Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I understand the Appropriations Committee is a very important place, Ways and Means is very important.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. That just happened.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It used to be that, you are right, it was 60 Minutes and New York Times and The New Yorker. That was the oversight branch in our Federal Government. It was the press. We are thankful that they actually brought some things to light. But what we have learned just in the first 2 months, what we have brought out in these oversight hearings are really stunning to the American people. Nine billion dollars put out in cash on wooden pallets, thrown out of SUVs in sacks as they drove down the street, unaccounted for, do not know where it went, have no idea where it went. We have got Blackwater, a contractor out there, keeping the diplomats and some American military personnel safe. Well, we find out that the government's role in overseeing Blackwater and a lot of these other contractors, you know what we did? We contracted that out, too. We contracted that out, too. Blackwater took its responsibility and contracted somebody else, and they contracted somebody else. Everybody made a dime along the way. These were things that you did not hear about in these halls until we got here. So the bill that you outlined, it does the right thing for our troops. It does the right thing for our veterans. There are some other pieces that we can talk about, how it does the right thing for kids, the right things for farmers, but also does the right thing for taxpayers because it finally gives some accountability in how we spend these dollars. We would like to see an end to these dollars. But while we are spending money, at least finally we are going to have some accountability for those dollars.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Before Mr. Meek talks about readiness, let me just make one more point on top of that. It seemed that for years this Congress, the Republicans who set the policy for this war, didn't view the cost of the war as including taking care of the soldiers when they came back from Iraq and Afghanistan, that the cost of the war was just the money for the Humvees and the salaries and the missiles and the rifles. No, the cost of the war is all of what it takes to actually conduct that war on the battlefield, but it also is about putting forth every single dollar that is necessary to take care of those brave men and women when they come back to the United States. Now, used to be in World War I, World War II, wars in the middle of the century that you would have about three injured soldiers for every soldier that was killed in action. Now, with improvements in technology in armor and medicine, we now have a 16-1 ratio. That is great news. That is great news, more people are coming back alive, but they are coming back with more difficult injuries, more complex medical issues. We haven't built into that war the cost of taking care of those veterans. That is what this bill does. That is what this bill does. It is going to fund the withdrawal. It will fund the redeployment of our forces to fights that we still can win. It will also for the first time, for the first time, recognize that the cost of the war includes taking care of the veterans, not just average health care. In fact, we found out in many cases, in Walter Reed substandard health care, but with gold standard health care. Our veterans system should be the best health care available in this country. With $1.7 billion in defense health care, $1.7 new dollars for veterans health care, we will finally live up to that commitment to our veterans and our soldiers when they get back here, like we should when they are over fighting for us.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, this is about government. I mean, you talk about leadership, it takes leadership to govern. You are right. I am as close as anybody to what is happening and what people are feeling out there because I spent the last 2 years spending every day and every night visiting the pasta suppers and the pancake breakfasts really, I think, being as in touch as anybody in this Chamber is with where the American people were. And, yes, they have specific irreconcilable grievances with this President about the war, about his approach to energy policy, about his lack of any understanding of health care dilemmas facing the American people. But I think they also just have this sense that this place is broken down, that Congress couldn't govern any longer, that they couldn't maintain their relationship as a coequal branch of government with the President, that they couldn't even get anything done on meaningful issues like health care reform or immigration or oversight of this war. So is this bill perfect? Absolutely not. Are there things that you would change in it, things that I would change? Would I move a date around here, some money around there? Absolutely. But you know what? This isn't a place where you just come and vote your preferences. I mean, we are not voting for the American Idol here. We are governing. We are putting votes together to make progress for the American people. And so there are going to be a lot of folks who are going to cast green votes for this, who are going to have problems with certain parts of it. But in order to live up to what the American people want us to do here, which is to set a new direction, we have all got to come together and find a way to govern. It is something that wasn't happening here for a very long time. And so I am going to be proud to go back, once we get through this process, once we are able to put something through the House, through the Senate, we hope get the President's signature, I am going to be proud to go back and talk about it, talk about how we have fulfilled that commitment to redeploy our troops, to start spending our money in different places. But I am going to be just as proud to tell them that Congress is working again; that there is leadership here that is willing to take some tough stands, that is willing to ask some people to cast some votes that might not be perfect for them; that we haven't allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good, as a lot of people are talking about these days. I am going to be just as proud to talk about how this place is working again, Mr. Meek.