Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Boccieri, just to give you a little perspective on what the folks that are running local governments, the folks that are at the real foundation of our system that are struggling every day with this company going out of business or this company not being able to expand, let me tell you what they are saying, all right? The mayor of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Tom Beehan, says, ``The stimulus package is going to be huge for Oak Ridge. There is money in the stimulus package for environmental cleanup, and it's heading this way.'' The mayor of Columbus, Ohio, Michael Coleman, says, ``The stimulus package will stop the freefall, and it is going to lead to growth in the future.'' The Phoenix mayor, Phil Gordon, ``This will actually create jobs with the private sector in all different areas.'' Alabama State Representative Jimmy Martin says, ``Until the stimulus passed, Alabama was looking at laying off 8,000 teachers next year, increasing class sizes to historic proportions and, in the process, wiping out the progress we've made in the past 5 years. The stimulus package will change that reality.'' And the Wisconsin insurance commissioner, Sean Dilweg, says, ``We know the cost of health care premiums for unemployed workers makes it difficult for them to purchase coverage. The COBRA subsidy in the stimulus bill will make it much easier for families to continue their health care coverage.'' These are local leaders with boots on the ground talking about how this is going to affect their community. They are backed up, as I said, by the 65 percent of Americans, in today's survey, that support this bill as well. And, Mr. Boccieri, talking again about that contrast between action and inaction, well, for those of us who listened not only to President Obama's address last night but listened to the Republican response, listened to our former colleague here, Bobby Jindal, give the response to that speech, well, you know, maybe we are not giving him enough credit, there were a couple of alternatives that they posed, but essentially the alternatives were to go back to the economic philosophy and the economic strategy that got us into this mess in the first place. The alternative to our plan for action seems to alternate between inaction or a reversal back to the policies of the Bush administration; in effect, trying to use and leverage this economic crisis as a means to further decrease taxes for people in this country making enormous incomes who, frankly, right now in this moment of economic crisis, don't need that additional subsidy from the government. I think, going forward, that we are going to have cooperation here. I think, as our friends on the other sides of the aisle do go back to their districts, they are going to hear a command from their constituents to come to the table and try to be a part of the solution. They are going to hear what I just enunciated for my colleagues from local officials who are crying out for this help in the private sector and, frankly, on the public side. This package is going to predominantly, to a large extent, create jobs in the private sector. That's our focus right now. But it is also going to protect the jobs of some teachers and some firefighters and some cops out there that our communities badly need, Mr. Altmire. It's a prescription to get this economy back up and started towards recovery. Mr. Boccieri is right; you know, this isn't salvation, this is a life raft. This is something that is going to be able to bridge us to real recovery. And I hope that, in the end, we are going to get a little bit more bipartisan cooperation on it, Mr. Altmire.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Boccieri, you're seeing on the ground in Ohio what Mr. Altmire is seeing in Pennsylvania, what I'm seeing. People look at Connecticut sometimes and they have an image of Connecticut as one big suburb of New York and they think that we're all set and the economic downturn isn't going to affect a place like that. Let me tell you there are cities in my district, small cities of 50, 60, 70,000 people, that started this recession at 12 or 13 percent unemployment. That's what's going on even in Connecticut where you look at the per capita income across the board, and we are one of the wealthier States in the Nation. We have pockets of unemployment and poverty that will rival any other place in this Nation. They are cities in my district that used to be the brass city and the silver city and the hardware city, places that made things. Well, they don't make things anymore, in part because of the neglect that the prior administration showed for our manufacturing base as they allowed these jobs to bleed out into our foreign competitors. We didn't reinvest. We didn't protect our manufacturing base, but we also didn't try to find what was next. And what President Obama talked about last night was, as I said at the outset, a twofold strategy. Let's put a plug in the dike right now. Let's stop this bleeding of jobs. This stimulus package that we supported is going to create or save 3.5 million jobs in this country, thousands of jobs in each of our congressional districts. But it's also going to start us on a path forward to try to replace a lot of the lost manufacturing base, much of which may not be coming back. President Obama said, listen, energy, clean, green technologies can be the future of this country, and he challenged us as a Congress to step up to the plate and chart a new path forward. Mr. Boccieri, you rightly said that the real focus of this group, the 30-Something Group, needs to be on trying to talk about how we can come together. We would have loved for some of our Republicans to join us on the stimulus package that, by the way, in a new poll that came out has shown to be supported by 65 percent of Americans. By a 2-1 margin they support this stimulus bill. They are just as concerned about the debt as they are about any subject out there, but they recognize the need to do something right now. And we came down here in the first days of the last session, as we pursued our ``100 Hours Agenda'' of starting to roll back a lot of the damaging policies of the Republican Congress. And we showed that, on bill after bill, we had Republicans supporting us on every single one of those measures, whether it was the minimum wage, whether it was the College Affordability Act, whether it was the stem cell legislation, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission being implemented. We had dozens and dozens of Republicans supporting us on all of those measures. And we are going to get that type of bipartisan cooperation again, because what we are going to put out there, what President Obama is going to place before the Congress is going to be an agenda for America, whether you are represented by a Republican or a Democrat. So I know there is a lot of focus on the cable news shows right now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, on the division in this place. But I do believe, Mr. Boccieri, that we are going to chart a course forward, both in the short term and the long term, that can bring both of these parties together. But we've got to convince our Republicans that the solution is not, as you put the dichotomy, inaction; that they have got to commit themselves, and the American people wants them to, to action. Once they do that, we will be able to forge a path together.