Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think there are a couple of points that need to be made here. Technically of course, at the very onset of this rule debate, this is not a closed rule which we are debating. This is a modified closed rule. What is the difference? The difference in the importance of a modified closed rule is that the modified closed rule allows their side the opportunity to offer a complete substitute. In addition to that, it allows them to make a motion to recommit. There is certainly plenty of room for them to maneuver over there, to offer the kind of amendments or changes that they feel are important. Second, Mr. Speaker, I think a few words should be said in response to the comments made about the waiver of clause 5(c) of rule XXI in this rule against the bill and the amendments thereto. As my colleagues are aware, clause 5(c) requires a three-fifths vote on the adoption or passage of any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report carrying, quote, a Federal income tax rate increase, unquote. We do not feel there is any provision in this bill that raises Federal income tax rates as construed by the legislative history on this rule. As the section-by-section analysis of this rule explained when the rule was adopted on January 4 of 1995, and I quote: For purposes of these rules the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' is, for example, an increase in the individual income tax rates established in section 1 and the corporate income tax rates established in section 11, respectfully, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Those are commonly understood marginal tax rates, or income bracket tax rates, applicable to various minimum and maximum income dollar amounts for individuals and corporations. In response to the letter from the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules to the chairman last year requesting a clarification of this rule, the Committee on Rules published such a clarification in the report on the rule for the reconciliation bill. The bottom lien of that clarification reads as follows, and again I quote: It is the intent of this committee that the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' should be narrowly construed and confined to the rate specified in those two sections, that is sections 1 and 11 of the Internal Revenue Code, respectfully, establishing marginal rates for individuals and corporations. Nothing in the bill before us increases either the individual income tax rates contained in section 1 of the Code or the corporate income tax rates contained in section 11 of the Code. Thus, according to the Committee on Rules clarification, as requested by the ranking minority member, this bill does not trigger a three-fifths vote on either the minority substitute or on the bill itself. However, as was mentioned in the opening statement on this rule, the waiver was provided out of an abundance of caution to avoid unnecessary points of order. Explanation and Discussion of Clause 5(c), Rule XXI Waiver (Excerpted From the Rules Committee's Report on H. Res. 245, the Reconciliation Rule) As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Committee has provided in this rule that the provisions of clause 5(c) of House Rule XXI, which require a three-fifths vote on any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report ``carrying a Federal income tax rate increase,'' shall not apply to the votes on passage of H.R. 2491, or to the votes any amendment thereto or conference report thereon. The suspension of clause 5(c) of rule XXI is not being done because there are any Federal income tax rate increases contained in the reconciliation substitute being made in order as base text by this rule. As the Committee on Ways and Means has pointed out in its portion of the report on the reconciliation bill-- ``The Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of Title XIII and XIV of the revenue reconciliation provisions approved by the Committee to determine whether any of these provisions constitute a Federal income tax rate increase within the meaning of the House Rules. It is the opinion of the Committee that there is no provision of Titles XIII and XIV of the revenue reconciliation provisions that constitutes a Federal income tax rate increase within the meaning of House Rule XXI, 5(c) of (d).'' Nevertheless, the Committee on Rules has suspended the application of clause 5(c) as a precautionary measure to avoid unnecessary points of order that might otherwise arise over confusion or misinterpretations of what is meant by an income tax rate increase. Such point of order was raised and overruled on the final passage vote of H.R. 1215, the omnibus tax bill, on April 15, 1995. The ranking minority member of the Rules Committee subsequently wrote to the chairman of this Committee requesting a clarification of the rule. An exchange of correspondence with the Parliamentarian and the Counsel of the Joint Tax Committee was subsequently released by the chairman of this Committee on June 13, 1995, regarding the ruling and the provision of the bill which gave rise to the point of order. The Committee would simply conclude this discussion by citing from the section-by-section analysis of H. Res. 6, adopting House Rules for the 104th Congress, placed in the Congressional Record at the time the rules were adopted on January 4, 1995. With respect to clauses 5(c) and (d) which require a three-fifths vote on any income tax rate increase and prohibit consideration of any retroactive income tax rate increase, respectively: ``For purposes of these rules, the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' is, for example, an increase in the individual income tax rates established in section 1, and the corporate income tax rates established in section 