Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Your point is this, is that we've seen in the last 2 or 3 weeks, both the Republican minority and our Republican Presidential candidate all of a sudden start to use the word ``change.'' Well, to them it's just a word. To them it's just a part of their slogan. To the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, it's what we live by, it's why we're here, it's why we get up in the morning, it's why I gave up my entire life to run for the United States Congress; it's why you have given up 18 hours a day to do this job, because we're here to change the place. It happens to be in everything that we talk about because it's the definition of why we're Members of Congress. For the Republicans here in the House and the Republican Presidential candidate, it's just a word. And that's what I think the American people are beginning to understand. That's why the American people are turning out in record numbers for our Presidential candidates on the Democratic side, and that's why we have won the last three competitive seats for special elections here in the House, because the voters out there, the American public, are figuring out that change is nothing if it's just a word coming out of your mouth. You've got to live it. You've got to breathe it, which is what we're doing here, Mr. Meek.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Well said, Mr. Meek. And if we can get the legislation that we passed through the House today through the Senate, what will make those numbers even starker is to partner them with the numbers reflecting the millions of dollars that some people out there are making off this war. Or those numbers of troops that don't come home, or come home with their lives altered permanently, for many of us, I think for all of us, it doesn't seem right that off of that misery someone is making their fortune out there. And that's what the legislation today on the floor sought to do. Mr. Meek, you talked about the fact that on a lot of the pieces of legislation that we've been talking about, especially with respect to our efforts here in this New Direction Congress to try to do something about the legacy of rising oil prices that the President has left us, we've had folks on the other side of the aisle join us. I'm just looking at a couple of bills here on our legislation to finally go after these multinational oil cartels that have been price fixing, have been immune from the actions of prosecutors and U.S. courts. Well, we've decided to put them under the jurisdiction of the United States court system and try to go after them for price fixing. And you know what? We did. It looks like we got about 125 Members of the Republican side of the aisle to join us. When we went after price gougers, we said, let's make it a Federal crime, let's give the Federal Trade Commission the ability to go after those people who would take advantage of rising prices to gouge consumers, to try to get much more than the market would command. We had over 50 Republicans who joined us on that legislation; we wish we had more. We wish we had a greater bipartisan majority for these pieces of legislation that are going forward. But the fact is is that we are working together as much as we can. It's not easy to take on these big interests that are making record profits in the oil industry. The real problem is down the street. The real problem is that we have empowered and entrusted with the reins of the White House and the entire executive branch two oil company executives, two people who made their own fortunes taking profits off of oil prices, taking money out of the pockets of consumers. And those relationships in this administration with the oil industry, I think more so than the relationships that certain Members of this House might have, have really led us to the point where we have trouble advancing good consumer legislation through the full process because the President's threatened vetoes on the anti-oil cartel bill. The President's threatened veto of the price gouging legislation is what holds it up from moving further through the process. So Mr. Meek, this is, I think, a building bipartisan majority here in the House. I think we are having some success convincing some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, despite their procedural tricks and maneuvers, that, you know what, these prices don't discriminate based on what party you went down and registered at the town hall and you're getting killed by gas prices and home heating oil prices whether you're a Republican or whether you're a Democrat. So I think that may account for why we have been able to build some collective support here for these pieces of legislation. It's really down the road, as you ended your remarks, Mr. Meek, by suggesting that we've still got time left, right? I mean, everybody's looking at this presidential election saying, you know what, that's where our focus is. Everybody's concerned about this primary and that primary, and the cable news networks don't cover what we do here, they just cover what's said on the campaign trail. Come on, we've got 9 months left of this administration. We've got 9 months more, potentially, of $3.53 gasoline prices, of similarly high prices to heat your home in the northeast as the winter starts to come around again. We've still got time to do something if we've got a President to come and join us here and make some of the changes we need to make, Mr. Meek. There is still time left. We say to our colleagues, don't pay attention to this presidential election at the detriment of the good work that we still can do. Now that the people have got back control of their House, taking it back from the oil companies that have controlled this agenda for so long, we can still make progress. We can still do something about these prices between now and the end of the year, Mr. Meek.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 30-Something Working Group which the Speaker is a member of and I know will join us down here for an hour in the future, we hope to be joined later this evening by one of the senior members of the 30-Something Working Group, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). We come down to the House floor as some of the younger Members of the Democratic Caucus, and we try to do it every week to really focus in on how the issues affecting this Congress are specifically challenging younger families in this country. How the neglect of the past 12 years trying to be remedied by the new Democratic majority here are affecting those families that are just starting out, those issues maybe can be best talked about and best addressed by those of us who are the younger members of the House represented by the 30-Something Working Group. We thank the Speaker for constituting the working group and allowing us to come down and share our thoughts. It is remarkable as a first-term Member, Mr. Speaker, to see the transition of views and transformation of priorities and issues that you hear about as a first-term Member, going out and holding office hours as I do at supermarkets throughout my district, holding town hall meetings every week or 2 weeks throughout the district. I remember back in February of 2007 when I held my first big, large town hall. It was a nerve-racking occasion as a first-term Member of Congress, and I remember thinking there was only one subject to hold that town hall meeting on, and that was the war in Iraq, dominating the conversation as it seemed to here on the