John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, in regard to rollcall No. 449, I would like to register my remarks in support of H.R. 4000, a bill to restore certain missing persons authorities applicable to the Department of Defense. I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on this measure. However, I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 4000. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to account for every U.S. service man and woman sent into combat to protect and defend the United States and its interests. If soldiers are taken as prisoners of war [POW] or are determined to be missing in action [MIA], the Department of Defense must investigate their cases until it has exhausted all hope of locating these individuals. They should not be declared dead merely because of the passage of time. I support H.R. 4000 because it establishes strict guidelines to account for POW's and MIA's and to monitor their status. This legislation will ensure that there are specific procedures for meeting these guidelines. We owe this to missing soldiers and their families. I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 4000.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of a distinguished lady who is retiring after seven terms as a strong voice for Nevada: Barbara Vucanovich. Barbara Vucanovich has represented the massive Second Congressional District since it was created in 1983. She retains the distinction as the first woman elected to Federal office from Nevada. Many of you know Barbara as one of the first women elected to the House Republican leadership and as the only woman to chair an appropriations subcommittee. But to me and her fellow Nevadans, Barbara is much more than our Congresswoman. She is a dedicated, warm, energetic, caring, public servant whom her constituents respect and have depended on to advocate the issues vital to the ``Silver State.'' Barbara has fought for the jobs of Nevadans by protecting the mining and gaming industries from repeated assaults. Barbara led the fight for over a decade to repeal the unfair source tax levied on retirees. Because of her leadership, the quality of life of our Nation's Armed Forces is better than ever. Most importantly, Barbara is a pioneer for women. As a brave survivor of breast cancer, Barbara has worked tirelessly to educate women about the importance of early detection of breast cancer and to increase the availability of mammograms. Even though Barbara Vucanovich is heading home, she will continue to serve Nevada in other capacities. Please join me in thanking Barbara for her unique contributions and a job well done. I wish my good friend all the best. I wish her God Speed and God Bless.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. If the gentleman will yield, let another Westerner jump in on this fun conversation you all are having here tonight, just to make a comment. Based on what the gentleman from Minnesota probably saw that day standing on the steps of the Capitol when the sun broke through coming from Minnesota, that might have been a rare sight. Coming from southern Nevada, we see it will about 365 days a year, so it probably was not as spectacular a new sight for me. I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I was one of the three freshmen appointed to the Committee on Ways and Means, because our leadership had confidence in this freshman class, actually the first Republican freshmen appointed since George Bush back in 1967. And I think that the freshmen have done well on the committee. My two colleagues, Jon Christensen and Phil English, I think they have performed in an outstanding manner on the Committee on Ways and Means. As a representative of the tax writing committee, which is the primary responsibility for the Committee on Ways and Means, let me enlighten all of you to not only some of the things that we brought up in the part of the Contract With America, but actually we have been talking about, actually items that have been signed into law. That is the bottom line. It is great to debate all these items, but it only affects people's lives once you can get them into law. First of all, we had the small business tax relief. We increased the amount of money the businesses can deduct as far as depreciation is concerned, instead of depreciation, actually expensing them, up the $25,000 per year. Small business people around the country understand that means they will be able to buy more equipment to make their employees more productive, to be able to pay their employees more money. We also have a spousal individual retirement account. If you have a spouse that is living at home right now, they are not allowed to have an individual retirement account, an IRA. Our legislation allows you, enacted into law, now for your spouse to get an IRA as well. We also have long-term care incentives. Right now in America, senior citizens are deathly afraid that they are going to have to lose everything that they have to be able to go on Medicaid, to be able to get good long-term care, skilled nursing facility type care in this country. We are not putting in tax incentives to buy long-term care insurance, for one, but also to deduct long-term care expenses off of their tax return. What this does is it keeps more people off of Medicaid, off of the taxpayers' backs, but also gives them more control over their lives. We also raised the Social Security earnings limitation. We are raising it over a 6-year period to $30,000. Right now you get penalized if you are between 65 and 69 years of age, penalized for every dollar you earn over $11,280. You get penalized on your Social Security. That is unconscionable. We are taking some of the people with the most experience and wisdom in our society and saying do not work, we want you to retire, and most of these people want to stay productive, and we are saying we are going to penalize you if you do. That is wrong and we repealed that. The adoption tax credit. Everybody talks about abortion. They talk about all these other things and they say, why do you not encourage