11, respectively, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (Congressional Record, Jan, 4, 1995, p. H-34)''. The rates established by those sections are the commonly understood ``marginal' tax rates or income ``bracket'' tax rates applicable to various minimum and maximum income dollar amounts for individuals and corporations. It is the intent of this committee that the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' should be narrowly construed and confined to the rates specified in those two sections. As indicated in the Ways and Means Committee's report, those rates have not been increased by any provision contained in H.R. 2491 as made in order as base text by this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] speak, and I want to say with some great deal of pride that Mr. Packard was born in Pueblo, CO. He was indeed a fine, fine gentleman and certainly a leader in our country and a leader in business. the strength of family and religion But I wanted to speak tonight to my colleagues about a couple of things that over the weekend inspired me about family and about duty to our country. Over the weekend I had an opportunity to visit with a very good friend of mine. His name is Jake. Jake is about 20 years old. He is a young man. He sees opportunity in this world. He is one of our kids. I think I call him a kid; he is a young man. But this young man wants to go into this society and continue in this society and accomplish things that he has dreamed of all of his life. I was particularly pleased to visit with him this weekend because his friend, her name is Kara, and he is intending to propose to her tonight. Jake and Kara, I think, are good examples of the young people that we have in this country, of the assets that we have. I will come back to youth in just a minute. The second event I went to this weekend was in Pueblo, CO. Pueblo is called the home of heroes. In Pueblo, CO, we have had four of our people, four citizens from Pueblo, who have won the United States Medal of Honor. This weekend I got to be the guest at the Medal of Honor dinner, which we do have here in Pueblo, CO, where we honored 18. We had 18 Medal of Honor winners in this room. You talk about inspiration, to sit in here, you see people, such as Mr. Di Havera. Mr. Di Havera not only won the U.S. Medal of Honor but he won the Medal of Honor in the country of Mexico. But the common thread that I saw at the medal of Honor dinner and with my friends Jake and Kara and with my own family was that they had the foundation of family and not only of the foundation of family but the foundation of religion. Regardless of the type of religion that you practice, it was amazing this weekend to see at the Medal of Honor dinner, how strong the families were in this large ballroom that we had. It was exciting to see the young people, such as Jake and Kara, who want to start out their lives together in this fine country. And what do they talk about? They talk about family. You know, a lot of times up here when we deal with these young people and they come to visit us in our offices, the questions they ask and the issues we talk about are a lot of things going wrong with this country, we have got a deficit, a budget deficit accumulating at a rate of about $30 million an hour, we have got a crime problem, we have got problems with the economy. But what we oftentimes forget to stress to these young people is that in this country there are a lot more things going right than there are wrong. I think that this generation, the generation of Jake and Kara, is a generation that is going to have opportunities that were never there before for any other generation in the history of this country. But I think that you have got to give credit for those opportunities to people like those brave people, men and women, on the Medal of Honor winners and the people who have set in this country the importance of family and the importance of religion as a foundation for responsibility, for moral values, and for duty to this country. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to share with my colleagues the kind of excitement I feel being around a positive setting, there with the Medal of Honor winners, people who gave it their all and then there with young people who are excited about the future of this country. I, too, share their excitement, and I, too, share the privilege of being able to sit with 18 Medal of Honor winners.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us first start out by advising the gentleman from Texas that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is the one who first utilized this rule in this fashion. Second of all, I do consider the gentleman from Texas a professional friend. We have had a good working business relationship. But let me offer a little advice. Do not shut down the Government in a battle over this rule. It is not right. It is not going to work, and it is going to backfire on you. Now, from a political viewpoint, maybe it would benefit the Republicans for you to take the hit on this deal, but you do not need to take the hit. I am putting myself above that partisanship and worrying about 250 million people, 230 million people in this country. We do not need to shut the Government down. That is exactly what you are doing by urging what is, in essence, a ``no'' vote on the rule. Let us pass the rule. Let us get some more negotiating time for the good-faith negotiations that are going on between the President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. Mr. Speaker, on this issue of the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] had the opportunity last night to entertain the type of motions that he is now having introduced into the Record. In fact, he did not bring it up on his own initiative, as certainly he had in the past, but he did not bring it up last night. I am not being critical of that point. The point I am making is the chairman of the committee, the Republican chairman, offered to the gentleman from Texas the opportunity to do exactly what he is attempting to do today on the floor. Mr. Speaker, now they have revised their strategy, and I think their strategy is headed straight for a Government shutdown as that hand moves 24 hours on that clock. We do not want to close this Government down. We should not want to close this Government down. Let us keep the Government open. Let us vote ``yes'' on the rule. 