Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, last week the giant home improvement chain Lowe's decided to pull their ads from a new show on The Learning Channel called ``All-American Muslim.'' Now, this show depicts five Muslim American families of Lebanese descent from Dearborn, Michigan, and highlights how their faith affects their lives and their families. The show is aptly titled because it shows Muslim families to be exactly what they are in this situation, and millions like them around the Nation. They're Americans. They face problems just like the rest of us. The only difference is that they worship at a different church. Lowe's pulled these ads because one right-wing anti-Muslim group in Florida said that the show hides the ``true agenda'' of Islam, which, according to this group, is to destroy America. Now, this kind of anti-Muslim bigotry isn't new. It seems like every month we're being warned by a new radical group about the creep of sharia law or that a peaceful mosque is being run out of a community or that a radical pastor is burning the Koran on television. It's one thing when a fringe group or a radical, unhinged pastor is doing it; but it's quite another when a Fortune 100 company is endorsing this nonsense. Lowe's defends itself by saying it's pulling these ads because some of their customers had ``strong political and social views on this topic.'' Well, congratulations to Lowe's for acknowledging that there are some really bigoted people in the world, but that doesn't mean that Lowe's or any other company should acquiesce to this kind of behavior. For instance, there are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there who still hold racist views about African Americans, but I don't think that that means Lowe's is going to be pulling its ads from television shows featuring African Americans. Lowe's also says it's sorry for walking into a ``hotly contested debate.'' Well, what debate are they talking about? Yes, we face threats from a fringe sect of radical, anti-American Islamists; but there is no debate that the millions of patriotic, peace-loving Muslims who live in this country have no connection to that movement and do nothing except strengthen the fabric of our Nation. Now, maybe you think this is just a minor sideshow and that Congress shouldn't be talking about it on this floor. I submit to you that you're dead wrong. This is a major American company that is rubber- stamping basic, foundational bigotry against a major American religious group. This Nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and this body should never remain silent when a group of people is marginalized just because it worships a different God. Though we've certainly got more important things to worry about, like fixing the economy, it has traditionally been during bad economic times that this kind of social marginalization has been at its worst because people don't speak up against it. Further, this kind of bias endangers our national security. Denis McDonough, the President's deputy National Security Adviser, recently said that al Qaeda's core recruiting argument is that the West is at war with Islam. With this action, extremists can say, Look, we're already being run out of their neighborhoods. Now we're being run off of their television sets. This kind of anti-Muslim sentiment doesn't just endanger our Nation's soul; it endangers our national security. So here is my message for the folks at Lowe's who made the decision and, frankly, for anybody out there of sound mind who has considered getting behind this growing anti-Muslim bias: You're better than this. You know that the history of this country and of this world never, ever looks kindly on this kind of marginalization that you've endorsed with your actions. Whether it is against Irish Americans or Jewish Americans or African Americans, the history books make sure that this kind of exclusionary politics becomes a stain on the reputation of anyone who takes part in it. Today, I'm leading a group of Member of Congress, calling on Lowe's to reconsider its decision. Listen, we do have a lot to fear when it comes to Islamic groups that seek to do harm to America; but we have nothing to fear from a TV program called ``All-American Muslim,'' and we have nothing to fear from the tens of millions of peace-loving, patriotic Muslim Americans who are just like those who are portrayed in that show. This is America. While we have never been perfect at living up to our founding ideals, we've gotten pretty good at calling out bigotry when we see it and at stamping it out before its mark becomes indelible. This can be one of those moments.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedication and service of Mr. Eric Massari of Waterbury, Connecticut, one of our nation's distinguished heroes. Mr. Massari served in the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), also known as ``Merrill's Marauders,'' a group that operated in Southeast Asia during World War II. This elite and all-volunteer unit successfully conducted numerous daring missions behind Japanese lines. Throughout their service, these volunteers suffered from a multitude of illnesses and diseases, extreme malnutrition and countless encounters in which they were both outgunned and outnumbered. By the end of the war, the Marauders had advanced approximately 750 miles through one of the harshest jungles in the world. Of the 2,750 men to cross enemy lines, only two were left alive who had not been hospitalized. Mr. Massari was one of these two men, and explains that he ``had