Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Junction High School's Knowledge Bowl for winning the State championship in Colorado, and going on to the national finals in Florida this month. Team members were asked as many as 500 questions during the event at Fort Lewis College, and competed among 60 Colorado schools. The young scholars include Jacob Johnson, Sarah Smith, David Tice, Jeff Mohrlang, Jeff Hurd; alternates, Mark Richards, Elizabeth Buescher, Elizabeth Ryan and they were coached by Lorena Thompson. In this day and age, it is heartening to see our youth aspire to intellectual excellence. Their success, as well as Custer County's success in taking second place, demonstrates the personal dedication of our youth in western and southern Colorado. The Grand Junction team spent several hours a week practicing, and their hard work paid off handsomely. I congratulate them on their efforts, Mr. Speaker, and wish them the best of luck in the national championship. Even though they are now known as Team Colorado, they will always be Team Grand Junction to me. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join with me in recognizing the hard work and dedication of these young people. I know they will make Colorado proud.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Martie Semmer of Frisco, CO. Martie is the recipient of a national award for building community interest in foreign language education. I would like to outline just a few of Martie's numerous contributions to her profession. Martie worked tirelessly on all levels to bring her noble profession the attention it deserves. Due to her hard work at the grassroots level, her Summit School District is one of the few to have K-12 foreign language offering. But Martie did not stop there. She introduced her students to unique and practical applications of their knowledge. Summit School District students are writing to Mexican pen-pals, and studying in two languages about migratory birds. Martie's efforts gained the attention of the Colorado State Legislature, which now legally recognizes the foreign language profession. If it were not for Martie's determined spirit, surely this would never have come to pass. Both foreign language students, and teachers alike, owe Martie Semmer a debt of gratitude. It is a person such as Martie Semmer that inspires us all to take that extra step. Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in congratulating Martie Semmer, a truly outstanding teacher.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives a great gift from Carter and Louise Jackson to the State of Colorado. Last year, the Jacksons donated 300 acres of their spectacular property as a conservation easement to Colorado Open Lands, a group that is dedicated to preserving open space. This spectacular pasture, which spreads beneath the stunning Mount Sopris, is prime land for development, but the Jackson family did not want to see that happen. They wanted to see their beautiful land preserved for future generations, and with their unselfish donation to Colorado Open Lands, this will indeed happen. As David Frey wrote in the Glenwood Springs Post, ``Jackson's property is a rare gem--a shimmering green swath of open space . . . In a time of booming growth in the Roaring Fork Valley, Jackson's property is a high-prized, easily developed land. But most of it won't be developed. Ever.'' The property will likely be used in the future for hiking and fishing access along the river. ``An A-frame cabin along the riverbank has hosted scout troops for decades,'' Frey writes, ``and highway commuters and river runners alike have watched the seasons change on the property over the years.'' Mr. Speaker, by selflessly giving of themselves and future generations of their family, the Jacksons have ensured that future generations of all Coloradans will enjoy this spectacular land in its natural state.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives the accomplishments of Mr. Joel Cotton, a high school teacher in Rifle, CO. Mr. Cotton is 1 of 100 teachers and 100 students from across the United States to be awarded a Tandy Technology Scholar prize. These scholars were chosen for the excellence in computer science, math, and science. Mr. Cotton has worked diligently to educate his students by using innovative classroom techniques. He has written his own math programs, including Design a Ranch and Gliding Through Algebra on Mountain Bikes. He has also been named Colorado Teacher of the Week twice, and also teaches computer science at the Colorado Mountain College. He plans to unselfishly use his prize money to purchase a more powerful computer and software, to design new programs for teaching computer science and math. Mr. Cotton is a dedicated professional, and the children of the Third Congressional District will be better off because of him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I was over in my office watching this debate. Let me, first of all, address the issue of the rules. I saw the gentleman from New York, who still sits on the floor, and I am amazed. The gentleman from New York complains when the Committee on Rules issues a closed rule. I understand his complaints. The gentleman from New York complains when the Committee on Rules issues a rule based on a modified closed rule. I understand, somewhat, the legitimacy of that type of complaint. But now the only thing remaining, an open rule, and I am sitting in my office and the gentleman from New York is objecting to a rule that is an open rule. