Timothy Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I couldn't agree more. Again, I want to commend you for your leadership first in filing the bill, generating over 100 cosponsors that the bill has, organizing this Special Order tonight. This is a very, very important effort. One last thing I will say. I will say to the students of America, what I have found is the most compelling effort of advocacy that individuals can put forward is to put a human face on the consequences of our failure to act. If the students all across this country could make their Members of Congress aware of what this is going to mean for them, both in terms of their repayment and the future students in terms of the choices they are going to have to make, I think the decision we need to make will become a lot easier for many of our colleagues to make.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of my amendment is straightforward. It opens an area off the coast of my congressional district to recreational striped bass fishing. Striped bass is a popular game fish in New York, and it has long been an important catch for recreational fishermen. The formation of an exclusive economic zone creates a small area of Federal water in the Block Island Sound between Montauk Point, Block Island, and Point Judith, Rhode Island. In most cases, when you hit the 3-mile point off the coast of the United States, you have nothing but Federal waters in front of you. This is not always the case for New York fishermen. Because of this geographic anomaly, when the ban on striped bass fishing in the EEZ went into effect, it closed off 60 percent of New York's traditional striped bass recreation areas from fishing, according to the Montauk Boatmen and Captains Association in my district. The National Marine Fisheries Service recognized this unique area by designating it as a transit area where it was permissible for fishermen to possess striped bass on their boats as long as no fishing takes place while in the EEZ and the boat is in continuous transit. My amendment goes one step further and opens this relatively small area to recreational fishing. Mindful of the need for reasonable conservation, my amendment also provides the ability to take necessary action for conservation purposes. Fishermen and charter captains on Long Island know these waters better than anybody in Washington, D.C. Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about government regulation stifling the economic recovery. After all, fishermen are job creators, both directly and indirectly. They hire crews, they have their boats maintained by mechanics, and they sell their catch to restaurants where Americans go out to eat. I support fisheries management that is designed to promote robust health of fish stocks; but as the representative for the oldest fishing ports in New York State, I also support sensible efforts to ensure our fishermen can fish and earn their livelihood. Opening this area would once again give recreational fishermen access to fruitful striped bass fishing grounds. Charter boats will benefit, as will the ports they depart from as people come to the east end of Long Island for great fishing. This will promote job growth and tourism, which is the goal of the underlying legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I very much appreciate that offer, Mr. Chairman. Based on your assurance that this issue will receive a full hearing in your committee or in the appropriate subcommittee, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I appreciate that.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I oppose the motion to move the previous question. I am growing more and more deeply concerned that our Republican colleagues simply don't get it. They do not understand that their ideological crusade to ``starve the beast'' has only resulted in starving the American worker. Here we are today taking up the third version of the Republican kick- the-can infrastructure plan down the road in a single week, the third version in a week. If that's not a complete failure of leadership, I don't know what is. We are a mere 2 days away from the expiration of our highway programs, and they have their hands over their ears, desperate not to hear commonsense solutions like the bipartisan Senate highway bill. Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, we have witnessed time and time again their ``my way or the highway'' approach to governing. As a result, job creation is suffering; working families across the Nation are suffering; the construction industry is in the middle of the construction season, and it's suffering because House Republicans want to score political points with their ideological base rather than solve real-world problems with real-world solutions. This week, the House Republicans were forced to remove two short-term highway extension bills from floor consideration because they would rather dig deeper into the conservative ranks of their caucus than reach across the aisle to discuss solutions for the American worker. Sadly, this is nothing new. They have been doing this for the past 15 months. We have lurched from self-created crisis to self-created crisis. I've counted at least five over the last 15 months. Yet they wonder why the American public's perception of Congress is at an all-time low. Meanwhile, I've sponsored H.R. 14, the Senate highway bill, which is a bipartisan path forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides certainty to States. I am proud to be offering this bipartisan legislation in order to refocus the discussion on jobs and economic opportunities rather than that of the Republican message this week of tearing down Medicare and protecting the 1 percent at the expense of middle class families. As of