John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon].

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], a fellow visitor to Yad Vashem, which is the Holocaust Museum in Israel. (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 316, deploring individuals who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust and commending the ongoing work of the U.S. Holocaust Museum. I am honored to lead the fight for this important legislation. We must never forget nor allow the fog of passing years to diminish the memories of those who died in the concentration camps. It is the blessed burden of each generation that follows, be they Jew or Gentile, to honor them by remembering and acknowledging their sacrifice. It has been nearly 60 years since the beginning of the Holocaust, when Nazis killed over 6 million Jews and millions of Poles, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others. The Nazi Holocaust demonstrated an aspect of human nature which many people find hard to believe. Much has happened since the closure of Auschwitz, and today we find the lands where this terrible act occurred, as well as lands which were once behind the Iron Curtain are now free. We are fortunate that we live in this free and democratic society here in America; a place where people can espouse whatever their views may be, even if they are factually incorrect or hurtful to others. However, freedom of expression cannot be allowed to drown out the truth. Flasehoods must be answered. It is my hope that this vote will send a strong signal to the families of those who died that the United States stands with you in remembrance. We will not allow others with their doubts and questions to lessen the tragedy of what happened. Therefore, I commend this legislation to my colleagues, and encourage the good work of the Holocaust Museum which is helping to educate over 2 million people per year so that the atrocities which occurred nearly 60 years ago may never be repeated again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today, if you go back in history, people did not believe that stories coming out of the death camps, stories that were just almost too unspeakable to even think of and, therefore, people in Europe chose to ignore them. Mr. Speaker, let us today, as we remember the Holocaust and we celebrate the Holocaust Museum and the work that it is doing, let us never forget those stories that came out of those death camps. Let us never forget the faces of the men and women and children that were tortured and brutally murdered, many in those death camps. Let us not let people rewrite history, because if we allow them to rewrite history, history will indeed repeat itself.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 316.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H.R. 3034), to amend the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act to extend for 2 months the authority for promulgating regulations under the act.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, in southern Nevada, with the fastest-growing senior population in the country, I constantly hear from elderly constituents about the exorbitant costs of long-term care. People like our parents and grandparents are paying about $40,000 a year for nursing home care. If they do not have the money, Medicaid requires that they lose virtually everything or legally hide everything before they can get help with long-term care from the government. Currently, there is no provision in the Tax Code that relates to long-term care expenses. Most people incorrectly believe that private insurance will pick up this tab when they need it. But this is simply not the case for 98 percent of long-term care recipients. This bill incorporates the Ensign amendment that treats long-term care expenses as tax-deductible medical expenses. Some of my senior Democratic Ways and Means Committee members have told me they have been trying to do this for over 10 years. Best of all, it is fully paid by making billionaires who renounce their U.S. citizenship for tax purposes pay their fair share. This should have been done years ago, and certainly we should all support this bill with this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill was, frankly, inadequate. I offered an amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means, which was accepted, which will address long-term health care for Americans. Most elderly Americans are unaware of the magnitude of long-term care costs and of the limits of Government assistance. Many Americans wrongly assumed that Government programs or their general insurance will cover the costs of any long-term care services they might need. The reality is that the cost of long-term care can quickly wipe out the assets of even those who have worked and saved for a lifetime. For example, the average cost of nursing home care is now over $38,000 a year. If you happen to need such care, your options are limited under the current system. Only about 2 percent of long-term care costs are handled by private insurance. Normally, everyone else pays out of pocket or is forced to Medicaid, to the degree that nearly 40 percent of Medicaid costs are swallowed by long-term care components. This bill now includes the language that allows tax deductions for long-term care services, as is allowable for medical services. I urge the support of this amendment and the support of this bill.