floor of the House and in the halls of the United States Congress. The President had proposed his new strategy to introduce 35,000 to 40,000 new troops into Iraq, clearly working against the will of the majority of the American people who had said all across this Nation in November 2006 that they wanted a new direction in Iraq. And now fast forward a year later to town halls that I am holding, as well as other members of the 30-Something Working Group and Members on both sides of the aisle, and you hear a very different tune. People are still talking about Iraq. The situation hasn't gotten any better, and you can make the very plausible argument that things have gotten worse in Iraq over the last year. Even as the surge has moved forward, the political willingness of the Iraqis to take control of their own country has moved backwards. But what we are hearing very clearly from the mouths of our constituents in town hall meetings and office hours across this Nation is that there is economic trouble. There is trepidation on behalf of families throughout this country as to the economic future that they face as families and that our communities face going forward. And it's real. The numbers are getting worse. The amount of homes facing foreclosures, the number of workers being laid off, even those people who have jobs finding that the salary increases they thought were coming are being postponed, the amount of overtime hours that they used to rely on, cut back, many more part time workers, more temporary workers. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether we're in a recession or not. I'm not an economist. But I know that people are facing real trouble back in Connecticut, as they are throughout the rest of this country. And I don't think it takes a rocket scientist on this floor or anywhere else in the country to figure out how we got here. You know, this isn't just about the jobs that are being lost. This isn't just about the themes are being foreclosed upon. This is about the fact that thousands of families, millions of families around this country and in the Fifth District of Connecticut have no more room in their budget to take any more hits. Energy costs going up at a pace that families and seniors can't sustain; health care costs going up to the point where businesses celebrate when they hear that their premiums are only going to increase by 10 percent in a given year. You add that all together with an economic slowdown, and you put millions of families at risk throughout this country. And it should be no surprise that we've gotten to the place that we are today because for 12 years, while our friends on the other side of the aisle controlled this House, while President Bush staked his claim to the White House, we have had absolute neglect when it comes to energy policy. So the families throughout this country today are hurting, while oil companies are making record profits, record profits; not just for the oil industry, but for any company in the history of capitalism in this country, record profits for the oil companies, while we have families hurting, paying more at the pump, paying more to heat their homes. Health care policy is the same story. I mean, how long has it been that this Congress has been listening to the cries, to the pleas of families and businesses throughout this Nation to do something about the rising cost of health care? And for 12 years of this Republican Congress, for 8 years now, almost 8 years of this Bush presidency, no relief on health care costs. While yet, at the same time, those that are making profits off the health care system, the insurance companies, the drug companies, continue to make enormous profits. Salaries for the CEOs of these companies spiral to new heights. So people are doing pretty well when it comes to energy prices, people are doing pretty well when it comes to health care prices. It's just not consumers. It's just not our neighbors and our friends and our relatives. It's that lucky few who got to run the oil company, who got to run the drug company, who got to run the insurance company. And we're trying to change things. But we're finding that it isn't easy without partners. It isn't easy without a Republican minority who actually wants to actually do something to change our economy. It's not so easy without a President who wants to come to the table and help us with health care policy. And so we are in difficult economic times today. But we need a Congress working together. We need a President who's willing to come to the table. Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves here. On January 22, 2001, when the President was sworn into office, the price of a gallon of gasoline was about $1.47. Today, 7 years later that price stands at $3.53. In Connecticut you might be lucky today to find a gallon of gasoline at $3.53. I think when I filled up my car this weekend, if I remember, it was up around the $3.70 mark. This is what you get, this is what you get when you give away $16 billion of tax breaks to the oil companies. This is what you get when you refuse to make any investments in the types of alternative renewable energy sources that could wean this country off of gasoline. And this is what you get when, year after year after year, you perpetuate a foreign policy that destabilizes international oil markets in the Middle East and elsewhere. It's no secret, it's no surprise that we're standing where we are today. This Democratic majority has inherited an utterly bankrupt national energy policy, and it is leading to the trouble that we have seen in American families today. And the same thing goes for health care policy, Mr. Speaker. Again, I find it painfully humorous that 10 percent increases in premiums are to be celebrated around this country in our business community. And what it has led to is too many businesses who want to do the right thing, who want to give health care to their employees, cutting them off, or forcing more of the cost on those employees; putting yet another economic burden on families all around this country. This economic slowdown, once again, is not just about the subprime crisis. It's also about energy prices, it's also about health care costs. And for 12 years of this Congress, for 7 years of this presidency, no action on health care. With one minor exception, right? You remember the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. Well, it did a couple of things. First, it foisted a Medicare prescription drug benefit seniors, which drove millions of seniors around this country through the roof trying to figure out, amongst 40 or 60 or 80 different plans, which one they should sign up for; drove them through the roof even more once they got to the end of the year and realized that their coverage was going to run out on them when they entered that dreaded donut hole; and all the while, made another nice health profit for the insurance companies and drug companies that were in the room writing the bill with the Republican majority at the time. That was our approach to health care, was to give a little bit to people in an utterly confusing and cruel program, which gives a lot to the folks that didn't need any more. That's pretty much the sum total of health care reform in this Congress before the Democrats took control. And as we've tried to extend out health care, we have been met with almost uniform resistance from the Republicans and from the President, most significantly in our effort to try to extend health care to poor kids. Four million kids