Timothy Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, due to illness, I was not present in the Chamber to cast my vote on rollcalls 227 through 234 on Wednesday, June 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcalls 229, 230, 231, 233, and 234. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcalls 227, 228, and 232.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Costello for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, when two parties enter negotiations, it is generally expected that both sides play by the same rules. But there is an exception made for the FAA which enjoys a decided advantage over air traffic controllers. For instance, there was no penalty or consequences for FAA negotiators when they walked away in the middle of negotiations expecting that congressional inaction would automatically impose a new contract with lower pay and benefits for the air traffic controllers have earned through their hard work and impeccable service record since the terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is not an argument about average compensation or cash compensation. This is an argument that is essentially about fairness. The current process is anything but fair. Whatever one's position might be on the underlying issue, most of us can agree that Congress should let the process run its course and refrain from dictating the terms of an agreement that should be settled like any other labor dispute. Mr. Speaker, the diligent and hardworking men and women who guide America's air traffic serve a critically important role in our homeland security. At the very least we should level the playing field so that they can negotiate a fair contract. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funding in this bill from being used by the Department of Homeland Security to reimburse a private corporation for attorneys' fees and any other legal expenses incurred during their appeal from a recent and impartial National Labor Relations Board decision to reinstate employees who were unfairly fired from their jobs at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which is a DHS facility located off the North Fork of my district on Long Island. The Plum Island employees were hard-working members of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30. They were loyal to DHS and to the research facility on Plum Island. In 2002, they were fired on grounds that the NLRB recently found were unjustified. Adding insult to injury, the employees were also denied back pay and benefits for over 3 years of missed work. And now their employer wants to appeal the administrative decision of an impartial arbiter to put them back to work and award them the back pay and benefits they are due. I hope that my colleagues would agree that spending money in this bill to reimburse a privately-owned joint venture for attorneys' fees and to further extend this already long and protracted litigation is an entirely inappropriate use of DHS funds. More important, it would negate the intended use as appropriated by this Congress and detract from what should be the primary focus of the Department, defending our homeland and keeping Americans safe from foreign sources of terrorism. For instance, the funds my amendment blocks would be a lot better spent protecting the two cities attacked on September 11th that are now shortchanged $114 million due to the Department's decision to slash anti-terrorism funds from major urban areas. Mr. Chairman, it is long past time for this case to be resolved, to stop harassing the Plum Island employees, allow them to return to their jobs and restore their benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, we can't drill our way to energy independence. Although this Nation is responsible for 25 percent of the world's oil demand, we own only 3 percent of the reserves. Time and again we've debated opening ANWR to oil exploration. It fails every time because a majority knows it's as misguided an idea as leading off our energy policy by rewarding $16 billion worth of tax- breaks to oil companies. Opening ANWR is not the silver bullet for lowering gas prices. We need to shift the focus from supply back toward reducing our demand. If we don't we'll remain at the mercy of Big Oil. We must commit more toward conservation and research into renewable energy if we're going to achieve energy independence once and for all. Mr. Speaker, we owe our constituents more than what appears to be a debate about reform. It's time that we deliver a policy that embraces real energy reform. Mr. Speaker, we can simply do better.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. If I may quickly respond to my friend from Texas. He characterizes the Long Island Sound as a remote area. That is incorrect. There are approximately 10 million people who live within a 50-mile radius of the Long Island Sound. I don't think that would fall within any reasonable description of a remote area. Secondly, the Energy Policy Act which my friend from Texas cites strips local government of the right to have a say in whether or not we site facilities of this type within areas. This is an effort on our part to assert some local control. Every elected official on both sides of the aisle that has responsibility for this region opposes this facility, as does the vast majority of the population. With that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to my friend from Connecticut, Congresswoman DeLauro.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first, let me start by thanking my colleague and friend from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, for co-sponsoring this amendment and for her leadership in the effort to protect the splendor of Long Island Sound. Our amendment limits the use of any funds appropriated in this bill for use by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review the pending application for the placement of a floating storage and regasification unit known as Broadwater in the middle of Long Island Sound, an area that was designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an estuary of national significance. To be clear, the amendment does not block any other pending application before the FERC relating to the placement of onshore and offshore liquefied natural gas projects around the country. Rather, it is intended to protect the splendor of Long Island Sound as we expand our energy independence. Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I believe that it is in the best interest of our Nation to develop new and innovative technologies, expand refining capacity and increase the supply of natural gas. However, we must strike a responsible balance between expanding the supply of energy and protecting the environment. Long Island Sound has benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars invested by the Federal Government, the States of New York and Connecticut, as well as local towns and municipalities fighting to curb hypoxia, brown tide and other destructive pollutants which decimated our fishing and shell fishing industries and set back the regional economies. Today, Long Island Sound generates $5 billion annually for the regional economy from commercial and pleasure boating, commercial and sport fishing and other forms of tourism. It should be easy to understand why it is imperative to preserve this flourishing economy and the splendor of its environment for the benefit of over 10 million people who live within the Long Island Sound watershed alone. Placing a floating terminal in this location threatens to jeopardize its precious ecosystem, the regional economy and the delicate balance between environmental preservation and energy independence that we have worked so hard to achieve. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not intended to weaken the case for expanding our supply of natural gas. My amendment is about making sure that we don't lose sight of our environmental goals or allow preservation and conservation to take a back seat in the rush to formulate a more effective and less expensive energy policy. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and work with me to make sure that we satisfy our energy needs while preserving the integrity of our natural resources. Let me close by thanking Chairman Hobson for his continued support for Brookhaven National Laboratory, which is in my district. Thanks to his continued support and leadership, along with the ranking member, the scientific research funded in this bill will go a long way to advance our Nation's technological edge and competitiveness. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, while the Federal Trade Commission says price gouging isn't a problem at the Nation's gas pumps, American families know there is something rotten in the state of big oil. In the face of soaring gas prices that have pinched consumers for over a year, record breaking profits and nine-figure golden parachutes for oil CEOs, it is impossible to fathom why the FTC didn't include any meaningful recommendations about how to deal with price spikes or why our leadership in Congress hasn't done a better job delivering relief to American families approaching the peak summer months of gas consumption. One thing is for sure: This rubber stamp Republican Congress bears responsibility for an energy policy that makes a priority of handing out billions worth of tax breaks for an industry that simply doesn't need it, as one CEO testified before the Senate, above delivering real relief to consumers. When all five FTC Commissioners back up their report before the Senate Commerce Committee today, it is going to be a tough sell to the American people that price gouging really isn't a problem and that what is good for the oil companies' bottom line is good for the American families.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor a good friend and constituent, Mr. Ed Warner of Hampton Bays, New York, who recently passed away at the age of 80. As a native of Hampton Bays and a fifth generation bayman, Mr. Warner knew more than just about anyone concerning the town's history and its people. He was highly admired for his kindness, generosity and steadfast advocacy for Southampton, its residents and its unique environment. Born in 1925, Ed grew up in Hampton Bays developing a keen sense of loyalty and pride for his hometown. After serving in the Navy during the Second World War, he returned home and worked as a bayman, catching fish that he sold to the local market. Ed knew the best places to catch fish, how to catch the most fish and where to dig for the largest clams. Ed put his knowledge of the sea to work as a member of the Southampton Board of Trustees. He excelled on this governing body that monitored the town's waterways, serving 27 years through 13 re- elections. In addition to his public service, Ed's sense of humor and his generosity will not soon be forgotten. An example of his kindness and compassion for others was made evident when, without hesitation, Ed gave fifty dollars to a friend in need who couldn't afford to fix his chainsaw, which he used for his livelihood--sawing holes for ice fishing. Indeed, Ed's sympathy and goodwill earned him an impeccable reputation. He will always be remembered as an excellent fisherman, public servant, and loving husband and father. He is survived by his wife of 48 years, Teresa, their daughter Merry, sons James and Edward Warner Jr., who is following in his father's footsteps as a newly appointed Southampton Trustee. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's first congressional district, the residents of Hampton Bays and the entire town of Southampton, I thank the House for this opportunity to express our sadness in the wake of Ed Warner's passing. He was a good man whose many enduring contributions to his community will always be remembered with fondness and gratitude.