Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, a very simple question to the gentleman: How much money do you have in your bank account?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Let me say I am not sure what offends me most, the lack of civility that we have just seen in the last few minutes or a colleague of mine standing up in front of the American people and saying that this system is rotten to the core. Come on, wake up. This system is not rotten to the core. Sure, we have a few bad apples. I would ask the gentleman to show me 535 people anywhere in this country where we do not have some of those individuals that misbehave. But frankly, as a whole, most of the people within this Congress are hardworking individuals on both sides of the aisle. We have good people on both sides of the aisle. Both sides of the aisle have individuals who work very hard. Take a look at the current system that we have on campaigns. Do not listen to the rhetoric that we have heard. The problems that we have seen in the last year, it is not the system. The system is not the problem. It is people who are violating the system. It is people who are violating the law. Name one administration that my colleague can think of in the history of this country that discloses, gives top secret information to the national political committee. Just take a look at incident after incident after incident. The system does not allow that. It is against the law. We ought to investigate that and we ought to have repercussions for disobeying the law. But it is wrong because somebody goes out and violates a law, it is wrong because somebody goes out and violates the intent of the law, it is wrong because there are a few bad apples in the system that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] comes out and says that this system is rotten to the core. Let me tell my colleagues, we live in the greatest country in the world. We have a system that is the best system in the world. It allows this kind of debate on this House floor. We can stand up here and talk about any issue that we want without facing repercussions from the military, for example, as we see in other countries. It is wrong for any one of us in these chambers to stand up and speak in such derogatory terms as to paint a blanket paintbrush over every individual in here that some system is rotten to the core. I apologize for the statement on behalf of the individual that made it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, let me say something to the gentleman from Maryland. My wife faced exactly the same challenge. I want to make it just as clear as he made it up here, there is never, ever the necessity to abort partial-birth. That means the baby is partially born, to abort that baby, to assist the mother in her challenge against cancer. That is out of this class. It never faces them. There is never a medical necessity to abort a baby 9 months after conception as the baby is all but 1 inch of the delivery. We would not do that to the worst criminal in this country. For Members who support partial-birth abortion, would they tell me that they would take the worst criminal in this country, they would take him down for his execution, they would pierce his brain, skull, and suck out his brains? Tell me you would do that. Tell me that you support this. In this country we have more regulations on rats and baboons than we do for the protection of a baby that is partially born.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening my comments are going to be about a procedure that I did not even know existed as of 2 years ago, and that is called partial birth abortion. What is partial birth abortion? I think it is incumbent upon every citizen of this country, every American in this country to understand what that procedure is. Now, let me explain it to my colleagues without trying to get too graphic. What it is, it is the abortion in the late term of a pregnancy. What do I mean by that and how does this procedure carry it out? What I mean is that in this country it is legal for a pregnant individual to go into the delivery room on delivery date, 9 months, upon delivery date and have that fetus aborted. How is the procedure carried out? The baby is actually delivered feet first all the way out of the woman's body except for about 1 inch of the baby's head. At that point in time, a procedure is instituted which pierces the skull and, frankly, sucks the brains out of this individual. This is at 9 months or 8 months or 7 months. This is not the usual term of abortion as we think about it or hear about it. This procedure is actually performed not rarely, by the way. Even an advocate of this procedure admitted that he lied last year when he said that it was a rare procedure. It is a procedure that is performed on a fairly common basis. Think of it in our country. We have some of the most advanced hospitals in the world. On one end of the hospital we will use whatever technology is available, whatever cash resources are necessary to save the life of a premature baby that on a lot of occasions may be no larger than your hand. On the other end of the hospital, a 9-month delivery, a regular delivery, no prematurity, a regular delivery, we allow under our laws in this country for any reason whatsoever for that child's life to be terminated, terminated through this procedure. Some will tell us that this is a rare procedure, that it is a procedure performed for medical necessity. Let me quote from C. Everett Koop: ``I believe Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisors on what is fact and what is fiction on the matter,'' he said. Such a procedure, he added, cannot truthfully be called medically necessary for either the mother or, he scarcely need point out, for the baby. Dr. Romer, Dr. Smith, Dr. Cook and Dr. DeCook: None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and many other doctors across the United States regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the women who appeared in the veto ceremony held a year ago by the President. Never is the partial birth procedure necessary. Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal, Thursday April 25: With capital punishment back in vogue, we ought to devise a modern method of execution for particularly fiendish criminals, the Unabomber, if convicted of these diabolical acts of which he is suspected, for example. We have a modest proposal. Why not stick a catheter in his brain and suck it out until his skull collapses. We jest, of course. No one would think of doing this to another human being, even the Unabomber, but the President of the United States stands up foursquare for doing to it babies still in the womb but nearing birth, vetoing Congress's attempt to ban this procedure in late term abortions. And of course he gets plaudits from all those eager to brand the Christian right or other abortion foes as extremists. Let me say, the Wall Street Journal is not a pro-life publication. These columns, speaking of the Wall Street Journal, have never been part of the pro-life movement. Lay aside the Unabomber, how about a baboon, for that matter a white rat? The Federal Government has extensive sets of rules and regulations on the humane treatment of animals in biomedical research. There are U.S. government principles on the utilization and the care of vertebrate animals, for example, and a Federal Animal Welfare Act. Each research institution must ponder these issues through a committee with at least one outside member representing the public. The regulations mandate ``avoidance of minimization of discomfort, distress and pain,'' and specify ``Surgical or other painful procedures should not be performed on unanesthetized animals paralyzed by chemical agents. To the people of this country, to my colleagues in this Chamber, understand what partial birth abortion means. It is wrong. Understand that this procedure is not an abortion performed the day after intercourse takes place. This is a procedure that legally in this country can be performed 9 months after that intercourse takes place, on delivery date. It is important that we all support the ban on this procedure. It is wrong to allow it to happen in this country.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to switch times with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to honor the hard work and strong leadership of one of our Party's most dedicated volunteers. For the past 4 years, Don Bain has served as chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. Since taking office in 1993, Chairman Bain has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Republican Party and its candidates. He has striven to advance the principles of the Republican Party while maintaining the highest level of integrity and earning the respect of friend and foe alike. His record of achievement is truly impressive. Mr. Bain's work has resulted in Republican gains across Colorado as well as an increase in voter participation--an essential element of our representative process. Our gains in registered Republican voters, gains in the State legislative majority and gains in Republican held statewide elected offices are due in large part to the Herculean efforts of Don Bain. These gains have elevated the Colorado Republican Party to its strongest level in years. Mr. Speaker, the political process depends on the hard work of volunteers as well as the ability of all of us to engage in constructive and informative political discourse. As Don Bain ends his tenure as chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, I, along with the rest of the Republicans in the Colorado Congressional Delegation, want to thank him for his commitment to our cause and convey our utmost respect which he so rightfully deserves.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to honor the hard work and strong leadership of one of our party's most dedicated volunteers. For the past 4 years, Barb McTurk has served as vice chairwoman of the Colorado Republican Party, and for the past 2 she has served simultaneously as its volunteer executive director. Since taking office in 1993, Ms. McTurk has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Republican Party and its candidates. She has striven to advance the principles of the Republican Party while maintaining the highest level of integrity and earning the respect of friend and foe alike. Her record of achievement is truly impressive. Ms. McTurk's work has resulted in Republican gains across Colorado as well as an increase in voter participation--an essential element of our representative process. Our gains in registered Republican voters, gains in the State legislative majority and gains in Republican held statewide elected offices are due in large part to the Herculean efforts of Barb McTurk. These gains have elevated the Colorado Republican Party to its strongest level in years. Mr. Speaker, the political process depends on the hard work of volunteers as well as the ability of all of us to engage in constructive and informative political discourse. As Barb McTurk ends her tenure as chairwoman of the Colorado Republican party, I, along with the rest of the Republicans in the Colorado congressional delegation, want to thank her for her commitment to our cause and convey our utmost respect which she so rightfully deserves.