today, House Republicans have yet to put forward a credible highway reauthorization that puts Americans back to work. Their only attempt, H.R. 7, the Boehner-Mica authorization, was called the worst highway bill ever by Secretary of Transportation LaHood, a former distinguished Member of this body, a Republican. It was drafted in the dark of night without any Democratic input. It removed transit from the highway trust fund. It broke a 30-year bipartisan cooperation to fund transit, and it couldn't attract a single Democratic vote nor even a majority of Republican votes. Over in the Senate, MAP 21 passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan majority and is fully paid for, something House Republicans seem unable to come close to achieving. The MAP 21 pay-fors are less controversial than those contained in the House Republican bill. The Senate has estimated that MAP 21 will save 1.8 million jobs and will create up to 1 million more jobs. That's almost 3 million jobs wrapped up in this legislation. During a weak economic recovery that is looking for a jump-start, this is the kind of legislation we need to be passing.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. House Republicans had their chance to address our infrastructure needs with H.R. 7. Instead, they chose to pander to their base and chase ideological extremes. I am sorry to say their effort was an utter failure. MAP 21 has the support of Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, House Democrats, and the administration. It is time that the House Republicans got on board with job creation instead of fighting it. Americans want jobs and safe roads and bridges. The Senate passed the biggest jobs-creating bill in this Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. We have the chance to do the same thing. Let's move H.R. 14, and let's put this country back to work.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have this right. Our Republican colleagues are telling us that we should forget about the 15 months that have passed since they started crafting the highway bill. They're telling us we should forget about the last 6 weeks during which time their bill, H.R. 7, imploded and the bipartisan MAP 21 bill passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Now they're telling the American people that they simply need 3 additional months to find the money and shape a policy--an effort that thus far has eluded them--that can garner a majority of votes in the House and overcome the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and be signed by the President of the United States. It gets better. On the very same day that they make this outrageous argument, they will vote for a Republican budget that slashes investment in transportation infrastructure by 46 percent, a 46 percent reduction in investment in infrastructure. Now, if they're serious about this vote, if they're serious about seeing this destructive level of funding enacted into law, how can we take them seriously when they talk about a 5- year bill? They talk about certainty. How can we give the American people or the construction industry or construction workers certainty when they say, Just give us 90 more days and we'll craft a 5-year bill, but in the meantime, we want to cut highway funding by 46 percent? These don't line up. No reasonable person can take that seriously. To make it even worse, at the end of today, we're going to adjourn the House for 2 weeks. Asking for a 90-day extension, but in the first 2 weeks of that 90-day extension, they're going to adjourn the House and go home. And they're going to do that while construction workers are wondering where their next paycheck is coming from. They're wondering how they're going to be able to provide for their families. This is unconscionable. If Republicans want 90 more days, we should stay here and work through the issues with the bipartisan Senate bill MAP 21, H.R. 14, here in the House as the basis for these discussions. We know we can get it through the Senate; and I am confident that if Republicans are released by their leadership to vote for it, they'll vote for it here in the House. Let's pass H.R. 14.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican Fiscal Year 2013 Budget. Budgets are statements of priorities. Unfortunately, this budget does not reflect the priorities of my constituents and the American people: bolstering a strong middle class, investing in job creation, and ensuring a secure retirement. The American middle class is the bedrock of our society. But the Republican Budget fails to recognize this. It gives the bulk of its $4.6 trillion in tax cuts to wealthy Americans. It cuts $166 billion from Pell Grants and federal student loans, effectively telling students to think twice about a college education. And it puts job creation on hold by cutting $31 billion from transportation and infrastructure investment in the next fiscal year. The Republican Budget also cuts $11 billion from science and medical research by 2014. The two largest employers in my district are Stony Brook University and Brookhaven National Lab. When you factor in the additional $1 trillion in unspecified non-defense discretionary cuts over 10 years, reductions like these jeopardize the economic recovery and stifle the advances that can make the United States a competitive force in a global economy. And yet, the Republican Budget does not ask those who have benefited from investments of this type made in the past to shoulder any responsibility in resolving our fiscal issues. After decades of hard work and sacrifice by our Nation's seniors, the Republican Budget replaces Medicare's health coverage guarantee with a voucher to purchase traditional Medicare coverage or a private insurance plan. If one scrutinizes