Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, under section 13 of the Federal Power Act, project construction must begin within 4 years of issuance of a license. If construction has not begun by that time, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission cannot extend the deadline and must terminate the license. H.R. 2165 provides for extension of the construction deadline of the LeClaire project, a 27-megawatt hydroelectric project in Iowa, if the sponsor pursues the commencement of construction in good faith and with due diligence. These types of bills have not been controversial in the past, and this bill does not change the license requirements in any way, and does not change environmental standards. It merely extends the construction deadline. There is a need to act, since the construction deadline for the project expires in February 1998. If Congress does not act, FERC will terminate the license, the project sponsors will lose their investment in the project, and the community will lose the prospect of significant job creation and added revenues. H.R. 2165 would extend the deadline for up to 6 years and reinstate the license if it expires before the enactment of the bill. Lack of a power purchase agreement is the main reason construction of projects may not commence in a timely manner. It is very difficult for a hydroelectric project sponsor to secure financing until they have a license, and once they have been granted a license the construction deadline begins to run. However, the onset of intense competition in the electric industry is driving utilities to lower their costs and avoid making long-term commitments. Without a power purchase agreement a project generally cannot be financed. According to sponsors of the LeClaire project, construction has not commenced because of the lack of a power purchase agreement needed to obtain the financing. I should also note that the bill incorporates the views of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power solicited the views of FERC, and the agency does not oppose H.R. 2165. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2165, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2165) to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of FERC Project No. 3862 in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which reauthorizes certain provisions contained in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for 1 fiscal year. This is an important bill because it assures the President's authority to draw dawn the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an energy emergency and preserves the ability of the U.S. oil companies to participate in the International Energy Agreement without violating antitrust laws. I believe that a 1-year-only reauthorization of these provisions remains the appropriate course of action as long as the Committee on Appropriations continues to look at these oil reserves as a source of revenue. For the past 3 years, the members of the Committee on Commerce have opposed the sale of oil from the reserves to meet budgetary goals. However, in less than 3 years three sales have been authorized, and the fourth sale is currently being considered. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the International Energy Agreement are critical elements of America's energy security plan. Therefore, it is important that they be reauthorized. However, until we stop using the reserve in a manner for which it is not intended, I believe we should subject these programs to an annual reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2472) to extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention an award-winning essay written by a constituent of mine on a subject I know is near to your heart--the importance of freedom and democracy. I'm pleased to announce that Brittany Goff of Pocatello, ID, has been honored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States with a VFW 1997 Voice of Democracy Scholarship Award. Brittany's broadcast script is a poignant reminder of the sacrifices and commitments our forefathers made to ensure that we enjoy the rights and freedoms we have today. With all of today's headlines bemoaning the lack of appreciation America's youth has for civics, it is encouraging to know that those as young as Brittany understand the importance of democracy and freedom. I would like to submit that award-winning script into the Record at this time. ``Democracy--Above and Beyond''--1996-97 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program (By Brittany Goff) America came with a high price tag attached. No one person or groups of people could have paid the price to gain what we now enjoy today. It took many pilgrims, Indians, pioneers, soldiers, and all races of people with mixed ideals to accomplish this enormous feat. There were many tears, sweat, blood, families, friends, and lives sacrificed for the accomplishing a single glory: FREEDOM!!! All of these labors were just a foundation of a great fortress. This firm and unchanging foundation, which we call America's heritage, was the beginning of a wonderful government called--DEMOCRACY!!! After all the trials and sacrifices endured by our fathers it is no wonder why democracy is so strong and pure in its motives. Democracy is government that is run by the people who live under it. In a democracy people rule either directly through meetings that all may attend or directly through the election of certain representatives to attend to the business. Imagine the fear and anticipation of the pilgrims as they left their mother country to come to a strange and savage land, leaving everything behind just for a chance to make their own choices and not live under a dictatorship! Little would they know that in 1776 Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence would be accepted on the memorable July fourth and change all of our lives forever. The framers of the Constitution worked primarily to maintain a division of power between federal and state government to preserve an overall balance of federal government. Democracy accepts all individuals' point of views but traditionally, it is associated with the ideals of liberty and equality. In the United States especially it has been identified with the special concern for the common man, but the equality that is relevant to democracy is the equalizing of liberty, not property or of people. As R.N. Mac Iver said, ``True democracy respects not the average man, but the common in man; the moral worth of personality, and its power to achieve independence, integrity, and dignity.'' From this point of view, democracy declares that any group of people from whatever ancestry or status, has a monopoly of wisdom, importance, and virtue. In this sense, democracy's ultimate goal is respect of human personality and potential. It also guarantees personal freedom for all who choose to live under its direction. This great fortress of democracy was built upon the foundation of our forefathers and their sacrifices. Although America is still young, no other government can challenge such a strong and stable republic. That is because daily thousands of people across America are speaking out and exercising those freedoms which we have inherited. Each time we do this, we add a brick to our fortress; building it higher and higher until no earthquake or thunderstorm can tear it down. Our children will one day climb the ladder leading to the top of our mighty fortress. They will remember the steps it took of laying such a firm foundation, and then they will be able to follow our example by exercising these freedoms. Once they reach the top and look on the others below, they'll know why DEMOCRACY is above and beyond all other forms of government!!!

