John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this possibly could be why every major environmental group in the United States opposes this legislation. I have heard Newt Gingrich lately talk about that he wants to be friendly to the environment. I think that Newt, the Committee on Commerce, and the rest of the people supporting this bill, both Republicans and Democrats alike, because make no mistake about it, this has been a bipartisan effort to bring nuclear waste, transporting it across so many different communities and across this country, across 43 States, that they have to look themselves in the mirror and say, ``Why is every major environmental group opposing this legislation?'' Mr. Speaker, I think that we have heard the answers today. It is because it can be such a potentially damaging incident to our environment if we end up with an accident occurring during the transporting of this waste. I thank my friend from Nevada. I have to go catch a plane back to our lovely State. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate in this special order.

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes. If the gentleman will yield further, let us take, for instance, if we had nuclear waste in these tri-cask cannisters, which are supposed to, based on the testing, if I am correct on this, they are supposed to be able to withstand temperatures of up to 1,500 degrees.

Mr. ENSIGN. Explosive materials could lead to a fire. Diesel fuel, what does diesel fuel, if the gentleman would answer, being a geologist and a scientist, what does diesel fuel burn at?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, speaking of what the taxpayer is going to end up holding the bag on, the Committee on Commerce in its infinite wisdom, Republicans and Democrats alike in the Committee on Commerce, and correct me if I am wrong on this, from what I understand in reading the bill, and we checked with many sources that agree with this, if we had a driver of one of these trucks that was going through, say, Denver, CO, the driver of the truck happens to be drunk, happens to be coming through during the evening one time barreling down and ends up crashing through an apartment building killing x amount of children and adults, even though that person should be held totally responsible and that company should be held totally responsible, not only do we have the loss of life but we have an incredible environmental disaster. Mr. Speaker, I have heard that this company, because of what the Committee on Commerce did, that this company will not be held liable, that the financial end of this will fully be picked up by the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, there have been many arguments on this, and sitting on the Committee on Ways and Means I heard many of the arguments by the other side of the aisle, and quite a bit of the class warfare was engaged in this debate. We had quite a healthy debate in the Committee on Ways and Means on the whole idea, whether this is going to be for the rich or the poor. Many on the other side of the aisle seemed to think that people in lower income brackets cannot save; that they do not have confidence in people in lower income brackets, even though there are many people in this country that are in low income brackets that are sacrificing for their children, that are saving, that are putting money together. There are a lot of lower income people that are even sending their kids to private schools. But this is not just about private versus public schools. This bill, 70 percent, it is estimated 70 percent of the money that is in this bill will go to helping students in the public schools. The old solutions for the public school systems have not worked. It is a disaster. In New York City, Washington, DC, most of the major cities around the country, the school zones, the public school zones are a disaster for our children. We need to care more about our children than we do about the educational bureaucracies, and those bureaucracies that protect the current status quo. We need to look for new answers. Forget about who we are protecting, other than let us think about the children. What this savings account will do, for those kids in public schools that maybe need a tutor, their parents will be able to save and sacrifice so maybe they can get a tutor for their child that could make the difference. The reason that we say that this is a good bill is because Americans right now are encouraged, because we penalize them by taxing their savings. Any time you save, you get taxed on it. We have a national savings rate now, right now, of around 3 percent. It is the least in our country's history. Traditionally, we have had about a 9-percent savings rate. Japan has about a 20-percent savings rate. What we are trying to do in this country is to encourage people at all income levels to save, and especially to save and to sacrifice for their children. What could be more important for their children than their education? I just encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and no against the Rangel amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 29, I missed rollcall votes 460 and 461 due to an aircraft delay in returning to Washington from Las Vegas. Had I been present for these two votes, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 460 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 461.