Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself the balance of my time. I would inquire of the gentleman as to how he thinks this amendment guts the underlying legislation. All this amendment does is simply allow for the EPA to continue working with States on their own systems. I think the hyperbole has gotten a little out of control from the Republican side. This is simply seeking to assist States in the work that they are continuing to do today. It does absolutely nothing to gut the underlying legislation, and it just adds clarifying language to allow States to move forward with their own systems of controlling greenhouse gases. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Danbury Visiting Nurse Association (VNA), which is commemorating its 100th anniversary this year. Founded originally as the Visiting Nurse Association of Danbury in 1911, the Danbury VNA continues to provide a valuable service for thousands of people in Western Connecticut. As the Greater Danbury's oldest home care agency, the Danbury VNA serves patients from a number of towns in my district outside of Danbury including, Bethel, Brookfield, New Fairfield, Newtown, Redding, Southbury, Woodbury and Ridgefield. Dr. Sophia Penfield, the first licensed female physician in the State of Connecticut, along with members of the Civic Club of Danbury, established the Agency to provide care for the sick and needy, to instruct families in the care of the sick in their homes, and to teach the principles of simple sanitation and hygiene. Founding member and first president, Mrs. John Downs served as President for an astonishing 47 years. Following her death in 1957, a recognized Board of Directors adopted the present constitution and by- laws and the agency became the Danbury Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. With the advent of Medicare, Danbury VNA became a Medicare certified home health agency in 1966. In 1993, the Agency joined the Danbury Health Systems as the home care affiliate and is now an affiliate of the recently formed Western Connecticut Healthcare, which includes New Milford Hospital. The Danbury VNA has been a longtime advocate of preventative care for children. The agency established well child clinics nearly 75 years ago to provide physicals and inoculations. Nearly 15 years ago, the Danbury VNA recognized the challenges that many people have in getting to their physician's office by establishing the Wellness on Wheels program. This unique mobile health program for families with limited access to medical care brings a doctor, registered nurse, a social worker and others out to the community to provide critical health care services to underserved Connecticut residents free of charge. Services include physicals, screenings and immunizations for school and work. While much has changed in light of advances in nursing practices and technology, the vision of the Civic Club and Dr. Penfield have not. The core of the Danbury Visiting Nurse Association is reflected in its mission and philosophy to serve the community, treating patients with dignity and respect and providing home care and community health services to all in need. I want to thank the Danbury Visiting Nurse Association for all that they do and I am pleased to congratulate them on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, poll after poll shows that Americans oppose repealing or defunding health care. The latest one says 62 percent of Americans oppose these efforts. Why? Because they have figured out that the nonsense coming from Republicans over the last several years about this being socialized medicine or a government takeover is just that--it is nonsense. What they figured out is that this is helping millions of Americans all around this country, millions of Americans like a little 8-year-old boy named Kyle McCollough who had the courage to walk into my office yesterday and tell me about his battle with hemophilia. His family has to put out $10,000 a month to pay for his medications, and repeal of this legislation means bankruptcy for his family and for him a lifetime of worrying as to whether he has a job that covers his illness or whether he has the medications to stay alive. That is why 62 percent of Americans oppose what the Republicans are trying to do on this floor. And for anyone that votes for this, they have to have an answer to them and they have to answer to little Kyle McCollough.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on a day that we're talking about the continuing resolution, I want to talk about a body that may someday be judging the continuing resolution--the Supreme Court. There is perhaps nothing more important to the preservation of our democracy than the continued guaranteed impartiality of our Supreme Court. It's a uniquely American institution; it's been given enormous power to invalidate American laws; and it needs to be dispensed with complete blind justice, blind to outside influence. However, this Nation's confidence in the blind justice of the Supreme Court has been badly shaken recently by a series of revelations regarding possible conflicts of interest by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas in the Citizens United case. This landmark 5-4 decision overturned restrictions on corporate funding in elections that had been in place since 1947, and immediately thereafter, millions and millions of dollars in shadowy special interest group donations flowed into American campaigns. Two of the main benefactors of these groups were Charles and David Koch, billionaire brothers who operate a Kansas-based energy business. They spent about $2.6 billion that we know about in the 2010 election cycle