Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam speaker, I rise today in honor of the commitment to public service that a constituent of mine from Waterbury, Connecticut has made throughout his career as a teacher in the Waterbury school system. George Haddad spent his entire 56-year career serving the students of the Waterbury community, working nights as an adult education instructor. Education is a stepping stone to prosperity and is absolutely essential in today's rapidly-changing economy. Ours is a Nation that simply cannot thrive and flourish without a well-educated citizenry. Unfortunately, there are still many barriers to a good education that confront scores of Americans. Mr. Haddad had some of the toughest cases a teacher can have. There have been gang members and young people who have been expelled from other schools that are among those he has counted as students. Yet for 56 years George Haddad refused to give up on these students, never backing down from a challenge. He is renowned and beloved among his colleagues and former pupils as an educator who truly has the best interests of his students at heart. Having served his country bravely in World War II, Mr. Haddad carried those same virtues of duty and responsibility throughout his entire life. We owe a great debt of gratitude to George Haddad and others like him who have spent their lives ensuring that those who may have otherwise slipped through the cracks get the education that they deserve. I congratulate Mr. Haddad on his proud record of service to his community and to our country. He is an excellent role model to all, and his example is one to which we should all aspire.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Right.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield for just 1 minute for a correction?

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just want to point out that it's not actually a penny, Mr. Ryan. We have a chart here. It's 1.8 cents.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It's actually 1.8 cents.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. You know, before I was joined by my illustrious colleagues here this evening, one of actually our more helpful colleagues on the other side was talking about words are one thing and actions are another. Words are one thing and votes are something else. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are pointing out when this comes down to it, when we had the chance to gather together and link arms and be one as Republicans and Democrats, our friends on the other side of the aisle didn't join us. There have been plenty of opportunities for that to happen, for us, as Mr. Ryan says, to do what our constituents want and put politics aside. As I said at the outset, the pumps don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat. The pumps don't care if you voted for Chris Murphy or not. They are going to charge you the same thing one way or another. I think Mr. Altmire is right. Maybe they have the best intentions at heart. But it is a pretty simplistic solution to a pretty complex problem: Drill more, drill more. Again, you are just feeding the beast. You are continuing to perpetuate a monopoly on energy that offers no real competition. What you need is not competition between Exxon and Mobil. You need competition between oil and electric, between biodiesel and gasoline. That is what you need competition among. That is how you are going to solve this thing in the end. But so long as the solution to high oil prices is just more oil and nothing else, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan, you are not getting anywhere.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We're standing here, and we're incredibly impressed, Mr. Altmire.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for giving us the indulgence of once again allowing the Speaker's 30- Something Working Group to come down to the House floor. We are hopeful tonight that we're going to have a full House here on the House floor, that we will be joined tonight by our master of ceremonies, on most nights Representative Meek and his original partner in crime, Mr. Ryan, as well as Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Altmire. It's appropriate that we're going to have hopefully four or five of us here by the time the hour is up because we have a lot to talk about. Because as our Republican colleagues have noted over the last hour, the one thing that they are probably right on the mark about is that people are hurting out there. People have a level of anger and anxiety over what is happening in this economy that many of us haven't seen in a very, very long time. I don't know technically whether we're in a recession, whether we're on our way into one. All I know is that people are having to do more with much less; that that salary increase that people thought they were getting isn't happening; that those overtime hours that my constituents in New Britain relied upon aren't there this year. And yet on the other side of their family's ledger, the prices to heat their home are going up, obviously the prices to fuel their car are going up, the college expenses, the health care expenses are going in only one direction and by and large far outpacing the rate of wage inflation that they're seeing as well. And the New Direction Congress is trying to do something about it. There's no secret as to why we've gotten into this situation that we're in today, why our people are making money at the very upper echelon of the income scale, why do we have GDP continuing to expand, while we have wages remaining relatively stagnant. It's because for a very long time on the floor of this House of Representatives before the New Direction Congress was installed last January, the voices that really mattered down here were the folks that were doing pretty well off in this economy: the drug industry, the health insurers, and at the top of the list, the oil industry. The dichotomy right now that exists today between the success of the oil industry and the distress of the people who buy their product is absolutely unconscionable. And it is hard for us to understand, with our slim majority that we hold on the Democratic side, why we can't get more consensus here between Republicans and Democrats to take on those gross and unjustifiable profits that are being made by the oil industry. Last quarter's