Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. We had 200 people in Port St. Lucie, 100 at Fort Pierce, about 125 in Hobe Sound, Florida, this weekend. In every meeting, in every town hall meeting I had over the weekend, someone asked about the IRS. Somebody asked about the gentleman from New York's bill and the reform efforts. Someone would ask about Mr. Armey's attempts to have a flat tax, some would ask about Mr. Archer's national sales tax. But it was interesting, each and every person had their own analogy or story about what they went through with the IRS. I guess the most telling is when my own CPA and others have told me they have to seek professional help themselves to figure out their own taxes, so they do not make an error, on their own taxes. So a CPA has to do a CPA's taxes and have them proofread by another person in order to make certain that they comply with the law we have created, so complex, so convoluted. That should frighten the average person. Again, I think it is extraordinary that we are at a point in time we can talk about two significant changes in the Federal program: One, a surplus in Federal revenues over expenditures, and, two, actually revisiting and looking at the complexity of the code, making it simpler and fairer for every American.

Mr. FOLEY. Let me get this straight and let us reiterate, because this sounds so simple that it may not actually work in Washington, because they will not get it. We are going to spend less than we take in, we are going to use some of the surplus to repay monies we borrowed from trust funds, we are going to give additional tax relief, and we are going to improve our Nation's highways in the process and restore fiscal accountability. Is that correct?

Mr. FOLEY. So that suggests that the young gentleman here who was helping turn charts for you, who is a page in this Congress, whose parents from California have sent him here proudly to be a part of this government, watch it in action, he may inherit a Nation and be a leader of this Nation, one which has a surplus in its budget.

Mr. FOLEY. I will tell you what I am hearing in my community from younger generations, baby boomers. They are suggesting maybe some day we should experiment with privatization of Social Security. We are not certainly calling for that under this act. We do not even talk about privatizing Social Security. But some of our future generations may decide instead of buying these nonnegotiable Treasury bills, they would rather have a chance to have some investments in mutual funds. So maybe the government no longer is the arbiter of what is the best investment for families. Maybe we are able to turn away from the government and say let the private sector determine, and yet preserve some security. I wanted to be very careful and state carefully for seniors that are listening tonight, we are not talking about privatizing your Social Security system. We are talking about preserving and protecting. What we are talking about is 30 years from now when we pay off the huge debt that this Congress has run up for the past 40 years, we are talking about making for the first time meaningful financial reform of our government so that we expect from our government the same we expect from our families. I will tell you and I will claim as I have done in my district, if a family bounces checks the way we bounced our budget, they would be arrested and charged with theft and a crime.

Mr. FOLEY. Well, let me suggest that I spent this past weekend back in Florida in my district, and I will also suggest that my district, when I first got elected, was the No. 1 of all the freshmen in the 104th Congress with the most Medicare recipients. I am number 7 in the Nation of every Member of Congress with the most seniors in my district. So they are concerned about the future of this country, they are concerned about Medicare and Social Security, but they are also smart enough, many who have lived through the Depression, that they understand what it means to save a buck. You know I use an analogy about my grandmother. My grandmother, if she would receive an unexpected refund check from the IRS, not that that happens that frequently, but if she got $50 back unexpected, she would put it in a savings account. My generation would get $50 unexpected, go out a buy a $100 stereo and convince themselves it really only costs $50 for the stereo because the $50 was found money. What we have to do and what I was telling them about this weekend which met with great response from Democrat, Republican and Independent voters in my district, from all age brackets and all economic strata, we laid out the plan that you carefully authored, the Debt Repayment Act of 1997, which will only allow the Federal Government once we hit a surplus to spend 99 cents of every dollar of revenues; 1 percent has to be earmarked for replacement of the funds that this Congress has borrowed out of Social Security. Again we talk about a trust fund. There is no trust there. It has been borrowed and raided for years and decades. We replace money into the trust fund. We also replace money into the highway trust fund and use some of the dollars to pay down that deficit that looms, as well as additional tax cuts. One percent, thanks to your great creative work on this bill, will be earmarked for those 3 categories. And when I describe it to the seniors, they say that is so common sense. We in our family save 5 to 10 percent of every paycheck whenever possible. It is not always possible, families run into struggles, different unexpected demands on their paycheck, but most families as a rule save 2, 5, 10 percent of weekly paychecks so that they can put it in toward retirement, toward a family vacation, toward the Christmas club account, toward what have you for safety and security.

Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman will yield again, I think we also have to underscore the tax increase that seniors suffered in 1993, which included taking away some of their interest earnings in income and taxing their Social Security in order to balance the budget. People who had retired, who had worked all their life for this country, now were being taxed under a new plan in order to balance the budget, but we did not really balance it because we kept spending more and more and more.

Mr. FOLEY. How much is the annual cost to the taxpayers aggregate for the interest on the debt alone?

Mr. FOLEY. What the gentleman is saying tonight is that $330 billion that is paying the interest on the debt does not reduce the $5.3 trillion in debt?

Mr. FOLEY. To put it in simple terms, a family, if they borrowed against their home on a 30-year mortgage and paid a mortgage payment every month for 30 years, but it was strictly interest, would still then owe the full principal as they started 30 years prior?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, that is something I want to emphasize. You know, it is great to boast about progress we are making, and I think we have turned this place light years around from where we were. But none of us have actually talked enough about that looming $5.3 trillion debt that will remain even with the balanced budget. Some estimates suggest that that number may climb to $6 trillion by the year 2001, 2002. So I think we have to underscore right now that we are talking about a significant amount of debt that remains after the balanced budget.

Mr. FOLEY. Something else I thought of. We may not have to pass supermajorities to raise taxes. We may not ever have to confront a tax increase again in our Nation's history if we abide by your plan.

Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman would yield, is the gentleman suggesting actually sunsetting a law that was created here in our Nation's Capital?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield 1 additional second, because it reminds me of watching TV at home and the ominous voice of the announcer comes on and says, have you overextended your credit? Have you spent more than you have in your account? It is time for credit counseling. You need to see a professional to get yourself out of debt. What we are doing here tonight does exactly what we caution all Americans to do: Get out of debt, get equity, build a future for yourselves and your family. Finally, finally, the Federal Government is going to set and lead by example, rather than setting an example that I think has been devastating to the Nation, because they feel if politicians in Washington and bureaucrats can spend more than they bring in, then it must be all right for me.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I commend our chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for initiating it. He has been a leader in these types of initiatives, and they are very, very important in protecting our children. Madam Speaker, this legislation provides additional strength to the critical measures we have enacted in the past, most significantly, Megan's Law, to protect the children of our Nation against violent sexual predators. One of its main goals is to ensure that everyone convicted of violent sexual crimes is required to register in the places in which they live and work so that their whereabouts are known. The community notification that we provided last year under Megan's Law is only as good as the sex offender registrations that have been set up in each State now. If those registries do not have complete information on the whereabouts of sexual predators, then our attempts to keep track of those who will continue to prey on young children will be flawed. Madam Speaker, John Walsh of Fox TV's America's Most Wanted said that in his show he has helped capture 64 child molesters in one 6-month period. Over half of them were people who had worked with children. Sixty-four people, child molesters, caught in a 6-month period; over half of them had worked with children. Parents and families have a right to know if those living near their children or working with their children are convicted violent sexual offenders who have victimized children. They cannot know this unless we have strong registration and notification laws that provide that information. Madam Speaker, I cosponsored Megan's Law, and I am cosponsoring this bill to strengthen Megan's Law for the sake of the children it is designed to serve and to save.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first make the point there has been a lot of notion of felonious drug use and that we are going to promote it through opposition to this amendment. I remember a bumper sticker that used to say, ``If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, if we outlaw needle exchange programs, then only the outlaws will have needles, dirty needles that are killing them. Clearly, I do not have any medical testimony that suggests that I have the perfect answer. But I will suggest that the Federal Government is spending $120,000 over their lifetime to care for somebody infected with HIV virus, and it costs 10 cents to provide a sterile needle. Mr. Chairman, I ask anyone listening to my voice, if given a free needle will they inject themselves? The attending physician here has people fainting by getting a flu shot. It is not something you would do naturally, is find a free needle and then suggest I think I will try heroin. It does not happen. But what is happening is the disease of AIDS is being spread through the use of hypodermic needles. Plain and simple. I know this is a very sensitive area for people, and I do not want the Members who oppose the good amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] to suggest that we are for drug use, neither do I want the view of the gentleman from Illinois to be taken lightly. He has very serious concerns. Mr. Chairman, maybe this Congress, through the deliberations being held today, could discuss creating a needle that is only for one-time use, whether it is for a diabetic user or someone else. Maybe we invent the technology that allows a needle to be only used once, a collapsible syringe type that has one-time use only. Maybe that is a better alternative, and we could eliminate this. But if Members think that by not engaging in this debate we are furthering the health care of average Americans, we are not. They will still find the needle in the trash. They will still rob the doctor's office. They will rob the pharmacy or they will claim to be a diabetic to get that needle, and so the disease goes on and spreads throughout our community; 67 percent are through injection of drugs, and then we as a society pay for that. What I thought was most important is that perhaps we have a chance of getting a person into counseling. And I agree, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] was absolutely right when he suggested why should they be given 40 needles in exchange for one? I do not agree with that type of program. I think they have to be very well-controlled and monitored. But at the same time if we can lure one person off of heroin, one person off of drugs, one person off of catching or being exposed to HIV or AIDS, then we have done something meaningful here today. But to blanketly say that this administration is promoting drug use by trying to experiment in a very, very small controlled atmosphere is wrong. Mr. Chairman, Members have denounced facts today that have been proven in New Haven, CT, and Tacoma, WA, about the reduction of the spread of AIDS. We see this. But in all due respect to the physicians who testified for the amendment, they have some valid points. But let us meet in the middle and talk about something new and different. But most importantly, let us talk about lives and saving lives. Let us talk about minimizing the spread of AIDS and HIV. And, hopefully, let us talk about eradicating this Nation of the deadly drugs that are out there on our streets.