and likely a lot more in anonymous donations. In addition to funding these outside groups, they also organize a lot of conferences in which they gather people of like mind to discuss their radical views and plot strategies to benefit their interests. Now if I were to ask somebody on a main street in my district if they would be comfortable with a Supreme Court justice attending a conference like this, having their plane flight and the hotel all paid for by the special interests, I know what their answer would be. They'd say, no way. Yet Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas did just that and they thought it was just fine. They didn't recuse themselves from the Citizens United decision at all. But here's the real problem. This could be just an isolated problem to the Citizens United case. Or it could be much more widespread, with justices conflicted on several fronts, refusing to disclose their conflicts or recuse themselves when they have actual conflicts of interest. But we have no idea, because right now there is no law requiring Supreme Court justices to disclose their conflicts of interest as is required of all other Federal justices. I don't believe we should be meddling in the day-to-day business of the Supreme Court. I get why there is great wisdom in separating legislative and judicial functions. But there's no undue burden in just requiring sunlight on Supreme Court proceedings. So when we return to Washington after the recess, I will be introducing legislation to do just that, to implement a few reasonable reforms to add greater transparency and disclosure requirements on the Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues will join me. My legislation will apply the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct to the Supreme Court, which now applies to all other Federal judges. It will require the Justices to simply publicly disclose why they've recused themselves from a particular case. And it will ask the Court to develop a simple process so that the parties to a case can request the Court to decide whether a particular Justice has a conflict of interest. I think this is an important step forward for transparency of our democracy and of the Supreme Court, and I ask my colleagues to join me in this important legislation.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I rise in strong support of the amendment from the gentleman from Florida. Cutting spending is not easy, but this one should be. I think the gentleman hit it right on the head. You are talking about the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, the President, the generals who command the field all recommending against the development of a second engine. We should listen. Now, we have heard a lot of discussion tonight, as we have when we've debated this issue in the past, about the dual issues of both quality and cost. But if this was really about the issues of both quality and cost, then we wouldn't just be talking about building a second engine. We would be talking about building a second plane; we would be talking about building a second aircraft carrier. But as Representative Courtney so eloquently stated, the reason that we aren't talking about competitive bidding for a second plane, the reason why we aren't talking about two or three different aircraft carriers is that our generals, our military professionals have told us over and over again that it would be a tactical and operational nightmare to have a diversity of operational platforms with respect to these large operating systems. This isn't about quality in the end, because the Army, the Navy, the Secretary of Defense tell us that it's not about quality. If this was really about quality and cost, then we would have actual real competition. But we're not going to have real actual competition. What we know about these competitive bidding arrangements is that there is an explicit or implicit floor in the amount of business that you get. So whichever one of these engines is the inferior engine or the more costly engine is going to, on average, get about 40 percent of the business on an annual basis. That's not real competition. If we want to talk about real competition, then there has to be real winners and losers here. That's not what is going on in the proposal before us. And if this was really about quality and cost, then we wouldn't have two other tactical aircraft programs that have a single engine and also have a near spotless record of performance and cost control. We know how this works in other major aircraft acquisition programs. Single engines work. They have worked. I think in the end, though, this is really just about who we listen to. I have great respect for the Members of this Congress who have served for years on the Armed Services Committee; but I think that when we get such unanimity of opinion, such uniformness of opinion from our military generals, from the Department of Defense, and the men and women who are going to be flying these planes, we should listen. We should listen because it's the right thing to do for them, and we should listen because $3 billion isn't easy to cut out of the budget. But it's a lot easier when we have the people that are going to be handling the aircraft and the equipment telling us it's the right thing to do. I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, this past Monday marked the 1-year anniversary of the disaster at the Kleen Energy Systems power plant in Middletown, Connecticut. That blast claimed six lives and injured dozens of others last February. It could have been prevented. Unsafe pipe cleaning procedures and poor ventilation helped ignite a basketball arena's worth of natural gas in an explosion that could be heard across a 30-mile radius in central Connecticut. One of the six plant construction workers who lost their lives that day hailed from Thomaston, Connecticut, in my district, Peter Chepulis. And as we look back at the terrible events of February 7 last year, it's up to us to honor Peter's memory and those who died alongside him by ensuring that disasters like this never happen again. The cost of powering our homes and businesses should never be measured in lives. Industry and government alike failed Peter that cold winter morning, and we have much work ahead of us to right that wrong. While those who lost loved ones in Middletown a year ago will never be made whole again, we owe them our diligence and our best work to make sure that it never happens again.