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Boccieri, I think about a company in my district that makes parts for cosmetics containers. It is a company that has been profitable for years. It has had a solid line of business. In fact, during this difficult economic time, it has seen its orders drop off by a few points here or there, but has been stable, has had its revenues remain constant. Yet because the banking system is frozen up, because they can't get access to lines of credit and to inventory capital, they have shuttered that company. They have shut it down. They have temporarily furloughed all of their workers until they can hopefully figure out a means to start operations again. To them, inaction is not an option. They have done everything right. They have kept their business running. They have struggled to contain health care costs, to get the costs of production down, to continue to reach out and grow their business, and yet they are laying off dozens of employees in my district because they can't get access to capital. The people they are laying off have done everything that we have asked of them as well. They have shown up to work, made a great product, invested in their company, invested back in their communities. And now they are left without a job. Now they are left without health care. Now they are asking how they are going to be able to continue to pay for their child's education, where they are going to find the next job. Well, similar companies all around my district and their town are doing the same thing, and they know that inaction isn't an option either. They are part of that 65 percent of Americans who want this Congress to move forward on a strategy of stimulus. We have to do something, because inaction, because ``nothing'' simply isn't going to be the answer for this economy. For that one company, that story that can be told dozens of times over in my district, hundreds of times throughout Connecticut and thousands of times throughout this Nation, that strategy about taking on the lack of access to capital for businesses, that strategy of growing jobs as an alternative to the people who have been laid off, that is going to be the answer. I am proud to be part of this Congress. I am proud to be ready to answer President Obama's charge that he left us the other night. And I am proud to be part of the 30-Something Group that over the course of the next weeks and months is going to challenge the country and challenge this Congress to come together and provide solutions for those very people.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We are hopeful that, eventually that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the veterans, will join us down here so that not only can the American people learn something about them on the Web site, but they can see them down here returned to their roots on the House floor as part of the 30-Something Working Group. I thank the Speaker for giving us this time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman. We've heard the numbers on how much we've spent on this war in Iraq. We're approaching $3 trillion if you factor everything together. We're talking about spending a fraction of that money to put people to work here, to give people jobs in this country to start spending our taxpayer dollars on investing in American jobs and in American health care. Representative Baldwin has done just an amazing job of personalizing this issue for years on the House floor, and I really, taking from her example, have brought down with me a few letter to really try to tell the stories of people from my district who are struggling with this very issue from both a human perspective and from an economic perspective. And Representative Baldwin, I'd love to read one letter to start it off and then kick it over to you. We all have these letters piling up, they are coming in, unfortunately, more and more often every day, every week, and every month because as the number of unemployed grows, the number of people without insurance grows. And in fact, more and more employers as a means of keeping their doors open are passing on more and more costs to their employees even if they do keep their jobs. Let me share one letter that came from a constituent of mine, and I will read an excerpt of it. She talks about her inability to find a good job in Connecticut, that she can find a job but she can't find a job with health care insurance. She says, ``Because I cannot get a good job in Connecticut, I have no insurance. I went to get my teeth cleaned the other day, and I had to pay $173 out of my pocket. A few weeks ago, I was sick and I went to the doctor, and it cost me $120. Making minimum wage, I'm getting $7 or $8 an hour. ``These bills that are mounting are going to take a long, long time to pay off. I shudder to think what would happen if I got seriously ill or got in an accident. ``My family has invested so much time and energy and spirit in making this country and this State a great place. But it's increasingly becoming a place that I can no longer afford to live.'' Representative Kennedy talked about the largest number of bankruptcies coming from medical costs. This is a woman doing everything we ask. She's working a minimum wage job, dignity in the labor she provides, and yet she knows that she is just around the corner--one illness or one accident--from losing everything, from having her entire life changed both from a health standpoint and from a financial standpoint. And these are the letters that are piling up in our office. The uninsured sometimes get cast as people who brought it on themselves, that they should just go out and find a job, just go out and seek out health care insurance. Well, we know that whether the number is four out of six or five out of six, the vast majority of people who don't have insurance come from families with full-time workers who have a job but just simply don't have health care for themselves or don't have it for their families or dependents. So at this time, I would be happy to have my friend and the leader on this effort of bringing the human side of the story to the House, Ms. Baldwin, to join us.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy. There is no more forceful advocate for the moral authority that we lack as a Nation as we try to go out and broker compromises around the world to try to preach to other countries about their rights and wrongs. It's very hard to do that when they look at us as the most affluent Nation in the world, and in our midst are 45 million people who can't afford health care insurance, children going to bed at night sick simply because their parents can't afford to get them to a doctor. That, I think, cheapens our ability to go around this world and try to set the kind of example that we would like.