John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent for another 20 seconds.

Mr. ENSIGN. To close on this, even though I believe the broadcasters have made progress in my State, we need to keep the pressure on them because we are seeing such a low voter turnout. If we cannot get our message as candidates to the general public, we cannot get them inspired to come out and participate in elections. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what we are talking about on this amendment is something called the lowest unit rate. The spirit of the law that was passed was that candidates could have the lowest unit rate charged to them by broadcasters so campaigns would be less expensive and candidates could get their message out to the masses. The Senator from California just talked about how expensive it is in her State to advertise. I cannot even imagine, coming from a State like Nevada with only 2 million people, what it is like in a State like California with 34 million people. But I can tell you, having been through 4 campaigns in the last 8 years, that advertising costs on television have skyrocketed. The State of Nevada, during that same 8- year period of time, grew by approximately 50 percent. It was the fastest growing State in the country. So you would expect television time to go up by a significant amount--maybe by 70 percent or 80 percent, as it has in other parts of the country. But in Nevada, even though we have only grown by 50 percent, our advertising rates have gone up by as much as 300 percent to 400 percent. That is at least 6 times faster than the rate the population has grown. My first congressional campaign was the most expensive congressional campaign ever in the State of Nevada. I spent around $700,000, and my opponent spent around $800,000. Now a typical congressional race in the State of Nevada will cost somewhere between $1.5 to $2 million. That is a significant change of cost in just 8 years. And almost every dime of that increase has come from the increase in the cost of television advertising. The broadcasters were just visiting me back here in Washington D.C. and we had a discussion about the lowest unit rate and what that means for a congressional campaign. During my first campaign we bought time for the most part on the lowest unit rate. But in the last couple of campaigns, candidates have not been able to use the lowest unit rate because when you place an ad, that ad is probably going to be bumped by a higher paying customer. There is so much competition for certain time slots on television that those commercials always get bumped, and what you end up with is terrible placement and you do not get your message out to the people you are trying to reach. My advisers in the last two campaigns have insisted we not buy the lowest unit rate because you cannot direct your message to the people to whom you want to direct it. So we are always forced to buy the most expensive slot in order for our message to be effective. In addition, at the end of a campaign cycle, the broadcasters' rates skyrocket. The broadcasters used to dread campaigns because that was the time of year they made the least amount of money because of this lowest unit rate. Now it is one of their favorite times of the year because it is actually one of their highest profit margin times of year. This certainly was not the intent of the legislation that brought about the lowest unit rate. So I applaud the Senators who are bringing this amendment to the floor. I add my support to this amendment. Before I yield the floor I want to address one final issue. Broadcasters have the airwaves for free, and the justification for this is that they provide a very important public service to local communities by providing news and local politics. I talked to the Nevada broadcasters about this last week. While I would say in this election their coverage improved--and more of the campaigns were covered during this time it was still pathetic. When you consider how much time is spent on a sensational television story, as compared to the time spent on a message or a story that actually affects the lives of the vast majority of people in our States, I think you will agree that many of these local broadcasts across the country spend a small percentage of their time actually delivering important public service to the communities. So I think it is the responsibility of the broadcasters to not only accept what we are trying to do with the lowest unit rate, and the spirit of the law of the lowest unit rate, but also we need to call on the broadcasters to cover more of our politics, so that we get more people involved in the political system.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will further yield, to just give the American people a little bit of insight into how campaigns work, when you are setting up your budget, in the beginning you set up your TV target market and how much you want to advertise--not how many dollars you want to put into it but what level of penetration into the market you want to get, something called the gross rating point. And we determine each week from election day backward approximately how many points we would like to get in the market. That will determine how much of our message gets to the voters. Then we try to figure out, after we do that, approximately how much the stations are going to charge us for each one of those commercials we put on television. In the last few years, because of the huge increases, obviously, we have had to adjust our budgets. From that point we go forward and determine how much money we need to raise in our campaigns. That is why the cost of campaigns has continued to go up and up and up and up. From 1995 to 1998, we spent about $3.5 million in our first Senate race. In our second Senate race, just 2 years later, we spent almost $5 million. That is the reality. Mail costs about the same, and radio has gone up a little bit but not too badly, and almost all of the increase has been because of the cost of television.

Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will yield again, my personal experience with this has gone on. We just had the broadcasters from Neveda in our office last week. I don't blame them for wanting to make a profit. That is their business. I don't blame them at all. But we have to spend a lot more time and effort raising money. And this drives up the cost of all of our campaigns simply because of what has happened in the last few election cycles. This phenomenon we are seeing has really happened in the last three or four election cycles--this bidding up of the prices right before election day. As a matter of fact, when I first got into this in 1994, the television stations didn't like the political season because it was the time when they lost money because they used to give out a lot of low unit rates. But today they love the election cycles. It is one of their highest profit margin times--at least that is what they tell me--simply because there are so many people trying to get on the air to advertise. Candidates cannot get the lowest unit rate. They don't choose to do it anymore. And they have to bid up this time. So I applaud the three Senators for bringing this amendment up. I think it is the right thing to do. I do not know whether the amendment is going to be adopted, but I certainly think it is the right thing to do. I will be joining with you tomorrow in voting for this.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have been in four very tough campaigns in the last 8 years. I have a lot of experience buying television time. Being a small State, the State of Nevada, in which we only have two media markets, it is a lot less expensive than in the State of my good friend from New Jersey. In 1994, our television time was a lot less expensive. Just in the last 8 years, television has literally at least tripled in price in my State. At election time, when the Senator was talking about the gouging--whatever term you want to use--by the station, there are so many independent expenditures and so many candidates advertising on television that the price goes up. As a matter of fact, at the beginning when you are doing your budgeting for your campaign and you are trying to get the lowest unit rate, it is supposedly going to be at the end of the campaign so that you can determine how much money you will be able to spend on television and how much you will be able to put your message out to the voters. I remember asking my people: What about this lowest unit rate we heard about? I always hear about that in every campaign. My campaign people say that is really a farce, because the lowest unit rate is something that is preemptible time, so we don't recommend that you ever buy the lowest unit rate. I think we bought a few spots at the lowest unit rate. But other than that, we had to buy nonpreemptible time so we would make sure we had the slots and our message would get to the people to whom we wanted to get.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with the senior Senator from Nevada, an amendment to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001 to create an additional bankruptcy judgeship position for the District of Nevada. This amendment follows the recommendation of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy Committee to the Judicial Conference of the United States that legislation be transmitted to Congress to create an additional judgeship for the District of Nevada. The combination of a rapidly growing population in Nevada and a high number of bankruptcy filings makes it imperative for Nevada to have another judgeship. Nevada continues to be the fastest growing state in the nation, and the Las Vegas metropolitan area remains one of the most rapidly growing cities. Between 1990 and 1999, the population of the state of Nevada grew by more than 66 percent. Its population growth is projected to increase by 10 percent from 2000 to 2005. At this current rate of growth, the Las Vegas area alone will nearly double to 2.5 million people in the next ten years. Unfortunately, the growth in bankruptcy case filings in Nevada has been even more dramatic. Between 1990 and 1999 case filings grew by more than 226 percent. In 2000, the District of Nevada was ranked fifth highest in U.S. total filings per capita and first in the U.S. in filings of Chapter 7 per capita. By every measure, weighted filings per judgeship, case filings per judgeship, Chapter 11 filings--the District of Nevada measured well above the national average. The population growth in my state and the increased number of case filings clearly justifies the need for an additional bankruptcy judgeship position for the District of Nevada. We offer this amendment today in the hopes that we can accomplish this critical task for our home state of Nevada.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Nevada--I call him that, too--he has welcomed me to the Senate. He has shown me the ropes. As he discussed, we are going to work for the people of the State of Nevada because there are a lot of issues that affect our State that are very unique to it. They are not Republican or Democratic issues. We have agreed to disagree on issues that we feel strongly about that are national issues, and that is fine. We hope to also set an example for the rest of the Senate of how one can agree or not agree but not be disagreeable. I thank the senior Senator from Nevada. He is representing our State in the tremendous position he is in today. We in Nevada are all very proud of him. I thank Mr. Reid for attending my maiden speech on the floor. I look forward to many great years of working together.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, Nevada's slogan is ``Battle Born.'' And Nevadans are proud to use that slogan. It is on our State flag. It reflects the firmness of purpose and the willingness to fight for what is right that is so much a part of the character of Nevadans. This is as true today as it was when our State entered the Union during the Civil War. I am humbled to stand here in this Chamber where many distinguished Nevadans have preceded me, giants like Pat McCarran, Alan Bible, Howard Cannon, Paul Laxalt, and the man I succeeded, Dick Bryan. None of them forgot the unique culture of the West and their Nevada roots. The nature of the challenges may have changed over the years, but not the nature of the Nevadans fighting to overcome them. In this era of globalization we are condemning our children, and our nation, to an uncertain future if we fail to confront a very different kind of threat--the intractable problems in our public schools. Let me share some troubling statistics with you. If you compare our children to their counterparts in other nations, the most academically