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do find the previous Speaker's comments entertaining, but I think it is important for us to address the comments of substance, and those are the comments from the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from Texas is correct, I am confused, because last night in the Committee on Rules, we offered two separate rules specifically to the gentleman from Texas. I remember his comments. I was there. I was right opposite him. We said to the gentleman from Texas, ``Mr. Frost, would you like two rules?'' The answer was no. Now, why two rules? One rule, if you are having a problem with the waiver of the bill, then we will give you a separate rule on the continuing resolution which will stop the Government from shutting down tomorrow. Then you can have a separate rule on this debate on the waiver or on the procedure we are using. The gentleman from Texas said no. Now I am confused. If he is not attempting to shut down the Government tomorrow, why did he not ask for separate rules last night? It is very clear. The fact is, there is a little game playing going on here. That is OK. We are in a debate. But it gets real, real serious here in about 24 hours. You are going to shut down that Government if you vote ``no'' on this rule. Last night, if you were really serious about your objections to the waiver we have requested, you should have asked, you had the opportunity to ask, and you did not ask, for a separate rule. You could have had a separate rule. You did not ask. You did not go after it for the continuing resolution. Then maybe some of the comments you would have made would have had more merit to me. As we stand right now, we are playing, again as I say, a very serious game with the lives of 240 million Americans when we do not need to. We do not need to shut down the Government tomorrow. We are not at that point in a crisis. We are not at that point in our negotiations where it requires a shutdown, where we walk off the job. Let us stay on the job. The way we stay on the job is you vote ``yes'' on this rule. If you want to shut down the Government, then go ahead with this game playing, vote ``no'' on the rule, and then we will see who is confused tomorrow night at about midnight. 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 find it somewhat amusing that the gentleman defines a sneak attack as an attack that comes tomorrow. That is not too sneaky if it is coming tomorrow. Second of all, the gentleman talks about how the Republicans have stretched Valentine's Day for 3 weeks. I would let the gentleman from Texas know, I actually got to spend Valentine's Day with my wife, and I wish I could have figured out how to stretch that for 3 weeks, because it was a wonderful day. Let us get back to the rule here. You want to vote against this rule, then you want to shut down the Government. That is how simple the choice is. It is the bottom line. We can talk about quotes here and there, and we can bring in posters and jump up and down and talk about all these kind of things. But the fact is, if you want to vote against the rule, you vote to shut the Government down tomorrow. No way around it. It is that simple. If you vote against the rule, you shut down the Government tomorrow. I do not think that is what you really want to do. I think what you really want to do is cause a little havoc, and that is certainly within the debate here. I do not think that is going to get us anywhere. I think we have to pull back, unify, and work towards a balanced budget. You talk about the word ``extreme,'' this word ``extreme.'' What I think most Americans would define as extreme is that you up here, some of you, decide to vote against a rule, this is a procedure, a procedure that has been used by the Democrats, a procedure used by the Republicans, that you would vote against a rule just to demonstrate a point to shut down the Government tomorrow. Do not shut it down. You do not need to shut the Government down tomorrow. That would be an extreme move. I would hope that the gentleman from Texas votes for this rule, because if you do not vote for the rule, then I think the next logical step is using the definition of the word ``extreme.'' It shuts the Government down. Again, let me remind my colleagues, last night when we were in the Committee on Rules, we did not have this kind of debate. The members of the Committee on Rules on both sides of the aisle understood that we need to continue to operate the Government. They understood that we can operate in a positive fashion. Now we have got a little insurgence, coming over here today saying, hey, this is a bad rule. For some reason, we could use the rule, but you cannot use the rule. We see all these kinds of words being used, ``extreme, extreme, extreme.'' I would suggest we use the words ``veto, veto, veto,'' and once we are through with that debate, let us get to the issue at hand, and that is to vote ``yes'' on this rule so we can keep the Government from closing down tomorrow. This is serious business. If we do not pass this rule, this Government is shutting down tomorrow. So let me urge all of my colleagues, let me say to you, Democrats, if you really want to push it, you may win the battle, you may beat the rule, but you are going to lose the war. And who loses if you lose? We all lose. Tomorrow