the good lord on [his] shoulders at all times.'' The Marauders have received widespread and deserved recognition for their heroic acts. There have been books, movies, and comic books depicting their brave encounters. Waterbury is lucky to have such a hero living in Town Plot. Each soldier has been awarded the Bronze Star, and the unit has been awarded a Distinguished Unit Citation. However, one of the most meaningful recognitions for Mr. Massari came in the form of a postcard that he received last month. It was a thank you card from a group of Chinese students, who had recently learned about the Marauders in school. They wanted to express their appreciation for being rescued from the Japanese by Massari's unit some 67 years ago. Mr. Speaker, Eric Massari represents the kind of courage, honor, and character that all of us should admire. As a distinguished veteran and a former employee at the Waterbury Tool Company, Mr. Massari has spent his life serving our country and the great state of Connecticut. I ask my colleagues and the entire country to join me in honoring the service of Eric Massari, and all of our veterans.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 600,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Connecticut and the thousands of physicians who care for them. We need to take up a bill in this Congress over the next several weeks to finally fix the flawed Medicare sustainable growth rate formula. Since 2003, for almost a decade, physicians have been dealing with the uncertainty that comes with scheduled annual rate reductions. They're staring at a 28 percent reduction right now. That means about $28,000 per year per Connecticut physician. If this were to happen, it would happen at the worst possible time. With all the baby boomers coming on to the Medicare rolls, there would be a lot of physicians who just couldn't take Medicare patients any longer. They'd likely have to lay off workers at a time when we already have 9 percent unemployment in Connecticut and across the Nation. This is unacceptable and we have to do something about it. So over the next several weeks, let's fix this once and for all. Let's stand together as a Congress and put an end to this outdated system and provide some certainty and security for America's seniors and America's physicians.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from November 1 until November 15, as I was attending to family matters surrounding the birth of my son.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, America is not broke; so Republicans should stop saying it. Conservative pundits should stop spreading it, because this country isn't broke. Now, our government temporarily is and millions of American families are, but our Nation is not. And my hypothesis is this: If we don't wake up to this fact soon, if we don't start investing our Nation's riches in spreading wealth out across this economy, then our whole economy is sunk whether you are rich or you are poor. So, let's try to debunk this myth once and for all that America is broke, that we can't afford these investments. And let's start here. It's pretty simple. The United States is still a global leader. We are still the richest country in the world on a per capita basis. For all the talk about the rise of India, China, and Brazil, if you take their population's adjusted wealth and combine it together, they are still 50 percent of U.S. wealth. So if our country is still wealthy, we need to understand that we've made a choice to keep our government poor. Now, why is that? Contrary to popular belief, it's not because discretionary spending has run amok. Take a look at this chart. Discretionary spending has essentially remained stable over time. We've had a brief uptick with a couple of extraordinary pieces of legislation, but discretionary spending has remained stable. Don't believe this chart? Take a look at this. If government is growing at extraordinary rates, you would expect for government employees to be growing at extraordinary rates as well. That's not true either. In fact, we have 16,000 less Federal employees than we did in 1970. And as you can see, the trendline just from 1990 continues to go down as well. Now, this isn't all to say that government can't get leaner and meaner. It's just a suggestion that there's another culprit at work, and that other culprit is revenue. Despite what you hear on TV, despite what you hear on Fox News today, taxes as a percentage of GDP today are at a 60-year low. Right now, we are collecting about 15 percent of our GDP in taxes. The problem isn't just that the government is broke; it's that we've made a decision, effectively, to keep it broke. Now, if the government isn't broke and this country is still the richest in the world, why is it that so many families feel broke? Why is it so many families are broke? Let's explore that for a second. Here is the problem right here: Over the last 60 years, incomes for the bottom 99 percent of Americans have basically remained flat. What that has meant is that all of the additional wealth that we've accumulated in this Nation has gone to the richest 1 percent as their incomes during that same time have increased by almost 300 percent. Do you want to see it in even starker terms? Take a look at this chart. The 400 wealthiest Americans have a net worth that is greater than the net worth of the 100 million poorest Americans. Let me say that again: the 400 richest of us have more money than the 100 million poorest of us. Now, having said all of this, getting rich is good. It's great. The