Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. When the other 98 percent get their government back, I would be angry myself if all of a sudden my day was over. But let's not overstate the partisan differences here because when we have put on the House floor good legislation for the American people, that student loan cut that we talked about, investment in alternative energy, stem cell research, when we put that before the House a lot of Republicans came over and supported it. So there is a group of leadership, that is frankly the ones that come down the House floor and do most of talking, but there are a bunch of Republicans when Democrats finally put an agenda that is sticking up for regular people, they are going to support us on that. The newspapers and the TV talk shows are filled with the Republican leadership who, frankly, it seems to me, after 6 months on the job, don't speak for a lot of people on that side of the aisle. I think what we are doing here over time is when you get past a lot of the rhetoric, a lot of the votes end up being pretty bipartisan because when you get beyond the leadership, you have Republicans who are appreciative of the fact that Democrats have finally returned this place to the American people.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I am excited that we almost got to the end of the hour without a five syllable word until Paleozoic. That is in part why I joined the 30-something Working Group, to get that kind of vocabulary help. There is a lot of anger coming from the minority side right now, and I think there is probably reason for them to be angry. When 1 or 2 percent of the population gets the run of the place for 12 years.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. One of the miracles of what is happening here, we are starting to change those priorities without spending more money in order to do that. You can tack onto your list of help to kids and families the fact that we passed legislation that could bring on average $4,000 in relief to students by lowering the interest rate on student loans. That is $4,000 back in the pocket of a young man or woman graduating from college, that is going to be looking to pile on a mortgage on top of their debt. And we did it at no additional expense to the taxpayers. We changed in a small way the amount of money that we guarantee to banks, and the banks are doing pretty well out there already, and we got $4,000 back in the pockets of American students and graduates without costing anybody else a dime. Same thing on the energy policy.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. All I mean by that is it makes it even more inexcusable that all you had to do was go out and listen a little bit to hear the cries from people. There are these sort of ``are you kidding me'' moments that happen out there. They happened in my district, when people are asking, listen, do something about energy policy. And the ``do something'' was let's just empower the oil companies even more. People are crying out for change in our policy towards Iraq, and the answer was we are going to commit ourselves to even more troops and even more money and an even greater failed policy. People stand there and say, are you kidding me? Did you hear anything I said? And for 12 years, the answer increasingly was no. We didn't hear anything you said. We didn't try, and in fact our ears were attuned to a very different set of people. So now, this revolution that happened here isn't terribly revolutionary. We are finally starting to listen to people again, and that means investing in alternative energy, that means setting a new course in Iraq, that means making it easier for kids to go to college. These aren't new ideas. These are ideas that people have been talking about in bars and in diners and pancake breakfasts and pasta dinners for years.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I think I work pretty hard. I get back to the district every minute I can. I see as many people as I am able to. But you don't have to work that hard to hear what the values of the American people are. I mean, you don't have to be everywhere at all times in your district to understand that when people were crying out for energy reform, energy reform wasn't giving more tax giveaways to big oil.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I am not a hater. As a new Member, I am loving every minute of this, Mr. Ryan. Listen to me: From every standpoint it makes sense. You talk about the jobs that an investment in alternative energy is going to bring. Undoubtedly it is going to make our air cleaner. It is going to reduce our contribution to global warming. We know in the long run it is going to bring prices down. It is going to be the thing that finally breaks our dependence on the high prices of foreign oil. Also it is about national security. It is about finally breaking us free of dependency on the countries that produce that oil, that compromise a lot of our conversations in places in the world like the Middle East, compromised additionally by the amount of debt those OPEC nations hold. So, it is kind of a win-win-win-win-win-win scenario. So the question is why didn't it happen? Well, it didn't happen because the agenda here wasn't about the economy. The agenda wasn't about cleaning up the air. The agenda wasn't about lowering gas prices. The agenda was about helping a bunch of people in the oil industry. This is what happens when you break this place free of special interests. Good policy starts to happen. You get wins for everybody when you start making this about Main Street, right, instead of about the few people that get in the room and write the legislation based on how much money they have given to campaigns and how much influence they have inside the Beltway.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think in four or five or six State of the Union speeches in a row. Not just the last one.