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about that for a minute, from the gentleman from New York. What is going to make him happy? Complain, complain, complain. We issue an open rule. Mr. Chairman, for those who do not clearly understand what an open rule means, it means we have completely opened debate. How can Members complain against that? The Committee on Rules, I think, acting in absolute good faith, has put this bill on the floor with an open rule so we can have the type of debate we are having today. Mr. Chairman, let me move from the rule to the other issue at hand. Now let us talk about the bill. Mr. Chairman, I used to be a cop. I know something about a good cop and a bad cop, and I can tell you the U.S. Marshals Service needs to be professionalized. I am not embarrassed to stand up here in front of you and tell you that the Marshals Service worked a disgrace upon this country at Ruby Ridge. They were censured by the U.S. Senate. I have got the documentation right here. I am going to put it into the Record. They gave a black eye to all of us ex-cops and to all current cops. That is not professionally run over there. Not only did they goof up and cost some people some lives at Ruby Ridge, then the director of the U.S. Marshals Service went out and gave the highest award possible under the U.S. Marshals Service to the agents involved at Ruby Ridge. Should we crow about that? Absolutely not. Should we be embarrassed by it? Absolutely yes. Should we do something to reform the U.S. Marshals Service? The answer is clearly yes. I am proud to say that Bill McCollum from the State of Florida has taken it upon himself to clean this agency up. This is a good bill. Why are we even debating? Why are you fighting this bill? This is a good bill. It does clean up the U.S. Marshals Service, and it cleans it up under an open rule. I would urge all Members to support this bill, I would urge all Members to take a very critical eye and to look very carefully at what the U.S. Marshals Service has done and how we can professionalize it, because if we professionalize that agency, it is a plus for all of us. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 13, 1996. Eduardo Gonzalez, Director, U.S. Marshals, Arlington, VA. Director: The granting of the U.S. Marshal's ``Service Award for Valor'' to the Marshals involved in the Ruby Ridge incident is wrong and you know its wrong. It is clear from the trial, Senate hearings, and testimony from those involved that standards of ``good judgment'', ``unusual courage'' and ``competence in hostile circumstances'' were not met, even at a minimal level. It is also interesting that the Marshals ``Information Sheet Randall Weaver Incident'' conveniently excludes key facts surrounding the incident such as the censure of your agents' conduct. Granting this prestigious award to the Marshals and calling them heroes, greatly discounts the history of the award and for that reason alone, I regret your decision and poor judgment. Sincerely, Scott McInnis, Member of Congress.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, find the comments amusing. All the gentleman from New York has done from what I have seen, and I saw him just a minute ago from my office, is complain, complain and complain. There is nothing we are going to do as long as we are Republicans, especially in an election year, that is going to make him happy. I can understand that, but I did not really come over to debate him. I came over to explain to my colleagues, this is an open rule. Sure, there are some Members of this House who will complain about everything we do, but the fact is there is no justification for complaint either on the open rule and there is certainly no justification, in my opinion, to oppose this bill. This is a good bill. It cleans up the U.S. Marshals Service, it puts in some very basic reforms, and once again I commend the gentleman from Florida who I think, by the way, has really taken the lead of the pack on putting some important crime legislation into this country and into law in this country.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I was just in the House Chambers, and I cannot believe what I just heard in the last few minutes. I was here 2 years ago, and I voted ``no'' on the largest tax increase in the history of this country. It was the Clinton tax increase supported by the Democrats in the House of Representatives, not one Republican voted for it, and supported by the Democrats in the U.S. Senate. What did that large tax increase do? It put on the American people and the working people, from what previous speakers have just spoken, the largest tax increase in the history of this country, and I certainly did not see any of these brave speeches, just now given recently in the last few minutes, but some of these Democrats about this onerous gas tax. It is those people right there who put that gas tax on each and every one of us. People did not have to be rich to get the gas tax put on them. They put a 4\1/2\ cent tax on every American that buys a gallon of gas, and today they are trying to get away from it as fast as they can run and somehow do a flip-flop and blame it on the Republicans. Forget about the partisan politics. Let us talk about the tax.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, before he walks off the floor, I am a little mystified, I guess. He talks about how Congress works with lightning speed. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] was in the majority 2 years ago and he was in the majority for 40 years. But my first 2 years of Congress, you certainly ruled this place with an iron hand. When you wanted to, you would get something with lightning speed. Where was the minimum wage? The second thing I would like to ask the gentleman, nobody else has done it yet, for perhaps a little explanation. The President's position was in 1995, just a year ago, as he says: ``The wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners is the minimum wage.''

