Timothy Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Grace Peshkur and her family on the occasion of her fourth birthday today. Grace is an extraordinary child who has endured a life of struggle, and yet she has persevered against a rare skin disease and genetic disorder called epidermolysis bullosa, or EB for short. Grace is an inspiration to many Long Island families who have rallied around her. She has helped raise awareness about EB, which I had never heard of before meeting Grace. Over 12,000 Americans like Grace are afflicted with EB. The symptoms are fragile skin, recurrent blisters and painful sores caused by minor rubbing and that can be aggravated by routine activities we take for granted, like eating, walking and even changing clothes. For Grace and her family, every day that goes by is another battle won. I admire the Peshkur family and over 12,000 other Americans afflicted with EB who fight this disease and are working to raise awareness, find better treatments and, ultimately, discover a cure. In lieu of a fourth birthday present for Grace, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H. Res. 335, which would raise awareness by creating an EB awareness week. Mr. Speaker, we can only imagine the difficulty that Grace and her family face on a daily basis, but we can do something about it. We can provide the hope and promise of a cure.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I spent nearly 30 years working on a college campus, and based on my experience, I have three major concerns with H.R. 609. First, in my view, this legislation, coupled with the budget cuts authorized by this Congress and further cuts proposed by the President, threatens to return the state of higher education in America to the pre-World War II era. Back then, only 5 percent of Americans had a college degree compared with nearly 30 percent today. This bill does little, if anything, to make college more affordable or expand access to Americans pursuing the dream of a college education. The bill is another step backward in a retreat from affordability and access. Second, I oppose this bill because the Federal Government should not be in the business of telling colleges and universities that we know better than them when it comes to making decisions concerning the price of tuition, the transfer of credit, and academic freedom and integrity, yet that is what this bill does. This bill is based on the flawed notion that colleges and universities are not capable of governing themselves and thus need to be directed by Congress. Our solution to this accountability problem is more intrusion into the day-to-day operations of colleges and universities. It is wrong for us to be dictating these decisions, and it is insulting to the colleges. Worse, this ideology is inconsistent with the reality of what is actually happening on the college campus. It is illogical that Congress imposes government oversight into academia, but does not conduct the same oversight for the oil and pharmaceutical industries, to name just two. Third, while this bill demonstrates a lack of confidence in the not- for-profit higher education sector, it shows strong confidence in the for-profit sector. As a result, there is less accountability and oversight for that sector. I want to be clear that there are a great many for-profit schools which are excellent and have been doing a great job for a long, long time; but there is also a long history in the for-profit sector of defrauding students, parents, taxpayers and Congress, and there is skepticism toward the sector of higher education with a stellar record of achievement, that being the not-for-profit sector. By relaxing safeguards put into place to keep students and taxpayers safe against fraud by proprietary institutions, Congress is essentially giving the for-profit sector their stamp of approval. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and vote against final passage of H.R. 609.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to H.R. 609 in its current form. Prior to coming to Congress, for 29 years, I was a college administrator, and I spent 16 of those years as the chief administrator of the college I served. And my views on this bill and on this rule are informed by what I learned over the course of that time in dealing with students and faculty and parents and staff and all constituencies of the higher education community. Over a hundred amendments have been offered on this bill, and this underscores the importance of this bill and of this issue to this Congress and to our future. And I understand that we are going to have a second rule, but I am troubled that the Rules Committee thus far seems to have excluded a great many amendments that would have taken a bill that many of us take issue with and made it better. We are talking about getting it through this week. What's the rush? Why do we have to take the most important issue to our future and rush through a consideration of a bill that is going to have far reaching consequences for the next several years? I mean, is this not what the American people sent us here to do, to debate the issues of importance to our future? Some specific issues: There is an amendment with respect to whether or not the Federal Government should have a role in evaluating transfer credit and forming institutional policies on transfer credit. Is that not an issue that this body should debate? Should this body not debate whether or not we ought to extend the tuition tax credit that expired on December 31, a tax credit, by the way, that primarily benefits the middle class? Should we not be debating a reasonable change to the needs analysis system, the fundamental system that determines a family's ability to pay, which determines their eligibility for aid, which, in turn, determines whether or not they will be able to attend college? These are just some of the issues that at least thus far the rule excludes from consideration. And in so doing, I would say that the American people and certainly the students of this country are not being well served. As Mr. McKeon, our chairman, just said, education is the last issue we should be politicizing, but it appears that that is precisely what we are doing. Simply put, H.R. 609 fails to achieve its goal. We said the goal would be to make college more affordable and to expand access for Americans who wish to pursue the dream of a college education. H.R. 609, in its present form, falls woefully short of that goal. I say let us vote down this rule. Let us send the bill back to the Education Committee and let us try again.