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise, as did other Members of the Connecticut delegation, to pay tribute to a great man who served the State of Connecticut and his community of Danbury in a variety of ways, Bill Ratchford. Bill Ratchford passed away recently, and the entire State of Connecticut is mourning; but, in particular, my district is mourning. Though Connecticut's districts have been reconfigured over the years, we both share a love and affinity for Bill Ratchford's hometown of Danbury that he represented in the United States Congress and I have the great fortune of representing. Bill grew up in Danbury. He was a child of the Depression. His father worked in one of the great hat factories in Danbury, Connecticut. His mother was a school teacher. And they instilled in Bill the value of what truly matters in life: a good education, a love for his family, and a love for his country. Shortly after I was sworn into office, Bill came to see me, to share with me some of his thoughts about what was important about being in this place. Though he cared so passionately about issues, as Representative Courtney and Representative DeLauro mentioned, his passion especially for issues related to aging, the fact that he became, later on, the State's first commissioner on aging, what he cared maybe most about was the discourse in this place. Bill was a gentleman first, second, and third. He represented everything that people wanted government to be. That's what we talked about when he came into my office that day, how you needed to fight for what you cared about in this place but do it in a respectful way. And I join with Representative Courtney in reminding everyone here that there are certain giants of this place that we can look to in trying to reorder the way in which we have conversations, and Bill Ratchford certainly was at the top of that list. His commitment to public service built a legacy that in Danbury and throughout Connecticut we will remember for a long time. He will be terribly missed. My thoughts and prayers and those of everyone in the Danbury area are with Barbara and his family at this time. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, when I testified against this repeal before the Rules Committee, I told a story about a family in my district. The husband lost his job and, therefore, his insurance because of a debilitating injury. This family faced a choice: They either had to dip into their savings account, their high school son's college fund, or they had to sell their house. They chose to first spend down the college account so that they could keep a roof over their head. When I told that story, one Republican on the committee basically said, Wait, I don't get it. They had money, they had a house, why should somebody else pay for their health care if they had assets? Well, that Member was right about one thing: She didn't get it. And Republicans don't get it. Because in a nation as compassionate as this, no family should be forced out on the street just because one of their family members gets sick. There is a moral imperative behind making sure that we live up to our duty to be our brother's keeper. But it's more than that. There is a fiscal imperative here. What she also didn't get was that once that family's savings is gone, once they're out on the street, we all pick up the cost. Small businesses pick up the cost. That's why small businesses are paying 18 percent more than big businesses. That's why about $1,100 of every single premium for a small business employee goes to cover the uninsured. There are thousands of small businesses in Connecticut organized under the auspices of a group called Small Businesses for Health Care Reform that are crying out for this repeal to be defeated because they see the $260 billion price tag attached to this bill that is going to land on their head, as well as the continuation of discriminatory practices that ask small businesses to pay for the uninsured like that family that I talked about. This bill isn't anything more than a political statement, but families in my district, small businesses in my district need more than politics. They need answers.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. In the middle of the health care debate, a gentleman came into my office in Waterbury, Connecticut, and delivered a petition signed by 3,000 people. He was fighting two battles--one against the cancer that was ravaging his body and another to keep his health insurance to prevent himself from going bankrupt. This is a situation faced by millions of Americans who have a condition and a disease that is also potentially contributing to the downfall of their entire household. This is a situation that they shouldn't be in. This is no game, this debate over whether we continue or repeal health care. But it seems to be a game to my Republican friends. This bill isn't going to pass. It's going nowhere. When a CBO estimate emerges saying it's going to cost taxpayers $230 billion, they just throw it away and come up with their own numbers. The stakes here couldn't be more serious for that constituent and the 3,000 others who walked into my office in Waterbury, Connecticut. This isn't a game to them. It's a matter of life and death. And the stakes over repeal could not be higher.