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman from Texas does not quite leave the floor. Why does the gentleman not put on the other side of this very nice poster, which by the way was paid for by the taxpayers, probably a couple of hundred bucks, put on the opposite side the President's statement about the minimum wage? And I am quoting Time Magazine from February 6: ``It is the wrong way to raise the income of the low-wage earners.'' Now let us talk. I will be very interested to see if the gentleman from Texas votes against this rule. In fact, I think there is pretty wide agreement on that side of the aisle to support this rule, because I think that side of the aisle does not want to shut down the Government. We need to get a budget to the President. All this kind of thing is, in my personal opinion, is show and tell. it is election year. We have to expect some of that. But the fact is we have one of the most important issues of this Congress, one of the most important issues of this Congress sitting in front of us, and that is a budget bill. In order to clear the way for this budget bill we need to pass this rule, and we are going to pass this rule. Last night this rule passed out of committee on a unanimous vote. Not one Democrat voted against it. Why? Because they understand the importance of it. They were not going to be obstructionist. We had a very good Committee on Rules last night. There was no harsh debate. There was no sneak attack, trying to bring in this minimum wage issue. There were no discussions on the tax bill that they passed 3 years ago. No. The debate up there, and it was not really a debate, the discussion in that committee was, ``Hey, we have got an agreement. We are going to get an agreement on this budget. Let us move it up to the President. Let us keep the Government open. We can do it.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. No; you did not. You raised the gasoline tax by 4 cents. You raised taxes on every working person in this country.

Mr. McINNIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all for the gentleman from Texas, I think it is incumbent upon him to use the words that he used in description, that he use them at least somewhat close to their definition. Continually he attempts to use the words martial law as if we are attempting martial law on this House floor, and let me just read for his assistance the definition of martial law. It is a temporary rule by military authorities over the civilian population. This is getting a little out of hand when we start using those kinds of terms. Let us bring it back to the issue that we are talking about today. The issue is we have got a rule here that agreed to by all of the Democrats on the committee, that was voted by a voice vote, which means there is agreement amongst the committee, to bring this rule down to the floor so that we could clear the path for our budget package to come down here, to be heard, to be voted on, to be sent to the President within the next 24 hours. My goodness, we have spent the last 6 months in tough negotiations and good faith negotiations from both sides to come to some kind of budget which will help reverse the spending in Washington, DC, which will help the taxpayers of this country; which, by the way, will help every working man, woman, and child in this country. We have it in our hands. We have the budget. We can send it to the President within the next 24 hours. So why are we stalling? Let us stay germane to the subject. Let us pass this rule. Let us send this budget to the President. It is $23 billion in reductions in spending in Washington, DC. Do we want to make a working poor person's day or any working poor person's day? Tell them that finally the Government in Washington, DC, is about to reduce the rate of their growth, that the bureaucracy that is out of control in Washington, DC, is about to come back down to the size that it ought to be. That is a government that serves the people, not a government that rules the people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his courtesy and kindness. The fact is he knows and I know this is a sneak attack. That is all right, we can take it, we can absorb it. But if our colleagues want to talk about minimum wage, if the gentlewoman from Connecticut wants to talk about minimum wage, why does she not talk about the tax vote she took? Why do our colleagues not talk about the tax vote we took just 2 weeks ago where we said to the country and to the bureaucracy in Washington, DC: Before you raise taxes on the American people, you ought to get a two-thirds vote. Now a lot of States do that. There are a lot of States that require a balanced budget. I would be interested to see what the gentleman from Texas or the gentlewoman from Connecticut voted on the balance budget amendment. Do my colleagues really want to help the working people of this country? Then put this argument aside, let us debate the rules and the germaneness, and I mean argue what is germane to this rule, and let us get this budget, this agreement which cuts spending by $23 billion; we can have that to the President's desk within 24 hours. And do my colleagues know something? I think both parties can stand up and say, by gosh, we are making progress in moving this country forward in a fiscally sound manner. But short of doing that, if some of the people who stand up here, and again just a coincidence in an election year, and talk about how much they have helped the working poor, I think it is legitimate, very legitimate, for everyone of us in this room to ask them, How did you vote on the balanced budget amendment? How are you rated by the Taxpayers Association? How did you vote on the tax limitation amendment? Where have you been on some of these spending issues that are here? Do my colleagues want to help the working people of this country? One, get this budget to the President within the next 24 hours because he said he would sign it; two, follow your own President's advice where in Time magazine he said the minimum wage is the wrong way to raise the incomes of the low wage earners; and, three, get back to the germaneness of this rule, let us get this debate out of the way, and let us get to the budget debate because that is the most important time of the day. That is what is going to make this budget. And what we are doing right now is spending very valuable time debating kind of a sneak attack, certainly did not come up in the committee last night, certainly will not go through the committee process, but they think is fun and games to play down here and discuss it. Let us get back to the budget. Let us pass this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. But the gentleman from Massachusetts would agree by doing this we avoid the committee process on the minimum wage issue; is that not correct?

