Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2328 reauthorizes the Clean Lakes Program, and we have one person in this Chamber to thank most for that action and that is our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman deserves to be commended for the leadership he provided. This is an example of how the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure serves this institution and this Nation so well. We worked out any differences we had in a bipartisan way and are marching forward together. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, are responsible for more legislation, more successful legislation in this Congress than in the preceding Congress, of greater significance than any other committee of this institution. I am very proud to identify with the committee. Let me say, unfortunately, that the Environmental Protection Agency has not requested funding for the Clean Lakes Program and the program has not received separate appropriations in recent years. Instead, States have been encouraged to fund clean lakes activities by using funds provided under section 319 of the Clean Water Act for already underfunded nonpoint source programs. Mr. Chairman, acting to reauthorize this program will send a clear message that we care about restoring and protecting our Nation's 41 million acres of fresh-water lakes for our children and their children. Congress is not the only voice calling for this program. Various public and private organizations involved in lake water quality management had been seeking an increase in funding for the Clean Lakes Program. This program is seen as an important component of meeting the Clean Water Act's objective of having all our Nation's waters fishable and swimmable. In addition, there is growing concern about the damaging effects of acid rain and acid mine drainage on the Nation's lake. Separate, adequate and consistent funding for the Clean Lakes Program is necessary to meet the needs of the States' lake program. The Clean Lake Program offers an excellent opportunity for watershed- based community-driven projects, as well as needed partnerships among Federal, State, and local entities. It is a good program. It deserves our enthusiastic support for all the right reasons. Let me once again commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for the leadership he has provided, and let me once again proudly associate with my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for doing the deed today. Let me leave with this thought from Henry David Thoreau who said in Walden back in 1854: ``A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth's eye: looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature.''

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 910, a bill to clean up groundwater contamination and protect water supply in the San Gabriel and Central Basins in California. Let me start out by first acknowledging the super efforts of the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, who brought this matter to our attention. He has been a leader in this effort. I also wish to acknowledge the area's bipartisan delegation, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), both of whom serve on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. There are a whole lot of people responsible for the success we are going to enjoy today, none more important than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) the chairman of the full committee and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) the ranking Democrat as well as my partner, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski). Contamination of the groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin was first detected back in 1979. EPA placed the valley on the Superfund's national priorities list in 1984. Here we are 16 years later with very little progress. At its hearing on this legislation last fall, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment learned that contamination from the San Gabriel Basin has already spread into the adjacent Central Basin aquifer. This groundwater contamination now threatens the drinking water for half of Los Angeles County. That is totally unacceptable. Under H.R. 910, the Federal Government would assist the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority in conducting groundwater cleanup projects, and we provide $75 million for that purpose. We also authorize $25 million for investigation into solutions to groundwater contamination caused by perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel. As has been said so eloquently by previous speakers, this is a must-do bill; and we should put it on a fast track.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and in strong support of the bill offered by my colleague from New York, Mr. Gilman. The citizens in my district and across the Northeast have struggled this winter to pay for their heating bills because of the extraordinary recent spikes in the price of home heating oil. The price of diesel fuel rose sharply, too, delivering a severe economic blow to farmers, truckers, and businesses. It's been a rough winter for the Northeast. Unfortunately, it looks like we're not in the clear yet. Gasoline prices are steadily rising and experts predict steeper prices yet during the peak driving season this summer, making this winter's crisis seem, in the words of one expert, ``like a cakewalk'' by comparison. Are these exorbitant energy prices simply the outcome of free market forces, the perpetual balancing of supply and demand? No. The United States is being held hostage by oil producing countries--many of whom have accepted generous U.S. assistance in the past. These same countries have colluded to slash oil production, distort the market, and drive up the price of oil, which has climbed to over $30 a barrel, up from $12 a barrel around this time last year. When oil producing countries engage in international price-fixing activities, when they manipulate the price of oil on the world market to the detriment of the U.S. economy, when American taxpayers are directly hurt by their anti-competitive activities, Americans should not have to send their hard-earned taxpayer dollars overseas to help those very same countries. I support the bill that would make this our policy. I support the rule, and I urge my colleagues to support them both as well.