Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 507 is a simple resolution. The proposed rule merely provides that it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany S. 1316, a bill to reauthorize and amend the Safe Drinking Water Act. Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the conference report on S. 1316 we can look the American people in the eye and say, we have come up with a good program that is going to protect the water supply for America. This is a good day's work. The American people have called for a smaller, less costly, less intrusive government, and we have heard their calls. However, we are continuing our responsibilities of protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. This measure, The Safe Drinking Water Act, provides this protection. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 507 is straightforward, and it was reported by the Committee on Rules by unanimous voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 507 as well as the underlying conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to congratulate Kohler and Carol McInnis, my father and mother, on their Golden 50th Wedding Anniversary on August 27, 1996. They will celebrate the occasion by renewing their vows during mass at St. Stephen's Catholic Church in Glenwood Springs, CO. Glenwood Springs has been their home for more than 45 years, and they have many, many friends throughout the area. Kohler and Carol have six children, Michael McInnis of Boulder, Kohler McInnis II of Durango, Kathy Krey of Glenwood Springs, Patty McInnis-Cole of Evergreen, Carie McInnis-Raaum of Grand Junction, and Scott McInnis of Grand Junction. In addition, Kohler and Carol have 12 grandchildren, all of whom will be joining in the celebration. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some background on these two very special people. Originally from Walsenburg, CO, my parents moved to Glenwood Springs in 1952, where my father, a small businessman, owned and operated a hardwood store. While my mother was a dedicated and hardworking homemaker of six children all of whom were very well behaved, my father became a member of the First Industrial Bank board, and later was part of the group which opened the Bank of Glenwood. It is rare that a Congressman would profess love in the Congressional Record, but in this situation, it comes very easy. I extend my love and congratulations to them both on their Golden Anniversary.

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. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 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. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 492 is an extremely narrow resolution. The proposed rule merely waives the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House for a resolution reported from the committee before August 1, 1996, which provides for consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany H.R. 3734, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This narrow, short-term, waiver will only apply to special rules providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 3734, nothing else. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 492 was reported by the Committee on Rules by unanimous voice vote. The distinguished Member, Mr. Moakley, stated in the Committee on Rules that he had no objections to this rule. The committee recognized the need for expedited procedures to bring the welfare reform conference report forward as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the Record: [From the U.S. News & World Report, June 3, 1996] The End of Welfare as We Know It? (By David Whitman) Bertha Bridges is still waiting for the end of welfare as she knows it. Bridges and her three children have been on and off welfare since the early 1980s, and she has been unable to hold a job in recent years because school administrators often call several times a week to ask her to pick up her disruptive, severely depressed 13-year-old son for fighting and disobeying teachers. Seventeen months after U.S. News first interviewed her for a cover story on welfare reform, matters have only worsened for the Detroit resident. Several weeks ago her son let three strangers into her house, and they promptly stole Bridges's money, jewelry, clothing, dishes and videocassette recorder. Her son is now back in a psychiatric hospital, his younger sister is starting to imitate him by refusing to complete school assignments and Bridges doesn't know where to turn for help. ``I'm living a nightmare,'' she says. Last week, President Clinton and Bob Dole jousted to claim the title of welfare abolitionist--and to deny the other guy credit for overhauling a welfare system that still does little to encourage self-reliance. But while the candidates feud, many of the 4.6 million families on Aid to Families with Dependent Children are living out nightmares like that of Bridges. Clinton claims that waivers granted by his administration to 38 states to conduct demonstration programs have led to a quiet revolution. ``The state-based reform we have encouraged,'' he said in his May 18 radio address, ``has brought work and responsibility back to the lives of 75 percent of the Americans on welfare.'' Yet according to federal statistics, only 13 percent of AFDC adults participated in any education, training or work program in a typical month in 1994, up a hair from 12 percent in 1992. At present, less than 1 in 100 AFDC parents toils each month in workfare programs in exchange for a relief check, a number that has remained constant since Clinton came to office. Thanks largely to an improved economy, the number of Americans on AFDC--12.8 million--was 9 percent lower in January than three years earlier. Yet the rolls are still at historically high levels, and 1 in 5 American children still lives below the poverty line. In 1992, 13.5 percent of the nation's children received AFDC; in 1995, 13.4 percent of the country's children did so. One in seven kids in the United States is now on the dole. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 75 percent of AFDC recipients could be affected in an average month by at least one provision of the 61 waivers granted by the Clinton administration. That seems to be the basis for the president's claim that his waivers have reintroduced work and responsibility to the vast majority of AFDC recipients. But many of the waivers are for modest reforms. Such as allowing recipients to keep more earned income before their welfare checks are reduced. The most far-reaching waivers permit states to impose time limits, usually two years. On how long a family can receive AFDC. According to a soon-to-be-released study by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), HHS has authorized 11 states to run statewide programs with full-family cash-aid cutoffs and two more states' applications are pending. Awaiting results. It is too early to tell whether the new time limits will fundamentally alter welfare. Since it takes years for recipients to use up their cash aid, time limits so far have affected few families. With the exception of Chicago, none of the nation's 10 largest cities is in a full- family time-limit state--and the new CLASP report indicates that 91 percent of AFDC recipients in Illinois are exempt from the time limits because they apply there only to families whose youngest child is 13 or older. Other states provide narrower exemptions and extensions than Illinois but still have protective loopholes. One of the biggest: HHS has insisted that no state can remove a family from the AFDC rolls if the mother has complied with program rules and failed to find a job despite her best efforts. CLASP's Mark Greenberg worries that the new time limits could throw many needy women and children off welfare. ``If there are visible catastrophes,'' he says, ``other states may be reluctant to move forward. But if the catastrophes are largely invisible, the nation's safeguards for protecting children will start to unravel.'' In Washington, meanwhile, the politicians are still fiddling. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I am pleased to announce that we now understand that the President is going to have a press conference here in about 8\1/2\ minutes where he will announce that he is in support of this bill. I am also pleased to announce they have located Leon Panetta, so we can now proceed to the substance of this issue that we have sitting right here in front of us. The substance is very simple. That is, we have to change welfare in this country. The welfare bill originally went out of here with bipartisan support. It is going to go to the President of the United States with bipartisan support, and it is going to be signed by the President. The gentleman from Massachusetts brings up a valid point. The problem is it is somewhat exaggerated. The gentleman shows a huge bill over there, as that is the bill that has been given to him in the last several hours or early this morning to read. That is correct. That particular bill was given to him. But about 99.9 percent of that bill is what has been previously contained. The only changes really were twofold: First, on the family cap and, second, dealing with Medicaid. So that probably consumes maybe 20, 30 pages out of that entire bill. Yes, we have asked that Members here on the House floor take time this morning during their workday to read that 20 to 40 pages or whatever was necessary to be briefed by their staff. We are trying to get this bill to the President. For the first time in a long time, we have general agreement on a major, major issue. We have got Democrat and Republican support on the House side. We have got Democrat and Republican support on the Senate side. We have got a Democratic President that is willing to sign it. That means that we should expedite the movement of this bill. That means that this rule should pass. By the way, upstairs this bill was voted out of committee on a unanimous vote, no dissension upstairs. I think it is now an appropriate time for us to move on, pass this rule so that we can get to the meat of the conference committee report and send this bill to the President for signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, to the gentleman from Missouri, I wanted to caution him a little on the utilization of the word ``dictatorship.'' I do not think that adds to the comity on the floor. I think we should approach those kind of terms with some trepidation. Let me address the other point. That is, I do not want the gentleman from Missouri, because I have great respect for the gentleman, to continue to use inaccurate facts. The gentleman stated to our body here that when they were in control we did not see these kind of rules until the end of the session. I do not know why this keeps coming up, but time after time after time, when we deal with a rule, Mr. Speaker, we have to repudiate that. I have got the facts right here. I would be happy, if the gentleman would like to come over here, we will show him the statistics. Let me cover very briefly 1993. It was not near the end of the session when his side utilized this rule. In fact, it was in February, in March, in March, in March, in March, in March, in March, and then, of course, we had some throughout the rest of the session, too. I just want to make sure that we are accurate on our facts. The final thing I would caution the gentleman from Missouri, his statements about this is not bipartisan. In fact, I think this bill right here, No. 1, both Democrats and Republicans and unaffiliated and reform party people from across this country acknowledge that welfare needs to be changed. The system does not work. All of the incentive on this system is to stay on it, not to get off it. The system helps people that do not need help and does not help the people that really do need help. Since I have been up here, I do not think I know such a major piece of legislation that has had more joint effort. Certainly the last 3 or 4 hours, I was somewhat amused when the gentleman said this morning, this morning escaped from us because, frankly, there was a lot of partisanship delay this