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing us to have the time this evening. I am very glad to be joined by a number of colleagues over the next hour as we start what we hope will be a fairly regular Special Order hour here on the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about the great need for comprehensive health care reform this year in the United States Congress. I think it is very appropriate that we kick off this Special Order hour in the midst of an incredibly important and critical debate about the economic future of this country, both in the short term and in the long term, because one of the things we're going to talk about in this Special Order hour is the very fact that, for millions of families out there and businesses--small and large--this economy did not just lurch into crisis this past summer. It happened long before that. One of the biggest contributing factors to the economic crisis that businesses and families have been feeling for years is the mounting cost of health care. Businesses have not been able to expand because they cannot afford to pay the increasing health care premiums. Our domestic manufacturers are hamstrung by a system that burdens them with health care costs that aren't shared by their foreign competitors, and families who are being asked to pick up more and more of the tab of health care simply cannot do everything they would like to do. For potential entrepreneurs who want to go out and start those new businesses, who have great ideas but cannot leave their current places of employment because their health care benefits tie them to those jobs, they cannot take the risk to go out and start those new endeavors because they cannot take the risk that their families will not have health care. This economy has been held back for too many years by our current health care system, and one of the things that I hope we will get to talk about here is the increasing burden on our economy by our current health care system. We have an opportunity in this economic crisis to learn from our mistakes. One of those will be our efforts to try to fix this very broken health care system. We have a number of people here who may have to leave before our hour is up, so I do want to yield some time right off the bat. Representative Baldwin, who started doing health care hours before I came to Congress, is going to share some letters from our constituents over the course of the next hour. Before we get into that, I want to yield some time to, really, one of the great leaders for those of us who have come here to Congress in the past several years. He has been fighting the general fight for health care reform, but he has done yeoman's work in the past several years on the issue of mental health care. He is my good friend, Mr. Kennedy, from Rhode Island.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentlelady. You have some pretty articulate constituents. We hope to come down here and do this fairly regularly, and the unfortunate nature is that there are enough letters that come in every week to be able to fill at least an hour every week or every 2 weeks with their stories. So I thank the gentlelady for joining us and being part of this and hopefully keeping this message going forward, which is that these stories are endless, the crisis is real, and we have an opportunity to do something about it and do something about it now. We can't wait any longer. Our economy can't wait. Our families can't wait. Our businesses can't wait. This year, this session, we have an opportunity to do real health care reform, and the ultimate consequence of that is hopefully that the number of those letters that Ms. Baldwin read aloud will reduce over time as people see real health care come to them and their family and the businesses they work for. Mr. Altmire, we normally join each other down here for a more wide- ranging conversation amongst the 30-somethings, but I'm thrilled you were able to come down and join us this evening.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Mr. Altmire, and I think by focusing in on that question of quality, you really talk about the third leg of the stool--is about coverage, is about prices, is about quality. I think, although all of us come from a little bit different perspective on the ultimate path forward on the parameters of that health care reform effort, we know that it can advance all three legs. We can get a more affordable system that covers more people for better quality than we have now. And I don't think it's too ambitious to suggest that we're going to get a system of coverage that covers everybody for less money than we're spending today. If you shift the money from crisis care to preventative care, if you start pooling the purchasing ability of the people that are paying, you can drive down the cost and expand out the number of people. And that sounds impossible. I mean, how do you get more for less? But every other country has shown a way to do that. We're not going to copy other countries' systems. We're going to create our own, taking already from the best that we have. But we can do both, Mr. Altmire. We're joined as well today by my colleague from Connecticut, Representative Courtney. Representative Courtney and I got the chance to chair the Public Health Committee in our respective State legislature, and we both know firsthand how hard it's been for States to toil under the system, as 50 different States try to cobble together 50 different systems of health care to insure their citizens in the absence of any national strategy. Mr. Courtney, I thank you for joining us here this evening.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Courtney. I preceded him or came after him as the chair of the Health Committee. The work that had been done under your leadership to start what really was a model program for getting prescription drugs to Connecticut citizens, the ConPACE program, was really an amazing piece of work due to your great leadership. And I thank you for joining us here. I'm glad that you brought up, Mr. Courtney, this issue of what this new Office of Health Care Information Technology is going to do. One of the things that has held us back as a Nation in trying to create a sensible system of health care information technology is that we don't have any national standards, that we don't guarantee the ability of one system to be interoperable with another system. It just makes absolutely no sense that someone that has been treated their entire life at a hospital in Torrington, Connecticut, who gets brought into the emergency room 20 minutes down the road in New Milford Hospital, even if they want that hospital, that emergency room to have data about their care, their illnesses, their treatment, their tests, that that data can't be transmitted. That those two hospitals who have spent millions of dollars building up their own information technology and medical