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. My friend who just spoke and those on the other side of the aisle are fond often of quoting our Founding Fathers. I'm not a student of James Madison or some of his brethren, but I would think that they would be turning in their graves if they watched how this House worked for the last 12 years. I come here as a freshman Member and I am speaking from what I saw from the outside. I am sure this analogy has been used here on the House floor over the course of the last 10 hours, but listening to folks on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends, complain about the issues of fiscal responsibility and transparency has got to conjure up the image of the bull in the china shop. If you let a bull into a china shop for 12 years and then he just tears down everything off the walls, he knocks over every case, he breaks every single glass in there. And then in this case, he runs out of the china shop and says, Well, why don't you go in there and clean that up? Why doesn't somebody go clean up the mess that we just made? That's what happened in this House from those of us who watched it from afar on the issues of transparency and on fiscal responsibility. You know, it's interesting. I sat here last night being called back and forth to the floor for, I guess, eight different motions to shut down this House and to stop the Homeland Security bill from going forward, and I wondered why hadn't that happened in the last 12 years. Why wasn't there a night while we were wasting billions of dollars on this floor in Iraq, $9 billion that we found out are totally unaccounted for? Why didn't we shut down the House one night to talk about that? As thousands of FEMA trailers were stranded on open lots in the southeastern United States, why didn't we shut down this House for one night to talk about that over the last 12 years? While $70 billion in corporate giveaways were handed out through the Medicare bill, why didn't we shut down this House to talk about that? Millions of dollars in no-bid contracts. Record deficits year after year. Why on earth wasn't this House shut down like it was last night over the last 12 years? The American people are probably asking that same question, and there is probably one answer: This House changed hands. There is a different party in charge. And so now there is a very different standard that applies here. The questions that should have been asked for 12 years, well, now in a political context they are being asked today. I also don't shy away, Mr. Chairman, from the fact that as a new Member, I'm also one of the younger Members here. So I kind of feel that I have an obligation to talk for the millions of my generation that have just become utterly turned off to politics. And when they look at a House being shut down overnight into today, who knows how many more days, to prevent a fairly nonpartisan Homeland Security bill that will protect them, that will protect their parents, their neighbors, that will make their communities a safer place, they know this is about politics, not policy. And so I think about all of those people who, as they watch this process unfold, are losing their faith in this institution. As angry as I am about the double standard that's applied, about the hypocrisy that's exercised on this House, this House thick with irony over the past several days, I think also about what people think when they see members of the Republican Party playing politics with the issue of homeland security. Now, we hear claims that this isn't obstruction. We don't have a problem with slowing down the House to talk about this. Well, I would say this. I think that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they vastly underestimate the gullibility of the American people. They also vastly overestimate the amount of patience that the American public has left for the games that are being played here on the House floor. We have an obligation to do all the things that we were sent here to do, to fund homeland security, to protect this Nation. We also have an obligation to live up to the expectations that people had of this Congress when it changed hands, to take the politics out of this House and to start doing the right thing for the American people, not the right thing for either political party. I would ask we don't go through tonight what we did last night, that we start doing what's right for the American people on policy rather than what's right for the Republican minority on politics.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate the 63rd anniversary of the D-Day invasion, I rise today to honor the service and valor of all veterans, and especially the contributions of Arthur Neriani, who served bravely in World War II. The son of two Italian immigrants, Arthur Neriani grew up in Avon, CT, when Avon was still considered a farm town. As a young man, Art spent much of his time with a group of 15 boys from the same neighborhood. Organized by Gildo Consolini, the boys played softball on a local team called the Avon Tigers. Bonded through friendship and love of country, 14 of these young men went on to serve their country during World War II. At the age of 21, Art's name was at the top of the list at the Draft Board 2B in Unionville. As the first from the Farmington Valley to be drafted, Art's unique status was covered in the Hartford Courant. In 1940, Art joined the National Guard, Company M, 169th Regiment, 43rd Division in New Britain. In 1941, the division was federalized and sent to train in Camp Blanding in Starke, FL. After his year of service was almost complete on December 7, 1941, it was soon made clear he was not going home. Soon after Pearl Harbor, all of the soldiers at Camp Blanding were asked to sign up for Officer Candidate School. It was not Corporal Neriani, but rather a friend, who signed Art's name in for consideration. Of the 26 candidates who stepped forward, only 2 were accepted--one of which was Art Neriani. After completion of candidate school, Art arrived on the beaches of Normandy as the 2nd Lieutenant of the 8th Infantry Division on July 4, 1944, referred to as D plus 28 (28 days after D-Day). In 1945, after the gruesome battle in Huertgen Forest, Germany, Officer Neriani received a battlefield promotion from 2nd Lieutenant to 1st Lieutenant. When he was awarded the Bronze Star medal for his leadership and courage in battle he refused it. He felt he had not earned the decoration. To him, this type of honor and recognition was better served in honoring the other men--the ones who paid the greatest sacrifice with their lives. 