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about the nuclear waste bill of this year. Almost 80,000 tons of nuclear waste are going to be transported on our roads throughout America. What most people do not understand is that the private companies that will be shipping this waste, if they happen to have a driver who is drunk, driving in the middle of the night through, say, St. Louis, Denver, Kansas City, Omaha, Chicago, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, or Los Angeles, all of those cities this nuclear waste will be transported through, if one of the drivers of these rigs happens to crash through a house because they were drunk, this nuclear waste bill will protect that company from any kind of lawsuit. Madam Speaker, this is outrageous. This Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 needs to go down in flames. It is wrong for America. it protects the wrong people. We need to vote against it.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Rarely in America do environmental groups, do private property rights groups and the people who truly believe in States rights ever join together to oppose something or to support something. But in this case, Madam Speaker, they all join together to oppose the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. The reason is because from an environmental standpoint, there are safety reasons. During the transport of nuclear waste across 43 States, there are transportation safety reasons that environmental groups oppose this for. Private property rights oppose it because it devalues private property values as nuclear waste is transported past those private profits. And States rights people are against it because this is one State having nuclear waste shoved down its throat against its will. This is against the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which the Committee on Commerce is expected to address soon. This legislation will have devastating impacts not only on the State of Nevada but on 43 other States in the Union. H.R. 1270 proposes sending thousands of high-level nuclear waste shipments from 109 locations across 43 States to a single repository in Nevada. More than likely, these shipments will cross Members' districts, by their schools, their churches, hospitals and playgrounds in the process. Here is a very small sampling of the possibilities of that nuclear waste, as it travels across the country, if there is an accident. Before we vote in support of H.R. 1270, we should ask ourselves: What if this was my district? The possible consequences are chilling. We must all be responsible stewards of our constituents' best interests and vote against H.R. 1270.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 352, severe thunderstorms caused my plane to arrive late. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, ``Faith in Every Footstep'' is the motto of the Mormon pioneer sesquicentennial year, which culminates today with a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the arrival of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. I rise to recognize this historical milestone in the settlement of the West and important date in Nevada's early history. Like many other western States, Nevada's initial settlements were established by Mormon pioneers--Genoa in northern Nevada in 1851, and Las Vegas in southern Nevada in 1855. In fact, Nevada was part of the Utah Territory before becoming the Nevada Territory. The Mormon pioneers of northern Nevada were led by Orson Hyde, while the pioneer group called to settle Las Vegas were led by William Bringhurst. On a warm day in mid-June of 1855, these courageous pioneers began to build a diamond in the desert. The old Las Vegas Mormon Fort is the oldest standing building in the State of Nevada. Today, amid the bustle of the fastest growing city in the Nation, beautiful chapels and a temple grace the Las Vegas Valley while serving as a place of worship for over 100,000 Latter-Day Saints. Las Vegas has become a place where Latter-Day Saints have settled to raise their families and serve their community. On behalf of all the citizens of my congressional district and throughout Nevada, I salute those early Mormon pioneers who blazed the trails of the rugged West and built a lasting heritage for themselves and the State of Nevada. On Pioneer Day, we should remember and honor all those brave men, women, and children who answered the call to settle new lands, and through faith, courage, and sacrifice built hundreds of settlements throughout the Western United States and made the desert bloom.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment to H.R. 2107. This amendment would increase funding for the payments in lieu of taxes [PILT] by $19 million. These payments are absolutely vital to our counties that have a decreased tax base due to federally owned land located within the county boundaries. These payments help defray the costs of law enforcement, fire prevention, search and rescue and infrastructure needs in those counties that must provide these essential services, yet do not have the revenue stream normally provided by private property tax collection. Coming from a State where 87 percent of the land is federally owned, you can imagine how strapped our rural counties are when it comes to providing these essential public services. The PILT Program was established to address the fact that the Federal Government does not pay taxes on its own land. Unfortunately, PILT payments have never approximated the revenue the local governments would otherwise generate through private property taxes. I appreciate the gentleman from Vermont offering this amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Republican tax bill today because it is truly time for us to give tax relief to all Americans but especially to those in the middle income categories. I want to talk about two couples, very close