advanced American high school seniors ranked 15 out of 16--second from the bottom--on an advanced math test and 16 out of 16 on an advanced physics test. This is unacceptable. Our public schools are failing our children. And unless we address this problem now--today--we will bear the consequences for a generation or more. Let's not forget: Today's students are tomorrow's leaders--in business, technology, engineering, government and every other field. If even the brightest of our young people cannot compete in the classroom with their colleagues abroad in math and science, how will they be able to compete with them as adults in the world of business? How can we expect them to develop into the innovators America needs to maintain-- and, yes, expand--her dominant role in the global marketplace? We need to make sure every single student in America graduates with the basic skills in communications, math, and information technology that are necessary to excel in the New Economy. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to accept the status quo. As a fourth generation Nevadan, I know the people of my State are up to the challenge of creating a better education system. But they need the Federal Government to get out of their way so they can do it. We need a results-based system, which gives States greater flexibility to spend Federal education dollars, while holding them accountable for student achievement. Today, Federal funds for States and local school districts are not linked to whether academic progress has been attained. The Department of Education simply doles out money in keeping with Washington-designed funding formulas and grant proposals. There is no incentive for innovation, and no penalty for failure. President Bush wants to change this. He has proposed requiring federally funded annual reading and math testing in grades 3-8 to ensure student achievement and hold States accountable for the Federal money they receive. The test results will be the ruler by which the Department of Education can measure whether students are improving. These results will also provide parents with the information they need to track the progress of not only their own children, but of the schools their children attend. The question we are all struggling with is what to do if and when this new system reveals that a particular school is failing to successfully educate our children. Under President Bush's plan, if a school is shown to be failing after three years (based on objective measures of student achievement), then a voucher will be given to parents whose children attend that failing school. The parents will then have the power to say to school officials: Shape up--or my kids are shipping out. Now, I am certainly open to real alternatives to vouchers that are not driven by the anti-choice agenda of entrenched interests. However, I am not willing to sacrifice the well-being of individuals--our children--in order to preserve failing institutions. In my opinion, vouchers are an important part of the solution. But to those who oppose them, let me challenge you--parents, teachers, administrators, alike--to come up with a better system that accomplishes just two things: First, it holds schools accountable for failing our children; and second, it actually helps the students. Together, we must find a way to save our children from being condemned to a virtual prison of poor literacy and numeracy which constrains their ability to succeed. That means exploring all the options--from vouchers to charter schools--that can help level the playing field for our disadvantaged young people. For example, a new charter school will be opening in Las Vegas this fall--the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy--which will be committed to providing students access to technology on a daily basis. The principal, Mr. Wayne Tanaka, left Clark High School, my alma mater, to help found this revolutionary new academy. He did it because he believed this focus would provide underprivileged students with a chance to excel in the classroom. And if they excel in the classroom, then ultimately they will have the tools to excel in the 21st century. While I am pleased President Bush has proposed an 11-percent increase in funding for Federal education programs, I am concerned Nevada students will not be receiving their fair share of that increase. Currently, Nevadans get back only 41 cents for every dollar they send back to Washington, DC, for the education of their children. For years, this return has lagged behind nearly every State in the Union. It is just not right. The majority of Federal education dollars are allocated through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Under Title I, Nevadans received a little over $600 per eligible student in the year 1999. Let's compare that to over $1,300 per student in Vermont. I ask my colleagues, is this fair? Is a disadvantaged student in Vermont that much more worthy of additional funds than a disadvantaged student in Nevada? Does this promote the idea of equal access to education? The theme of President Bush's education plan is ``no child left behind.'' But under the current system children are getting left behind in fast growing States such as Nevada, and the President's plan does not adequately address this problem. Nevada has grown by 66 percent over the last 10 years and shows no signs of slowing down. Under Title I, funding is based on the number of Title I students in each State, but the Department of Education updates these numbers only once every 4 years. And for Nevada, which has grown an average of 5 percent per year for the last 10 years, this has created an untenable situation. Nevada school enrollment is increasing at three times the national average, and Federal funds are not keeping pace. In Clark County, which is where Las Vegas is, we are forced to build one new elementary school a month just to keep pace with the explosive growth. It is for that reason I am speaking with the White House and a number of my colleagues about a new high-growth grant, which I hope to include in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This grant will benefit all States with high growth rates, such as Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and other States, so that we can give real meaning to the phrase ``no child left behind.'' Mr. President, I need my colleagues to understand