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to reiterate that it is a myth that it takes 10 years to resolve takings disputes. The National Association of Home Builders manufactured this total misleading fact by using only 14 Federal appellate cases over a 9-year period. So that is absolutely wrong, as also is that 83 percent figure. That involved only 33 cases, 29 of which were dismissed by the Court because the claimants' lawyer refused to follow State procedures for seeking compensation before going to the Federal court. That is the myth. This is a reality.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the supporters of this bill keep claiming that the bill is different this year, but those differences are more apparent than real and some of them change the bill for the worse. None of the language about appeals at the local level means anything, because the threat of Federal courts will still loom behind them. The appeal process will not encourage a developer to negotiate, as current rules do, because the developer will know that he can just bide his time and then threaten to take the municipality to Federal court. Under the bill, the developer can simply submit the exact same proposal three times, remain intransigent, evade all the existing local and State forums, and threaten to go to Federal court. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the procedural scaffolding that has been added to hide the real intent and impact of this bill. There is a fundamental principle guiding our actions, and that fundamental principle is simply this: local zoning matters should be the purview of local government. That is why so many organizations oppose H.R. 2372 and stand with me; religious groups, United States Catholic Conference, the National Council of Churches of Christ, Evangelicals for Social Action, Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism; environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, which is the amalgam of all the environmental organizations. Incidentally, on fund-raising the Sierra Club is pikers compared to the National Association of Home Builders. State and local governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties. It goes on and on. The Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Chief Justice William Rehnquist; the Conference of State Chief Justices; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; AFL-CIO; religious organizations, court organizations, labor organizations, environmental groups, State and local governments, because they share an abiding faith in the fundamental principle that local zoning matters should be the purview of local governments. People who are living in the neighborhood, people whose daily lives are impacted by these decisions, not some distant people far off, removed in the Nation's capital but people right in the neighborhood. The fact of the matter is, if this bill passes, intimidation will be the rule of the day and town after town, municipality after municipality will capitulate because they cannot face the prospect of lengthy, costly litigation in some far, distant court. They want to decide for themselves at the local level, and we want to help them preserve this sacred fundamental principle. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Delahunt amendment and to oppose the final bill if that Boehlert-Delahunt amendment does not get the necessary majority vote.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York yields 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) yield the time he has remaining to me?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) to respond to the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former governor of Delaware.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The language in the substitute only guts the bill if the goal is to undermine local government. The language in the substitute is identical to the way sections 3 and 4 were presented to this House less than 3 years ago, language that was written, as they themselves admit, by the National Association of Home Builders. It is hard to understand why they would claim their own language was meaningless. And as for striking all after the enacting clause, that is what all substitutes do under all circumstances.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment in the nature of a substitute with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) in an effort to remove the most glaring fault, one might almost say ``sin'', in this bill: its interference in local zoning processes. Here is what the substitute would do. It would strike Section 2 of the bill, the section that deals with local zoning matters, and it would preserve Sections 3 and 4 of the bill, which deal with land disputes involving the Federal government. It would preserve those sections in the forms in which they came to the floor in 1997. Our substitute is identical to the one I offered at that time. I have been hearing a few different arguments against the substitute, all of which are disingenuous. Let me deal with just one of them for now. We are told that the substitute is unnecessary because Section 2 is simply an innocent attempt to ensure that local zoning cases move forward, a small and technical change that would be employed only in rare circumstances. That is what we are told. I am afraid that the supporters of this bill are inviting us to enter an Alice-in-Wonderland world where words can mean anything they want them to mean. The actual fact is that Section 2 would fundamentally alter the balance of power in zoning cases. The top lobbyist for the National Association of Home Builders admitted as much when he told Congress Daily that the purpose of this bill is to put a hammer to the head of State and local officials. That is exactly what the bill would do. The supporters of the bill have tried to obscure that fact. They have tried to sheathe the hammer, because they know the public would oppose any such pressure tactics. We know that from their own words. For example, the National Association of Realtors signed a letter supporting H.R. 2372, but here is what they said in a separate press release that arrived in our office the very same day. The realtors said that a survey found that 95 percent, 95 percent of the public believed that ``neighbors and local governments, not States or the Federal government, should make decisions concerning growth and related issues,'' and I agree with that. But Section 2 of H.R. 2372 goes exactly in the opposite direction. It takes the unprecedented step of dictating local zoning procedures from Washington, short-circuiting those local processes in the bargain. It removes any incentive for developers to negotiate, taking growth issues out of the control of neighbors and local governments and handing them over to Federal judges who, exercising judicial