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to H.R. 609, a higher education reauthorization bill that is much more than a day late and a dollar short. As a former college chief administrator, I am deeply proud to represent my district, my State, and the higher education community on the Education and Workforce Committee; but I am not particularly proud of the reauthorization bill we produced. We have had the past 8 years to build on the Higher Education Act of 1998. Today, we have an opportunity in this reauthorization bill to give young Americans and aspiring students more opportunities to attain the dream of a college education. Indeed, we have a choice to expand access and the reach of the Federal Government's helping hand to those who cannot afford skyrocketing tuition, rising fees, room and board, textbooks, and so many other soaring costs and sacrifices associated with going to college. But the choice we made late last year to cut student loans to the tune of $12 billion weakened our commitment to students. With those cuts in the budget reconciliation bill, we sent a message to America's students and their families that they are no longer among this Nation's top priorities. As a consequence, the rapidly expanding gap between the amounts of available student aid compared to the cost of attaining a college education is growing out of control. And yet, while this administration's response is that colleges should simply charge less, it is not making the same demands of other industries that are equally critical to our economy's infrastructure and competitiveness. This month, as high school seniors across the land receive their college acceptance letters, their proud parents are calculating how they can squeeze college costs into their budget. It is an uphill climb for most families that is made tougher by the President's budget cuts, which freeze Pell grants for a fifth year in a row; recalls the Federal portion of the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund that could extract another $600 million out of the student aid system each year; and freezes funding for SEOG and work study. If we want to maintain our edge in the global economy, we cannot afford to undercut the administration's competitiveness initiative. But the promise of a more competitive workforce is simply incompatible with budget proposals to freeze Pell grants for a fifth year in a row and recalling a portion of the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund. This hypocrisy builds on the Republicans' record on student aid: $12 billion in cuts to student loans; failure to extend the tuition deduction for higher education; and a 3-year long impasse over this reauthorization bill. Deep cuts in the President's budget will most likely carry over into the budget resolution we consider next week, further compounding the Republican hypocrisy. Similarly, the reauthorization bill moves America in the exact opposite direction of where our competitive workforce should be heading. In fact, cuts to student aid threaten to return the state of higher education to the pre-World War II era, when only 5 percent of Americans had earned a college degree, compared with nearly 30 percent today. If we are to sustain our leadership and competitive edge in the global economy, we cannot afford to enact policies which will lead to only the elite being able to afford to go to college. The so-called ``education President'' has put forward a woefully inadequate budget, and our leaders in this Chamber have presented a short-sighted reauthorization bill that falls short of what America's students, their parents, and our workforce deserves. Mr. Speaker, I will be offering several amendments this week to address some of the shortfalls of H.R. 609. One bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Souder, would strike intrusive language in the bill dictating how colleges should carry out transfer credit policies. An amendment sponsored by another colleague on the committee, Mr. Holt, would correct a problem with the State tax allowance tables that deprive over 1 million students out of their fair share of Pell grants and reduce, if not eliminate, their eligibility for other types of need-based aid. I will also offer amendments to preserve the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund, extend the expired tuition deduction claimed by middle-class families, and increase oversight on the administration and grading of ability to benefit exams. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the Rules Committee will make these amendments in order. They are not partisan or political but, rather, commonsense amendments, making a weak bill better and keeping America's college students a top priority for this Nation.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare drug program is off to a rocky start, as President Bush put it yesterday. Following a dozen town hall meetings I have held in my district on the part D benefit, my constituents remain confused and doubtful that the drug plan will work for them. As a result, many seniors on Long Island have not yet signed up. Many of those who have chosen a plan are encountering delays in their applications and will not receive their drug cards until after the May 15 sign-up deadline. Adding insult to injury, seniors will be penalized with a 1 percent premium increase for every month after the deadline passes. This Bush Medicare penalty should not be piled on top of the already overwhelming burden of understanding the drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, America's seniors deserve real help keeping up with soaring prescription drug costs. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support a 6-month extension of the sign-up deadline so that seniors are not punished and they receive the affordable life-saving drugs they deserve.