Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me ask you this: If you were walking down the street and you saw a child injured on the side of the road, would you stop? Would you do everything necessary to help that child? I think everyone on this floor today has a simple answer to that question. Of course we would. So why don't we also agree that for the millions of sick children around this country who have no access to health insurance or preventative health care, that we don't have a similar duty to do everything in our power to help them get healed? That, to me, is the definition of compassionate government. And don't let anybody tell you that these kids have access to health care and their parents are just negligent. The truth is that health care availability is shrinking, and the number of children who get sick because they can't get health care is growing. And just like we have a moral obligation to help that injured child, we have a similar moral obligation to help heal a child who lies sick in their bed simply because their family cannot afford a doctor. I don't understand why the President won't help that child, but I hope that together, by overriding his veto, we will.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of articulate folks on the floor tonight. I come back to the idea of the concept of morality. We hear a lot about that from the Republican side, from the Republican Presidential candidates. To me, when it comes down to it, if I really am my brother's keeper, if I am really supposed to live a moral life and represent my moral obligations as a human being, there is nothing more central to that moral obligation than reaching out to a sick child, who through no fault of their own can't get access to the care that will allow them to stand up on their two feet, straighten their back, take a deep breath, and gain the same access to the apparatus of opportunity that all of us enjoy who have led much more privileged lives. That is the moral obligation that lies at the center of everything that we do. So I think it is going to be a proud day when we finally get over that mountain, when we finally reach that moment when we can extend health care to 4 million more children. Maybe there will be a couple more fights before we get there, but the reason we are going to spend 2 weeks in between the President's veto and the moment when we cast the vote to override it is because we know when our Republican colleagues go back home, they are going to hear cries from their constituents to live up to that obligation, to that moral and that fiscal obligation and do the right thing by their constituents. I hope that we will have a very different result.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mrs. Tubbs Jones, I think it is important that you are focusing on the President here, because Republicans do support this. We are talking with a fringe element of the Republican Party, mainly here in the House of Representatives, who stands up against kids getting health care. Because you look across the country, a poll came out about a week ago that said by a two to one margin, registered Republicans in this country support health care for kids. In the Senate, you have 18-plus Republicans standing up for kids' health care. Here in the House, 40- some odd Republicans are standing up for children's health. You have a small element of the Republican Party here, enough right now to sustain the veto. You have a President who is ideologically opposed to kids getting health care. But this really has been a bipartisan effort. So maybe we risk overgeneralizing a little bit when we talk about Republicans on this issue, because we are really talking about a segment of this party just big enough to hold this bill up, just big enough to make sure these kids don't get health care. Because across- the-board Republicans are joining Democrats who understand that this is the right thing to do.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Ryan, the only questions that the Republicans asked about spending money is when it benefits poor kids. That is what seems to happen here. When it is about spending money in Iraq, when it is about spending money for private military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no questions asked. In fact, they decry people who ask questions. But when it is about lifting up poor children out of poverty, making them healthy enough to get up on their two feet and go to school and learn, that is when the questions get asked.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It is just about the choices that you make. Who do you want to subsidize? Do you want to subsidize the oil companies and the big energy companies? Or do you want to subsidize people who are investing in renewable energy, in the energy of the next decade, the next century? That is a choice we made here in the energy bill we passed. Do you want to subsidize the banks who are doing pretty well these days? Or do you want to subsidize the students? We made the choice here in this Congress to subsidize the students instead. We are faced with a simple choice now. Do you want to continue to subsidize the military-industrial complex? Do you want to continue putting money into a war that is making this country less safe every day rather than more safe? More money into a civil, religious conflict between sectarian groups in Iraq? Or do you want to do health care for kids who have no other resources in which to get that health care. My folks back home, to my neighbors, to my family, to the people that I get to represent here in my first term in Congress, these are real easy choices. Students over banks. Renewable energy over oil companies. Kids over a war that is going nowhere but backwards. It seems to me that we are getting more and more people on the Republican side to join us. We are getting more and more of the