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I have several contentions with this bill. First of all, I have heard testimony over the last year about that this bill is just a study, and what is wrong with a study? One of the reasons for this study is just to give States the information so that they can make the decision about whether they should have gambling legalized or not, because there is the assertion made that the States do not have the proper information to make that decision at this point. The sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], his own State defeated a State measure that would have legalized gaming in Virginia, even though they were outspent, I think it was something like 16 to 1, by the casino industry to try to legalize it in that State. State after State after State is defeating legalized casino gaming. It seems that they do have the information to make the decision that is proper for their own State. And that is my biggest contention with this bill. Where in the Constitution can anyone point out to me that this body has oversight over legalized casinos that are regulated by a State? Nowhere in the Constitution. Now, if one wants to regulate Indian gaming or regulate Internet gaming, that is interstate commerce, we certainly have the constitutional jurisdiction to do that. But we do not have the jurisdiction in this body over regular casinos. Second, this legislation should require that the study commission make recommendations regarding purely State gaming policy issues, and that those recommendations be directed to the States, not to this body. Because our biggest fear is that people will take this information into this body and make either taxes, which the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], referred to, or more regulations. We feel that this is a thinly veiled disguise for future regulation of the gaming industry. This is purely a State issue that should stay at the State and local level. Last, let me conclude by saying that to improve this bill we should at least have local and State input. People on the gaming commission should at least be local mayors, legislators, and State Governors. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to four banks in southern Nevada. Sunstate Bank, Pioneer Citizens Bank, American Bank of Commerce and Bank West. These four banks, Mr. Speaker, have decided to give interest-free loans to Federal workers who are either furloughed or working and not receiving their full paychecks. This is a private-sector solution happening for community banks helping local people. This is a solution that shows that not all answers have to come from the Federal level. Mr. Speaker, the presidents of these banks, when I approached them about making these loans, these interest-free loans to Federal employees, jumped at the chance. That is the way local communities pull together. These are people living in the local community; they understand the needs of the local people, and they were willing to pull together to help these Federal employees through this difficulty that each one of them is going through at this point. A few things that have been addressed tonight, Mr. Speaker, that I would also like to address because in this context of Federal employees being furloughed, we are talking about balancing the Federal budget: There are many, many good people on the other side of the aisle who have talked about balancing the budget and actually have brought a balanced budget to the table. It is something President Clinton himself promised to bring to the table in November, which he has failed to do up to this point. I commend the Democrats in the Congress who have been willing to follow their words with actions and actually bring a balanced budget to the table. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that actions speak louder than words, and in our negotiating, we need to have people to keep their word. But let us keep the bigger picture in mind, Mr. Speaker. Let us keep the big picture of what this country is about. For the last 26 years, Republicans and Democrats have voted for deficits now that have totaled a national debt of over $5 trillion. It is immoral to live and to pass on debt to your children and your grandchildren while you enjoy the benefits of that spending. I just had a little girl born on December 2. Every child born in the United States last year has a $187,000 bill hanging over their heads just to pay interest on the national debt in their lifetime. They get nothing for that, just interest, because career politicians here in Washington have been unwilling to say no to special interest groups. Mr. Speaker, I think that the freshman class came here to do something different. We were elected to say no to the big spending career politicians in Washington, and we are doing that, Mr. Speaker. Today we are faced with the opportunity, the greatest opportunity any of us could have imagined, to actually balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. Frankly, many of us think that it is too long, 7 years is too long. Some people think that 10 years is maybe the amount of time that we should spend. Seven years I think to most Americans, they think that it is too long as well. For the last 7 years, we spent a little over $9 trillion, total Federal spending. In the next 7 years under these Republican cuts that you hear about, we are going to spend over $12 trillion, almost $3 trillion more in Federal spending under the Republican plan, and we hear in Washington that is a cut. That is why many of us think that 7 years is actually too long. Medicare alone, the last 7 years, we spent a little over $900 billion. The next 7 years under Medicare, Mr. Speaker, we are going to spend under the Republican plan of cuts that you hear about, over $1.6 trillion. That is over $700 billion more in the next 7 years versus the last 7 years. Mr. Speaker, this year in the United States we spend in Medicare $4,800 per person in Medicare this year. Under the Republican plan in the year 2002, we will spend a little over $7,100 under the Republican cuts that you hear about, $4,800 to $7,100. Under the President's plan, we would be looking at $7,200. A difference of actually $137 a month out of over $7,000 per person spending. It is a minute amount, and yet we hear how the Republicans are going to be throwing old people out in the streets, they will not be able to get quality medical care. I think that if you ask any American if they actually thought about a cut in Medicare, they would think that if you are spending $4,800 a year now, that you would actually be spending less of that in the year 2002 per person. Mr. Speaker, let us just let the facts speak for themselves. Let us do what is right for the future of America, for my children, for your children and the future of America's children.