records system can't communicate with each other. And ultimately as we move forward on some sensible form of comprehensive national health care, it's going to have to have at its foundation a health care information technology system that communicates with each other. It's going to have to be, I think, very strong patient protections built into that system. But it is going to have to be interoperable. And the only way that that happens is through a Federal effort to try to set up some basic standards to guarantee that these systems are not just individual silos and they can communicate with each other. That doesn't mean that we're going to dictate one software program or one hardware program. But we're going to have some ability for those systems to communicate with each other. And I think of all the pieces that many of us are excited about in this stimulus bill, the ability for this piece of legislation to move us leaps and bounds forward on the issue of health care information technology is just absolutely, absolutely critical. Representative Courtney also mentioned the issue of the expensive COBRA system. Representative Baldwin was reading us some letters before. And seeing that you brought it up, I figured I'd read a portion of a letter on that very subject. George from my district writes, I'm 63 years old and was recently laid off from my job. I was told that I would have 30 days of additional insurance coverage from the day that I was laid off. But when I went in to schedule a minor operation, I was told that I didn't have insurance coverage anymore and the operation had to be canceled. I was given the option to continue coverage under COBRA, for a price. When I looked at the cost of COBRA insurance, it was over $753 a month. My unemployment check per week was roughly $498 a week, less taxes and any part-time job. ``How are we as Americans able to maintain our homes and this when things like this happen to us? I think it's a real crisis and you and your fellow Congressmen and Senators should really make an effort to fix these problems that we're facing.'' That story can be told over and over and over again in this current economy as people are losing their health care insurance. They have that option of COBRA, a great decision that this Congress made to allow that option. And now, under President Obama's stimulus bill, people will actually be able to afford that option. It will be a realistic option for people that are losing their jobs as a bridge to reentering the workforce. I know we have a Special Order hour awaiting us so we will wrap it up at this point. I hope that as we come down to the floor and have these Special Order hours surrounding health care reform, that we're going to be united by a single purpose of getting health care reform done this year. As Representative Altmire and I were talking about, everyone is going to have very different perspectives from both sides of the aisle as to what should be the component of that reform legislation. And people's ideas may vary greatly, but my hope and I think all of our hope of those that joined us here for this hour, is that our unity of purpose is in getting a bill done. Getting a comprehensive piece of health care reform legislation done this year. This Congress and this town has been stymied year after year in that effort. But the stars may be aligning this year to get something done. And, in particular, I think that this economic crisis that we're going through right now should be that final impetus to get us over the hump. We have known for a long time that as a moral imperative we have to step up to the plate and deal with the fact that there are too many people getting sick for no reason except that they can't get care. This--it's too expensive. But we now have a much sharper idea of what the economic imperative is behind health care reform. We can cover more people for less money. We can save jobs by reducing health care costs. And if we set that as the very realistic goal heading into a health care reform debate, I think we will find, despite the cacophony of voices that will surround this hall from the outside interest groups that have so much concern and stake in the status quo, that there is probably much more agreement in this House than there is disagreement. I thank my colleagues for joining us here today. I look forward to coming down and having this hour several times over the coming weeks and months. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Boccieri, thank you very much for joining us. You know the statistics. You just look at the auto industry. And that statistic that we've heard over and over again, that $1,500 of every automobile produced in the United States goes to pay health care costs. The comparable number to our domestic auto manufacturers for their competitors in Japan or all over the word is nearly zero because they don't bear the full burden of paying health care costs. They pay it a different way. They pay it through taxes to the government for a different system, but they're paying for systems that cost 11 or 10 percent of their GDP where we're paying for a system that costs 16 to 17 to 18 percent of our GDP. It's a tremendous competitive disadvantage for small businesses that are trying to pay those premiums and also for those large manufacturers, Mr. Boccieri.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. That is the genius of health care reform is that you are going to get a system that covers everyone for less money, that we can do the right thing morally and the right thing financially at the same time, Mr. Kennedy. We're joined here by a number of Members, but I'd love to yield the floor at this point to Mr. Boccieri for a few moments, a new Member of Congress. You know, I think we want to talk about the importance of health care reform. But in our current system, the way that you get health care reform most often is through a job. And this stimulus bill that we're debating right now can be looked at overall not only as a jobs' package but as a health care package. Because if we can get more people employed, we can get them jobs. And so I know Mr. Boccieri wants to talk about our efforts to get health care reform generally, but also the importance of this stimulus bill for millions of families out there who are at risk of losing their jobs.