Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to those who have served us in so many ways: the Sheldon family and Reid- Sheldon & Co. in New Hartford, NY. On November 7, 1995, Reid-Sheldon celebrated 150 years of successful business endeavors. By donating 10 percent of its sales on that day to charity, the Sheldon family maintains the store's fine tradition of sharing its fortune with the community since 1845. What started as a country harness shop has emerged as a successful luggage and leather goods store. I submit for my colleagues history of Reid-Sheldon, written in 1945 by Artemas Barnard Sheldon whose grandfather, Ebenezer, was its founder. It is not simply a profile of one store in one locality, rather it is a welcome and unique perspective on hometown enterprises-- the backbone of American business--across our Nation: The Sheldon Business In giving an outline of the Sheldon business I could start with a certain Isaac Sheldon who our records show was living in Massachusetts in 1629. However, I do not know what his trade was so I will stick to the men of the family who I do know were leather workers. My grandfather, Ebenezer Sheldon, was born in Bernardston, Massachusetts, in 1796. He learned the trade of harness maker and in 1825 migrated to the village of Burlington, New York, where he operated a country harness shop. The city directory of 1840 shows that he had a harness shop on Catharine Street. In 1845 he had as his partner his oldest son, George, and the firm name because Ebenezer Sheldon & Son. Their store and shop was located at that time at 45 Genesee Street and there it stayed with some enlargements for eighty-five years. In the early fifties the firm became Moore & Sheldon, Ebenezer having taken his son-in-law, LeGrand Moore, into partnership. My own father, Artemas H. Sheldon, the youngest of eight children, was born in 1836 shortly before my grandfather moved his family to Utica. He learned the trade of harness maker and assumed his fathers interest in the business in 1862. In 1880 the firm name was again changed to Moore, Sheldon & Company when Mr. Moore's son-in-law, Robert H. Reid, was admitted to the firm. My father died in 1899 when I was eighteen years old, and I represented my mother's interest in the firm until her death in 1917. At that time I became a partner, and the firm name was changed to Reid-Sheldon & Company under which title we still operate. I was married in 1901 just after I had passed my twenty- first birthday. My wife and I have been blessed with three children, a daughter and two sons. My daughter, Rosemary, graduated from Cornell University in 1925, and my older son, Robert, was graduated from the Syracuse University the same year. In 1928 Mr. Reid died very suddenly and my son, Robert, took over his interest and became my partner in the business. It was in this year of 1928 that I was elected this executive secretary of the National Luggage Dealers Association, which position I still hold. My daughter who had taken a secretarial course after leaving Cornell was my secretary until her marriage in 1932. My younger son, Richard, on completing high school came into the store as a salesman and is now serving in the Navy as a second class petty officer. His place will be here when he comes back. My son, Robert, was married in 1933 and has four children, two girls and two boys. For a number of years they lived on a farm located about ten miles from Utica in a large old house built in 1797 and dating back to the days of George Washington and DeWitt Clinton. During this year he purchased a comfortable home in Utica about two miles from the store in order to give his children easier accessibility to the public schools. He has, however, kept the old farm as an ``ace in the hole'' should we ever go through another period like, what I term as ``the terrible thirties''. In 1930 about two years after the death of Mr. Reid we left the old store at 43 and 45 Genesee Street, where we had been for eighty-five years, and moved to our present location at 241 Genesee Street, a section given over to better class specialty stores. Up to the time we moved uptown we had always maintained a harness department. During my early days in the store this was the most important part of our business. We specialized in fine coach harness and track harness. These were always made to order, and during the years that preceded the coming of the automobile we employed a dozen or more mechanics. As the demand for harness decreased other lines of merchandise were added. While we had always carried trunks and hand luggage, it had been a minor part of our business. Now we were forced to expand our lines of luggage, and to gradually feel our way into kindred lines such as Personal Leather Goods, Ladies Hand Bags and Gifts. When we move to our present location we were obliged to discontinue the harness shop, but as it was necessary to maintain a repair [[Page E 2133]] department for luggage we took our oldest employee with us. The life story of this particular man is unique because it is so different from that of the present day worker. Joe Fairbrother came to work for my father as an errand boy when he was about twelve years old. Eventually he learned the trade of harness maker. He never worked for anyone else but my father and me for a period of over fifty three years. He raised a family of eight children, owned his own little home in the west end, near where he was born. In later years he had a comfortable camp in Oneida Lake and an automobile which he never drove himself. His wages never exceeded thirty dollars per week. He often told me ``This job has never been a good paying one, but it has been d--n steady''. When he passed away some years ago after a lingering illness, it was like losing a member of the family. It may be of some interest that his granddaughter has been my secretary for ten years, and it is the only position she has ever held. Our present store is now managed by my son and partner, Robert Sheldon, who has been with me for nineteen years. When the war is over my younger son will again resume his place with us. I often wonder when I look back over almost fifty years in the harness and luggage business just why young men with fine college training decide to engage in business that shows so little opportunity for financial gain. What has happened in our own partnership is only one of many such