Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5772) to amend section 811 of the Cranston- Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to improve the program under such section for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as amended.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the News-Times of Danbury, Connecticut, on the 125th anniversary of the founding of their paper. With circulation extending to some 30,000 residents in western Connecticut, the News-Times helps us stay in touch with the people and places that make up our community. The paper connects the citizens of greater Danbury and serves as a forum for public conversation, providing readers with an opportunity to discuss local, state, and national issues of concern. As they say, a well-informed citizenry is essential to any democracy, and the News- Times provides an invaluable link between residents and the leaders, decisions, and issues that shape their lives every day. A hallmark of a quality local newspaper is the attention it pays to local issues that affect the lives of its readers. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank the News-Times for its excellent coverage of Candlewood Lake. I have been intimately involved in the recent negotiations with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the owner of the lake, First Light, to ensure that the environmental and property protection concerns of local residents are heard when it comes to decisions about how the lake is managed. The News-Times has covered every step of this process, and it's clear the paper takes this issue as seriously as I do. With September 7, 2008, marking the 125th anniversary of the Danbury News-Times, I would like to extend my congratulations on the continuing success of your publication. It's my hope that today marks the beginning of another 125 years of peerless local reporting.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, my friend from Colorado. I am glad you brought up this issue that has come up today. Really you couldn't write this. You couldn't make a movie that was more salacious than the details that are being unveiled today in an article you referenced from the Washington Post regarding not only, it appears, monetary favors, gifts, meals, trips, but sex and drugs. This is a Hollywood blockbuster that is being unveiled here, and it is all on our dime. What you are saying here is certainly relevant to the question of how we are running our energy policy in this country, that we have an administration that is so cozy to the energy industry that it is not just leases that are being negotiated, but apparently it is drugs and sexual favors being negotiated. But what we are dealing with really here, Mr. Perlmutter, is a government run amuck. This is, I think, symptomatic of a much larger problem. We are talking here about the economic disaster that this administration has wrought, and you can calculate that in so many different ways: wages flat while GDP goes up; deficits running into the trillions of dollars. But what we also have seen is an administration that just can't run government any longer. They are wasting our taxpayer dollars. Now, they also happen to be wasting all of the money that they are borrowing from foreign banks, but we are wasting a lot of our money too. It is incredibly relevant that we are here trying to expose the economic disaster that the Bush administration has left us with that we are going to change with the new administration. It is relevant that we are also talking about this new revelation. You have mentioned some of the details, but what we found in the Interior Department is what investigators call a ``culture of substance abuse and promiscuity.'' Nineteen oil marketers and other employers in the office are accused of having personal and sometimes sexual relationships with representatives of a group of favorite oil and gas companies from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Speaker, this is from the Washington Post story today. This is what this government has left us with, an economy that is suffering, deficits that are rising, and a government that just doesn't work any longer, whether it is the misuse of our funds in Iraq. We discovered in the Government Oversight Committee that Mr. Welch and I serve on that $9 billion was wasted, unaccounted for at the beginning of the war, sometimes thrown out of pickup trucks in duffel bags and never, ever seen again. Or whether it is our response to Katrina and Rita, in which we left thousands, tens of thousands of residents helpless and hopeless. And now today we find that we have unbelievably inappropriate relationships between the government and the oil and gas companies seeking to lease our lands. This is an economy that is in trouble because of the policies of this administration. This is a government which has simply fallen apart at the seams because of mismanagement. And it all speaks to the change we so desperately need. No more of the same. John McCain's campaign, as we know, is run by the same crowd of lobbyists who have run the Bush administration for the last 8 years. We need a real change. This Congress with Democrats in charge has started it, but it comes to a completion this November. All of it stops, the mismanagement of this war, the disastrous response to natural disasters and these new revelations about the corruption still endemic in our government. Ms. Sutton, it can all change this November.