morning. But we have gotten past that. The bill itself, the substance of this bill is a bipartisan product, a Democrat and Republican product. Certainly. It has been brought up by the Republican leadership. It is a Republican part of our contract. It was one of our biggest efforts, but we have had lots of help and we have appreciated that. It is bipartisan, and at 2 o'clock and 15 minutes, the President of this country is going to hold a press conference where we anticipate that he is going to agree to sign this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend appreciation from the native American tribes and from the people of the State of Colorado to both the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]. They realize the importance of this project. And what is beautiful about the work that they have given us, they understand the history. They know the history. They have seen the history. Year after year they have been with us on this project, because they understand the significance of what this government did in 1988 when we made an agreement with the native Americans. Years ago, when I was a young man, I liked to trade baseball cards. I remember very distinctly one time when I made a trade on a baseball card. I did not give the card to the party with whom I traded. But I had this baseball card. After I made the agreement to trade the card, guess what? I found out that I could have got a lot more than I did. So I went to my father and my mother. They were both business people. I asked them, I said, I think I can get a lot better deal. I was kind of hoping they were going to reinforce my thought at the time and that was, go with the better deal. But my father and my mother said one thing to me. This is exactly what they had. Son, keep your word. You can talk about all the statistics that you want and the preceding speakers have done that. The fact is, in 1988, the native Americans who had a lawsuit against us, the United States of America, were about to prevail on that lawsuit. I was in the State legislature. Our very best attorneys told us we were going to lose that lawsuit. You need to settle with the native Americans. You need to make an agreement with them. On behalf of the United States of America, on behalf of the State of Colorado, President Reagan in this country, the U.S. Congress, the State legislature in Colorado, all of the elected officials dealing with this, we made an agreement with the native Americans. We said, drop your lawsuit, because we know you are going to win; drop your lawsuit and we will build this project. Now look what happens. Is history coming back to haunt us again? Are we once again going to walk away from the native Americans from the promises we made? Do not let these statistics lead you astray. Those are opinions. This is fact. This is fact. We have an agreement. We made an agreement with the native Americans. We have every obligation to fulfill that agreement. You are going to hear some statistics, you have heard some earlier that the costs were 36 times or the cost/benefit ratio. The study that the gentleman from California uses, in fact, has in very clear language that they do not consider the cost if we do not do what we said we were going to do. And what is going to happen if we do not do what we said we were going to do, for the gentleman from California, we are going to have to build the project. They are going to sue us in Federal court. We will lose. They will get specific performance. We will have to do what we said we said we were going to do. We cannot build it for several years because of the litigation. That will add hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. Then the court is going to assess the cost of the water, the value of the water to storage between when we built the project and when we said we were going to build it and when we finally did build it. On top of that, they are going to assess attorney fees. If you worry about the taxpayers today, you are going to vote no on this amendment, because the taxpayers today are much further ahead by going ahead with this project and just doing it. In conclusion, let me just remind all of us, we made an agreement. The gentleman from California had Congressmen out of California who are signatories to this agreement. The Congress, this Congress made it. Our President signed it. Our State legislature did it. I was in the room when we sat down with the Indian chiefs and the native Americans councils. One of their questions to us was, are you going to keep the agreement? Fortunately, they did not trust us. They said, you are good people and everything, but we want it in writing. We put it in writing. We have a written contract. They call it a treaty; we call it a contract. We have a written contract and it is about time the people of this country and I think the people of this country want to stand up and honor the obligations that we made to the native Americans. What more do you have if you do not have your word? We need to keep our word.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 474 is a straightforward resolution. The proposed rule is a modified closed rule providing for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read. The proposed rule provides for two amendments to be offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. The first amendment made in order under the rule is an amendment to strike section 3 of H.R. 3396. This amendment is debatable for 75 minutes. The second amendment made in order under the rule is an amendment to suspend the Federal definition of marriage under certain circumstances. The Committee on Rules recognized that these two amendments go to the core of the bill, and by making them in order the committee ensures that full consideration will be given to the important issues raised by this legislation. Finally, the proposed rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported House Resolution 474 out by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, consists of two provisions which will protect the rights of the various States and the Federal Government to make their own policy determinations as to whether same-sex marriages should be recognized in their respective jurisdictions. Section 2 of the bill clarifies that no State need give effect to a marriage recognized by another State if the marriage involves two persons of the same sex. It does not prevent a State from giving effect to such a marriage, nor does it prevent a State from making its own determination for purposes of its State law. Section 3 ensures that the traditional meaning of marriage, the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, will be the meaning used in construing Federal laws. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that H.R. 3396 has considerable bipartisan support. In fact, President Clinton will sign this bill in its current form. I believe that H.R. 3396 advanced that interest. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following extraneous material for the Record:

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to distinguish a couple of remarks made by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts. The gentleman from Massachusetts says that this Protection of Marriage Act is not what this county wants. I take issue with that. I think this is exactly what this country wants. This country is demanding that the tradition of marriage be upheld. What this country does not want is for one State out of 50 States, that is, specifically the State of Hawaii, to be able to mandate its wishes upon every other State in the Union. What this bill does is it allows every State to make their own individual decision. So if the State of Wyoming wants to make their decision, they can make their decision. Texas can make its decision. Colorado can make its decision. But they have the freedom to make that decision; it is not mandated upon them by a court, a supreme court in the State of Hawaii. I think it is particularly important to take a look at the traditional marriage, and we are going to have plenty of time to debate that. If we look at any definition, whether it is Black's Law Dictionary, whether it is Webster's Dictionary, a marriage is defined as union between a man and a woman, and that should be upheld, and there is no reason to be ashamed of that tradition. It is a long-held tradition. It is a basic foundation of this country, and this Congress should respect that. Finally, I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to address a couple of other issues. First of all, in regard to the Schroeder amendment, which was not allowed by the Committee on Rules, that amendment is clearly, in my opinion, a delusion, it is a diversion. It is not focused on the key issue which is important here, and that is, should one State be able to mandate on every other State in the Union a requirement that those States recognize same sex marriage? Now, in regard to the gentleman's comment about the Johnson amendment: The Johnson amendment would put in the statute a requirement that the General Accounting Office do a study. It does not require a mandate by statute. In fact, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], said that he would write a letter requesting that study. Every Member of the U.S. Congress has that right to request that study be made. There is no reason to put that in statute. Again I think it is a delusion, I think it is a diversion from the topic at hand, from the issue that we have got to look at, and that is where our focus ought to be. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me point out first of all, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado in committee was turned down 22 to 3, 22 to 3. Second of all, I think an interesting situation here, the gentlewoman, the preceding speaker, is from the State of Colorado. As Members know, I am from the State of Colorado. The gentlewoman from Colorado supports same-sex marriage. The gentleman from Colorado opposes same-sex marriage. That is a debate that ought to be carried out within the confines of the State of Colorado. Neither the gentlewoman from Colorado nor the gentleman from Colorado ought to have their debate determined by the Supreme Court in the State of Hawaii. The gentlewoman is very capable of carrying forward this debate within Colorado, as I feel that I am, too. We ought to carry that out, not the people of Hawaii. That is a decision for the people of Colorado or for the people of Wyoming or for the people of New York. Second of all, I think it is important to highlight the President's comments. At the very beginning, I believe that the gentlewoman from Colorado made the comment that she is shocked that we are bringing this type of bill to the floor. Let me say the President's comments, of whom I find the gentlewoman from Colorado in constant support, the President, through his press secretary says, ``The President believes this is a time when there is a need to do things to strengthen the American family, and that is why he has taken this position in opposition to same-sex marriage.'' This is an issue that becomes very relevant the minute the Hawaii Supreme court issues its decision. In addition, it is also very relevant because of the implications it has to the Federal Government on benefits that are entitled to spouses. So there are three keys we really need to look at: First, what will the Federal Government be obligated to as far as tax-funded dollars by same-sex marriages; second, what are States' rights? Why should not the States exercise their individual rights? The third point is the traditional definition of marriage. I for one have no shame, have no bashfulness, in standing in front of the U.S. House and saying I do not support same-sex marriages. I believe that the tradition of marriage, as recognized between one man and one woman, not one man and five women, not one man and one man or one woman and one woman, but one man and one woman, should be continued to be recognized as a tradition which is basic to the foundation of this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the fine gentleman from the State of California [Mr. Campbell].