1st Lt. Neriani battled through Europe, liberated German and Polish political prisoners from Nazi concentration camps, and reached the end of the war when meeting with Russian allies in May 1945. Of the 14 servicemen from Avon that were sent to war, all but one returned home-- Gildo Consolini. It is in honor of him that the Avon's Veterans of Foreign War Post is named. A man of honor and courage, Captain Neriani saw many battles, lost friends and brothers, and was one of many to bring freedom to Europe. We owe our veterans, those here and now gone, this country's greatest debt of gratitude. I call on my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to men like Art Neriani--to the dedicated men and women in our military our proudly serve this Nation and protect our freedom.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on May 24, 2007, I inadvertently missed the vote on passage of H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act, rollcall vote 420. It was my strong intention to vote ``Aye'' on passage.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Two years ago, as Congresswoman DeGette noted, I was honored to write and pass one of the Nation's first stem cell investment acts, Connecticut's $100 million investment in stem cell research. But I decided to seek a seat in this body because our action in Connecticut was ultimately hamstrung by inaction here in Washington, despite public cries for our Federal Government to invest in stem cell research. We could not, in large part not because of the will of this House but because of the will of the President. What should not be in doubt here today is the promise that this legislation holds. Although new discoveries occur every day, including just yesterday expanding the potential of stem cell research, make no mistake, political lines drawn by this political body about what kind of research will be allowed and will not be allowed will frustrate science and postpone cures. That's why every major medical, science and scientific professional association, as well as major research universities and institutions and affected patient advocacy organizations support the passage of this bill. Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, who has always been a faithful ally of the pro-life community, said that being pro-life is more than just caring for the unborns. It's about caring for the living as well. I couldn't agree more, when we talk about the sanctity of human life, and we all believe that human life is sacred. We too often neglect the things that we can do to protect and extend the lives of our friends and loved ones who suffer from terminal and debilitating diseases. This bill, perhaps more than anything, is about extending and preserving life. That's a value that we all share. One hundred million Americans are affected by some kind of life- threatening disease. Somewhere in this vast universe, a cure for their disease exists. I know it. We all know it. Let's stop putting up man- made barriers to finding that cure, a cure for our loved ones. I stand in strong support of this bill. I commend Ms. DeGette for her long-awaited advocacy for this issue.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. You talked about how much public support this enjoys, and it is broad and far ranging. I think the public support mirrors the support within this body. It probably cuts across partisan lines because the diseases that stem cell research can treat do not discriminate based on whether you are Democrat or Republican, not even on whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. So when you have family members out there who are watching a loved one grapple with diabetes, watching a father or mother die of Alzheimer's disease, and they see there is this vehicle, there is this potential out there, untapped right now, with their Federal tax dollars, they don't understand. They don't understand why their elected representatives wouldn't stand up and at least try to make an effort to bring a cure or treatment to their loved one who is struggling or dying with these diseases. This issue enjoys public support because these diseases don't discriminate based on political discrimination, political views or geography. I think that is why you will see so many Republicans and Democrats supporting it. This is an issue that arises a lot of passions in people. So there is rhetoric that sometimes doesn't match the reality. One of the arguments that you are going to hear tomorrow is we don't need to invest in embryonic stem cell research, which is the controversial piece of this debate, because adult stem cell research does the trick. That argument doesn't wash when you talk to the scientific community. Adult stem cells have vast potential, and we have found ways to utilize them to make people better and give people longer lives. But the fact is that adult stem cells only work on the person that those cells are harvested from. My adult stem cells work on me. So I can take stem cells out of my bloodstream, manipulate them, put them back into my bloodstream to try to cure the disease or whatever may be affecting me. Embryonic stem cells have almost a limitless possibility of being manipulated, to being harvested and put into a limitless number of people. Those cells don't just work on the people they're taken from. Those cells can be manipulated and have universal traits to try to cure diseases. So we're going to have to try to talk about that tomorrow and why we need to invest in both adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. You can talk the talk, but you have to come out here and do it. You have got to put bills before this House that have Republican ideas in them and have Democrat ideas in them. And you have to be okay with the fact that we can share credit. Listen, nobody in my district cares whether I am a Republican or a Democrat, as long as I am on the right side of the issues, as long as I am fighting for what they believe I should be fighting for. People don't think in Republican or Democratic terms back at the places we come from. They think about Republican and Democratic terms here inside the Beltway in Washington, DC, but back out in America, Mr. Meek, people think about what is right and wrong; what is good for people and what is bad for people. Not Republican and not Democrat. I think we are beginning to start to figure that out.