profits from American and multinational oil companies set records, not for the history of the American oil industry, but for the history of American capitalism, and it's no secret where they're making those profits. They're making it off of all of us. Now, we heard a couple of days ago that the average price across this country hit $4 a gallon. Well, that was old news to us in Connecticut. We hit $4 weeks, if not a month, ago. We are well on our way in Connecticut to $5 a gallon, and in Connecticut it hurts us a little bit more because we have more congested highways. We don't have mass transit alternatives like other parts of the country. People are driving. In my district, we still have some jobs growing in Danbury, Connecticut, but nobody can live there because we don't have enough affordable housing. So people live in Waterbury, Connecticut, and they drive 30 miles to work every day. They'd live in Danbury if they could. They can't afford to do it. They'd live in Stamford if they could, but they can't. They live where they have to. They work where they have to. And it necessitates a commute which puts them out now record amounts, all the while, while the oil industry are making profits, they are setting records in the history of American capitalism. So, to us, it seems pretty obvious where we should lay the blame, on an oil industry which has continued to take profits out of American consumers and at the feet of an administration run by two oil men. I mean, it doesn't get much more simple than that. I mean, I understand people's frustrations. I understand the frustrations of the folks on the Republican side and the Democratic side, but it doesn't take too much imagination to figure out why we got where we got. We elected to the White House a President and a Vice President who made their fortunes in the oil industry, and they have created a legacy that they will leave behind in the White House of doing even more favors for that industry, of setting an energy policy that guarantees massive profits for the friends that they left behind in that industry. And so, to us, the solution seemed pretty simple. The Senate tried just a few days ago to pass a windfall profits tax to suggest that maybe they're making a little bit too much in the oil industry; we should turn a little bit of that back around to hardworking consumers. Couldn't get the votes it needed to without Republican support. Here in the House, we looked at the $18 billion in tax breaks and giveaways that have been given to the oil industry. We watched a recent report come out from GAO, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, about a week ago which told us that we have given away over $50 billion in annual unclaimed royalties that we should be collecting against the oil industry for their drilling across this country and off our shores. And we see an opportunity, we see an opportunity to take those unclaimed royalties that are making the oil industry rich, we see an opportunity to take those tax breaks, $16- and $18-billion, however you want to estimate it that the 2005 energy bill passed before the New Direction Congress got here and gave to the oil industry, and we see a chance to take that money out of the pockets of the oil industry and turn it around to hardworking consumers, hardworking commuters that need a break right now. It's not like the money isn't out there. It's out there. It's lying in the hands of oil industry and gas industry CEOs and their top executives, their shareholders who are reaping the benefit of the misery that people in this country are witnessing at the pump. Four dollars may be the national number, but in Connecticut that's history. We're on our way to $5. So, to us on the Democratic side, on the majority side, we don't want this to be a partisan issue. I appreciate the comments of our Republican friends who spoke before the 30 Something Working Group here tonight, but this, to us, isn't about Republicans or Democrats, because you're paying $4.50 at the pump in Connecticut whether you're a registered R or you're a registered D. And those oil company executives are making record profits, whether they are a registered Republican or whether they are a registered Democrat. Affiliation ideology does not mean anything here. The stats are the stats and the numbers are the numbers, and it shows us that there are people making a lot of money who don't deserve to make it, and there are people enduring a lot of misery who don't have to. And one of the most respected Members of the other side of the aisle sat at the well just a few moments ago and told us that words are one thing, but votes matter. I don't think that there would be a voice of disagreement in this House. Absolutely, you can go out there and say one thing about how you're trying to take on the oil industry, but what you do here matters. And so I would encourage people out there, my friends in the Fifth District of Connecticut, and all those in other parts of the country that are struggling to understand what's happening with energy prices out there to check the record, to go back and look at what Congress has done and has attempted to do to fix this problem and see where the votes are and where the votes aren't. You see, we've tried to pass legislation to punish price gougers, to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to press Federal charges against those individuals, retailers and wholesalers, who have tried to take advantage of this situation to unjustifiably run up the price, and we've been alone over here on the Democratic side of the aisle. We've passed legislation to repeal the antitrust exemption that the big, multinational oil companies have so that we can go after folks that are price colluding against American consumers, and we haven't had much cooperation on this side of the aisle. And we have put actions behind words when it comes to conservation. I hope that Representative Wamp is right. I hope that we are on the verge of a new era in transportation technology. I hope that we are going to see electric cars be the predominant force in our automotive world. I hope that we are near that moment, and I think he's also right, frankly, that if we are going to get to that moment we're going to have to be honest about the electricity capacity that we do not have in this country. I hope that we can set, Republicans and Democrats, a strategy to get there, to both encourage the