we have got to keep this Government operating. There is no reason. In the past there has been, I think, logical argument on both sides that you have to bring an operation to halt that is spending $38 million an hour more than it brings in. But tomorrow, you do not have that kind of justification. You do not need to shut this Government down. Vote ``yes'' on this rule and keep the Government in operation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from West Virginia is an excellent speaker. He presents his points well, but I think we need to look at the substance of the points. First of all, one of the points that the gentleman from West Virginia says, ``Hey, we're 6 months into this process and we still don't have an agreement.'' I will tell you why we do not have an agreement, is because of that veto pen down there at the White House, veto, veto, veto, veto. When you talk about the difficulties that we have had on a compromise up here, you should also point out, to be fair to all parties listening to this debate, that there are three parties in this negotiation: The administration, President Clinton; the U.S. Senate; and the U.S. House. On some occasions the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate have come to a compromise and it has been the administration which has vetoed these bills and caused this kind of delay. But let me also say, in fairness to the economic history of the last 40 years, it does make economic sense, if necessary, to delay this process if we can move this country toward a balanced budget, if we can get this country to quit spending more than it brings in. Sure, you can look at the record of the last 40 years and say there were not very many times, if any, and I do not know that history for sure, but even if there were not any times that they went 6 months beyond that deadline, take a look at the product that we got. The product that we have got is a government that spends $40 million an hour on its debt more than it brings in. The product we have got is it now requires every man, woman, and child in this country to pick up $18,000 on their share of what is going to be necessary to get us out of debt. It is kind of like running a credit card. Most of us have credit cards. Sure, if you can continue to use the credit card and charge and charge and charge and charge, and nobody ever calls you on it or nobody ever forces you to pay up the bill, then it is pretty easy not to delay buying something because you do not have the money. You just go down and charge it. That is what has happened for 40 years. Now before we let you use the charge card, we are saying, ``Wait a minute. Look at how much we owe on the charge card.'' Certainly we are going to have to spend some money. Obviously education is a priority for all of us. Obviously we have to have a defense. But we need to spend the money more efficiently. Before we just go down and willy-nilly charge anything we want, we have got to be careful with that credit card. That is what we are saying. That is what these negotiations are about. I think further, let me say to the gentleman from West Virginia, he continues to use the words ``martial law,'' but at least the gentleman from West Virginia also applied that term when the Democrats had the Rules Committee. I would venture to say to the gentleman from West Virginia, the Democrats did not use martial law when they utilized this rule. We are not using martial law by utilization of this rule. I read the definition over here from Webster's dictionary, martial law, which involves military forces. It is the utilization of the rules to get us to a common point. That common point, which you are coming to very resistantly, and you are tugging and you are pulling getting to that point but you are moving to that point, is a balanced budget for this country. I think that is the essence of what we have to get to. You say we misuse the title of emergency. Well, folks, we are going to have an emergency in 24 hours. The clock is ticking. It is ticking second by second. That clock right up there, 24 hours from today, if you do not cooperate with us, you are going to shut this Government down. We do not want the Government shut down. We want a government that is going to operate in an efficient manner and we are asking for your cooperation to give us some more time for good-faith negotiations. Is that too much to ask from you? I do not think so. Last night when we were in the Rules Committee, they did not think so. We did not have this kind of argument last night in Rules. Let us pass this rule, let us get a good, healthy debate on the floor and let us keep the Government open. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly respect the comments from the gentleman from New York, and I think that his point is a valid point. It is that exact reasoning from the gentleman from New York that the Democrats, when they were running this House floor and they had control of the Rules Committee, used exactly what he is talking about, using the word ``emergency.'' Let me refer the gentleman from New York to House Resolution 111, this is March 3, 1993, relating to the emergency unemployment compensation. We can go on from there to House Resolution 150 on March 30, 1993, making emergency appropriations. We can move on from there to House Resolution 153, making emergency appropriations, so on and so forth. Mr. Speaker, I am going to try and pull us back. I would love to engage in debate with the gentlemen from the other side of the aisle. I think it is exciting. But the fact is we have got to get on with business. The fact is we need to keep this Government up and operating. The fact is we need to operate this Government in an economic, fiscally sane way. So let us pull it back to where we are today. What are we debating right now? We are debating a rule. This is not the first