John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes, her name is Sienna.

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. I serve on the Committee on Ways and Means. We had a lot of debate this year about tax cuts. I am sure, as many of my colleagues in the freshman class, when we were out on the campaign trail last year there were a lot of us that were told by the American people that they feel this weight and this tremendous burden of the Federal Government, and this debt that they feel on them. They feel that more and more the working middle class is bearing this tremendous debt load, that career politicians that have been unable and unwilling to say no to the special interest groups have continued to put on them. If we think back to the 1950's, and especially seniors remember this, the average family of four back in the 1950's paid about $1 out of $50 to the Federal Government. Today the average, just the average income family of four, pays about $1 out of $4 to the Federal Government. The reason is, it has to do with what is happening with your chart, and that is that the personal exemption did not keep pace with inflation. If you look at virtually everything across the board, whether you are talking about a carton of milk or a loaf of bread or cars or houses, if you adjust for inflation, they all cost pretty much the same. Their earning dollars pretty much buy them the same thing they bought back in the 1950's. The difference between the 1950's and today is the tax burden. That is the reason in a two-parent family that when one of the parents, especially when the children are young--and I just had a little girl that was born on Saturday.

Mr. ENSIGN. He appoints every single member of the trustees, as I recall?

Mr. ENSIGN. The Medicare trustees, who are they appointed by?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on Veterans Day recently I was out in Boulder City, NV, at a veterans' memorial cemetery and I saw a woman who has obviously a mother kneeling over her son's grave weeping. I could tell the pain on this mother's face, and I thought about the pain of everyone who has lost a son or daughter in a military conflict in this country. Mr. Speaker, the thought came up to me during that day, and during some of the conversations that I had on Veterans Day with so many who have sacrificed so much, would that woman that was kneeling over that grave that day, would she accept this mission that the President wants to send our young men into in Bosnia? Would this be a mission that she would consider in vital U.S. American interest? Would this be a mission that she thinks that threatens our allies or that threatens the very defense of our country? Mr. Speaker, I think that that woman would say no, and I would agree with her. We should only be sending our troops where there is a vital U.S. American interest or a threat to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there is no easy way to do what Congress is about to do. If it was easy to do, previous Congresses would have done that. The national debt we are passing on to our children, including my 3-year- old son, Trevor, and his little sister who will be born in a little over a month, is nothing short of immoral. It is immoral to do to poor children, middle-class children and wealthy children, because if nothing is done, poor children will never get to be middle class or wealthy. This bill is not only pro family because it begins to lift the debt burden from our children and grandchildren, but there are many other provisions on which I will touch on just a few. First of all, this bill addresses the marriage penalty. There is a $500 per child tax credit. There is a $500 elderly care tax credit. There is also an adoption tax credit, and there is also estate tax relief so family-owned businesses such as family-owned farms can survive without having to sell off all of their assets so they can send that money back here to Washington. Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that citizens pay taxes all of their lives, but then when they die, they have to pay taxes again. This debate is largely about who should spend the people's money. Should families have more of the money they earn to spend at their discretion in the manner best suited to their situation, or should the Federal Government, which already has demonstrated all too well the inefficient way it spends money. Should the Federal Government be increasingly let into our pocketbook to waste our tax dollars? I believe that the words tax cuts are not bad words. This is your money, America. Do you not deserve a little more of it back? Is everyone satisfied with the bang that they are getting for their buck? Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I was raised by a single mother with no child support, and each and every day I saw her get up and go to work, a lesson that was taught to me that we have robbed from welfare families. This has lead to a generational dependency. There is nothing more important in America to learn than the work ethic. If we want people to get out of poverty, they have to work. Our EITC program will preserve the incentive to go and get a job and stay off of welfare. In fact, when the EITC was created in 1975 total spending was about $2 billion. Today EITC spending is $20 billion. That is a tenfold increase. Under our plan, total EITC spending will continue to grow to about $27 billion. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know some of our public schools are not that great these days, but even these schools know that this is addition, not subtraction. The American people know that spending more on something is not a cut. Only those who employ confusion and scare tactics fail to understand this lesson. The last point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that some are calling this a tax increase because we happen to not be giving it to people with children. The last time I checked, when we give a subsidy to the American people and then happen to remove that subsidy, that is not a tax increase. That is something we are taking from one taxpayer, giving to the other, and then all of a sudden we decide we cannot afford to continue to give more and more of their money in taxes to other people and redistributing that. Those on the left are calling this a tax increase. That is the mindset they have. That is how corrupt they are in their thinking.