development of electric car technology, of the recharging stations that we will need to make that a robust technology and a commercialized opportunity, an alternative for commuters, and that we will also do the right things in terms of electricity production and grid capacity to make it a realistic option. But until we get there, until we get to a moment where we can plug in our car and go, we have an opportunity today to stand behind an effort to make the cars that we buy right now more fuel efficient. Thirty years went by until this House of Representatives stood up under a Democratic leadership and passed a new law requiring that every car in this country, the average fuel efficiency of a fleet, be 35 miles a gallon. Thirty years went by, 12 years of Republican rule, and not a single bill passed in this Congress to promote conservation with real policy directives behind it. Now, we did get a lot of Republican sponsors on that legislation, the energy bill passed at the end of last year, but we needed more. We needed more, and on that case, votes did matter. On that case, votes did matter. We have had bipartisan cooperation, but led by a new Democratic majority, this House stood up and passed legislation requiring cars in this country to hit 35 miles a gallon, which will save the average consumer $1,000 over the course of the year at the pump. That's real dollars. That's real dollars for the average consumer. In fact, that number was from the end of last year. It's probably much more than $1,000 now that the price at the pump has gone up. And the alternatives that the Republicans offer, as we try to say, listen, the solution here is to make the cars we drive now more fuel efficient, the solution is to go after those that would collude to set prices, those who would take advantage of this moment to price gouge at the pumps, when we sit here and say that we can also look at legislation promoted by Representative Stupak and Representative Larson, legislation being worked on now by the Energy and Commerce Committee to start to regulate the energy commodity trading markets that are skimming millions, if not billions, of dollars off of the product that people are paying for at the pump, we can do something to take money out of the hands of speculators who have done far too well off of the rising price of oil and put that money back in the hands of those hardworking, middle class Americans who are paying the bills for those speculators on Wall Street. We're going to move forward legislation to do that as well. We're going to set a long-term strategy while we're at it because we can do things in the short-term with price colluding, with price gougers. We can take pride in legislation that Mr. Welch and Mr. Courtney and others moved through the House to stop the President from putting more oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and, instead, put that oil on the market. That's another 10, 15, 20 cents on the gallon. We can do all those short-term things necessary to get the price of oil down. We can take a long-term view to try to get to a moment in 5 or 10 years where we're no longer relying on a foreign-produced and foreign- priced product that oil is. We can have that long-term view to have a renewable domestically produced energy source here. We can do all those things, and we can do them together. It's not mutually exclusive to try to take some steps right now, going against the speculators, going against the price gougers, stopping putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's not mutually exclusive from doing the long-term things necessary to wean ourselves off of this product that we do not price, that for the most part we do not produce. The solution, though, is not to just say that we're going to get a little bit more from here in the United States. We have a chart here that maybe we can take a look at with regard to some of the claims of our friends on the other side of the aisle with regard to the great salvation of the American energy crisis which is going to be the drilling for oil in Alaska. We are talking about a project that, first of all, is going to take 20 years to get to peak oil production. It's going to take 10 years, Mr. Speaker, just to get to a point where anything is coming out of the ground. Even in a moment right now, where big oil companies have license to drill right here onshore, on about 42 million acres, 42 million acres that they could take oil from onshore. You know how much that they're taking oil off of right now? Twelve million. There's 30 million acres with permitted potential here domestically that isn't being used today. So this talk of drilling more, these oil companies have the ability to drill for more oil right now, 30 million acres permitted and not drilled for. Let's talk about offshore as well. And I want to talk about what happens in ANWR, in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, but let's talk about offshore. Thirty-eight million acres ready to go, permitted for drilling by the big domestic and multinational oil companies. You know how much of that 38 million is being used today? Eight million acres. 30.6--let's be exact here--30.6 million acres of offshore territory permitted for use not being drilled upon today. This effort to take a small parcel of land, admittedly no bigger than Dulles National Airport, and use this crisis moment in American energy history to open up a sensitive wildlife refuge for drilling is nothing more than a power and money grab by an industry that already today, by facts and figures that don't come from me, but come from the industry themselves, suggests that there are 60 million acres of onshore and offshore territory today that are not being drilled upon that could be used right now if they wanted to. Record numbers of new permits being handed out for drilling on available lands and available offshore territory today. It is not that we don't have the capacity for new drilling. We have it, it's ready to go; the oil industry has decided not to use it. The oil industry has decided, for whatever reason--I can't get into their heads to try to figure out exactly what their motivation is, but you can certainly impute a motivation which would suggest that a holdback on supply isn't such a bad thing, that by keeping supply, by holding back on drilling, by keeping that 60 million acres that they could drill on right now tomorrow from going