richest 400 people didn't steal this money. They made it legally. We just have to start having policies in this country that make more people rich, that make more people feel rich. So we need to be having a debate in this country right now about how we do that, about how we put policies in place to lift more people into the ranks of those who have enough to succeed because an economy with this kind of wealth disparity, combined with an unwillingness to make the investments to shrink it, is destined to collapse. This isn't about pitting one group against another. This is just about economics. It's not class warfare to suggest that, as an economy, we'd be stronger if incomes were rising for a few more people than the top 1 percent--the people who tend to spend domestically, the middle class, rather than invest internationally. It's not class warfare to suggest that our economy would be stronger if more of our Nation's wealth went to local innovators and small businesses rather than to big multinational companies that tend to take income from the United States and use it to create employment overseas. It's not class warfare to suggest that our economy would be stronger if more kids had access to the ultimate wealth creator--higher education--if we were investing our Nation's riches in making college cheaper. Do you know what? If we have this discussion, everybody, not just the bottom 99 percent, benefits from the discussion. My friends, the government is temporarily broke. Millions of American families are broke, but our Nation is not broke. We're just pretending that we are. Here's the thing: If we don't wake up from this dream soon, what is fiction today will be fact before we know it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We need to follow the Senate's lead in passing legislation that will pressure China to stop their unfair monetary policy. China's manipulation of their currency has cost us jobs in Connecticut and around the country. Our workers and businesses deserve a level playing field, and this bill will help ensure that. Since China joined the WTO, our trade deficit from China has risen from $84 billion to $270 billion. In that same period of time, Connecticut, my home State, has lost 31,000 jobs, and our country has lost 2.8 million jobs, 1.9 million of them in manufacturing. Companies throughout Connecticut, like HABCO, Incorporated, are demanding that we finally do something about these unfair practices that subsidize Chinese exports. Everyone from the manufacturers that I have surveyed to the people I run into at grocery stores understands that China is cheating on their currency. With more than 160,000 people in Connecticut out of work, it is long past time for the leadership of this House to allow a vote on this floor on legislation to take China to task for their unfair practices and to strengthen American workers and businesses. Let's pass this jobs-creating legislation now.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this so-called Protect Life Act. This bill is another egregious, over-the-top assault on America's women, their health and their autonomy over their bodies. Instead of doing what we've been sent here to do, focus on jobs, once again we are talking about this extreme Republican right-wing agenda against women. What we're essentially talking about is going back to the dark ages here. We started this Congress by talking about ending Federal support for birth control, a debate that women in my district thought ended a generation ago. And now we're going so far as to say that women can't even have access to information about the full extent of choices with respect to their health care. This is a war on women. This is a distraction from job creation. We should reject this bill; we should end this assault on women's health care; and we should get back to the work that we were sent here to do, to fix this economy for everyone in this country, women and men, together.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the United States Navy and the extraordinary service of all of its members. Today marks the 236th year of the Navy's existence. Since its birth in 1775, our sailors have bravely served our Nation here at home and in all corners of the globe. Whether it is protecting Americans and our allies, to keeping the seas open for commerce or assisting other nations after global disasters, the United States Navy has truly been a global force for good. My own state of Connecticut has a proud naval tradition. We are fortunate enough to be home to the Naval Submarine Base New London, which is known as the ``First and Finest Submarine Base''. Originally commissioned as a navy yard on April 11th, 1868, our base now boasts 15 home ported submarines and employs over 7,500 service members and civilians. As a result, the base is one of the largest employers in southeastern Connecticut. Over the years, and with the establishment of naval schools and training facilities, the base has become a symbol of strength and pride for Connecticut, and for the entire Navy. Not only was the first diesel powered submarine commissioned in Groton, but our New London base was the first in the history of the Navy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can all agree the Navy deserves recognition for their continued and constant service to our country. From skirmishes with the Royal Navy in 1776 to today's operations in the Middle East, the Navy has remained an organization that all Americans can be proud of. I ask my colleagues to join me, and the people of Connecticut, in applauding the current and former sailors around the world for their service in the U.S. Navy.