this proposal, they will discover the voucher will very likely fail to keep pace with medical inflation, thereby threatening seniors' financial security by forcing them to bear the bulk of their medical costs and even leaving some retirees without health insurance as the Medicare eligibility age is raised. The Republican Budget also makes drastic cuts to Medicaid, jeopardizing the ability of seniors to access nursing home care and threatening the health coverage Americans with meager incomes rely on. Mr. Chair, it is important that this Congress refocus our efforts on bolstering the middle class, investing in job creation, and ensuring a secure retirement. That is how we will build an economy to last and make a better future in America for our children. The Republican Budget fails at this, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding, and I apologize for my tardy arrival on the floor. As Yogi Berra once said, it's deja vu all over again. Here we are a week later and we still have not addressed the imminent expiration of our highway programs. As we witnessed with the implosion of H.R. 7 six weeks ago, we once again saw last night the inevitable result of the Republican mantra: My way or the highway. Last night, House Republicans were forced to remove from floor consideration their short-term extension bill, in part because they absolutely refused to reach out to their Democratic colleagues to get anything done. Meanwhile, I have sponsored the Senate bill, MAP 21--now called H.R. 14 here in the House--a bipartisan path forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides certainty to States. I'm proud to be offering this bipartisan legislation to refocus the discussion on jobs and economic opportunities rather than the Republican message this week of tearing down Medicare and protecting the 1 percent at the expense of middle class families. As of today, House Republicans have yet to put forward a credible highway reauthorization that puts Americans back to work. Their only attempt, H.R. 7, which is the Boehner-Mica authorization, was called the worst highway bill ever by United States Department of Transportation Secretary LaHood, who is a former Republican Member of this body. It was drafted in the dark of night without Democratic input. It removed transit, the transit guarantee, from the highway trust fund, and it couldn't attract a single Democratic vote nor even a majority of Republican votes. MAP 21 passed overwhelmingly in the Senate with a bipartisan majority, a vote of 74 22, and it is fully paid for--something House Republicans seem unable to come close to. MAP 21 pay-fors are less controversial than the House Republican bill. The Senate has estimated that MAP 21 will save 1.8 million jobs and will create up to 1 million more jobs. During a weak economic recovery that's looking for a jump- start, this is the kind of bill we need to be passing and passing as quickly as we possibly can. Is MAP 21 the silver bullet to our surface transportation needs? No, but there is no silver bullet when it comes to our infrastructure needs. We all would prefer a 5-year bill, but we need to get a bill passed. MAP 21, H.R. 14, is the path forward. I would urge my Republican colleagues to bring that bill to the floor so that we can vote for it in a bipartisan fashion and send it to the President.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Rahall for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4239, the Republican 60-day highway bill extension. As prime construction season begins, thousands of construction workers and their families will continue to struggle because our Republican colleagues would rather engage in hyperpartisan politics than put Americans back to work. Today's highway extension is yet another example of the failed leadership and absent policies of the Republican Party. Unlike the successful bipartisan efforts of SAFETEA LU, TEA 21, and ISTEA that put millions of Americans to work and made our highways and transit systems the envy of the world, today's Republican extension merely allows the Nation to limp forward, impeding our ability to rejuvenate our economy. Let me be clear. This extension does nothing to create jobs or provide certainty to States. It does nothing to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and it does nothing to improve safety on our roadways and bridges. It's been 6 weeks since the Rules Committee approved the rule for H.R. 7, the Republican highway reauthorization that was drafted in the dark of night and was passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee without a single person other than Chairman Mica having read the bill. When our Republican colleagues finally did read the bill, they, too, were struck by the overwhelmingly negative consequences for many of their States. The bill has been in limbo ever since. If the priority of the Republican caucus was to create jobs, they would immediately take up and pass H.R. 14, the bipartisan Senate highway bill that will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to another million jobs, supporting over 113,000 jobs in my State of New York alone. If the priority of the Republican caucus was to reduce the deficit, they would take up and pass H.R. 14, the only proposal in town that is fully paid for. If the priority of the Republican caucus was to provide certainty to the markets and the States, then we would take up H.R. 14, the 2-year Senate bill, and not the 60-day extension the House Republicans now propose. H.R. 14 not only passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate--74 22--the bill enjoys 114 cosponsors in the House.