into production, they're going to make some profit off of that. Our focus has to be on how on Earth we have allowed for more tax breaks, for more royalty breaks to an oil industry making record profits in the history of capitalism that sits today on 60 million acres that they're not drilling on. But let's talk about what would happen if we did get beyond that, if we did sort of forgive the fact that they just simply aren't using the territory that's available to them today and we gave them the ability to drill in ANWR. You're not going to be even able to really see this chart. In fact, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, it looks like a blank chart. It's titled, ``How Much Would We Save by Drilling in ANWR?'' And the statistics used to make this chart don't come from congressional Democrats or congressional Republicans, they come from the administration, they come from the administration's own energy agency. And you can't see anything on this chart. It looks blank to you because it is blank. How much would you save by drilling in ANWR? By 2030, Mr. Speaker--I'm going to have my first child this summer, and my child will be on his way to college by the time 2030 rolls around. So by 2030, my child will be driving a car. And in 2030, he's going to have saved 1.8 cents per gallon if we drilled in ANWR. So even if you got over the fact that there are millions of acres out there permitted today, ready to go for exploration today that the oil industry has not used, even if you get over the very legitimate environmental concerns that confront ANWR, you're getting 1.8 cents in savings per gallon in 2030. Why 2030? Because it takes 20 years to get to peak production. It takes 10 years to get one drop out of the ground. And while we sit here and argue over whether we drill in ANWR or not, we're wasting valuable time that could go into making changes today, like the success we had just weeks ago in stopping the deposit of new petroleum into the Strategic Reserve. That's not 1.8 cents per gallon, that is potentially 15 or 20 cents per gallon. Stopping putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve isn't 2030, Mr. Speaker, it's today, it's next week--maybe not next week, maybe it's next month, maybe it's next year. It's not 2030, it's immediate. And more to the point, by spending our time this year and next year talking about how we take this country back from this oil industry, how we create sources of energy that are produced here in the United States that we control and we price, we're doing something not just for energy prices, but we're doing something for national security. Because every day that we continue to go on, every day that we fight about what little bit more we can get out of the ground, we're empowering a global energy industry that is a threat to this Nation in the end. Every day that we continue to fill up our gas tanks with a product that sends money overseas to countries that use that money to fuel the educational and recruitment initiatives of those who would do harm to us--because that's what's happening here, we're sending oil overseas, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to countries that maybe aren't directly using that money to send straight to terrorists, but they're using that money to fund the schools that train the kids that eventually turn into those terrorists. They're using that money to create societies that marginalize individuals in Saudi Arabia and other places so that they have no choice but to flee to those extremist movements. Every day that we sit here and argue over whether we drill in ANWR, whether we drill offshore, whether we give more power to the international oil industry that already is making these record profits in the history of capitalism, we are endangering the safety of this country. I want to do the right short-term and long-term things because I go home every weekend and I feel the hurt, as you do, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, as you do, Mr. Speaker, of all of our constituents that don't deserve to pay $4, $5 at the pump while the oil industry is making record profits. But I also want to make the right decisions now on the future of our energy policy because it's how my future kids and grand kids live in a safe country and in a safe world. And so I'm proud to be part of a ``new direction'' Congress that is finally, for the first time in a decade, taking on this oil industry. I'm proud to be part of a Congress that is both doing things in the short run--even if we don't get Republican votes to do it--and trying to set a long-term strategy. It's a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask, but this is a big moment right now. This is a big moment. Four or five dollar prices at the pumps cannot sustain. Families cannot pay that. And the question is, are we going to allow the oil industry to co-opt this moment, to take advantage of it, to get a little bit bigger piece of the pie in order to make even bigger profits? Or are we going to use this money, the $4 and $5 prices at the pump, to finally stand up to these guys, to finally say enough it enough, and to set a long-term plan to get this country off of this product that we can't control, Ms. Wasserman Schultz? I think I know the answer to that. I think I know where this Congress wants to go. I think I know that the American public are ready to follow. But it frustrates me--you just joined us here--it frustrates me to listen to some of our colleagues standing on the floor and basically asking for the same old, same old that we've seen for the late 8 years, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Altmire, I thank the Speaker again for allowing the 30-Something Working Group to come down to the floor again and share with our colleagues the ``New Direction'' mentality that we continue to preach, talk about, and vote for here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, just to put it in real stark terms here, 2002 to 2008, the oil industry we are talking about here, goes from $6.5 billion in profit, that is pretty good, you are going to take that, that is a good year, to 2008, $36.9 billion in profit. We still haven't figured out why that is. Why is it that the oil industry and the drug industry are two of the most profitable industries in the world? Because they cornered the market, right? You have got to take that drug. You have got nowhere else