Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I do not. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the floor belongs to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] to whom I yielded 30 seconds.

Mr. McINNIS. No. I will not. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think there is an obligation for accuracy for statements made on this floor, and let me tell the gentleman, the preceding speaker, that there certainly was a meeting last night in the Committee on Rules. No, the gentleman did not find time to be there, the gentleman was not there. But for a statement to be made that this was not discussed thoroughly in a committee meeting is not accurate.

Mr. McINNIS. Which is exactly what we are saying here; that is, the States now will have this option, where before they had to pay the bill and had no option even to debate this within the boundaries of their own State.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman, it takes away that entitlement, but it allows every State to have what options?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know the gentleman very well from the Dakotas. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman. I know that he is compassionate and cares about his children and the other children that he represents. But so does everybody on this House floor, whether you are Democrat or Republican. I think it is a diversion for someone to stand up here and say that this bill somehow throws young kids out onto the street, that it denies them school. What I would do is refer any of my colleagues that somehow have been convinced by this argument, I would refer them to something very simple, read the bill. Look on page 5. It is very simple. No State shall be required by this section, no State shall be required by this section to deny public education benefits to any alien not lawfully present in the United States. It is very simple. What we are doing with this bill is saying that the Federal Government ought to pay for what it is demanding the States do. That is all. Why should the States have the option if the Federal Government is not going to pay for it. If the gentleman from the Dakotas is that concerned, he has an opportunity under this rule to offer a motion to recommit to do exactly what he is concerned about. But do not be taken or diverted aside by these excited statements that say we are going to throw kids out of school. That is purely, simply a diversion. It is away from the substance of this bill, and it is away from the rule on the bill.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, my point here is very clear. If the Federal Government wants to put this burden, if Washington, DC, wants to force the States in this country to accept this demand, then the Federal Government ought to pay for it. We know what happens. The Federal Government comes into Colorado, for example, mandates this program, demands that Colorado institute it, demands that Colorado pay 95 percent of it, and what does it do? It dilutes that money. It dilutes the money that needs to go to these children. So, in summary, let me say I think that the gentlewoman's speech, while it was well spoken, certainly does not allow the gentlewoman to claim the guardianship of children in this country. I think we have to address the real substance of this bill, and the real substance of this bill is to allow the States to make their own decisions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. I am sure he would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman. But, in fairness, both of us have an equal amount of time, and she can do that.

Mr. McINNIS. No, I will not yield. The gentlewoman can request time, however, from the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think that any argument using children as a pawn has no merit on this House floor. I think the issue that is important here, and I do not know how we got on to the assault weapons bill, the issue is very clear here. I do not think I could find a Congressman on the Democratic side or on the Republican side that does not believe in a good solid education for children. So I wish my Democratic colleagues would quit trying to claim the issue of the children as their issue. Let us talk about who pays the bill. If we want to talk about smoke and mirrors, the smoke and mirrors in this situation is where Washington, DC, which by the way think they have a monopoly on common sense, reaches beyond the Washington, DC, city limits and says to the rest of the country, we mandate upon you that you will educate these people.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Let me say I think every State has a right to determine whether or not the Federal Government can mandate upon them an expenditure of which they pay 95 percent, as the gentleman just heard from the gentleman from California. It is an extensive expense in the State of California. So the answer is, yes, I do think that States should have the right to determine their own future, especially when it comes to an issue as important as education. Now, would the gentleman respond to my question? Should the States respond to 95 percent of the tab or would the gentleman be willing to have the Federal Government pay for what it mandates?