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Before we send this back over to Mr. Altmire, Mr. Meek, let's talk about an issue on which I think this Congress is going to stand together tomorrow, Republicans and Democrats, and stand against the policies of a President who is going to show once again how out of step he is with the American public, and that is on the issue of stem cell research. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity when I was in the Connecticut State Senate to author Connecticut's Stem Cell Investment Act. Connecticut became the first State in the Nation through a legislative act to invest public dollars in stem cell research. I am real proud of that. But part of the reason that I decided to leave the State Senate and come here to the United States Congress is because it was a bittersweet victory for us. We shouldn't have 50 different State legislatures investing in basic scientific research; certainly not the type of potentially pioneering, life-saving scientific research that stem cell research, both adult and embryonic, holds in its vast and potentially limitless potential. So, tomorrow, we are going to take up a bill that we took up at the beginning of January, now coming back to us from the Senate, which is the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which is once again going to allow for Federal dollars to be used for both embryonic and adult stem cell research around this country, and, by the way, finally put some real ethical and moral and scientific boundaries around that research. One of the great secrets in this world today is if you don't live in a State like Connecticut, California or New Jersey that has put forth in State legislation some moral and ethical parameters around stem cell research, this research is largely unregulated in this country. So I think the most important thing we will do tomorrow is pass in a bipartisan way a bill that will start to turn on Federal funds for research that, as we know, potentially will unlock the treatments and cures for such insidious diseases as juvenile diabetes and Parkinson's research and maybe even for cancer some day. This isn't tomorrow's cure and it is not even the day after tomorrow's cure, but if we don't start investing now and start investing at a Federal level, start investing our Federal dollars, we are never going to get to that day when we can start to realize the potential of stem cell research. But here is where the rub is. We are going to do this with Republicans and Democrats standing together. There will be more Democrats supporting it than there will be Republicans. That is just how this issue is going to work. But this is going to be an issue in which this Congress, because we are in tune with what the people are telling us, that they want us to use the research at our disposal to try to make people's lives better, that is what this is all about, trying to use the resources of the Federal Government, the communal resources of the American people, to try to make our lives better, that is what stem cell research can do. They want us to make that jump. It is going to land on the President's desk and he has already told us once again that he will veto it. He is continually out of step with where the American people are with this war in Iraq. Now he will once again show us he is out of step with where the American people are on healthcare. But, once again, we are going to show that if we stand together, if we put party aside and we listen to what the people want, in this case they want a Federal Government that is going to start standing up and trying to find cures for cancer and Parkinson's disease and bone marrow disease, that we can do some pretty amazing things here if we stand together. We passed things with bipartisan support in the past. We will do it tomorrow on maybe one of the most important things that we will do before we take our break for the summer, which is invest in stem cell research.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Altmire. I want to key off of your last point there, just spend a couple moments before we kick it back to Mr. Meek, on that issue of bipartisanship. Because you are exactly right. You know, it seems like a pretty simple premise that the cost of the war should include taking care of the warriors when they return back home, that the cost of the war isn't just the guns and the ammunition and the mechanics necessary to fight a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the cost of the war is also taking care of those men and women when they get back home. That is this war and that is previous wars. So it sounds like a pretty unanimous premise that we could all get behind, but the fact is that we didn't get behind it, and we didn't get behind it until the Democrats took control of this Congress. It was just platitudes and rhetoric for a long time, ``let's support our troops and support our veterans.'' So I think we got to be clear today, as much as we are going to talk about the importance of bipartisanship, it took the Democrats to put some of these issues out before the House in order to garner bipartisan votes. I think that is maybe as important as anything that we have done in these first 5 months, is that we have gotten rid of that old rule that I heard a little bit about when I was watching this place from afar in Connecticut called the ``majority of the majority.'' I heard about this rule where nothing could come to the floor of the House of Representatives unless the majority of the majority party supported it. So you had very few opportunities for there to be real bipartisan cooperation, because you had to have almost unanimous agreement from the majority party, at the time the Republicans, in order for anything to get down here to the floor of the House. We talked a lot, Mr. Meek, when we stood up here after that sort of glorious first 100 hours about those bills, those six or seven bills that we passed, and how many Republicans we had on board with each one of those. They were really remarkable numbers. On average we had 60-70 Republican votes for each one of those. It doesn't