we could have covered with the health care State insurance bill that we tried to pass. We came, you know, depending on anybody's estimates, about six votes short here in the House of Representatives, to overturn the President's repeated vetoes. That kind of health care coverage, reaching out and extending to a lot of working families out there. Remember, you're talking about \3/ 4\, maybe more of the 46 million uninsured out there are members of families in which you have a full-time worker. People are playing by the rules. They're doing everything we ask them to do, trying to make do in a tough economy, and yet they don't have any health care insurance. And that children's health care insurance bill that we tried to pass here as Democrats, and couldn't get cooperation from our friends across the aisle, that would have extended out benefits to four million more kids and, more importantly, four million more families, families that are doing everything we ask, playing by the rules, trying to survive and simply can't get health care to their kids. Now, we know that they do get health care to their kids, because if their child is sick, they might postpone getting them to the doctor, but compassionate parents all across this country will end up bringing their child down to the emergency room, will end up finding a doctor that will treat them. But they pay for all of that out of their pocket. More bankruptcies in this country are caused by health care costs than any other cause that you can dream up. And so this economic slowdown is exacerbated by the increasing amount of health care costs that are pushed and burdened on families across this country. Doing something about health care is doing something about the economy, just like doing something about energy prices is also about doing something for this economy. But the other thing that I'm finding out, Mr. Speaker, as I'm walking around talking to constituents in the northwest section of Connecticut, is that the gig is up on the Republican and the President's ability to separate the war from the economy, because people are figuring out that they are totally linked together. The fact that we are spending $339 million a day, let me say that again, $339 million a day on this war is taking food right out of the mouths of families here in this country, taking jobs effectively right out of the hands of American families. Why is that? Imagine what we could have done if we could have taken the nearly $1 trillion that we have spent on this war over the past 5 years, and invested it in growing new economies in this country, invested it in building new worker training programs so that individuals being phased out of old economy jobs could be transitioned into new economy jobs. What if we took that money that we've been spending, $330 million a day, and put that into new tax incentives for small businesses to grow their operations? All of the things that we could have done with that money could have prevented the economic slowdown that we face today. They are absolutely linked together, the spending on this war, and the economic slowdown that we see today. And part of this whole puzzle, and now you're getting into sort of high-minded economics that a non economist like me probably shouldn't be talking about. But we know also that the dollar is falling fast across this world, and is jeopardizing even further the soundness of our economy as our dollar gets weaker and weaker and weaker. And part of that equation is the fact that every dollar of this war, virtually every dollar for this war has been borrowed from foreign countries, countries that we're trying to sit across the table from and negotiate better trade deals, trying to negotiate on foreign policy. We can't do that on a fair and level playing field because we owe them money; not just a little bit of money, but billions upon billions of dollars that we owe foreign countries. Because for this war, we haven't paid for it ourselves. We put it on somebody else's tab, our kids' tab, our grandkids' tab. And for now that money is being held, those promissory notes are being held by foreign governments, further undermining the American economy. So the chickens are coming home to roost here on energy policy, on health care policy and on the policy of the war that has sucked money out of this country that could have gone to sustain our economy. Well, we can do things about it. We can do things about it. We can make strides, we can take steps to strengthen our economy, once again. I want to talk for just a brief moment, Mr. Speaker, about one small bill that we passed today that'll start to get us on the road to fiscal and economic sanity once again. Regardless of what you think about this war, we have spent wildly and out of control. Now, I'm talking about the $340 million that we spend every day in Iraq. Now, I think that had we not gone into Iraq in the first place, had we not stepped foot into this quagmire, we could have spent all of that money here at home to educate our own kids, to build our own schools, to retain our own workers. But even if we had gone into Iraq, if we had just been paying more attention, as a Congress, as to how money was being spent, we could have had a lot more money to do those things that is now being wasted on the battlefield of Iraq and the battlefield of Afghanistan. One of the ways in which we are wasting money was that we were making and still are, Mr. Speaker, making people rich off of this war. War profiteering is what it's called, people making their fortunes off of the misery of others. That's happening right here and now in the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. In the Government Oversight Committee that I sit on as a freshman member, we had one of the most egregious examples of this practice, Blackwater Security before us back in the fall. The CEO of Blackwater Security who's got a billion dollar contract to basically do the work that the U.S. military should be doing in Iraq, Blackwater is basically a paramilitary citizen army setting up camp in Iraq. They got a huge contract with the United States Government. 90 percent of Blackwater's profits, excuse me. 90 percent of Blackwater's revenue comes from U.S. taxpayers. I mean, they are, essentially, a quasi-government agency. 90 percent of their money comes from the U.S. taxpayers. So I asked what I thought was a commonsense question at this hearing. I asked Eric Prince, the CEO of Blackwater, I said, listen. You know what? I think it'd be useful for us to know as a Congress, and for the American public to know how much profit you make, how much salary do you take as a quasi-public government employee? Mr. Prince said to us, very clearly, it's none of your business. I'm a private company. It seemed outrageous to me. It seemed outrageous to many of my colleagues on the committee. We pay your salary. We pay 90 percent of all the money that your company takes in, and you're not going to tell us whether you make $1 million? Well, he did tell us that; he did tell us that he made over $1 million, but he wouldn't tell us how much more. $2 million? $3 million? $10 million? $20 million? So I put in a bill, a really simple bill that passed on the floor of the House of Representatives today that said for those private companies that are out there making 80 percent or more of their money from the Federal Government, that have $25 million or more in contracts, you need to tell the American public how much you are taking out in profit. Tell us how much your most highly