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in proud support of H. Res. 1777, a resolution raising awareness of school pushout and promoting dignity in schools. I want to start by thanking my colleagues Representatives Bobby Scott and Danny Davis for partnering with me on this effort and for their long and esteemed records of standing up for children and civil rights. I also want to thank the parents, teachers, students, school administrators, advocates and academics from across Connecticut whose expertise and input were essential in drafting this resolution. We are introducing this resolution for the millions of students who are pushed out of school each year at the hands of harsh and exclusionary zero-tolerance school discipline policies. We are introducing it for the 14-year boy with Aspergers syndrome from Richardson, Texas who was given a $364 police citation for swearing in class. We are introducing it for the six-year-old student of Newark, Delaware who was so excited about joining the Cub Scouts that he brought his camping utensil to school. Because it had a small knife, he was suspended and referred to an alternative school for 5 days. And we are introducing the resolution for the 16-year-old of New York City who broke school policy by using a cell phone. He was subsequently detained and beaten by school police officers, rushed to the emergency room, and, outrageously, charged with disorderly conduct. Fortunately for the boy and his family, those charges were later dropped. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, those stories are not random acts of irresponsible school administration. They are representative of a growing trend. Now, before I go any further, it is important to recognize that there are many cases where the removal of a student from school is absolutely necessary. When a student poses a real safety threat to teachers or his or her fellow students, suspension or expulsion is warranted. Yet too often, kids in this country are being excluded from school at a growing rate for unjustifiable reasons. According to the Department of Education, over 3 million students are suspended and over 100,000 are expelled from school each year often, for minor offenses. Hundreds of others are arrested or sent to alternative schools for incidents historically dealt with within school walls. Disturbingly, African American, Hispanic and disabled students are disproportionately impacted. As you can imagine, kicking youth out of the classroom without addressing underlying issues for their behavior doesn't help that child, and usually doesn't improve the learning climate of the school. In fact, the American Psychological Association has found that suspension and expulsion negatively impact school-wide achievement and increase the risk that excluded students fall behind academically, become alienated from school, drop out, and become involved with the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. In other words, these harsh practices are pushing kids out of the classroom and creating what has been widely dubbed as a ``school-to- prison pipeline.'' In 2007 in my own home state of Connecticut, 89% of the 16 and 17- year olds involved with the criminal justice system had been suspended or expelled from school. While this may be attributable to many factors, common sense will tell you that when a kid is expelled from school, home alone without supervision, he's likely to keep getting into trouble. Fortunately, there is also great work being done in Connecticut and across the country to address school pushout and our resolution commends those efforts. Counterproductive zero-tolerance policies are being replaced with evidenced-based behavior management and discipline practices. Schools are partnering with community leaders and services to better support at-risk students. Parent engagement is being prioritized and states are passing laws limiting the use of exclusionary discipline practices. These efforts are producing real results in decreasing behavioral incidents and improving school climate and student achievement. Yet what I've heard time and time again is that in order to be successful, Congress needs to support and help expand these efforts. We need to help teachers and administrators who aren't receiving the training they want and need to effectively manage a classroom. And we must support efforts to adopt evidenced based practices to improve student engagement and school safety by providing both effective technical assistance and flexibility for our schools. Most importantly, we have to acknowledge this rising problem in our nation's schools and commit to working together to stop it. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man and constituent, James DiPace. Mr. DiPace has devoted 37 years of service to the Avon Volunteer Fire Department, and has served as Fire Chief there for the last 15 years. The community of Avon is lucky to be home to a man like James DiPace. His selfless dedication to the town and his devotion is remarkable, and he deserves to be recognized by the House of Representatives as he retires as fire chief. Incorporated in 1943, the Avon Volunteer Fire Department proudly protects more than 16,500 people. During his tenure as Fire Chief, Chief DiPace oversaw several incidents in town, but perhaps none more powerful than the July 29, 2005 crash at the base of Avon Mountain. That morning, a dump truck lost its brakes and careened into a line of stopped vehicles at a traffic light. The accident involved 19 vehicles and a CT Transit bus. Four people died that morning. On that sad day, Chief DiPace acted as incident commander at the scene from 7:30 am until after midnight. Two years later, another truck lost its brakes and caused an accident at the same intersection. Again, Chief DiPace was the incident commander at the scene. During these times of tragedy, it was always comforting to know that James DiPace, a man of keen interagency relations and cool temperament, was commanding the scene. Throughout his service, James DiPace has been an active member of Connecticut's community of emergency responders. While Fire Chief, he served as Fire Marshall and Emergency Management Director for the town of Avon. Additionally, Chief DiPace has served as president of the Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association and the Capitol Region Fire Marshalls Association. James DiPace's service to the community does not stop at the firehouse doors. Outside of his commitment to the Avon Volunteer Fire Department, Mr. DiPace has been part of many civic organizations in town, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Lions Club. With his family, Fire Chief DiPace has also opened his home to several Fidelco Guide puppies and dogs, preparing them for their jobs as Seeing Eye companions. James DiPace has given so much of himself to the town of Avon without wanting anything in return. His presence will surely be missed in the Avon Volunteer Fire Department. Today, I rise to thank Fire Chief DiPace for his remarkable service and wish him the best in retirement.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1481) to amend section 811 of the Cranston- Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to improve the program under such section for supportive housing for persons with disabilities.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank, again, Representative Frank for his generosities, despite my leaving the committee. And again, to Representative Biggert in particular, for her advocacy on this issue over the years. For people that are born with physical and mental disabilities, what I think we strive to do as a society is give them a chance at independent life, give them a chance to succeed just like everyone else. And there is nothing more fundamental to that success than a roof over your head, than a place to live and a place that has some appropriate supports, recognizing the challenges that you face. This bill, where we can potentially triple the number of supportive housing units that we build across the country without spending an additional dime, is both, I think, a compassionate response to those people and a responsible way to run this program. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee and a primary proponent of this legislation and the legislation that previously passed respective to the 202 program, Representative Barney Frank.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here today with my colleagues in support of S. 1481, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2009. This is a reauthorization and improvement upon the existing section 811 supportive housing program. Passing this bill today would send the legislation to the President's desk. I think this is the third time we've had this bill before the House over the last 4 years. It would pave the way to provide thousands more affordable housing units each year across this country to low-income persons with physical and mental disabilities. Importantly, the bill before us today costs the same amount as the existing 811 program. It just makes some very important improvements to efficiently expand the use of these important dollars. That is why I want to first just thank all the people who have brought this bill before us today, Senators Menendez and Johanns in the Senate as well as the ranking member of the full committee in the Senate, Senator Dodd; here in the House, the chairman of the full committee, Representative Frank and Representatives Capito and Biggert for their tireless advocacy on the issue of supportive housing, as well as really hundreds of staff both on the inside of this building and those advocates who have worked on this issue for a number of years. And lastly to the Melville family, this bill is titled the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act. Frank Melville, who unfortunately passed away a few years ago, and his surviving wife, Allen, created something called the Melville Charitable Trust; and that trust today is one of the primary funders of supportive housing advocacy around the Northeast and around the Nation. And I think this legislation, should it find its way into passage, will be a fitting testament to Frank Melville's legacy. Madam Speaker, the 811 program is the primary program for the development of supportive housing around the country. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that around this Nation, there are about 1.3 million individuals, nonelderly disabled, people with physical disabilities or sometimes very severe mental illness, who are living in substandard housing. Supportive housing is a cost-effective means to provide those individuals with an ability to thrive independently. They are housing units, sometimes built together, sometimes done on a scattered-site basis, that are partnered with a modicum of support services, sometimes transportation help, sometimes medication adherence, that allows them to live independently. It's the right thing to do for them, and it's the right thing to do for the government. It saves us billions of dollars. Because often, especially with respect to the individuals who have severe mental illness, the alternative is for those people to live in institutional settings, whether it be in hospitals or in jails. For those with physical disabilities, it is often a very, very difficult life to live in nonsupportive housing units. The problem is we are not building enough of these units. Over the last few years we've built less than 1,000 across the country with 811 dollars. And it's sometimes taking up to 6 years from the point of application to the point of completion when you're dealing with an 811 project. This bill, by reordering the way in which we run the program, would triple the number of housing units that we can build through the 811 program across country. It does this by providing better accountability and cost efficiency to the program, by transferring 811 vouchers to the larger section 8 program. And this frees up funds to support efforts to leverage 811 capital dollars with low-income tax credits, private dollars, and State partnerships. That's what this is really all about, trying to take our Federal dollars and leverage them with other sources of funding, whether it be through State and municipal funds or whether it be through private dollars, which I think is really the future of supportive housing development. It also makes a number of other important efficiencies by allowing States and State housing agencies to do much of the bureaucratic paperwork that sometimes bogs down these applications. Years ago, Madam Speaker, when this country and States across the Nation made the decision to close down our institutions that housed individuals with mental and physical disabilities, we made a promise to them. We told them that we'd find them new housing out in the communities, better opportunities for those individuals to live on their own. We haven't lived up to that promise over the years. And in Connecticut, those of us who have worked on this issue for years, we often wear a badge when we're working on this issue in the State Capitol that says, Keep the Promise. This legislation, I believe, thanks to the great work of my Republican colleagues and Senators who worked so hard on it, is a step towards doing just that. Again, I'd like to thank all of the people who have made this prospective final passage possible. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are willing to support this Congress borrowing money, but only if all of that effort is targeted at creating jobs. This bill fails that test. We're going to borrow almost $900 billion under this bill in order to give $140,000 in tax cuts to somebody that makes $1 million. We're going to reduce the estate tax so that only 3,500 families in the entire country pay it next year. Tax cuts for billionaires don't create jobs. Sure, there are important provisions in this bill that do help the most needy, like extending tax cuts to the middle class and unemployment benefits to those that are out of work. But these benefits are going to be greatly outweighed by the crushing debt that those same families will have to carry and the cuts to education and to health care and to Social Security that will inevitably be passed in order to finance those same tax cuts. My constituents want a bill that is 100 percent focused on jobs. Unfortunately in this bill, 20 percent of the money goes to almost only 1 percent of Americans. It's not a deal to create jobs. It's not a deal that we can afford.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the more I learn about the Department of Defense's procurement policies and the procurement policies of other agencies, the more angry I get, the more angry this Congress should get, and the more angry the American citizenry should get. In my home State of Connecticut, we pioneered America's shipbuilding and aerospace industries. However, today, as more and more of U.S. taxpayer dollars go overseas to buy equipment and parts and machinery for the U.S. military, those shops, once bustling with workers, are now silent. We have example after example of how our procurement policy has gone wrong. You have the big-ticket, high-profile examples, like the Air Force KC-x Tanker which went to Airbus rather than to an American-based bid. You have the 21 helicopters that we are supplying to the Afghan military today that we are buying--not from an American manufacturer but from a Russian manufacturer. And then you have the thousands and thousands of smaller examples on seemingly a daily basis in which American companies come up short. When we buy Chinese-made doorknobs for the renovations at Camp Pendleton when there is an American company that can do the same work, when we buy our copper and nickel tubing for our subs from a German manufacturer, when there is an American firm that can do the same work, we are wasting billions and billions of American dollars sending our jobs overseas. I am here today, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the latest affront on this issue. The Army, last month, offered a solicitation for 96 machines that will make dog tags for our service men and women. These iconic placards are not only a symbol of the life and death faced by our American soldiers, but they serve a crucial function in the field. Frankly, there is little else that embodies the American military tradition than those little plates that hang off of a soldier's neck. An American company, NewBold, which manufactures its dog tag machines in Virginia, lost its bid to a