adoption? This Congress is now encouraging adoption by giving a $5,000 tax credit to offset adoption expenses for families that make up to $75,000 a year. Now, there were a couple of items in the contract that were vetoed and it is unfortunate, too, because the average American family pays more in taxes than they do in food clothing and shelter combined. Yes, the $500 per child tax credit was vetoed. Yes, the marriage penalty relief was vetoed. The American dream savings account was also vetoed. And also economic growth tax cuts, known as the capital gains tax reduction of 50 percent, was also vetoed, which would have been a huge boost to the economy and to economic growth in this country. We are now in a global economy. We have to realize that when we are passing laws in this country. We need to make American business competitive once again. The cost of doing business, the cost of borrowing money, the cost of capital plays into how competitive American business is in a global economy. We could have helped make American business more competitive by giving capital gains tax relief. And, by the way, of all of the taxes that we proposed, tax cuts that we proposed, they talk about it was for the rich. Between 70 to 80 percent of the tax relief we passed as part of the Contract With America were for families making less than $75,000 a year. I do not know about my colleagues; districts, but in Las Vegas $75,000 a year is definitely not rich. And in Southern California most people cannot even afford to buy a house if they make $75,000 a year. We saw working families struggling and we tried to help them and I was proud to be part of this freshman class that truly changed the scope of things.

Mr. ENSIGN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ENSIGN. Not only is that true, I think that one of the reasons maybe people do not believe us up here is because we do not give credit when credit is due. I think we need to give President Clinton the credit for raising the minimum wage. He brought this Congress fighting, dragging and screaming and everything to raise the minimum wage. Now, we had to do that, but the only way we would do that is by giving small businesses tax relief along with that, so we improved the bill. But we should give him credit for raising the minimum wage. The President does not deserve credit for welfare reform. He is taking credit for it but he does not deserve credit for welfare reform, because, frankly, it was this Congress that did welfare reform. We recognized that welfare was destroying families. Illegitimacy rates are incredibly increased and a big factor in that is welfare. We tell a teenage mother, we say, if you get pregnant we will get you an apartment. You can move away from your parents, get you an apartment. You can have any man live with you except for the father of the child. Do not get a job. You cannot save anything. And, by the way, if you want more money, have more children out of wedlock. If that is not a morally bankrupt system, I do not know what is. And this Congress, with all of us working on it together, finally did the most sweeping social policy change in 60 years of this country, and we now have a true welfare reform bill that this President now signed into law because he was forced to.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I thank him for all the work he has done on behalf of the welfare recipients in the country. Mr. Speaker, today is truly independence day for welfare recipients. It is the first day to redefine compassion in America. In Las Vegas, we have a program known as Opportunity Village. It is an incredible program for the mentally disabled. It is a public-private partnership. The primary premise for the program is that it is compassionate enough to care enough about mentally disabled people to where the community works together to find these people jobs. It is an incredible situation to walk down there and to see the joy that these people have in being able to work every day so that they do not become a drain on society. They feel good about themselves. Today is the first day welfare recipients are going to start feeling good about themselves, and the children are going to start feeling good about their parents. My mom, when I was young, was divorced, supporting three kids, with very little money, just virtually no child support. I watched her every single day get up and go to work. She taught me a work ethic that has carried through my entire life with myself and my brother and sister. We have robbed that of welfare families. This bill starts giving that work ethic back to the American people. The Wall Street Journal did a poll. Ninety-five percent of all presidents of companies had their first job by the time they were 12 years of age. Compassion, work ethic, today; vote for this bill. It is a good bill for America, and today is a great day for America.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, using common sense, would we set up a welfare system that told a pregnant teenage mom, Listen, do not live with your parents; we will get you an apartment; do not get a job; do not save any money; you can have any man live with you except for the father of the child and, by the way, if you want more money, have another child out of wedlock? Let us put party politics aside here. Let us let the American people win for the first time in a long time. Let us pass this legitimate welfare reform bill that we have on the House floor today. If you are an able-bodied American, you are going to be required to work. We are going to provide child care money for you to transition from welfare to work, and we are going to provide job training. We have a program in Las Vegas called Opportunity Village. It is a program for mentally disabled people. We have enough compassion in Las Vegas to help people that are mentally disabled get into a job. Let us have enough compassion on welfare recipients to help them get into a job.