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to tell a story and to address the last gentleman's comments that in forming these teams, that management would only choose the people that were in support of that management. Mr. Chairman, when I was in the private sector, the National Labor Relations Board had not interpreted these activities to be violating the National Labor Relations Act. But under current conditions and under the current board, they would interpret this as a violation of the law. Mr. Chairman, we formed several teams in the company that I was working in. The way that we formed those teams is that management would submit some names to the team and the workers would submit some members to the team. We would vote on those from labor side. We would vote on it from management side, and we got together and we formed some of the most productive teams that helped efficiency, that helped scheduling, that helped all kinds of ways to improve the worker's lives. Mr. Chairman, I think the bottom line that we have to look at here is who is looking out for the worker? That is the question that we have to ask. Who is looking out for the worker? This bill will help the worker. Period. That is what we are trying to do here. If I thought that this bill would be against the worker, I would not do it. I would not vote for it. That is why, when I formed the teams in the company that I was working in, I was looking out for what was best for the worker, what was better for the employee, better for the management, and ultimately better for the customer.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 13, my votes were not recorded for rollcall votes 658 and 659. Had my votes been recorded, I would have voted ``aye'' in both instances.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the B-2 amendment. Like my colleagues I have taken a hard look at the B-2 program. In fact, I have gone out of my way to find a reason to vote against the B-2. I came to Washington to cut the deficit and eliminate wasteful programs. I voted against the space station because in my opinion the program did not make sense in the current budget environment. The same cannot be said for the B-2. The truth is, that I have been unable to find a compelling reason to justify halting this program at 20 planes. The B-2, with its unprecedented combination of stealth, range, and payload is precisely the kind of technologically advanced weapon in which the Congress should invest. A single B-2 has the ability to complete a mission that would require many more conventional aircraft. This in turn puts far fewer lives at risk. During the Gulf War the stealthy F-117 flew only 2 percent of the missions but hit 40 percent of the targets. The stealthy B-2 has a far greater capability than the F-117. We must keep our technological edge as we move toward the 21st century. The B-2 stealth bomber is the weapon that can meet future challenges.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lazio amendment to H.R. 2127, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Act. I want to thank my colleague for offering this amendment today. The Lazio amendment would restore $13 million to the National Senior Volunteer Corps. Millions of seniors across the Nation--including hundreds in my congressional district in southern Nevada--are dependent on the friendship, knowledge, and confidence they gain from National Senior Volunteer Corps programs. Foster Grandparents, Retired Senior Volunteers, and Senior Companions are making a difference in our hospitals with the terminally ill, homeless shelters where many have lost hope, juvenile detention facilities with troubled youth, and in schools where drug use is rampant. These programs represent true volunteerism and a welcome challenge to seniors. Our communities are better places to live because of the commitment of senior volunteers. I know that we are facing tight budgetary times. Difficult decisions must be made to balance the budget. However, I don't believe that we should curtail volunteer opportunities by 15 percent for seniors when an increasing segment of our population is aging. The growing aging population is living longer and healthier lives. Seniors have the extra time to share their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and I believe the small Federal investment we make for our seniors is well spent. In fact, Federal funding for programs such as Foster Grandparents from State and Private sources is leveraged several times by State and private dollars.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, while the remarks that the subcommittee chairman said are true, that it is important to have basic science research, it is important to have the programs that NSF supports and that NASA supports, it is also true that it is critical that we maintain the contract that we have with the veterans in this country. The reason that we have the freedoms to have basic science research in this country is because of the sacrifices that our veterans have made serving this country. I have 114,000 veterans in southern Nevada just in my district alone. Many of those veterans have to travel 4\1/2\ hours to southern California because there is not adequate funding levels at the hospital in Las Vegas to take care of their basic needs. Therefore, they have to travel all the way to southern California. I think this is a travesty to those people who have sacrificed so much, have had very little pay while they are in the service, spent a lot of time away from their families, a lot of them sacrificed limbs, a lot of them sacrificed a lot of their friends, people that they knew in battle, and to me and to a lot of the Members of this Congress, I think it is important that we maintain the contract that we have had with these veterans over the years. I would strongly urge that Members consider supporting this amendment to bring the funding levels for 1996 up to what the President has proposed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment to ensure that we keep the promises made to our veterans. The Ensign amendment is about the contract