get covered much in the news. The news wants to cover just the grinding and gnashing of the two parties. We had a lot of bipartisan cooperation, and that has continued. That has continued. In the last few weeks here we had on a bill to reauthorize funding for children's healthcare, we had 123 Republicans supporting it. That same 123 Republicans supporting increased record funding for Katrina recovery. On the joint funding resolution that finally restored some fiscal balance to this country, we had 57 Republicans supporting it. Increasing the minimum wage, 82 Republicans. I know when you turn on the cable news networks you are not going to hear about the times that we agree. But why a lot us were so enthusiastic to stop by and send well wishes to Speaker Pelosi on her 20 years in Congress is because she has made good on her commitment to make this the most open and ethical and bipartisan Congress in a real, real long time. I know, Mr. Meek, this doesn't get the headlines all the time, that the newspapers want to talk about the places that we conflict. But there has been a lot of cooperation here and it has mattered. I think it has made a difference. I think one of the things the people don't understand is sort of how this place works, and I certainly didn't understand it until I got here. It used to be it was impossible, virtually impossible, for Democrats to get their amendments heard on the floor of the House of Representatives. You were going to get a bill introduced by the Republicans, and that was about it. No more debate, no changes, no amendments. Nothing. No real opportunity for the People's House to actually engage in a real argument, in a process of coming up with a better piece of legislation. That has changed now. In the first 5 months of 2005, we had two what are called open rules, bills in which any Member can put forth an amendment, have a chance to have that idea vetted and aired out before the House of Representatives. We have quadrupled the number of bills that have come before this House under a so-called open rule. I know these are sort of arcane terms that people out there may not understand, but they matter. It means that every single one of the 435 people that are elected here have a chance to make a bill better, have a chance to have their voice their constituents' voices heard. For a long time it was shut down. So it was a good night tonight to be able to celebrate Speaker Pelosi's two decades here in the House. A lot of us are excited about the potential that lies before us to be able to really reset our direction in Iraq, to do better things in energy policy, to stand up for working families. But for a lot of us that came here on the backs and shoulders of our constituents who have virtually lost complete faith in politics, maybe we are just as excited about the fact that, despite what you may see in the cable news networks or reading the headlines, we actually are starting slowly to bring people together here, to open up this House, this process, again, to make it a true bipartisan People's House.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative DeGette, for being such a leader on this issue in the past and allowing me to join with her today to offer this very commonsense measure regarding the banning of human reproductive cloning. I rise in support of this act today. I do so because to me the bill before us is relatively simple. This is a straightforward ban on human reproductive cloning, taking material through somatic cell nuclear transfer and turning that material into a living, breathing human being. As Representative DeGette said, nothing more, nothing less. Under this law, if someone uses cloning technology to initiate a pregnancy and creates a cloned human being, they would face severe criminal and civil sanctions. This legislation is something that the vast majority of the American public supports, and it is something that all Members of Congress I think should support as well. In Connecticut, as part of our State's historic Stem Cell Investment Act, which I was very honored to have authored, we recognize that human being reproductive cloning is a practice that perverts the promise of science; and we banned it outright in our legislation. In fact, I think it is pretty amazing that we are standing here having this debate today, that the Federal Government has, until today, not stepped forward and said that human reproductive cloning, bringing that material to the stage of a human being created from that material, is illegal. We should do what we did in Connecticut here today. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are some members who want to turn this ban on human reproductive cloning into a ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer, called by some therapeutic cloning, and I understand the discomfort many Members have with this innovative line of stem cell research. Personally, for me, I join the scientific community in my belief that it is this research that holds the most potential for lifesaving treatments and cures. But I recognize there are those who disagree. However, the debate surrounding this particular disagreement is not the subject of today's legislation. Today's legislation is simply about the line that we all can agree to draw, that which clearly and cleanly prohibits the manipulation of cells or embryos into a cloned human being. The moral and ethical questions surrounding somatic cell nuclear transfer are legitimate subjects for debate. But that debate will occur later this week when we revisit the comprehensive stem cell authorization bill coming back to this House from the Senate. Today, Mr. Speaker, our task is simple: Ban what we all agree is beyond the scientific and ethical pale, human reproductive cloning. We are dealing with an issue as complicated as cloning technology. The morass of scientific arcana and the ease of sound bite simplification can obscure the simple facts. So let's be clear. Today, human cloning, creating a replica of a person's DNA, implanting an embryo into the womb of a woman and creating a new human being out of that material, that practice is legal today in this country with exceptions such as Connecticut and other States that have done the right thing and banned it. With the enactment of this legislation, human reproductive cloning will be illegal. Nothing more, Mr. Speaker, nothing less.