restraint, do not want them. The supporters of H.R. 2372 claimed these new rules will save time and money, but that, once again, gives away their hand. These new rules will save localities time and money only if they capitulate to the developers. If localities choose to fight to protect their citizens, then H.R. 2372 will make zoning cases even more prolonged and costly because Federal court litigation will be more time-consuming and costly than going to State courts. That is why the groups that understand zoning so vociferously opposed H.R. 2372. That includes the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the Association of Attorneys General. The Boehlert-Delahunt amendment would eliminate the problem these groups have with the bill because it would leave local zoning intact. In short, the argument raised against the amendment simply cannot hold up, even under the most superficial scrutiny. I urge all who oppose this bill to vote for the Boehlert-Delahunt amendment because it strikes the most problematic portion of the bill. I also urge those who have qualms about H.R. 2372 but still might intend to vote for final passage to also support the Boehlert-Delahunt amendment, because it will allay their concerns. The Boehlert-Delahunt amendment simply ensures that this bill will improve Federal procedures, not wreck local ones. The amendment is supported by the League of Conservation Voters and the National League of Cities, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) be allocated 15 minutes of the total time allocated to me.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order by the rule.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me give my colleagues some real-life examples of what this is all about based upon some recent court decisions. In Recreational Developments of Phoenix, Incorporated v. The City of Phoenix, the land owners brought several takings challenges to a municipal ordinance that prohibited live sex clubs. The Federal court dismissed the takings challenge on ripeness grounds because the land owners had not sought compensation in State court. If this bill had been in effect, the City would have been forced to endure lengthy Federal court taking litigation to defend this ordinance, prohibiting live sex clubs. In Maynard v. The City of Tupelo, in Mississippi, the State court rejected a taking challenge to a city ordinance that bans possession of open containers of alcoholic beverages or their consumption between midnight and 7 a.m. in restaurants. If this bill had been in effect, the claimant could have forced Tupelo to endure lengthy, expensive Federal court litigation to reach the same result. In Guildford County Department of Emergency Services v. Seaboard Chemical Corporation, the State court rejected a takings challenge by a chemical company to a permit denial for a hazardous waste facility for health and safety reasons. If this bill had been in effect, that company could have subjected the county to expensive and lengthy Federal court litigation. In Colorado Dog Fanciers v. The City of Denver, the State court rejected a takings challenge to an ordinance that bans possession of pit bulls, but allowed existing owners to obtain licenses. If this bill had been in effect, the claimants could have been challenged, and this sensible public policy measure would have endured expensive, Federal court litigation. Zoning matters are local in nature. We should not federalize them.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. The detrimental effects of H.R. 2372 are likely to be felt by virtually every citizen in virtually every community in this country. Anywhere that citizens are trying to control growth, to limit traffic, or to preserve open space or conserve drinking water, this bill will have an adverse effect. Anywhere that citizens are trying to preserve the character of their neighborhoods by restricting pornography or alcohol or certain types of industry, this bill will have an adverse effect. Anywhere that citizens band together to try to do anything that any developer might oppose, this bill will have an adverse effect. That is because this bill disempowers citizens and their towns and cities and counties, and skews local zoning rules to give developers the upper hand. It removes the incentive to negotiate zoning disputes, replacing that incentive with the threat of Federal court review. Why is such a fundamental change in policy necessary? Is it because development is routinely being blocked? I think a quick tour of any congressional district in this country will prove that that is not the case. Homebuilding and other developments are booming in a booming economy. This bill is a vintage case of overreaching by a successful group that is upset because it does not win 100 percent of the time. Let us not take power away from citizens and localities. Let us not overturn the fundamental principles of Federalism. Let us not advance a bill that is opposed by municipalities and courts and religious groups and environmentalists and labor unions. Let us oppose H.R. 2372, and ensure that each community in this country retains the right to control its own destiny.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in strong, strong opposition to the bill. I want to thank the Committee on Rules for its usual fine work on the rule. The rule allows for a full and fair and open debate in which all sides will have an equal chance to prevail. I wish I could say the same about the bill itself. The bill takes an opposite approach, however. It is a blatant attempt to limit debate over local, local zoning issues, and to skew zoning proceedings so that one side has all the advantage. This effort to skew zoning proceedings in a way that limits the ability of local communities to determine their own destinies is unfair, it is wrongheaded, and it is unprecedented. But equally amazing are the means the bill proposes to accomplish its goal of stacking the deck against the general public. First, the bill short-circuits local zoning processes by having Washington, for the first time ever, dictate local zoning procedures. Then this supposedly conservative bill bypasses State courts and eliminates the ability of Federal courts to turn down cases. In short, the bill turns the principle of Federalism on its head. It is no wonder that this bill is adamantly opposed by the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and 41 State attorneys general, to name just a few. I will be offering a substitute with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that would remedy these glaring deficiencies. The amendment is identical to one I offered in 1997. The substitute would eliminate the section of H.R. 2372 that intrudes on local prerogatives, but would retain in their 1997 form the sections of the bill that accelerate access to Federal courts in cases against the Federal government. Congress should be training its sights on Federal actions, not local ones. I urge everyone who opposes this bill to support the Boehlert- Delahunt amendment, because it will eliminate the primary failing of H.R. 2372, its unprecedented interference with local zoning processes. I urge everyone who has qualms about the bill but still plans to vote for final passage to support the amendment, because it will allay their concerns.