instances that I know of when young men with good educations have elected to follow the retailing of Luggage and Leather Goods as their life work. Surely there must be some spirit of romance in handling fine leather goods for I see no other reason. Why this little history of our family's business should be of interest to any one is hard for me to understand. There are probably scores of other small businesses that have equally long and honorable records. The only unusual thing about it may be that for over one hundred years the name ``Sheldon'' has appeared first over a harness shop which eventually became a Luggage and Leather Goods Store and still continues. The fourth generation of Sheldons is now in charge of our store. Possibly if one of my grandsons follow in his father's steps, we may yet crow about a fifth generation in this one business. Only time will tell us that. At any rate I am sure that my partners grandfather and great-grandfather, though he had never seen either of them, are as proud as I am of the present management, and the manner in which it has maintained and added to the reputable standing of our firm in this our home community.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it is astounding we are even having this debate. The facts seem so clear. The rules of the House clearly discourage legislating in appropriations bills, and for good reason. Because we do not set policy in a committee that does not have full and open hearings on the subject matter. We want that to be in the authorizing process. The public clearly opposes the rollback of environmental protections. The supporters of these 17 riders are expecting us to blithely ignore these two essential facts. Has any Member of this body received a letter from an individual, not a special interest, but an individual pleading to push through environmental changes with no time for adequate debate and with no regard for standard procedure? I doubt it. Has any Member of this body received a letter from an individual, not from a special interest, but an individual pleading to be exposed to lead or arsenic or pleading for Congress to exonerate polluters or any of the other goals these riders would accomplish? I doubt it. The public does not support these riders which are a motley collection of some good ideas being pushed in the wrong context, good ideas being moved forward with the wrong language, and just plain bad ideas. None of them belongs in an appropriation. The chairman, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, constantly reminds us of the fact that we should not be legislating in an appropriations measure. The substitute that will be offered does nothing to allay the public's fears and support for it will be scored as an antienvironment vote. The substitute allows the conferees to do anything they want on the riders. What kind of instruction is that? They say to the conferees, go forth and be good citizens. That is their job. We want to be specific. Now, Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the key votes of this Congress and it is going to come on a procedural question. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct the conferees. Vote to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Vote for the American people.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked since November 8, 1994, the Republicans have the majority in the House. We chair every single committee. We chair every single subcommittee. We can move with dispatch through the authorizing process which permits full, open and public hearings.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], another Republican leader in the environmental movement and former Governor of Delaware.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for pointing this out. This water is very important and precious to all Americans. I would suggest to you that in December 1993, when 104 people in Milwaukee died because cryptosporidium was in the water supply, it was not because the Government was doing too much. It was because the Government was doing too little to protect the American people. Ladies and gentlemen, I can count, and I know what elections are about. Let me tell you what the last election was about. The American people were sending us a very clear message. They want smaller government, less costly government, less intrusive government, and yet more efficient government. I have yet to find the first American who wanted to vote to dismantle the Government. I have yet to find the first American who does not agree that we need regulations to control toxic emissions from oil refineries. I have yet to find the first American who does not agree that we need regulations controlling arsenic in our drinking water. I have yet to find the first American who does not agree that it poses a very serious public health problem if we cannot regulate sewer overflow into America's streets. The American public is watching this debate very clearly. The Republicans are getting very high marks in dealing with issues involving our economy. Quite frankly, our score cared is getting low marks with respect to the manner in which we deal with the environment. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a Republican versus a Democrat issue. You have witnessed Republican after Republican coming before us to say vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote ``yes'' on the instructions to the conferees to protect the air we breathe, the water was drink, and the food we eat. We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We are borrowing from our children, and we have to give an accounting of our stewardship. Today is the day to do it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], another of the many Republican leaders sensitive to the environment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my colleague from New York. Mr. Speaker, there is a matter of principle here, and I would like to point this out to my colleagues: For 40 years, the Republicans have been in the minority. For 40 years we have been [[Page H 11697]] bitterly complaining about the heavy-handedness of the then Democrat majority legislating in an appropriations bill without the benefit of full and open hearings. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues this: A number of these riders are meritorious in terms of their objective. They should go through the full and open public hearing process, and not be put in appropriations bills without the benefit of full and open and public hearings.