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, free trade deals are not an industrial policy. Unlike most industrial countries in the world, the United States is the only one that has no overall strategy for bringing back the 5 million manufacturing jobs that we've lost in the last decade or reopening the 50,000 factories that have been shuttered. Without enforcing current trade laws, or pressuring China to adopt fair currency policies, or using U.S. taxpayer dollars to benefit U.S. companies, we are on the losing end of free trade before the deals are even negotiated. Where's the focus on industrial education? Where's the focus on requiring other countries to live up to their trade obligations? Where's the focus on making sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent on U.S. jobs? Now, I get the benefits of free trade, but come to Waterbury, Connecticut; New Britain, Connecticut; and Meriden, Connecticut, and what you will hear is a cry for help, not for more trade deals, but for a country that recognizes what every other developing industrial country has in this world, that we need a domestic industrial policy to protect and support our manufacturers here before we engage in free trade deals abroad.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Giuseppe ``Joe'' Leto. Joe was a resident of New Milford, Connecticut, where he attended Canterbury High School for four years. As his family and friends describe him, Joe was a passionate member of the school wrestling team who enjoyed spending time with his friends. Following his graduation, he went on to attend Western New England College in Springfield, Massachusetts to study business. In 1998, he decided to serve his country by joining the U.S. Marine Corps. After going through boot camp on Paris Island, he reported to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina for 16 weeks of training. Tragically, Joe died during a conditioning hike in his third week at Camp Lejeune at the age of 21. Following Joe's death, his mother, Mrs. Mimi Leto established the Joe Leto Scholarship for the students at Canterbury High School. When community support for the Leto family was expressed in an outpouring of flowers, Joe's former wrestling coach, Joe Wilson suggested that Mrs. Leto ask the community to participate in a fundraiser to support a scholarship in Joe's memory. The community's response was enthusiastic. Though originally intended to be a one-time event, the ``Run for Joe'' has become a tradition in New Milford. Participants have raised a total of over $150,000 in support of Joe's scholarship since the very first run. October 9, 2011 marks the 13th Annual ``Run for Joe'' to raise money for the Joe Leto Scholarship Fund. This year, in honor of the ``Run for Joe'' and in honor of Joe's memory, a flag will be flown at half staff on the day of the event at the Connecticut state Capitol. In reflection of the premature loss of a young, promising U.S. Marine and the sense of community he has inspired in the town of New Milford, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of Lance Corporal Giuseppe Leto, and the contributions his family and community have made in his memory to the students at Canterbury High School.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ken Esposito of Bridgewater, Connecticut. Mr. Esposito passed away on September 30, 2011 after a year-long battle with pancreatic cancer. Ken put up a courageous fight with the support of his wife Ann and his family, including his son Eliot and his mother Catherine. Mr. Esposito was a lifelong advocate for the disadvantaged and those less fortunate. He got his start as a community organizer in Cleveland, Ohio--where he successfully secured millions of dollars for community development projects. In Connecticut, he worked with the United Church of Christ and with the Universal Health Care Foundation. While at the Universal Health Care Foundation, he played a critical role in the effort to pass Sustinet--the ground-breaking legislation which will increase access to affordable health insurance for everyone. Ken worked diligently for years to see this law pass because he believed that providing universal health care was a moral imperative. Additionally, Ken served as an invaluable resource for me and other members of the Connecticut delegation during the recent health care reform debate. An avid bicyclist, Mr. Esposito enjoyed biking through the bucolic hills of New England. His family noted recently that he was always proud when he could ride past younger bikers who were struggling on Connecticut's hills. Sadly, the survival rate of pancreatic cancer is incredibly low. According to the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, nearly 75 percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within one year and nearly 95 percent succumb to the disease within 5 years. Ken's passing reminds us that we have an obligation to stand up for the most vulnerable in society and that much more work must be done to combat devastating diseases, such as pancreatic cancer. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in celebrating the life of Ken Esposito and the contributions he made to the people of Connecticut.