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, from the State of Colorado and in alphabetical order on November 5, 1996, the voters of Colorado approved a ballot initiative which signified their support for an exact, and I stress the word exact, that is in the constitutional amendment congressional term limit amendment; they wanted to see added to the State of Colorado's constitution and then in subsequent steps to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, voters, Colorado voters, stated unequivocally; that is, the voters, the majority of the voters that voted, that if a Member of Congress from Colorado failed to vote against any change; any change is the words used; addition or modification to the exact congressional term limit amendment, that the Secretary of State should determine that that Member of Congress had disregarded voters' instruction on term limit. Following Colorado voters' call to action, i.e., those voters who voted and those voters who voted in the majority, I am offering an amendment which mirrors the exact text of the Colorado congressional term limits amendment. Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the language of the Colorado ballot initiative as well as a letter dated February 12, 1997, from the attorney general of the State of Colorado a paragraph of which in particular is pertinent which says: Our opinion is that amendment No. 12, speaking of this particular amendment, does not allow our delegation, speaking of the Colorado delegation, to vote for minor modifications, nor does it allow for a, quote, substantial compliance, unquote. Section 1 of amendment 12 states that, quote, the exact language for addition to the U.S. Constitution follows, unquote. The terms, quote, exact language, unquote, are seldom used in constitutional or statutory drafting. They unambiguously require strict compliance. So, with that, I submit both of these documents for the Record. The documents referred to are as follows: State of Colorado, Department of Law, Office of the Attorney General, Denver, CO, February 12, 1997. Re Colorado's ``Amendment 12,'' Colorado Voter Instructions on Term Limits. Hon. Dan Schaefer, Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Hon. Scott McInnis, Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Hon. Bob Schaffer, Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Congressmen: I understand there has been some disagreement over the interpretation of Colo. Const. art. XVIII, Sec. 12 (``Amendment 12''), Colorado's voter instructions to state and federal legislators concerning a federal constitutional amendment on term limits. Specifically, the issue is whether our congressional delegation can vote for ``minor'' modifications to the ``Congressional Term Limits Amendment'' contained in section 1 of Amendment 12 and avoid the designation ``Disregarded Voter Instruction Term Limits.'' Our opinion is that Amendment 12 does not allow our delegation to vote for minor modifications, nor does it allow for ``substantial compliance.'' Section 1 of Amendment 12 states that ``[t]he exact language for addition to the United States Constitution follows. . . .'' The terms ``exact language'' are seldom used in constitutional or statutory drafting. They unambiguously require strict compliance. In addition, Section 5(b) establishes the mechanism by which ``[n]on-compliance with voter instruction is demonstrated.'' Among other things, non-compliance occurs if a member of our delegation ``fails to vote against any change, addition or modification.'' Again, this language unambiguously requires strict compliance. Lastly, Section 5(a) demonstrates that strict compliance is required by effectively creating a presumption that the ``Disregarded Voter Instruction Term Limits'' ``shall appear'' unless compliance is established by ``clear and convincing evidence.'' While Attorney General Norton and I are strong supporters of term limits, it is our opinion that Amendment 12 requires strict adherence and that substantial compliance is unacceptable. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I only have one speaker remaining.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to go over very briefly what this requires us to do in Colorado. If we follow the requirement of the Colorado proposition, that amendment in Colorado, it requires that we vote on the exact language that the Colorado voters, the people that voted and those who voted in the majority required. That language includes in part a restriction that we cannot vote on any other type of language regarding term limits. So even if we have the ideal term limit bill sitting in front of us, and frankly I have been a strong supporter of national term limits, uniform term limits across the country for all States, not one State standing alone but all States, and I think we got some good propositions to vote for, but this specific language requires that I vote against that. The only vote that I can make in the affirmative today under the requirements of this provision as forwarded by U.S. Term Limits is a vote in favor of this amendment. In regard to that and in due respect to the voters who voted, I will follow those instructions.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaefer], my colleague.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, last night after hearing the State of the Union I can tell you I am excited to see that the President is willing and ready to step forward for a nonpartisan commitment to education. Clearly in our country the No. 1 priority for the years ahead and for the generations that rest ahead of us is education. I think that the President was sincere in that. I did sense some of what I would perceive as lack of sincerity in regards to campaign reform. I think if the President is serious about campaign reform the first thing he needs to do is take the Mr. Coffee machine out of the White House and the cash register out of the White House and observe the rules that we have for campaign fund-raising in this country. I think we have to be very careful before we step into that. But I do want to commend the President. I look forward to working with the White House and the administration in furthering the education needs of this country. That really is where we need to focus our resources.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Regular order.