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that will end Federal inmates' access to pornographic material. This commonsense proposal is long overdue. My amendment, which is part of a larger crime package I introduced earlier this month, will prohibit the distribution of sexually explicit materials and other information to prisoners. Congress should not be fueling the sexual appetites of offenders, especially those who have been convicted of despicable sex offenses against women and children. Magazines that portray and exploit sex acts have no place in the rehabilitative environment of prison, nor should we pay Bureau of Prison staff to distribute them. The infamous serial killer Ted Bundy, executed several years ago in Florida's electric chair, stated before his death his belief that pornographic materials directly contributed to his violent crimes. While a number of factors determine whether a prisoner will become a law abiding citizen upon release from prison, cutting prisoners off from their sexually explicit magazines will certainly do no harm. Over 100,000 inmates are locked up in Federal prisons around the country. Each year it costs well over $21,000 to house, feed, clothe, and provide medical care to each prisoner. This cost will continue to rise. When taxpayers are footing the bill for their room and board, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect inmates to conform to acceptable levels of behavior and civility. The bill we are considering today contains a $23 million increase in funding for the Violence Against Women Act. I support this increase and am glad we were able to dedicate resources to this important program. However, if we do not adopt my amendment, we are sending the message that it is OK to provide sexually explicit magazines and books to the very prisoners who have committed violent acts against women. Ironically, the House-passed version of the Defense Authorization Act included a provision which prohibits commissaries on military installations from selling magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse. It is reprehensible that this Congress would contemplate denying these magazines to members of the armed services while distributing them to Federal prisoners in their daily mail. I planned on offering a broader amendment which would have also banned materials which are vulgar, demeaning to women, disrespectful to law enforcement, and glamorize gang activity. Due to concerns of the authorizing committee and subcommittee, I narrowed my amendment to accommodate the Judiciary Committee's comments about the definition of some of these terms. It is not my intent to create confusing terminology that will create more demands on the Bureau of Prisons staff. Nevertheless, I do encourage the authorizing committee and subcommittee to take a close look at the types of materials prisoners have access to in the Federal prison system. I hope all Members can join me in voting for this reasonable effort. It deserves our collective support. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], chairman of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I rise in opposition to H.R. 497, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Although the legislation the House is considering today is a substantial improvement over previous versions, I continue to have many strong reservations with this legislation. First and foremost, I see no reason why the Federal Government should be involved in a study of a legal, State-regulated industry. The gaming industry, like any other entertainment or tourism industry, is subject to careful review and oversight by individual States. In my State of Nevada, we can see first hand the success of a beneficial relationship between the gaming industry and its regulatory agency, the Nevada Gaming Commission. These two entities have worked together over the years in a manner that benefits everyone--the industry, the State, and the millions of tourists that visit Nevada annually. Nevada has certainly been the leader and model for other States to follow. Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe this commission is a terrible waste of taxpayer money. The data and information the commission will collect are already available from multiple studies that have already occurred. In this time of fiscal constraint, it is ridiculous to expend Federal dollars for a duplicative study. I continue to resist this legislation because I feel that the underlying agenda of this bill is to federally regulate and tax the industry. The gaming industry has a huge impact on the economy of Nevada and 47 other States in the country. It provides jobs and opportunities in communities that would not be available if gaming did not exist. While the proponents of this legislation may have good intentions, I will be unyielding in my commitment to ensure that the intent of this commission does not expand to prohibit this legal industry. In addition, I will work with the Speaker, Senate majority leader, and the President to ensure that we have an unbiased commission that will fairly evaluate the industry and provide a balanced report.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Chairman, I think we have to ask ourselves a couple of fundamental questions. First of all, has the current welfare system worked? Has it helped children? Is it compassionate, especially to those children? Should we continue to give cash payments to prisoners and drug addicts? The answers to these questions are obvious. Out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed since our welfare system began. Crime rates have skyrocketed. This is federally funded child abuse. Madam Chairman, we tell the teenage mom, ``If you have a child out of wedlock, move away from your parents, we'll get you an apartment. By the way, don't work, don't save, and if you want a little extra money, have another child out of wedlock.'' This is truly federally funded child abuse. Our bill does something remarkable. It reforms welfare in a compassionate way. It has $2 billion more, as the previous speaker talked about, for child care than the President does so that in the transition from welfare to work we can help families do that. We also provide transitional