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I want to display an important number here: 104. I will tell you why that number matters. That is the hearings on issues related to the Iraq War just this year; 104 different hearings have been held.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. They were quality 20 minutes.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, I can't match your level of articulateness, but I think you are saying what people feel out there. I mean, this election had to mean something. I mean, people spoke, they went out there in numbers in parts of the country that we haven't seen in a long time. And they spoke with a pretty loud voice that they wanted a different course of direction in Iraq. Now let me read something somebody said a few years ago in 1997. Mr. Ryan, when he was joining us here, talked about the fact that there is a little bit of double talk this week from folks on the other side of the aisle, this idea that Congress really needs to back off and let the President do his business. Well, that wasn't the line coming out of here in 1997, when Congress thought something very different about the oversight responsibility of this body when it came to the effort in Bosnia. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee at that time was a gentleman named Floyd Spence from South Carolina. Here is what he said. This is his floor statement supporting the bill that was going to withdraw funding essentially from the President's intervention in Bosnia. He said, today's vote will call for the withdrawal of U.S. ground troops from a peacekeeping operation of growing expense and seeming unending duration. Mr. Ryan already told us that if that was unending duration, well, then you haven't seen unending duration compared to this effort. He went on to say, the time is long overdue for Congress to express its will on behalf of the American people. It is important that the Clinton administration be held accountable for the Nation's foreign policy and, in this case, for Bosnia policy. Let me say it again. It is long overdue for Congress to express its will on behalf of the American people. You know what? I agree. That is what we are sent here to do. We are sent to invoke on this floor the will of the American people. That is why we get elected every 2 years instead of every 6 years, because we are the body here, the House of Representatives, and I have only been here for a couple of months, but I have studied enough history to understand that my responsibility when I came here was to speak on behalf of my constituents. And my constituents and the constituents of those that sent new Members here in droves from all over the country, from the Midwest to South, the Sun Belt, the West and the Northeast, said, set a new course. Stand up to the President. Redeploy our forces for fights that still matter. Protect us at home. That is the will of the American people. That is what we are going to be talking about this week. Mr. Meek, I think elections mean something. And I think what we are going to engage in on Thursday is an effort to put the will of the American people into practice here. Now, it is not just the American people. We just saw a poll the other day that came out and asked specifically whether the American people would support Congress' plan to bring American forces back home and redeploy them to other fights across the globe that we can still win by the fall of 2008, the bill that we are about to vote on this week, and it wasn't even close. A margin of over 20 percent, 59 percent to 34 percent of Americans support that plan. The American people said what they wanted on election day. And when pollsters went to just double- check the temperature and make sure they still thought that, well, they still think that, in fact, probably in greater numbers than they did on election day, seeing that things have only gotten worse on the ground and the President's policy has only become more meandering. But we don't just have to listen to the American people, because we can also listen to our foreign policy community. We put on that Iraq Study Group some of the brightest minds in American foreign policy. The folks that have set the direction for foreign policy coming out of Washington for years all got together, Republicans and Democrats, folks that probably hadn't agreed on much of anything if you were to poll them on other foreign conflicts. Well, they all came to an agreement, and they sent a report to us saying it is time to set a new direction, it is time to start redeploying forces in 2008. We can also listen to our military leaders as well. And we have read a lot of quotes on this floor, so we won't belabor it, but just take one. The Deputy Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq said it very simply: It's clear, you cannot solve this problem militarily. You have to do it with a combination of military, economic and diplomatic things that we have to do. The American public, our foreign policy community, military leaders on the ground who see this on a day-to-day basis say the same thing: We have put our men and women in the middle of a civil war. We have done virtually nothing to address the underlying causes of that religious conflict. And to simply allow them to continue to be the referee in an increasingly bloody battle, that is not the right policy for our troops, it is not the right policy for this country, and it is time to start focusing on real security issues again. Let me bring up one last thing, Mr. Meek, before I yield back, what is included in this bill. This isn't just about, you hear this word withdrawal, this isn't about withdrawal. This is about focusing our efforts as a Nation on the fights that matter. We still have a real important conflict in Afghanistan. If we redirect some efforts there, we can still make a difference on the ground. Remember, that is where