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer this amendment along with my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) that will help restore access to voter registration for America's veterans. You see, Mr. Chairman, on April 25, 2008, the Veterans Health Administration issued a directive stating the VA's clear policy to assist veterans, patients of VA facilities who seek to exercise their right to register and vote. And I believe all of us would agree here that such a policy is extraordinarily appropriate given that these men and women served by the VA are the very people who put their lives on the line to protect that right to vote. Inexplicably though, on May 5, 2008, the VA withdrew this directive and issued a contrary directive. This new instruction made a similar commitment regarding voter assistance but it included a policy statement which prohibits nonpartisan voter registration drives on VA property. Mr. Chairman, the mission of the VA is, in its own words, to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan'' by functioning ``as a single, comprehensive provider of seamless service to the men and women who have served our nation.'' It's disappointing that the VA would not consider assistance with voter registration as one of the fundamental components of offering this seamless service to veterans. Many of these soldiers have been wounded in combat and have disabilities that make traditional voting difficult. The VA should be ready to provide these men and women with any and all assistance that they might need to make their voices heard in this democracy, whether that be delivering an absentee ballot to an amputee or filling out a ballot for a soldier who has lost his sight. Secretaries of States and election officials all over the country will tell you that the registration drives that historically have been a critical portion of this outreach for veterans in these facilities has done a great service for our veterans. Over 20 bipartisan secretaries of State have joined us in expressing their disappointment over this policy. We're not here today, of course, to restrict the VA's ability to manage their facilities and the care of their patients. On the contrary, they need that ability, and nothing in this amendment would diminish it. However, we believe it's the duty of the VA to work closely with nonpartisan veterans groups and elections officials to ensure that veterans have the ability to exercise that basic fundamental right to vote. So our amendment is simple. It would not allow the VA to use any funds appropriated through this legislation to carry out that policy section of the May Directive. And while we hope the VA will still reverse this decision on its own, with this congressional action today we are sending a clear signal that this House believes that all veterans should have access to and the right the vote. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for his assistance in putting this amendment before the House. I would also like to thank Robert Brady and Congresswoman Watson for their persistence and advocacy on this issue which has brought it to the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment's adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, you're very right. And we could watch this housing crisis unfold, this energy crisis continue to squeeze families and we could sit here and do nothing. But as you said, we got sent here to do something, to sit down and figure out solutions. And I think it's incredibly relevant as to whom you ask about what the solution should be. In the last few years when there was a problem with energy prices, this Congress went and asked the oil companies how you fix it. When they wanted to write a new bill to bring prescription drug coverage to seniors, they went and asked the drug industry how to solve the problem. When this housing crunch came down, when foreclosures started to increase, when neighborhoods started to fall apart, we went to our constituents. We went to the people who sent us here. We went to the very people who are being affected or at risk of being affected by this problem, and said, you tell us how we should solve this problem. And what we heard was, listen, give us a chance to stay in our home. I don't want a handout. I don't want a giveaway. I don't want a bailout. I want a chance to stay in my home. I want to pay my fair share. I want a chance to pay a decent rate. But give me a chance. So we passed the expanded FHA insurance program to allow people who were in exorbitant and unfair interest-rate mortgages to get back into something reasonable, at a loss and a haircut to them and to their lender. When people said, I want to buy my first home, but this is a really dangerous time to do it, I think we responded in this bill we passed today by passing a $7,500 refundable tax credit to allow people a little bit more flexibility to get into that first home. When people said, I need some help getting counseling to find out how I avoid foreclosure, we put money into counseling agencies to help people help themselves. When you go to the people who are really hurting, you get the right answers. And I'm just as proud as you are, Mr. Meek, for voting for this piece of legislation this afternoon. It may be the most important housing legislative package that this House and this Congress has passed in the past several years. And I'm just as proud of where the genesis of the ideas came from.