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Klein, and I always enjoy hearing our friend from Minnesota speak on the floor. Mr. Klein, let me talk about one small business in particular. Let me talk about Angelo's Deli in New Britain, Connecticut. Angelo's has been serving the people of New Britain, where my great-grandparents came to work decades ago, for 60 or 70 years. Now, Angelo doesn't own the place anymore. Now, for the last 20 years, it's been owned by a guy by the name of Joe Tropea. Joe is not a political guy, doesn't get involved in political fights very often; but he sees as clearly as any business owner out there--small, medium, or large--what's happening to this economy. Joe's holding on. He's doing all right. But he's having to cut back hours. He's starting to think about layoffs. This is a business that has been doing business in New Britain for decades, for decades, and is feeling the crunch right now along with everybody else. Now, why is that? Well, sometimes when people think of Connecticut, they just think of the big houses along the coast where all of the investment bankers, folks coming back and forth from New York live. Well, in New Britain, Connecticut, before this recession began, our employment rate was 11 percent. It was 11 percent to start. It's up to about 12 or 13 percent right now. Why? Because as Ms. Sutton has talked about so many times on this floor, we have allowed the kind of jobs that built up New Britain, Connecticut, and Waterbury, Connecticut, and Meriden, Connecticut, to filter out of this country because for the last 8 years in particular, we have had no strategy to try to build our manufacturing base in this country. We were weak already before we lurched into this economic downturn. Jobs have been really hard to come by for a long time in New Britain. Now it's getting to a crisis point. And the folks that have been coming in for weeks and weeks and years and years to Angelo's Market aren't coming in any longer. The folks who used to come in for a sandwich every couple of weeks are now coming in once every month. The people who used to come in every day are now coming in one day a week. And this story can be told over and over and over again. And so the important parts of this bill to Joe Tropea and Angelo's Market are the parts that start inspiring consumer confidence again. Now, we may not know all of the keys to unlock consumer confidence, but we know that if we start putting money back in people's pockets-- and the right people's pockets--we can start to make them feel good about spending again. That's why 30, 40 percent of the stimulus bill is dedicated to tax cuts but targeted tax cuts to middle class families and to small businesses like Angelo's Market. That is part of what is going to start getting people to spend again, start getting people to walk into places like Angelo's Market again and get this economy moving again. A lot of attention has been given to this spending provision of the bill or that spending provision of the bill. Those are important parts. But a large part of this bill is dedicated to putting money back into the pockets of hard working Americans for them to begin to feel the confidence in this economy that's been lacking for too long. But what also matters to Joe is getting jobs to people of New Britain. Nobody's going to come in and spend money in his business or anybody else's business in New Britain if the unemployment rate in that city continues to lurch upward to 14 and 15 percent. So that's why the 4 million jobs that are preserved or created in this bill are so critical to Joe and the thousands of other business owners in my district. And it's also why he cares about the provisions of this stimulus bill that apply to State government because right around the corner from Joe is the Connecticut Works Office, the arm of the State government that retrains and trains workers for the next economy. If the State of Connecticut continues to face a $6 billion 2-year budget deficit, as it does, it is going to be forced to cut jobs at our worker training programs, to eviscerate the very safety net that's going to help people who are losing jobs find new ones. It makes absolutely no sense to take money away from States that they're going to use to try to train and retrain workers as this economy transforms itself. So Joe and other small business owners like him look to what the Republicans are proposing as an alternative. And when they look to this retread of Bush economics, when they look to the alternatives sponsored by the Republicans, which, in essence, seems to amount to an excuse to simply perpetuate the policy of the Bush administration where tax cuts seem to be the exclusive domain of the people at the upper 1 or 2 percent of the income echelon, he knows that does nothing for him. He knows that for the businesses that line West Main Street in New Britain, that that policy hasn't worked for the last 10 years, and it is not going to get us out of this recession. It's not going to get people coming back into his shop. It's not going to create jobs again. As President Obama has said over and over again, we cannot use this economic recession as an excuse to go back to the policies that have not worked up until now. So I think it's incumbent upon all of us to spend our time, as we try to chart a course forward, spend time in those small businesses that are trying to survive, that are trying to figure out a way forward. The tax cuts in this bill for middle class families, the money to go help States keep that safety net strong, and the 4 million jobs that will be created or saved are instrumental to our economy at large, but are important to small business owners like my friend Joe across this country. So I thank my friend from Florida for bringing us together today. I think you're hearing different versions of the same story. To borrow Ms. Sutton's words, it's jobs, it's jobs, it's jobs. Ultimately what gets people feeling good about this economy, back spending again, is a sense of security about their own job and the knowledge that their neighbors and their friends and their families are going to have their jobs preserved as well. This stimulus bill gets us there. It is not the salvation, but it puts us on that road. I thank Mr. Klein very much for giving us the time this afternoon

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of the recent 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. Citing the constitutional right to privacy, the decision recognized women's equal standing with men to make decisions about their own bodies, and constituted a landmark step forward in the ongoing fight for gender equality. Roe has advanced both the health care and human rights of women throughout America. It stands for the simple premise that government should not, and cannot, tell a person what to do with his or her own body. As a proud cosponsor of the Prevention First Act, I certainly recognize that the term ``pro-choice'' is not synonymous with ``pro- abortion.'' Instead, to me, the right to choose is the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her health and future, free of coercion, based on medically-accurate information, and with access to all reproductive health options. Roe has provided us a legal foundation upon which to build a framework of reproductive health options for women. Our responsibility, as we celebrate the decision's anniversary, is to make sure we honor the tradition of that decision by assuring that women and families throughout this great country have access to family planning and reproductive health options so that never again do women have to retreat to alleyways and dark corners to receive proper medical care. Madam Speaker, January 22, 1973 marks a landmark day in our nation's constitutional history--for women, for health, and for individual liberty.