the people that attacked this country trained. That is where they base their operations. And if we are not careful, Afghanistan is going to fall right back into the hands of the folks who provided cover for so long to Osama bin Laden and his henchmen. We also have to do a lot more here on the ground in our own country, Mr. Meek. Now, you voted for efforts on the Democratic minority for years to try to bring light upon the fact that we have been spending billions of dollars over in Iraq. We haven't been spending money here at home to do the things we need to do to protect this Nation. So this bill is going to put $2.6 billion into homeland security needs, make sure that you and me and our families and our friends are protected here; $2.6 billion, Mr. Meek; $1.25 billion for aviation security, including 1 billion for a new explosive detection system, $90 million to deploy advanced checkpoint explosive detection equipment and screening techniques, $160 million to do better when we are screening air cargo, $1.25 billion for new port and transit and border security features, $150 million for nuclear security, including, at the President's request, $67 million to secure the nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. Here is where the fight is; it is in places like Afghanistan, it is at our ports, it is on our borders. That is the fight that we are going to engage in. That is where we are going to refocus our efforts. This vote that is coming up this week is about doing just what the Republicans told us we were supposed to do in 1997; that is, expressing the will of the American people on this floor. This vote is about putting our forces, putting our money where the fights matter most. Mr. Meek, I am going to be proud to be part of that this week when we finally get that chance to make the will of the American people the law of this country.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Blank checks.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, last week this House, with strong bipartisan support, passed important bills that will demand more transparency and accountability here in Washington. And in the first few months of this Congress, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I have the opportunity to serve, has held several hearings on political influence in public policy. Sadly, instead of following our lead, the Bush administration is being anything but open about its involvement in the political purging of eight U.S. Attorneys. For weeks now, Attorney General Gonzales has asserted that the firings were not instigated by the White House, but e-mails between the White House and Gonzales's chief of staff show heavy involvement in the purging by political advisers. The President admits mistakes were made, but he has no plans to hold his Attorney General accountable. The implications of this scandal on our legal system are grave. This administration has created a climate in which prosecutors are looking over their shoulders trying to do right by the political bosses instead of through the system of justice. Madam Speaker, this White House should learn something from what we did in the House last week. It is past time that the President insist on more accountability in his administration.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to simply thank Chairman Waxman and many of his compatriots on the other side of the aisle for giving us this week. If you want to know why there are so many new Members in this Chamber today, it is that there have been a lot of people in this country who have been waiting for this week. You know, we sit around and we wonder sometimes why we feel this disconnect between the people out there in the American public and their government. Well, there is a sense on their behalf that the government somehow exists separate from them, that it is an entity that is wholly divorced from what is happening out in the real world, and that government has ended up setting its own rules that don't really have applicability to their own lives and how they manage their own existences. And I think the issue of how we have gone about contracting, whether it be for this war or for other domestic and foreign endeavors, is a perfect example of how we have broken down that contract between government and its people. They look to the $100 billion in no-bid contracts, many of which going to companies that didn't need any more help. They look at Halliburton and other companies like it get rich while local programs that help people in the communities, middle-class working families with health care and education wither on the vine. And I think they look with a renewed sense of faith and optimism to this House, not just this week, but in how we have gone about keeping their money and regaining their faith. It started on the first day when those of us who got sworn in were lucky enough to cast a vote in favor of new budget rules that will make sure that we keep better track of the money that comes in and don't rack up record deficits. And it continues today, Mr. Chairman, with a renewed commitment to responsible contracting. I am happy to be standing next to my new chairman, Mr. Waxman. I am happy to be here today in our process of restoring that faith in the government that our people have lost.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1254) to amend title 44, United States Code, to require information on contributors to Presidential library fundraising organizations.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. I want to thank both sides of the aisle, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Clay, who have done such great work on this issue. They have constructed a bill which will allow the development of these facilities to move forward in an expeditious manner, but done so in a way that gives people faith in that process. So much of our ability to build and rebuild faith in this government is connected to whether or not people believe that things we do here are done in the open light of day. Today is going to be a very good day to restore part of people's faith in this government, and this bill is an important first step.