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. As House Republicans continue to isolate themselves from the mainstream, Americans continue to wait for much- needed infrastructure jobs and the thousands of businesses they support. I urge my colleagues to reject this shortsighted extension of our Nation's transportation programs and pass H.R. 14, the bipartisan Senate bill.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania as a cosponsor of H.R. 3596.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding. Time and time again over the last several months, we have heard from Republican leadership. We've heard their talk about the highway bill, H.R. 7, and they've talked about it as their principle jobs bill for the 112th Congress. Well, here we are, March 21, 10 days before the expiration of the current extension of the surface transportation bill, and where are we with respect to this incredibly important jobs legislation? We're nowhere. We're absolutely nowhere. As of today, House Republicans have yet to put forward a credible highway reauthorization that puts Americans back to work. Their only attempt, H.R. 7, the Boehner-Mica authorization, was passed on February 14 in the Transportation Committee--passed on a party-line vote with, in fact, a couple of Republicans voting against it. Then something happened on the way to the floor. On the way to the floor, the Republican leadership realized that they didn't have the votes on their side of the aisle to pass it. And what about this bill? Well, Secretary Ray LaHood, a former distinguished Member of this body, Republican from Illinois, current Transportation Secretary, described it as the worst highway bill he's ever seen. He's been in public life for 35 years; he said it was the worst he's ever seen. The bill was drafted in the dark of night without any Democratic input. Remarkably, it removed transit from the highway trust fund-- removed the guaranteed Federal funding that's been in place on a bipartisan basis for 30 years, removed it. It couldn't attract, understandably, a single Democratic vote; but they found out on the way to the floor that they couldn't get enough Republican votes to pass it either. Now, I'm proud to be offering the Senate bill, MAP 21. We're calling it H.R. 14 here in the House. This bipartisan legislation should refocus the discussion on jobs and economic opportunities rather than the Republican message this week of tearing down Medicare and protecting the 1 percent at the expense of middle class families. MAP 21, or H.R. 14, represents a bipartisan path forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides certainty to States. MAP 21 passed overwhelmingly in the Senate with a bipartisan majority. As you heard Mr. Andrews say, three-quarters of the Senate voted for this bill. It's fully paid for--something that the House Republicans seem unable to come close to achieving--and the MAP 21, H.R. 14, pay-fors are less controversial than the pay-fors in the House Republican bill. It's been estimated that this bill will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to 1 million more jobs. During a weak economic recovery looking for a jump-start, why aren't we passing this bill? Why aren't we even debating this bill? Why are we 10 days away from the expiration of the current extension and there is no plan in this House to move forward? Is H.R. 14 the silver bullet to our surface transportation needs? No, it's not.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. There is no silver bullet when it comes to our infrastructure needs. I, and a great many others, would prefer a 5-year bill; but given the hyper-partisan fashion in which the House Republicans have advanced H.R. 7 and some of the deeply flawed proposals included in their bill, H.R. 14 is the only proposal out there that currently Democrats and Republicans can stand behind. Democrats will not wait around for House Republicans to pander to their base and chase ideological extremes. Americans want jobs and safe roads and safe bridges. The Senate passed the biggest job-creating bill in this Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. The House has done nothing. Let's get this country moving again by passing H.R. 14 so the President can sign it. Let's create jobs. Let's make it in America, and let's pass this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and career of William Davis Snider, who eloquently chronicled the struggle for civil rights in North Carolina as a newsman while quietly helping to usher in a new era of race relations in his beloved home state. A native of Salisbury and a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he served as a Lieutenant with the U.S. Army Signal Corps in the India-Burma Theater in World War Two. Returning home, he served as private secretary to Gov. R. Gregg Cherry and later as administrative assistant to Gov. W. Kerr Scott. Bill Snider's experience in war and politics steeled him for the social upheaval of the mid-1960's, when he was associate editor and opinion writer for the Greensboro Daily News. His columns and editorials from that tumultuous era established him as a leading voice of white moderation. Simultaneously, he worked behind the scenes with civic, religious, and business leaders to prevent racial tensions from exploding into violence. While his colleagues respected his clear and principled arguments for restraint, he was not without his critics and his work resulted in a burning cross on his lawn and broken windows on his family home. One of his eulogists remarked that Bill probably appreciated that someone was actually reading his columns, though he would have preferred they express their disapproval with a letter to the editor instead. Later rising to Editor of the Greensboro News-Record, Bill's forthright, yet measured and helpful criticism influenced a new generation of journalists who later came to national prominence. His