John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican bill today for several reasons. First of all, we have to listen to the other side. These are the people who are now saying that they want the doctors to choose their health care and the type of choices in those health care plans. But these are the same people who 4 years ago or 5 years ago were saying, ``Do you know what? We want everybody to be in nationalized health care, and we want bureaucrats to make those decisions.'' Look beneath the surface. The Republican plan contains medical malpractice and medical savings accounts, two things that I strongly support. In the final bill, they probably will not be able to be included because the President has said he would veto the bill over those two provisions, unfortunately, because they would help bring costs down. But we could still have good patient protections in this bill if it is enacted even if we have to drop those provisions. In the State of Nevada, we got together, Republicans and Democrats alike, and enacted patient protections similar to what are in the Patients' Bill of Rights that we have on the floor today. This was authored, by the way, by a Nevada Democrat State legislator. We ought to do the same thing here. Put common sense together; put party politics aside.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice concern about what I consider an inappropriate use of Community Development Block Grant funding. Late last year, it was revealed that the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony had decided to use $450,000 of the funding they received from the Indian Community Development Block Grant program for the explicit purpose of constructing a ``smoke shop'' in Verdi, Nevada. Regardless of one's position on tobacco use or taxes, it seems clear to me that at a time when there is so much debate surrounding the issue of teen smoking, the tobacco industry, and tobacco vendors, taxpayer dollars should not be spent on the construction of smoke shops in our communities. It is my understanding that the goals of the Community Development Block Grant Program are to provide financial resources to communities for public facilities and planning activities which have a direct, positive impact on the health and safety of that community's residents. Everyone knows that smoking is hazardous to one's health and can cause lung cancer. Smoking causes fully one sixth of all deaths in the United States each year--more than alcohol, all illicit drugs, AIDS, guns, automobiles, and all forms of air pollution COMBINED. With this in mind, how can we possibly allow money intended to be used for the betterment of communities to be used instead for the construction of smoke shops. I would like an explanation from HUD as to how this fits into the statute governing the Community Development Block Grant program. Native American communities have a right to profit from business ventures but I don't think the federal government should assume the role of helping smoke shops compete with independent small business ventures such as shops and convenience stores which also rely on tobacco sales. Mr. Chairman, this grant came to my attention only recently and has caused concern for private small businesses and citizens in Verdi, Nevada. It was my desire to introduce an amendment today to recapture these federal dollars before they are spent, but I understand how carefully this bill has been crafted and do not wish to threaten the delicate balance you have achieved. It is my sincere hope that the Department of Housing and Urban Development will ensure that taxpayer funds are expended in a manner consistent with the national concern on youth tobacco use. There are many ways to ensure that Native Americans are able to develop profitable businesses capable of providing the resources necessary for tribal needs without taxpayer-funded tobacco smoke shops.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, rarely have policy-makers been able to agree on approaches to attack our environmental problems. Both sides of the aisle seem to muddy the waters with rhetoric that does nothing more than to exacerbate emotionalism and further ignore scientific reality. It is for this very reason that I am proud to announce an event being held later this month in my home state of Nevada. This event is specifically designed to cut through such rhetoric and provide real solutions to fight one of our most pressing environmental problems--the control of oxides of nitrogen or NOX, one of the most pervasive air pollutants. The Gunnerman Foundation and numerous other federal, state, and industry organizations are sponsoring the ReNOX '98 Conference in Reno from July 26th through July 28th. Developing solutions to NOX is just yet another in a long line of success stories for Gunnerman Foundation Chairman Rudy Gunnerman. Ten years ago, Mr. Gunnerman was called an alarmist for bringing to light critical air pollution problems. I call him a pioneer. His leadership has spurred technology and policy innovations on air pollution issues for over two decades. Similarly, this conference will stimulate action on the issue NOX. This conference will bring together industry, government and community interests to address barriers and develop policy recommendations that will benefit NOX reduction strategies. NOX emissions come from cars and trucks, coal-burning power plants, and industrial combustion and waste disposal operations. NOX emissions increased over 220 percent between 1940 and 1996, with a 9 percent rise from 1970 to 1996. NOX interacts with other compounds in the air to form ground-level ozone and acid rain--primary threats to human health and the environment. These critical air pollution problems have levied serious costs on our society, which range from asthma and other respiratory illnesses to the deterioration of our lakes, forests, soils, and our national monuments. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Gunnerman Foundation and Rudy Gunnerman for sponsoring this worthwhile forum. I invite my colleagues to join this effort to develop real solutions to an environmental problem that deserves our attention and commitment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment because we need this extra money to go into this account so that we can bring this extra money to Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which is a bistate agency, has said that we need $6 million for clarity improvement in Lake Tahoe. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the efforts of the chairman of the subcommittee who has included $700,000 in the bill for erosion control around Lake Tahoe, and I know that the people of Nevada thank the chairman for doing this. However, I think that it is important to point out the dire situation Lake Tahoe is experiencing. First let me say that I grew up at Lake Tahoe. It is a wonderful area and it is still. Even with the decrease in the quality of the clarity of the water, Lake Tahoe is still one of the jewels of the entire world. It is a place where people come from all over this country and literally around the world to see its magnificent beauty. However, in the last 20 years the lake has lost 25 percent of its clarity. If one flies over Lake Tahoe, one used to be able to see so far down just from the naked eye from an airplane and be able to see huge boulders. There is a visible difference, just with the naked eye, where one can see the difference in the clarity in the last 20 years. We are at a crossroads. Each sediment particle carries nutrients that spur algae growth in the lake, and this hurts the clarity. We all need to work together. Commitments have been made and it is time for Congress to step up to the plate in our efforts. Lake Tahoe is an area rich in history and heritage, and we must protect the tranquility of not only the lake itself, but of the surrounding areas. Protection of environmentally sensitive lands and maintenance of water quality should be our highest priority. The list of activities that are necessary to protect this natural pristine treasure is very long. Supporting this amendment and supplying this much-needed funding is the first step in our long journey to protect the lake. Millions visit this Alpine community each year, while thousands of families call it home every day. Environmental groups and grassroots organizations have recognized the importance of immediate action to save Lake Tahoe, and just last year, the President and Vice President traveled to Lake Tahoe to personally listen to the challenges in protecting this national treasure. Nevada, California, and the administration have made strong efforts to focus on the lake and take further actions, whatever actions are necessary for its preservation. It is time for the Members of this body to do the same and support this environmental initiative to save our beloved treasure before it is too late.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying that Lake Tahoe, let us not forget, is a place where people come from all over the world and they think it is incredible beauty when they look at the lake. But those of us who grew up there and have been there for any length of time can see with our visible eye the decreasing clarity in the lake, and this is a treasure we cannot afford to lose. It is too important. So I appreciate the work that the chairman is going to do on behalf of Lake Tahoe.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's remarks.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, there are several causes for the increase in the clarity. The nutrients that are coming in due to erosion is probably one of the biggest parts. There is also, unfortunately, from northern California the air pollution coming over the Sierras is also causing the nitrogen to get down, which is food for the algae. So there are two problems that are really kind of almost exacerbating each other and decreasing clarity is the result. So we need to work on this. Erosion control is a very important part, but we also need it in other places.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this time to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of our committee who has brought forth this wonderful bill, and of course on the House side, in a bipartisan fashion, especially, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who brought this bill to our committee. At first it was a little contentious, but I think, working together, we have brought a super bill to the House of Representatives floor. I do want to make one point, however. This bill only goes so far. Until we completely change the Tax Code, as the ranking Democrat last year, Sam Gibbons, said, that until we completely change the Tax Code, the IRS can never be completely fixed. But at least this bill goes a long way in doing that. I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the ranking member for a provision that was put in the bill that especially affects my State. I especially want to thank the Speaker of the House and Trent Lott, for making sure that this provision was in the House. The IRS last year targeted the workers of my State. I represent the State that has the highest number per capita of audits in the country. Something that would have made them, our workers, even more subject to audits was something called the meals tax provision that the IRS targeted the workers in the State of Nevada for. They wanted to start taxing the meals of people who could not leave their place of employment, and because of the work of the people that I have talked about, and many of the workers from our State who did a big letter- writing campaign, the workers' meals tax is now going to be dead. We are not going to allow, because of this bill, the workers in our State and States across the country to have their meals taxed. I think it is a great day for the workers in my State, as well as those other States that this bill affects. The other point that I would like to make, across the country, and we hear this in town hall meetings, that is that the IRS is the only place where you are guilty until proven innocent. This is now not the case under this bill. You are now innocent until proven guilty. So this is truly a day I think for both parties to celebrate, both parties to take credit, and I am here to just thank the chairman and the rest of the people who have worked on this bill.