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I would like to draw attention to section 403 of H.R. 384, the ``TARP Reform and Accountability Act.'' It is clearer every day that there is a crisis in the commercial real estate credit markets. Section 403 of H.R. 384 clarifies Treasury's authority to take action to support liquidity in the commercial real estate market. Right now the $3.4 trillion commercial mortgage market is frozen. Most lenders have withdrawn from the market and there is no secondary market for commercial mortgages. In 2007, the market provided approximately $240 billion in financing, which represented nearly 50 percent of all commercial lending. In contrast, the market came to a screeching halt and provided less than $13 billion in issuance in 2008, despite borrowers' demand. In 2009, tens of billions of commercial real estate loans will come due without any capacity to refinance these performing loans. The result could very well be widespread loan defaults. With the downturn in the U.S. economy now having dramatic effects on the commercial real estate market, Section 403 affirms the Treasury Department's ability to take action to help preserve this important sector of our economy. With the clarification included in Section 403, the Treasury can move forward in determining how best to address this situation--either through the Term Asset-backed Securities Lending Facility; or by setting aside TARP funds for the creation of a commercial lending facility that would provide the private market with liquidity and allow for the extension of new credit, as well as assist in refinancing existing performing loans. It is important that we continue to act to address this crisis in a responsible manner that protects the American taxpayer and preserves vital sectors of the United States economy and I urge my colleagues to do so through their support of H.R. 384.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, today the House will debate and pass legislation to extend health care to 4 million more American children. In the richest country in the world, it simply defies our national conscience to allow any child to go to sleep in his bed at night sick just because his parents can't afford to bring him to a doctor. These kids don't deserve this fate and frankly, neither do their parents because three-fourths of the uninsured come from families with a full- time worker who just happens to work for a company that doesn't or can't provide health care. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act will give States the confidence they need to improve their health care systems and increase outreach to ensure that all eligible kids have coverage. This is money well spent. Insuring kids is the right thing to do from both a moral and financial standpoint. It is time for the House to do what it's done twice before and pass legislation that will get 4 million more kids the health care they deserve.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th birthday of Lena Dichele, a living example of the hard work and spirit that we cherish as Americans. Born on January 1, 1909, Lena immigrated to the United States at age 7. Her story began at Ellis Island, where so many other American stories began. Although Lena stopped her formal education in the 8th grade to help her family in trying economic times, she went on to become a life-long educator. At the age of 14, Lena learned to sew at the Waterbury Connecticut Girls' Club, where she transformed this skill into her life's passion. Lena went on to become a sewing instructor at the Girls Club and an informal authority on all things sewing at Tops Department Store in Waterbury. She was also familiar enough with electric sewing machines to assist customers and perform repairs. Lena began sharing her love of sewing with seniors throughout Waterbury by teaching at the Pearl Street Neighborhood Center, the Palladino Center and the Mattatuck Senior Center, where she ended her 83 year career in 2006 at the age of 97. On New Year's Day, Lena's family gathered to celebrate her 100th birthday. But more appropriately, they celebrated the impact that she has had on her family, her friends, and her community, during those 100 years. Lena's story is a truly American story, and I am honored to represent her in Congress, and be able to congratulate her today, here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, on this milestone.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise to support of H. Res. 1420 which honors the 7th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Cener, the Pentagon, and United Airliines Flight 93. On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 people died and thousands of others were injured, scarring families and communities across the Nation. The tragic events of that day also challenged our long-held sense of national security and forever-changed our Nation. In the time following September 11, we also saw the best of the human spirit in the face of unimaginable tragedy. Americans from all over the country banded together and responded to the barbaric attacks with an outpouring of support and commitment to the families of 9/11 and to each other. Everyday heroes from all 50 States, including at least 308 from Connecticut and 64 from the Fifth District alone, put their lives and health on the line and traveled to New York to assist in the rescue and recovery efforts at Ground Zero. Families who lost loved ones on that fateful day dedicated their lives to honoring those killed and making sure that, as a Nation, we never forget. The Fetchets, from New Canaan, Connecticut, are just one example--they lost their son Brad during the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and rather than resigning to mourning, they channeled their grief into resolve, founding VOICES of September 11th, an organization dedicated to advocating for those affected by the events of September 11, 2001. Seven years later, with energy and the economy on the forefront of everyone's minds, the lessons of 9/11 seem less immediate; but in reality, we should draw upon the strength and cooperation our Nation showed during that time to solve the economic and national security problems we face today, and to ensure that the needs of 9/11 families and workers are met. I am proud to say that in 2007 we worked together to pass legislation that requires the enactment of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, making our Nation safer and more secure. As we work to ensure that the new law is fully implemented, we must also not forget the thousands of people who still struggle every single day as a result of the attacks. As we all know, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers released a dangerous cocktail of toxins, putting hundreds of area workers, residents, rescue and recovery workers, and others in the area around Ground Zero at risk. Numerous studies have documented that many of those exposed to the toxins have developed lower and upper respiratory, gastrointestinal, and mental health conditions. With staggering medical bills and the inability to work due to illness, many of the heroes of 9/11 are now in severe financial distress. The Federal Government has a moral obligation to provide them with the care they desperately need and deserve. I offer my condolences to the families and loved ones of those who died during the attacks as well as my sympathy and commitment to those who are sick as a result. We must remain vigilant in the face of terrorism, and, Madam Speaker, we must always remember the events that occurred on that tragic day 7 years ago.