public. We have a list here, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek and Mrs. Tubbs Jones, we have a list 270 pages long of every single potential group you can think of, 270 different groups, the Consumers Union, Denver Area Labor Federation, the Easter Seals, the Forum for Youth Investment, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, you just go down the list. Everybody out there gets this, that this is the choice you're supposed to make. But what we get here is a lot of rhetoric. Because, Mr. Ryan, you said at the beginning, this is more than about kids, for folks on the other side of the aisle, this is about ideology. They are having a political fight on the floor of the House of Representatives, and the kids, the 4 million kids who are going to go without health care if this bill doesn't get passed and signed, are the victims of that political choice. I was in the Government Oversight Committee that I get to serve on the other day and we had Blackwater in front of us. We are giving them about $1 billion a year to basically form a private military in Iraq. The CEO who was before us wouldn't tell us how much he made, but he could at least tell us that it was well over $1 million. It was about seven times as much as the commanding general in Iraq gets to preside over 160,000 troops. One of the Republicans came out and said, you know, this is unfair. The Democrats are picking on these contractors. All of a sudden the Democrats seem to care about the money that we are spending in Iraq. Well, you better believe we do. Somebody has to.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Right.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Let me just throw a quick statistic to you, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on September 18, 2007, I inadvertently missed the vote on Passage of H.R. 1852, The Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, rollcall vote 876. It was my strong intention to vote ``aye'' on Passage.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support today of S. 377, the United States and Poland Parliamentary Youth Exchange Program Act. Poland, as has been said by both of our previous speakers, has demonstrated an amazing commitment both to democratic values and to their role as an ally of the United States. I remember, as a teenager, if I might date myself, watching in rapt attention as Lech Walesa and his solidarity movement defeated the Communist Party in Poland in parliamentary elections, and then watching Walesa go on to become president of Poland in 1990. That solidarity movement heralded the collapse of communism across Eastern Europe. This United States and Poland Parliamentary Youth Exchange will allow American students to learn much more about this very important heritage of our neighbors in Eastern Europe. Eligible participants in the program will attend a public high school for one academic year and enroll in courses that place a particular emphasis on their host country's history, the establishment of its Constitution, the nation's birth and its political development. Though my last name might not give a hint to this, I am a very proud Polish American. My mother's family emigrated from Poland to New Britain, Connecticut some generations ago. And if you have a chance to drive through the great State of Connecticut and you're looking for a great place to grab a bite to eat, stop off in New Britain, Connecticut. Go to Broad Street, where we still have Polish language storefronts selling some of the best Polish food that you'll find in eastern Connecticut. And I appreciate the gentleman spending a little time remarking about General Pulaski. We take that legacy very seriously in New Britain. We still celebrate Pulaski Day with a Pulaski parade that runs not very far from Pulaski School and ends up at the Pulaski Club. So we are very serious students of Polish history in New Britain, Connecticut, and I can't think of a better program than one such as this that will allow children of a community such as ours in New Britain, whose forefathers came from that country, to be able to go there and strengthen their appreciation for that culture and that country's heritage. I'd like to thank Representative Visclosky, especially, and Representative Emanuel for bringing this legislation before the House floor today and, of course, Senator Lugar for being such a champion in the Senate. This will mean a great deal to our small community of New Britain and the entire Polish American community in the Fifth District of Connecticut.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer an amendment to H.R. 3221, to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or better known as FERC, to hold public local meetings before issuing permits or authorizations that will affect land use decisions, if that meeting is requested by local citizens. While FERC is required to have an open comment period before they issue a rule, there is currently no mechanism right now to require that they hold a public local hearing in an affected locality. I bring this issue to the floor today, Mr. Chairman, because my constituents who live in the community surrounding Candlewood Lake in Connecticut were unable to secure a public hearing from FERC to air their concerns regarding a shoreline management plan that would impose new hefty fees on the residents that surround that lake and enjoy that lake. This amendment is based on a simple premise: Public policymakers cannot and should not, frankly, act without the input of citizens who will be affected by the decisions that they make. As legislators, we know we can't simply sample public opinion by sitting in our offices here in Washington and reading the mail that may come in. We need to go back to our districts and solicit opinion there. A regulatory agency should be held to the same standard, especially in relation to hydropower assets, around which many citizens reside. My amendment is a commonsense solution to the problem that any of us could face. It does nothing to alter or constrain the decisions that FERC may ultimately make; it just ensures the commission would hear all sides before making any determination on land use issues and ensures that our constituents' voices are heard. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this issue may need more time for the committee. I would be happy to yield to the chairman for a short colloquy.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, my intention is to withdraw this amendment. I look forward also to working with my colleagues on the greater issue of making sure that, in all cases, our constituents' voices are heard when these decisions are handed down. As we move more control over Federal power assets from States to the Federal Government, it seems that we should still have safeguards in place to make sure that local citizens' issues and concerns are taken into consideration by FERC, and I plan to continue my advocacy of that cause. I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment withdrawn at this point.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, when we invaded Iraq in March of 2003, we were told that we did so only to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to enforce compliance with a United Nations resolution. Now, four years and over 3,600 American lives later, we are mired in a bloody civil war that only grows more intractable every day. Despite overwhelming evidence and an increasingly broad public consensus, the Bush Administration refuses to yield to the reality that our presence in Iraq is not only failing to accomplish our goals, it is hindering them. So many of the reasons and explanations given to justify this war have proven woefully misleading, were prefaced on faulty intelligence and inaccurate information and--in some cases--wishful thinking. The grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein's burgeoning chemical, nuclear and biological weapons arsenal is now believed never to have existed. Iraq's oil infrastructure, which was supposed to fully fund the country's post-war reconstruction efforts, remains severely damaged and in some cases, actively supporting the Iraqi insurgency. We have been saddled with a war that now actively fuels the forces of terror it was waged to prevent. While the war's greatest cost lies in human lives, it continues to drain our Nation's treasury at an alarming rate. Nearly $600 billion has been spent toward the Iraq war thus far, and we continue to expend tens of billions of dollars in funding it every month. Equally disheartening is the estimated $10 billion in missing Iraq reconstruction funds that simply cannot be accounted for. Meanwhile, the Bush administration refuses to abandon its hopelessly naive belief that major progress is just around the comer in Iraq, despite the conclusions of its own interim report released days ago on the troop ``surge'' strategy, which found only 8 of 18 major benchmarks had been met by the Iraqi government to date. As the secret NSA wiretapping program and his use of so-called ``signing statements'' have demonstrated, the President's irresponsibility in office extends beyond calamitous military decisions to Iraq to an outright disregard for the rule of law. Tragically, this has led an unprecedented number of Americans to lose their trust and belief in government. Where Americans once believed that government had the potential to affect meaningful change, they now see it largely as a tool for cronyism, corruption and deception at the hands of their leaders. I have seen and heard that disillusion firsthand from my constituents, neighbors and friends. The outcry against our wrongheaded strategy in Iraq and the President's disregard for the rule of law comes not merely from opinion makers, retired generals and former cabinet members, but from the very people who elected us to represent them in our Nation's capitol. My office receives dozens of phone calls every week from people so distraught by this President that they can see no other choice but to call for his impeachment. On April 2, 2007, a coalition of concerned citizens from Washington, Connecticut banded together to pass a resolution calling for the President's impeachment. These citizens include Janet Buonaiuto, John Buonaiuto, Sandra Canning, Ken Cornet, Bill C. Davis, Diane Dupuis, Rita Frenkel, Paul Frenkel, Helen Gray, Diana Hardee, Joe Mustich, Mildred Pond, Davyne Verstandig. These conscientious residents of Connecticut's Fifth District presented me with their resolution and asked me to raise their concerns to the full House. I commend them for their activism and concern, and wish to register their views before Congress here today. Thankfully, with the new Democratic majorities here in both houses of the 110th Congress, we now have the ability and the will to take a stand against this administration and its reckless conduct at home and abroad. We will continue to confront this President at every turn on his mismanagement of this war, and we will not cease to challenge the corrosive secrecy and corruption that his lack of leadership has spawned. While the battle is proving to be a hard-fought one, I am confident that we can bring the will of the people to the people's house of Congress.