to go. If that drug keeps you alive and nobody else makes that drug, you have got to buy that drug. If the only thing that gets you from point A to point B is the product that Exxon and Chevron and BP make, then they can charge whatever they want. So we can talk about the margins here. We can talk about producing a little more. But, in the end, the reason why they get to just basically decide whatever they want, they can make $6.5 billion one year and $36.9 billion the next year, it is up to them, because they know whatever they charge, we will pay, because we have no alternative. That minivan mom, that soccer mom, guess what? Nothing else fuels that car right now, except for the products that these guys produce. If I made a really good apple pie and I went out and everybody else that tried to grow some apple trees in their backyard, I whacked them down, I could charge whatever I wanted for that because nobody else could make that pie. That is what the Republicans are basically doing. Everybody else that tries to go out and plant some apple trees in their backyard to give an alternative to the big oil companies, they whack those trees down. Guess what? That apple pie is now about $5 a gallon, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to allow myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for his hard work, not only on the underlying bill, but in his gracious work with me and the Massachusetts and Connecticut delegations to allow us to bring this amendment before the House today. I rise in strong support of the amendment before us. By supporting the implementation of commuter rail service, as this amendment will assist us between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts, we can help strengthen and expand one of my State's most vital transportation corridors. While Metro North and Shoreline East rail lines provide extensive commuter service across Connecticut's southern coastal region, there is little available service to meet the needs throughout the central portion of the State. Connecticut's existing commuter rail lines have already seen over 5 percent increase in ridership just in the first quarter of 2008, and there's a clear need to expand it throughout the other sectors. Not only would such rail service help alleviate roadway congestion, save consumers money on gas, and help combat global warming, it would contribute to the economic revitalization of this route. In my district, the city of Meriden is prepared to build a state-of-the-art intermodal transportation hub to take advantage of this new rail line. At a time when gas prices are squeezing American's budgets like never before, we need to invest in this type of commuter rail service that is available right now on the line that runs between New Haven and Springfield. We need sensible mass transit solutions, and by expressing strong congressional support for this new proposed rail line, taking advantage of an existing Amtrak line, and by directing Amtrak, as this amendment does, to report on the lines' uncompleted infrastructure maintenance, information that is badly needed in order to make plans going forward to add local commuter service to that line, we are sending a clear signal that the time for action is now. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar and I would urge support for this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a unique opportunity to be able to use an existing rail line. We need--we understand the need in many other parts of the country to build out our infrastructure in Connecticut. We have the unique opportunity to take an existing line, have either a partnership or a transfer of the line to the State Department of Transportation, and with that we believe we will be able to greatly expand our opportunities for mass transit development in the State of Connecticut. With that, I wonder if the gentleman from Pennsylvania might be willing to yield a few minutes of his time to Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his accommodations. We're in support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for his support. At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, how we treat those who serve this country abroad in our Armed Forces says a lot about this Nation. The greatest gift that we can give to those men and women who are returning to the United States from Iraq and Afghanistan and the fields of battle is an education with the passage of the new GI Bill. When I went to Iraq last year, the troops said this version of the same thing to myself and the five others that traveled there. They said, Don't forget about us when we come back home. With the passage of the new GI Bill, we can make good on that promise that we all made to those troops on our visits there. I hope that Senator McCain and many of our friends here in this hall who have not supported this new GI Bill, who have not supported extending benefits to the troops as they return, to give them an education for a lifetime, will remember that you can't just go there and tell them that you support them, you have to come to this floor and to the floor down the hall and do it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I would like to thank Chairman Waxman for putting this very valuable amendment before us today. We've spent an awful lot of time on the Government Oversight Committee looking into the contracting practice of the Federal Government. I think this goes a very long way towards safeguarding our taxpayer dollars, and also shining some transparency on it, which is the piece of the amendment that I would like to speak on today. This amendment includes legislation that passed the House on voice vote several weeks ago, the Government Funding Transparency Act. The act requires that companies that make almost every penny of their revenue from the Federal Government, essentially quasi-public agencies, requires them to disclose to the American public the amount of profit that they're taking off of those contracts. These companies making over 80 percent of their money shouldn't be allowed to hide this type of financial data from the American taxpayers. I would like to thank Ranking Member Davis for working through this bill as it moved through the committee process. This really has moved from a contracting bill to a disclosure bill, one that I think is going to give the American public and this Congress the access to the data that they should have when we are awarding large contracts to essentially government agencies that don't have the requirements that other agencies and public vendors do. I would like to thank Chairman Skelton as well for working through this amendment as we brought it forth today. I support its passage and the underlying legislation.