with those who have served our Nation honorably without fundamentally altering the priorities set forth in the bill before us today. First, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lewis, for making tough choices. In most instances, the VA/HUD subcommittee has accommodated or exceeded the President's requested funding levels in veterans programs such as compensation and pensions, readjustment benefits, and extended care facility grants. [[Page H 8032]] H.R. 2099 recognizes the invaluable contribution veterans have made to our national security, and in turn, extends security to those in time of need. Although I appreciate the fact that this measure meets or exceeds the President's request in several accounts, I must respectfully take issue with the funding level included in H.R. 2099 for the Veterans Health Administration's medical care account. Even though the bill contains a $499 million increase in VA medical care over last year's level, the President requested a higher level of $16.96 billion in fiscal year 1996 for veterans medical care. The higher level is needed to provide high quality health care services to all veterans expected to seek care in 1996. Even with the adoption of the manager's amendment, a $184 million gap still exists between the President's VA health care request and the recommended appropriation of $16.77 billion. I am concerned that this disparity will deprive veterans of the care that they so desperately need. My amendment would close the $184 million veterans medical care gap and still provide approximately $2 million in savings which could be used for deficit reduction. The Ensign amendment would reduce the National Science Foundation's research and related activities account by $235 million. In H.R. 2099, the research and related activities account was cut by only $26 million from the fiscal year 1995 level. I find it hard to believe that there was only room for a $26 million cut in a $2.25 billion account. Even an additional $235 million cut represents slightly more than a 10-percent reduction in this account's fiscal year 1996 appropriation. Surely, when veterans are facing the prospect of losing access to health care, the NSF can take a 10-percent cut. I personally support NSF and the projects it supports in Nevada. However, NSF should be treated fairly, and I believe my amendment allows NSF to continue its vital research. To complete the offset, my amendment would reduce the appropriation for NASA's human space flight account by $89.5 million. Again, we are talking about a very small reduction in NASA's $13.67 billion allotment. We have heard arguments from both sides about the space station and whether or not we can afford the space station in a time of great fiscal restraint. My amendment unlike other amendments, will not decimate the space station program. No specific human space flight program or initiative is targeted in my amendment. $89.5 million is a modest cut and represents reasonable middle ground. Between the offsets from the NSF and NASA, we can meet the President's request for health care and still provide resources for scientific research and exploration. Mr. Chairman, I also want to focus for a moment on the skyrocketing costs of health care. We are about to reform Medicare, and I would be the first one to rise in support of reforming our complete veterans' health care program. But until we do that, we need to completely fund our veterans' health care program. My amendment brings the funding level up to the President's requested level for fiscal year 1996. I urge its support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, while I respect the words that have been said by my colleagues and respect the work that has gone into making this bill, I still think that this is a question of priorities, and the priorities that I have remain with the veterans in this country. When we are looking at limited funds, we do have to say, ``What is important? How much should we spend on veterans? How much should we spend on science?'' Science is a theoretical number. Should we spend $100 billion on those science programs? Should we spend $200 billion? We have no idea what that number should be. It is some number floating out there. We do know, Mr. Chairman, that veterans have those needs and we do know that we are not meeting those needs currently. To not increase this number up to what the President has requested, I think, would be doing a disservice to the veterans who have paid such a dear price in serving our country. That is why I have offered this amendment, because of the sacrifice that those veterans have made. It is a question of priorities. There is no question. Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult decision to make, and I appreciate what the subcommittee chairman and all the members of the committee have gone through in crafting this bill. To me, though, this happens to be a question of priorities. I believe that the NSF can take a 10- percent cut in this year's budget. It is just a question of the priorities that I have set for myself to come and represent the people of southern Nevada and especially those 114,000 veterans that I represent there. I believe they deserve the medical care that they are to get this year. I would be the first one, though, to add my voice to reforming the whole veterans' medical care. It needs to be reformed just like Medicare does. We need to provide better service for less cost, and then maybe next year, we will not have this argument.