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I think you get locked up in Iowa if you do that.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch. I just want to point out to the Speaker and the Chamber that Mr. Welch just used a word with six syllables in it, oligopolistic. We have freshmen that are courageous, we have freshmen to take on big industry, but we also have some pretty smart freshmen too in this case. So I don't want that to go unnoticed. Mr. Welch, let's call it for what it was. For a long time this Congress was run by the oil industry. Whatever they asked for, they got here. It was sort of a sense that if you did really, really well in this economy and you came and asked for something from this Congress, then they were going to give it to you. You were going to be rewarded, in essence, for coming out on top of the heap. The same could be said for the pharmaceutical industry, the same could be said for multimillionaires, as was the case for the oil companies. If you probably turned on the television and you watched people get up here on the other side of the aisle for the last several years, you probably heard them say a lot things like we are saying. You probably heard them complain about gas prices. You probably heard them say that they were going to do something about it. Well, they didn't. They didn't do a single thing about it, and we see the evidence of it today. Gas prices spiraling higher and higher. Mr. Perlmutter is going to show a chart here which shows the average price of a gallon today pretty soon. You are going to see the average price for today is on an 8\1/2\ by 11 piece of paper sort of precariously stuck on to the poster board. Why? Because, guess what? It moves every single day. We have to change that piece of paper on that chart every day as the price goes higher and higher and higher. So what happened when a bunch of us went out there and decided that we were going to come to Washington to try to change the priorities here, do what Mr. Welch said, which is finally put regular middle-class folks, working-class folks in charge of government again, was that we started matching action with words. We are going to get up here and talk about how gas prices are hurting regular Americans, how they have less and less ability to spend money on other family needs, but then we are going to go and do something about it. We started with the price gouging legislation. We are going to take on some pretty important legislation to end the antitrust exemptions for OPEC and international oil cartels. Then we are going to take on the big enchilada. We are going to start making this country energy independent. We know that is a triple whammy. That is about gas prices and energy prices, it is about making energy more affordable for people, that is about cleaning up our environment, and it is also about national security. That is what happened here for a long time, was that the inaction wasn't just about trying to stem the bleeding in one particular summer, it was about avoiding a problem that could have been solved 5, 10 years ago, if they had started doing the things that we are about to do to invest in alternative and renewable energy. So I am so proud to stand here with members of the freshman class, because we can stand here and talk about what we want to do to start transforming this society back so that the priorities of regular middle-class Americans matter again. But we also need to do something about it. We also get to stand here and cast some votes that have not been cast in this Congress for a very long time, and that is what makes me especially proud to be a member of this freshman class, certainly proud to be a member alongside my friend from Iowa, Mr. Bruce Braley, who I will turn the microphone over to at this point.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you for letting me come down here for just a couple of seconds and add my voice to the chorus here. You are absolutely right. When you are talking about something as essential as gas for people driving to and from work bringing their kids back and forth to school, it's not an optional expenditure. Now, in Connecticut we love to say there is another choice, people could get on some train or get on some bus, but they don't exist. They don't exist because unfortunately in some parts of this country we have neglected our mass transit infrastructure, and we have forced people to rely on their vehicles to get themselves around. I just saw a statistic today that said in Waterbury, Connecticut, in the heart of my district, that one in six people in public housing are spending 66 percent of their income on rent, 66 percent of their income on rent. There is not much left for food. There is not much left for medicine. We know they have to pay more for medicine because less of them have health care. There is certainly not a lot left for transportation costs. This is hitting at the heart of the American middle class, at the heart of the American working class. In just a second we will show a chart that would suggest that the reason for these increased prices at the pump is certainly not that the oil companies are crying poverty, certainly not because the bottom lines of American oil companies and national oil companies are hurting. It is hard to understand with the record profits, year after year. The last 3 or 4 years, every year, comes new record profits for these oil companies. How on Earth can we continue to see these prices go up? I just want to say one more thing that was touched on. We have to talk about what national independence means, dependence on oil means for national security as well, over 170,000 barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia in 2006 and other OPEC countries. If you want to talk about why we can't bring a country like Saudi Arabia to the table, have a conversation about why they are creating a society in which their most marginalized members feel that their only resort is to extremism and violence; if you want to find out why we can't hold some of these Middle Eastern countries accountable for the societies that they are creating and the terrorism they are