health care, which is one of the biggest incentives to staying on welfare, the lack of health care coverage. We also stopped cash payments to noncitizens and prisoners. There is a fundamental disagreement between that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle on whether we should continue cash payments to noncitizens. We believe, I believe strongly, that it should be reserved for U.S. citizens. We also fundamentally believe that we to have a limit, a time limit on the amount of time that somebody can receive welfare benefits. There is no greater incentive than to know that at the end of a certain period of time they are going to have to get a job, they better get their life together, they better get out there, take advantage of the job training we provide, get their life together so that they can get off of welfare so that they can take care of their own family and have that personal responsibility. Lastly, from somebody who grew up with a deadbeat dad, I am applauding this bill for the strong child support enforcement provisions that it has so we can go after those deadbeat parents who are abandoning their children and not taking full responsibility. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for writing a great bill.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Chairman, we have to ask ourselves a few questions here. First of all, does the current welfare system help children as the last speaker talked about? She talked about a safety net. Is the current welfare system a safety net or has it become a spider web that just absolutely grabs onto people and creates a dependency cycle that destroys families? Is the current welfare system compassionate? The answers to all of these questions are an obvious no, the current welfare system is not compassionate and it does destroy families. What effect has our welfare system has on out-of-wedlock births? What effect has it had on crime rates? What effect has it had on the work ethic in America? Our bill gets people off welfare and into work. That is true compassion. Our bill does stop noncitizens from receiving welfare benefits. I am sorry. I believe that welfare benefits should only be reserved for citizens of the United States. It is currently law in the United States that if you are a noncitizen that comes here and you go on the Government dole, that is grounds for deportation, has been the law, at least during this century. That is grounds for deportation here. We are an opportunity society. We want to attract people from around the world to come here to better their own lives and to better this country at the same time. My mom when my parents were divorced when I was about 3 years of age would have made more money going on welfare because she had no child support. She had three kids to raise. But I saw my mom each and every single day get up and go to work, and that taught me a work ethic that we are robbing from welfare families today. The children of welfare families are losing that. That is not compassion. We want to be an opportunity society that takes people and provides them opportunities. Our bill provides money for child care, $2 billion more than the President, and also transitional health care for children in the time that these welfare moms and welfare families are getting off of welfare and into work.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of courts in southern Nevada.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lightfoot, in a colloquy. I want to thank the gentleman for crafting a bill which addresses some of the most urgent infrastructure needs in the U.S. Court system. Under the legislation before us today, $540 million is available for constructing and acquiring Federal buildings, one of which is the Las Vegas, NV, U.S. Courthouse. I am sure the gentleman is aware of the urgent need for a new courthouse in Las Vegas, NV. My congressional district is by far the fastest growing urban area in the Nation. The existing court facilities are unable to meet the caseload resulting from this growth. Recognizing the needs of the Nevada courts, the Judicial Conference of the United States has listed the Las Vegas Courthouse as its fifth highest priority in fiscal 1997. Last year, in the House version of the fiscal 1996 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, $38.4 million was provided to begin construction of a new U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas. However, due to negotiations involving the acquisition of land from the city of Las Vegas, the General Services Administration reported that the project would not be eligible to proceed until early fiscal 1997, and therefore, would not require an appropriation in fiscal 1996. Accordingly, House and Senate conferees agreed to postpone an appropriation in fiscal 1996. In lieu of funding, conferees agreed to language clarifying that the Las Vegas Courthouse is ``one of the highest priorities in fiscal year 1997'' and directing GSA to continue to proceed with design work. In an effort to move this project along, the city of Las Vegas has since taken the step of donating a construction site to the Federal Government. In essence, the construction of the Las Vegas Courthouse is awaiting an appropriation in fiscal 1997 and action by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. At this time, I wanted to clarify if it is the gentleman's intent to work on behalf of the Las Vegas U.S. Courthouse, consistent with last year's conference report language, during conference committee negotiations with the other body.