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating our new chairman, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). I am confident that he will be an excellent chairman and he will preside over our committee with fairness and bipartisanship and with the best interest of America's students and our workforce at the forefront. And let me also congratulate Mr. Keller on his appointment as the chair of the 21st Century Competitive Subcommittee. I look forward to working with him as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4911 with the hope that this third extension of the Higher Education Act may be the last short-term measure we need to pass before we produce an improved bipartisan and long overdue reauthorization bill that also reflects the best interests of America's college students. As many of these students continue receiving their college acceptance letters, their families are now calculating how they can squeeze rising tuition and expenses into their budget. This is an uphill struggle made tougher by the President's budget for education which freezes Pell grants for the fifth year in a row, recalls the Federal portion of the Perkins Loan revolving fund, and freezes funding for the SEOG program and for work-study. Students have done their part by working hard and getting accepted to college. Families have done their part by saving for college. Now it is our turn to help. Mr. Speaker, let us pass this extension, defeat the budget cuts to student loan programs, and pass a reauthorization that will be improved over the bill reported out of our committee that helps make the dream of college a reality for America's students.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, if we want to maintain our edge in the global economy, we should fully fund the President's competitiveness agenda proposed in his 2007 budget. Regrettably, however, the promise of a more competitive American workforce is simultaneously undermined by his other budget proposals to freeze Pell grants for the fifth year in a row and recall the Federal portion of the Perkins loan revolving fund. This hypocrisy builds on the Republican record on student aid: $12 billion in cuts to loan programs; failure to extend the tuition deduction; and a 3- year-long impasse over renewing the Higher Education Act. Madam Speaker, calling for deep cuts in access to higher education while advocating a competitive workforce is a fundamentally incompatible strategy. Where Congress dropped the ball, colleges are taking the lead in providing tuition assistance to disadvantaged students through matching grants and need-based discounts. We should be encouraging more universities to follow suit, instead of discouraging colleges and aspiring students through misguided cutbacks. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep this in mind as we take up the budget resolution in the weeks ahead.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding, and I thank both gentlemen from Virginia and Mr. Spratt and all of our colleagues on the Budget Committee for their leadership and diligence in making the case against the Republicans' failed economic strategy and misguided budget priorities. These shortcomings are conspicuous in the President's fiscal 2007 budget. If the last few years have taught us anything, the emerging Republican budget resolution to be considered by this House in the coming weeks will mirror the problems and missteps called for in the President's proposal. On one hand, we are hopeful, even optimistic, that the promise of his competitiveness agenda represents a down payment on the long-term priority investments we need to make in order to maintain our competitive edge in the global economy. Yet, on the other hand, this budget is perhaps the single most disappointing, counterintuitive, and hypocritical proposal of his six requests thus far. Calling for deep cuts in education and health care, for example, while advocating a competitive workforce, represents a fundamentally incompatible strategy. Americans shouldn't be surprised, though, given this administration's history of cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations at the expense of middle-class priorities. After a dozen town hall meetings in my district in recent weeks, my constituents have spoken loud and clear about how these budget cuts are making it tougher for their families to stay ahead in today's economy. Let me focus on two aspects of the President's budget proposal, each of which reflects deeply flawed policies. First, education. Under the so-called Deficit Reduction Act and the President's 2007 budget request, student loan programs are cut by $12 billion, Pell grants are frozen for the fourth year in a row, and the Federal portion of the Perkins loan fund is recalled. This decision alone will take out of the student loan system another $600 million per year. As a consequence, the rapidly expanding gap between the amounts of available student aid compared to the total cost of obtaining a college education is growing out of control. Yet this administration's response is that colleges should simply charge less. But it is not making the same demands of other industries that are equally critical to our economy's infrastructure and competitiveness. While the budgets of college students and their families are stretched to increasingly thin margins and the dream of obtaining a higher education is placed farther out of reach, the administration isn't calling upon the drug companies or the oil and gas companies or those industries operating with banner profit margins to make the same sacrifices. The central point is this: we can propose a competitiveness agenda, but it is simply an empty promise if our policies are going to make it more difficult for students to attend college. We can educate all of the AP students we want, we can have the best AP teachers in the world we want, but if once they finish those AP courses they don't have access to a higher education, our competitiveness agenda is simply an empty promise. It is a sham. Investing where the government's help is needed the least, including $16.5 billion worth of tax breaks and generous subsidies for the most profitable oil and gas companies, at