compensated officials make. Put some sunlight on how much profit you are making off of this war. Seems like a commonsense measure. In fact, it passed unanimously on the House floor this afternoon. But it says something about how important the change was that was made in control of this House that it took 5 years of this war for that commonsense, simple bill to make it to the House floor, because when it got here, it resulted in a unanimous vote. But it took Democrats taking control of the House in order for these types of bills, cracking down on war profiteering, to even find the light of day here. And so, yes, so many of us believe that part of bringing us out of this economic mess, this downturn, this recession, whatever you want to call it, is getting us out of this mess that we have gotten ourselves into in Iraq, turning that money around and spending it right here in the United States of America. But until we do that, one of the most important things we can do for our economy is to make sure that to the extent that we are spending money in Iraq that we're spending it wisely, the right way. That's part of our responsibility as a Congress. At least when I grew up reading the Constitution, learning about the three branches of government, I was told that the House of Representatives was supposed to be a place that oversaw the executive branch, that made sure that the money of the people that they represented was being spent in the right way. Well, that didn't happen here for a long time. That oversight role that the Congress was supposed to have on the war, on the policies of the President, kind of vanished for about 7 years. Conveniently, they were there for the years in which there was a Republican Congress and a Democratic President; a record number of subpoenas were flying out of this place when there was a Democratic President. But when there was a Republican Congress and a Republican President, it wasn't happening so much. I would like to think it was a coincidence, but it probably wasn't. Now we've got oversight again. And a reasonable amount of oversight. Not overreaching. Not politicizing, not grandstanding. The right amount of oversight. And we passed a bill that was part of that process today. I couldn't be more pleased, tickled, frankly, to be joined on the House floor by one of the originators of the 30-Something Working Group, Representative Meek.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. You can't lose. And I wish it was more complicated. I wish legislating involved a little bit more mystery, but it doesn't. When you've got a choice to stand with regular, average, everyday folks who go to work every day trying to make a living and are playing by the rules or you stand with oil companies who make more money than they ever have, it's not a hard choice. You stand with regular, average, everyday people and the troubles they're going through. If you do that every time, you'll win every time. Mr. Meek, it has been a pleasure to share the floor with you today on behalf of the 30-Something Working Group. We thank Speaker Pelosi for giving us once again the opportunity to share some of our thoughts with our colleagues.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, when you stand on behalf of the people, you can't lose.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of this very important commonsense legislation, the Government Funding Transparency Act 2008. I would like to thank, of course, Chairman Towns for his work on the subcommittee, Chairman Waxman for his early and active support on this legislation, and especially to the ranking member, former chairman, Mr. Davis, who we were able to work directly together with over the past days and weeks to make this, as he states, I think a much stronger bill and one that answers many of the concerns that were raised by Mr. Davis, his office, and members of the minority of the committee. Mr. Speaker, as described, the Government Funding Transparency Act will require that companies who receive more than 80 percent of their income in annual gross revenue from the Federal Government and more than $25 million worth of Federal work in any given fiscal year disclose the salaries of their most highly compensated employees. This disclosure would be, as Representative Davis noted, posted on an existing OMB Web site, www.USAspending.gov, which was authorized as part of the Federal Funding, Accountability, and Transparency Act, a bipartisan measure passed by the 109th Congress. As pointed out in a recent GAO report, buying services accounted for 60 percent of the total 2006 procurement dollars. And expenditures on security services, due to our engagement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have forced those service expenditures to increase substantially. In addition, according to that same Web site, we have seen an increasing number of contracts that weren't competed at all. In fact, in 2000, the amount of contracts not competed was $48 billion, just north of there; and in 2007, 7 years later, that number had ballooned to $112 billion. And yet with such a substantial increase in government funding going to companies through no-bid processes, these companies are virtually subsidiaries of the United States government taking in 80 to 90, perhaps 100 percent of their revenues from U.S. taxpayers. We don't know enough about these tax companies. We don't know their management practices, their financial statements, or their employment policies. They are often highly and tightly held secrets not subject to public scrutiny. So it is not surprising, as Chairman Waxman mentioned in October 2007 when the full Oversight and Government Reform Committee brought the CEO of Blackwater before us, one of the largest government contractors, taking in nearly 90 percent of their revenue contracts from Federal contracts, the CEO of that company, Eric Prince, refused to disclose to Congress the amount of profit that company makes or the amount of salary that he took in; yet despite the fact that 90 percent of that salary, 90 percent of the company's revenues, come from the United States' taxpayers. It's our money. We deserve to know how it's being used. Regardless of your position on this war or any other war, we deserve to know whether or not public funds are being used to unjustly enrich government contractors. But this principle, as Representative Davis and others pointed out, shouldn't just be applied to these types of private security or service contracts. It should be required of all entities that make the vast amount of their earnings, over 80 percent, from U.S. taxpayer dollars. And I would especially like to thank Representative Davis and Representative Foxx for their advocacy for this principle. Importantly, it's important to note that this bill will actually only affect a limited number of companies, only those entities that subsist almost entirely on Federal money and only those that are not publicly traded, since public companies who do the lion's share, frankly, of Federal contracting, already disclose executive compensation information. Mr. Speaker, profit is clearly a powerful motive, and this legislation does nothing to remove this incentive from our Federal contracting structure. But when it comes to private companies like Blackwater and others that would not exist if it wasn't for United States taxpayer dollars, the taxpayers and this Congress should have the information necessary to decide whether we've gone too far in padding the personal pockets of those who feed at the government trough. As the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. I believe this legislation will apply a little bit more sunlight to the Federal funding process. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance on this legislation. And I know that this body will agree that as stewards of the people's treasure, we must do everything in our power to make sure it's being spent justly and responsibly. Again, I thank the chairman.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Vermont. I am here as a new Member of Congress because my constituents, like millions of others around the country, figured out what was happening here in the United States Congress for the last 12 years, that the priority was to pad the pockets of the oil companies at the detriment of American consumers. They have also figured out what has been happening here on the floor of the House of Representatives for the last year-and-a-half. As this Democratic majority has passed legislation cracking down on price gougers, as this Democratic majority has passed legislation going after the multinational oil cartels, as this Democratic Congress has passed legislation repealing the billions of dollars in subsidies for the oil companies and turning them around into ordinary subsidies for ordinary Americans to try to put renewable resources and energy in their home, we have done it all without help from the President, we have done it all without almost any help from the Republicans. That is why there are so many new Members of Congress ready to set a new direction on energy policy, and that is why it is time for the Republican minority to join the Democrat in setting a new energy policy for this country.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, let's talk about what this House has done already without any participation from our Republican colleagues or from the President of the United States. We've passed legislation cracking down on those who would take advantage of this situation by price gouging with little to no participation from the other side of the aisle and a President's threatened veto. We've passed legislation cracking down on the multinational oil cartels who would fix prices at much damage to American consumers without little to any help from the other side of the aisle and a threatened Presidential veto. And we've passed legislation rescinding the billions in tax giveaways that the prior Congress gave to the oil companies and turned them around to give them to tax benefits for homeowners and businesses who want to invest in renewable energy without any help from the other side of the aisle and with the President threatening a veto. Madam Speaker, people are hurting, real people, not oil company executives, and we need both sides of the aisle and the President of the United States working to fix it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva and Chairman Rahall, for your very hard work on bringing this bill to the House floor today. Connecticut's Fifth District, which I have the honor to represent, is rich in the kind of landmarks and natural treasures that today's legislation would help to better manage. From the beautiful Farmington River, a Wild and Scenic River, to the Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett Trail, soon to be a National Scenic Trail, my constituents are personally familiar with the kind of benefits and resources these designations can provide in encouraging community-driven conservation and land management. As we continue to grow as a region and as a Nation, we need to be mindful of preserving that delicate balance with the natural world around us. My home State of Connecticut has the highest proportional rate of farm land development in the country, creating a quandary for communities who want to promote economic development but don't want to sacrifice the unique character of their towns and of their regions in the process. This is the kind of bipartisan issue that brings many of us together. The designations that my district enjoys today come by virtue of the hard work of my predecessor, Congresswoman Johnson. This brings together hunting enthusiasts as much as it does environmental advocates, and they are all asking the question, how do we best leverage the resources of the Federal Government to partner with communities? The Federal Government can and should be that type of partner in helping support the regional management of the outdoors. A better coordinated Federal effort, which this bill will bring, can empower communities and can empower individuals to have a larger, more constructive role in the sensible conservation of our land and of our resources. Again, I thank the chairman for his work on this bill. And I urge my colleagues to support it this afternoon.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Representative Sutton. Mr. Speaker, I think we're on the precipice of an historic step forward in restoring the people's faith in this institution, but I understand how difficult this is to talk about. And giving the minority the benefit of the doubt, maybe that's why this House sat idly by for 12 years with no real major reforms to a very broken process. But it's tough to talk about because it's not just about a broken process, it's about human nature. It's tough to talk about the failure of our ethics process because we're talking about the fallibility of all of us. It is against human nature, frankly, to rat out your friends, to investigate them, to punish your colleagues. And so that's why you can't just change people's perception of this place. You just can't fix the ethics process by tweaking the process that exists now. You have to admit the inherent fallibility of the ability for all of us to police ourselves and give that power to an independent body. The cat is out of the bag, people figured this out long ago. There are too many Members that have violated the public trust, and they've watched too many other Members sit idly by. Now, I, frankly, agree with my colleague Representative Space that this proposal could have been even a little bit stronger with the addition of subpoena power, but this is a major step forward and we should all support it. There is a generation of young people out there who stand on the precipice of losing all complete faith in government and in this institution. Tonight we have the chance to do right by them by correcting the mistakes of the past. I thank Mr. Capuano and the task force for their hard work here, and I urge passage of the rule.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, right now there are millions of patients and families around this country who are too scared to talk about the mental illness they are dealing with. They are too scared to go and seek treatment for that mental illness. And there are millions more in this country who are living in denial, thinking they can just wish away their debilitating illness. The legislation that we are passing today, that States like Connecticut and others around the country have been passing for the past 10 years, it is going to do a lot to get treatment to those who have insurance. But I think just as importantly, it says this, it puts the full power of the United States Congress behind the effort to lift that veil of shame and secrecy that too often visits families and patients who are living with mental illness. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad are true heroes to those families dealing with mental illness today, and on their behalf, I thank them.