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1020, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995. My colleagues have heard many, many reasons why H.R. 1020 is not a good bill. I have discussed at length how H.R. 1020 would preempt States rights, slash environmental standards, bust the budget agreement by $4.2 billion, and today I will tell my colleagues how it endangers the rights of private property owners. H.R. 1020 proposes that thousands of shipments of high level nuclear waste be shipped from the 109 reactors around the country, across 43 States to Nevada. As written, there is no language in H.R. 1020 to protect private property rights. I know that and many of my colleagues and I are strong supporters of private property rights. As this nuclear waste travels across our local communities, there is no protection for private property owners if their property is devalued. A recent case was decided in Santa Fe, NM, that accurately describes the reality of this situation. The New Mexico State Supreme Court ruled that Mr. John Komis, of Santa Fe, NM, be awarded more than $884,000 for damages resulting from devaluation of his land due to the transportation of radioactive waste past his property. Your constituents, whether in Wichita, KS; Medford, OK; or Charleston, WV, or anywhere along the transportation routes, could suffer from this very same experience. I intend to offer an amendment to H.R. 1020 to ensure that private property owners be compensated for any property devaluation. While this single amendment could in no way ever correct all the drastic problems with the legislation, it does provide a mechanism to protect the innocent property owners from erroneous Government action. I urge my colleagues to protect their constituents and support my amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about House Resolution 1020, the nuclear waste issue for a deep repository and interim storage that will be located in Nevada. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1020 busts the Federal budget. I have a letter here from the gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, chairman of the Committee on the Budget, which says he will not give a budget waiver to this bill. The importance of that is because this bill does bust the Federal budget by over $4 billion in the next 7 years. This bill has many other things that are wrong with it, but right now we are waging the biggest budget debate in anybody's recent memory on the budget in the United States. This would be a totally inappropriate time to go busting the budget by an additional $4 billion when we are trying to balance the Federal budget in the next 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose severely, for the people of the State of Nevada, this bill which will target Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste in Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Committee on the Budget, December 8, 1995. Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 1020, the ``Integrated Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Act of 1995''. In its present form the bill violates the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and could trigger automatic cuts in key entitlement programs under pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirements. As you are probably aware, H.R. 1020 is designed to establish an interim nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada as well as set up procedures for the eventual development of a permanent high-level radoactive waste storage site. I am concerned with Section 401(a)(2) of the bill that replaces the current mandatory fee paid by electric utilities for nuclear waste disposal with a discretionary fee that could vary subject to the level of appropriations provided for the program. As currently written, the bill violates Section 311(a) of the Budget Act by providing new budget authority rules in excess of the levels set forth in the conference report accompanying H. Con. Res. 67. This bill, in the absence of further legislative action, would increase budget authority by $585 million in fiscal year 1996 and approximately $3.0 billion over the five year period from fiscal year 1996 through 2000. By changing the nuclear waste disposal fee from mandatory to discretionary, a PAYGO (Section 252 of the Deficit Control Act of 1985) issue arises. The nuclear waste disposal fee change results in approximately $600 million per year in foregone offsetting receipts, a loss of $4.2 billion over the period from fiscal year 1996 through 2002. Absent other legislation, this could trigger a sequester of critical mandatory spending programs. Furthermore, unless the discretionary spending caps are reduced, this legislation could increase the amount that can be spent under the discretionary spending caps. Increased discretionary spending would lead to higher budget deficits. This would occur because the measure authorizes offsetting collections, and the income generated by these offsetting collections creates room under the discretionary spending caps as set forth in current law for increased spending. During our negotiations with the Administration, we have emphasized the need to reduce spending in order to achieve a balanced budget. I am concerned that passage of this bill in its current form would send the wrong signal to the Administration. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to working with you to solve the problems in this bill. Sincerely, John R. Kasich, Chairman.