the expense of extending a helping hand to those Americans that need it the most is an economic strategy headed for failure. Similarly, the President has chosen to scale back investments in the other pillar of America's competitiveness and critical infrastructure, health care. His plan to cut $36 billion from providers through fiscal year 2011 could result in Medicare reimbursements to medical facilities in my congressional district of approximately $28 million over the next 5 years, this on top of the $1.2 billion in cuts already enacted. Reasonable people simply have to ask what kinds of priorities are revealed by these policy initiatives. More importantly, what kinds of values are revealed by these policy initiatives? Cutting funding for medical facilities doesn't save taxpayer dollars; it passes the costs on to local communities and places a greater strain on the middle class. Our health care system is already in tatters. The Medicare part D drug benefit remains in shambles, and more families are joining the ranks of the 46 million uninsured Americans. These are the consequences of the Republicans' flawed policies. America needs a new prescription for competitiveness, one that we should rewrite as we take up the budget resolution in the weeks ahead. If we are truly committed to sharpening our competitive edge and meeting the goals set forth in the President's budget, I suggest that we back up our promises by fully funding our health care and education priorities. Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects priorities and values that simply cannot be supported. We can do better, and I look forward to working with my colleagues towards that end.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize a good friend and leader in the advanced research community, the retiring director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Dr. Praveen Chaudhari. I am deeply proud to represent BNL and its dedicated employees. I have thoroughly enjoyed my working relationship with Dr. Chaudhari, who is a world-class physicist running a world-class research facility. It is an honor and privilege for me to recognize his numerous accomplishments, steadfast dedication and hard work throughout a distinguished research career dedicated to the advancement of science. Dr. Chaudhari entered the field of physics by earning a B.S. from the Indian Institute of Technology as well as an M.S. and Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He applied this knowledge to research and the publication of over 150 technical papers and 20 patents throughout 36 years as an IBM scientist, manager, and recipient of numerous honors for his contributions to innovative scientific technology. Through three years at the helm of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Dr. Chaudhari persevered over many challenges while making tremendous progress in advanced energy research and technology. His tenacity and firm resolve have proven to be among BNL's most invaluable assets. I have witnessed his leadership and determination first-hand, particularly as the lab moved forward with break-through research projects such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the National Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSLS-II). It was my pleasure to work closely with Dr. Chaudhari and my colleagues in New York's congressional delegation to help BNL advance its mission. On behalf of New York's first congressional district, I extend my gratitude and congratulations to Dr. Chaudhari for a brilliant career along with best wishes for continued success in his future endeavors. His vision and passion for scientific discovery will always be remembered, and his outstanding advocacy and leadership will be missed.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize James ``Butch'' Langhorn, an American patriot and good friend, for a lifetime dedicated to serving and defending our nation and the First Congressional District of New York in particular. Since I was elected to Congress, it has been my honor and privilege having Butch working alongside me in my Long Island office. Butch was recently appointed Special Assistant to the Sheriff of Suffolk County. Although I will miss Butch tremendously, this important and highranking position is a well-deserved opportunity to continue his impressive career on Long Island. Indeed, Butch is a consummate professional whose diligence and commitment constitute a shining example of public service. His tireless efforts and steadfast dedication have been invaluable assets to our constituent service operation, and I am confident that they will prove equally beneficial to the Sheriff, his office and his jurisdiction. Time and again, Butch has risen above and beyond the call of duty, going the extra mile to provide the best service possible to our constituents, particularly veterans, many of whom know Butch personally and respect his impeccable record and integrity. I have often said that Butch is the best veteran's staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives. If there is someone better, then I want to meet that person. As a young man, Butch attended Riverhead High School on Long Island before enlisting in the U.S. Army. He served four years on active duty, including a tour in Vietnam. Shortly after his return, Butch joined the Air National Guard as a technician and was attached to the 106th Air Rescue Wing located at Gabreski Air Force Base on eastern Long Island. Butch was awarded multiple decorations and reached the senior rank of Chief Master Sergeant for his countless achievements, particularly for excellence in managing the base's personnel and finances. Throughout his military service, Butch was always keenly aware and interested in Long Island's political environment. He was elected to and remains the current Democratic Town Leader of the Town of Riverhead. Butch's dedication to his community compliments his military record and civilian occupation. He has coached Little League baseball and Pop Warner football, and was awarded the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial Award for the active and positive role that he has played for his church and in his community. Butch currently resides in Riverhead with his wife, Linda. They have two children, Kelli and Michael; and four grandchildren, Katherine, Kameron, Kyler-Ann, and Danielle. On behalf of my staff and New York's First Congressional District, I thank James ``Butch'' Langhorn for over four decades of public service, through which a common thread runs--his genuine commitment to his fellow veterans and Long Islanders. I wish him continued success, good health, and the best of luck in the future. Butch will be missed but always remembered with the highest degree of fondness, respect and gratitude.