company that manufactures those machines in Italy. Now while the NewBold machine was marginally--only about 4 percent--more expensive, they offered around-the-clock technical support for our soldiers in the field. Even after they filed a protest, the Army still awarded the bid to workers in Italy. Unfortunately, due to the loss of this contract, NewBold is going to have to lay off some people, and the 4.7 percent that we saved is going to be completely offset by all of the lost income taxes to the Federal Government due to the layoffs, the lost payroll taxes, and all of the increased social costs like unemployment compensation. This is insanity. Not only are we now relying on an Italian-made machine to make one of the most iconic pieces of our military uniform--all to save just a few thousand dollars on the contract--but it is now going to cost the U.S. economy jobs, and it is going to cost the U.S. taxpayers additional expense. We can't allow this to continue, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. For the last year, I have been working with a bipartisan group of Members, including the previous speaker, Congressman Jones from North Carolina, so that we can shore up the loopholes in our ``Buy American'' policies, so that we can make sure that more of our U.S. taxpayer dollars stay here at home. I have introduced legislation that will do just that, that will begin to reorient our money here to American-made products for our U.S. military. I've had enough. This country has had enough. As we bleed manufacturing jobs out of this country, the U.S. Government cannot continue to exacerbate that problem by sending U.S. taxpayer dollars overseas. It's time for this Congress to deem this practice unacceptable, to strengthen the ``Buy American'' provisions, and to bring our taxpayer dollars back home.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to direct the attention of my colleagues to the fragile but critical status of the country of Lebanon. Mr. Speaker, we are perhaps days away from an international tribunal's verdict on who killed former prime minister of Lebanon Rafik Hariri. That verdict, many say, could plunge Lebanon into another round of violence and retribution. Thankfully, this body, through the leadership of people like Howard Berman and Nita Lowey, has removed its reservations on U.S. military aid to the Lebanese army. This is a crucial step in terms of securing the Lebanese border with Israel, and it could be a crucial step should the tribunal's decision on who killed Prime Minister Hariri lead to greater instability in that country. Mr. Speaker, we must support Lebanon as a force for peace and prosperity in this critical region. We need Lebanon as an ally to America and to all the countries in that region who are pushing for peace. I have thousands of Lebanese American constituents in Connecticut. They constantly remind me of the importance of these points, and I believe they are right.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the committee for bringing this bill before us. There's $13 billion in this legislation for construction. That's more in the last 4 years combined than any 4-year period since the 1940s. And though that will mean transformational things for our veterans, I want to just briefly highlight this afternoon what it will mean for the people that will do that work. We've lost 2 million construction jobs in this recession and the Associated General Contractors of America estimate that almost 400,000 construction jobs could be created just by this bill alone. That's good news for jobs in this country. But we can have even better news if we make sure that the materials used to build those buildings are bought here in America as well. Many of us have been working very hard on reinforcing our Buy America law. This construction funding presents us with a unique opportunity to not only serve our veterans, not only honor our commitment to them, but also grow the types of jobs in construction and construction materials that this economy badly needs. I'm so thankful to the chairman for all of his work bringing this bill to the floor and what it will mean for veterans and for jobs.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I went door to door in Waterbury, Connecticut, where unemployment today is 14.1 percent. Guess what everybody wanted to talk about? They wanted to talk jobs. People in Waterbury never shied away from hard work. This is the Brass City. It's due to its rich history of manufacturing, making things from Boulder Dam in Colorado to munitions for World War II and Korea. And today the unemployed in Waterbury aren't just sitting on their hands waiting for a job to drop in their lap. And unlike some on the right try to suggest, they're not looking for a handout either. They just need some help getting through this recession. Outside the city limits of D.C., patience is running thin with the Republicans who are playing politics with people's ability to buy groceries and simply make ends meet during tough times. We can come out of this recession stronger than ever, but Congress needs to do the right thing and extend unemployment benefits for people in Waterbury and all across this country.