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary service of Michael Foran, the 2012 MetLife/NASSP National High School Principal of the Year. A native of Newington, Connecticut, Mr. Foran has worked for 20 years within the New Britain school district and became Principal of New Britain High School in 2006. In this time, he has been instrumental in providing the 2,700 students of New Britain High School with the foundation they will need to succeed in today's competitive economy. Among many of his notable initiatives, Mr. Foran's focus on career education led to the start of the New Britain Academy for Health Professions, which helps students prepare for careers in health care. He has also greatly expanded the school's mentoring programs for at- risk students. Despite school budget reductions and layoffs, Foran has sustained and advanced his school's reputation by building a more collaborative work environment between administrators, teachers and ancillary staff. As a result, since 2006, test scores have risen, more students are taking AP courses, and fewer students are dropping out. This can be credited to better instruction due to Foran's excellent leadership attributes, which were essential in awarding him the honor of National Principal of the Year. The MetLife/NASSP program honors secondary school principals who have arrived at administering distinctive learning opportunities for students. High school and middle school principals from every state in the nation are nominated. From this accomplished pool, 6 finalists are chosen as contenders to be named Principal of the Year. This program recognizes the very pivotal role that principals such as Mr. Foran play in the education system as leaders and role models who excel in maintaining a positive community for both students and teachers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can all learn from Mr. Foran's dedication to education and service, and so I ask my colleagues to join me, and the people of Connecticut, in recognizing Michael Foran as the National Principal of the Year.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have a great idea. Let's pass the American Jobs Act. It cuts taxes, it invests in infrastructure, and most importantly, it helps small businesses be more competitive in the global economy. Economists of all political stripes tell us that this act will create 1.9 million jobs, and it does it, in part, by making sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent on U.S. jobs by applying the Buy American provisions. We should pass the American Jobs Act, and then we should take the simple idea that U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to create U.S. jobs and then apply it to every corner of the Federal Government. For instance, we could create another 600,000 jobs on top of the 1.9 million if we'd just clean up loopholes that allow for thousands of defense contracts to go to overseas companies. You see, rhetoric on the floor of the House of Representatives doesn't create jobs. Real, now-focused policies do, like the American Jobs Act and the Buy American policy.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) in Canaan, CT. BD is an example of an innovative corporation who provides hard working Americans with high quality manufacturing jobs. Starting with only 8 associates in 1961 in a 25,000 square foot facility, BD's footprint in Canaan has expanded 8 times and now employs over 350 people, making it the largest employer in the community. BD has been a world leader in medical technologies throughout the company's history. In 1925, BD patented the Yale Luer-Lok syringe, which provides a simple and secure way to lock a needle onto a syringe. To this day, the Luer-Lok connector is still the standard for syringes in the United States. Continuing to revolutionize the medical industry, BD created the world's first disposable plastic syringe, the BD Plastipak, which was exclusively manufactured at the Canaan facility. The Canaan manufacturing facility in 2002 became the first site to manufacture BD's newest syringe, the BD Integra, which is spring engineered to eliminate accidental needle-sticks and provide great dosing accuracy. The facility is the largest manufacturer of disposable syringes in the world, producing approximately two billion syringes annually. Further, BD has been a great example of corporate social responsibility in Connecticut. The company served as the corporate sponsor for Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in order to raise money in Northwest Connecticut for diabetes research. BD has donated generously to The United Way, and also mentors students from Housatonic Valley Regional High School. In 2007, BD was named to Ethisphere Magazine's inaugural list of most ethical companies, and has since placed on the list every year. In reflection of the 50th anniversary of BD in Canaan, CT, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring a company that has truly transformed the medical technology industry.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary bravery of Petty Officer Amilcar Rodriguez, who was awarded the Silver Star for his valor in combat. The remarkable courage he demonstrated while aiding fellow soldiers at great personal risk represents the highest caliber of service to his country. A 1998 graduate of Avon High School, Petty Officer Rodriguez was serving as a Navy corpsman, or medic, on November 6, 2009, in Bala Murghab in Afghanistan when a Marine and two Afghan soldiers in his team were shot and wounded by an enemy sniper. Under extreme duress, Rodriguez returned fire, killing two enemy combatants. He then exposed himself to enemy fire and was shot three times while dragging the wounded Marine to safety. As other Marines rescued Rodriguez and his colleague, he told them how to treat his wounded colleague. Later, while still seriously injured, Rodriguez assisted other medics in treating the wounded. The Silver Star is the third-highest military decoration members of the armed forces can receive, and is only given to soldiers who perform ``with marked distinction'' and demonstrate gallantry in the face of considerable military adversity. The bravery Petty Officer Rodriguez displayed shows his exceptional dedication to the armed forces and to his fellow soldiers. In reflection of the Silver Star he was recently awarded, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring the incredible actions, courage and selflessness of Connecticut native, Petty Officer Amilcar Rodriguez.