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a hero. Heroism is a word we use a lot these days, and in a world beset by such real and mounting dangers, it's understandable that we're always in the market for a guardian angel or two. Still, I believe we could all learn something from the real-life heroism of Officer Todd M. Myers of Simsbury, Connecticut. On July 29, 2005, Officer Myers was out of uniform and making his way to work when he witnessed a dump truck careen out of control and race down Avon Mountain, scattering cars and bursting into flames. Driven by little else than his impulse to help, Officer Myers plunged himself into the harrowing crash site, cutting a trapped woman from her car while exploding gas tanks left him with first- and second-degree burns. Rescuing several others, Officer Myers stayed at the scene with the injured until proper paramedic care could be administered. No one told him to help, and he certainly was under no obligation to do so as an out-of-uniform officer--but none the less, Officer Myers was compelled to place the welfare of others before his own. This past December, to honor his courage and selfless sacrifice, the President of the United States will bestow the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor to Officer Myers--an honor which has been bestowed on only a few of the most heroic Americans. Just as countless men and women risk their lives overseas every day in our military, men and women like Todd Myers carry the equally solemn duty of protecting America here in our towns, neighborhoods, and communities. We are all deeply indebted to Officer Myers and the unsung public safety officers across the country just like him, and I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to him and his family.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House eliminated wasteful and unnecessary taxpayer subsidies to some of the largest multinational oil companies and instead invested this money in subsidies for regular individuals and businesses who are investing in clean energy. This legislation will not only help ease the pain at the pump for many Americans, but it will also help us get us on the road toward energy independence. This bill comes shortly after the big five oil companies reported their latest record profits. Earlier this month, for example, ExxonMobil reported earnings of $40.6 billion in 2007, the largest corporate profit in American history. Now, why should the big oil companies receive billions of dollars in government welfare? Well, they shouldn't. It's simply a waste of taxpayer dollars at the expense of our very necessary drive towards energy independence. Mr. Speaker, the House has acted on legislation that will lower energy costs, improve national security by making us more energy independent and ending wasteful taxpayer subsidies for companies that clearly do not need them.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you again to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for giving the opportunity to the 30-Something Working Group to come to the floor once again to talk about some of the great progress that we believe this House is making on behalf of our constituents, the American people. We are going to have an abbreviated edition of the 30-Somethings today, and I am going to turn this over to Mr. Meek in a moment. But suffice it to say that once again I think we did some justice when it comes to energy policy on the floor this week. We have passed, once again, a bill that will extend enormous tax benefits to thousands of Americans and, even more, small businessmen and the people who profit from those businesses, who work for those businesses, so that they can invest in the new American economy that is the green economy and do it through no additional cost to the taxpayers by simply repealing billions of dollars that we have given to the oil industry under the Republican Congress and turn those tax subsidies around to average consumers and average small businesses who are now going to do right by this new renewable economy that we are building. It is a start. It is not everything. We have not done a 180 on energy policy, but we are beginning what will be a long but continuous path to energy independence. And I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Meek. I want to quickly let people know what this legislation does that we passed here. We have talked about the amount that it invests in this new economy, but let's talk about how it does that. There is $8 billion in this new bill in long-term, clean renewable energy tax incentives for energy accrued from sources varying from wind to solar to geothermal, biomass, hydropower, ocean tides, landfill gas. Overnight, this bill is going to invest in these types of renewable energy sources that are going to power the next economy. We know that energy independence doesn't come easy. We have become addicting over a long period of misguided and shortsighted Federal policy so that we have an unreliable and unsustainable reliance on dirty energy, on energy produced by oil, produced by gas-powered plants, produced by coal-powered plant. You don't change that overnight. It takes time. Now, government can't do it alone. We can't suddenly decide that we are going to take the generosity of the Federal Government and start buying up renewable energy to completely replace those old, dirty sources. What we can do is use a little bit of Federal incentive to give reason for private individuals and private businesses to make those choices themselves. That is what we have done here. My office went through a long and important process of becoming carbon neutral, becoming energy independent. How we did that, we brought some energy auditors into our office and we assessed our carbon footprint and then we found a number of ways, a myriad of different efforts that we could undertake to reduce that carbon footprint. It included everything from changing all the light bulbs in our offices to putting on automatic timers where we could, to making sure that we were printing on both sides of the page. We tried to reduce our individual carbon footprint, as individuals and businesses can do, seeing that they find that not only the right thing to do by our environment, but the right thing to do from a cost standpoint as well. But even after doing all of those things, Mr. Speaker, we still found we had an amount of pollution from old, dirtier sources that we couldn't completely eliminate. So what we did, we went out to offset that remaining dirty carbon footprint by purchasing tax credits for renewable energy. Basically going out and purchasing, putting renewable energy out there on the grid to make up for what dirty energy remained in our office. What we found for us was that it still cost a little bit more to purchase those renewable energy tax credits, those renewable energy credits, than it would have to have bought oil or gas or coal credits. But it was not four times as much. It is not three or twice as much. It is still a little bit more expensive for an individual homeowner or an individual business to purchase renewable energy, but it is getting less expensive every day. Why is that? It is getting less expensive every day because the economy, those that invest and fuel the economy from an economic standpoint are figuring out that there is money to be made in renewable energy, that there is a demand for it, and that every cent that they can lower the cost of that renewable energy resource, the more profit there will be built in because