service as president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers and on the Pulitzer Prize Jury further attests to his stature in his profession. He also wrote two books: Helms & Hunt, The North Carolina Senate Race published in 1984 and a history of his Alma Mater: Light on the Hill, a History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill published in 1992. Jim Exum, the former chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, who is from Greensboro said: ``Bill was a very deep and careful thinker and a clear writer and a gentle giant in his field.'' He was also a devoted family man who celebrated 63 marriage anniversaries with his beloved wife, Florence. Bill and Flo were blessed with four accomplished and loving daughters, one of whom is a valued member of my staff and a dear friend. Their golden years together were enriched with the gift of 12 grandchildren and six great- grandchildren. Those who had the good fortune to know Bill Snider personally say he epitomized the ideal of the Southern gentleman. Throughout his long life, he retained a twinkling sense of humor and a love of learning, especially about the history, politics, and natural beauty of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we are all fortunate that in a time of uncertainty and ugliness in America's history, Bill Snider and other progressive Southerners persuaded their neighbors to abandon the prejudices of the past and embrace the spirit of our founding declaration that All Men are Created Equal. His life and work stands as an enduring testament to the difference one person can make in the lives of others, and of our great nation.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding. I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the previous question. This motion would amend the bill with strong provisions to stop price gouging at the gas pumps and remove unwarranted tax subsidies from the Big Five oil companies. We're long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices. Scoring political points on this issue serves no one and doesn't solve the problem. Here are the facts: domestic production is at an 8-year high; imports of oil are at a 17-year low; there are more oil and gas rigs drilling in the United States today than in the rest of the world combined. Let me say that again: there are more oil and gas rigs drilling in the United States today than in the rest of the world combined. The number of oil rigs in operation right now has quadrupled since President Bush left office. Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 62 years. Clearly, rising gas prices do not result from a U.S. supply-driven problem, and this administration cannot be blamed for doing enough to encourage and to facilitate drilling. Nor is rising gas prices a U.S. demand-driven problem. Demand is down by 6\1/2\ percent in just 1 year and 17 percent since 2008. There are several factors that contribute to rising gas prices, but U.S. supply and U.S. demand are not among them. Gas prices in the eastern part of my district are up over 60 cents in a matter of weeks. Rampant speculation accounts for most of that, with over 60 percent of the market controlled by speculators. The speculators' overriding goal is profit-taking, which our legislation targets. Nothing is wrong with profits. They made our Nation strong, but profits should not be pursued at the expense of middle class families, nor at the expense of our fragile economic recovery. This legislation makes sure it doesn't by cutting out speculators. It strengthens penalties for manipulating the market, which forces up gas prices and leads to price gouging. The legislation also cuts out subsidies for Big Oil, and we should reinvest those dollars in a long- term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources. Mr. Speaker, our debate should focus on a green-energy policy free of market speculation and subsidies our Nation can't afford. We must tackle this problem rather than use it to point fingers and to try to score political points. Thus I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the previous question. This motion would amend the bill with strong provisions to stop price gouging at the gas pumps. We really are long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices. Scoring political points on this issue may make us all feel good, but it serves no one, particularly our constituents; and it certainly doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem. Here are the facts: domestic production of oil in the United States is at an 8-year high; imports of oil into the United States are at a 17-year low; more oil rigs drill in the United States today than in the rest of the world combined. Let me say that again: there are more oil rigs at work in the United States today drilling for oil than in the rest of the world combined; the number of oil rigs in operation in the United States today has quadrupled since President Obama took office. Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 62 years. I think what these facts demonstrate very clearly is that this is not a supply-driven problem, nor--as good as it might feel to some--is this a problem that can be blamed on the administration for not doing enough to facilitate or encourage exploration for drilling. This is not a demand-driven problem either. Demand is down 6\1/2\ percent in just 1 year and 17 percent since 2008. There are several factors that contribute to rising gas prices, but U.S. supply and U.S. demand are not among them. The gas prices in my district of eastern Long Island are up over 60 cents per gallon in just a matter of weeks. Rampant speculation accounts for most of that with over 60 percent of the market controlled by speculators. The speculators' overriding goal is profit-taking, which is what our legislation targets. There is nothing wrong with profits. Profits are what made our Nation strong. But when profits are pursued at the expense of middle class families or at the expense of our fragile economic recovery, we need to take action. This legislation makes sure that we do cut out speculators. It strengthens penalties for manipulating the market, which forces up gas prices and leads to price gouging. After we cut out speculators, we should cut out the subsidies for Big Oil, and we should reinvest those dollars in a long-term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources. Mr. Speaker, our debate should focus on a green-energy policy free of market speculation and subsidies our Nation can't afford. We must tackle this problem rather than using it to point fingers and try to score points. Thus I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the fifth International Rare Disease Day, a day reserved to promote awareness of the approximately 6,800 rare diseases afflicting 30 million Americans. In the United States, a rare disease is one that affects fewer than 200,000 people. The National Organization of Rare Disorders estimates that one in ten Americans are suffering today from a rare disease. Thanks to patients and their families, the medical community, and organizations established to advocate for greater awareness and research, advances have been in the diagnosis and treatment of many of these diseases. With a renewed commitment to scientific research and discovery, we can provide much more than treatments and disease management to millions of our suffering constituents, we can provide cures. In my congressional district, I have met with countless constituents and their families whose lives have, in one way or another, been impacted by a rare disease such as Epidermolysis Bullosa, commonly known as EB, which is characterized by the presence of extremely fragile skin that results in the development of recurrent, painful blisters, open sores, and in some forms of the disease, in disfiguring scars, disabling musculoskeletal deformities, and internal blistering. EB affects approximately 12,000 individuals in the United States. I have also met with families impacted by Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. This is a form of muscular dystrophy found in boys who experience a progressive loss of muscle function. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy estimates that 15,000 young men suffer from Ducherme. Marfan Syndrome is another rare disease that has impacted my constituents. Marfan Syndrome is a disorder of the connective tissue that can affect the skeletal, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, the skin, eyes, and lungs. While there is no cure, an early diagnosis and proper treatment can provide a normal life-span. The National Marfan Foundation estimates that 200,000 are affected by Marfan Syndrome. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to also mention Dysautonomia, a group of disorders that cause a breakdown or failure of the autonomic nervous system which regulates involuntary functions of the body: heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, and perspiration. Some forms of this order are characterized as rare diseases such as Multiple System Atrophy and Familial Dysautonomia. Although other forms such as Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, Neurocardiogenic Syncope, and Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy are not, this does not detract from their importance and should not result in a federal commitment less than resolute in discovering advances to help increase accurate diagnosis and better treatment. Together, the National Dysautonomia Research Foundation estimates that over one million Americans are impacted by an autonomic system disorder. Today, Mr. Speaker, I join with patients, their families, and millions in the United States and around to the world to recognize this important day. I urge my colleagues to take a moment today to think about what more Congress can do to help Americans and their families suffering from rare diseases. Together, we can do more for all.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge the House to defeat the previous question so we can bring to the floor today my bill that would have an immediate impact on lowering gas prices. Leap day arrives more often than a Republican energy plan. A year ago, when it became clear that the Republican leadership wouldn't help Americans fight rising gas prices, I introduced a bill that this motion is modeled after to crack down on speculation, which forces prices up artificially. This legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive prices and prevents Big Oil from taking advantage of consumers by manipulating prices. This is real help for consumers in a tough economy. Domestic oil output is the highest it's been for 8 years. In fact, we've become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that we produce. And yet it's clear speculators are behind the spike in prices. They will never take delivery of oil, but they make up 64 percent of the market. When speculators place their bets that prices will rise, it follows that actual prices will rise. They have for 21 straight days. In that time, the average price per gallon went up 60 cents in my district. Still the Republican leadership has yet to address market manipulation or turn off the spigot of subsidies for Big Oil, which made a record-high $137 million in profits last year. That's up 75 percent from the profits they realized in 2010. We could invest in an energy plan that further expands domestic production, develops renewable sources, and forges a long-term strategy that weans us off Middle Eastern oil and protects consumers from rising gas prices over the long run. Mr. Speaker, let's make a leap to support American families while striking at the heart of rising American gas prices. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Miller for yielding. I rise in opposition to this legislation, and I'm going to focus my remarks on the credit-hour piece of the legislation. The Department of Education has established a minimum standard for the credit hour. This is being derided as taking away institutional flexibility. It's being described as a Federal overreach. It's being described as onerous. It's being described as dangerous. Let's read the regulation. The regulation says that a credit hour is an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement that is--here's the part I want us to pay attention to--an institutionally established equivalency that reasonably approximates not less than 1 hour of classroom instruction for 15 weeks per credit hour. An institutionally established equivalency; that places the responsibility for determining what a credit hour is where it belongs-- with the faculty and with the accreditor of that particular institution, so long as it complies with a minimum Federal baseline or minimum Federal standard. Now, with respect to overreach, with respect to how dangerous this is, with respect to how onerous this is, let's be clear: this very definition of a credit hour has been the law in the State of New York since 1976. We have some pretty good institutions in New York that have managed to survive even in the face of this so-called ``onerous'' regulation. Columbia University is one of the best universities in the world; so, also, is NYU; so, also, is Fordham; so, also, is Syracuse. This has been the law. I administered a school in the State of New York. Our cost of compliance for complying with the credit-hour regulation was exactly zero, and we were able to create all kinds of innovative programs--a semester at sea, cooperative education, internships, truncated courses that met in accelerated time formats for 4 and 5 weeks--all because we established an institutional equivalency that was agreed to by our faculty and agreed to by our accreditors. That's all this regulation does. So for us to describe it as if it's going to end higher education as we know it and it's going to stifle innovation and be onerous to students and add to the length of time for their degree program simply is not true. We have a 35-year experience in New York that says that this regulation works just fine. Lastly, let me say we define an academic year as consisting of 24 to 36 credit hours. That's what the Federal Government says. We say that you need to take at least 6 credit hours in order to be minimally eligible for financial aid, and yet we don't define the credit hour. So we base a great many of our judgments on what a credit hour is, yet we don't define it. Let's vote against this piece of legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, this amendment simply strips the language from the underlying bill that permanently constrains the Secretary from promulgating a regulation or a rule that defines a credit hour, permanently constrains the Secretary from promulgating a regulation or a rule. And I would suggest that this would represent very, very poor public policy. We provide over $200 billion in Federal student aid, either in the form of grants or in the form of guarantees; and the basis, at least in part, on which we provide that is students' adherence to the minimum number of credit hours that they must take and institutions' adherence to that which they define as a credit hour. We have no idea what's going to happen 10 years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now with respect to whether institutions will be in compliance. We have no idea whether or not shortcuts will be taken. We have no idea with the ongoing proliferation of online instruction and other nontraditional means of instruction whether or not we will be dealing with a higher education universe that is maintaining the appropriate quality controls and maintaining the appropriate protections against the kind of abuse that would ensue if students are able to take courses where the credit hour is not as demanding as reasonable people would suggest it would be, where the semester might be shorter as a result of lack of adherence to what a reasonable definition of a credit hour is. To put the Secretary of Education in a position where he or she would be unable to act in that circumstance is simply unwise, and to impose on the Congress the responsibility to fix a situation that could be much more easily fixed by regulatory or administrative action is also unwise. So this is very straightforward. It is very simple. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I would simply point out that my friend from North Carolina continues to use words like ``intrusion'' and ``overreach''; and yet a few moments ago, in response to comments I had made during general debate, she said that as an academic dean, the gentlelady was able to exercise discretion and define a credit hour and define a course and define a semester. There is absolutely nothing in the regulation that the Department of Education has promulgated that would prevent the gentlelady or someone in her position from continuing to exercise that discretion because in the regulation it says that institutionally determined equivalents are perfectly permissible and perfectly acceptable. So the discretion that the gentlelady quite correctly utilized while she was a dean remains in the toolbox of every college administrator in this country. And so I would urge defeat of the underlying bill, I would urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.