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Gibbons, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 3069, the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy Extension Act. This legislation would extend the Advisory Council until 2000 and encourage the Council to work with Congress and federal agencies to implement the proposals of its 1997 report. Although we understand the need for Native Americans of California to improve Indian health services, education and housing programs, we strongly disagree with some of the provisions included in the Advisory Council's initial report. The Council suggests amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and action by the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate Indian gaming operations and circumvent local and federal regulations in California. The track record of Indian gaming operations in California has been far from pristine. To encourage even less regulation and a decreased role of local governments would not be prudent. We believe that providing additional federal funding to this Council, whose legislative recommendations include a lessening of oversight and local involvement, is bad fiscal policy and poor domestic policy.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to congratulate the golf team from the University of Nevada Las Vegas who last week brought the national championship home to Nevada. The Rebel golf team won the tournament in style, shooting an NCAA record 34 under par as a team. College golf might not capture the attention of sports fans across the country like basketball or football does, but I can assure my colleagues that these young athletes train just as hard and strive to win just as much as any other competitors. Senior Bill Lunde, juniors Charley Hoffman and Chris Berry, sophomore Jeremy Anderson and freshman Scott Lander not only excelled under the intense pressure of the national championship but conducted themselves with honor and sportsmanship. Head coach Dwayne Knight has realized a goal he stated 10 years ago when he told our community he would build a national championship team. I want to congratulate the UNLV Rebel golf team. They have made the city of Las Vegas and the great State of Nevada proud and are carrying forward the strong tradition of athletic success at UNLV.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the ``Reinstatement of the Medicare Rehabilitation Act (RMRA) of 1998.'' RMRA repeals the $1,500 annual limits on physical and occupational rehabilitation services established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) which are set to go into effect on January 1, 1999 and requires the Health Care Financing Administration to implement a budget neutral alternative payment system no later than January 1, 2000. In a rush to find savings in the Medicare program last year, Congress imposed an arbitrary $1,500 annual limitation on most outpatient rehabilitation services. Unlike other BBA provisions, the $1,500 limits were adopted without the benefit of committee hearings or a detailed analysis by HCFA of their likely effects on beneficiaries' ability to obtain medically necessary services. In fact, analyses undertaken since the enactment of the BBA indicate that implementation of the limits will have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries, including victims of stroke and other debilitating conditions which require concentrated therapy services. A $1,500 annual payment may be sufficient to address the ``average'' case, but it will not be adequate for beneficiaries who require more intensive services. The option of transporting non- ambulatory resident of a skilled nursing facility or other rehabilitation setting to an outpatient hospital department will be disruptive to patients and ultimately more costly to the Medicare program. Savings will be achieved only if this inconvenience and disruption cause patients to forgo medically necessary services to which they are entitled under the Medicare program. More importantly, American seniors have been encouraged to expect Medicare to cover the cost of medically necessary treatment, subject to reasonable copayments and deductibles. The existence of an arbitrary coverage limitation on otherwise medically necessary services will likely come as a shock to affected beneficiaries and their relatives, often at a time of great stress. Surely, a less disruptive approach can be found to achieve program savings. VSPA will prevent the $1,500 annual limitations from taking effect on January 1, 1999 and will require HCFA to develop and implement an alternative payment system for outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. Rather than limiting the availability of medically necessary services by imposing an arbitrary annual dollar limitation, the new system would be based on patient need. Payments would be based on patient classification by diagnostic category and would take into account prior use of services in both inpatient and outpatient setting. Payment rates would be established in a budget neutral manner. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that I did not oppose the inclusion of this provision in the Balanced Budget Act. Frankly, we did not understand how unfairly it could affect the most vulnerable of Medicare beneficiaries. Now that we have that information, we should not be reluctant to correct a policy which we now know will cause great hardship and unfairness. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Reinstatement of the Medicare Rehabilitation Benefit Act of 1998.