friends of mine. One of the couples, they both work at Hertz Rent A Car. One works at the counter, the other one works actually in the parking lot. Between the two salaries, they make about $70,000 a year, not including benefits. According to the Democrats and how they would calculate their salary on imputed income and the like, they would probably make about $120,000 a year. But let us take what they say on their tax returns. It is around $70,000, two average middle income-type people. They have two kids. What the Republican tax bill will do is give this middle-income family $1,000 per year in a child tax credit. It will also give them the opportunity to send their kids to college. But it also gives them, because of the capital gains tax reduction, the incentive to save and invest for the future. Another couple, he is a police officer, a sergeant who actually has been in Las Vegas for years working for the police department; she is a receptionist. They make somewhere around $75,000 a year. This chart here clearly shows that both of these couples will get 76 percent of this tax break. According to what all Americans look at, and that is what does their tax return show how much income they make. The Democrats have been cooking the books this entire time. When people ask you how much money do you make, you do not think about the numbers the Democrats are using. You think about what the numbers show on your tax return. Those are the real numbers, not the cooking the books number. Mr. Chairman, this tax bill is truly for working class American citizens. Does it also go to some of the wealthy? Yes. But the vast majority of this bill by any common sense figures goes to people in the middle income categories in America. Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong yes vote to allow working Americans to keep more of the money that they earned, not the money sent to the Government.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the subcommittee, for all the great work that he has done, as well as the staff for the work that they have done on this Medicare bill. I think that this is truly an historic moment in health care in the United States, because what we are doing with this Medicare bill is to try and begin to change our current sick care system. Yes, I said sick care system, because right now if you get sick, we will pay providers to get you better, but we will not pay providers very often to keep you healthy. This Medicare bill, by providing the bill that I sponsored in the House of Representatives, the annual mammogram screening for women over 65, begins to say, we are going to catch breast cancer early in women over 65. Right now Medicare only pays for every other year mammograms. This is an important first step. But we also cover prostate screening, colorectal screening, and we begin to do some things about keeping diabetics healthier. I also have a bill, it is called the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act, which we are going to study. We think that dieticians counseling people on nutrition will be able to keep diabetics, cancer patients, heart patients and many others healthier in the years to come to truly make this a true health care system. Another portion of the bill that I am extremely proud of is the portion that deals with military retirees. Military retirees in the past have had access to great quality military medical care across the country, but because of base closure commissions that have locked military retirees out of facilities all over the country, military retirees are now being locked out of good quality medical care. And because when they turned 65 they had to choose whether to go into Medicare or not, many of them were promised lifetime health care and that promise has been taken back. Now if they choose to go into Medicare, there is a 10 percent penalty per year for them to go into Medicare. This bill will give them a 6-month window to get into Medicare. This is going to affect 100,000 of the people that so richly deserve a good quality health care system in this country.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about the numbers of the tax bill and for the rich, for the poor. Let us just look at a few of those numbers right now. The $500-per-child tax credit over the 10 years takes up $150 billion of the $250 billion in tax cuts. The education tax credits take up $50 billion of that 250 billion. Add those together, that is 200 billion of the $250 billion, roughly 80 percent just in those two tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the bills, and I do not say to the American people to trust any politician up here, look at the bill, pull it up on the Internet, and people will see that no one can receive 80 percent of the tax cuts that makes over $125,000 a year as a family, $75,000 a year as an individual. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of this tax cut goes to people making less than $75,000 a year. Do not take my word for it. My colleagues should look it up for themselves.