helping fuel, it's because we rely on their oil. It's because in the end we can't make them angry, because if we do, they are going to cut off the food that our cars eat. Now, energy independence is about lowering gas prices. Antitrust legislation, price-gouging legislation, is about getting to the heart of the problem for middle-class consumers and drivers, the prices at the pump. But ultimately we have to figure out how to walk away from some of these quagmires we are in with countries that provide oil to us. We have got to understand that energy independence is about doing the right thing for middle-class families, to minivan moms. It is also about doing the right thing for national security. It's also making sure that my future kids and grandkids are going to grow up in a society that's safe. That's why it's a triple whammy. Energy independence is about lowering energy prices, it's about cleaning up our environment, and it's also about national security. That's why I had to drag Mr. Ryan up to the rostrum to allow me get down here and say my 2 cents on this. This is what the Democratic majority is going to deliver. It's going to go from a time when we could complain about gas prices and not see much action at all from Congress to a time now where we are still going to complain about it, but we are actually going to have a group of people here in the House and Senate and step up to the plate and do something about it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud to rise today in honor or the Rotella Interdistrict Magnet School in Waterbury, Connecticut, which recently received the Ronald Simpson Deserved Merit Award. This award, considered the highest recognition for magnet schools in the Nation, is given to only one school a year for its exceptional academic standards and achievements. The Rotella School is a dynamic learning community of 600 students in pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. Rotella serves urban and suburban students who represent a diverse group of backgrounds from around Waterbury. Its unique, art-based curriculum challenges students to excel, and encourages them to express themselves through arts. Students who are exposed to the arts have higher test scores, better school attendance and increased self-discipline. Rotella is a testament to the power of arts in education. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply proud to stand here today in recognition of Rotella, its administrators, its students for their contribution to our community. They are truly an inspiration to Waterbury. I also commend Rotella's principal, Gina Calabrese, for outstanding work at Rotella and receiving this distinguished award.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, we still hope to bring a 30- something hour to the floor this evening, but we may have to wait for another evening, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to briefly rise for a few minutes, potentially in replacement of our normal 30-something hour this evening, to talk about what I think is a very important step forward that this Congress took today when it comes to the issue of domestic national security. We hear a lot and have heard a lot from our President and from this Congress over the past several months about trying to change our course in Iraq, trying to do the right thing to make sure that our troops, that our soldiers there are not put in harm's way in the middle of a religious civil war. For those of us who have been calling for a new direction in Iraq, we do so in part based on what our own intelligence community has told us, through the National Intelligence Estimate, that the war in Iraq, which has become what they call a cause celeb for the terrorist communities, is in fact making this country less safe, not more safe, by creating a breeding ground, a training ground for terrorists and in fact by growing the undeserved derision for this country across the world. It points us to, I think, a misplaced allocation of resources. While we have been fighting a misguided and bungled war in Iraq, we have been leaving our own borders, leaving our own homeland unsecured. We know that the National Guard and the Reserve troops are stretched to their limit. I have a GAO report from January of this year stating the high use of National Guard for Federal overseas missions has reduced equipment available for its State-led domestic missions. Governor after Governor is telling us that their National Guards are not ready to respond to the national emergencies that may confront States. The Governor of North Carolina says, ``We rely on the National Guard to respond to natural disasters, a pandemic or terrorist attack. Currently, we do not have the manpower or the equipment to perform that dual role,'' of responding to both State and Federal needs. We know that our National Guard is stretched thin. We also know that over a period of time our local law enforcement personnel have been stretched thin as well. For those of us that watched from State legislatures or from our place in the private citizenry, we were very proud of this Congress in conjunction with former President Clinton when they instituted the COPS program. Over 117,000 additional community police officers were put on the streets of this country. Every State of the Union was a beneficiary of this program. That program was put by the wayside by this Republican Congress and this President. Today a lot of Republicans got up and spoke in favor of the bill today which basically reinvigorated that community policing program. But it was a Republican Congress that cut that program to the bone. During the Clinton administration during the 1990s, the COPS program was funded at $1 billion a year. By 2003, the Republican-led Congress had scaled back COPS to $198 million. And by 2005, to $10 million. By 2006, the Congress had completely eliminated COPS funding. Boots on the street, community police officers on the ground, you want to talk about the first defense against the next terrorist attack on this Nation, it is the community police officers, our law enforcement personnel on the ground. Today, we made an historic investment in community policing. For my district alone, it means a 50 percent increase in the number of COPS- supported personnel on the ground. We are going to set a new course in Iraq, and I believe that is going to make this country safer. We are going to put our National Guard and Reserve troops protecting their States. That will make us safer. But today, this Democratic Congress showed that things changed by investing once again in community policing and the COPS program. A lot of people wonder whether things really are changing in Washington or whether it is just talk. Today, by making an historic investment in community policing, we did the right thing for our brave law enforcement personnel and national security.