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Schumer amendment to eliminate the nonrecourse portion of the U.S. sugar program. As you know, during consideration of last year's historic farm bill, significant reforms were made to the U.S. sugar program. Among the changes were the elimination of all domestic production controls, an increase in the marketing assessments sugar farmers must pay to reduce the Federal deficit, and new penalties to further discourage loan forfeitures and maintain the now 12-year-old no-cost operation of sugar policy. Our domestic sugarbeet and sugarcane growers provide taxpayers with almost $300 million in Federal revenues through the collection of assessments. In fact, because our domestic growers have been so successful in providing U.S. consumers with stable, high-quality supplies of sugar at a retail price well below the developed country average, our farmers were willing last year to contribute their fair share in the overall goal of reforming Federal farm support programs. But while our sugar industry has been successful, it does face stiff competition from subsidized sugar growers throughout the world. GATT mandated no reduction in the price support for sugar in the European Union. Thus, while U.S. growers operate under a strict loan program, European farmers receive subsidies to artificially lower the market cost on their sugar sales. Recognizing the threat that dumping sugar by foreign countries could have on the United States, sugar growers have one remaining safety net, the nonrecourse loan guarantee. While some of my colleagues here have attempted to portray this as a gimmick to raid the Federal Treasury, in actuality, this program would only come into effect when at least 1.5 million tons of foreign imports begin to flood our markets. I believe this safety net is important to keep our domestic sugarbeet and sugarcane industry viable. Without this small measure of protection from the vagaries of foreign subsidized sugar, a critical sector of our farm economy could collapse. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was going to talk about the proliferation risk at the end of my comments, but because of the impassioned speech we just heard and the debate that we have heard, I think I will bring that discussion to the forefront. In doing so, let me point out that this research has been requested by the Department of Energy, supported by the administration, authorized by both House committees of jurisdiction and is being supported and monitored by our Nation's premier science organization, the National Academy of Sciences. I ask, do you believe that the Clinton administration with Vice President Gore heavily involved in these environmental matters would endorse the electrometallurgical technology if it constituted a proliferation risk? Would both the committees of Congress, would the National Academy of Sciences and the many other scientific groups and boards that have said this research is so critical support this if it were a proliferation risk? No, they would not. The reason is because, even though we have had this same tired old debate on every nuclear research project for the last four years it has come up, it is always the same argument no matter what the research is on the floor at the particular time. It must be a proliferation risk because that seems to be the only thing that can be said by those who simply want to shut down nuclear research in this country. The fact is this is not a proliferation risk. Plutonium is not and cannot be separated by this technology. The fact is that this technology blends down plutonium and binds it with other types of products so that it cannot be used in nuclear bombs. The chemistry and physics of the technology does not allow this. The plutonium is automatically bound together with fission products and other transuranic elements, and those materials make the plutonium unusable for weapons use. Quite simply, this technology is self-protecting. And that is why this Nation, that is why this administration, that is why the committees of this Congress have endorsed it. And those who oppose it do so in my opinion because they do not support nuclear energy research and they do not want to have the beneficial results of this research to occur. Independent nonpolitical scientific review boards convened in 1986, 1992 and 1994 have all confirmed that this technology does not present a proliferation risk. What is this technology? This technology that is currently being developed by Argonne National Laboratory is a research program designed to prepare spent nuclear fuel for proper disposal. It is interesting for me to note that many of those who oppose this technology are also opposing the legislation that will hopefully come on this floor later this year to provide for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. This technology has the potential to treat 2700 metric tons of DOE owned spent fuel, some of which has become seriously degraded, as other Members who have spoken tonight have explained. It is important to me in Idaho not only because the research is being done there but because over the past few decades much of the spent nuclear fuel of this