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law same-day rule, and in opposition to the budget resolution. Every landmark budget reform enacted by Congress was intended to make the process more efficient so we can go about the business of funding programs important to the American people, particularly aid and relief to those who need our help the most. We can all agree that a budget is supposed to be the congressional blueprint for funding America's priorities. Regrettably, however, the Republicans have abrogated this responsibility on at least two counts. First, this resolution comes halfway into the calendar year, and halfway into the third quarter of the current fiscal year, way too late to responsibly budget for America's priorities. Second, this budget comes sandwiched between $70 billion worth of tax cuts for the most comfortable among us, and $100 billion in off-budget supplemental funds. It is this kind of fiscal irresponsibility that drives people to disapprove of the 109th Congress and why a change of leadership is needed before our country sinks deeper into red ink and before the budget resolution becomes completely irrelevant.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, just because the Medicare enrollment deadline has passed and the President refuses to extend it, those of us who voted against a shortsighted Medicare bill and opposed this past Monday's deadline will not fade quietly away. We will continue to fight for seniors who need more time to choose a plan that is right for them. We will fight the punitive lifetime tax on the elderly and disabled who, through no fault of their own, have yet to sign up for a plan. And here is the ultimate irony. While the President and congressional Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, including more dividend and capital gains tax cuts for the already very comfortable, corporate tax holidays for extra-territorial income, they are imposing a new tax on one of the most vulnerable segments of our population: seniors. Medicare part D works just fine for the pharmaceutical companies and big business HMOs, but it is not working for those seniors who have yet to sign up for a plan and who will have to pay for it for the rest of their life. Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue that we fix this program. We need a plan B for part D.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, with only 5 days before the deadline to sign up for the Medicare drug benefit, only 9 percent of eligible New Yorkers have voluntarily signed up for it. Why such low enrollment? Could it be that seniors have to choose among 47 plans that keep changing? It is a daunting task to tackle a moving target. Could it be that a third of the calls answered by Medicare operators result in inaccurate information or none at all? Could there be a more clear-cut case for extending the sign-up deadline? Clearly, the President disagrees. To him, the ``D'' in part D stands for ``deadline.'' But he is not a senior or a disabled American who needs and deserves more time and for whom ``D'' stands for disaster. After holding dozens of town hall meetings over the past 6 months, I join with my colleagues today in calling upon the Republicans to extend the deadline, penalty free, through the end of the year. For nine of 10 eligible New Yorkers who haven't chosen a plan yet, but must pick from among 47 plans, another 6 months will go a long way toward helping them choose a plan that is right for them.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, is there any doubt today that this administration's first priority continues to be tax cuts for the wealthiest at the expense of education, health care and homeland security, all of which are being cut to pay for these tax cuts? We have been promised that extending dividend and capital gains cuts will create a rising tide that lifts all boats. But American families know that it takes so much more than a trickle-down effect for tax cuts to deliver relief from rising gas prices, soaring tuition and skyrocketing health costs. If the tax cuts had performed as our friends on the other side of the aisle promised, an exploding economy would have offset these strains. Instead, we are now burdened with $400 billion deficits, $3 trillion in new debt since 2001, and deep cuts to hospitals, schools and law enforcement. How can we possibly justify tax breaks for millionaires worth more than the entire amount President Bush requested for the Department of Education and more than twice his budget for the VA? The answer is that we can't. We just can't. Instead, Americans who need our help the most must get in line and patiently wait for the Republicans' tax cuts to make any meaningful difference, if they ever do, in their daily struggle. Mr. Speaker, middle-class Americans deserve much better.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a beloved constituent and community leader, Mrs. Phyllis McCarrick, of Rocky Point, New York, who recently passed away at the age of eighty-three. Born Phyllis Healy in Arlington, Massachusetts, she served in the Navy during World War II and later settled in Rocky Point with her childhood sweetheart and husband, Mr. Thomas McCarrick. After running a milk delivery service, Phyllis and her husband opened the McCarrick Dairy and Grocery store, which grew into a beloved landmark in our community, and is owned and operated by their sons today. Named Rocky Point's Citizen of the Year in 1999, Phyllis raised money for Catholic charities and was a Cub Scout den mother in addition to running a successful business. Her enduring contributions to eastern Long Island will always be remembered by our community with fondness and deep gratitude. Phyllis is survived by eight children, nineteen grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's First Congressional District, I express our profound sorrow following Phyllis' passing as well as the gratitude of our community, which will always remember her extraordinary life and lifelong dedication to Rocky Point, New York.