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the conference report on AIR-21. I would like to start by taking this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and the other members of the conference committee for moving this legislation forward to ensure that our Nation's aviation system remains the finest and the safest in the world. That is our overarching objective, to maintain an aviation system that continues to be the finest and safest in the world. AIR-21 offers a certain and responsible level of funding for aviation infrastructure funding. It also offers some good news for the environment. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a provision that will, for the first time, provide Federal assistance to help airports address increasingly difficult air quality problems. I introduced legislation last year known as the Airport Air Quality Improvement Act. I am proud to say that this legislation has been incorporated into AIR- 21 and is now part of the conference agreement. My legislation is a pilot program under which the Secretary of Transportation is to issue grants to ten airports for the acquisition of low emission vehicles, equipment, and related infrastructure support. Grant selection will be targeted at airports submitting plans that will achieve the greatest pollution reductions per dollar of funds provided. The ten airports selected would be required to match the up to $2 million Federal grant for each on a 50/50 basis. These airports will be located in areas not attaining Federal Clean Air Act standards. Airports are now frequently the single largest source of pollution within their State or region. The operation of cars and trucks and buses and vans may account for up to 50 percent or more of airport emissions. This pilot program will promote the expanded use of natural gas and electric vehicles and equipment at our Nation's airports, helping to reduce smog-forming pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. I am particularly pleased that this approach has not only drawn the support of our committee's bipartisan leadership, but also has been supported by groups including the National Conference of Mayors, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, and virtually all of the major automobile manufacturers. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the leadership of the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition in assembling the group of diverse interests which worked hard to make this initiative a reality. My staff and I look forward to working with the Secretary of Transportation, the FAA administrator, and their staffs toward the prompt and successful implementation of this Clean Air Act program. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that AIR-21 includes another provision that I have championed to provide whistle-blower protection for both FAA and airline employees so they can reveal legitimate safety problems without fear of retaliation. I have worked closely with my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), over the past two congresses to ensure that aviation workers can blow the whistle on safety problems without looking over their shoulders and fearing retribution. I am proud to see this much needed protection included in the conference agreement. AIR-21 makes sense for the flying public, it makes sense for the Nation's airports, and it makes sense for the environment. That is a winning combination. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment to raise the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. In this era of unprecedented prosperity, we should be both willing and able to ensure that workers are not left behind. Now, I have no doubt that we are able to provide this increase. We live in a wealthy Nation that is in its economic prime, 110 consecutive months of growth in our economy. We live in a Nation in which enterprises are starting all the time, in which top executives are compensated with almost unimaginable sums of money. Sixty-three new millionaires a day are being created in the Silicon Valley alone. Study after study has shown that the minimum wage does not cost jobs. So there is no question that we are able to provide this increase. The only question is whether we are willing to do so. And the answer ought to be a resounding ``yes.'' For more than 60 years, the minimum wage has protected the Nation's workers and, in doing so, has helped the Nation's economy and society as a whole. But the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and, in relative terms, is more minimal than ever. We should not be abandoning hard-working people, people who often work long hours in dangerous jobs, at a time when most Americans are doing so well. The people at the top of the economic ladder are enjoying this record prosperity. What about those at the bottom end? Can we not lift them up? I think the answer should be clearly ``yes.'' So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is moderate, it is affordable, and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the citizens in my district and across the Northeast have struggled this winter to pay for their heating bills because of the extraordinary recent spikes in the price of home heating oil. The price of diesel fuel rose sharply, too, delivering a severe economic blow to farmers, truckers, and businesses that depend on shipping products by truck. And since just about everything we wear, eat and use in our daily lives is shipped over land by truck, the high cost of fuel took a bite out of just about every consumer's budget. It's been a rough winter for the Northeast. Unfortunately, it looks like we're not in the clear, yet. Recent headlines report that many experts now predict steep prices of gasoline during the peak driving season this summer, making this winter's crisis seem ``like a cakewalk'' by comparison. Why are we all of a sudden experiencing such