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding. We talked a lot about how this bill is great for kids. I want to join Mr. Altmire in talking about this bill is great for seniors as well. Four years ago this House passed an expansion of the Medicare program to cover drugs. It should have done it a long time ago. The problem was when you finally did it under Republican control, it ended up benefiting the drug companies and insurance companies and really being a burden for many senior citizens. That ends in large part today with the passage of this bill. The underlying CHAMP Act today is going to finally allow seniors to be able to switch their plans when the plans change the drugs that they cover. It is going to begin to remove the doughnut hole, especially for the most vulnerable Medicare recipients out there. And it is finally going to get rid of those burdensome late penalties for the lowest of income seniors. This bill is undoubtedly a great bill for kids. This bill is also going to be a great step forward for the millions of seniors around this country who have been struggling with the Medicare part D program for the last 4 years. I thank the gentleman for his work on this bill.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, many members of the freshman class were elected in part because people were tired of the culture of corruption that they saw here in Washington and the total lack of accountability for those that broke the law and betrayed the American trust. People out in America look at Washington and they just don't understand how Members of Congress over the past several years could be carted off to Federal prisons while their own body, the Congress of the United States, sat by and did virtually nothing to hold these people accountable for their actions. Today, Congress will pass landmark lobbying reform legislation. Fund- raising will become more transparent, sunlight will be shed on lobbyist influence, the K Street Project will end, and the revolving door for Members of Congress will shut a little bit tighter. But as Congress reduces the influence of people outside the body of Congress, we also need to recommit ourselves to cleaning up our own House by reforming the House ethics process. We will all celebrate our victory today. It will be a critical step to changing how things work in Washington. But we can't stop here. We need to make our ethics process work again by establishing a new citizen ethics panel independent of Congress with the power to initiate and vet ethics enforcement actions. We need this reform not because Members of Congress are corrupt but because they are the victims of simple human nature. It isn't natural to turn against your colleagues, your coworkers and your confidants to file complaints against each other under our current ethics process. Inaction within our current system isn't corruption, it's just human instinct. That's why responsible ethics reform will allow an independent panel to initiate these complaints, guaranteeing that friendships and work relationships don't get in the way of enforcing our ethics rules. Mr. Speaker, soon after I was elected last November, I went to speak at an elementary school in my hometown of Cheshire. At the end of my talk, a fifth grader stood up and asked me a question. He said, Mr. Murphy, you sound good now, but how do I know that you're not going to go down to Washington and become like everybody else? I laughed a little bit when he asked me that question, but it's frankly a good one. And the danger for all of us is that the longer that someone spends here, the more ownership you take over the very system that you once ran against. And even though you may know that the system is broken, sometimes it just seems far too long a bridge to cross in order to fix it. But it has to be fixed. And it may just fall upon the newest Members of this body to do the mending. Because it's not just happenstance that some of the strongest voices for this reform are the freshman class, those who have spent the least amount of time working under this dome. Maybe because we just spent the last 2 years spending 18 hours a day living and breathing the frustrations of people outside the Beltway, even those that aren't old enough to vote, that we see with clear eyes what I think everyone inside the Beltway knows in their heart--that our current ethics process doesn't work and it feeds the perception that politicians spend far too much time and too much effort watching their own backs. Listen, I know reform isn't easy, especially when it comes to setting up the rules by which we enforce our own code of conduct. This is delicate stuff. And I understand the fear that some Members have of handing over our ethics process to some outside independent body. But we need to rise above these fears, not only because we owe it to ourselves to remove the built-in conflicts of interest that put Members between a rock and a hard place but because the people out there in the Fifth District of Connecticut and every other district in America won't believe in their Congress again until they know that we can police ourselves. Reform isn't easy. Not the landmark lobbying bill that we will pass today or the needed ethics reforms still to come. But, Mr. Speaker, nothing worthwhile ever is.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Platts again. And I would like to thank Mr. Mollohan for his commitment to this issue. This is a very important increase in the underlying bill in juvenile justice funds. I know he is committed to continuing that upward trend. That is going to mean a great deal to the children who have ban caught in our juvenile justice system and still have a great opportunity to be productive members of society once their time is served.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, it had been previously the intention of Mr. Platts and myself to offer an amendment to title II of the bill. In discussions with the chairman, we will not be offering that amendment today, but I rise to speak briefly on an issue that I know is of great importance to Chairman Mollohan, and that is the issue of juvenile justice. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Mollohan for his incredibly hard work on this bill. I am particularly glad that the bill contains a significant increase for the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. At $400 million, the OJJDP saw a $62 million increase from last year's level. It received $120 million more than the President requested in his budget. It would be hard to overstate how meaningful these increases are going to be to the juvenile justice community. The amendment that Mr. Platts and I were going to offer today would have increased the Juvenile Justice Title II State Formula Grants by $5 million. States rely on these grants to achieve and maintain compliance with the core requirements and protections of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. These requirements protect children who become involved with the courts and ensure that the treatment and services they receive are appropriate for their age, their stage of development, and are suited to their specific offense. Mr. Chairman, when I was in the State legislature, I had the great honor of working on issues related to juvenile justice, and we made great strides in Connecticut in terms of bringing more appropriate care to children in our juvenile justice system and really moving from simply punishment and towards prevention and rehabilitation. These kids don't have lobbyists. Many of them don't even have a home. And as a result, they are often forgotten and voiceless in the halls of State legislatures and here in Congress. Mr. Mollohan and his office have sought to bring a voice back to these children, and I hope that we can build on that. Since 2002, States have seen an 11 percent decrease in State formula grants authorized under the JJDPA, meaning that States have had fewer resources with which to keep kids safe and handle their cases appropriately. States use these formula grants to divert status offenders away from jails and towards appropriate community-based programs to assist them and their families. Status offenders are children under the age of 8 who have committed acts that would otherwise not be considered crimes if they were adults, like skipping school, running away from home, and the possession or use of tobacco. Status offenders may not be held in secure detention or confinement, with a few exceptions. States also use these funds to monitor adult lockups and ensure that youth are housed in age-appropriate settings. They enact mandates that youth may not be detained in adult jails and lockups. When children are placed in adult jails or lockups for any period of time, sight and sound contact with adults is prohibited. States across the Nation are using these funds for very innovative programs to provide children with much more appropriate care. There is very little political utility in State legislatures and here in Congress to stand up for children who have gotten into our criminal justice system, but these funds are used to give these children another shot at success in life. I am glad to be joined by Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania, who was going to cosponsor this amendment, and I would be glad to yield to him at this time.

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. First I would like to thank Chairman Mollohan. This bill is a vast improvement on previous efforts to fund domestic violence efforts. It goes a very long way. And we rise today with my colleague Mr. Reichert to simply ask that we fund yet one more important program that has been authorized. As a child, Mr. Chairman, I remember sitting at home with a baby- sitter while my mother went off to volunteer in a domestic violence shelter, and that memory still stays with me today. Victims of domestic violence require and are entitled to special assistance when dealing with their trauma. However, judges and court personnel need specialized training to deal with these victims in a way that both preserves justice and addresses the severe trauma associated with these crimes. Some States have already put programs in place to deal with the special needs of these domestic violence victims. My home State of Connecticut is amongst those that has been pioneering these types of programs. In the biggest city in my district, Waterbury, we have a program through which law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, family services organizations, probation officers, and domestic violence advocates all review cases together in an effort to reveal more information about the perpetrator to ensure that victims are protected from further abuse. What makes the Waterbury operation so outstanding is the vertical case management model that should serve as an example to the rest of the country, a model that could be funded under the proposed appropriation in this amendment. Congressman Reichert and I are offering this amendment today so that States can have a partner in the Federal Government. Our amendment will fund the Court Improvements Program to train judges and court personnel to better identify and resolve the complex issues involved in domestic violence cases. Congress has a responsibility to recognize the unique and horrific nature of domestic violence crimes, and we have done that in the underlying appropriation bill today with a new investment in domestic violence programs. Our amendment today simply seeks to fund yet one more innovative program to make sure that courts, prosecutors, domestic violence advocates, and the victims themselves all have the resources necessary to navigate what can be sometimes a very complex system. I urge adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Tennessee and from Illinois for supporting the resolution here today. I think it's fitting, in part, that we are here in the House of Representatives on this august floor in order to celebrate a town, New Milford, Connecticut, which is, in part, responsible for our very existence here today. The first citizen of New Milford is often referred to as Roger Sherman, whose statute sits not far outside this body. Why is that? Because