Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear kind of a show-and-tell going on here. Obviously it is an election year. The issue that is continually I think a diversionary issue, has been once again brought up by the gentleman from New York. I think it would be interesting to see where the gentleman from New York ranks on the taxpayer ratings. I think it would be interesting to see if the gentleman from New York had a bill he sponsored to raise the minimum wage when he was in the majority. I would conclude he probably did not. I think the important issue here, the key issue here, Mr. Speaker, is we can finally help the working poor and every working person in this country by passing this rule and passing a budget that reduces spending by $23 billion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman from Massachusetts, since he will have time to prepare this amendment that he wants to put on, he would also include within that amendment, since the amendment you will be preparing is nongermane, we might as well hit the whole topic, put in a clause that reduces the gas tax by 4 cents a gallon. You did put that on every working person in America. Put in the child tax credit so we can reduce the taxes, so people do not have to work 2 hours and 45 minutes to pay their taxes every day. The important issue here is Democrats have attempted, some, not all, have attempted to divert from the issue at hand. The issue at hand is we have a budget that is going to work, that will cut spending by the Federal Government by $23 billion. That is the largest and most significant reduction since the end of World War II. We ought to all be happy today. We ought to be celebrating. We are going to make progress. So I would urge you support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am thrilled. I cannot believe what I have just heard. My good friend from Massachusetts, is the gentleman in fact suggesting that we bypass the committee process and bring directly to the floor his particular amendment? I think this is the very side that I get hammered time after time after time again with these rules, what about the committee process? Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts overlooked this, and I am certain that in order to stay consistent with what their side on a continuing basis continually talks about, that he will rescind his amendment and proposal to offer an amendment and take it back to the committee process. I think it is also important for us to realize it is an election year. How can we tell it is an election year? Where has this group, where has the minority been? They held the majority in the House. They held the majority in the Senate. They held the Presidency for the first 2 years I was here. Not once, not once in committee, not once on the House floor did we hear any discussion about minimum wage. In fact, I found it kind of interesting. Time, February 6, 1995, now the President wants to make work pay by raising the minimum wage. Yet, more than 2 years ago he said that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote from Time magazine ``the wrong way to raise incomes of low wage earners.'' If we want to help the low wage earners in this country, get Government off their back. Do something about the taxes on these people. Do something about the child tax credit. That is how we are going to help the working poor in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is very important. It amazes me how boldly some of the speakers we hear on that side of the aisle are talking about the working poor. Where were those kind of comments when they raised the taxes on all of the working people, not just the poor working people but the middle class and the upper, all of them? Folks are going to be out there and are going to be paying. I do not know if any of you have been to the gas station lately, but the gas prices have really gone up. You can lay the credit of the additional taxes of 4 cents right at your feet. Most of the people that have spoken in opposition to me today voted to raise those taxes. If you want to help the working poor of this country, if you want to help the working people of this country, quit raising taxes. Taxes are not the answer. Help us pass this rule so that we can reduce spending. The President is ready to sign it. He is ready to reduce the spending by $23 billion. It has taken a lot of effort on our side to get that kind of compromise put together from the President. Join us. You want to help the working people, help us cut spending in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in the gentleman from Missouri, who speaks so boldly and speaks eloquently about the need for this minimum wage, I would ask: Did he sponsor a bill? At least I do not remember a bill during my first 2 years in the U.S. Congress where the gentleman sponsored it to help the working poor, and I do not remember the gentleman standing up and talking about the working poor and so on when he passed the largest tax increase in the history of this country, which included a tax on every working person or every person, certainly, that purchases fuel in this country. The key here, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to go back to germaneness. The key issue we have here is the germaneness of the rule in front of us. What should we be talking about? We all ought to be talking in very positive terms about this budget that we want to send to the President by midnight tonight. If we do not send it to the President, the spending authority expires. We are going to have a real problem. You do not want to shut the Government down, or maybe some of you do want to shut the Government down, but if you do not want to shut the Government down, you need to cooperate with us on this rule. The members of the Committee on Rules, did. We had a great conversation, a great discussion last night. It was a voice vote. Not one disagreement in the committee. Then today we come down here, and clearly we have a nongermane issue, meaning an issue that has nothing to do with the rule in front of us. I guess, Mr. Speaker, I could ask for a point of order, but then they would call it a gag order, so I guess in an election year we can expect this kind of frivolous discussion. But let us not ignore the fact we need to pass this rule. We have a great budget. It is a success. We have reduced spending in Washington. Let us get this budget to the President and let us get it signed. We can do it by midnight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the only thing they did to the working people of this country is raise taxes. But that is not the issue. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the gentleman from Massachusetts. The gentleman from Massachusetts has written the chairman of the Committee on Rules on a number of occasions asking the committee to comply with the rules, and he has specifically pointed out the germaneness part of it. Now, clearly, this is not germane to the issue. The issue we have today is can we pass a rule which will clear the path for a budget to get to the President so he can sign it by midnight. I think we can. I think we are going to get this rule. I think most of the Members over there are going to vote for this. I think all of this is a diversion from the fact that finally, finally under the leadership of the Republican Party we have gotten a $23 billion reduction in spending over last year, and through the cooperation of the President in the last few days, we now have a package which will reverse spending in Washington, DC, which will demand that Government now begin to become accountable to the people which it serves. The people do not serve the Government, we serve the people, the working people out there. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], my fellow colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would be interested if the gentlewoman from California is out there telling the working poor that it does not matter, ``It does not matter that we did not try and raise your minimum wage while we were in office. It does not matter that when we were in the majority we did not try and raise the minimum wage.'' The fact is it does matter. The fact is, if you want to help the working poor of this country, do something about the taxes. The other issue that is very important here, as the gentlewoman from California--and I will yield to the gentleman in just a minute--as the gentlewoman from California comes down here and just blasts the rule, where were you at the Rules Committee meeting last night? Not one Democrat voted against it. We had a very healthy discussion about the importance of this rule so that we can get a budget to the President by midnight tonight. I think we can do it. One of the former speakers up here talked about how much this budget bill that we are ready to send to the President has some positive things from his point of view. I agree with him, it does have some positive things, but the positive thing to me is it cuts spending by $23 billion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a report on the balance of time remaining.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while it is interesting to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts refer to the right wing, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that this concept is supported by 68 percent of the Federal employees, that this concept is supported by 71 percent of the union workers. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a very eloquent speech about how this is not getting a fair hearing. If the gentleman from Massachusetts wants to get this proposal a fair and a complete hearing, he will vote for this. You know why? Because if he votes for it and we get the necessary votes, we can send it to the 50 States. If you want a fair hearing, if the gentleman from Massachusetts really wants a complete hearing, he will get it out here to every State in the Union, in which, during the process of ratification, thousands and thousands of elected officials will have the opportunity to listen to their constituents, who frankly think their taxes are awful high. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California, put this in real simple terms. We are talking about taxes, taxes, and taxes. You know, taxes do not need rain. Taxes do not need fertilizer to grow. All they need are politicians. What we are trying to do with this two-thirds, which I live in a State which exercises that, what we are trying to do is put a speed bump in front of politicians that want to continue to increase taxes in this country. It is not going to stop the opportunity from funding the Federal Government. Obviously, that is important. It is going to make you slow down before you hit that speed bump. If you go over it at the proper speed, you are going to get through it. If you do not go over it at the proper speed, it means you are raising taxes too much. I think April 15 is a very appropriate time for people to be considering, gosh, how much further are we going to let the Federal Government go, how much deeper into our pockets are we going to let them get. This proposal we have today was called by the gentleman from California a stage prop, sinful, slipshod. You know, what we are attempting to do, one thing, we are attempting to give this to the States, every State in the Union, that is what this Constitution says, they are entitled to debate it. One debate took 203 years. We want every State, we want thousands of elected officials to debate this with the constituents they represent. That is all we are trying to do today. This does not automatically put a two-thirds limitation on the United States of America. It says to the States of the United States of America, here, States, we want you to debate this, here States, here is the opportunity under this Constitution, under Jefferson and so on, to debate it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], who is well versed in this area.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I should just very briefly point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts that according to the study put out by the National Taxpayers Union, more than 25 percent of the revenue the IRS got in 1992 came from 1 percent of the taxpayers. One percent of the taxpayers, the very wealthiest in the country, pay 25 percent of the burden. So this certainly clarifies the confusion on that side of the aisle about what this rule does. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, a gentleman who is well versed. Certainly it is appropriate for him to address some of the issues that have been brought up by the ranking minority member.