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend Chairman Brady for bringing this legislation to the floor today, and for his work to ensure that our veterans are full and able participants in our democracy. As you know, Mr. Speaker, last week, the VA revised its wrongheaded directive barring nonpartisan voter registration drives at VA facilities. Clearly, the VA felt the overwhelming bipartisan pressure from local, state and federal members who supported this legislation, as well as the Secretaries of State and countless veterans throughout the country who rightfully decried it. We have asked enormous sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, and it is simply unconscionable to deny them the right to participate in a government for which they have so valiantly served and fought for. However, our presence here today attests to the fact that this fight is not yet over--while the VA has acted wisely in withdrawing their directive, they still retain the ability to reinstate it at some future date. The VA's recent policy shifts on voting registration have been sudden and unpredictable, and there is precious little assurance that they will not undergo another change of heart. That is why I am a strong supporter of H.R. 6625. I have been to Connecticut's VA Hospitals and clinics, and I have seen and spoken with the generations of proud veterans those facilities care for and serve. They want to be able to enjoy the freedoms they worked to defend, and they deserve to be able to do so at VA facilities. Connecticut's Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General have joined this fight and support the legislation before us because they know our veterans' rights should not just be protected today, but for generations to come as well. Not only will H.R. 6625 guarantee the right of veterans to register to vote at VA facilities, but the bill will also limit restrictions and expand access for nonpartisan voter drives and ensure that veterans get the assistance they need to complete the voter registration process. In an election year such as this, it's important that veterans, with their unique experience in serving their country, have their voices heard. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and stand up for our veterans.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank Mrs. Capito and Mrs. Biggert for their leadership on this issue. Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, although this bill will help scores of individuals with physical handicaps, I think, to myself, of how much help this is going to provide the millions of individuals across this country with mental illness that are struggling to live independently. Years ago, when this country and States across this Nation made the decision, the right decision to close down the institutions that housed many of those individuals, we made a promise that we would find new housing, new opportunities for those individuals to live on their own in the community. We have not lived up to that promise. In Connecticut, those of us that care about this issue often wear a button around the halls of the State legislature entitled ``Keep the Promise.'' This legislation, I believe, is a step towards doing just that. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chamber for its indulgence in allowing us to bring before it today the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2008, which is a reauthorization and improvement upon the existing section 811 supportive housing statute. Before I go into very briefly the details and importance of this act, I would just like to thank those that have worked on this bill and this issue, including the chairman of the committee, Chairman Frank, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Representative Waters, and especially the Republican cosponsor of this legislation, along with myself, Representative Biggert, who has been just a boundless champion for the issue of supportive housing, the issue of compassionate care for those individuals with physical and mental disabilities, and also to Mrs. Capito, who has led this committee and this issue so ably. Mr. Speaker, the 811 program today is the Nation's primary program for funding supportive housing. What is supportive housing? Supportive housing is housing for people with largely mental disability or physical disability, that provides some basic supports around those living arrangements so that those individuals can live independently. Job skills, medication adherence, social work, a small amount of support given to these individuals living with these disabilities can make sure that those individuals can live on their own independently and live full and productive lives. It is a cost-effective and compassionate program that, unfortunately, has not worked as well as it should have in the past several years. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates, Mr. Speaker, that 1.3 million individuals, non-elderly disabled across this country, are low income, living in substandard housing; 1.3 million people, and our 811 program simply hasn't reached enough of them. Last year, less than 1,000 new units were built around this country with 811 dollars, and, as we heard before the subcommittee, it has taken sometimes 6 years for projects funded with 811 capital dollars to go from the development stage to the completion stage. That's an unacceptably long amount of time for projects that sometimes only encompass four or six or eight units of housing. This bill sets a, I think, very aggressive but reasonable goal, a tripling over time the number of units constructed in this country with 811 dollars. How does it do this? Primarily it does this by taking the $87 million right now that are used as vouchers in the 811 program, and transferring those vouchers over to the larger section 8 program. What we have learned is that these vouchers that are supposed to be dedicated to people with disabilities have not been traced sufficiently, and in fact, probably are going to people without disabilities, in many cases. The section 8 program will do, I think, a much better job, is much better equipped to track those vouchers going forward. We then take that money that has now been freed up through the transition of those vouchers to the section 8 program and use much of it to fund a new demonstration program that will seek to leverage the capital dollars from coming from the 811 program with low- income