what the students, parents, teachers, and administrators are faced with in my home State of Nevada. Every time I speak with them, I hear, time and time again, that our State needs more of these Title I dollars. The high growth grant is a means to provide high-growth States much needed relief without directly adjusting the current funding formula. Ensuring that our children stay in school is one of my top priorities. I want to work with my colleagues on dropout prevention, particularly with the senior Senator from Nevada, who has been a leader on this issue. But what good does it do to keep young people in the classroom if they are not being taught the basics of civic virtue, such as citizenship, justice, fairness, respect, responsibility, and trustworthiness? In addition to dropout prevention programs, we must also promote character education programs that train our young people to be virtuous citizens. Our Nation's teachers are the key to solving many of our problems in our schools. And how can we require this of our teachers without the proper training or adequate pay? I am encouraged that President Bush's education plan includes a new commitment to professional development for teachers. This is critical to ensuring that our teachers are properly trained to teach our Nation's children. With all the talk about school construction and whether or not the Federal Government should or should not play a role in that activity, shouldn't we first ensure that our teachers are properly trained in the subjects they teach? Our math and science teachers need better training in math and science. Our reading and writing teachers need better training in reading and writing. It is that simple. We cannot expect our teachers to succeed in imparting knowledge to our children if our teachers are not properly trained in the areas they teach. Teachers and administrators must be permitted to take the necessary steps to restore order in the classrooms. The Federal Government can work with State and local school districts to ensure that teachers have the freedom to discipline violent and disruptive students without the fear of lawsuits. Our young people have a fundamental right to classrooms where they are free to learn and teachers are free to teach. That is denied them when a few chronically difficult children are allowed to poison the atmosphere, and teachers are left with no resources to stop them. We also need to end the cycle of social promotion. Social promotion forces teachers to deal with underprepared students while they try to teach the prepared. It gives parents a false sense of progress and leads employers to conclude that diplomas are literally meaningless. But above all, the practice of social promotion dumps poorly educated graduates into a society where they cannot perform in the workplace, nor care for their families, nor discharge their duties as citizens. It is not fair to those individuals who have been at the mercy of a flawed system, and it is not fair to their dependents and our society as a whole. I have been witness to the perils of social promotion. One of the heartbreaking experiences of my life was when I was sitting in a local library with a fourth grader who could not read Dr. Seuss's ``Cat in the Hat.'' This young boy, when he was 10 years old, could not read these lines: The sun did not shine. It was too wet to play. So we sat in the house all that cold, cold, wet day. This child is one of the lucky ones. His problem was caught relatively early. He has since received help with basic reading and other academic and social skills, skills that he should have learned in the first, second, and third grades. He is 13 now, and he is doing better. He has worked hard and made progress. But despite his efforts, he is still struggling to catch up with his classmates because habits of social promotion shuffled him forward in a system before he was ready. If we expect our students to be able to compete in the global workforce, then we must provide them with the proper learning tools. Part of that answer lies in providing technology and the means to use it. Another part lies in better teacher training and higher teacher pay. Another part lies in holding failing schools accountable, and giving parents greater control over where and how education dollars are spent. And another part lies in more equitable funding. Together these individual answers create a solution. The 107th Congress has a unique opportunity to fundamentally change the Federal Government's role in education. I am not satisfied with the status quo, and neither are Nevada parents. After 36 years, the system is ripe for change. On behalf of Nevada families, I intend to press for that change. I know that Nevadans have a fighting spirit to make our schools the best in the country--a fighting spirit that has been passed on, starting with our settlers, from one generation to the next. Our battle-born State was formed by facing up to difficult challenges, and we are up for the challenge of making sure that when it comes to education, no child is left behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators Durbin, Murkowski, and Collins in control of the time. At 11 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of Governor Thompson's nomination to be Secretary of HHS. There will be up to 30 minutes of debate on the nomination with a vote scheduled to occur at 11:30 a.m. Additional nominations are scheduled for hearings during today's session, and it is hoped that we can expedite those nominations for full Senate action as early as this afternoon. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my classmate for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that weighs almost 40 pounds that we received at 4 o'clock this afternoon. Two years ago at the end of the Congress, I stood up in the Republican Conference and protested the process, because the Republican leadership was bringing us a bill at the very end that they did not give us the time to go through. Republicans criticized Democrats for this same kind of a process, and, frankly, they were right to criticize. But here we are in the same institution doing the same thing that the Democrats did. How can anybody rightfully vote for a bill that you have no chance to go through and to find out whether there are dangerous provisions for your district, for your state or for the country? There is no way it is possible, it is physically impossible, for you and your staff to go through this bill from 4 o'clock this afternoon, between that time and the vote at 7 o'clock tonight. Not only that, I have several other problems with the bill. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) said, we are borrowing from the Social Security trust fund, and it is not for tax cuts. This is just purely for spending, with a lot of that spending going overseas. There are some very laudable projects, including transportation, including military spending, antidrug programs and education programs, which, by the way, are offset, and I support those programs. But, Mr. Speaker, when we go into emergency spending, that is against everything that we came to Congress to stop. It is time to pay down the national debt. It is time to protect Social Security by actually putting real assets into the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I came here to change the way that we did business in Washington, but, unfortunately, this is business as usual.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, it is rare for any legislation in the House of Representatives to obtain the support of a majority of its members. In fact, fewer than one percent of all bills introduced in the 105th Congress have reached this status. I would like to announce with pride that a bill I sponsored, H.R. 1375, The Medical Nutrition Therapy Act, has achieved this remarkable level of support. Over 220 of our colleagues support this measure because they recognize that the absence of coverage for nutrition therapy services is a glaring omission in current Medicare policy. Medical science makes clear that properly nourished patients are better able to resist disease and recover from illnesses than those who are malnourished. We also know that elderly Americans are at a higher risk of malnutrition than others in society due to the naturally occurring aging process. Despite this knowledge, Medicare does not cover nutrition assessment and counseling services by registered dietitians--what is commonly known in the health care field as medical nutrition therapy (MNT). As a result, the elderly either pay for this service out of their own pockets, or go without. This is not a choice that those on fixed incomes should have to make. Medical nutrition therapy is medically necessary care and ought to be a covered benefit. I am convinced that this bill is an important part of the solution to saving Medicare. It will help us cut costs without sacrificing the quality of patient care. Empirical evidence shows that MNT is effective for patients with diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other costly diseases that are prominent among the elderly. It lowers treatment costs by reducing and shortening the length of hospital stays, preventing health care complications and decreasing the need for medications. Yet still, we do not provide seniors coverage for this care. It should be noted that support for medical nutrition therapy is not confined to Congress. Major patient advocacy groups including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Diabetes Association and the National Osteoporosis Foundation also support coverage for MNT. These groups understand that appropriate nutrition therapy saves money and lives. Any measure that achieves such an impressive level of political support is deserving of serious deliberation in this body. While I regret that this bill will not be taken up in the remaining days of this Congress, I urge the leadership of both parties to make this bill a top priority next year. While the Balanced Budget Act helped strengthen the Medicare program in the short term, additional reforms will be necessary to prepare the program for the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Congress will be remiss if it overlooks medical nutrition therapy as part of those long-term reforms. In closing, I want to thank the American Dietetic Association and the Nevada Dietetic Association for their fine work in helping me educate members of Congress about this important measure. The dedicated health and nutrition professionals represented by those groups can be proud of how far this bill had advanced in the 105th Congress and confident that we will ultimately succeed in these efforts.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, it is rare for any legislation in the House of Representatives to obtain the support of a majority of its members. In fact, fewer than one percent of all bills introduced in the 105th Congress have reached this status. I would like to announce with pride that a bill I sponsored, H.R. 1375, The Medical Nutrition Therapy Act, has achieved this remarkable level of support. Over 220 of our colleagues support this measure because they recognize that the absence of coverage for nutrition therapy services is a glaring omission in current Medicare policy. Medical science makes clear that properly nourished patients are better able to resist disease and recover from illnesses than those who are malnourished. We also know that elderly Americans are at a higher risk of malnutrition than others in society due to the naturally occurring aging process. Despite this knowledge, Medicare does not cover nutrition assessment and counseling services by registered dietitians--what is commonly know in the health care field as medical nutrition therapy (MNT). As a result, the elderly either pay for this service out of their own pockets, or go without. This is not a choice that those on fixed incomes should have to make. Medical nutrition therapy is medically necessary care and ought to be a covered benefit. I am convinced that this bill is an important part of the solution to saving Medicare. It will help us cut costs without sacrificing the quality of patient care. Empirical evidence shows that MNT is effective for patients with diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other costly diseases that are prominent among the elderly. It lowers treatment costs by reducing and shortening the length of hospital stays, preventing health care complications and decreasing the need for medications. Yet still, we do not provide seniors coverage for this care. It should be noted that support for medical nutrition therapy is not confined to Congress. Major patient advocacy groups including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Diabetes