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. The need to enact legislation to preserve the fundamental definition of matrimony as a union between one man and one woman is pressing and necessary. This legislation is not about mean-spirited antics or election year politics. A pending ruling by a Hawaii court could legalize same-sex marriages in that State. According to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, unless Congress says otherwise, the other 49 States in the Union would be required to abide by the Hawaii decision. Requiring the entire Nation to discard the will of the clear majority of Americans undermines our democracy and would deny other States the opportunity to enforce laws banning the recognition of same-sex marriages. The time-honored and unique institution of marriage between one man and one woman is a fundamental pillar of our society and its values. The Defense of Marriage Act does not deny citizens the opportunity-- either through their elected representatives or ballot referendum--to enact legislation recognizing same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships within their own borders. The Defense of Marriage Act says that States should determine their own policy and that the Federal Government has a right to define who is entitled to benefits as a spouse. This legislation is consistent with the need to return power and decisionmaking to the States where it rightfully belongs. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to carefully examine the issue of same-sex marriages and separate two fundamental issues. The first issue involves the question of whether individuals have a right to privacy and the choice to live as they see fit. I think most Americans, myself included, would agree that everyone should have the right to privacy. The second issue involves the question of whether all States must follow Hawaii's example, and has greater societal and constitutional implications than the issue of privacy. The Defense of Marriage Act addresses the second issue and does nothing to deny an individual his or her right to privacy. During a time when the traditional two-parent family is becoming the exception, I believe it is important to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that moms and dads are encouraged and strengthened in the task of raising their children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3396, The Defense of Marriage Act. The need to enact legislation to preserve the fundamental definition of matrimony as a union between one man and one woman is pressing and necessary. This legislation is not about mean-spirited antics or election year politics. A pending ruling by a Hawaii court could legalize same-sex marriages in that state. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, unless Congress says otherwise, the other 49 states in the Union would be required to abide by the Hawaii decision. Requiring the entire nation to discard the will of the clear majority of Americans undermines our democracy and would deny other states the opportunity to enforce laws banning the recognition of same-sex marriages. The time-honored and unique institution of marriage between one man and one woman is a fundamental pillar of our society and its values. The Defense of Marriage Act does not deny citizens the opportunity-- either through their elected representatives or ballot referendum--to enact legislation recognizing same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships within their own borders. The Defense of Marriage Act says that states should determine their own policy and that the federal government has a right to define who is entitled to benefit as a spouse. This legislation is consistent with the need to return power and decision making to the states where it rightfully belongs. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to carefully examine the issue of same-sex marriages and separate two fundamental issues. The first issue involves the question of whether individuals have a right to privacy and the choice to live as they see fit. I think most Americans, myself included, would agree that everyone should have the right to privacy. The second issue involves the question of whether all states must follow Hawaii's example, and has greater societal and constitutional implications than the issue of privacy. The Defense of Marriage Act addresses the second issue and does nothing to deny an individual his or her right to privacy. During a time when the traditional two parent family is becoming the exception, I believe it is important to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that moms and dads are encouraged and strengthened in the task or raising their children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced bipartisan legislation, the Prison Work and Victim Restitution Act of 1996, with 15 of my colleagues. This measure builds on our efforts to reform the Federal prison system and reduce recidivism among released inmates while promoting justice for victims and society. My bill is a tough measure, but its intent goes far beyond simply punishing inmates. One of the major barriers to the successful rehabilitation of Federal prison inmates has been the weak work requirements contained in the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1990. The 1990 Crime Control Act does not require a minimum work requirement for inmates. Although it costs over $21,000 annually to care for each prisoner in the Federal prison system, a statutory minimum workweek for prisoners does not exist. Instead, the United States Code touches on the subject with vague language which simply states that it is the policy of the Federal Government that prisoners should work. The reality is that the average workday for a prisoner in the United States is only 6.8 hours long. While some States have longer workdays, the average prisoner is working fewer hours than the taxpayer who supports him. Mandatory work for prisoners should serve the dual purpose of compensating taxpayers and victims while instilling values and responsibility in those who have failed to live within an orderly society. The Prison Work and Victim Restitution Act of 1996 would correct some of the basic failings of our criminal justice system by requiring Federal prisoners to work at least 50 hours per week. The earnings of prisoners will be distributed as follows: one-third to compensate the Bureau of Prisons for the cost of incarceration, one- third to a victim restitution fund, one-tenth to be placed in a savings account for an individual prisoner, and the remainder, 23 percent, will go to States