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, hundreds of seniors in my district showed up to five town hall meetings I hosted over the past month to explain the Medicare drug benefit. For as much interest as my constituents demonstrated, they are just as confused and frustrated by the daunting task, as President Bush put it yesterday, of understanding and then choosing a drug plan from the dozens of plans with different premiums, deductibles, copayments, and lists of covered drugs. Through no fault of their own, seniors are already encountering delays in their applications. Consequently, many will not receive their drug cards until after the sign-up deadline. But we should not be surprised by a benefit whose flawed design was the result of ideology prevailing over practicality. It is up to us here and now to make sure seniors understand their benefit and receive, without further delay, the affordable, life-saving drugs they deserve. The first step should be extending the deadline by at least 6 months. I urge my colleagues to support this simple measure. Seniors should not be rushed or penalized as they make this very important decision.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1721, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. First I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for their support, their leadership and their hard work in moving this important and bipartisan legislation through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on to the House floor today. In addition, I am deeply grateful for the support and contributions of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the subcommittee's ranking member, for their steadfast support and commitment to America's coastal environment. Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished subcommittee chairman has just explained, H.R. 1721 reauthorizes grants under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 known as the BEACH Act through fiscal year 2011. The record shows that the BEACH Act has been a proven success for 35 coastal States and U.S. territories. It goes a long way towards maintaining pristine coastline, and is a critical component of preserving our Nation's environment and sustaining the tourist economies of our States. As someone whose district on Eastern Long Island is almost completely surrounded by beaches, I know that American families expect and deserve clean water for their enjoyment, and in some cases, their businesses, such as tourism and the fishing industries. Indeed, beach-going Americans deserve pristine waterways to enjoy with their families, and we need to protect these areas for future generations. By fully funding the water quality monitoring and notifications grants established under the BEACH Act of 2000, we can assure the American public that preserving healthy shores is a priority of our environmental agenda. Over the past 5 years States have made great progress in creating monitoring plans and putting them to good use. The most recent EPA data on beach closings and advisories indicates that only 4 percent of beach days were lost in 2004 due to closures triggered by bacteria monitoring. This is a significant improvement from past years. In addition, the number of beaches we monitor has more than tripled from about 1,000 in 1997 to more than 3,500 in 2004. One of the strongest economic forces along America's coast is tourism. Obviously, vacationers, visitors and beachgoers who enjoy the sea certainly do not want to visit beaches that are closed. I am confident, therefore, that this program will continue to be supported by both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers. I look forwarding to working with the Senate to advance this bill in order to ensure the BEACH Act's reauthorization without delaying or interrupting the important coastal preservation programs it funds. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is good for the environment, is sound public policy, and continues a critically important program necessary to preserve one of our most precious and beloved natural resources. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his support and for the fine work of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize a great American patriot, retired Lt. Col. James J. Finkle, for his distinguished accomplishments in both the U.S. Air Force and in civilian public service. James joined the U.S. Air Force in 1968, 4 years before attending the University of Maine, from which he graduated in 1976. Shortly thereafter, he was assigned to the Maine Air National Guard and appointed the first town manager of Veazie, Maine. James stayed in Maine until 1980, when he was hired by the Suffolk County Legislature's Office of Budget Review. Returning to Long Island, where James was born, did not interrupt his commitment to military service. He transferred to the 106th air rescue wing of New York's Air National Guard located at Gabreski Air Force Base on eastern Long Island. Within the civilian community, James served as the federal aid coordinator for the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. He was promoted by the board to serve as the first administrator of the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission, and participated in the evacuation study of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Subsequently, James was selected as the director of planning for the Town of Huntington, managing a staff of 15 and guiding the economic development of this suburban community. After working for the Research Foundation of SUNY Stony Brook in 1990, James joined Shoreland Distributors as vice president for administration