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to the tremendous accomplishments of an outstanding teacher, Mr. Nathaniel Morrell, and group of young students from E.W. Clark High School in Las Vegas, NV. Recently, Mr. Morrell's class won the Nevada State competition sponsored by the Center for Civic Education. The competition tested students on their knowledge of the Constitution. For their efforts, Mr. Morrell's class represented the State of Nevada at the national finals which were held in Washington, DC. At the national finals, Mr. Morrell's class was further distinguished when they were recognized as the best nonfinalist team from the Western States region. Through this competition, each student demonstrated his or her knowledge of the Constitution before simulated congressional committees made of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists, and government leaders. Unfortunately, for too many Americans understanding the Constitution and appreciating the protection of liberty it affords us is a duty left unrealized. However, with the example of young students devoting their free time to participate in a scholarly competition, I am confident that our Nation will have the leadership to take us into the 21st century and increase our collective knowledge of one of the most revolutionary documents in human history. I would like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Morrell, Scott Bernth, William Britton, Dana Buck, Scott Collins, Marci Conant, Jill Conk, Gina Eusanio, Desiree Evans, Brenna Flood, Neeloufar Gharavi, Michael Grizzaffi, April Jones, Parminder Kang, Sioh Lee, Cassie Martin, Jesseca Master, Andreas Mauer, Chairat Meevsin, Nicholas North, Jennifer Patterson, Charles Posnecker, Scott Pringle, Yoan Rodriguez, Jeffrey Sherman, David Simpson, Michael Sweker, Jack Tomassian, Benjamin Tripoli, Brianna Winters, Michael Wucinich, and Kate Raby. Nevadans are very proud of their achievement. Mr. Speaker, I applaud these young Americans and the Center for Civic Education for their months of hard work. Mr. Morrell and his class will undoubtedly treasure this experience for a lifetime.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 147, I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 449, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997. I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the subcommittee chairman, for all his diligent work and also the staff, my staff, the committee staff and everybody who participated in this bill and, of course, the chairman of the House Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], for all of the work that has been done on this bill. This bill has been commonly referred to as the Ensign/Bryan bill because Senator Bryan introduced companion legislation on the Senate side. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, especially with this being Earth Week and our awareness of the environment is heightened. H.R. 449 is good for the environment, good for education, and good for quality of life in Nevada. I believe that this legislation will prove to be model legislation not only in policy but in process. This process first started with my predecessor, Representative Jim Bilbray, who formed a public lands task force. Members of this task force were representatives from local governments, utility providers, developers, recreationalists, environmentalists, and Federal agencies such as the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and BLM. When I came to office, I continued the meetings of the task force, and with their help and input and with the assistance of Senator Bryan we drafted what ultimately became the legislation before us today. After numerous meetings and constant flow of information and ideas, we drafted what we believe to be excellent, compromise legislation where an extremely wide variety of interests have been served and are ultimately satisfied. In a political atmosphere that has seen so much controversy, it is refreshing to see true bipartisan legislation. During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands held a field hearing in Las Vegas on similar legislation. We heard overwhelming testimony and startling statistics about what is occurring in Clark County. Our witnesses included Governor Miller, Clark County School Superintendent Dr. Brian Cram, representatives from the Clark County Commission and Southern Nevada Water Authority, and representatives from local environmental groups. The witnesses unanimously supported our legislation. As some of my colleagues may know, the Las Vegas valley is the fastest growing metropolitan city in the country, and this single issue has been the central focus of our State legislature. No other issue, besides Yucca Mountain receives the attention that growth and development do. In addition, 87 percent of the State of Nevada is federally controlled, resulting in a patchwork pattern of private lands interspersed with public lands. The blue on this map indicates the public lands that are located within the red boundary which this legislation establishes. The blue lands are the public lands within the Las Vegas valley to be disposed of within this legislation. This dueling combination makes it very difficult for the Federal agencies to manage this land and puts enormous pressure on local elected officials, the school district, utility providers and, most importantly, the current residents who are forced to shoulder the price tag of this development. Given the high quality of life and large percentage of federally owned land, the valley is a prime platform for development. Over the years, the land exchange process has been used to privatize the public land that is interspersed among the private land. Many aspects of this process have greatly benefited Nevada as well as the entire country. Nevada's economy and job market have experienced a boost. We have acquired environmentally sensitive lands throughout the State and relieved the Federal agencies of some burdensome management responsibilities. Despite all the good that seems to stem from the land exchange process, it unfortunately cannot possibly accommodate the ever-changing market of the Las Vegas valley and give the fairest value of the land in a fast growing area like Las Vegas. Therefore, an