tax credits, private dollars and State partnerships. By doing that, we will be able to take existing, affordable housing projects that are in the planning stages and, with small amounts of rental subsidies, be able to reach out to those developers and essentially make them a deal that we will give them a small rental subsidy if, in exchange, they carve out a small number of units to be supportive housing. This has worked remarkably well in States that have endeavored this program already. North Carolina comes to mind most immediately where, over the last 7 years, 1,200 units of supportive housing have been built, in part, with this strategy put in place. There are a number of other important improvements to the 811 program in this act, allowing States and State housing agencies to do much of the bureaucratic paperwork involved in these applications, which we believe will greatly expedite the application process, a study which will look into how we can better use dollars in existing housing projects, 202 housing projects, and other affordable housing projects, to get tenants that are living in other affordable housing sites, some basic support services that will help them live independently. It is a vast improvement over the current law, and we hope, as I said, it will potentially triple the number of units built across this country. This is important. These are some of the country's most vulnerable citizens, who are playing by the rules, doing everything we ask, but simply need a small apartment of help to be able to live independent, productive lives in their community. This is one of the most compassionate things that this Congress can do is to try to extend out that basic building block of society, good, affordable housing to individuals with mental disability, with mental illness and with physical disabilities. One last note, this bill is entitled the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act, and it is titled after the late Frank Melville, the founder, along with his wife, Ellen, of the Melville Charitable Trust. This charitable trust that they have built up through their generosity, the Melville family's generosity, has funded housing advocacy and specifically supportive housing advocacy across this country for a number of years. We would not have the housing advocacy community that exists today if it weren't for the generosity of the Melvilles. Unfortunately, this world lost Frank Melville, who also happened to be a constituent of mine, recently, and this act, I think, is a very appropriate testament to the work that he has done. I thank, again, Mrs. Biggert for her great work over the years on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just wanted to throw something on top of that, just to give you an example. You're giving one kind of example. Let me throw another one on, as to what it means when you regulate the small banks but you don't regulate the investment banks, you don't regulate the Fannies and the Freddies of the world. Local banks are still in business, largely, because they have government regulation--sensible regulation, some of it; some of it a little bit too much--that requires them to be appropriately leveraged. They have 4:1, 5:1, 6:1 leverage rates. Fannie and Freddie had 60:1 leverage ratios, just unsustainable. The investment banks that went under, Bear Stearns, 35:1 leverage ratios, money they didn't have. So that's what we're talking about here. We need to do something about the regulatory burden that is crippling a lot of those small businesses. But we need to understand that it's really the big guys that need to be part of the conversation that the small businesses, the small banks have been a part of for a long time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. The Wall Street fire department is well- equipped. The Main Street fire department, it's gone underfunded and undermanned and unequipped for the last 12 years, particularly for the last 6 years. We were very quick to go and help out our friends on Wall Street, but everybody sat here with their hands, you know, on their seats, tied behind their backs, when all these families needed a little help, when a kid who couldn't get an education in an inner city needed to access the apparatus to opportunity that all the rest of us had, when that small business that was about to go under because it couldn't find the health-care insurance to keep its employees on staff needed a little assistance. The little guys, when they needed the fire trucks, they weren't there. But when the big guys needed them, they got there. And so I think you're exactly right, it's just a matter of consistency. Listen, government certainly can be an agent of help to people who need some assistance. But it shouldn't just be the big Wall Street firms. It should be regular, average, everyday families out there. And to Mr. Perlmutter, just a word of warning. I know you're sort of new to the 30-Somethings here, but we don't use Latin. It's just a rule, and I hope you will take that under advisement if you join us from here on out. Listen, I thank my friends for letting me join a little late here. I just wanted to maybe add one thought to this, and maybe you have covered it already. But I think people are searching today for the reasons, as Mr. Altmire said, as to why last night AIG got the brass ring. Now, why did they get help and Lehman Brothers didn't and IndyMac didn't? Exactly why did they get help? Well, part of it I think is that this is a company that does tremendous international business. This is, at some level, a representation of American economic power throughout the globe, economic power that has been so greatly compromised by this administration as we have sold this country to foreign banks and foreign governments, that part of the reason, I think, that we have decided to choose AIG is because we are in such a precarious situation with regard to all of the foreign lenders and foreign governments that hold our currency, that hold American money through the $9 trillion, $10 trillion that we have given out in notes through the Federal debt, that we are now in a crisis position, that when an American firm that is a representation of our power across this globe comes under threat, we have to prop them up. Because if we are seen as economically weak around this globe, those countries are going to start calling their notes, those countries are going to start asking for their money back. And that's when the real economic ruin happens, when the $9 trillion that we have out to lenders across this globe, the record amounts that foreign governments hold, when they start to call in that money that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress sent out to them in record deficits and record debts, then we're in real trouble. And so part of the reason I think we're standing here and trying to answer the question as to why AIG is at the top of the headlines is because we are trying now to make up for the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration that John McCain seeks to perpetuate.