where he helped direct the company's rapid growth as it became the largest distributor of boat trailers in the nation. His National Guard service provided a natural transition to his civilian duties, which included recovery in the aftermath of TWA Flight 800. He helped write a definitive account of that experience in Deadly Departure: The True Story of Flight 800 and contributed to the New York Times bestseller, ``The Perfect Storm: A True Story of Men Against the Sea'' about the 106th air rescue wing. James returned to active duty to serve in Operation Allied Force, which responded to the crisis in Kosovo in 1999. He also served in media affairs through the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and participated in the planning stages of the Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2002. On behalf of New York's first congressional district and indeed a grateful nation, I thank Lt. Col. James Finkle for his service, congratulate him for a distinguished career, and wish him good health, continued success and a happy retirement with his wife Louise and their children, Amanda and Eugene.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, over the past 2 weeks, I hosted five town hall meetings in my district. They were attended by hundreds of seniors who wanted to learn more about the Medicare drug benefit. I found that for as much interest as seniors demonstrated, it is readily apparent there is an equal amount of confusion, frustration, cynicism, and in some cases even anger. Seniors do not understand why there is such little time to sign up for the benefit or why they will be locked into a plan when the plan does not have to commit to them. But we should not be surprised by a benefit whose design was the result of ideology trumping practicality. It is obvious that an enormous portion of the benefit needs fixing and that it will take a tremendous effort to make seniors have access to the affordable lifesaving drugs that they deserve. Step one should be extending the May 15 sign-up deadline. Step two should be dropping the penalty for late sign-up. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support such measures.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), the cochair of the Long Island Sound Caucus.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I will close simply by urging my colleagues to support this very worthwhile and very important piece of legislation. Again I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for their great work on this important bill. 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 rise in full support of H.R. 3963, bipartisan legislation offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons). This bill is important to all of us who rely on the sound as an economic engine for our communities and as a clean source of water and food for our families. It is important to recognize nationally designated estuaries such as Long Island Sound, not only for the economic growth they generate, but also their important role in the global environment. Estuaries provide feeding and nursing grounds for diverse plant life, wild birds and fish, along with other animals. In addition, countless families and businesses in my district and indeed throughout the northeast rely on Long Island Sound for their livelihood, enjoyment and peace of mind. The sound plays an integral role in not only the 8 million people who live in the immediate vicinity, but also the tens of millions who visit the area each year. In fact, this dynamic body of water produces $5.5 billion in revenue for State and local economies in the tourism, fishing and boating industries in the northeast each year. I am proud to have participated in developing this legislation, and today's consideration ensures that we will be renewing our commitment to preserving Long Island Sound for future generations of Americans. On a more personal note, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage each of my colleagues to visit the sound and experience its grandeur. Again, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut's leadership and hard work on this legislation, and I urge support of this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Parents and students, please take note. College will soon become a lot more expensive if these budget cuts pass. Yes, at a time when college costs are rising and students are struggling to afford college, this bill cuts over $14.3 billion from Federal student aid programs. This represents the largest cut in the history of the student aid programs at a time when the College Board tells us that this is the most expensive semester ever. This bill includes nearly $8 billion in new charges that will raise the cost of college loans through new fees and higher interest for millions of American students and families who borrow for college. While millionaires will soon gain another $19,000 tax break, the typical student already saddled with $17,500 in debt faces $5,800 more in new fees and higher interest rates. To whom does this make sense? We all know that championing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by punching holes in middle-class priorities is the hallmark of this administration's failed economic policies. But the burden should not be placed on the backs of students. All of us should rise in strong opposition to this legislation, for it will hurt the very generation that will eventually lead this country. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this unprecedented raid on student aid.