after being an entrepreneur in New Milford, Connecticut, Roger Sherman came to the Constitutional Convention and was one of the authors, the primary author, of the Connecticut Compromise, which was responsible for the United States Government having a bicameral legislature with both the House and the Senate. We're very proud of him. We're very proud of the incredibly rich historical tradition in New Milford. As was referenced, the number of people who rose from New Milford to fight in the Revolutionary War is remarkable, given its small size. It also became a central stop, a central hub on the Underground Railroad in the 50 or 60 years after the Revolution. It has grown over time from a community that was founded first by only 12 families to now a town that not only enjoys one of the largest land masses in Connecticut, but also has 30,000 people there and still has retained its small-town charm. I really urge anyone who has plans to travel throughout the northeastern section of this great United States, to try to divert a little bit of your trip to see the quaint village of New Milford. Not only does it have a small, but bustling, downtown of quaint shops on the side streets off of the green, but a growing commercial industrial sector as well. I was privileged to be able to march in a very festive 300th anniversary parade a few weeks ago, and I'm very pleased to join my colleagues here to celebrate its 300th anniversary on the floor of the House of Representatives today. I urge passage of the resolution.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Allen, if you would yield. I guess I come to the thinking, we wish we were in that position. I mean, wouldn't it be lovely, wouldn't it be wonderful if we were in the position in which the choice was between a government-sponsored program and an employer-sponsored program or a privately available sponsored program. It just isn't the reality. And anybody who spends time out in their communities, in their social halls, in their churches and synagogues listening to families will realize that, that there are just more and more families largely, as Mr. Allen noted, that work for small businesses and simply don't have the access to health care insurance that they once did. And I want to hit one more point, and I mentioned it the other night when Mr. Pallone and I were down here talking about this. We also have to disabuse people of this notion that we all aren't paying for those kids and those parents who don't have health care insurance. If the employer doesn't provide it, and then the HUSKY program in Connecticut, the SCHIP programs go away, somebody is going to pay for that health care. And we pay for it largely in two ways: one, all of the premiums that we pay, as insured people, are higher because they are basically subsidizing the care of people that don't have health care insurance, because a doctor is going to have to treat, by law, someone that shows up in an emergency room, and the hospital has to be compensated for that. So private insurance normally pays about 120 percent, 110 percent of what the average Medicare rate is. They are paying a 20 percent, 10 percent premium in order to subsidize the care of the uninsured. I don't know if this is the case in all States, but in Connecticut, we also have an uncompensated care pool, a taxpayer-funded pool, where tax dollars go directly to hospitals and health care providers to help them pay for the kids that walk in, 70,000 of them without health care insurance in Connecticut that have no insurance. So the idea that we are going to be spending any more money on this, when really what you are doing is you are shifting money that we are all spending in our private rates and through these taxpayer-subsidized pools of money that go to hospitals, it is just shifting it to preventive care. We have to sort of remind people that we are paying every day for the uninsured that we have now. It is simply about building a more cost effective and more humane way of paying for it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Representative Schwartz. I am thrilled to be here with Representative Pallone and Representative Allen, who have been advocating for this issue and many other issues regarding health care equity for a very long time. I come from the State of Connecticut, where I served, as you mentioned, Representative Schwartz, in the State legislature for about 8 years, and I chaired the Health Committee there for the last 4 years. And what we figured out was what Pennsylvania figured out a little bit before us and what dozens of other State legislatures figured out over the past few years, which is that by expanding our SCHIP program, and we have got a cute name for that program in Connecticut, where we call it the Husky program after the mascot of our University of Connecticut sports teams, we figured out over time that not only was expanding children's health care, and we actually make some adults, some of their parents, eligible for that benefit as well, that not only was it the right thing to do because, as you said and you are exactly right, in the high cost of living in a State of Connecticut, $40,000 doesn't go very far, and at a time we live in today where wages are remaining pretty much stagnant and flat, and when we celebrate a year in which the average health care premium increase stays at around 10 or 11 or 12 percent, you simply can't do much with an income hovering around $40,000, $45,000 or $50,000. In Connecticut certainly that becomes a problem. So what we figured out was that not only was it the right and fair thing to do to go out and insure these thousands of children who didn't have health care insurance before, but it was cost-effective thing to do it. We have referenced that on the floor here today. I give some credit to the President in his remarks that he at least recognizes that we do have