open, fair market auction process will best serve the American people by ensuring the most revenue to purchase and improve our favorite environmental areas. Currently, it is nearly impossible for the BLM to guarantee fair market value for exchanged lands. Furthermore, it is exceedingly expensive for our local utilities to transport services across Federal lands to private tracts, and everyone is in agreement that it makes sense to dispose of these lands. The general manager of the Southern Nevada water authority has repeatedly testified that it costs an estimated $14,000 per acre of land that is privatized through the exchange process. It is very important to point out that the value of this Federal land is greatly inflated due to the infrastructure that the local taxpayers are providing. Land in the desert without roads or water is virtually worthless from a financial standpoint, and I see no reason why we should not be getting a little something back from the sale of these lands that our utility bills have made so valuable. H.R. 449 authorizes the sale of these lands while providing that 85 percent of the generated revenue would go to the Federal Government for use in the State of Nevada to purchase environmentally sensitive lands and the remaining 15 percent would be used locally. Most importantly, the Ensign-Bryan bill provides the essential mechanisms to, one, allow this growth to occur in an orderly fashion by allowing local officials a seat at the table; two, ensure this growth occurs without neglecting the environment by funneling revenue for acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and to our existing federal facilities, such as Lake Tahoe, Red Rock and Lake Mead. Nevada is home to some of the most beautiful and pristine areas in the country. Areas around Lake Tahoe and Spring Mountains are unparalleled in their natural environmental splendor. These lands must be protected for the enjoyment of future generations and the Ensign-Bryan bill provides the necessary means to accomplish this united goal. H.R. 449 provides money to offset a $1.7 billion water delivery system for Clark County. Ten percent of the revenues would be used by Southern Nevada Water Authority for construction of a future water delivery system. The ability of the residents to receive an adequate water supply is the most pressing issue currently facing southern Nevada. Finally, H.R. 449 helps future generations by providing revenue for education. It has been estimated that school enrollment is projected to increase by 83 percent by 2006 and the Clark County School District will need to build one elementary school a month just to accommodate the new students coming in. H.R. 449 also helps our youngest residents by setting aside nearly 40 acres of land to be used specifically for development of youth recreation facilities like baseball diamonds and soccer fields. As this phenomenal rate of growth sweeps the Las Vegas Valley, it is important we preserve ample and safe areas for our children and our children's children to play. The Ensign-Bryan bill gives new authority to the Secretary of the Interior to sell lands to local governments for affordable housing. The entire State of Nevada is experiencing growth and affordable housing needs exist throughout the State. With this new authority, the Secretary, working with local governments, can provide adequate housing facilities for our less fortunate residents. It is vitally important that everyone, young and old, have access to a roof over their head, and the Ensign-Bryan bill makes this possible. Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of this legislation to Nevada and the precedent it will set for other areas. We have come a long way since this legislation was initially introduced, and again I want to thank my colleague in the Senate, Senator Bryan, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Hansen, my colleague the gentleman from Nevada, Jim Gibbons, and also the minority and the minority staff for all the work they have done on this.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will contribute to the improved health and well-being of many Americans. The symptoms and complications related to diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and hypertension could be significantly diminished by a change in lifestyle brought about with the help of medical nutrition therapy. Medical nutrition therapy is a service provided by a registered dietitian (RD) or nutrition professional that entails counseling in diet, drug interaction, vitamin therapy, and physical activity. It can improve the quality of life of seriously ill patients while saving health care dollars by speeding recovery, reducing the incidence of medical complications, lowering the number and length of hospital stays, and decreasing the need for drug and surgery treatments. Currently, this treatment is not covered by Medicare, thereby discouraging those who do not want to pay for it out- of-pocket from receiving it. Today, I am introducing the Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1997 with Congressman Jose Serrano and Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and 98 cosponsors. This bill will provide Medicare coverage for medical nutrition therapy by a registered dietitian or nutrition professional upon the referral of a physician. My colleagues and I have drafted this bill with the intention of changing what is currently a sick care system, which only pays for care when people get sick and sicker, to a health care system which pays to keep people as healthy as possible. It is my hope that this bill will help to save Medicare, and most importantly, to save lives. We all know we should not wait until we hear a crunching sound under the hood of a car before going in for an oil change. Medicare is paying for the health care equivalent of rebuilding engines, but won't pay for the oil change to prevent it.