exorbitant energy prices? Are they simply the outcome of free market forces, the perpetual balancing of supply and demand? No. We are being held hostage by oil producing countries--many of whom have accepted generous assistance from the United States in the past--who now have colluded to slash oil production, distort the market, and drive up the price of oil, which has climbed to about $32 a barrel, up from $12 this time last year. But we need not sit idly by. There are actions we can take to break the resolve of these oil producing countries. A release of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserves would have an immediate and dramatic impact on the price of oil--and send a strong signal to oil producing countries that the U.S. will not stand for unfair and harmful trade practices. Today I am introducing legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the President and Secretary of Energy immediately draw upon the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to supplement the oil market in the United States, bring the price of fuel back down to reasonable levels, and counter the anti-competitive practices of oil producing countries and the economic hardship they have caused Americans. Identical legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Schumer and Collins. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling upon the Administration to use the authority it already has--and indeed has used in the past--to draw upon our oil reserves and come to the assistance of businesses and consumers across the country.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to compliment the House on the action just completed. The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act is very important legislation. It will maintain the U.S. global leadership in information technology. When one is the first and one is the best, one has to work at maintaining that first place position, at securing the fact that one legitimately is the very best. The $500 billion a year information technology industry has accounted for one-third of our Nation's economic growth since 1992, and created new industries and millions of new high-paying jobs. All across America people are benefiting from what has been done in information technology. Once again, we are the leader, we are first, we are the best, and we have to work at maintaining that. We have to prioritize basic information technology research. There are a whole slew of very good ideas, but we have to have priorities. We have to go first with that which is most important. We have to produce the next generation of highly-skilled information technology workers. This bill will help attract more students to science and to careers in information technology by providing grants for colleges and companies to create for-credit courses which include internships. Participating companies must commit to providing 50 percent of the cost of the program. So for a whole host of very legitimate reasons, the Committee on Science and this House have done themselves proud. We are moving forward, we are not just satisfied to rest on our laurels. We are going forward. This is, indeed, the Information Age, and we are the leaders. We have to maintain that position. I am a great unabashed baseball fan, and on the 17th of this month, just a couple of days hence, the pitchers and catchers will report to spring training. The one team that I am most interested in is the New York Yankees, because they are the world champions. If I may draw an analogy, let me point out that the Yankees are not resting on their laurels, they are continuing to improve and invest in their club. That is why they are the world champions, and we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. I thank my colleagues for their unrelenting support of this bill. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for the leadership he has provided. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for his strong support and leadership. This is truly bipartisan legislation serving the best interests of the American people.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2420.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Chemistry Week. I rise on this occasion to recognize the thousands of American Chemical Society members who are volunteering their time this week--not only across the nation, but around the world as well--to teach all of us about the exciting ways that chemistry and chemical engineering benefit our country and improve our everyday lives. This is the 12th year that the American Chemical Society has led the celebration of National Chemistry Week. And I'm especially excited that in my home district, the 23rd District of New York, volunteer chemists and chemical engineers of the American Chemical Society's Norwich Section will host an open house for 4th, 5th, and 6th graders Chenango County schools. There they will teach practical chemistry using a full range of hands-on activities, so they can see and explore and learn for themselves how chemistry works. Last year, the Norwich Section won national recognition for its Chemistry Week event, which was attended by 250 people from all over Chenango County. This year National Chemistry Week culminates a 52-country International Chemistry Celebration that featured ``A Global Salute to Polymers.'' In the United States alone, no less than 51 companies, 10 universities, 2 museums, and 17 individual scientists were saluted for the innovative products they created that have changed our lives. During National Chemistry Week members of the American Chemical Society will conduct events in communities around the country along the theme ``Celebrating Polymers.'' For instance, kids will be asked to carry out activities using sodium poly-acrylate, a widely used absorbent with applications ranging from horticulture to construction to disposable diapers. After seeing how poly-acrylate works, students will be challenged to think up other ways it can be applied to other real-life problems. More activities using sodium polyacrylate are available in the fall issues of the ACS student magazines WonderScience and Chem-Matters. Mr. Speaker, our ability to improve the quality of our lives, make educated decisions in an increasingly technological world, and compete successfully in the global economy depends critically upon our understanding of sciences like chemistry. So please join me and the 160,000 chemists, chemical engineers, and allied professionals of the American Chemical Society in highlighting the fact that every single aspect of our lives is in some way a result of chemistry in action.