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Archer amendment. During the conference bill when we first heard about this expatriate situation, we were criticized by the other side of the aisle for not voting for this expatriate proposal when we had 15 minutes to read about it. We said it was wrong, we should take and be patient and have hearings on this, which I commend my chairman, Mr. Archer, for having. In these hearings, the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee pointed out that the bill that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] had brought forward would leave a loophole that if you inherited the money and then expatriated at that point, you could avoid paying all tax. So if there is a loophole, it is in Mr. Ward's amendment as currently stated under Mr. Gibbon's bill. So if you want to avoid the loophole for billionaires, the Archer amendment is the amendment to support, and I encourage my colleagues to support the Archer amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. First of all the multipurpose reactor, that technology has not been developed as well. We have never produced with the reactor the amount of tritium that we are talking about developing today. Also, the tritium, as far as technologically, has been produced from an accelerator. This is false when my colleagues say it has not. Granted, I will admit that the accelerator technology is not as far along, but we have the time to see whether we can develop this technology with an accelerator. No question about it. It is environmentally the safest thing to do.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey- Vucanovich-Ensign amendment. Let me also agree on the importance of maintaining tritium production in this country and how critical that is to our national security. I come from a State that in the interest of national security was willing to allow bombs to be blown up underneath our ground because we care so much about national security. So I do not come at this as somebody who is antinuclear or anything. I am coming here in support of the amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do. First of all, we are cutting out $50 million in earmarked spending that will go to a Swedish company. Second of all, we have enough tritium to last approximately the year 2011 with current supplies, and if we recycle those, we can get it out to about the year 2015, 2017. So we have enough time to be able to research some of the other options. [[Page H5993]] I think there are legitimate differences within the scientific community on whether a reactor or an accelerator is the best way to go here. And what I am saying is that we should take that time and research truly what is in the best interest of national security as well as with environmental concerns. Everyone agrees an accelerator is the best for environmental because it does not produce high-level nuclear waste. It produces low-level nuclear waste. So we are talking about accelerator technology, clearly, it is the best from an environmental standpoint. You also mentioned that when taken into effect, the reactor could downgrade plutonium and reuse that and that an accelerator needs a reactor. That is discounting that there is other technology on the drawing board out there that is possibly developable in the future. That is using the transmutator. And that would no longer produce the high-level nuclear waste as well. It would actually recycle a lot of the nuclear waste that is out there. So there are other options out there that we can explore. The point is that we do have some time to explore this without taking the next few years and using those years just to raise money to build this reactor. We can actually take the years and develop the technology that we will need. The other problem that I have with this is that we have not built a reactor and the reactor that you are talking about is just as theoretical as the accelerator is. We have never built a reactor like this that can produce the tritium in the quantities we need, just like we have not built the accelerator to produce the tritium in the quantities we need. We know an accelerator will produce tritium. There is no question about that. In Los Alamos they have proven that as far as on the bench there. The other problem that I have is that we cannot store the nuclear waste that we are producing at this time. Obviously the whole issue on Yucca Mountain on a temporary interim nuclear storage facility is because the people that are producing the nuclear waste all want to ship it to my State because they cannot house it now. The linear accelerators are, there is no question, they are proven technology. They are out there and the x-ray machine is basically a linear accelerator. They use it with radiation technicians for cancer, and Stanford has a very large linear accelerator. The linear accelerator technology is there. It is just a question of applying this technology to what we need. And I think it is the right thing to do, and I think this is the right amendment. I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to support it.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard ``How are we going to pay for these tax cuts.'' Let me remind the Members here that the Government does not pay for tax cuts. We allow the American people to keep their own tax dollars that they have earned. Taxpayers have to pay for government spending, so when we talk about how are we going to pay for tax cuts, we are just going to allow the American people to keep more of what they earned. In reference to a little while ago, we heard about Ronald Reagan raising taxes up to 50 percent on Social Security recipients back in 1983. Let me remind the Members also of which party was in control of the Committee on Ways and Means and which party was in control of the Congress at that time. It was the Democrats. I have a lot of seniors in my district. Those seniors have been telling me that they thought that the 1993 raise on their Social Security benefits, tax raise on their Social Security benefits, was unfair. I agree with them. They have earned this money. The tax raise in 1983 went to bail out Social Security. The tax raise in 1993 did not go to bail out Social Security. What we need to do is we need to be fair to our seniors. We need to raise as this bill does the earnings limit up to $30,000. I had people working for me that would come to me and say, ``You know, I just can't work anymore because I'll go over my earnings limit and that will hurt me as far as my Social Security money is concerned.'' It used to break my heart. These people wanted to be productive and we would not be able to allow that because of the tax system that we have bill does that. Lastly, this bill also encourages people to get long-term health care insurance. I am proud to support that. It is something we need in this country.