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. If the gentleman would just yield for a moment. I think it's worthwhile also to talk about what was happening here during the time that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, during the time you and I, Mr. Altmire, were watching with agony from afar. During that time, they passed an energy bill in 2005 that was written by the oil companies in secret at the White House in Dick Cheney's office. That, no so coincidentally, gave billions in tax breaks to the oil companies, leading today to the biggest profits--not in the history of the energy industry, not in the history of the oil industry, the biggest profits in the history of American capitalism are being made today by the oil industry. Guess what? The actions taken by this Congress to give away more tax breaks to that industry had something to do with that. During that time, they continued to spend money out of control, racking up record deficits in this country, which has led to the devaluing of the dollar, which is a big part of the problem today. Maybe 25 percent of the increased cost of a barrel of oil in this country is attributable to the dollar, which has fallen in value, which is attributable to the actions of this Congress during that time. Over and over again they took steps here to basically invite the crisis that we have seen here today. And so, Mr. Altmire, I think you're right to say that they had a lot of time to do good things, but one of the biggest problems is during the time in which the Republicans were in control of this House they did a lot of bad things, which led us to the place we are today. Mr. Meek.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I can't let you continue. I think you're giving a little bit too much credit to our friends from the other side of the aisle. I certainly take Mr. Gingrey at his word that Republicans are for conservation, but being for it is a little different than voting for it. Being for it is a little bit different than putting it into practice. Words are one thing and actions are another. Listen, I am not going to endeavor to try to guess as to exactly why from all of the different reasons that our constituents may have sent us here were at the top of their mind, but I think one of them was that they had figured out for 12 years in this House while the Republicans controlled it and the President for 6 of those years was in the White House, that conservation was simply not a policy of this Congress, that they were following the lead of Vice President Cheney who now somewhat infamously stated that conservation, in his mind, and we can guess in the administration's mind, is a personal virtue, not a policy. So I don't think it's any coincidence that that seemed to be the ruling mantra of this House, that conservation wasn't something that the government should get involved in, it's just something you do in your private life. And during that time, that 12 years that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, we saw absolutely no action on conservation. In fact, it took the Democrats taking control of the House and the Senate to pass, for the first time in 30 years, a very simple increase in fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, up to 35 miles a gallon. You and I know that's low-hanging fruit. I think we're going to be embarrassed in just 5 or 10 years to think that we set our sights so low as 35 miles per gallon. I think we are going to get up to 45 and 50 miles per gallon on the average fuel efficiency of fleets in this country. The fact is, I don't suggest that Republicans weren't personally for conservation, I am sure many of them practice it in their own homes. The fact was they weren't setting policy here to actually make that a reality. That fuel efficiency bill that we passed, first time in 30 years, when we passed it, when gas prices were a little bit lower than they are now, that was a $1,000 savings per year for every commuter, for every car owner. It's probably now, unfortunately, up to $1,500 per year in savings, but that's real action on conservation. That's actually taking words and putting them into action.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, you said it right, it doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or Democrat, when you pull up to that pump you're paying a price that you can't afford. It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative or a liberal, if you can't afford to heat your home this winter, you're going to freeze. That has nothing to do with partisan politics. I think we come down to this floor and we try to educate people on some of the differences between the two sides of the aisle here. But when it comes down to it, you're very right. I mean, the people didn't send us here to have a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, they sent us here to try to find some common ground to make this world a better place. And I wish more of that happened here. I mean, I wish we didn't have a chart like the one that you just put up that showed so many vetoes and veto threats from the President. Because I think sometimes the folks in the White House don't understand that pain, that bipartisan, nonpartisan pain that's happening out there. I think some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't maybe feel that as well. I think sometimes, as Mr. Altmire said, it feels like the debate down here is more about scoring political points than it is actually getting things done. And so, Mr. Meek, I'm glad you put it that way because I think it's important for us to continue to remind our colleagues here on this floor, through the Speaker, that we can come together, that there are things that we agree on. And if we put politics aside, we can do the will of the American people. Mr. Altmire.