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman to respond to mine.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman's question by saying, does he think the States should pick up 95 percent of the cost?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think initially here it is clear that the discussion that is going to take place over the period of time that has been allotted to us to debate the rule is going to get into the substantive issues of the bill, so I think it is important that we address what the gentleman from Texas has just said. First of all, remember that this bill allows every State to make their own decision. This is not a mandate upon the States, Mr. Speaker. In fact, this bill takes the mandate off the States that is not being paid for by the Federal Government. What happens right now is Washington, DC, has gone to the States and said, we know what is best for you and we want you to pay for it. And Washington, DC, has said to States like Texas, or to States like Colorado, you pay 95 percent of the tab, we are going to force you to put these kids into your school. All this bill simply does is to say to the State of Texas or says to the State of Colorado, you now have the option. If you want to undertake this Federal mandate and pay for 95 percent of the cost, then you may choose to do so. This does not prevent the State of Texas from continuing to educate the children of illegal aliens, and I think it is clear that we justify that substance.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 530 is a simple resolution. The proposed rule is a closed rule providing for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. House Resolution 530 was reported out of the Committee on Rules by a voice vote. Mr. Speaker, we are all very familiar with the issue addressed in the underlying legislation. During consideration of the comprehensive immigration bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], offered an amendment which was adopted by a record vote of 257 to 163. The Gallegly amendment allowed States the option of providing free education benefits to illegal aliens. Because the President threatened to veto the immigration conference agreement if it contained the Gallegly amendment, even in a modified form, the modified form of the Gallegly amendment has been introduced as stand-alone legislation, H.R. 4134. H.R. 4134, unlike the original Gallegly amendment, will ensure that it impacts only prospective illegal immigrant students. The grandfather provision provides that a State must provide free public education through grade 12 for illegal aliens enrolled in any public school at any time during the current school year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this simple rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 530 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, a little of my background. I used to be a police officer. I believe very strongly in a lot of the activities of law enforcement in this country. After I got out of law school, I never really could practice defense law because my heart was not in it. I am too much of a pro-policeman type of person. But I also have a very deep and fundamental belief that we have civil rights in this country that are guaranteed by our Constitution. In fact, if you look at the preamble to our Constitution, and I will quote from the Constitution, we, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and inferred in the name of the word ``justice'' is fairness, it is reasonableness. We do not have a Gestapo type of society. We do not sanction Gestapo type of tactics by law enforcement. Now follow me into July of this year. In July of this year, we had a horrible, horrible situation down at the Olympics where somebody set off a bomb. It was a fatality, a couple of fatalities. Within a couple of days, the FBI or someone from the law enforcement agencies leaked to the media that they had fingered their suspect. This began the long nightmare for one individual called Richard Jewell. Within hours, this is the headline that appears on the New York Post, ``Saint or Savage?'' Within hours, another picture, ``I didn't do it.'' This is Richard Jewell. ``I didn't do it.'' Throughout this entire country instantly, instantly this man's name became a household name, a man to be held in disgust, a man who is being labeled as the bomber of the Olympics. Well, the FBI does as the FBI should do. They immediately executed search warrants. They went to Mr. Jewell's home he shared with his mother. They went through that home. They seized everything they possibly could seize, including their silverware, tupperware, and she said even her Disney tapes. These are the conclusions 2 months later. Washington Post: After 2 months of exhaustive investigation of the Atlanta Olympics bombing, Federal law enforcement officials have found no solid evidence linking former security guard Richard Jewell to a pipe bomb attack, according to senior officials. It goes on. One senior law enforcement official said investigators who have combed Jewell's apartment, Jewell's truck, and Jewell's previous residence have found no conclusive bomb residue, no witnesses to the attack, no accomplices. Moreover, preliminary analysis of the 911 phone call placed minutes before the bombing suggests that the caller was not Jewell. What is happening to this man? Every minute of his life he has FBI agents that follow him. If he pulls out in his car to the grocery store, he has four or five law enforcement cars that go everywhere he goes. He cannot even contact his friends for fear of instigating an investigation of his friends. My message to the FBI: If you have got the evidence, arrest him. If you do not, back off. If the man is a suspect--if the man is a suspect and you have got that evidence, then go get him. It is simple. All of us want this case resolved. But none of us should stand by and allow a citizen of this great country, especially a country where thousands and thousands of people have given their lives to maintain our fundamental foundation of justice; we should not stand by and let this persecution continue unless the FBI has investigation--excuse me, has evidence. Now let me tell you how the FBI treats their own people. They have right now two or three agents who are being investigated for their involvement or alleged misconduct at Ruby Ridge. This has been going on for a long period of time. These agents are not followed. These agents do not wake up in the morning to find lots of cameras and FBI cars and other law enforcement cars riding their bumper. They do not have to worry about going to the grocery store and being followed by Federal law enforcement officials. No. What the FBI does with its own, they put these people on paid leave. The deputy director, for example. He receives $122,000 a year, and he does absolutely nothing. Including benefits. He gets benefits on top of that. Now I am not questioning whether that is justice or not, but what I am questioning is that I think the director of the FBI and the agents of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies need to apply the golden rule, and that is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We demand justice here. If he has got the evidence, get him; if he does not, back off.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is the most barbaric procedure I have ever come across. There is never, ever, ever a reason that makes this necessary. The previous speaker says we are attempting to divide. We are attempting to protect. This body today, Republicans and Democrats, will vote overwhelmingly to ban this procedure. Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal, Nancy Romer, today in an article, Partial-birth Abortion Is Bad Medicine: Consider the dangers inherent in partial-birth abortion, which usually occurs after the fifth month of pregnancy. A woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over several days, which risks creating an ``incompetent cervix,'' the leading cause of premature deliveries. It is also an invitation to infection, a major cause of infertility. The abortionist then reaches into the womb to pull the child feet first out of the mother, but leaves the head inside. Under normal circumstances, physicians avoid breech births whenever possible; in this case the doctor intentionally causes one-- and risks tearing the uterus in the process. He then forces scissors through the base of the baby's scull, which remains lodged just within the birth canal. This is a partially ``blind'' procedure, done by feel, risking direct scissor injury to the uterus and laceration of the cervix or lower uterine segment, resulting in immediate and massive bleeding and the threat of shock or even death to the mother. None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. This is never, ever necessary, and I urge a ``yes'' vote to override the President's veto.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 507 and ask for its immediate consideration.