of the greater utilization. And so that is what we are attempting to do here. Rather than putting $18 billion into more tax subsidies, more regulatory subsidies for the oil industry, we are saying let's take that $18 billion and let's put it into tax subsidies for homeowners and businesses and local and State governments to make up that little difference between the price of old energy and the price of new energy. And that small, little incentive not just makes the difference for the bottom line for that particular company or for that particular homeowner, it then starts to increase the volume of renewable energy that we are producing. It starts to create more capital for those companies that are doing the research and development into renewable energy so that they can advance their efforts to create newer, cheaper technologies. That's how we are going to grow this renewable economy. And for some reason for a very long time, for the 12 years that the Republicans controlled this House, and in particular for the past 7 years, the 6 of it where the President served along with the Republican House, they didn't get it. They didn't get that you can start to incentivize and create this new renewable economy, this green economy, not with the largess of the Federal Government but with targeted, direct incentives to make up that small difference between old and new energy. And this is about building that new economy and this is also about trying to right some wrongs that this Congress has perpetuated on the American people for far too long. I hope that people will look at the facts that underlie this chart standing beside me right now. The price of gas, and this is looking at increases in commodities and profits from 2001 to 2008, a 113 percent increase in the price of gas. Much of that has come just in the last few years, as more and more motorists, more and more commuters have found it almost impossible to make their budgets meet now that gas prices seems to be staying above that $3 a gallon level. We all feel this one. There is a 213 percent increase in the price of home heating oil. My wife and I are flabbergasted on a weekly and monthly basis as we look at the amount that we are paying to heat our own very small and modest home. Even with all of the different improvements that we have tried to make regarding oil efficiency and heat efficiency, we, along with millions of other American homeowners, have an old house. We cannot make it completely, totally energy efficient, and so we are paying through the nose, as are millions of other American homeowners, for this 213 percent increase in heating oil profits. The price of crude oil has gone up 215 percent during that time. And all the while, during that same period of time over the last 7 years, the profits of American oil companies have gone up 310 percent. There aren't many things in this world in a 7-year span that increase threefold. Wages for the average Americans are lucky to creep up by 1 percent a year. Profits for most American businesses, in particular those small businesses and medium-sized businesses that power our economy, are lucky to grow by 5 or 10 percent every year. Even in robust economic times, 310 percent growth in profits over a 7-year period is unheard of. And when those profits are derived in large part due to Federal policy through these $18 billion in Federal tax breaks that have gone to the oil companies, it should have a long time ago caused this Congress to step back and ask why. Well, there are a lot of different reasons, and I am not here to suggest that those $18 billion in oil subsidies are the sole reason why you see a 310 percent spike in oil company profits. We have increased demand around the globe for oil, not just here in the United States but in India and China and in developing nations. But I would also posit that another reason is not just because of the subsidies we have given these industries, but also because we have done almost nothing here in this Congress, before 2007 when the 110th Congress was sworn in, to really start to work with the competitors of the oil industry, to try to give at least the same benefit that we give to the oil industry to the wind industry, to the solar industry, the geothermal industry, the tidal industry, all of the other energy competitors who ultimately will make sure that we never see another 310 percent, 7-year growth in profits. And so I think a lot of us are really excited about the direction we're going with energy policy. It's not just the bill that we passed today which shifts that $18 billion in oil company energy profits to incentives and tax subsidies to individuals and small businesses and governments that are prepared to do the right thing and invest in renewable energy sources. This is also about what we've done to increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles, the first time in 30 years this Congress has passed and signed by the President an increase in fuel efficiency standards so that the average fleet sold here in the United States will now have to be up around the 35 mile per gallon standard, still not what it could be, but a lot better than the level that we've been sitting at for the last 30 years. A new investment in green technology and green jobs, grants now going to businesses and nonprofit organizations that are going to do the training necessary to teach a whole new workforce how to compete and how to win in a renewable energy economy; and legislation that will say no more going to the store and looking at one product that's energy star or energy efficient rated and another product that hasn't had any improvements on it in the last 20 years, now every appliance, every microwave, every toaster that you buy, by virtue of legislation passed in the House and the Senate and signed by the President will make sure that appliances that you buy are going to meet the highest energy efficiency standards. We still have to go farther. There's still so much more we can do. We can pass a renewable energy portfolio standard to say that 15 to 20 percent of the energy produced in this country comes from renewable energy sources. We should pass a cap and trade system that limits the amount of pollution and carbon that we emit into the air. But these are monumental steps forward that would have never happened if we didn't have a change in control of this Congress, because you've got a whole new group of people here. Mr. Altmire and I are the two members of the 30-Something Group that are part of this new class of freshman Members of Congress. But you have a new group of Members here, in particular this freshman class, that really had a sense, from spending the last 2 years, 2005 and 2006, out campaigning for office but just frankly being on the outside of this institution for all of our lives, that the public got it; that the public understood that it was about time that we started shifting our resources, both privately and publicly, into a renewable economy. They understood that energy independence is the Holy Grail of Federal and State energy, of Federal and State policy, period, because it's not just about energy prices, the fact that by investing in renewable energy, increasing volume, increasing research and development, that you will eventually drive down energy prices. It's also about the environment. We could talk for another hour about the benefit that investments in renewable energy will do to the air that we breathe around us, what it will do to combat the growing trend towards the warming of this