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago I visited a company in my district, Integro, and through the enforcement of the Buy America clause, their business in making lighting for airstrips has almost doubled. In visiting them, I found out that they then have increased their purchasing from other domestic firms. So earlier this week I visited a company in Plainville, Connecticut, Olson Brothers, who has seen their business increase 20 to 30 percent because of the purchasing done by Integro. They buy their raw product from a company in Massachusetts, and hopefully later on during the August break I will get to visit them as well. The point is when you enforce Buy America regulations, when we make sure that the things we buy for the Federal Government are bought from domestic firms, you don't just create business with one company, you create business with three companies, with five companies, with 10 companies. That is why Buy America works. That is why we should reinvest and strengthen that policy here in Congress.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Representative Wasserman Schultz, Representative Tonko, Representative Jackson Lee. Listen, everybody should take a look at that chart that was next to Representative Tonko. It's not a coincidence that from month to month to month in the last year of the Bush administration we lost more and more and more jobs, and then immediately upon the new President, President Obama, taking office, we started to lose less and less and less jobs to the point now where we are adding jobs to the economy. It's because the stimulus has worked. It is because it is infusing new money into the economy. It is because tax rates are the lowest in this country since 1950. People have more money to spend than ever before. It's because we put money in the hands of teachers and firefighters and police officers and renewable energy companies and solar companies and advanced battery technology companies. The leading edge of our economy is creating jobs. It's because manufacturing is coming back. To Mr. Schauer's point in June, 9,000 new manufacturing jobs in this economy. Since December, 136,000 new manufacturing jobs. The economy is heading in the right direction because we're putting new policies into place that are investing in small manufacturers, in small businesses, in Main Street. And that's the dichotomy here. I mean, that's why I ran for Congress 4 years ago, because I watched Washington, I watched the Bush administration put all of its focus on the haves, on the big multinational companies, on the big oil companies, the big pharmaceutical companies, the big defense contractors, and very little emphasis on the small manufacturer with 10 employees around the corner from me; very little emphasis on the small mom-and-pop business that was struggling to get by paying for the energy costs and the health care costs that were padding the pockets of the big guys. That's the fundamental shift that's happened here, and you see it on issue after issue. You see it in our approach to energy as, Mr. Tonko, you said we're investing in small renewable energy companies while the Republican leadership, on issues of energy, are asking for apologies to BP. You see it on health care reform, where we're putting power in the hands of consumers; whereas, the Republicans, when they tried their stab at health care reform with the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, put all the power in the hands of insurance companies and drug companies. And you see it with respect to manufacturing. What we're talking about as Democrats is reinvigorating American manufacturing, to stop this defeatist notion that we can't make things here in America anymore. That's what sort of drove the House of Representatives when the Republicans were in charge was manufacturing is dead. They can't do it here any longer; we're just going to sign free trade agreements with any country that comes to us without any regard to fair trade, that we're going to allow jobs to flow out to China, to India, to Mexico. Democrats and the Obama administration refuse to give in to that notion. And I think you are going to see, over the course of the next several weeks and several months on this House floor, Democrats in the House of Representatives standing up for American manufacturing and saying we can make it here in the United States. Mr. Schauer's initiative is right on, right on. If we can start standing up to countries like China and say, Listen, if you're going to--if you want free trade with the United States, then you have to allow us to sell to you just like you sell to us. I think it starts with the way that we buy things for the American Government. A number of us are working on legislation that we hope will come before the floor very shortly that will say simply this: When the American Government buys things, whether it be for the census or whether it be for the Defense Department, let's buy it here in the United States. Sure, you might be able to find that part for the jet engine 10 percent cheaper in China, but that job being created in China rather than in a machine shop in New York or Connecticut is costing our government, is costing our economy way more than the 10 percent you saved in lost wages, in lost taxes, and in increased social safety net costs like unemployment compensation. So I'm looking forward to this summer and this fall as we build on the work that we've done here, when Democrats do what we're good at doing, which is standing up for small guys, for little guys, for American manufacturing, and that we put an end to what has been a decade-long defeatist attitude in this country and in this government to just allow for manufacturing to go to the folks that can do it for the cheapest and who can do it with the lowest and the worst environmental and labor regulations around. I think we're going to stand up for American manufacturing. I think we're going to continue this trend of growing manufacturing jobs. I think it's going to be part, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, of the story of the recovery and the resurgence of the American economy.