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, because I feel compelled to respond immediately to my colleague from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that no State faces sanctions for failure to implement centralized inspection and maintenance programs. I want to provide for the Record a copy of an October 30 letter from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. Browner, which states those States face a loss of Federal highway funds if they do not adopt a centralized or test-only inspection program. Further, let me point out, one does not have to be a Democrat. Just as Governor Pete Wilson of California, Christine Todd Wittman of New Jersey, two Republicans, they worked it out. Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to follows: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 30, 1995. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to correct information in a recently distributed ``Dear Colleague'' letter about the Clean Air Act's motor vehicle emissions inspection program. Unlike the claims of the ``Dear Colleague'' letter, no state faces a loss of federal highway funds if they do not adopt a centralized or test-only inspection program. First it is important to note that inspection and maintenance programs are one of the most cost-effective ways to control urban smog and protect public health. These programs provide significant protections of public health and the environment which is why Congress required them as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. EPA's inspection and maintenance regulations provide states with a great deal of flexibility to design automobile emissions testing programs that make economic and environmental sense for their citizens. States can, and have, chosen programs where the emissions tests are done at service stations and auto dealerships. Also, states that have had test-only programs for many years are choosing to continue them because they work. All but two states have submitted complete inspection and maintenance plans and are under to threat of sanctions. The remaining two states have failed to submit any plan at all. States have a wide range of choices in program design, but scientific data from over 15 years of inspection programs in states around the country shows that some programs lower auto emissions more effectively than others. Contrary to the letter's contention, this conclusion is not based on theoretical models, but on actual tailpipe tests of thousands of vehicles in the field. I am sure you would agree that the most sensible approach is to use real world data from each state and base credit on the actual performance of the local programs--that is the approach that EPA is taking. I hope that the House of Representatives will consider this accurate information before it votes on the riders in the VA- HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation bill--not the mistakes propounded by those who would weaken important public health protections. Sincerely, Carol M. Browner.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. This bill represents nothing less than an assault on the environment. You know, one reason that I'm proud to be a Republican is that I think our party looks to the future--we expect people to make sacrifices today to protect the Nation's well-being tomorrow. That's the idea behind many of our welfare reform proposals. That's why we believe in balancing the budget; we don't want to saddle future generations with our mistakes. But in the bill before us now, we throw that principle to the winds. We squander precious resources, robbing them from future generations. We tell wealthy mining operations that they don't have to wait, we'll give away national resources to them right now for a song. This bill violates basic Republican principles, and for what? Not to cut the deficit; this bill denies the Federal Government--the taxpayers--money that is their due, by giving away our resources. Now, I voted for the Interior bill when it passed the House. I had some qualms about a number of items in it, but overall I thought it was an important vote for deficit reduction. But the bill that has come back from the Senate--with its Tongass National Forest and Columbia River Basin and mining provisions--this conference report is intolerable. I urge all my colleagues who care about the environment to vote against this bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to you John Hordines, who sponsors an annual flower show in my district at his farm in East Branch, NY. In his third year of running this flower show, which he does at his own expense, Mr. Hordines will have 31 entries from as far away as Florida and California. He does it for the love of flowers. And it's evident that plenty of people in this country share his enthusiasm, since 20 million Americans raise flowers. Mr. Hordines shows some qualities that I greatly admire: initiative, self-reliance, and generosity. His flower show, which is only open to amateurs, is a great example of these attributes. I encourage everyone to attend this year's flower show, which will be on October 1.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a great man, Albert J. Riley, who died shortly before we broke for the August recess. Al was the kind of man we don't hear enough about these days. He worked hard, raised a family, and served his community and his country. Like many men in his generation, Al served in World War II. On his 30th mission with the 392d Bomb Group of the 8th Air Force 576th Bomb Squadron, Al was shot down and was held as a prisoner of war for 9 months. He was decorated as a war hero, receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star, the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters and the POW medal. When he returned from the war, he worked for the New York Telephone Co., for 35 years while he and his wife, Ann, raised a family of nine children, two of who have died. The others grew up, married, and presented Al with 12 grandchildren. After retiring from the telephone company, Al joined several of his sons in the restaurant business. Anyone who ever went to Riley's Place knows that Al's success in that business came from treating customers as though they were family. Al was a dedicated husband, father, grandfather, brother, and friend. It's people like Al Riley who have made this country what it is today.