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about H.R. 1020, which has to do with nuclear waste storage. It is also called the ``budget buster,'' because this bill will indeed bust the budget. It will bust the budget by over $4 billion in the next 7 years. Mr. Speaker, not only is there a problem with this bill as far as the budget is concerned; there is also a problem with this bill as far as safety and as far as States' rights are concerned. Let me address just a few of the points that this bill fails to address. First of all, the nuclear waste repository was originally put forth in 1982 to be in the State of Nevada or two other sites. In 1987, the famous bill that we in Nevada obviously are very much opposed to eliminated the other two sites from being studied and put it only at Yucca Mountain. This deep geological storage area has been being developed for the last several years. No good science is being used out there; this is purely a political process. But in the process of developing Yucca Mountain, transportation of the waste to Yucca Mountain has been studied. It had to be made safe. Well, in the process of developing a safe, reliable way of transporting the nuclear waste to Nevada, lo and behold, it was discovered dry cast storage would also store nuclear waste for the next 100 years in a very safe, reliable manner. We can actually leave this nuclear waste on site in dry casts for the next 100 years, and if we want to retrieve it, if we develop technology that allows us to use this spent nuclear waste, then we will have it at the sites and be able to retrieve it very easily. If we bury it into the ground, we will not be able to retrieve this waste. Therefore, from an economic standpoint, it is much cheaper to have on-site dry-cast storage. Yucca Mountain was originally supposed to be $200 to $400 million total. In recent years now, new studies have come out where Yucca Mountain will cost over $30 billion to develop. That is one of the reasons it is a budget-buster, $30 billion versus $200 million, and that is just current estimates. We all know, 10 to 15 years from now, what happens to government estimates; they always go up. So how big will this bill be for the U.S. taxpayer? Some people say that this is a national security issue. I want to raise that point. Some people say that it is not safe to keep this nuclear waste at all of these storage facilities around the country. Well, if that were the case, why do we not have U.S. troops guarding these places currently? This is not a national security issue, and therefore, it becomes a States' rights issue. All of these States that have enjoyed nuclear power over the years, Nevada not being one of those States, should have to deal with the waste, because it is not a national security issue. Those States that have benefited from the power and the low-cost power over the years should pay and should have that stuff in their backyard, this nuclear waste Nevada has never had the benefit of; and therefore, it should not be dumped on a small State just because that small State only has two Representatives in the House. Mr. Speaker, this whole process has never been based on sound science, has never been based on economics, but has been based purely on politics. We in Nevada understand that everybody wants to get nuclear waste out of their backyard and into Nevada's backyard. However, we oppose this measure, because not only will it bust the budget by over $4 billion, and when we are looking at potentially $30 billion total money spent on this deal, the $4 billion actually becomes a very small number, but we also oppose this on States' rights issues. The 10th amendment clearly states that those powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States and/or the people. Where in the Constitution does it give, when it is not dealing with a national security issue, this Congress the power to ship nuclear waste to a State that does not want it? This is a clear violation of the 10th amendment. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that political expediency is not what this new Congress is about. That is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to respect the Constitution, and we were also elected to balance the budget. H.R. 1020 is a violation of everything that we were elected to do.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. You received just recently, like I did, like virtually every other Member of Congress and every Federal employee did during this enrollment period now, where we decide by January which plan we are going to have; I am holding up a card here and this card is a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card. You have the same card. Over 90 percent of the Members of the House of Representatives have this card. The Speaker of the House has this very same card. What we are talking about here is something called a PPO. Seniors in the United States today do not have the same option to choose the health insurance that you and I have to choose, the same as the Speaker of the House has to choose. What we are doing, and, by the way, a PPO is managed care. The vast majority of Americans do not understand that a PPO is actually managed care. It is a very good managed care. We are going to give the seniors options to be able to choose a PPO, just like you and I have the option each year to choose a PPO, and HMO, fee-for-service, medical savings accounts or these new things called provider sponsor organizations. Can you imagine, imagine this scenario, let us say we had all of those options currently in Medicare, can you imagine what would happen, what AARP would say to Members of Congress if we took a whole list of options that seniors had and now tried to reverse it and say no, no, no, we have got a better system for you; instead of having all of those options and all of those things, you can choose from each year, we are going to give you fee-for-service; in a couple of areas of the country we will give you HMOs. That is all you get. Can you imagine the uproar?