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. How interesting to hear the gentleman from Texas talking about the little people. I wonder if the gentleman from Texas has any small business in his district. As my colleagues may know, my district is a rural district out in Colorado. It is not a wealthy district; most of the district is rural. We are ranchers and farmers, and we own small hardware stores. In fact, my father owned a little candle store for 40 years, and it was tough. Maybe the gentleman from Texas and I would like to have them come to my district. By the way, we do not have any limousines out there; that may be something that perhaps my colleagues are not accustomed to. But we will take them out in a pickup truck and have them explain to the small business people in my district how it is going to help them and how it is going to help their employees, and we will bring the employees in, by increasing the minimum wage and keeping the tax burden exactly the same. Do my colleagues know what we are debating today? We are debating the rule. This debate has been totally diverted, totally swung over to a nongermane subject on this rule. What is this rule all about? Do my colleagues know what it is about? It is about reducing spending in this year's budget over last year's budget by $23 billion. That is right: billion dollars. Finally we have made positive progress. As my colleagues know, a lot of people, when the Republicans planted our garden, we said to the Democratic leadership, ``Look, you got too many weeds in your garden. It's gotten too fat. It's not being taken care of, and the people, the taxpayers, that have to pay for the seeds and water and fertilizer for this garden are being abused.'' Let us plant the garden; we planted the garden. Then all of a sudden nothing came up, it was not growing, and some of these people just sat back and said, ``We told you. So by gosh, your way doesn't work.'' But guess what happened today? We wake up, and we have got plants popping out everywhere. Do my colleagues know why? Because last night we reached an agreement, and this rule will help us move that agreement to the President's desk within 24 hours. We reach an agreement that allows us to reduce the size of Government in Washington, DC, to reduce the size of growth in this budget, to finally realize that the taxpayers of this country have a right to demand from their Government in Washington, DC, efficiency and accountability. Now what is happening? Finally of course they are not going to concede. A little plant is now coming out of the ground, and this garden in fact is going to be a very healthy garden. Now they try to pull in something that their own President did not agree with, and that is this diversionary argument of minimum wage. Let us go back to the rule. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I was there. I voted on it. Every Democrat in the Committee on Rules voted for it. I voted for it. We did not have this kind of sneak attack last night in the Committee on Rules, and in fact my good friend from Massachusetts, of whom I have a great deal of respect for, and frankly the more I work with him, the more I respect him, has stood on this floor before and said, ``What about the committee process?'' Do my colleagues know what is happening? This is a sneak attack. They jump up here with minimum wage.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would get a germane answer to my question, but I did not. Let me make the point very clearly. The gentleman's side did take a vote very clearly that did affect the working poor in this country. They raised taxes by the largest amount in the history of this country.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am interested by the gentleman from Michigan's comments. I wonder where the gentleman's vote was on the largest tax increase in the history of this country about 2 years ago, and I do not want the gentleman to come back and say, well, as my colleagues know, we just increased taxes on the wealthy people in this country. Our colleagues increased taxes, as the Democrats, on this House floor on everybody in this country that buys a gallon of gasoline, 4 cents a gallon. Our colleagues have continually thought the response to aid Washington, DC, is to tax, tax, tax. If our colleagues want to help the working poor in this country, if our colleagues are really sincere about it and not playing election- year tactics, if our colleagues really want to help them, do something about the burden of taxes in this country. I have said repeatedly from this microphone every person out there trying to work, trying to stay off welfare, still has to spend their first 2 hours and 45 minutes of every working day just to pay their taxes. Now, how interesting, and I will not yield, now, how interesting it is that the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Connecticut talk about how their party wants to help the working person. Well, maybe one of them, and they have not done it yet, maybe one of them would be kind enough to explain the President's comments, and I will quote it again from Time magazine. When the President directly addresses and states his position on minimum wage, and that is, ``Minimum wage,'' and I quote, ``is the wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners.'' Our colleagues are hurting these people. That is what we are trying to say to them, they are hurting the very people that everybody wants to help. If our