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Embarrassed? The preceding speaker says we should be embarrassed because we are talking about marriage on this House floor. Let me say to every one of my colleagues, I am not embarrassed by defending the traditional recognition of marriage. I would like to quote from a friend of mine, Bill Bennett: The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, and out-of-wedlock births. We have reaped the consequences of its devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone and the arch of civilization. The issue is very simple here. No. 1, the rule that we are discussing today is a very fair rule. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who has just asked for a request to yield, is going to have lots of time in the following hour because the Rules Committee has allowed two of his amendments to be debated on the floor. It will be a very healthy and good debate for all of us. No. 2, the bill is very clear in what it does. It does the following: First, it confirms the tradition of marriage as this country and every other country in the world recognizes. That is, a union between one man and one woman. Second, it preserves the States rights, so that one State, like the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, cannot mandate upon another State their interpretation of what marriage should be. And, third, it preserves the ability for the Federal Government not to be obligated to a particular State that may choose to recognize same sex marriage. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the fine gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me point out about this yielding and not yielding. The gentleman from Massachusetts tried to make a point, as frivolous as I felt it was, that our side was not yielding. Both sides are allocated a fair amount of time, 30 minutes each. We each get 30 minutes. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts criticized or lectured the gentleman from Colorado because I would not yield time to him, and the gentleman from Massachusetts claims the reason we will not do it is because we do not like debate. As soon as the gentleman from Oklahoma begins his debate, the gentleman from Massachusetts claims his time back. I think we need to be very civil and very professional on this House floor. We each have 30 minutes, let us use our 30 minutes. Let us talk, and I think first of all understand this is not an issue between the parties. President Clinton supports this. President Clinton says now is the time to address it. And let me quote directly from his press agent. ``He believes this is a time when we need to do things to strengthen the America family, and that is the reason why he has taken this position in support of this bill.'' What is the rule? The rule is fair. What is especially interesting about it is the gentleman who says this side of the aisle will not or is afraid to debate him. It is this side of the aisle who voted unanimously up in the Committee on Rules, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts and his side of the aisle, to allow the gentleman from Massachusetts 75 minutes on his first amendment and a certain period of time for his second amendment. He is going to get lots of debate time coming up. What is it that this bill does? I think we need to take our collective arguments here in the last hour and focus in on exactly what does this bill do. It does not impact the Clean Water Act, it does not have anything to do with domestic relations, as far as the gentlewoman from Colorado suggested as no fault, fault, et cetera, et cetera. It is very specific. It is very simple. First, it upholds the long-held tradition that a marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Second, it declares that one State will not be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of another State in regards to a marriage. In other words, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii cannot mandate upon the State of Ohio or upon the State of Colorado or upon the State of California that they recognize same-sex marriages within their State even if their State wholeheartedly rejects that type of concept. Third, it does not obligate the Federal Government for financial requirements or financial obligations because a State chooses to recognize it. For example, if the State of Hawaii, through their Supreme Court, recognizes same-sex marriage, it does not immediately obligate the Federal Government to pay for benefits. If a Member wants those kinds of benefits, and the other gentleman from Massachusetts spoke about that, and I thought his words were well spoken, if he wants those benefits, introduce a bill and run it through the regular process of the U.S. Congress. That is how he can get those benefits, not through a mandate from the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii. So, in other words, every State preserves their right. We preserve the long-time tradition of marriage between one man and one woman. And I will reaffirm once again, and I have no shame in standing up here in the House of Representatives saying that I support wholeheartedly the traditional interpretation, the traditional recognition, and I hope for all time the future recognition of the definition of marriage. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], my good friend.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, how interesting it is that President Clinton now is being labeled with the radical right or that some of the Democrats, and there are going to be a number of Democrats who vote for this bill, being labeled, as they should be apparently, ashamed of themselves or extremists. These are not extremists. This is a long-held American tradition and not just an American tradition. It is a tradition held in every country in this world. It is a tradition we ought to uphold. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the gentleman from Hawaii, there certainly will be a mandate or an attempt to mandate upon every State in the Union any decision that comes out of the Hawaiian Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage. Second of all, the gentleman from Hawaii starts out by, in my opinion, lecturing the gentleman from Colorado about the State of Hawaii and where do these comments come from. Let me quote from a gentleman from the State of Hawaii who represents the State of Hawaii in the State House of Hawaii. The gentleman is State representative Terrance Tom, who testified before the committee here. Let me quote: ``I do know this: No single individual, no matter how wise or learned in the law, should be invested with the power to overturn fundamental social policies against the will of the people. ``If this Congress can act to preserve the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, it has a duty to do so. If inaction by the United States Congress runs the risk that a single judge in Hawaii may redefine the scope of Federal legislation, as well as legislation throughout the other 49 States, failure to act is a dereliction of the responsibility you were invested with by the voters.'' This is not politics. This is clearly, if we fail to act in this body, as stated by the gentleman from the State of Hawaii, ``It is a dereliction of responsibility you,'' referring to the U.S. Congress, ``were invested with by the voters.