Mr. McINNIS. 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 the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 395 is a very simple resolution. The proposed rule is a modified closed rule providing for 3 hours of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Upon adoption of this rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of House Joint Resolution 169 shall be considered as adopted. Additionally, the rule provides for an amendment by the minority leader, or his designee, which would be separately debatable for 1 hour. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we should not view a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States lightly. However, the participants at the constitutional convention were acutely aware of the need to allow for the amendments to the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, Colonel Mason urged the necessity of an amendment process claiming that ``the plan now formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust chance and violence.'' Likewise, Thomas Jefferson stated ``I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change. With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.'' The Framers with their infinite wisdom included Article V within the Constitution of the United States. Article V has not been overused. During the course of our history, in addition to the 27 amendments that have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States, six other amendments have been submitted to the States but not ratified by them. At times the ratification process moves slowly. For example, the 27th amendment to the Constitution was proposed on September 25, 1789, and it was declared ratified on May 18, 1992, nearly 203 years later. Ultimately, this House, the Senate, and the various State legislatures will have thoroughly debated the merits of the supermajority requirement prior to ratification, or rejection, of this proposal. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, requiring a supermajority for tax increases is a good idea. My State of Colorado requires a three-fourths supermajority for tax increases by the legislature, and the State of Colorado is doing fine. One-third of all Americans live in States that have tax limitations in their constitutions, and they have curbed the growth of both taxes and debt. Today, the average American, who works an 8-hour day, will spend the first 2 hours and 46 minutes paying his tax liability. This year, the average American family will pay more in taxes than housing, transportation, recreation, and clothing combined. I do not believe that we should continue to increase the average person's tax burden unless there is broad bipartisan consensus as to the increase being necessary. Any tax measure that could garner the required two-thirds vote would obliviously enjoy wide support from all political parties, and among the people generally. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record documents detailing a comparison of the amendment process between the 103d Congress and the 104th Congress. The information referred to is as follows:

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 395 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I find it awfully interesting that one would be able to stand up and talk about the word shameful and so on. This is 2 years after this country experienced the largest tax increase in the history of this country. And by the way, some may argue, well, that tax increase really was to try and get the wealthy people of this country and it did not impact the average working Joe or the working Jane out there. It sure as heck did. Anybody that buys a gallon of gasoline pays four cents more per gallon because this Congress passed a tax increase on them. Some time take a look, and this is a good day to do it, on April 15, take a look at what you have to pay in taxes. Not just what you send in to the Federal Government. Not just what you send in to the State government, but stop and buy a gallon of gasoline. And after that, if you get really depressed, stop by the liquor store and buy a fifth of whiskey, and see what you pay on a fifth of whiskey in taxes. Then go to the store and see what you pay in sales tax to buy a lawn mower to mow your grass. Taxes, taxes, taxes. Around here, that is the fuel that feeds this fire in the U.S. Congress. And it seems that the U.S. Congress wants to get the biggest bonfire it can ever have. Well, you know what it has led to? It has led to this. It has led to a concept where we have got to put a speed bump in the way of these people that love to raise your taxes, and raise you taxes, and raise your taxes. Right now, just in this proposal of this concept, 73 percent of the American people are saying do it. An interesting number here, 68 percent of the Federal employees say do it. Seventy-one percent of the union members say do it. In the Democrats, 64 percent of the Democrats as polled say do it. It is time that we bring a conscience to this country. Now, some people say, well, you are not giving an opportunity for debate. That is exactly what this concept does. That is why it so carefully follows the Constitution of the United States. What it does is it allows this to go to every State, all 50 States, all of the elected State legislators in those States, which, by the time this debate was thoroughly finished, by the time it got ratified or did not get ratified, you would have thousands and thousands of locally, not in Washington, but locally elected officials who were engaged in this debate of whether or not we should require a supermajority to go out to the working people of this country and raise their taxes. Mr. Speaker, I think that this rule is fundamentally fair, and I think that this concept is fundamentally necessary for the positive growth and the future of this country. 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, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.