carrying the burden of operations in Afghanistan, we do have partners there. And many of our partners increased their commitment to Afghanistan, as the United States did. Others have walked away and drawn down their commitment. But we are fortunate that we are not fighting this fight alone there, and that we do have partners. And I think it's important for us to remind Americans of that, but also remind many of our allies that this fight is an international fight because, though the most high-profile of terrorist attacks in this world were those on New York and Washington, D.C., and the fields of Pennsylvania, the next terrorist attack could be anywhere in this world. And our ability to push al Qaeda to the brink of extinction is a global effort, not just an American effort. In addition to those that we've noted already, there was another airman who we memorialized that day, and I would like to just for a brief moment of time talk about Major Charles A. Ransom. Major Ransom was born in 1979. He attended the Virginia Military Institute, and he earned a baccalaureate of science in computer science. And he received his ROTC commission in the United States Air Force as a second lieutenant on the 18th of May, 2001. It was in that year that he deployed for the first time in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Then in 2006 he deployed again in Turkey in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and Fundamental Justice. And then in 2009 he deployed to Baghdad, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Finally, in 2011 he deployed for the last time to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. He is survived by his mother and father, SGM (Ret.) Willie and Marysue Ransom, and his brother, Chief Petty Officer Stephen Randolph. From those that talked about Major Ransom, they talked about what a tremendously important figure he was in our operations in Afghanistan. But his story and his background are not uncommon in two ways. First, Major Ransom comes from a military family. Both his brother and his father have served and are retired from the armed services. And that's how it goes. This becomes a family occupation, a family passion. There are millions of families around this country who have the kind of commitment that the Ransom family did. And while we pay our respects to those individuals who served, we, frankly, have to remember that this is not just an individual commitment. This is not just an individual sacrifice; this is a family sacrifice, that the whole family serves, whether they are serving through brothers and sister and fathers and mothers who have been members of the military, or whether they simply serve by picking up and doing a little bit more for their family while their loved one is away. But he's also not unique in the fact that this was his fourth deployment. When we talk about the heroes from previous wars, they are no less heroes because they only served one or two tours. But there is something unique about the last 10 years in that there are more and more people like Major Ransom who have gone back, not just for a second time, not just for a third time, but in Major Ransom's case, for a fourth time. He did it, and I can't speak for the reasons why he did it. But I imagine he did it because he knew of the importance of the work that he was doing. He knew that he didn't want to leave his men and women behind to do it on their own. And unfortunately, Representative Richmond, Major Ransom didn't come back from his fourth deployment. But we owe him and his family, frankly, a degree of gratitude beyond words for their service and their sacrifice as an entire family.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Representative Richmond. It is kind of scary that I get senior status in my third term, but things move fast here in the United States House of Representatives. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana for bringing us together for this Special Order hour. I have been here now for 5 years. And when votes are done and you go back to your office to get some work together for the next day, we often flip on the TV, and we watch these Special Order hours as, frankly, millions of Americans do across the country. What you see every night essentially starts to look the same. You see Republicans on one side having 1 hour, and Democrats on the other side having another hour. Too often that time is spent by both parties talking down the other side. This is unique, to have Members of both the Republican and Democratic side joining together in a testimony to something that binds us as Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, whatever we are in this Nation. We know how important it is to support our men and women abroad and then to memorialize them when they don't come home. And you know what, if you got any of us individually and asked what our perceptions were of our trip and of the future of the war in Afghanistan, you would probably get different stories. But you won't get different stories when it comes to the respect that we have every day for the men and women who fight for us and I think the new understanding you get of the threats that are posed to these brave soldiers when you spend a little bit of time in theater. Not only did we have the tragic honor of being part of a ramp ceremony and then a memorial service for the nine airmen and civilians that perished in the attack at the airport, but we got the chance a day later to walk the beat, essentially, with some of our Special Forces units in one of the western provinces of Afghanistan. And that's where you realize how dangerous this job is in a remote outpost with mud walls. A couple dozen of our bravest are trying to do their best to provide some security for Afghans in Herat province who had barely seen a coalition or American soldier before the last year, trying to cobble together the money that they had at their disposal