colleagues were serious about it, they should have supported, and some of you actually did, but we should have had more support from our colleagues' side of the aisle to put a tax limitation on the bureaucracies in Washington DC. But they did not support that. And, by the way, they did not hesitate to support the largest tax increase in the history of this country. That is what is key here. If they really want to help the working people, let us shift this debate. By the way, the debate should not even be on this. The debate should be on the rule. But our colleagues continue to try to divert it over to this. So let us shift the debate where it ought to be, and that is the tax burden that their party primarily in the last 40 years has been responsible for placing on the working people of this country. Not just the working poor, but every working man, woman, and child in this country, lives under their tax burden. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would be interested later in the debate perhaps to hear from the gentlewoman from Connecticut about the President's comments that this is the wrong way to raise the incomes of the low-wage earners. Perhaps the gentlewoman from Connecticut before she leaves the floor today on the debate would like to come down and talk about the President's own chief economic expert, economist, who says that the higher minimum wage does not seem a particularly useful way to help the poor. Why all of a sudden the change? Why all of a sudden the reverse? I will tell my colleagues why; it is show and tell for election year. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about a rule. That is what we are talking about. We have come to a resolution on this budget. We have cut the rate of growth by $23 billion over last year. Let us get on with the business. Do not let them divert by talking about something that they have plenty of opportunities to do something about but all of a sudden, lo and behold, and I am sure by coincidence right before an election shows up, they come to the floor and they pound the podium and they talk about the minimum wage. They cannot explain the President's comments who says it is the wrong way to help these, the low-wage earner. They cannot explain the chief economist over at the White House when he says it does not work. Where were these people? Where was the gentlewoman from Connecticut? Where was the gentlewoman from Connecticut when we had, for example, just a couple of weeks ago a limitation on the taxes in this country? My bet is that the gentlewoman probably voted against it. I think it is important, if we want to help the working poor of this country, let us talk about taxes. Let us do something to control the taxes. Nothing helps them more than taking a look at the heavy, heavy burden of taxes. Do you know that the average working person in this country has to go in and spend 2 hours and 45 minutes of their working day, the first 2 hours and 45 minutes of their working day just to pay the taxes? If we want to do something to help these people, cut that 2 hours and 45 minutes and let some of that time go right into their pocketbook. The average person in this country works from January 1 to May 6 every year, every hour during that period of time just to pay their taxes. Mr. Speaker, the point here is very important. That is that today we are engaged in a debate on the rule, a rule which would allow us to get this compromise put into law, which will allow this budget to go forward. This is a good budget. We have come up with. This is a budget that will allow the Federal Government in Washington, DC, to reduce its spending by $23 billion. That is a very, very significant step forward. Let us do divert. Let us not dilute it by bringing in what I consider, frankly, frivolous timing on this debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McINNIS. I think it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to request a copy of the proposed amendment to the rule from the minority in order to determine whether a discussion of it is germane to the debate on this particular rule. Otherwise, I will be forced to raise a point of order against any further debate on a nongermane amendment to the rule.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 412 is a simple 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 resolutions reported from the committee before April 27, 1996, under certain conditions. This narrow, short-term, waiver will only apply to special rules providing for the consideration or disposition of measures, amendments, conference reports, or items in disagreement from a conference that: make general appropriations for fiscal year 1996, or provisions making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 412 is straightforward, and it was reported by the Committee on Rules with 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 being these legislative measures forward as soon as possible. Simply put, we must move quickly before temporary spending authority expires at midnight tonight. Mr. Speaker, we have reached an agreement with the White House and it is time to move forward. The agreement we reached last night will result in 1996 discretionary spending being $23 billion less than last year's level, and the additional funidng for the administration's programs is offset by reductions and saving in other areas. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 412. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.