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, since President Bush took office, the price of oil has skyrocketed from $30 a barrel to a recent high of $150 a barrel. These prices are debilitating millions of American families who can't even afford to go to the grocery store. Two months ago, Congress forced the President to take action and stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already at its highest levels ever. On July 1 we stopped putting oil into the reserve, which could lower prices at the pump anywhere from 10 to 25 cents. This action will have real results for the American people. And now Democrats are urging the President to release oil from that reserve to provide additional assistance right now to American consumers. Some say that we should only use oil from the reserve in an emergency. Madam Speaker, I suggest that if families not being able to put food on the table or freezing this winter isn't an emergency, I don't know what is.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the American Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. This legislation, debated over many weeks and months, and evolving over that time, is extraordinarily important to the financial health of not only the housing market but the Nation's economy. As we create a new world-class GSE regulator, provide refinancing assistance to hundreds of thousands of families, provide for an affordable housing trust fund and provide the Treasury Department with the tools it needs to ensure the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we should also continue to consider measures that could further increase the stability and transparency of the housing market. Congress should continue to look into the role that appraisals have had in skewing the housing market and thus encouraging the proliferation of overvalued mortgages. I hope that we could take a serious look at requiring the GSEs to incorporate the Cost Approach for appraisals in the method they currently rely on to appraise properties. For more than 60 years before the standard was changed in 1996, the GSEs required the use of the Cost Approach on home property appraisals. The Cost Approach is a method used as a way to benchmark the actual monetary value of the structure being appraised which in the least provides a floor for an accurate appraisal. With only a reliance on market values, appraised values of properties have had less and less to do with the actual demonstrative value of the structure and more and more to do with a housing market that we are now finding out was over inflated. By continuing to take a hard look at issues like the Cost Approach, this body can ensure that we will not rest on the passage of today's legislation but will continue to aggressively act to ensure that the housing markets operate in a manner based more strongly on true economic fundamentals.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Altmire. The point is that I think we would all have a slight degree more comfort with these numbers if we had confidence that those companies were investing back into capital, into exploration, into drilling a commensurate amount in comparison to what they're making in pure profit. I don't have the figures in front of me. I would be happy to see something that displays this to the contrary, but what I have seen is that you have not seen a corresponding increase in capital reinvestment--Mr. Stupak may know this and may want to comment on this as well--as you have seen in returns back to shareholders. Now, everybody wants shareholders to do well here. We want there to be enough excess profit to make some of the people who have invested in these companies do all right, but I'd like to also see some evidence, as you have suggested, Mr. Barton, that there's a willingness to take a piece of that money and to put it into more drilling and into more exploration and into more supply. I'd be happy to yield to Mr. Stupak.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I wasn't here during that time, but I do clearly think that people can understand the difference. One of the reasons we are talking about the urgency, as Mr. Stupak will about affecting the commodities market, when you are talking about a speculative bubble on a commodity like oil, which is dependent on whether people can heat their homes in winter and stay alive and get to work on a daily basis, that the urgency about bringing down that speculative bubble is imperative on this body. So I think the reason you hear so much commotion about bursting this bubble, and I wasn't here during the height of the housing and the height of the dot-com bubble, but the reason we are talking about the urgency of pressing government action to bring down the price to something that resembles the laws of supply and demand is because of the life-altering nature of the product that we are talking about.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. That is correct.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and our colleagues from the Republican side for getting together and engaging in what has probably been one of the more productive dialogues that we have had in at least my short time here in this House. I guess I wanted to offer just a few brief comments as a means to pivot to this next conversation because I think that you see Democrats, the majority party, focusing so much of our time on the issue that Mr. Hall will talk about, which is taking oil currently sitting right now available in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and putting it immediately in supply on the market. I think you see us talking about what Mr. Stupak will talk about, which is going after the very place in which the price of oil is actually set. As much as we talk about the oil companies and retailers, what it really comes down to is the price of a barrel of oil is set on a minute-by-minute, hourly basis on the commodities markets, the regulated/unregulated markets. I think you see us talking about those areas more than we talk about the subject that, quite honestly, occupies most of the time of our friends on the other side of the aisle because we see that as the means to immediate relief. I mean there is absolutely a conversation that should have occurred a long time ago and needs to occur right now to take this crisis that families are feeling and turn it into a long-term strategy both on the demand and supply side, changing the amount of supply and the very nature of the supply, changing the amount of the demand and the nature of the demand, to try to make sure that we don't get into this mess 5 years from now, 10 years from now. But what we hear I know is what you hear. I mean this energy crunch doesn't discriminate based on the party you're registered with. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you're paying the same prices in the Fifth District of Connecticut and Texas and in Georgia and all across the rest of this country. People are saying to us get us relief today. So my estimation of why we have a disagreement at the very least on where the issue of drilling should fall on the priority list is because we just haven't seen the evidence yet that shows that this idea that drilling that will reach peak capacity in 20 years and may not start for another 6 or 10 years is going to actually lead to lower prices tomorrow or next week or the next month. Now, Mr. Rahall is right. We don't have all these tools at our disposal. We want prices to come down $2 by sunrise tomorrow. It's not going to happen, and we don't have the ability in this Congress to make all of those big, broad, short-term changes. But what we are looking at is evidence that does not suggest that increased potential future supply is going to lead to lower prices today. I mean just look at what has happened over the last 6 years alone. We have seen a 361 percent increase in drilling permits. Now, there is no correspondence between that 361 percent increase in drilling permits and the price of oil. Take a very specific example that we all read about just within the last 12 months and look and see how the futures markets responded to it. In November of last year, news came of potentially one of the most important oil field discoveries in the last decade, the Tupi field off the coast of Brazil. We don't know how much is there, but the estimates already are you potentially have 8 billion to 10 billion barrels. You would expect, by the logic that we hear here, that that immediate notice of more supply around the corner with a government--there's no permit contesting here. There's no political problem that we may have in other countries. The Government of Brazil's ready to go. So we have got 8 to 10 billion barrels, and what do we see happen in world markets? Within 14 days the price doesn't go down, it goes up. Within 6 months, a $13 increase in the price of a barrel of oil and in 9 months as we stand here today a $55 increase, the biggest oil field discovery that many of us have seen in the time that we've been in government service and the theory that that should lead immediately to the market's responding with oil prices decreasing doesn't happen. And so I think that is just a means of explaining why the oxygen on this side of the aisle gets spent on issues that Mr. Hall will talk about and Mr. Stupak will talk about, the SPR and the commodities trading reform efforts. Because we see that as the most effective means toward immediate price relief. And I think if we had evidence that the markets have responded in a different way in the recent future that potential future demand with increased oil permits leading to lower prices or new discoveries leading to lower prices maybe there might be a different discussion here. But the fact is that we haven't seen that kind of response. So I just offer that as a means to pivot on to some of the conversations that we will have on our side of the aisle. Because I think that is part of the explanation as to why you say see a difference in focus. And I would be happy to yield.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I came to the floor today to speak about the underlying legislation, which is incredibly important to those of us who reside in Connecticut, where 340 miles of this proposed route lies, more than in any other State along this historic trail. But I can't sit here and not respond to some of the comments from our friends from across the aisle. I appreciate this newfound interest in trying to make this country independent of oil outside of our bounds, independent of energy sources produced outside of the United States. The problem is that our friends on the other aisle who controlled this House of Representatives for 12 years are too late to the game. It is a shame, a travesty, that we are sitting in this situation that we are today, not only with gasoline in Connecticut, where I come from, at $4.30 a gallon, but across this Nation families are being held hostage by a product produced and priced outside of this country. We could have made different choices in this House if we had had leadership on the Republican side of the aisle, who controlled it for 12 years in conjunction with a President who sat in the White House for six of those years. We could have been in a very different place today. But we are not. So, as Democrats, we are standing up, passing legislation to hold OPEC accountable for price fixing; investing in renewable resources to try to finally get this country off of that oil that we are far too addicted to; and going after those who would try to price-gouge and take advantage of the current economic situation. In all of those situations there are veto threats from the President and far too few of our friends from the other side of the aisle joining us. Now, there is consistency there. For 12 years they neglected the growing energy crisis, and now we don't have enough bipartisan cooperation across the aisle. So I appreciate the fact that on a bill that is very important to those of us in Connecticut, that we have a little bit of an opportunity to talk about the crisis that is affecting American families. I just wish that our friends on the Republican side of the aisle had been doing a little bit more talking about this subject before we got here, the new members of this class. I wish that we had been talking about this 5 years ago and 10 years ago, and we wouldn't have to be talking about it in such grave terms here today. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk just for one moment about how important this underlying bill is going to be to us in Connecticut, for it is important for us to celebrate our heritage. What makes us so great as a Nation is that we celebrate it, we respect it and we pass it on to new generations. And so when I look at that 340 miles of this historic trail that is going to lie in Connecticut, I think great things about what it is going to mean to have more resources and more Federal recognition for the students and the children who will walk that trail, who will visit the monuments and markers across it, and will have even more reverence for the history that brings us here today. Graves of French soldiers still sit in Waterbury, Connecticut; the spot on which the Caleb Baldwin Tavern sat in Newtown.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from New York. A historic tavern in Newtown, Connecticut where General Rochambeau and his troops made several stops continues to be talked about today as an important part of the historic tradition of Western Connecticut. This is going to add to the historic legacy that of course makes us what we are in New England, makes us so proud of our very unique role in the making of this Nation. And what makes this Nation great is that even in moments of trial like we have today, with families faced with increasing costs of energy and health care and education, that we can come together and propose solutions. I just think that it is too bad that we didn't do something about this before this moment. I think it is too bad that we have to come to this floor in such a crisis mode as we do today. I wish our friends from across the aisle had done a little bit more when they controlled this House. I think that would have done a lot more to fulfill the legacy that we celebrate today than the moment that we are in right now.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank my friend from Ohio. And I think it's important to point out that a lot has changed here in the last 1\1/2\ years. I mean the numbers that you show are pretty startling, moving from about $5.6 trillion on the plus side to now $3.2 trillion in deficit. And the fact is that we got a mandate when the Democrats were elected to control this House and to control it by a slimmer margin in the Senate. We had a mandate to get our fiscal ship in order. The days of not paying for anything had to end for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the reason that you're talking about, the fact that the amount of money that we are borrowing from foreign banks has contributed to the devaluing of the dollar. And that means everything that we import into this country becomes more expensive, not the least of which are the millions of barrels of oil that come into this country. So what do we do about it? Well, we did something. We passed a rule in this House that is a rule that most families and every business out there lives by every day. We said, listen, when legislation comes before this House that spends money, we're not going to pass it unless in that legislation we account for how we're going to pay for it. When a piece of legislation that comes before this House wants to cut somebody's taxes, we're not going to pass it unless within that piece of legislation we account for how we're going to pay for that tax cut. And we call it the ``pay-as-you-go'' rule, which is how my family grew up, how most American families live their lives. They don't spend money that they don't have. And it's so ridiculously simple that it's mind blowing to a certain extent that it took a change in leadership in the this House to actually put that into practice, but it has changed things. We're starting to get that deficit that you talk about, Mr. Ryan, under control. Now, it means that this Congress can't spend money as wildly as it did under the Republicans. It means that we have got to be a little bit more careful about whom we give tax cuts to and make sure that when we do it, we give it to the right people. But in the end it makes for a better policy and it starts to get that fiscal mess that you talk about under control. And there are so many ripple effects of that good policy, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, that's not just about making sure that we don't pass along the costs of this deficit to our kids and our grandkids and their kids. This is also about restoring some balance of trade so that we are not basically asking the rest of the world to pay for our debts, and in the end, do something about the dollar that as much as anything else is responsible for the high prices we're paying at the pump, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Mr. Meek. I appreciate the point. You talked about record profits. Let's talk about some meat on the bones here. A 311 percent increase in profits for the oil industry