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, the President is not running again. The President doesn't have anybody to answer to, so the President is free now to act on his own instincts, to act on his own set of advice. And that means, to the extent that this President was ever listening to the American public, he is not doing it now. He doesn't need to do it. And, as you said before, he is not up for reelection. But every Member of this House, with the exception of those people who are retiring, are. And so people in the Republican Caucus, our friends on the other side of the aisle, have got to think about what's the motivations behind the President's threats here. Is it because of a political calculation where he wants to be on the right side of where the American people are, or is it because he has no one to answer to any longer? And sometimes, you know, we get a little bit of frustration when we go back home, Mr. Meek. People say, well, why hasn't more happened on the war coming to a close? Why haven't you done more to solve our health care problems? Well, the answer is what happens just up Pennsylvania Avenue. We've put legislation on the President's desk to planfully exit Iraq. He vetoed it. We've put legislation on his desk twice to ensure 4 million more kids. Both times he vetoed it. Over and over again, with the Republicans and Democrats standing together, we've put legislation on his desk, even under that threat of veto, and he has continued to stand against the American public, Mr. Meek. I think we can still have some victories from here to the end of the year. I still think we can have moments where this House comes together and overrides presidential veto. I can't think of a better bill to exercise the will of the American people as expressed through this House than on the GI Bill, giving educational benefits to troops. I have no idea why the President has decided to exercise his veto threat against that legislation. If there's anything that we should be able to come together on, it's on supporting our troops when they come back home. I think we should have done it for those 4 million kids that should have gotten health care insurance. I think that we should have done it when it comes to the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. But let's at least do it as one final salvo with this Democratic Congress and a Republican President when it comes to standing up for our GIs, Mr. Meek. It would seem to be the one place, amidst a lot of the times that we disagree here. You named all the moments on which we have agreed. But the culmination of a remarkable amount of agreement, amidst a reputation of disagreement in this House, would be to pass that GI Bill with a veto-proof majority, put it on the President's desk, dare him to veto it, knowing that we're going to have the votes to override when it comes back.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Meek. The honor is also to be part of the 30-Something Working Group and to get to spend the precious moments on the floor with you and Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Altmire and others who can't be here this evening. As you noted, I am a new Member of Congress. I came from the Connecticut State legislature. I came here with some degree of trepidation, because coming from the Connecticut State legislature, a place in which partisanship has its day, but certainly is not the rule, the reputation of this place, at least under the last 12 years of Republican rule, struck fear into the hearts of a lot of new Members, because we came from experiences, at least those of us who came from experiences in the State legislature, where the rule was that we reached out and worked across the aisle. The rule was that to get anything done, you needed to have Republican and Democratic support. The reason that in Connecticut the State legislature enjoys a level of support and approval that the United States Congress has not traditionally had is in part because on the most important stuff, in Connecticut we found a way to do that. I was the chair of the Public Health Committee for several years in the Connecticut legislature and we passed the Nation's first stem cell investment law. We did it with a Republican Governor. We did it on a bill that was introduced by a Republican senator and a Republican member of the House, even though Democrats had near veto-proof majorities in both chambers. We did it with Republicans and Democrats. Frankly, it didn't matter what the letter was after your name, R or D. It was the right thing to do. So I came down here as a member of the new Democratic majority wondering whether there was going to be a chance for that same type of cooperation. As you pointed out, Mr. Meek, we saw it immediately in those first 100 hours. In the agenda we put forth on energy, on the minimum wage, on student loans, on ethics, we had Republicans and Democrats standing together. Now, that hasn't happened every day here on the House floor, and the times it doesn't are the moments in which CNN and MSNBC and the talk show pundits jump on it. But, really, when you talk about the big things that have passed here, you have seen this House coming together. You saw it on the farm bill most recently, and you saw it today. For anyone that was lucky enough to be here on the House floor, Mr. Meek, maybe you mentioned it, to see the debate on the defense authorization bill, it was a pretty remarkable bipartisan affair. In fact, the bill is named after the Republican ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, probably something that average voters out there who hear about the conflict that happens in this House every day wouldn't have expected. But there is, I hope, a growing spirit here on the House floor that we can cross the aisle that literally exists here on the House floor in order to pass important things. But we need more of it. We need more of it because the most important issues for our constituents can't happen unless we have the votes here all too often to overcome the President's veto. We did that today with