Association and the National Osteoporosis Foundation also support coverage for MNT. These groups understand that appropriate nutrition therapy saves money and lives. Any measure that achieves such an impressive level of political support is deserving of serious deliberation in this body. While I regret that this bill will not be taken up in the remaining days of this Congress, I urge the leadership of both parties to make this bill a top priority next year. While the Balanced Budget Act helped strengthen the Medicare program in the short term, additional reforms will be necessary to prepare the program for the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Congress will be remiss if it overlooks medical nutrition therapy as part of those long-term reforms. In closing, I want to thank the American Diatetic Association and the Nevada Diatetic Association for their fine work in helping me educate members of Congress about this important measure. The dedicated health and nutrition professionals represented by those groups can be proud of how far this bill had advanced in the 105th Congress and confident that we will ultimately succeed in these efforts.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, it is rare for any legislation in the House of Representatives to obtain the support of a majority of its Members. In fact, fewer than 1 percent of all bills introduced in the 105th Congress have reached this status. I would like to announce with pride that a bill I sponsored, H.R. 1375, the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act, has achieved this remarkable level of support. Over 220 of our colleagues support this measure because they recognize that the absence of coverage for nutrition therapy services is a glaring omission in current Medicare policy. Medical science makes clear that properly nourished patients are better able to resist disease and recover from illnesses than those who are malnourished. We also know that elderly Americans are at a higher risk of malnutrition than others in society due to the naturally occurring aging process. Despite this knowledge, Medicare does not cover nutrition assessment and counseling services by registered dietitians--what is commonly known in the health care field as medical nutrition therapy (MNT). As a result, the elderly either pay for this service out of their own pockets, or go without. This is not a choice that those on fixed incomes should have to make. Medical nutrition therapy is medically necessary care and ought to be a covered benefit. I am convinced that this bill is an important part of the solution to saving Medicare. It will help us cut costs without sacrificing the quality of patient care. Emperical evidence shows that MNT is effective for patients with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other costly diseases that are prominent among the elderly. It lowers treatment costs by reducing and shortening the length of hospital stays, preventing health care complications and decreasing the need for medications. Yet still, we do not provide senior coverage for this care. It should be noted that support for medical nutrition therapy is not confined to Congress. Major patient advocacy groups including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation also support coverage for MNT. These groups understand that appropriate nutrition therapy saves money and lives. Any measure that achieves such an impressive level of political support is deserving of serious deliberation in this body. While I regret that this bill will not be taken up in the remaining days of this Congress, I urge the leadership of both parties to make this bill a top priority next year. While the Balanced Budget Act helped strengthen the Medicare program in the short term, additional reforms will be necessary to prepare the program for the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Congress will be remiss if it overlooks medical nutrition therapy as part of those long-term reforms. In closing, I want to thank the American Diabetic Association and the Nevada Diabetic Association for their fine work in helping me educate Members of Congress about this important measure. The dedicated health and nutrition professionals represented by those groups can be proud of how far this bill had advanced in the 105th Congress and confident that we will ultimately succeed in these efforts.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Church of St. Therese of the Little Flower in Reno, Nevada, on the milestone achievement of its Golden Jubilee. Today, October 1st, marks fifty years of the Church's service to Nevadans. Today is also the Church's celebration of the Feast of St. Therese of the Little Flower. This rare occasion will be celebrated with a special Mass, complete with fifty years of church music, and a banquet. The Mass is a beautiful and fitting way to intertwine its rich tradition of history, family, music, prayer, worship, thanksgiving, and most of all, reverence to God. While I was growing up in Reno, the Little Flower Church occupied much smaller quarters. Today, the church is among the most modern structures in Reno, and is a widely recognized landmark in its southeast neighborhood. And, like a beautiful flower, the parish has blossomed to 3,500 families. The Church of the Little Flower's congregation is diverse and welcoming, reflecting Reno's tremendous population growth in the last twenty years. Little Flower Church is the focal point for quality education for the local children and a variety of ministries to help the sick, elderly, and inmates at the Washoe County Jail. Truly, Little Flower Church is dedicated to the spiritual and physical needs of all people. I would also like to congratulate the pastor of the Little Flower Church, the Very Reverend Robert Bowling, on his remarkable twenty-four years of selfless service to this parish. Father Bowling has guided the Little Flower Church through its growth period. Because of his hard work and strong guidance at Little Flower, he has the admiration, support, love, and respect of the entire community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the parish of the Church of St. Therese of the Little Flower all the best on this very important day.