Mr. McINNIS. Regular order.

Mr. McINNIS. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 525, the following suspensions are expected to be considered, on Friday, September 27: S. 1044, Health Centers Consolidation Act of 1995; H.R. 3625/S. 1577, authorize national historical publications; H.R. 2779, metric conversion; S. 39, Magnuson; H.R. 3378, Indian Health Demonstration Project; H.R. 3546, Walhalla National Fish Hatchery; H.R. 4073, Underground Railroad; H.R. 4164, Marshal of the Supreme Court; H.R. 4194, Administrative Dispute Resolution (new version); S. 1559, Bankruptcy Technical Amendment; H. Res. , Bachus Resolution;

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned that some of the politics of a political season, and that is certainly not unusual, will overshadow the accomplishments of the last two years in this body. I think it is important this evening that we go over a few of those accomplishments, because in my opinion what has been done in this Congress, in a lot of cases on a bipartisan basis, is the most significant changes that we have seen in this body in a long, long time. Let me begin by addressing, first of all, the management of the House of Representatives. There are several critical issues that under the Republican leadership changed two years ago. First of all, the United States Congress now must live under the same laws that the citizens of this country have to live under. It was amazing that the United States Congress, in the preceding years, would put laws on the American people but exempt this body from those laws. This leadership, under the new management team, also eliminated proxy voting. I am from the mountains in Colorado. I could be enjoying the mountains of Colorado while my vote was being cast back here in this body. That is not right. That is why we changed it. Our opinion is that if you are elected to the United States House of Representatives, you are expected to be here and to vote in person. We brought about congressional gift reform. We brought about lobbying disclosure. I would add that while all these changes came about, mostly with bipartisan support, it was through the leadership of the Republican Party that got them here. These changes could have been made at any time in the last 40 years, but they were not. We had the first vote ever on this House floor on term limitations. We cut congressional staff by a third, and we eliminated and abolished three full committees. We have not abolished three full committees in one period of time, I think, this century. We did something else for the first time in the history of the United States House of Representatives, we had the books audited. As you can imagine, the books in this House, which have never been audited in the history of this House, were, in my opinion, a big financial mess. We now are demanding that the United States Congress run its own house, its own fiscal house just the same as our constituents are expected to run theirs. We opened all committee hearings to the public. Most of the States that we represent have sunshine laws within their State. Their legislators have to have their meetings in the public, not so with the United States Congress. We changed that. In fact, I think the only real closed committee hearings that we have had are, one, the Ethics Committee, and, two, the Select Committee on Intelligence. We cut spending in the United States Congress for two years in a row. We did a lot of this. We put in a line item veto. That was not just talk. I can tell you that it is not necessarily to the political advantage of a Republican to give a Democratic President a line item veto. But do you know what, it is to the benefit of this country. The President, regardless of his party affiliation, needs a line item veto in order to manage the budget of this country. We give it to him. Let us talk about some issues outside these halls that we changed. Welfare reform, it ends the entitlement status of welfare. It uses a four letter word called ``work.'' It establishes work requirements for recipients when welfare is no longer required. It provides incentives to reduce illegitimacy. It helps on child support, collection of child support, a huge problem in this country. We can talk about Megan's law. It was this Congress that put Megan's law into effect so that when a sexual abuser moves into a community, that community has a right to know about it. These are very significant changes. We have made a number of changes in health care legislation, and we have made a number of budgetary changes. What you hear about, of course, the close down or this or that, but through it all, once you get through all of that cloud and through all that smoke, you will see a Congress that finally is accepting fiscal responsibility, that has come a long way. This is a government that adds to its deficit at a rate of $30 million an hour. It is about time that a Congress with some leadership stood up to this. That is exactly what has happened. I think that all of us, as I said, because a lot of these votes were taken, were passed with bipartisan support, I think a lot of us in this body have a lot to be proud. While we go out there in the election year, I do not think that election year politics should overshadow the accomplishments of this Congress. We have a long ways to go. The American people demand it. The American people are entitled to it. But we have done ourselves proud.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of time, urge a yes vote, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. We are prepared to yield back at this time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to yield back the balance of our time if the gentleman from Texas would like to do so.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].