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, for weeks our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have accused Republicans of coddling the rich with tax cuts while ignoring the deficit. It is time for the truth to be heard. H.R. 1215 will not only provide badly needed tax relief for middle class American families and incentives for economic growth, but will provide the first down payment on our goal for balancing the budget by the year 2002. This bill provides a $500 per child tax credit to America's families. The need for this is obvious. In 1950, $1 out of every $50 the American family earned went to the Federal Government. Now the average family of four sends $1 out of every $4 to Washington. It is time for the Federal Government to take its hands out of the wallets of American families and let Americans spend the money they earn. H.R. 1215 not only provides essential tax relief for American families; it also provides $62 billion more in deficit reduction over 5 years than the President offered in his fiscal year 1996 budget. It is time for deficit reduction and tax relief for the hard-working taxpayers of America.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, the Deal bill increases taxes on middle- class families. It increases taxes by $2.2 billion by phasing out a child care credit for middle-class working families, $2.2 billion. I campaigned on a middle-class tax cut, not to raise taxes on middle- class families. The Deal bill also will cost the American taxpayer, get this, $64 billion more than the Republican bill over 5 years. That is $64 billion. The Deal bill is also weak on work. Let me give you an example of how in the formula you can play games with this. If somebody goes off of welfare into work, does that three times during the year, under the Deal bill this would be counted as three people going into work. That is how you can play games with the formula, and that is why this bill, one of the reasons this bill is so flawed. This bill is more symbolism than it is substance. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Deal bill and for the Personal Responsibility Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, one of the most difficult tasks to perform in the Federal Government is to propose fundamental change to a Federal program. The most difficult task is actually to go about making this change law. A Federal program is like a huge cargo ship. As long as the ship is slowly laboring ahead on a set course, it may operate relatively well. When the time comes to change course, however, the size and speed of the vessel create tremendous momentum making the change of course difficult. Of course, the longer that change is delayed, the more off course the ship gets, requiring more significant and more difficult and painful changes. The other night on CBS, there was a welfare documentary. Dan Rather, who is not exactly known for his conservative thoughts, was the host of that documentary. And I found it very interesting. There was a single mom. She was in a wheelchair, making $15,000 a year. should be receiving welfare when she worked. She was in a wheelchair. She worked making $15,000 a year. Her health care was not provided for her, and she resented her tax dollars going for somebody else to be on welfare. The interviewed another young woman who had gotten off of welfare into work. And the pride that she now took of having her young children see her go every day into work. I grew up with a single mom. There were three of us at home. My father provided no child support when I was young. And I watched my mom get up every day and go to work. That is what we need in this country is to have children watching their parents go to work on a daily basis. This welfare reform bill will help ensure that people go to work. During that same program that Dan Rather hosted, they had two welfare moms on that program. And they asked them, if you knew that your welfare payments were going to stop in a couple years, what would you do? The response was immediate, both of them said, well, I would go out and get a job. We had testimony in front of the human resources subcommittee from a woman who counsels welfare recipients. She asks every one of her classes, what would you do if you knew that your welfare payments would end tomorrow? Every single one of them in her classes respond by saying, I would go get a job. People say that the work requirements are not tough in this bill. Well, I am sorry, but I think that they are. If after 5 years you can no longer get any kind of welfare benefits, I think that that is a pretty tough work requirement, because work is a lot better than going hungry. I rise in support and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the chiropractic industry's tremendous contribution to improving the health of Americans for the past 100 years. The year 1995 marks the chiropractic profession's centennial. In 1895, Daniel David Palmer founded the chiropractic profession and opened the first chiropractic school in Davenport, Iowa, in 1897. The profession has come a long way since 1895. Today, more than 50,000 chiropractors serve 15 to 20 million patients. The improved standards of education and quality of practice has given rise to the tremendous growth in this field. While early chiropractors had difficulty gaining acceptance in the health care field, they now enjoy broad support from the public and their fellow health care professionals. Chiropractic care is now widely recognized as one of the most effective and efficient treatment for back ailments, especially for sufferers of severe or chronic back pain. An increasing number of Nevadans rely on the choice and freedom in health care options that chiropractic care offers them. Recognizing this trend, Congress provides for chiropractic care in Medicare and authorizes chiropractors to be commissioned as officers in the Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, I admire the dedication of my fellow health care professionals and their contribution to the enhancement of the quality of life for so many Americans. As members of the chiropractic profession gather in Nevada's First Congressional District on March 18, I would like to extend a warm welcome to these doctors. I join my colleagues in the House of Representatives and my fellow Nevadans in congratulating them and their profession's many achievements over the last century.