from 2002 to 2007. It may just be a coincidence that that time about correlates with the moment that they started sitting in those secret meetings, Mr. Meek, in Vice President Cheney's office to negotiate this new energy policy into the Bush administration. But I don't think it's a coincidence. I think you can directly correlate the moment at which the oil companies started seeing this 311 percent increase in profits begin with the moment at which they were let in the door to start writing America's energy policy. Because that is what happened. We put two oil men in the White House, in President and the Vice President seat, and we got, as a result of it, the highest gas prices in the history of this Nation, a 300 percent increase in the profits to their friends in the oil industry, and families having to make decisions about whether they feed their kids or whether they fill up their gas tank to get to work the next day. That is not coincidence. That is not chance. That is the result of putting two people in charge of this administration that made their fortune in the oil industry and who have friends that they have allowed into the room to write the very legislation that has led to the situation that we are in today. It's not just conjecture. Let's take a look just in the last year and a half at what we have been doing here and who's been standing in the way. This is probably not readable to the Speaker and to our colleagues here, but can you get the picture here. The Renewable Energy and Jobs Act that we passed just a few months ago, investing millions of dollars into renewal energy that would actually compete with the oil industry, would make us energy independent, as we talk about all the time. Veto threat in the President of the United States. The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act that held OPEC and the oil companies accountable for price fixing; for getting together and trying to decide what the price of oil should be. The President once again threatens to veto it. Commonsense legislation. Repealing the subsidies, the tax subsidies that that energy bill that the oil industry wrote, repealing those tax subsidies and instead, this just seems like common sense, turning those subsidies that the Republicans and the President were giving to the oil industry, instead give them to consumers and small businesses and people who want to invest in things and energy technology in their homes to get them off of oil. Another veto threat from the President. Cracking down on price gouging. Fifty-six Republicans joining us on that bill. Veto threat from the President. Again, a second bill, this time with 125 Republicans supporting the measure. This measure was to go after the OPEC countries and oil cartels for price fixing. Another veto threat by the President. Over and over again. This Congress in the last year-and-a-half has been doing what we were sent here to do, represent and stick up for all of those middle-class families out there that are getting it stuck to them at the pumps. The way we say that we can do that best is to go right at the people who are getting rich off of these exorbitant oil prices, those oil companies. And every time that we have done it, virtually every time we have done it, we have had a President standing in the way. It continues. We just find out the other day, Mr. Meek, that this administration has been helping the oil companies negotiate no-bid contracts to get their newly found oil out of the fields in Iraq.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It is completely consistent though, because when the Bush administration came into office and they wanted an energy policy, they knew who to turn to, right? They went for answers to their friends in the oil industry. So, today, when people are hurting at the pumps and they are looking for answers, who does the Bush administration and who do the Republicans look to for answers? They ask their friends in the oil industry. And guess what their answer is? The way out of this is to give us access to the tiny little chunk of territory that we haven't gotten yet. It is going to take 20 years to get anything out of it, but our answer to your immediate problem is to give us access to territory that will get a tiny additional bit of oil in 20 years from now. And people bought it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It is so, Mr. Meek. It is so. Because this is just going to go on and on and on. So long as we continue to have the same people in charge of the White House and the administration's energy policy, we are going to continue to see these record profits for the oil industry and see a neglect on behalf of the administration to come to this Congress and work with the Democrats who are trying to turn this whole thing around.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Mr. Ryan. You referenced that short-term plan, and I think we would be remiss if we didn't talk a little bit about what is maybe our best tool between now and when this session wraps up to actually get some short-term relief to people. Because as much as we know the oil companies are a lot of the reason, the majority of the reason behind the problems that we face today, we have got to acknowledge where the price of a barrel of oil is set. The price of a barrel of oil is not set in the boardroom of Exxon or Chevron or BP. It is not set at the gas station that you and I go to fill up at. It is set on this place called the commodities market, the other place that has done very, very well over the past several years, the traders on Wall Street who have been coming away with millions, if not billions, off of these increased prices that we see. So if