one single place that very ill children and adults can go, the emergency room. But what he neglects to mention in those remarks is that not only is it the most inhumane place to dump the sick and the ill but it is also the most expensive place for those patients to end up. We know that the care that children, and we are talking about children today, end up getting in the emergency room is amongst the most expensive care that you can get. And for just a few cents on the dollar in that preventative care that in Connecticut the Husky program provides and in Pennsylvania the CHIP program provides, you cannot only get care that is the right to do and the moral thing to do for those kids, but it, frankly, saves the health care system money in the end. The cost of insuring kids is actually pretty low compared to the cost of insuring you or me or other people out in the community. Kids are generally pretty healthy. They are cheap when they are healthy, but they are very expensive when they are sick. So if you don't get them that care upfront, and the reality is that a lot of illnesses that may not present themselves to be major that may not cause a parent, even without health care insurance, to drag that child down to the emergency room, it may end up being something very serious. And the barrier to getting that preventative care is often that $100 or $200 doctor visit that stands in the way. The last thing to say is to just reinforce the notion that both of you have brought up here, which I am sure we will talk about, which is that bipartisan spirit in which this bill was brought into being. I wasn't here when the bill was passed, but my predecessor was. I was preceded in this House by Representative Nancy Johnson, a Republican who served here for a very long time. And she was very proud to come back here as a Republican and talk about her role in the passage of that bill. The problem was over time there were fewer and fewer people like her in the Republican caucus who were proud to talk about insuring children, standing up for kids. And you stand here now on the Republican side of the aisle that looks and sounds very different, unfortunately, than the group that stood up in 1995. And, lastly, it is not just bipartisan within that House, but you also have a wide range of ideological and advocacy groups that are standing up for the reauthorization of SCHIP, and I will mention just one and that is the United States Chamber of Commerce. Not a fan of big government, if you have ever seen any of the propaganda coming from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So when you listen to the President or Republicans talk about the Democrats and children's health care being yet another government program, listen to what their friends are saying. Their friends in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable and all of the groups that are traditionally the main cheerleaders against any minute expansion of government are standing up for children's health care, are cheering on the Democratic effort to reauthorize the SCHIP program, because they know what we know; that not only is it the right thing to do but it is the cost-effective thing to do. We figured that out in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Connecticut and Maine. And I hope that we will be able to return to that bipartisan spirit again.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Let me just add some final thoughts to add to the theme of inconsistency here. This is a President who has presided over the largest expansion of a government paid for health care program in my generation at least with the addition of the prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. But it was okay when it resulted in a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. But when we are asking to expand health care for kids who don't have, as Mr. Pallone said, not only do they not vote, but they also don't have political action committees and they also don't have lobbyists patrolling the hallways here and within the administration. When it comes to helping the most vulnerable, the most voiceless group of individuals out there, this administration results in a deafening, deafening silence. So I am so glad we are down here talking about this tonight. I came to Congress, gave up my seat working on a health care policy in the Connecticut legislature because I figured out that this really had to be a Federal fix, to try to do something for the millions of uninsured. I frankly hope in a lot of places I think I am am going to depart from the legacy of the person I replaced, but on this I hope to be able to work with all of you to join back across the aisle and build that bipartisan consensus to stand up for those voiceless, lobbyist-less PAC-less constituents of ours, uninsured kids.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Just to add to that partnership, it is also a partnership of health care professionals as well, because, to tell the truth, in a lot of States, Connecticut being one of them, the rate that we pay physicians for participating in the program is a little bit below the level of sufficiency. So there are a lot of physicians who want to do the right thing, who want to get compensated, but are okay not getting compensated at the same levels that they do by private HMOs. It really becomes in the end, it really becomes a partnership of not only the Federal Government and the State Government, but also the provider community as well who has agreed to say, listen, because we really care and we really want to take care of this constituency, we are willing to do it for a little bit less than we would do otherwise. That has been a great benefit to the Government, to be able to get away with paying a little bit less, at least in Connecticut, than private payers do. But it is a wonderful partnership of all constituency groups.