an incredibly important farm bill that begins the process of transferring unjustifiable subsidies for American farmers and turns them around to funding for conservation programs and nutrition programs. We are going to stand up to the President when it comes to sensible farm policy. But we need more of that. When it comes to the GI Bill, which is this Congress' landmark effort to once again recommit ourselves to a notion that this Nation stood upon in the wake of World War II, that every returning GI from the field of battle should have access to a quality education in a school of their choosing in their State, we have withdrawn from that commitment since World War II, and this House and our compatriots in the Senate are attempting to make that commitment once again. The funding for returning GIs has withered to the point that that commitment no longer exists. If you want to come back and you can go to school, maybe you will get a little bit of help, but you are still going to have to pay a significant amount of money, and you are probably going to have to do it part-time, because there has been historically not enough money for living expenses for those GIs. We think if we are going to ask you to be a full-time warrior for this country in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should allow you to be a full- time student when you come back to the United States. We should be able to pay your way to the most expensive State college in your State, but we should also give you a stipend in order to make that journey through college education full time. If we are asking men and women to fight and die for us, to sustain injuries that change their lives on the field of battle, we should support them when they come home by providing them with educational benefits. But we don't have the votes here on the House floor today to override that presidential veto, Mr. Meek. So we need more of that bipartisan cooperation that we have seen. Democrats are willing to stand up for returning veterans to give them a new GI Bill. We stood in lockstep as the majority party here last week to do that. We had 30 or 40-some odd of our Republican colleagues join us in that effort, but that is not enough to get past the threatened presidential veto. I can't explain to you why the President doesn't think it is the right thing to do, to stand up for our GIs when they come back home. He has stretched our militarily to the breaking point, and he is not willing to sustain them when they come back to the United States. We clearly believe that one of the most important things that we can do in this Congress between now and the adjournment is pass that GI Bill and recruit enough of our colleagues on the Republican side so that we can overturn that veto. We have shown that we can do it. We did it on the farm bill. We have done it before. We have also shown that we can go out and make our case to the American public so that the President changes his mind. The President, if you remember, Mr. Speaker, first threatened he was going to veto the college affordability bill, which transferred subsidies for banks into subsidies for students, lowering the student loan interest rate in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. The President said he was going to veto that. But when we went out there and made the case to the American public and asked them to make the case to the President that this was the right thing to do in a tough economy for millions of students and families out there that needed a little help, he changed his mind and signed that bill. Just recently, after making a lot of noise in opposition to our efforts to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and put that oil instead out on to the market to lower gas prices by anywhere, who knows, from 5 cents to 20 cents, a small but meaningful decrease through the suspension of deposits into the SPR, after making a lot of noise that the President was going to oppose or veto that legislation, he ended up signing it. So when it comes to the GI Bill, we have got two tasks ahead of us. Let's try to build the bipartisan consensus that we have had here on many days in the House of Representatives. Let's try to push beyond the 30 or 40 Republican Members that have supported the bill so far so that we don't have to worry about a presidential veto. But let's go out and talk to veterans organizations, to talk to military families, to talk to our educational institutions. Let's grow a coalition over the coming weeks and months so that the President has the opportunity to change his mind, so the President has the opportunity to stand with us on the side of returning service men and women for the educational benefits that they deserve. Just like our grandparents, our parents, got that benefit when they came back from World War II, let's do it again for the thousands upon thousands of GIs returning every month from the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Meek, you led off on the right note. There is an amazing amount of bipartisan cooperation happening here, but we have got to extend it to some of the most important measures that we can pass between now and the end of this historic legislative session.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Let's just step back. There is no question when you are talking about where do American people stand on the redeployment of the troops out of Iraq. None of these bills suggest to do it tomorrow or the week after. This is the responsible redeployment of troops out of Iraq. Do it in a planful way that maintains the safety of those troops as they leave, and tries to do our best to try to maintain a stable government that we leave behind. There is no question where the American people stand on that. That is not just you and me listening to people when we go back home; that is also every poll that we have seen of the American public over the last 2 years. There is no question, Mr. Meek, where people stand on the GI bill. The numbers are off the charts when you ask folks if they think that this country should guarantee a college education to every returning warrior from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no guesswork involved here. Now, I don't know where the President gets his direction from on his veto threats. But for all of us that are sitting here deciding whether we vote for these things in the first place or override the President's veto when they come back, there is no research that has to be done in the public opinion. There are no guesses that have to be made. This is all just common sense, whether you are listening to it when you go back to the district or you are reading the public opinion polls, Mr. Meek.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I'm a lawyer, Mr. Meek, so if you need some help I'll walk you through it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield for 1 minute?