planet. It's also about our economy, as we've talked about. And we may not make rubber balls in this country like we used to. We may not have the large volume manufacturing base that we did 20 to 30, 50 years ago, but we can be the center of research and development for renewable energy technology. There are great strides still ahead of us on cellulosic ethanol, on photovoltaics, on the hydrogen economy. Our economic future here in the United States can be based in renewable energy. And lastly, folks out there know that it's about national security as well. They know that by creating a dependence on domestically produced energy, rather than on foreign produced oil, that we will make decisions with regard to international policy, based not on our national energy interests but on our national security interests. And so on behalf of the 30-Something Working Group, we're pretty excited about the bill that we were able to pass today, as we are about the entire trend that's happening here in Congress with regard to energy policy. We have farther to go, but the reason that we, as the 30-Something Working Group, talk about this is because the investments that we make today will pay off in 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 years, when our future children and grandchildren are living in this world. They might not have to deal with the consequences of a Congress that ignored the energy crisis in this country if we make the right decisions over the next several Congresses. So I appreciate, as we always do, the opportunity for the 30- Something Working Group to come down here. It's a busy day and evening here, so Mr. Meek was only able to join us for a short period of time. Mr. Altmire had to leave before the hour started. We know when we come back to this floor next week, we'll make sure to have the full contingent of 30-somethings down here on the floor. We miss Ms. Wasserman Schultz as well. With that, Mr. Speaker, again I thank you for the opportunity to speak before the floor today. I thank the Speaker for her engagement with the 30-Something Working Group.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. And Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we're also committed as 30-somethings. I mean, the reason why this group for 3 years, and before that, before you were here, when Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan were down here, talk about this debt that we owe to foreign countries, talk about the deficit night after night, I mean, people may wonder, why are these guys and why is Ms. Wasserman Schultz down here talking night after night about the debt? Well, we're the 30-something Working Group. We're here, in part, to represent the concerns of some of the younger voters in this country. And we need people to understand, we need our 30-something brethren and our 20-something brethren and even kids in high school to understand----

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Well, it's not that hard, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, maybe to grasp over 224 years, but it's hard to grasp how you do $1.3 trillion in foreign borrowing in just 6 years. And I'll be honest, I can't name every guy here, but I bet you there are some pretty wild spenders in that group, and I bet you there were some real deficit lovers somewhere buried in that group of Presidents. And still, all of them together, $1.01 trillion, this one President. Remember, a President alone can't do this, Ms. Wasserman Schultz; you have to have a Congress that's willing to back you up on this kind of deficit spending. And he had it, but he only had it for 6 of his 8 years. I mean, that's the difference. He had a Congress that's willing to spend that kind of money, that's willing to rack up those kinds of deficits for 6 of his 8 years. For the last two, he doesn't get that deal. For the last 2 years of his Presidency, he gets a fiscally responsible Democratic Congress that for the first time in 8 years is going to push back. It might not be successful every time, but we're going to push back for the first time in a long time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Absolutely.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, we're talking about giant numbers here, but let me give you another point of comparison. I mean, there are so many different ways to make this point to the American people that we have allowed spending in this budget to spiral out of control under Republican leadership and to hammer home the point that the problem that the Democratic majority has inherited is one that is going to take a long time to fix, but it is only going to be fixed by having a truly fiscally responsible leadership here in the House in charge. Here is another way of putting it. I mean, this is remarkable, Mr. Altmire. And this is a chart that Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan have shared several times, but it bears putting out here one more time. Forty-two Presidents took 224 years to rack up about $1 trillion in foreign-owned debt, debt owned by China, European countries, OPEC nations. 42 Presidents, 224 years, over two centuries they took to get $1 trillion in debt held by foreign countries. This President, one President, has now, this number isn't even accurate anymore, has now racked up $1.33 trillion in foreign-held debt. One President in about 7 years has racked up more debt than 42 Presidents in 224 years.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, just to leave on some good news, I think the passage with the Republican and Democratic votes of the economic stimulus package shows that this Democratic Congress has the potential to reach across the aisle and push back on a lot of these policies that we have been talking about today. This is bad news, the President's budget he submitted to us. It is not a good budget for people, for families, or for fiscal discipline. But the good news is that we have shown a record here of being able to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to be able to push back. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, if you want to get in touch with us, you can e-mail us at 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov or go to www.speaker.gov to visit our Web site.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We get some discounts this year.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Did they have good job growth in the Hoover administration?

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Well, we know he is leaving behind one of the weakest and one of the most fragile economies that we have seen in a very long time. Today we get reports from the Nation's largest retailers telling us that they still have not unburied themselves from the holiday malaise. We had a report recently from the service sector showing the service economy starting to bottom out. We have news yesterday from the Labor Department telling us that worker productivity continues to slow. We have an economy after 6, 7 years of the Bush administration's policy left over from 12 years of neglect by the Republican majority that is as weak as it has been in a very long time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Curiously, as we talked about here, a $9 trillion debt owed mostly to foreign nations, a President that has racked up more publicly held foreign debt and privately held foreign debt than any other Presidents combined in the history of the Republic.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentlewoman yield?