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, when explaining budget reconciliation to the American people, perhaps the closest thing we can compare it to is balancing a checkbook. Unless, of course, we are talking about the way Congress balances its books. On one side of the ledger, spending cuts ostensibly earmarked for rebuilding the gulf coast are in reality set aside for tax cuts, despite three consecutive record-breaking deficits and $3 trillion in new debt. Even after the tax cuts are in place, there won't be anything left in the other column to relieve Americans from the misery left in the wake of devastating hurricanes. Championing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by punching holes in the safety net is the hallmark of this administration's failed economic policies. But it shouldn't be the way we balance our books. While millionaires will gain another $19,000 tax break, the typical student, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, faces $5,800 in new fees and higher interest rates. How can we in good conscience cut student loans after the College Board tells us this is the most expensive semester ever? Common sense tells us: When you are in a hole, stop digging. But we are still digging, falling deeper into red ink with this budget, beyond what we and future generations of Americans can afford. I urge my colleagues to vote against this sham deficit reduction bill.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was one of 416 Members of this body who voted back in May for a different and better energy and water appropriations bill. But then a funny thing happened on the way to the conference committee. Although the House- and Senate-passed bills both funded one of this Nation's most important analytical research projects, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, which is operated by the Department of Energy's world-class Brookhaven National Laboratory, which I am very proud to represent, somehow this breakthrough research was cut dramatically in conference. As a result, the RHIC, as it is known, could lay dormant, unused, for 47 weeks out of the year. Why is this project so important? It is designed to recreate conditions of the Big Bang from which the universe was born and life created. The Federal Government has already invested more than $1 billion, that is $1 billion, in the construction of this facility; and it simply makes no sense to let such an investment go unused. I do not know about my colleagues, but this is like buying a Porsche and letting it sit in your driveway because you will not buy the gas. I ask, is there a more important basic research project in progress anywhere else in the country? How did we justify disinvesting in this project, as well as BNL's research into translational neuroimaging and functional nanomaterials? Could this be an example of the kind of cuts we are beginning to witness as a result of the misguided priority of the budget reconciliation legislation? That said, I am deeply grateful for the support of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the subcommittee, who visited the lab earlier this year, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, who has consistently advocated this research. I look forward to their continued support and working with them to restore this funding and protect the jobs at BNL, some 200 of which might be lost, ideally within these first few months of fiscal year 2006, and upon their approval of reprogramming existing funds within the Department of Energy. Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, must reluctantly oppose this conference report.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, for yielding and for his superb leadership in presenting the case against the spending cuts contained in the first half of this misguided budget reconciliation package. When the final budget resolution passed by a margin of only three votes back in April, who would have guessed that the Republican leadership would want to re-visit this legislation by actually making deeper cuts to health care, student loans, and food stamps-- particularly in a time of national crisis? And given that Congress has not enacted budget reconciliation since 1997, you would have thought that the Republican leadership could have put forward a more fair and balanced set of spending adjustments after preparing for eight years between reconciliations. When you think about it, budget reconciliation is not much different than balancing a checkbook, unless, of course, you are referring to the way Congress balances its books. On one side of the ledger, we have spending cuts--ostensibly to pay for rebuilding the Gulf Coast, but in reality to pay for the tax cuts that this leadership insists on passing despite three consecutive years of record-breaking deficits and $3 trillion in new debt. Still, this reconciliation package doesn't even pay for the tax cuts. The net result is actually an increase in the deficit of at least $50 billion. And in the other column, even after the tax cuts are in place, there won't be a dime left over to pay for reconstruction in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita or Wilma. Like the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--and like the class action, bankruptcy and needless tort reform on the Republican agenda--this Administration's failed economic policies and misplaced priorities are on display again this week in the form of the ``Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act of 2005.'' Championing the values and priorities of the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class--and by punching holes in the safety net-- are hallmarks of this Administration but not the solution we need today to alleviate the misery in the Gulf Coast or ease the squeeze on the middle class. As we build new universities in Baghdad, schools across the United States are falling apart. How can we in good conscious cut student loans after the College Board recently reported tuition continues to rise faster than the rate of inflation? To illustrate this point, consider that under this legislation, someone earning over $1 million stands to gain a tax break of $19,000-- on top of the average $103,000 tax cut they already receive--whereas the typical student borrower, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, would face new fees and higher interest charges that could cost up to an additional $5,800. And yet, no one in this Administration has suggested putting Iraqi reconstruction money on the table. We simply cannot afford the continuing sacrifices and investments there at the expense of our priorities here at home. Nor has there been any hint that the tax cuts should be suspended for those earning more than $400,000 or that we should scale back the estate tax cut, which has no impact on nearly 98 percent of American families. None of this is on the table, even though federal spending has grown by a third and record surpluses became record deficits since President Bush took office. With the most expensive tax cuts not yet fully phased-in, these policies threaten to expand the deficit beyond what we and future generations of Americans can afford. Common sense tells us that when you're in a hole, stop digging. But not only are we still digging, we are falling deeper into new fiscal depths with this budget. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina was a tragic reminder that too many American families are struggling in today's economy. Squeezing them harder, as this reconciliation legislation would do, is not the answer. It takes our nation in the wrong direction, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday of last week, the Education and the Workforce Committee, of which I am a member, passed the single largest cut to student aid in history. By taking $15 billion out of the Federal aid programs, the Republican leadership proved again that its agenda is replete with misplaced priorities. When we had the choice to lift up a generation of young Americans by helping them achieve the dream of a college education, we chose instead to give more comfort to the already very comfortable. Our differences are profound. It appears that so are our values and what we perceive to be America's priorities. Future generations of Americans are entitled to a basic education, but they will not be able to afford it after we reconcile how to pay for the hurricane damage, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even two more tax cuts that have not yet begun to take effect and will not even benefit 97 percent of American families. Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to hold sacred the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the values, priorities, or needs of the middle class. Americans deserve better.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, for yielding and for her leadership on this motion to instruct the conferees. I will confine my remarks to the price-gouging component of the motion to instruct. After two bites of the apple, this Congress is running out of opportunities to prove to the American people that we will stand in their corner as the oil and gas companies continue a campaign of price- gouging in the wake of human suffering. Twice in this session, we have given away tax breaks to the oil and gas companies amounting to $14.5 billion and $2 billion, respectively. The most recent was passed just in time for Halloween, a treat for BP, Exxon-Mobil, and Conoco, but a bad trick on the American families. Exxon-Mobil reaped profits of almost $10 billion this quarter alone. We have heard the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania talk about these numbers, but they are so astounding that they bear repeating. This is a record-breaking amount for an American company and represents a 75 percent increase over the same period last year. Shell rang up profits that represented a 68 percent increase, just over $9 billion. I would be remiss in failing to congratulate the shareholders of ConocoPhillips, whose dividends will soar after an almost 90 percent increase from last year's quarterly earnings. Now there is nothing wrong with healthy profits. In fact, they are what this Nation and the world's greatest economy are built on. But when profits come at the expense of American families, and when profiteering is clearly reflected by a company's bottom line, then there is something very wrong, and that is when it is time for us to do our job to protect consumers. These profits were being earned just as the major oil companies claimed they needed more incentives to expand refining capacity after Hurricane Katrina. Almost immediately, this House responded by passing the so- called Gasoline for America's Security Act, which rolled back environmental laws and opened Federal lands and coastal waters to drilling and exploration. While the public was pleading for relief from profiteering corporations, the majority actually reduced penalties for price- gouging. Let me say that again. This House voted to weaken price- gouging laws at a time when the public was paying almost an average of $3 a gallon. Clearly, our failure to do the right thing then contributed to the spike in gas prices and the exorbitant increases in the oil companies' bottom lines. That is why my colleagues, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Dingell, Ms. Schwartz, and I offered a substitute to create a strategic refinery reserve expanding refining capacity and, perhaps most importantly, increasing price-gouging penalties. As winter approaches, families will struggle to put food on the table and heat their homes. Still, we keep hearing the same rhetoric from the other side that free enterprise is the answer to every one of our Nation's problems, and it is the great equalizer that should be applied to every challenge. But Hurricane Katrina exposed vulnerabilities that still exist in the energy market, a problem that is compounded by the administration's energy policy. Consequently, it makes little, if any, sense that we gave away one of the most generous corporate welfare packages bestowed on any industry in the form of the last two energy bills. This is precisely why we must vote to instruct the Science-State-Justice-Commerce conferees to adopt the Senate position directing the FTC to investigate price-gouging and other forms of market manipulation. Before we vote next week to slash the budget for food stamps or Medicaid or student aid, let us make sure we at least give American families a break at the pump by voting for this motion to instruct. Now is the time we must act, to prove the interests of middle-class Americans are paramount, not the oil companies. Let us put an end to price-gouging once and for all. Let us not let another opportunity go by without giving middle-class families the relief they so desperately need and deserve. Mr. Speaker, on price-gouging, the House is down by two strikes. This motion makes sure we do not strike out. If we want to do the right thing for America and the American taxpayers here and now, vote for this motion to instruct.