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Davis for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4101, which I proudly introduced last October on behalf of all 29 members of the New York delegation in the House. Our bill names the U.S. Post Office on 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, in honor of a fallen neighbor and decorated hero of the United States Navy's elite Sea-Air-Land forces, Lt. Michael P. Murphy, who was killed in action on the evening of June 28, 2005, while tracking insurgent Taliban and al Qaeda movements in the mountains of the Kubar province of Afghanistan. For his valor and sacrifice, Lieutenant Murphy was posthumously awarded the Silver Star and the Purple Heart. Approaching the first anniversary of the deaths of Lieutenant Murphy and his fellow SEALs, it is appropriate for this House to once again express the solemn appreciation of a grateful Nation for their sacrifices and to share this tribute with their families. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will recall the tragic images from around the last July 4 holiday when it was first reported that U.S. Army helicopters carrying two teams of Special Forces, known as the ``Night Stalkers,'' who were attempting a daring rescue of Lieutenant Murphy's unit, were shot down by rocket-propelled grenades over the mountains in Eastern Afghanistan. That tragic day claimed the lives of 11 SEALs and eight soldiers, representing the single deadliest attack on the U.S. military up to that point in the global war on terror. The Naval Special Warfare Command later confirmed that it was also the single largest loss of life in the history of the Navy SEALs, the smallest of our intrepid Special Operations Forces. Nearly a thousand people attended Lieutenant Murphy's memorial service at our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church in Patchogue. His parents, Daniel and Maureen, spoke of how their extraordinary son's boundless enthusiasm, generosity, and determination made them so proud of him through the short years they had together. Remembered not only for his courage and for the ultimate sacrifice Lieutenant Murphy made for this country, he will also be admired in our community as one of its favorite sons. At Patchogue-Medford High School, he was an excellent student, awarded by the National Honor Society and accepted to Penn State University, where he majored in political science. He played varsity football, life-guarded along the beaches of Long Island during the summers, and, after graduating from Penn State University, chose the Navy over offers from two law schools. Like the impeccable reputation he earned in the eyes of the community of Patchogue, Lieutenant Murphy's brilliant naval record reflects his courage, diligence, and steadfast dedication. With firm resolve and a robust drive toward perfection, he was determined to exceed the SEALs' rigorous physical requirements and was known to perform chin-ups wearing full body armor to stay in shape. Still, he took the time each day during his deployment to stay in touch with his family and his fiance, Heather, whom he would have married upon his anticipated return last fall. Through it all, he comforted them with a cheerful outlook and a sense of humor. Although under the most unfortunate circumstances, I am proud to have come to know the Murphy family over the past year and feel privileged to represent them. Today, it is entirely appropriate that we pay tribute to their son by naming the post office on East Main Street in his hometown in his honor. On behalf of Eastern Long Island, I thank all of my colleagues in the New York delegation for cosponsoring H.R. 4101, and appreciate the leadership's decision to call this bill to the floor. By passing this legislation, the Murphy family will know that they are in our thoughts and prayers and that our Nation will always honor the memory of their son. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4101. I thank my colleague from North Carolina for her support of this measure, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. I wish to thank my colleague from Washington for yielding, and, more importantly, for his leadership on this important issue. Madam Speaker, President Bush reminded the American people last week that he is a decider. His decisions affecting our economy, gas prices in particular, decidedly favor the wealthiest of his base. Thanks to terribly misguided economic priorities, oil and gas CEOs get two tax breaks for the price of one. Subsidies worth $16.5 billion in the energy bill make it possible for oil and gas companies to lavish obscene compensation on their CEOs, who then, in turn, get to claim another break on capital gains and dividends. This belies both the need for permanent rate cuts and the industry's argument that market forces instead of price fixing are responsible for gas approaching $4 a gallon. Do not take my word for it. IRS data show that for the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend cuts benefited only 1 in 7, and capital gains reductions helped just 1 in 20. While congressional leaders seem prepared to allow a stealth middle-class tax increase, which will negatively impact 19 million families, they are insisting on extending the dividends and capital gains cuts which will shower benefits on only 234,000 families in the main. We can thank our President and congressional majority for these terrible choices and for the disastrous results. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the McDermott motion to restore sanity to our economic and energy policies, and so that they reflect the real values, needs and priorities of middle-class families and consumers.