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to some important information that all members of Congress and governors will be receiving over the next couple of days. It relates to a critical environmental issue I have spoken about before--control of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions that threaten human health, agriculture and our natural environment. Back in July, I told you about the RENOx 1998 conference being held in my home State. The purpose of this conference was to examine the consequences of NOx pollution and to recommend strategies for reducing the millions of tons of NOx produced each year by diesel trucks and buses and power generation boilers and furnaces. This week, The Gunnerman Foundation, the lead sponsor of RENOx 1998, issued its report on the findings and recommendations of this international conference, which attracted some of the best minds from government, industry, academia and the scientific community to tackle the NOx issue. Collectively, this group broadened our public knowledge of the NOx issue and identified specific strategies for making meaningful reductions in this dangerous pollutant. I would encourage you to consider the group's recommendations. This information may serve very useful for us, as policy makers, to begin to address this environmental issue that affects everyone on this planet. Rudolf Gunnerman, the Chairman of The Gunnerman Foundation whom I have spoken about before as an environmental technology pioneer, would like to work with Members of Congress to develop solutions that quickly and comprehensively address NOx pollution. The urgency of this issue is obvious, because NOx is a danger not only in the lower atmosphere but is a precursor to ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere. It is important to address this problem before there are serious consequences. In that light, I hope that you will give this matter some serious thought and attention, so that we can begin to address this important issue after our fall recess.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 453, I was detained due to mechanical difficulties on my flight back to Washington, D.C. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 454, I was detained due to mechanical problems on my flight back to Washington, D.C. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 455, I was detained due to mechanical difficulties on my flight back to Washington, D.C. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2225, a bill that will designate the Federal building and United States Courthouse being constructed in Las Vegas, Nevada, as the ``Lloyd D. George Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' This is an issue of great importance to me as well as all the citizens of Nevada. On November 17, 1997, ground was broken for the future Lloyd D. George Federal Building and United States Courthouse. Las Vegas waited a long time for that day, and it was a great milestone for our community. When the Las Vegas Courthouse is completed in the year 2000, there will be another dedication ceremony for the building and the distinguished Nevadan whose name will appear on the Courthouse. I would like to take the opportunity to recognize a thoroughly decent, wise gentleman whom I admire greatly: Chief Judge George. Chief Judge George served on the United States Bankruptcy Bench for ten years before his appointment by President Reagan as United States District Judge in 1984. He has served on three and been the chairman of two United States Judicial Conference Committees. Judge George currently serves as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States and at the request of Chief Justice Rehnquist he serves as a member of the Judicial Conference. He is also a member of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and has chaired the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, he frequently lectures in the U.S. and abroad on various legal topics and has published a number of articles in legal periodicals. Interestingly enough, Judge George went to high school and grade school just across the street from where the new courthouse will be located. That reminds me that while Nevada is a state which welcomes new residents by the thousands each year, there is something to be said for the Native Nevadan who loves this beautiful State so much that he would never think of calling anywhere else home. Successful people like Judge George could have easily left Nevada many years ago to pursue lucrative careers elsewhere. But Judge George chose to give something back to his hometown and his fellow Nevadans. I hope that future generations of Nevadans will follow Judge George's example and remain in Nevada. Growing up in Nevada gave me a special understanding of this unique quality of life in Nevada, and I am grateful for such an opportunity. Naming the Las Vegas Courthouse in honor of Judge George is an appropriate way to express the appreciation we have for his years of public service to his community, the State of Nevada, and the United States. Due to his level of commitment, all of these societies are better places. The beautiful building that will soon stand in Las Vegas will be an enduring testament to Judge George's hard work, humility, wisdom, and service to others. It will also stand as a monument to the ideas we share about the Constitutional limits of our federal government and the rights which are reserved to the States and people. Mr. Speaker, thank you again for your support, and I look forward to the passage of H.R. 2225 so it can be sent to the White House for the President's signature. It is probably the most fitting recognition we can give him.