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood amendment--an amendment that really ought to be noncontroversial. For starters, this amendment has nothing to do with abortion. Title X programs do not fund abortions. What these programs do instead is help over 5 million women to receive many primary health care services. Title X clinics serve as the entry point to the health care system--and the only source of services that would otherwise be unavailable to many women. In addition, title X funding helps deter unintended pregnancies, particularly teenage pregnancies. Members of this House who argued so strenuously for the need to reduce teenage pregnancies during the welfare debate, ought to be the strongest supporters of family planning. But strangely, this is not the case. Family planning also helps save the American taxpayers $1.8 billion annually. How? Every dollar spent on family planning saves $4 that would otherwise be spent on medical and welfare costs. In short, family planning improves both the Nation's health and its economy. It should not become the victim of unrelated ideological struggles. I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention a report issued July 24 by the Institution for the Future. Titled ``The Future of America's Research-Intensive Industries,'' the report offers important advice on federal science and technology policy. What follows are statements from the news conference issuing the report: This report is a much needed restatement of some principles that those of us who deal with R&D policy view as axiomatic: that R&D is the key to our nation's economic future; that innovation is more crucial than ever; that the federal government has a clear and irreplaceable role in the R&D enterprise; that R&D partnerships are the wave of the future. This report can be a critically important primer to those who are new to Congress--a blueprint for those who are inclined to support R&D; a caution signal for those who are not. I think that so far, this Congress has generally built policy along the lines of this blueprint. Basic research has emerged from the appropriations process remarkably unscathed--thanks, in large part, to the efforts of Chairman Walker. That's not to say that university researchers won't feel like these are seven lean years. But in the context of this budget, the appropriations demonstrate a continuing commitment to basic research. The Congress has also shown a willingness to ensure that federal policy encourages industrial research--a keystone of the American research enterprise. The tax, liability and regulatory systems are being reformed. My concern continues to be that ``regulatory reform'' does not become a euphemism for backsliding. We need to ensure that regulations are more flexible, less administratively burdensome and more sensitive to cost. We do not need to repeal the basic regulatory protections that have been so effectively constructed over the past two decades. This report also endorses what it calls ``cooperative funding''--an innocuous-sounding term for an increasingly controversial policy. I count myself among the supporters of this cooperative approach. I hope the companies that have sponsored this report will follow up and do more to convince others of the value of this approach. In short, this report makes the right points at a critical time. That they are points we have heard before makes them no less valuable. I'm reminded of an interview years ago with Tommy Tune. The interviewer asked him to talk about the best advice he had ever received about dancing. He said the best advice was when Gene Kelly pulled him aside after a rehearsal and said, ``Tommy, dance better.'' This report basically tells Congress to follow the steps it knows, but to do them better. It's good advice. The Future of America's Research-Intensive Industries (Summary of a presentation by Richard J. Kogan, President and Chief Operating Officer, Schering-Plough Corporation) Members of the Administration and Congress, distinguished scientists and professors, laddies and gentlemen: Good morning. As the Institute's researchers have noted, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology are one of this nation's ``top eight'' R&D-based industries examined for their ability to continue their innovation track record. Certainly, major challenges lie ahead for our industry. With biopharmaceutical industry R&D costs rising, it's increasingly difficult to repeat our previous innovation achievements that have made America the worldwide technological leader in medicine. Just as we cannot return to yesterday's markets, we cannot replicate our former R&D expenditures. Growth in industry R&D spending today is less than half the level of the early 1980s. Schering-Plough in the 15-year period 1979-1994 spent almost $500 million to develop our recombinant alpha interferon, plunging ahead even when it initially appeared the drug would help only a handful of cancer patients. It took nearly 14 years of work before we saw a penny of return on that investment. Today, such an effort might not be made-- nor our subsequent discovery that the drug can treat 16 cancer and viral diseases. For pharmaceutical and biotech firms, the burning issue now is not only whether we can continue bringing products to patients that treat unconquered diseases, but whether we can continue covering the expenditure for leading-edge research. Our industry is currently responsible for more than 90 percent of all new U.S. drug discoveries. Today's diseases--Alzheimer's, AIDS, heart and kidney disease, prostate cancer and arthritis--are far more complex than those successfully treated in the past. Moreover, many of today's most prevalent diseases--primarily chronic and degenerative conditions--are at the high-cost stage in the innovation cycle. If we cut investment in medical progress today, the consequence may be irrevocable and society may rue that decision for years to come. The annual medical costs of only seven major uncured diseases account for about half of today's health care bill. However, many of those diseases are within reach of effective pharmaceutical control or cure. As biomedical technology progresses to that point, the total cost of treating these major ailments should drop sharply. If the cycle of innovation is disrupted, we run the risk of being trapped with today's higher-cost, less-effective options. Today's rapidly changing health care market signals the continuing sense of urgency for optimal patient care and cost containment. By the same token, we must constantly remind ourselves that medical innovation is the most viable, long- term solution for cost-effective quality care--as the findings of the Institute study attest. In 1995, an urgent task before U.S. policymakers should be to assure that the path of innovation remains open, unobstructed and attractive to investors. And, that statement applies across the board--from our industry that has cured polio, turberculosis, measles and diphtheria to our fellow industries that have brought the world the laser, fiber optics, lightweight alloys, integrated circuits, the CAT scanner, and that have taken us into outer space. Thank you.