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first and foremost commend the gentleman from Arkansas for his good words on campaign finance reform. I join him in that pledge to ban soft money. We did a lot of campaign finance reform in the State of Florida. We reduced the size of the donation from PAC's and individuals. We cleaned up the process, and we made a difference. The American public needs to see real campaign finance reform. I am particularly impressed the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] has been so aggressive in this pursuit as a freshman in this Congress looking to change the way we do business, and I think it is vital. I think the American public distrusts politics, they do not like the way the system operates and clearly revelations that have been going on in the news media have embarrassed us further. I join him in the pursuit of that reform, soft money bans and other things that will lend some credibility to the U.S. Congress and what we do here. I also want to commend Secretary Madeleine Albright for her diligent pursuit of peace in the Middle East for the concerns that we all share in this country for peace and stability in the Middle East. I am particularly impressed how President Clinton has dealt with the situation in Northern Ireland, the new Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, and others who have been so aggressive in working on peace, peace in the northern portion of Ireland. It is as a result of all parties being brought forward at the table to talk seriously about peace in those regions. That will be the only way we will see peace in the Middle East, is if the parties join together in a pursuit of peace. That includes Yasser Arafat, that includes the Israelis, that includes everyone who is in the region, to start absolutely sitting down to negotiate peace so we can end the bloodshed, end the terror, end the endless killings that are taking place against innocent citizens who just want to live life and are being and having their lives destroyed. I want to commend Secretary Albright for her engagement there and for her stern words today to end terrorism. I urge her to continue that profile, and I urge the White House to do the same so that we can hopefully eliminate the scourge of terrorism in that region of the world. The President is going to be requesting fast track authority to our Latin American neighbors. The Florida delegation met today. We had some very serious concerns of granting additional fast track authority to any other nation. Let me speak for myself and not the delegation, because I have significant concerns about what has happened as a result of NAFTA. I can go down the litany of problems we have experienced since NAFTA was passed. We can talk about the increase of drugs coming across our borders, unchecked because of this new policy of bringing all goods in in an expedited fashion. Immigration was supposed to benefit from NAFTA. We have not seen that. We have seen increased illegal immigration occurring on our border States, increased problems with immigration, and the conditions really not being lifted, if you will, in Mexico itself. Labor standards are another problem. I visited Mexico and I witnessed children working in the fields, children working in the packaging plants, the spraying of pesticides that are banned in the United States. Again our labor standards, our child labor laws that we hold dear in this country are being violated in Mexico and the bottom line of all that was supposed to be a benefit for the consumers. Somehow through international trade we were going to bring about some benefits to the consumers, that they would save money. The price of a Mexican tomato and an American grown tomato in Florida is equal at the grocery store. So we have shifted jobs out of the United States, we have given a preferential advantage to the growers in Mexico, they violate what would be considered decent American standards on labor, and ultimately the consumer pays the same amount of money. Then we are having fear of food safety as a result of problems that are being incurred in the system of salmonella and other kinds of problems, the problems in the berries we have recently witnessed, in the strawberries with our school children. Clearly we have a concern. Mr. Speaker, I can just tell my colleagues as a Member of Congress when we had the big debate on most-favored-nation status for China, the White House, the Trade Office and everyone came over to our office pledging some changes in policy as it related to introduction of citrus to China, a major export for the State of Florida and for the United States, California as well. Prior to the vote I was visited by every official saying, ``We are going to work strenuously on these problems you have raised, Congressman Foley. We want to help solve these problems and we're going to make it our priority to see that these things are fulfilled.'' We have the most-favored-nation status vote, I vote for it hoping that we are going to see a break of the logjam of problems with the most-favored-nation and China will take our citrus to their Nation, we can do some common dialog on business pursuits. Not a word since that vote. No one has called me to suggest we are making some progress now. They do not need my opinion or vote any longer because the vote is already cast. I can tell my colleagues that the vote is not going to be easy on fast tracking with Latin America. I am not going to take side agreements or snapback provisions. I want it to be in rule of law that we can understand the dynamics by which trade will be negotiated with our Latin American neighbors.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 30, the world was shocked to learn that bombings carried out by two Arab suicide bombers in Jerusalem had killed 13 Israelis. Now this morning we are again horrified to learn that yet another terrorist attack in an outdoor mall in Jerusalem has claimed the lives of at least 5 people and injured hundreds more. Since 1993, terrorism instigated by the Palestinian Authority has resulted in the deaths of over 230 Israelis and United States citizens. When does it stop? Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has continually fanned the flames of violence through inflammatory rhetoric and tacit approval of terrorism. Congress must make it clear to the Palestinian Authority that violence must end. Before Congress adjourned for the August recess, we took a step in the right direction by adopting an amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill that will suspend $100 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority until the President can certify that the Palestinian Authority is meeting certain human rights conditions and fully implementing the Oslo peace accords. Besides failing to suppress terrorism, the Palestinian Authority has failed to fulfill security agreements mandated by the Oslo accords by refusing to confiscate all illegal arms and refused repeated Israeli requests to extradite known Palestinian terrorists. We must strongly condemn today's action and work for peace in the Middle East.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to cut development assistance to India, but I do want to state clearly for the record, the gentleman is motivated by the best of all reasons and intentions on this floor today. The gentleman from Indiana has displayed himself a caring advocate of people of human rights around the globe, and those who would suggest, as I heard a moment ago, that he is motivated by some other reason are absolutely wrong. His heart is in the right place and his interest for people is well-known and his record is distinguished in protecting human rights, whether it is in India or China or anywhere else on the globe where human rights matter, and it matters to this Member. Mr. Chairman, just recently we have celebrated the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and it is a thriving democracy. Like all developing countries, India has had its experiences with human rights problems; however, India, the world's largest democracy, is making great strides in addressing the human rights concerns that have been addressed by the gentleman from Indiana. India's free press, independent judiciary, and vigorous nongovernmental organizations have been mentioned as models for other developing countries. Allegations of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir prompted India to form an independent National Human Rights Commission, which has already punished more than 200 security personnel for their abuses. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael has said that India's NHRC ``has real teeth'' to expose violations of human rights. The most recent U.S. State Department human rights report praised the commission's independence and noted that India ``made further progress in resolving human rights problems.'' I appreciate, again, I state clearly, the concern for human rights expressed by the gentleman from Indiana. However, while the amendment being debated today will do little to improve India's already significant progress in that area, it will do harm to build strong relationships between the United States and India. And I stress that that is vitally important at this time. We have witnessed a debate on MFN and China and developing problems in that portion of the world, and we have to recognize India is a friend and a nation of great potential to protect and keep stability in the region; a nation that we can count that we have established great trade opportunities and relationships with. Mr. Chairman, while problems remain, we need to constructively work with the Government of India, not reproach it. The United States is now India's largest overseas investor, its biggest trading partner, and its preferred source of technology. Let us not needlessly damage this important relationship. Let us work to cement it, but also underscore the concerns of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and work diligently to protect those people in India, protect human rights, and solve this in a deliberative fashion.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman for the clarification, and commend him on his efforts to ensure that the United States aid to Haiti is being properly utilized. As I witnessed the strength of the people of Haiti and their desire to have economic opportunity, it became clear to me that the government needs to lead by example. I suggested to President Preval that he take a stronger stand in forcing the privatization of the utilities and other areas. Even if the United States could provide the Haitian government with all the money in the world, it would come to no avail without reform of the Haitian economy. So I would suggest this Congress and this committee has a strong responsibility to work closely with the current government in Haiti and try and see that these economic reforms become reality, so those people in Haiti can have jobs, opportunity, growth and prosperity.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. Mr. Chairman, I recently traveled to Haiti in order to get a firsthand look at the political and economic conditions there. It is my concern that if the current political and economic impasse in that country continues, there could be a social explosion that leads to a mass immigration of Haitian refugees to Florida. As certain factions inside Haiti are blocking reforms to further their own political agenda, vital measures are being stalled that could lead to more private investment in Haiti and ultimately to stabilization of this country. Economic reform in Haiti, particularly in the privatization of state-owned enterprises, is a necessary step in the improvement of Haiti's economy. During my trip I took particular note of the inaccurate and antiquated power and telecommunication systems in Haiti. Without a modern infrastructure it is ludicrous to expect that Haiti will attract significant private investment. Therefore, the Haitian government must privatize these industries. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations this year has inserted language which emphasizes that aid for Haiti is being provided with the clear understanding that it will only be provided if the Haitian government is actually implementing a meaningful restructuring of the Haitian public sector. Am I correct in that assumption?