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

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1254.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I walked into the Capitol today, it was sunny outside, and one of the benefits of coming from Connecticut about 100 or so miles south a few days a week is, you might get a few sunnier days this time of year. And it is important, I think, on this day that there is some sunlight outside because beginning with the bill before us today, and following with pieces of legislation to come, we are going to start once again to open up this government to the people of this country. There is a sense, I think, over time that too much in Washington, D.C., gets done in back rooms and not enough gets done in the open daylight. Today, we begin to open, again, this government to the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1254, the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007, and I am grateful to do so through the benefit of work done before by Chairman Waxman, Congressman Emanuel, by Mr. Clay, and on the other side of the aisle, in particular, Mr. Platts and Mr. Duncan. The legislation that they have worked on that is before us today is part of a larger effort by Congress to restore that honesty and accountability in the Federal Government. Simply put, this legislation would shine sunlight on donations to Presidential libraries. Mr. Speaker, the Presidential library system was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt had an idea to create a repository to house his Presidential papers for the benefit of future generations of Americans; you could call it yet another successful New Deal program. His idea was to raise private funds for the construction of a library facility, and then he turned the facility and his papers over to the Federal Government for operation by the National Archives. This model is still followed to this day. But, like many things, Presidential libraries keep getting more expensive. They have become libraries in concept much more than in practice. They often include various facilities in addition to a repository, such as museums, conference centers, or classrooms. The George H.W. Bush Library was reported to cost more than $80 million to build. The Clinton library and museum cost about $165 million to build. News reports have indicated that the fund-raising goal for President Bush's library and think tank in Texas is $500 million. One can only imagine how much his successor will have to raise. The problem is that as these libraries continue to grow in size and scope, Presidential foundations need to raise more money to build them, and many of these organizations do so by selling access to the President while he is still in office while his power and celebrity are the strongest. Under current law, there is no requirement to disclose the names of the donors and the amounts that they have donated, and there is no limit on the amount that can be donated. You don't need to be a political scientist to see the potential for abuse. Today's bill simply requires that fund-raising organizations disclose information about their donors to Congress and the National Archives during the period of that most intense fund-raising, while the President is in office, and during the first 4 years after the end of his term. The legislation before us, H.R. 1254, would require that all organizations established for the purpose of raising funds for Presidential libraries, or their related facilities, report on a quarterly basis all contributions of $200 or more. Under the bill, Presidential library fund-raising organizations would be required to disclose to Congress and the Archivist the amount and date of each contribution, the name of the contributor, and if the contributor is an individual, the occupation of the contributor. The National Archives would be required to disclose this information through a free, searchable, and downloadable database. Mr. Speaker, this is a nonpartisan problem, and what we have before us today is a nonpartisan solution. This bill does not seek to limit the amount a donor can contribute or the amount a foundation can solicit. It simply seeks to shed sunlight on the process. Many of us came to Congress to bring government out of the back rooms and back into the open air. This bill, I believe, is an important step in that transformation; and I am honored to be able to stand on the work of colleagues who have worked on this issue over the years and to be able to present it to this body today. Mr. Speaker, similar legislation has enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the House in the past, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, you hit it right on the head. It is, fix the problem, hold people accountable, in that order. We need to start holding people accountable here. I think that is a lot of frustration that led to you and I coming here and 40 or so of our fellow new colleagues here. I think a lot of the impetus that brought us here was this sense that nobody was being held accountable for what was happening in the government, whether it be the failure of our military strategy in Iraq or whether it be the failure of many of our domestic programs here at home. So we have got to keep the focus and the light of this place on finally holding this administration and the people in it and, frankly, even Members of this legislature accountable for their actions. But we have got to fix the problem first because people didn't send us here just to investigate and hold hearings and put out subpoenas. They want that responsibility of Congress to come back. They want us to fulfill that constitutional obligation. But they sent us here to get stuff done. And that is the miracle of what has happened here over the last 2 months is that we are fixing problems. We are not just talking about it. We are actually doing what we are saying. The first 100 hours was all about that, Mr. Altmire. It had to be for the two of us one of the proudest moments of our life to be here joining hands with many of our Republican colleagues and for the first time making this place work again. Passing new bills to fund higher education, reforming the Medicare prescription drug law, investing