to build some infrastructure projects to make the lives of the community members and the tribe members better. Whatever you think about the future course of this war, we have got our best and our brightest fighting for us over there. We have 1 percent of Americans fighting for this country, protecting the other 99 percent. And, unfortunately, there are more and more that aren't coming home. In Connecticut, as I got the chance to remark in a short speech before the House of Representatives 2 weeks ago, we have taken an abnormally large number of casualties for a small State in the past 2 months. Unfortunately, one of the nine airmen that were killed in the attack at the Kabul International Airport was Raymond Estelle II. Major Estelle was born in Connecticut. Although he had moved away, he was a native of the Nutmeg State. His military career spanned two decades back to November 1991 with his enlistment in the U.S. Air Force. After completing basic military and technical training, Raymond served as an enlisted aerospace ground equipment technician, rising to the rank of senior airman before earning his commission through the Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of New Mexico in 1998. Major Estelle was most recently assigned as the communications adviser to the Afghan Air Force with the 838th Air Expeditionary Advisory Group. It was in that capacity that he was serving in Afghanistan. It was in that capacity that he had befriended the Afghan airman who eventually turned his weapon on nine Americans. Major Estelle's awards include the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, and the Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf cluster. He is survived by his wife, Captain N'Keiba Estelle, his daughters Chanelle and Shayla, his son Raymond III, and his mother Regina. As we sat there listening to the final roll call of that unit with nine of its members missing, we read through the biographies of the nine that were killed. We noted that almost all of them had children, young children, three, four, five kids. And as Representative Duffy so aptly said, as many Americans are celebrating in the street the heroic achievement of our Special Forces in taking down one of the most evil people ever to walk this Earth, there are other families that are grieving today for those who put their lives on the line to protect the other 99 percent of us. And for my constituent Raymond Estelle, we grieve in Connecticut today.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, in Washington over the last few months, we have seen a lot of what we are seeing today, a lot of talk from my Republican colleagues about ideological budget cuts and about divisive social issues. And today, once more, we are here debating repeal of part or all of the health care bill. But back home, we are hearing about one thing and largely one thing only, and that is job creation. Now, I appreciate my friend from North Carolina dressing up her remarks with some talk about jobs, but this debate today isn't about creating jobs. It is about a political agenda to take on the Democratically passed health care bill. But we need to start plugging into where Main Street is and having a real conversation about job creation in this country, and so I am here today to talk about one idea in particular that can reach out to the 5,000 manufacturers in my State, and the tens of thousands more of manufacturing employees who are looking for good middle class work and help from Congress that hasn't been forthcoming in the last 3 months. Since 2001, this country has shut down over 42,000 manufacturing plants. We have lost about 5 million manufacturing jobs; but during that same period of time, we have increased spending on defense manufacturing in this country by 81 percent. The problem is that 81 percent increase hasn't gone to factories in Connecticut or North Carolina or Florida or anywhere else. It has gone overseas because after building loophole after loophole into our domestic sourcing laws, like the Buy America Act, we are hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs in part because we are spending more and more taxpayer dollars overseas. So we need to defeat this previous question so we can bring a commonsense jobs bill to the floor of the House of Representatives, the American Jobs Matter Act. Now, let me explain what this bill does. It is pretty simple. It says that anytime a Federal agency is awarding a contract, in particular the Department of Defense, that they can give a leg up, that they can give preference to the bidder who promises and guarantees to create more U.S. jobs. Most of my constituents think that already happens. They already think we have some system in place to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are being used to give preference to American companies rather than foreign companies. It is not happening. The law doesn't allow it. So let's pass today the American Jobs Matter Act. It will make sure that our money gets spent on our jobs here at home. A quick story from Connecticut: I have a company that makes copper nickel tubing in Waterbury, Connecticut. They are the only American company that supplies that product to the Virginia submarine class. There is one company in Europe that makes it. But because we can't give them preference by law today, they have lost one of their two most important contracts to that European supplier, and along with it dozens of American jobs. That is our money going overseas, and we need to do something about it rather than debating the health care bill all over again. When people really care about building back those manufacturing jobs, we should in fact be spending every day in this Congress talking about bills like the American Jobs Matter Act. Instead, we are talking about defunding Sesame Street, about destroying Planned Parenthood, and once again today talking about repealing the health care bill; and, in fact, a part of the health care bill that is going to create jobs through preventive health care services. It is no wonder that Americans think so little of this Republican Congress, because they are not focused on what people out there are focused on, J-O-B-S, jobs. The American Jobs Matter Act, if we bring it to the floor today, is a commonsense measure to simply target taxpayer money to the creation of American jobs. We don't have to spend any more money to create American jobs. We just have to spend the money we are already spending better. We spend half the military dollars in the world coming out of the U.S. budget, and this engine of expenditure should be used not only to make this country stronger militarily, but also to make it stronger economically. The American Jobs Matter Act is one way to get there. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can get to the real business of this country--creating good-paying middle class jobs.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this amendment is fairly simple. While the underlying bill, though, I think very wrongly prevents the EPA from going forward on regulating greenhouse gases, my amendment affirms that state-run greenhouse gas programs will not be affected by the underlying legislation. My amendment simply clarifies that language, by keeping in practice the longstanding tradition whereby the EPA will be able to continue providing technical assistance for States like mine who have taken action on their own to combat climate change. I think this is a good and perfecting amendment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do enough to allow me to support this legislation. I can't support this legislation, because, as many have said before, it is simply an affront, an attack on science, on 99 percent of peer reviewed articles which have supported the idea that the United States needs to do something as 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's pollution. We have 230,000 deaths that have been prevented by the Clean Air Act, and the economic benefits outweigh the costs of it by a 3-to-1 margin. But even if you set aside the scientific debate, there are dozens of other reasons why we should be supportive of the United States and the EPA taking a strong role on the issue of regulating greenhouse gases. It is an affront to the millions of unemployed workers in this country who are asking for leadership from this Congress on developing a new economy in the area of clean energy, to allow the EPA the ability to join other nations around the world in putting a downward pressure on carbon emissions so that we can have an upward pressure on the number of new clean energy jobs that this country can create. But even if you set aside that argument, even if you set aside the science, set aside the jobs argument, from a national security perspective, we need to go forward with these EPA regulations, or, in the absence, we need to be passing legislation here in the United States Congress. We continue to send abroad American dollars to petro-dictators who use it to funnel money to the very people that are seeking to attack this nation. From a national security standpoint, we need to be moving forward with a greenhouse gas strategy. I am proposing this amendment, though, because for all of the naysayers, for all of the people who talk about doomsday and Armageddon if these EPA regulations are to go into effect, I'd like them to come to Connecticut, I'd like them to come to the 10 States that are part of the RGGI carbon emissions regime in which we have seen what smart regulation of carbon can do. We have set an aggressive standard in our RGGI system whereby we are seeking a 10 percent reduction in carbon, and we're doing it through the dreaded cap-and-trade regime that many on the other side have talked about for years. What have we seen in Connecticut? The jury is in, the results are in, and we have in the 10 RGGI States saved enough energy to equal the cumulative input of 442,000 homes. We've saved an immense amount of energy. Now by doing that, what's happened to cost? Well, guess what? Cost has plummeted. We have saved $744 million for consumers in Connecticut. Why? We've decreased demand for energy, and so we have decreased cost. We have saved energy and we have decreased cost through a system of carbon control not dissimilar to ones we've talked about in this Congress and not dissimilar to what we are looking at at the EPA today. I propose this amendment as a way of simply allowing States to move forward with what I think have been very beneficial carbon reduction regimes in the absence of Federal control. I think it's a sad day that we're here talking about this today. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats could at the very least agree on clean air. We could at the very least agree on the fact that pollution was an issue which we should address. And the fact that that is now a subject of disagreement, I think, is a grave statement on how far the Republican Party has come over the last decade. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember three brave men from my State who recently lost their lives in Afghanistan. PFC David Fahey of Norwolk was killed by an IED on February 28. Sergeant 1st Class Daehan Park of Watertown was killed by an IED on March 12. And Sergeant Frank Adamski of Moosup was killed in a firefight on March 29. March 29 was his 26th birthday. These three men and 1,500 others have made the ultimate sacrifice in the battlefields of Afghanistan. And these three losses over 30 days is a big price to pay for a small State like Connecticut. These brave soldiers volunteered to put themselves in harm's way, and they die heroes. I join my friends and neighbors in Connecticut in mourning the loss of these three men. I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks, respect, and sympathies to their families during this difficult time.