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Petri, and ranking members Oberstar and Rahall for including in the BESTEA legislation an authorization for a new start rail project being undertaken by the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada (RTC). The RTC's Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project is included among these projects authorized for Final Design and Construction under Item (34) of section 332 of the bill. This project is currently in the preliminary engineering phase, and is critically needed to meet clean air demands and the ever increasing transportation needs in the Las Vegas Valley. The proposed system is anticipated to carry 95,000 passengers daily, and will provide efficient transit service into the Resort Corridor where over 50 percent of regional employment is focused. I appreciate the recognition given to RTC's Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the authorization of new start projects.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri for their leadership in bringing the needed reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act to the floor. The efficient movement of commerce and people is among the keys to a successful free market economy. This bill transcends simple infrastructure development and advocates innovative strategies to fight air pollution caused by congestion. I am pleased that my Nevada colleague, Mr. Gibbons, and I were able to include language that will provide states with more flexibility in the use of their CMAQ allocations. Our proposal will afford states the opportunity to leverage Federal funding with private dollars through the establishment of public-private partnerships--joint ventures that will release innovations in the private sector to develop breakthrough technologies that substantially reduce air pollution. With dwindling Federal resources, states need this vital option to meet clean air requirements. The CMAQ program is intended to promote projects and strategies that will assist states in the attainment of ambient air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. Cars and other transportation account for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, we have a responsibility to aggressively promote technologies--such as non- traditional fuels--that can combat some of the negative effects of our progress. States must find new and innovative means of attacking their air quality problems associated with congestion and transportation. Our amendment would energize community stakeholders to promote cooperative efforts with the scientific, industrial, and other such organizations that can bring unique capabilities to the table that develop new ways to reduce emissions. I am proud to say that one such innovative non-traditional fuel has been developed in Nevada. This small startup company--A-55 Clean Fuels--has developed a water-phased hydrocarbon fuel emulsion, which, because of its unparalleled ability to fight the pervasive air pollutant NOX, warrants special consideration. Tests of this innovative fuel are being performed around the country on a wide-range of applications including cars, trucks, and buses to confirm performance and environmental benefits. EPA has verified these tests. The potential of this fuel to reduce dangerous air pollution is enormous. Therefore, it is important to include this fuel as an eligible activity for CMAQ funding because: NOX, one of the major building blocks of ozone and particulate matter, is reduced from 50% to 80% by using the fuel. Soot and smoke are also reduced. It is market driven, offering consumers a fuel that is cost competitive and often less expensive than diesel and gasoline. The fuel is safer than traditional fuels. It does not readily ignite outside the combustion chamber making it ideal for school buses, trucks and all vehicles that traverse our nation's roadways. Decision-makers need every possible alternative in their tool kit to address air pollution. Non-traditional fuels must play a critical role in the CMAQ program so that states can meet their clean air responsibilities and at the same time, allow their citizens and their economy the freedom to grow. Our amendment would capitalize on the power of the private sector to provide innovations, like A-55, that both same money and reduce emissions.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am joined by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) here today in support of this resolution. This resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. S. 104 contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. It would repeal a revenue provision and replace it with a user fee. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 imposes a fee of one mill per kilowatt hour on electricity generated by nuclear energy. S. 104 would repeal this fee and replace it with a new fee that would be limited to the amounts appropriated for nuclear waste disposal. The current one mill per kilowatt hour fee is unquestionably a revenue measure. Regardless of the stated intent of the fee, the amount of fee proceeds collected have greatly exceeded costs. The fee is being used to raise revenue to finance the Federal Government generally. Therefore, the Senate bill, by repealing what is in effect a tax, constitutes a revenue bill. The provision would have a direct effect on Federal revenues. The proposed change is ``revenue affecting'' and therefore constitutes a revenue measure in the constitutional sense. Accordingly, I am asking that the House insist on its constitutional prerogatives. Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the Senate bill. The proposed action today is procedural in nature and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue measures. It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 379) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of regret that I am unable to vote for H.R. 2159, the 1998 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. I strongly supported the House passed version that held spending levels to that of fiscal year 1997. The House of Representatives worked very hard to maintain a sense of fiscal responsibility with respect to foreign aid programs, which is why I was so disappointed when this legislation returned from conference with an $880 million increase in spending. I have always been a critic of foreign aid excess, and I remain strong in my belief that we must find a way to make our international involvement more accountable to the American taxpayers and more responsive to American interests. However, I firmly believe that one of the wisest investments we can make is to the economic viability and national security of Israel. The American-Israel partnership is one that goes beyond the common political and strategic bonds. Both nations share a common set of values--values of freedom, individual responsibility, hope, and opportunity. For many years, I have watched a determined people build a democracy under extremely difficult circumstances that more than tested their resolve. These past few years have been no exception, with the assassination of Israel's Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, repeated terrorist attacks, and a very contentious election. Through it all, the people of Israel have stood strong and I commend them. The people of the United States stand ready to help the people of Israel as they move down a road of peace, security and economic self- reliance. I strongly support aid to Israel, and was very pleased with the $3 billion appropriated for economic and military assistance to Israel. While I wholeheartedly support this funding for Israel, I cannot support the overall spending package. At a time when we are making difficult choices to balance the budget and ensure the solvency of our Medicare and Social Security programs, it is difficult to justify increasing foreign aid programs by $880 million. The majority of the American people have rejected deficit spending, and told Congress to balance the budget and end the bureaucratic spending spree. My constituents in Nevada want dramatic cuts in foreign aid, and we have not done it.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], who is offering this bill. First of all, my State, the State of Nevada, has a legislature that meets every 2 years. We have just completed that legislative session in July this year. Our State legislature passed a charter schools bill. It was not everything that I would have liked to have seen in the charter schools bill, but it did at least start us down that process. We do have the caps. We do have some of the other things in our State where we do not quite give as much local flexibility as I would like to see. But our State did, in fact, start it down the process. I would like to work with the chairman on this particular piece of legislation as it moves forward to try to get States like Nevada, that only meet every 2 years, that because we cannot do anything for another year and a half in our State legislature, to try to at least encourage them through this legislation to model so that there is more local control, so there are not the caps, so that our State would not be penalized under this legislation.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, as we have seen going through the committee, the administration is against replacing the income tax as we know it, based on their testimony from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, this bill that we have before us today is brought forth in a bipartisan fashion. I would like to recognize my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. They have done outstanding work. This is a very good bill, and I think we are hearing a lot of reasons why this is a good bill today. But the American people have been way ahead of the Congress for many, many years. They have recognized how intrusive the IRS has been. In my city of Las Vegas, the IRS is viewed almost like the KGB or Gestapo was once viewed in other countries. This is not necessarily the fault of individual IRS employees. This is the fault of the U.S. Congress and the Presidents of past, who have passed an incredibly complex Tax Code. Former Representative Sam Gibbons said, in a retreat that we had a couple of years ago, that there was no single Member of Congress more responsible than he himself was for messing up our Tax Code. That was because every single time that they tried to reform the Tax Code, because of all the special interest groups that we have up here, it gets more complex. And the more complex it is, the more incentive there is for the IRS to do some of the shenanigans that they do. I said before that the American people are way ahead of the Congress. The American people are demanding not tax reform, but tax replacement. Every place I go around my district, people are saying, we have to lower the tax rates. As we are replacing the Tax Code, we have to address this issue. That issue is the issue of fairness. We have to define exactly what fair is. During hearings in front of the Committee on Ways and Means a couple of years ago, I asked Jack Kemp, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Dick Armey] and the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Dick Gephardt] what their definition was. Jack Kemp and the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Dick Armey], said, when everybody is treated the same. The definition of the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Dick Gephardt] was, based on your ability to pay. That means if somebody works twice as hard, you have a farmer over here who works twice as many hours a week, happens to make twice as much money because they work twice as hard, they should be penalized by paying a higher tax rate than the farmer over here who does not work quite as hard. Mr. Speaker, we need to have a fair Tax Code in America that does not penalize people who work harder, who make the sacrifices necessary to be successful. In America we have been about rewarding success in the past. Let us get back to where success is treated in a manner that we want more people to try to achieve it, like we do in school. We do not penalize people for getting A's in school. We should not penalize people for wanting to be entrepreneurs, for wanting to create jobs in America, for wanting to be successful themselves. This is the fundamental issue that we have to get to, not only today, by reforming the way the IRS works, but truly to get to overall tax replacement with a fair, simple, lower tax rate and tax system.