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in 1937 the residents of Southbury, a small town in Connecticut, came together to prevent the German American Bund, a group of pro-Nazi German Americans, from establishing a paramilitary training facility in their town. Led by Rev. Felix Manley of the Southbury Federated Church and Rev. M.E.N. Lindsay of the South Britain Congressional Church, the town of Southbury passed its first zoning law to ban the use of land in Southbury for paramilitary training. As a great Jewish writer once said, ``The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.'' Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great sense of pride to represent the town of Southbury, where this May 31, 2008, the congregation of B'nai Israel will host the Human Rights Festival, honoring the courageous acts of those citizens some 71 years ago and renewing the town's commitment to justice. The proud legacy of the religious community in Southbury and the work of B'nai Israel to recognize that legacy serve as a reminder to all of us that change and progress must come from the bottom up.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as the representative of thousands of proud Lebanese Americans in Connecticut's Fifth Congressional District, I rise tonight in strong support of the democratically elected government of Lebanon and to condemn the recent violence perpetrated against the people of Lebanon by the terrorist group Hezbollah. Lebanon is a vital ally in a region where we need all the allies that we can get. It is a vibrant society composed and defined by its diversity of religious and ethnic backgrounds. A culturally rich Nation renowned for its tolerance and democratic values, Lebanon stands at the crossroads of Arab tradition and Western culture. Yes, Lebanon has struggled with the proxy wars fought inside its borders by powerful neighboring nations, but with the strong support of the United States, the strong independence and vibrant democratic tradition of Lebanon can and will continue. Yesterday, this House considered H.R. 1149, which reaffirmed the support of this House for the democratically elected government of Lebanon, led by the governing March 14 coalition. This resolution was necessary because that government has recently come under vicious attack by Hezbollah-led opposition fighters, an outbreak of violence that has brought that country to the brink of civil war. In response to legitimate actions by the government to protect the security of its own citizens, Hezbollah instigated riots, blocked roads, forcibly shut down media stations, and attacked the residences of prominent members of the ruling coalition. During the course of this violence, Mr. Speaker, more than 69 Lebanese citizens were killed and more than 250 were wounded. These actions blatantly violated the commitments made by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who has always maintained that Hezbollah exists solely to defend Lebanon against Israel, and that its members would never take arms up against other Lebanese. That pretense is now clearly shown to the entire world to be false, as we have known it was for a very long time. Indeed, Hezbollah's primary purpose seems to be to act as the agent of Iran and Syria, which continue arming the terrorist group in order to maintain a presence in Lebanon and a military front on Israel's northern border. This brief, but bloody, period of fighting was the worst violence Lebanon has seen since the civil war that engulfed that Nation from 1975 to 1990. It demonstrated the military strength of Hezbollah's militias, and it threatened the free media, religious tolerance, and cultural diversity that make Lebanon such an important ally of the United States. The streets of Beirut are now relatively calm, but Lebanon will remain under threat until that government becomes truly independent from foreign influence. It has been more than 3 years since the Cedar Revolution, when the people of Lebanon took to the streets and demanded an end to Syria's occupation of that country. Unfortunately, while Syrian troops have withdrawn, its government has continued to undermine Lebanon's vibrant but fragile democracy. They do this by allowing weapons shipments to pass over their territory into Lebanon and by continuing to disrupt internal Lebanese politics. The boiling over of tensions that have been building for months has brought the world's attention to the challenges facing Lebanon, and we must capitalize on that focus. Last night, the government and opposition leaders concluded talks in Doha, Qatar, finally reaching an agreement that will allow for the formation of a government and the election of Michel Suleiman as President, probably as soon as this Sunday. This is a welcome development and one that bodes well for the future of Lebanon. But a number of issues still remain unaddressed. These include the status of Hezbollah's weapons, the future of Lebanon's electoral law, and the long overdue investigation into the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri. The Lebanese people have found a way to live side by side with all of their differences for years and years, and I for one believe that it is in the United States' best interest to do all that we can to use yesterday's political breakthrough to press for the total elimination of undue outside influence on the Lebanese government and Lebanese society. As political negotiations move forward in Lebanon, the United States, its Arab allies, and the European Union must provide the Lebanese government with the economic, military and political support it needs. We have seen the difficulty of promoting new democracies in the Middle East; however, in Lebanon, we have the opportunity to preserve one. A window of opportunity has opened, Mr. Speaker. The United States must now work diligently and quickly with Lebanon and her allies to assure that the moment is seized.