country has been stored in Idaho. And the State of Idaho recently in litigation with the Department of Energy has achieved a negotiated result enforced by a court order that says that the Federal Government has got to take that spent nuclear fuel, treat it and store it somewhere else. And those who would stop this research and those who would stop the implementation of storage facilities would force that spent fuel to stay in Idaho over the aquifer which we have fought so hard to assure that it must move to protect. This research, as I said, has been supported by the administration, the committees of Congress, and the scientific review boards that have reviewed it have consistently supported it and said that it is needed research. And a special committee at the independent nonpolitical Academy of Sciences has reviewed this program extensively and is monitoring its progress. In their report, the committee recommends that DOE assign high priority to electrometallurgical research at Argonne National Laboratory saying that it represents a promising technology for treating a variety of DOE spent fuels. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this research is critical to this Nation's nuclear research policy, regardless of whether one supports nuclear energy in the future, which I do, or whether one simply supports solving the problems of the existing spent nuclear fuel that needs to be handled. We must support this needed critical research and we must not listen to those who continually throw up the false argument of proliferation against every aspect of our nuclear program in this country.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are here, I think for the fourth time, to debate the critical lockbox legislation which will correct one of the more significant problems in our current budgetary process. Before I describe this legislation, the amendment, I want to first of all give thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who both have, because of their schedules, been unable to be here on the floor today but are strong supporters and have been with us from the outset in fighting to make sure this critical legislation makes it not only to the floor once again, but ultimately becomes law. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] has been a tireless fighter for deficit reduction, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] has been with us from the outset, showing this is a strong bipartisan effort to correct a serious problem in the budget process we have. What is that problem? I indicated earlier, this is the fourth time we have brought this legislation before the House. Each time it has passed resoundingly, with votes well in excess of 300 votes. The problem that has been addressed, and hopefully one of these times we will be able to make it through not only the House but through the conference committee and send it to the President for his signature, which we expect would be forthcoming, the problem is simply this: As we put together our budgets each year and as we debate and vote on motions to restrict spending, cut spending, or eliminate spending on various programs or projects, all that happens when we succeed in paring back the budget in those votes is that the funding for those projects becomes free and available to be shifted into other spending. It does not necessarily go to deficit reduction, and in most cases does not go to deficit reduction. This bill would be very simple, but is very needed. It would require that when the House and the Senate both make the same cuts, so that both the House and Senate have agreed to eliminate spending in a particular program or project area, that those cuts go into a lockbox, and in conference those funds cannot then be siphoned off or moved into other spending. They must be dedicated to deficit reduction. If there are different amounts between the House and Senate, the conference committee has the freedom to decide a figure between the two amounts, but the conference committee is required to allocate those funding reductions to the deficit. Mr. Chairman, some Members have said, well, why not allow us, if we want to make a cut or a reduction in spending, to designate that to some other program if we so choose? This legislation allows that. It simply says that if Members want to shift spending instead of cut spending, then they have to say so in their amendment. If they do not say so, then we assume, as most debate assumes, that the cuts or the reductions are specified for deficit reduction. I think it is a very valuable amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, because as he knows, we have a strong difference of opinion on both sides of the aisle with regard to tax reduction and what impacts it will have on revenue. Take, for example, the capital gains tax reduction. Many of us believe very strongly that that tax cut is going to actually free up and stimulate the economy sufficiently to generate more tax revenue. The bottom line is that the tax debate is not this debate, and although many of us support tax cuts, we also support a good fiscal control over the spending habits of this Congress. That is what this amendment would address.