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the words of the gentleman be stricken. The gentleman called the Speaker of the House a dictator. I would ask for an interpretation of the House. The Speaker of the House is not a dictator, and I ask that the words of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] be stricken.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Committee on Commerce, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Committee on International Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on National Security, Committee on Resources, and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for allotting me the time to address some of the statements that have been made previously. First of all, I think we should start out with the preceding speaker, who keeps using on a routine basis the word short cheating. I am not sure what short cheating is, but I can tell the previous speaker that shortchanging is exactly what he is doing to the American people by continuing to frivolously argue a procedural motion. This is a motion that, when we were in the minority for at least the 6 years that we have researched, we never had a debate like this. We did it on a unanimous resolution. Let me give my colleagues the history of what we have here, the criticism we are receiving. Let us first of all talk about what it is we are debating. What we are debating is a very simple management procedure, and that is to put this House in adjournment so that the Members of this House can go back to their districts on July 4 and work in their districts. Very simple. Very noncontroversial. Every year except now. All of a sudden it is a golden opportunity to whine about the majority. Well, let us look at what we did, when we were in the minority and they were in the majority on the July 4 resolution for adjournment. In the 99th Congress, the first session, did they have a special rule for this? No. We did it on unanimous consent. Did they have their appropriation bills passed? No. The 99th, second session. Did we require a special rule? No. Did they have their number of appropriations bills passed? No. On the 100th, for the first and second session both, did we require a special rule? No. Did they have their appropriations passed? No. The same thing for the 101st. The same thing for the 102d. The same thing for the 103d. Why are my colleagues trying to stall this? This is not a game. We need to get to work. Last night Members on both sides of the aisle in this House worked until 2 o'clock. Tonight, especially the way it is going right now, we will probably be here until 2 o'clock again. These people need to get back to their districts. This is not a controversial issue. What has happened is, some Members have captured this as an issue to cry about being in the minority, to stand up and whine and whine. Frankly, we are not accomplishing anything. Let us make a couple of points of clarification. The gentleman preceding me is a very good speaker. He brought up a nice chart, it looks great. He talked about how when he was on the Committee on Appropriations, when he was chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, why they were able to pass all of these bills by the end of the fiscal year. Well, we are not talking about the end of the fiscal year on July 4, That comes on September 30. That is still several months away. We need to compare apples to apples. When we compare apples to apples, we find that the minority cooperated, and that is a word that we ought to use around here, cooperated with the majority when we were in the minority for the July 4 adjournment so that Members could go back to their districts for the July 4 holiday, although, as all of us know, it is not really a holiday because we participate in parades and we want to work our districts, and I think we should work our districts. I think it is also very important to note, and I hear it again from the preceding speaker, about on one hand the gentleman says we need to have more cooperation around here. On the other hand, taking a look at the record of the gentleman's comments, probably every fifth sentence he turns around and calls it extreme positions, the extremists over here, the short-cheating, these kind of verbal attacks. That is not going to get us anywhere. Let us cooperate. We have got a lot of work left yet to do tonight and I think we need to focus on that work. I think we would much better spend our time dealing with issues of substance instead of arguing about a simple management procedural resolution.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great community leader in my home State of Colorado, Mr. Bob Lee. Although Bob recently retired from Daniels and Associates, he remains active in and continues to be sought out for advice and guidance by everyone from his neighbors, to Presidents of the United States. He is a dedicated conservative and has been an active member of the Republican Party. He was first elected Denver County Republican chairman in 1958, and was instrumental in implementing a statewide plan to build a solid organization. Word of Bob's skills and his conservative convictions traveled rapidly around the country. While he never intended to give up his real state career in Denver, he was called upon to advise and direct numerous campaigns. At the request of Richard Nixon, he agreed to run a successful legislative campaign in New Jersey, resulting in the Republicans controlling both Houses there for the first time in 25 years. Mr. Speaker, Bob Lee and his wife Bee recently celebrated their 57th wedding anniversary, and I know you will join me in congratulating them on their wonderful marriage. Together they have three children, five grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. They are respected in their community, which they have given so much back to.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday June 5, 1996, due to a series of canceled and delayed flights, I regrettably missed a series of rollcall votes which occurred as I was returning from the Third District of Colorado.