in stem cell research; doing it with Democrats and Republicans, making this place work again. So here is the thing. We proved we can solve problems. We proved that we can work as Republicans and Democrats to fix things. And maybe we are confronted with our biggest problem; not just what we have uncovered in our veterans' system, what people like you and I have known for years, but the greater quagmire which exists in our military today in the situation we have got ourselves in Iraq. But we need to take both of these on, fix the problems to the extent that we can, and then hold people accountable because what we know is that we weren't ready for this war. We weren't ready for this war with the equipment, the trucks and the kits we needed for our troops. We know that, when this war began, we were $56 billion underfunded within the Army for the equipment that they needed. We know that, after the invasion, it took 18 months for American soldiers to receive body armor; 18 months of being on the front lines before they got the body armor that they needed. And we know the health care system wasn't ready for the legions of troops that came back. I think I shared this on the floor the other night: A group of veterans came into my office and shared with me a statistic that was as interesting as it was sobering, that in conflicts earlier in this century, on average three wounded soldiers came back for every soldier that died on the battlefield. Today 16 soldiers come back wounded for every soldier that dies on the battlefield. And that is due to some of the advances in armor protection equipment. It is also due to the miracles of modern medicine and the response time that our medics and doctors in the field are able to perform. But it means that we have more people coming into our hospitals with more complex, more lasting injuries. They need better care, and they need faster care. And it appears that no one at the outset of this war was thinking about this problem ahead of time. They weren't preparing our military for battle. They didn't have a plan to occupy that country. They didn't think, it seems sometimes, more than a few seconds about the political realities that would emerge on the ground as we invaded Iraq. And now it turns out they also didn't think about what to do with the veterans when they come back. Mr. Altmire, I never served in the military. I never fired a gun. I have never been shot at. I get to serve in this Chamber on a cold night like tonight in Washington, DC, in a nice, heated place indoors because my contemporaries, my classmates made a different decision. They decided to go overseas and protect this Nation. And there isn't a day that I get up that I am not grateful for the decision that my friends and my relatives and my classmates made to allow me to serve this country in a very different manner. So as unfathomable as it is to me to think about what it is like to be on the ground in Baghdad today, to have veterans comparing their experiences in our own domestic veterans' health care system to the situations that they faced on the ground in Iraq is unconscionable to me. Think about what it must be like to come back to this country maimed, injured, perhaps with legs, arms amputated, and to enter a system with flies, with garbage, with syringes. I mean, we know what is happening with soldiers coming back with PTSD and other mental health issues from what they have seen on the battlefield, and to think that we are putting them into a system which not only abuses the sense of honor that we should have for those that come back. We should be celebrating them rather than putting them in these conditions. But I am sure it aggravates what must be an unbelievably complicated transition back to life here in the United States. We need to start honoring their service again. And God forbid we ever have to engage in another military action in this country again. God forbid we have to send our brave young men and women overseas to fight. You know that in our lifetimes we will see that moment. We hope we don't. We hope we are wise enough in this Chamber to prevent another foreign engagement from happening, but the chances are that you and I may vote sometime during our service here to do this again. We better get it right that time. We better make the investment up front to make sure they are safe when they head over to that battlefield, and when they come home, the services are there for them. We are going to fix it. We are going to fix it and hold people accountable, and we are going to do it in that order. The American people for a long time maybe didn't have confidence when people stood up here and said there is a problem and we are going to do something about it. In this Congress, that is going to be our hallmark. We are going to be able to go home in the coming weeks and months and tell people that what you read about, whether it be in Newsweek or the Washington Post, is going to be taken care of.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It is how every young boy hopes to celebrate their 39th birthday.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Anything we have talked about today, if people want to get more information about, they can e-mail us at 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov, and you can always visit www.speaker.gov/30something. One of these days when they go to that Web site, they will actually see our faces on there. Technology sometimes does not keep up with the changes in the House, but I am sure that our faces will be on that Web site, sooner rather than later.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. They might be having one of your behalf.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. First of all, let me say that there is nothing that acts as a tantalizing teaser to whet the appetites of the American people than telling them if they tune in next time, we will talk about foreign-held national debt. That really gets people's blood pumping. I cannot give the chart without letting people know out there that the clock is ticking. 365 days you have left officially in the 30 Something Working Group. Congratulations. Happy birthday today. I do not know why the rest of the Members are not here to celebrate.