Mr. CRAPO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CRAPO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is a correct interpretation, with this explanation. If the Member bringing the amendment wants the funding to be utilized in another program, he can easily do so in the amendment. But most of the time when we debate these matters, they are debated as though they were budget issues and we are reducing unnecessary spending. This amendment says if we do not designate it to another spending source, then the conference committee is not allowed to redesignate it to another source. It is designated to the deficit.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I join with many of my colleagues who tonight have spoken in opposition to the Kennedy-Porter amendment. This is not an issue of corporate subsidy or corporate welfare. As the Price Waterhouse study has shown, with or without the purchaser road credit, the net receipts to the Federal Government from this program will not change. And the administration has affirmed that. Many of the points I wanted to make tonight have already been made, and I think it is important that someone from the Northeast have an opportunity to speak on this side who would not otherwise have an opportunity because of the limited time we have and, therefore, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, Idahoans have banded together to save homes and neighborhoods and communities from encroaching flood waters. We face what is literally the flood of the century and maybe the flood of the last 200 or 300 years. But, Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report that last week during the assistance efforts, two Idaho Air National Guardsmen were killed and one seriously injured when the helicopter they were in crashed. Maj. Don Baxter and 1st Lt. Will Neal were killed when the helicopter they were in went down. CWO Shelby Wuthrich survived the crash and was pulled from the wreckage by a local citizen, Sherry Lang. Major Baxter had just taken command of the Idaho National Guard operations to assist in the flooded areas. His brother tells me that Don died doing what he loved most, flying and serving other people. Will Neal also was an exemplary guardsman and was enthusiastic about assisting others in trouble. I was able to visit with Shelby in the hospital this last weekend, and the doctors are still determining the extent of his injuries and rehabilitative efforts; but he has a tremendous will and spirit, one that will help him to come to resolution with this tragedy. I also want to commend all the others who responded to the crash site. Their quick response is a strong testament to the community's spirit. The thoughts and prayers of all Idahoans are with the families of these three men. They were performing a great service, working for the good of the community and helping others in trouble when this tragedy occurred. I know that all the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in sending their prayers and in keeping their thoughts and prayers focused on these men and sending our condolences to the Baxter, Neal, and Wuthrich families. Truly, this is the kind of rugged individualism, the kind of integrity and character that Idahoans and Americans exemplify when facing disaster threats.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of Worker and Community Transition Program language contained in the en bloc amendment. The amendment would change the language pertaining to the Worker and Community Transition program in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. The amendment restores $44 million to this program, keeping a commitment to help the workers and communities who sacrificed to produce our nuclear arsenal during the cold war. Mr. Chairman, the Worker and Community Transition Program, commonly called 3161, provides former Department of Energy nuclear weapons production workers preference for new Department of Energy cleanup jobs. It is important to recognize the contribution that these workers have made in defeating our enemies during the cold war and provide them with job preference protection during the transition of the Department of Energy mission from bomb-making to nuclear waste cleanup. Over the last 5 years, the Department of Energy has reduced its prime contractor work force by more than 40,000 employees, from about 150,000 to less than 110,000. These reductions save taxpayers approximately $2.5 billion each year. While this is good, we must not forget the human impact that restructuring is having on real people. The Worker and Community Transition Program has assisted approximately 15,000 workers directly affected by changes in the nuclear weapons production mission. In addition, the program has been very helpful in assisting communities, including my home town of Idaho Falls, in reducing their economic dependence on Department of Energy work by moving toward a more diversified economic base. In its current form, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 would reduce the Worker and Community Transition Program by nearly $50 million from the President's request. The bill would also terminate the program effective September 1999, and would also prohibit the use of worker and community transition funds for local economic impact assistance. It is upon this last provision that I want to focus the remainder of my remarks. Under the landmark nuclear waste agreement between the State of Idaho and the Department of Energy, $30 million dollars is to be spent for community transition purposes. These funds have in the past come from the worker and community transition program by way of payment from the Department of Energy to the State of Idaho. This money is currently being paid to the State of Idaho in annual installments of $6 million. The Department of Energy is contractually obligated to make these payments. Both the Governor of the State of Idaho and I expect the Department of Energy to continue making these payments--either through the 3161 funds or by other means. If the Department of Energy decides to continue making these payments through 3161, the language contained in H.R. 1119 must be changed to reflect the Worker and Community Transition language contained in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, since the Department of Energy has not clarified their intent as to which budget area they intend to make these payments through, I ask your support for this amendment which simply provides another avenue by which the Department of Energy can meet its contractual agreements. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the workers and the communities who helped the United States win the cold war by supporting this amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I'm introducing this bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain facilities at the Minidoka project to the Burley Irrigation District. In 1926, under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, operation and maintenance of the distribution system of the southside pumping division of the Minidoka project was transferred to Burley Irrigation District. The district has operated and maintained the distribution system ever since. In the early 1950's the main southside canal and certain electrical distribution lines were transferred for operation and maintenance to Burley Irrigation District as well. In addition to those transfers the district agreed, under its contracts, to pay to the United States the construction costs incurred in constructing the project and the Minidoka Dam. It also agreed to pay its proportionate share of the construction costs of storage facilities in which the irrigation district attained a right to all water stored in the space acquired by the district in the reservoir. At this time, the Burley Irrigation District has paid in full all construction costs allocated to the district in the storage facilities and all costs incurred in the construction of the distribution system operated and maintained by the district. For 70 years the Burley Irrigation District has demonstrated its competence in operating and maintaining the facilities proposed for title transfer. Clearly they have the technical capability to meet both their physical and financial obligations. For these reasons I am introducing this bill to convey title to the Burley Irrigation District, of Federal reclamation distribution facilities.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I too rise today in support of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This is very critical legislation that is being dealt with this week in the Senate, legislation that I have worked on now for 4 years with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], and many other Members of this House. It is legislation that is so important that we must deal with it this year, and deal with it this year soon. The Federal Government has a legal responsibility to take used spent fuel in 1998. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in July 1996, that the DOE has a legal obligation to take spent fuel from the Nation's commercial reactors. If the Government fails to perform, the American taxpayers could be forced to cough up more than $50 billion in liabilities. The Federal Government has not kept faith with its people on this issue. The Department of Energy has broken its promise, indeed its legal obligation, to take used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors beginning on January 31, 1998. Despite the fact that it has had 15 years to establish a central storage facility, DOE now says it cannot accept the used fuel on time in the 1998 deadline. What is more, absent legislation forcing it to live up to these contractual commitments, DOE does not have any plans to begin taking this used fuel prior to the year 2010. Electric ratepayers are getting ripped off. Already through their monthly electric bills, ratepayers have paid the Federal Government nearly $13 billion to finance the construction of storage facilities for spent fuel. The Government has taken the money, often spending it for other purposes, but has failed to live up to its commitment to build these storage facilities. If nuclear power producers have to continue to provide onsite storage because the Government fails to accept and fulfill its responsibility, the ratepayers will end up paying twice. They will pay once, as they have already paid for the construction of the storage facility, and a second time for the cost of storing it onsite. The cost to ratepayers of providing this additional onsite storage will be billions more. Investors are losing money due to Government inaction. The used fuel crisis is hurting the value of investor-owned utilities that produce nuclear power. The crisis exists not only because the Government clearly intends to violate its contractual obligation to accept the spent fuel, but also because we have military fuel that is stored in States like Idaho that needs to be addressed in similar circumstances. The uncertainty over whether the Government will dispose of used fuel, if it does at all, is complicating the utilities' planning process. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act makes environmental and economic sense. Used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors and defense facilities is now being stored at 80 sites in 41 different States. Common sense dictates that storage of nuclear waste in one remote, unpopulated location, where safety and cost efficiencies will be maximized, is the best policy. The legislation itself incorporates amendments to strengthen environmental safeguards. Nuclear power plants are running out of space to store spent fuel. The Federal Government says its repository will not be ready until the year 2010, at the earliest. But by 1998, 27 of the Nation's 109 nuclear powerplants will run out of onsite storage space and by 2010, 80 nuclear plants will have no space to store the used fuel at all. Finally, the Department of Energy and the Navy are only obligated to fulfill strict legal obligations to the State of Idaho with regard to spent fuel stored there. The State of Idaho entered into a binding contractual agreement with the Department of Energy and the Navy recently, which has been implemented by court and has become a part of a court order that requires timely deadlines to be met in the transfer of this spent fuel out of the State of Idaho into permanent storage. The longer the Federal Government fails to proceed timely on its required obligation to accept this spent fuel, the greater the risk these obligations will not be met. This bill will provide for the much needed centralized storage of our Nation's defense high-level waste and spent fuel from our nuclear Navy. This bill goes further than the bill last Congress to address the needs of these facilities, and currently awaits needed action in this House. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this House to act promptly and decisively on this issue and send a message to the White House that not only should this legislation not be vetoed, this legislation should be welcomed with open arms, so a critical problem facing America today can be resolved.