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from New Hampshire as one of the cosponsors of this amendment, and I urge House passage. Let me say at the outset that this is a terrible bill. This is the first time I have come to the House floor to speak on it. It goes without saying that the devastation that this underlying legislation would do to our, frankly, century-long history of environmental protection is almost indescribable. The League of Conservation Voters said simply this: that this bill is the biggest assault on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife and wild places we hold dear to ever come before Congress. It rolls back new vehicle emission standards. It guts the Clean Water Act. It defunds the Endangered Species Act. And in the middle of it all, it adds an 80 percent cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As my friend, Representative Bass, rightly pointed out, it essentially reverses 50 years of investment in land conservation by returning this account back to the 1965 level. It was a great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, who first had the wisdom to understand how integral the open spaces of this country are to what it means to be an American. There is something unique about this country. The views and the vistas are just one part of it. Our identity is wrapped up in the places that we have conserved, the places that we have conserved through the very rightful acts of investment by our Federal Government over the last 50 years, indeed, over the last 100 years. And it has been Republican and Democratic Presidents, Republican and Democratic Congresses that since that moment of awakening in this Nation have realized this is the right kind of investment for this Nation. It is the right kind of investment because not only does it preserve the character of our Nation, but it does so by leveraging private investment and State investment. As Representative Bass noted, one of the most important pieces of LWCF is the Forest Legacy Program. That program has conserved 2 million acres around the country. In my State of Connecticut, it has helped conserve 8,000 acres, and it does it by partnering with State resources, with local resources, and with private resources; in my State, often through the generosity of land trusts. This is an incredibly wise investment, as it has been over the years. And worst of all, this isn't even getting at the larger question of deficit reduction because this account has never been funded through deficits or borrowing. It has been funded through the money that comes from our offshore oil leases. There are so many horrible cuts in this bill. There are so many reasons for those of us who believe in the concept of environmental protection made real by bipartisan support over the course of the last century to oppose this bill. But this, in my mind, is the worst of it. This is a sad day where we stand today. This is a small, small increase beyond what the Republicans have proposed to cut, but I think it is meaningful in the sense that it is an opportunity for this Congress to come together and say what dozens upon dozens of Congresses have said since 1965, that it is an American investment to spend Federal money toward the project of land conservation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, my amendment before us today asks a simple question: Why should America shoulder new environmental risks to help power the economy of China? Many Members have come to the floor today to document the considerable ecological and public health threats posed by the development of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. In addition to producing 40 percent more life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, the recent Exxon pipeline spill in Montana's Yellowstone River serves as a stark reminder of the very real risks posed by these kinds of pipeline projects. However, in discounting these facts, the proponents of Keystone XL assert that, without the new pipeline, Canada's dirty tar sands oil will be shipped to China and to other overseas markets. This simply isn't true. Without access to a major new shipping terminal and refining hub on the gulf coast, Canada's tar sands will remain stranded on the North American continent. Indeed, Keystone XL is essential to the economic expansion of Canadian tar sands because it opens up new trade routes to the East. Current pipeline infrastructure carries tar sands oil to the Midwest but no further. By 2015, existing markets will no longer be sufficient to absorb this increased tar sands production. So the Keystone XL pipeline will provide that new market to China for this oil. Indeed, earlier this year, the CEO of Valero Energy, one of the companies that has signed up to ship oil through Keystone XL, said this: that the future of refining in the United States is in exports. So