Mr. ENSIGN. We would have 34 million seniors marching on Washington tomorrow. That is exactly, I mean, if people think about it in that context, we are giving them more choices, more freedoms. The chart you hold up is only people that stay in fee-for-service, and the people that choose PPOs, many of them will actually have less out-of-pocket expenses because they will not have, or these companies will be able to pay their Medicare part B premiums. They may get prescription drug coverage. I have three grandmothers on Medicare. It is absolutely heartbreaking. Luckily, I am able to help some of my grandmothers, with different members of our family help, and sometimes if it was not for that, they would have to choose between what they ate that month and getting prescription drugs. Many seniors are in this same boat. What we want to do is be able to offer seniors in all parts of the country so many choices they will have that option so they do not have to make the choice between what they eat that month and between getting prescription drugs. So I think we just have to put the politics aside. Who cares whether it is Democrats, whether it is Republicans? We have to put the politics aside and do what is right for this country.

Mr. ENSIGN. The difference between the President's plan and our plan, how many years does that save Medicare? We save Medicare to what year versus what?

Mr. ENSIGN. And per person.

Mr. ENSIGN. Staggering numbers. That is why if we could just be honest with the American people, and I am sure you heard during your campaign, why can they not be honest with what they are telling us from Washington. Forget about this political spin, just be honest. If we can go to Medicare and tell people, and when you do this, the light bulb just goes off, they say, ``Why are they saying that?'' In Medicare, the total spending in Medicare over the last 7 years was a little over $900 billion, almost $1 trillion. The next 7 years under the Republican proposal, we will spend a little over $1.6 trillion. It is over $700 billion more. Not less. More. I know the educational system is not what it once was, but still, when you spend $700 billion more we still call that addition, and I still think they call that addition today. This is what certain people in this Congress are calling a cut, is $700 billion more spending. I think the chart you have up there talks about some of the premiums, the part B premiums. That is the part that does to doctors. Part A trust fund is the part that goes to hospitals. Part B premiums and part B of the Medicare part is the part that goes to doctors. Why do you not explain a little bit about the differences between the Republican proposal and the Clinton proposal.

Mr. ENSIGN. Plus 700 years. To get to $1 trillion. In the last 7 years, the Federal Government spent a little over $9 trillion. Under the Republican proposal that you hear about all these cuts, we are going to spend a little over $12 trillion. President Clinton wants to spend almost $13 trillion. So the difference is not in whether we are cutting anything. The difference is whether we are going to increase Federal spending by $3 trillion or $4 trillion. The reason I bring up those numbers, because they are so staggering and they are so hard to think about, is the dollars. These are tax, that is all that is, that is money raised from taxes. The $245 billion is less than 2 percent of the $12.2 trillion. That is what we are talking about. We are only talking about cutting taxes by 2 percent.

Mr. ENSIGN. If the gentleman will yield, one of the things, this $245 billion number has been just demagogued to death because they talk about this huge tax cut. Over the next 7 years, under the Republican proposal, we are going to spend about $12.2 trillion. If you think about $1 trillion, to get to $1 trillion, if you had a business that lost $1 million a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, you would have to have that business start at the time of Christ, till now, plus another almost 700 years to get to $1 trillion.

Mr. ENSIGN. It is $187,000 this year. I try not to politicize my daughter's birth this year. Fortunately, I am in an income category where my wife has chosen to stay home with the kids for the first 4 or 5 years of their life. We are fortunate to be in an income category to be able to afford that. It used to be in the 1950's that the average income family could afford, in a two-parent family, if either the husband or the wife wanted to stay home and stay with the kids and nurture those kids, especially during those formative years, they could afford to do that. But today they cannot afford to do it, and it is not that they do not earn enough money. It is that the tax burden is too high, and that is one of the things that this $500 per child tax credit will do.