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are gathered here in this Chamber on a very historic opportunity, an historic day, to balance the Federal budget, to bring about some fiscal sanity in this Nation, to tell the American taxpayers we are finally, after many decades, becoming more responsible with their money. Not a day goes by that we do not open the newspaper and see a story of more fraud, waste, and abuse in our Federal Government. Medicare: Report indicates $24 billion in wasteful fraudulent spending--$23 billion. A report the other day, commissioned by the Air Force, indicates that several of our current fleet are rusting away, are dangerous planes to fly. Today, I rise to support the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] in their effort to cut the B-2 bomber, cut $331 million from the bill to start production of nine more B-2's. Let us tell the whole story. They indicate it will cost $27 billion to continue to build this plane, not $331 million. That is the start-up price. That is to get a foot in the door. That is to keep the production line going. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin because he did something today that I am very much in support of: reducing the deficit by $214 million, using the cuts to reduce the deficit. Fiscal sanity. Changing priorities. Finding a way to make ends meet. How can we, in good conscience, let this opportunity go by us? We can balance the budget, but we can do more. The economy is going in our direction. We are reducing spending in so many areas. We are increasing revenues. But, my fellow colleagues, the deficit still hovers at $5.3 trillion. By the year 2002, when we finally balance, maybe before, we will be $6 trillion in debt. In spending on interest alone on the deficit, $285 billion going out of the coffers of the American taxpayers into the pockets of the bond holders, not doing anything for society, not rebuilding infrastructure, not making a difference in our inner cities, not improving education for our children--$285 billion on spending for interest alone. It is like paying a 30-year mortgage and never touching the principal. At the end of 30 years we still owe the same amount we did when we bought the house. My fellow colleagues, it is a simple analogy. We have plenty of B-2 bombers. The Pentagon says the current fleet of 21 B-2 bombers is sufficient to meet the two war scenario, the ability to fight and win two wars at the same time. The massive Deep-Attack Weapons Mix Study conducted by the Pentagon concluded that it would not be more cost effective to buy B-2 bombers. Republican appointee Defense Secretary Cohen, appointed by the President, a member of my party from Maine, does not want any more B-2 bombers. I have to trust the Secretary of Defense in making judgments and determinations. The Pentagon has told us they do not want any more B-2 bombers. Military generals have told us they do not want any more B-2 bombers. But we sit here with the Nation's checkbook and say we will have our will in this House, we will insist on buying more B-2 bombers. We do not care what the experts tell us, we will waste taxpayers' dollars to please some defense contractors. It is time to stop that kind of wasteful spending. Again, the Congressional Budget Office, the one CBO that we held up as the model of efficiency and accuracy when we debated the tax measures, the CBO projects that to build and operate nine additional B- 2 bombers over the next 20 years could cost over $27 billion--$27 billion. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to come to this floor prepared to make a sacrifice for the American taxpayers today, to support the Obey amendment to strike the B-2 bomber, to save $331 million today, $27 billion over the life of this project, to reduce the deficit by $214 million, add $105 million for the Air National Guard KC-135 re-engining and add $12 million for Army breast cancer research, one of the most accurate groups that has been working on detecting breast cancer and curing breast cancer, the Army breast cancer research program. It also removes a major veto threat the President has indicated. I am not concerned about veto threats. The President makes them on almost every bill. But on this one I particularly agree with him. I agree with him because I think he is making a good point on saving the fiscal sanity of this Nation. And, again, I have supported, as a Member of Congress from Florida, most defense spending on new weapon systems. This one has to go. Eliminate it and support the Obey amendment.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, something was mentioned today on the floor about the environment. The Miami Herald, an environmental newspaper located in Miami, FL: Congress weighs sugar policy. Dismantling the U.S. sugar program will not save the Everglades. Sugarcane, the plant, is still the most benign crop grown in the Everglades agricultural area, requiring less water than rice, releasing fewer polluting nutrients than vegetables or cattle pastures. Studies show that the crops that might supplant sugarcane would pose a greater threat to the environment and, if the land became fallow, it would be quickly overtaken by melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. We heard about price. Let me show my colleagues what the farm bill did last near. Raw sugar prices down 3.4 percent. Wholesale refined sugar down 5.2 percent; cereal up 1; ice cream up 1.8; 2 percent for candy; 2.1 for retail refined sugar; and cookies and cakes up 3.4 percent. Reducing the price of sugar as the amendment would suggest will not create a consumer benefit. Reject this amendment. It is about jobs, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] said. It is about a bill that was fairly negotiated on this floor. They lost. They should accept their defeat. Protect the program. Defeat Miller-Schumer.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, pyroprocessing, also known as electrometallurgical treatment, is a relic of the budget-busting breeder reactor program which Congress killed in 1994 by terminating the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor. According to a 1995 paper on pyroprocessing prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, the basic technology was developed for the integral fast reactor program, which until recently canceled, was the United States' nuclear research and development program for advanced liquid metal reactors. The ALMR was to be a breeder reactor that was supposed to produce more plutonium than it consumed, and pyroprocessing was to be used in extracting the plutonium from the spent fuel to be reused for civilian or military purposes. Since termination of the ALMR, supporters of the pyroprocessing technology have, in effect, searched for a mission. Now they say the technology is being developed to prepare spent nuclear fuel for proper disposal. However, according to the publication ``Nuclear Fuel,'' the only thing certain about Argonne National Lab's effort to demonstrate whether pyroprocessing is a viable and versatile spent fuel management tool is that it will take longer and cost more to reach a conclusion on its potential than originally thought. The review also states that completion of this development and demonstration program requires a proposed Argonne National Laboratory- West spent nuclear fuel processing program that would extend beyond fiscal year 2005, which is 6 years and at least $270 million behind schedule. The National Academy of Sciences says the DOE must clearly understand that additional funding will be necessary beyond the demonstration phase to achieve the program's objectives. Nevertheless, it is unclear at best that pyroprocessing technology will ever meet its objective of simplifying disposal of certain types of Department of Energy spent fuel. For instance, the National Academy of Sciences has pointed out that the nuclear waste generated by pyroprocessing is probably unsuitable for Yucca Mountain. If the treated fuel is indeed stored at Yucca Mountain, radioactive materials could be released into the environment at very clear risk to health and safety. The fact is, pyroprocessing is not needed. In the 1980's, 59 cans containing 17 tons of DOE spent nuclear fuel was shipped from the Argonne National Laboratories to Rocketdyne in California, where the unstable elements were neutralized. The question then arises: Why should Congress continue to fund a program that is not needed and will cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars when there is no guarantee that its objectives will ever even be met?

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be agreeable to discussing an amendment that would include the language: ``$125 million would be appropriated for this program pending a full investigation, an objective evaluation of the program now and in the future, the adoption of uniform standards for awarding grants and using an objective numeric scoring system for allocating those grants, that the conditions and the investigation and all that is described be agreed to and met by October 1 or the funds would hereby be reduced to the $50 million as underlined by my amendment pending.'' So we would have $125 million made available for the program pending those conditions, full investigation, objective evaluation of the program now and in the future, uniform standards for awarding grants and using an objective numeric scoring system.