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, it seems that President Bush and many of his allies still don't understand how things have changed on the ground in Iraq. A few days ago the Republican leader, when asked about the President's new escalation plan, said that if it doesn't work, the President pretty soon is going to have to present to Congress and the American people what plan B is. Well, there are very few people that don't realize by now that we are not on plan B anymore; we are on plan Z. And we have got to start asking ourselves why plan A and plan B all the way through plan Z still haven't worked. It is because a military plan, without diplomatic and political reinforcements behind it, cannot work on the ground in Iraq. That is what the Democrats in Congress have realized. That is what the Iraq Study Group realized. That is what legions of retired generals have realized. Madam Speaker, it is time the President and his allies join that hegemony of opinion and join us in setting a new course in Iraq.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1700 and the law enforcement officers that keep our neighborhoods and communities safe. The small cities of Connecticut's Fifth District may not rival the size of those neighboring districts, but they still have the same need for vigorous community-based law enforcement. Since the COPS Program began in 1994, 265 police officers have been put on the beat in the Fifth District. This bill could put an additional 113 police officers out on the streets. One bill, this bill, could increase the law enforcement personnel by the COPS Program by 50 percent. For the last 6 years as I sat in the Connecticut State legislature, I have watched the Federal Government walk away from its commitment to partner with States and towns to provide funding necessary to keep our communities safe. In Connecticut, our law enforcement community has been asked to do more with less. They are the pride of our community, but they have seen the cuts in action that have been imposed by this Congress. The numbers in this bill are meaningful, Mr. Speaker. I urge all Members to support the bill. It is important for our law enforcement officers and important for the safety of our communities.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I am nothing if not a fan of New England etiquette. I would let the gentleman speak for as long as he wishes, but he makes great points. The American people sent this new Congress in order to set a new direction. They didn't imagine on election day that new direction was putting more troops in harm's way in the middle of a civil war. The word ``escalation'' was not in their vocabulary when they conceived of what that new direction would be. They believed it was about time to start listening to the bipartisan foreign policy community as represented by the Iraq Study Group Report, of the record number of generals coming back and telling us we needed to start setting a new course. They believed that new direction was about redeploying our forces and bringing the National Guard home. I hope tonight we will talk about how stressed the National Guard is, bringing the troops back home to protect ourselves on our homefront, and being able to respond to the natural disasters and emergencies that are all too frequent on our own shore, and begin to focus on places where we can still win. Afghanistan, a fight that is taking it right to the insurgency that attacked this country, taking it right to the training ground of al Qaeda, the place where Osama bin Laden trained and prepared his forces to attack this country. Certainly we can win there, but it is time we start recognizing what that new direction has to be. It was amazing when I listened to the Republican leader say a week or so ago, and I am paraphrasing, but the thought was that the Republicans were willing to hear out the President's plan to escalate the war for a period of time. But, say, by the fall or later this year if it wasn't working, it was time for the President to propose plan B. I am not sure how anyone who has been watching this play out for the last 4 years could still believe we are on plan A. We are not plan A or B, we are on like plan triple R right now. We have tried everything. And guess what, every new strategy, every new approach that we take based solely on military might alone, which has been essentially our practice so far, has made the situation even more chaotic and has plunged Baghdad and its environs into greatest chaos. Why? Guess what, because the rest of us, the American public and the Democratic Caucus, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, retired generals from every stripe, have realized that we cannot win this conflict. And everyone's definition of win is different, I understand, but we cannot prove victorious there on the force of our military might alone. I got to spend a couple of days on the ground in Baghdad with those soldiers. If anyone can fulfill the mission they have been given, it is the men and women in the Armed Forces that we have put on the ground. They are the bravest and most capable people I have ever been around. But the fact is that we have given them a mission which is nearly impossible. We are forcing them one day to be soldiers, the next day to be diplomats, and the next day to be civil engineers. The reason why plan A through Z has not worked yet is because it doesn't recognize the very fact that if we can solve this, if we can somehow bring some resolution to Iraq, it will be through diplomatic and political might, not sheer military force.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. How many?