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, Iran test fired the Shihab-3 missile. Intelligence estimates by the CIA and the Israelis proved to be correct. This missile will likely have a range of 930 miles putting Israel's security in jeopardy. But this is not an issue for our closest friend in the Middle East, this is an American issue because it affects global security and our thousands of troops that are based in that critical region. Iran's stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons and acquisitions of nuclear technology make the situation even more dire. There are two ways for our government to prove its commitment to dealing with this critical issue. The first is sanctioning entities that aid in Iran's missile development. I, like a majority of the House, cosponsored the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act (IMPSA), and it passed this body 392 to 22. Last week the President followed Congress' lead and strengthened an existing executive order by placing sanctions on 7 Russian entities. We must keep a close watch on this and remain vigilant on the issue of Iran's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the weapons to deliver them. President Clinton will be traveling to Russia in September, and if the legislation is still needed, we should bring up IMPSA for veto override. Another way to counter the Iranian threat is by strengthening our closest ally and outpost in the region. In September, when we return to Washington, we will vote on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill which contain Israel's annual aid package. I have voted for this bill in the past because I believe that foreign aid, when used wisely, is an important instrument in American foreign policy. This year, I again intend to vote for aid for Israel, and I want to draw special attention to what makes this bill so special and historic. Based upon Prime Minister Netanyahu's pledge to a joint meeting of Congress two years ago, Israel has started to reduce its request for aid. Imagine an aid-receiving nation saying it does not need as much money--well it's happening this year. Israel has made dramatic economic strides over the past two decades including the privatization of most of its industries. As a friend and supporter, the United States helped in Israel's economic gains. Now Israel is telling us that they feel confortable phasing out all of their economic aid over a ten year period. However, based upon the continued threats in the region like Iran, Israel does need continuing military assistance which I will continue to support. I am also pleased a note that it looks as though this year's Foreign Operations Appropriations bill will hold spending level to that of Fiscal 1998.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the subcommittee chairman, for working with me on this amendment. What my amendment seeks to do is to increase funding for drug courts by $3 million. While I would like to have included a little more money for the drug courts, right now they are funded at $40 million, and my amendment takes them to $43 million for this year. The drug courts are something that I truly believe in, and I am going to outline the reasons that I believe in them. But I do want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for working with us on this amendment, coming up with an offset so that we can have this amendment paid for. First of all, the drug courts, while they started about 10 years ago across the country in communities, have had a great effect on reducing crime throughout our communities. Every single community that has tried a drug court has found them to be successful: successful in reducing crime, reducing recidivism, as well as saving the taxpayer money. Now, in my own State of Nevada, I want to praise one of the judges there, Judge Lehman. Although we have several drug courts across the State of Nevada, Judge Lehman is the person that I am the most familiar with. Judge Lehman so far has had 931 people graduate from his program in the drug court program. Of those, only 13 percent have had rearrests after 6 years. Now, normally in our prison system we have about a 75 to 80 percent repeat-offender rate. Let me give these numbers again. Normally in our prison system we have about a 75 to 80 percent recidivist, or repeat offender, rate. Under Judge Lehman's drug court, only 120 out of almost 1,000 people who have gone through the drug courts have actually been rearrested for any reason after 6 years. That is only a 13 percent repeat-offender rate. I do not think that there is anything else in our criminal justice system that can point to that type of success. What drug courts represent are local, State, and Federal Government coming together, because that is where the funding comes from, to say let us put some common sense back into our criminal justice system. Across the country, criminal justice system professionals estimate that at least 45 percent of the defendants convicted of drug possession commit a similar offense within 2 or 3 years of release of jail. Drug courts have proven truly remarkable in preventing hundreds of repeat drug offenses in the country. More than 70 percent of the drug court clients have successfully completed the program or remain as active participants, and recidivism rates from drug participants, this is across the country, range from 2 percent to 20 percent. So we can see not only in Nevada we have had success in drug courts, but across the country. Not only do we save taxpayer money, we are also saving lives. Let me point out something that most people would not think about. Many children in this country today are born with what we call fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal drug syndrome. These babies are born to addicted mothers, not only of alcoholics but also of drug addicts. Every person that we can get off drugs through these programs or off alcohol through these programs, that is a life we could be changing. Because fetal alcohol syndrome, if my colleagues have talked to any parents that have adopted a child or any parents that have actually had one in their own family, these children go through some devastating consequences. As a matter of fact, in our criminal justice system today, people that were fetal alcohol syndrome babies turn out in many cases to actually be involved in the criminal justice system by committing crimes later. We need to put a stop to fetal alcohol syndrome, to people using alcohol and drugs while they are pregnant; and one of the best ways to do that is to start at the preventive side. And the drug courts have been very successful in getting people off drugs, off of alcohol, so that we do not end up with this fetal alcohol syndrome. I want to just conclude by saying that I appreciate what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has done and to say that this amendment while it is just a small amount of money in the big picture is still something that is very significant because of the tremendous success that drug courts have had across the country.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 31, 1998, I was unavoidably detained in traffic and missed rollcall vote No. 367.