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Thalia Dondero of Las Vegas, NV, who is being honored on March 12, 1997, at the Bishop Gorman High School Knight of the Gael. Throughout the years, this event has chosen to honor citizens who have made outstanding contributions to the Las Vegas community and to the State of Nevada. During her tenure as a Clark County commissioner, Ms. Dondero served three terms as chairman of the board of county commissioners. In addition, she was elected by her fellow commissioners to chair the University Medical Center Board of Trustees, the Liquor and Gaming License Board, the Kyle Canyon Water District Board of Trustees, the Big Bend Water District Board of Trustees, and to serve as president of the Las Vegas Valley Water District Board of Directors. She was also appointed as a member of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the Regional Planning Council, the Regional Flood Control District, the Nevada Business Service Job Training Board, and the Equal Opportunity Board. Over the years, Ms. Dondero has been appointed to numerous boards and committees on the State and Federal level. Her gubernatorial appointments include the Governor's DUI Task Force, the Commission on Nuclear Projects, the Nevada Energy Commission, the Nevada Commission on Aging, the Tourism Commission, the Nevada State Parks Board, and the Nevada State Intergovernmental Board. At the request of the Department of Agriculture, Ms. Dondero served as a member of the National Forest System Law Enforcement Advisory Council, and the Department of the Interior appointed her to the National Bureau of Land Management Committee. Ms. Dondero's commitment to the community is evident in her involvement as former executive director of the Frontier Girl Scout Council, former president of the Nevada and Clark County Parent-Teacher Associations, and former chairman of the Council of Social Agencies. She is an active member of an impressive number of civic organizations including the Soroptomist Club, the Nevada Dance Theater, the United Way Service, Inc., Rotarian International, Opportunity Village, and the Las Vegas Center for Children. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to personally commend Ms. Dondero for her years of distinguished public service and dedication to both the Las Vegas community and the State of Nevada. Ms. Dondero exemplifies the virtue of service to others. I join all southern Nevadans in wishing her the best in her newest endeavor as a regent of the University and Community College System of Nevada.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to address a few of the points that have been brought up here today on the House floor. First of all, yes, we are pretty assured that we are not going to win this term limits battle today. But it is important that we do have this vote, for the will of the American people is to have term limits and the only way that they know whether or not their Member represents them the way that they want is to have recorded votes. That is why I applaud the leadership in the House of Representatives for not only bringing this to the floor today but also in the last Congress. The reason that I believe so strongly in term limits are several reasons. One is the power of incumbency. People say, ``Well, you have term limits at the ballot booth.'' Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth simply because of the power of incumbency. Challengers in no way can have the same kind of name recognition unless they raise so much money or have incredible personal wealth, because incumbents get on the radio whenever they want, they get on television whenever they want, they go to our plants whenever they want, and these same opportunities are not afforded to challengers. The other things that have been brought up on the floor today address turnover. We have had a tremendous turn over the last few years. Well, those have been extraordinary circumstances. One is we had a campaign finance reform bill where Members of Congress had to retire if they wanted to take their campaign money with them. We look at several of the other things that have happened: There have been extraordinary circumstances of why we have had tremendous turnover. This is not normal. We also look at the statistics: Incumbents have a huge advantage on being reelected, and a lot of good people do not run for office because if one is faced with a 20 or 30 to 1 chance of winning against an incumbent, they do not want to have their family's name drug through the mud, they do not want their own good name drug through the mud after a successful career, and a lot of good people are not coming to this body in America because of the power of incumbency. I believe very strongly that we need a blend of fresh ideas coming in constantly with some wisdom that is built up, and the only way to do that is with term limits. We also hear a lot about campaign finance reform, and frankly I think that the prospects for that this year are pretty dim myself, just talking with the competing forces. I hope it comes about. I think we desperately need it. But there is no better campaign finance reform than term limits. The power of the incumbency can only be negated by term limits. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 449, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' for this important legislation.