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution and in support of the Democratic substitute. The President and the Republican majority like to take credit when there's a better statistic to report about the economy. Those stats might mean something to the fortunate few in the top income bracket. But middle-class families struggling to keep up with soaring tuition, health care and gas prices don't have much to celebrate. And a budget that builds on a strong economy for all Americans shouldn't be one that allows more pensions to evaporate and tears more holes through the safety net. Is there any doubt today that this Administration's first priority has been--and continues to be--tax cuts for the wealthiest at the expense of education, health care, scientific research and other middle class priorities, all of which are being cut to pay for these tax cuts? But my main concern is the hypocrisy of this budget--that extending dividend, capital gains, and tax cuts for millionaires and corporations are like a rising tide that lifts all boats. We've already proved more needs to be done than just hope that sooner or later tax cuts will reach Americans who need our help the most. Why, for instance, are we saddled with recordbreaking deficits exceeding $400 billion; $3 trillion in new debt since 2001; a debt limit now over $9 trillion; and deep cuts to hospitals, schools, and security? If our tax cuts performed as our friends on the other side of the aisle had promised, an exploding economy would have wiped out this debt. How can we possibly justify a budget that cuts taxes for millionaires worth more than President Bush requested for the Department of Education and more than twice his budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs? The answer is that we can't justify the choices made to produce this budget. Under this resolution, Mr. Chairman, those who need our help the most must get in line and hope that the benefits of tax cuts for millionaires and corporations will ultimately trickle down to them. Mr. Chairman, middle-class Americans deserve much better.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking Congressman Cooper for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 355, which recognizes the benefits and importance of school-based music education. He has been steadfast in his support of music as a learning tool in the classroom, and we appreciate his work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, every year schools throughout the country highlight the importance of music education. It is time to celebrate music and to use music as a means for enhancing the academic experience of students. While there has been much debate on how to teach students to read and to perform math, there is little debate that music contributes to overall learning ability. We know that students who participate consistently in music activities over middle and high school show significantly higher levels of math proficiency by the 12th grade. Additional data shows correlations between music and higher SAT scores and a decrease in disciplinary problems and risky behavior. Students who are involved in music classes in school have higher self-esteem and self-confidence than their counterparts who do not participate in music class. Unfortunately, even with all the data to support the importance of music in learning, many schools are struggling to keep art and music in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, music education is facing severe cuts in thousands of school districts throughout the Nation due to budget cuts. Instead of being able to fund programs to support music in the classroom, student choirs, and high school bands, local school districts find themselves struggling to find money for teachers' salaries. Mr. Speaker, we must do better if we are committed to seeing to it that all children succeed. And for those who say that the three R's of reading, writing, and arithmetic should outweigh the arts and music in priority, I disagree. Music is a complementary academic subject and belongs right alongside math and reading. In fact, the arts are considered a core academic subject under No Child Left Behind. This reflects an understanding by Congress and the President that the arts are critical to a well-rounded education. Again, I would like to thank Mr. Cooper for bringing this resolution to the floor today and join with him in calling for more resources to our schools and to make sure that all children have access to music in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Souder-Bishop amendment. This bipartisan amendment is the culmination of several months of debate and compromise among Members on both sides of the aisle, the Education and the Workforce Committee, and the college community. I want to thank Mr. Souder for offering this important amendment with me, and I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon for his work on this issue. Our amendment would simply require that, as part of its review for accreditation, colleges must publicly disclose their transfer of credit policies and specifically state whether the institution denies transfer of credit based solely on the accreditation of the sending institution. This language is, in our view, much improved from the original form and intent, and I proudly support it. The original language in H.R. 609 included a provision that would have imposed a new transfer of credit mandate on colleges that would have created costly new bureaucratic headaches for students and institutions. In our view, we should not be dictating how colleges evaluate the coursework of transferring students as the earlier language would have required. Transfer credit decisions are academic decisions, not administrative decisions, and in principle, Congress should not be interfering in the academic decisions made on college campuses. Colleges and universities are fully capable of developing and implementing fair and appropriate transfer-of-credit policies on their own; and most important, it is in the best interest of students to have these judgments made by those most qualified to make them, and that would be the faculty and staff of the institution they attend. The amendment we are offering today strikes the correct balance between academic autonomy and transparency for students. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Souder-Bishop amendment.