you really want some short-term relief, if you don't want to wait 10 years until you could get a drop of oil out of newly-leased territory, then let's actually go and pass some legislation to affect the very place that the price of oil is being set, and that is on the commodities market. We have seen an explosion of almost 20-fold in the amount of money that is being invested in the oil commodities market. And, guess what? Most of that money is being invested betting in only one direction, that the price goes up. And guess what else? When you bet that the price goes up, that is what it does. It goes up. Money chases money. Long bets increase the price of a barrel of oil. So we have got some pretty simple solutions in front of us that we are going to be putting forward in front of this House in the next few weeks. Let's limit the amount of people who can go onto Wall Street with the millions that they have made and force the price of gasoline, the price of a barrel of oil artificially beyond what it really costs. Because I do not believe that the price of a gallon of gas is really $4.20. That is not what supply and demand would have it at. That is what the commodity traders on Wall Street would have us believe. So if you really want to get short-term relief, then just as on the issues that we were talking about before, you have got to take on the oil industry, you have got to take on Wall Street, you have got to take on the commodity traders. And this place just I have seen it in the last few weeks, Mr. Meek, has all of a sudden started to crawl with those lobbyists that represent the folks that are making all this money off of oil trading. They are going to try to shut this down. They are going to do their best to go to their friends here in Congress and in the administration and try to shut down our efforts to reform the commodity market. And this isn't a simple thing to explain to our constituents, it is not a simple thing for people to explain to us. But if you really want to talk about what is responsible, what venue can be affected immediately in terms of bringing down this price, you have got to go after Wall Street, you have got to go after the place where we can get the most obvious and quickest price relief. And it is not going to be easy, because those folks there have just as many interests and lobbyists as do the oil companies here. But, Mr. Meek, we didn't get sent here to represent the lobbyists, we didn't get sent here to represent the special interests. We took over this House, we took control of this House because we are supposed to stick up for the people who are paying those prices. And we are all singing the same tune. In the long run, we have got to get off of oil. We have got to find something else to run this country on, Mr. Meek, Mr. Altmire, and Mr. Ryan. But in the short run, let's go to the place where it counts and where it can be changed and affected the most, and that is the commodities market. And I hope that we are going to do something here. I hope that we are going to get some bipartisan consensus to be able to work on that solution in the next few weeks.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Jason Dale Lewis, who was killed in combat just over a year ago on July 6, 2007, in Baghdad. Petty Officer 1st Class Lewis called Brookfield, Connecticut, his home, along with his wife Donna and their three children. Just 30 years old, Petty Officer 1st Class Lewis was a uniquely skilled member of an elite Navy SEAL unit. Highly decorated, he earned the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Navy ``E'' ribbon, two Good Conduct Medals, the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service ribbon, the Expert Rifleman Medal, and the Expert Pistol Shot Medal. Petty Officer 1st Class Lewis was truly an elite among elites. A year has passed since Jason left us. But the example he set, for his family, for his community, and for his Nation, will last forever. Our society is beset by those who live lives defined by unmet, wasted potential. That wasn't a problem for Jason. He knew how great he could be, as a man, as a father, and as a SEAL. And in 30 short years, he achieved that greatness. As Americans, we hold dear the values of honor, courage and commitment. Petty Officer 1st Class Lewis embodied those characteristics on and off the battlefield. His valor in defense of his country and his unceasing love for his community and family lend credence to the notion that the fullest lives are those lived for the greater good.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, if I had a monopoly on apple pies because the law said that my backyard was the only place in town where you could grow apple trees, I would charge whatever I wanted for those apple pies. I would be even more excited when I would start jacking the price way, way up for those apple pies and would make huge, record apple pie profits. If the government decided that the way to fix that problem would be to give me, and only me, permission to grow one more apple tree in my backyard 10 years from now, well, it would sound pretty ridiculous, right? Unfortunately, even though the analogy is a little bit simple, that is basically the Republican's plan for high gas prices. Instead of actually creating competition for the oil industry by concentrating on growing renewable energy sources, they just call for a little bit more drilling, giving their friends in the oil industry even more profit. Well, we shouldn't fall for it. With 2 percent of the world's oil reserves here in the United States, the only way to bring gas prices down is to end oil's monopoly and to start growing apple trees in other people's backyards.