which enact the same work requirements for their own prison systems. My legislation clarifies that OSHA and the Fair Labor Standards Act-- including minimum wage--do not apply to inmates. It also prohibits prisoners from engaging in nonrehabilitative behavior such as smoking, possessing pornography, and listening to vulgar music. Drug testing is mandatory. This bill addressed the problem of ensuring there is an adequate supply of paying work for prisoners. My legislation permits UNICOR, the prison industries system, to expand and allows nonprofit agencies--many of which receive Federal grants to combat crime and poverty in our communities--to use prison labor. Justice Fellowship, a national organization committed to restoring justice to victims and society and promoting work for prisoners, has endorsed the Prison Work and Victim Restitution Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer- Ganske amendment. As one of the two veterinarians in the House of Representatives, many of us who went through either veterinary school or medical school learned a lot about using animals for medical research. There are animals used in medical research all the time. Dr. Ganske and myself are strong supporters of using animals for medical research when it is indicated, and only when it is indicated, and obviously to do it in a humane way when we do that. I think one of the reasons for the animal rights movement over the years is simply because people do unnecessary experiments. That is exactly the purpose of the Roemer-Ganske amendment, is to eliminate an unnecessary, cruel animal experiment when it is not going to benefit mankind in the future. That is the reason we need the Roemer-Ganske amendment. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I want to voice in my strongest support for linking future VA medical funding with the demographic shift in veterans' populations, as the Thurman amendment would do today. I would urge the chairman to work to include some version of the amendment in future VA authorizing and funding bills. VA medical expenditures are determined largely by past expenditures, not by veterans populations. Veterans populations, like that in my home State of Nevada, are rapidly growing without any comparable increase in funding resources. For example, Nevada has experienced the fastest growth of veterans in the Nation--with no other State in the country even close. Between 1980 and 1990, Nevada's veterans population grew an amazing 37 percent--or at an average rate of 13 veterans a day; while others like the District of Columbia have seen their veterans population drop by as much as 20 percent over the same period. Yet, the money does not follow the veterans. This is not an equitable allocation of scarce resources. Total VA expenditures in Nevada in fiscal year 1995 amounted to $1,258 per veteran. This puts Nevada at the bottom of the scale. Many States that have been losing veterans get twice the funding per veteran, and some even more than that. This is patently unfair and I will continue to push for Congress to develop an equitable funding equation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for responding to our push last year to increase VA medical care funding to the President's request. Until Congress can allow veterans more choice in how they receive care, and until we can take care of the bloated bureaucracy, full-funding is a minimum level we must maintain to ensure our former warriors receive promised health care coverage. Also, Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing the continued need to fully fund the State veterans home grant account. This year's level of $47 million is $7 million over the President's request. It is my hope that some of this grant can be used in southern Nevada to help build a critically needed home for our veteran population. Representing a State with the fastest veteran population growth, the largest amount of veterans as a percentage of population, and one of only a handful of States without a veterans home, I can tell you that this will mean a great deal to Nevada veterans.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support and intent to vote for H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. Despite the inclusion of nonrelated grants under the Safe Drinking Water Act, I feel that it is vital to the American people that we pass this legislation. It will enhance the safety of Americans' drinking water by focusing regulatory efforts on the most dangerous health contaminants and giving States and local water systems the financial and technical resources they need. H.R. 3604 provides $7.6 billion in direct grants and loans to public water systems for compliance activities, enhancement of water system capacities, operator training, and development of solutions to source water pollution. It also authorizes $80 million for scientific research on the health effects of cryptosporidium, as well as radon and arsenic, and to develop new methods for its treatment. In addition, H.R. 3604 includes a community right-to-know provision which requires water systems to mail an annual report to every consumer concerning the levels of regulated contaminants. The safe drinking water amendments is a carefully crafted, bi- partisan bill that deserves support. It provides ample resources and power to local communities to provide safe and clean water to their residents. It provides local control over local issues. I commend the Commerce Committee for their hard work. I am hopeful that differences between the Senate-passed bill can be worked out quickly to send this important environmental legislation to the President.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, due to travel difficulties on Monday, June 10, I missed rollcall votes 222, 223, and 224. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these rollcall votes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 316) deploring individuals who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust and commending the vital, ongoing work of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.