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kolbe- Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which does nothing more than return this bill to the terms of current law. Current law is hardly radical. It says that, throughout the Nation, Medicaid must fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life. Medicaid is a national program, a federal program. It ought to offer the same minimal, basic coverage nationwide. And that's what this is-- minimal, basic coverage. We're not talking about funding abortions that are sought as a form of birth control or out of convenience or out of concern about the ability to responsibly parent a child. We're talking about federal funding for women who are the victims of rape and incest. These are not people who chose to get pregnant who could be accused of acting irresponsibly in any conceivable way. These women are victims of vicious, inhumane crimes. We ought to be seeking to help them. Forty-six years ago, during the early debates over civil rights, Hubert Humphrey challenged the Democratic party to walk out of the shadows of states' rights and into the bright warm sunshine of human rights. Voting for this [[Page H 8376]] amendment is our chance to place human rights above states' rights. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and not to add to the misery of women who have suffered the pain and indignity of rape and incest.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, it has been suggested that we get on with it, and we will be glad to get on with it. We are dealing with the people's business. Mr. Chairman, I could bring before this body right now member after member that would give the same testimonial that was given by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and by others who support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. If you voted yes on Friday, vote yes today for America.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that in a few minutes the House will be asked to vote again on the amendment I offered with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] last Friday, an amendment that passed 212 to 206. Just to remind my colleagues, in case you missed what took place across America this weekend, every major television network, every major newspaper in America, just to remind my colleagues, this amendment struck provisions that would have prohibited, prohibited the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing provisions of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and several other statutes that deal with the health and safety of the American family. This House sent the American public a clear, unequivocal bipartisan message on Friday, and it was this: The Congress cares about the environment. Republicans care about the environment. Democrats care about the environment. All Americans care about the environment. I think that that was a important message to send, and it was a message that caught the attention of the American people. I hope we repeat that message this evening. If we do not, if we fail, the burden will be on those who switched their votes. Exactly what did these Members learn over the weekend? Did the environment suddenly become less fragile over the weekend? Did their constituents lose their fondness for clean air and water? Do their constituents no longer expect the Federal Government to ensure that the air that they breath and the water that they drink and the food that they eat will not injure them? I do not think so. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to follow their principles and once again, to prove to the American people that this Congress, and particularly the Republicans in this Congress, are committed to open political processes and environmental safeguards. Vote yes, once again, on the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to my colleague from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former governor of Delaware and a trusted and loyal supporter of worthy causes, particularly those involving the environment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not disappointed in this process; I am offended by it. Do my colleagues know what this bill says, these 17 riders? Among other things, they say that none of the funds appropriated may be used for any proposed national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic. This bill prevents action to control raw sewage overflow in our urban areas. This bill would put a halt to regulation dealing with toxic emissions from oil refineries. Is it any wonder that every single group in America concerned about the environment, every single group in America concerned about our families is watching what we are doing here and they are going to remember what we do here? Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues, for whom I have great respect, have defended these riders and they have argued that they are necessary to send a signal. They want to send a signal to the Senate to get moving on some of the legislation pending over there. They want to send a signal to the bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency to maybe adjust the way they do business. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to send a signal. I think we ought to send a signal to the American people that we care about the air they breathe; we care about the water they drink; we are concerned about their environment. Vote ``yes'' for America.