America is increasingly now the global middleman in world oil exports. Our oil exports have doubled in the last 5 years. The question is this: Shouldn't we have some say in where our oil goes? With the construction of this new pipeline, we are going to be shouldering all of the increased environmental risks that come with its construction to help meet the growing overseas oil demand of our economic competitors. How does that further the energy independence of the United States? So the amendment we are offering today with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Welch will merely make it clear that a decision to permit Keystone XL is a decision to, in part, help promote North American oil exports to China. Whether you like that or don't like that, we should at least admit that that is one of the byproducts of our action today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to face the reality of the Keystone XL pipeline rather than just the rhetoric. At this point, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, in the 5 years leading up to the economic collapse in 2008, 67 percent of the new wealth that was created in this Nation accumulated in the hands of the richest 1 percent. They now control about two-fifths of all the money in this Nation. But our Republican friends block them out of their line of sight when they look to see who can pay for our mounting deficit. They see only Social Security recipients and Medicare recipients, the disabled and the hungry. It was bad enough that we were crazy enough as a Nation to fight two trillion-dollar wars while cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time. Now Republicans are asking only the most vulnerable to help pay for it and threatening to collapse the world's economy by defaulting on American debt at the same time. I won't stand for it, Madam Speaker, and my constituents won't either. Social Security and Medicare recipients didn't get us into two mismanaged wars. They didn't get the benefit of the Bush tax cuts, and they shouldn't have to pay for it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since 2003, the Defense Department reports that it has spent approximately $1.3 billion to buy non-combat vehicles from foreign vehicle manufacturers. Now you may ask, why is that? We have a law on the books that's called the Buy American Act, and it generally requires that when we are buying items for use by the U.S. military and they are available here in the United States that they should be bought from U.S. companies. It makes a lot of sense. If we're going to be spending billions of dollars in taxpayer money, we should make sure that it goes to fund U.S. manufacturers and U.S. jobs. But here's the problem. There are a number of loopholes, a growing number of exceptions to the Buy America law. The biggest is this one. One of the exceptions says that if you are buying a particular good for use outside of the United States, you don't have to comply with the Buy America clause at all. Well, that becomes a pretty enormous, truck- sized loophole when we are fighting two wars abroad, because much of what we are purchasing goes immediately to foreign companies. So you have a situation where non-combat vehicles, light trucks, ambulances, buses, motorcycles, vehicles that are made by a multitude of American manufacturers, are now being bought overseas and our taxpayer dollars are going to foreign European and Asian vehicle manufacturers and into the pockets of foreign workers. This is a much bigger problem than just this one category of spending. In fact, the DOD has spent about $36 billion in purchases from foreign companies for use outside of the United States. In fact, just this last year, there were about 38,000 waivers to the Buy America Act for a variety of exceptions, and over the last 4 years about 161,000 waivers to the Buy America Act. This is a very large problem, as we see growing numbers of exceptions to the act. This one, though, is the biggest. And while I think we've got to pass comprehensive legislation to try to take on these growing waivers from the Buy America Act, this amendment, which I offer with my good friend Representative Peters of Michigan, will simply restrict the purchase of these everyday non- combat vehicles to vehicles that are made by American workers. People in my State of Connecticut and around the country are out of work, and a $1.3 billion infusion, money that we're going to spend anyway, will help create jobs. To be successful in the 21st century we can't continue to cede our manufacturing capacity to overseas workers. The Department of Defense is the world's largest purchaser of many types of products and we must do all that we can to make sure that we're putting this money, our taxpayers' money to work here at home while not doing any damage to the mission abroad. These non-combat vehicles could easily be manufactured by American plants, and it's high time that we put people back to work here in this country. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, just to quickly point out that is a pretty bread-and-butter, vanilla restriction on funding, as I understand one of the objections is that this would change the duties of contracting officers who now don't apply the Buy America law. In fact, normal course of training requirements for contracting specialists already educate those specialists in how to apply the Buy America law whether or not they currently do it today. I do believe for that reason that the amendment is germane.

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