time that this rule has been debated. In the past this rule has been utilized when the Democrats controlled the chair up there, and now the Republicans intend to use this rule. We need to have it. Yesterday we debated this rule in the Rules Committee. We did not see this kind of vigorous debate in the Rules Committee. The only time we have seen this kind of vigorous debate is when we are down here on the House floor. Because up in the Rules Committee, we know that we have got to cooperate to keep this Government open tomorrow. That is what we are down to. We are down to 1 day. We are down to 24 hours. Some would say, well, why did you let it get this close? The fact is very simple. We have got good-faith negotiations going on right now between the administration, between the Senate and between the House. We can shortcut those negotiations. If we do, it is going to shortcut all of us. It is going to fall way short of a goal that I think, once we put the politics aside, once we put the election year aside, a goal that we want, for this country to be fiscally sound. We should support this rule. This rule is important for us to move on. As I said, and again I stress this, this rule has been used in the past when the Democrats headed the Rules Committee, and we are using it today. It is not a subversion of democratic procedure. It is an allowed rule up there. The reason for it is for the very kind of circumstances that we face today. The option, of course, is to go ahead, vote down the rule, as has been proposed by some Members who have taken the opposite stance of mine, and close down the Government tomorrow. We do not think it is necessary to close down the Government tomorrow. We think you should support this rule and help us keep the Government open. We think your idea of closing down the Government by voting down this rule is not a good idea. It does not make sense. Work with us on this. Help us keep this Government operating for the next few days while the negotiations continue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the previous remarks that we are into an election year. Let us look at the remarks made by the gentleman from Michigan. First of all, clearly, none of this would have happened, and I do not believe the gentleman's statistics are right. If 50,000 or 40,000 teachers got their pink slips because we said the Government had to operate with a balanced budget, maybe, if in fact that many got pink slips as a direct result of the negotiations here, it happened because President Clinton vetoed and vetoed and vetoed and vetoed and vetoed the budgets that we have given to him. We are trying to get cooperation from this President. I can tell the Members, we have moved the President a long ways. Did Members ever think we would see this President saying that the era of big Government is over? Did we ever think we would see this President talking about a balanced budget? Finally we have gotten him to that point in the negotiations, but this takes time. Mr. Speaker, let me point out, too, to assist the gentleman from Michigan, we have a Webster's dictionary up here. He keeps using this words ``martial law,'' as if the gentleman knows what it says. He is not using it in its proper context. Let me talk about martial law, as given to us by the Webster's dictionary: ``Martial law,'' ``The law temporarily imposed upon an area by State or national military forces,'' military forces, ``when civil authority is broken down, or during wartime military operations.'' If the gentleman wants to continue to use the term ``martial law,'' then he should clearly stand up here at the podium and talk about, under his definition of martial law, the times the Democrats used it in 1993. I have it right here. House Resolution 61, February 3, 1993, they did exactly the same thing. It is allowed under the rules. House Resolution 111, March 3, 1993, allowed under the rules. House Resolution 142, March 30, allowed under the rules, the same exact thing. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman and the gentlewomen from the other side there are trying to continue this argument, which clearly is a diversion from what we need to do, that is to cooperate towards a balanced budget, to cooperate keep this Government operating, if they want to continue to divert attention by using these terms, they should apply them to themselves. We are learning from them. We are using the rules. I could go on and on with this. I think it is critical to understand that while the President has continued to veto, veto, veto, veto, and veto, we must, as a result of those vetoes, continue to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, and negotiate. Do Members know what is going to happen as a result of those negotiations? At some point we are going to reach a compromise, a compromise that is good for the American people. I know the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], and I must say right off the bat, I am not educated at an Ivy League school. I went to a very small school in the mountains of Colorado. I think I am very capable, but not able to quote great scholars. He quotes a distinguished scholar about his analysis of what is happening here in the U.S. House. Let me quote a couple of people: My buddy Al. He is a rancher, he is not an Ivy League graduate, but do you know what he analyzed? He said ``It is about time, it is about time that somebody insisted that this Government, that this Congress, run its budget like every average American citizen has to do. It is about time somebody had enough guts to stand up to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. and demand that a balanced budget be in place. It is about time somebody called the President on these vetoes after veto after veto.'' Those are the kinds of quotes I can give. I can talk about Linda, I can talk about Betsy. These are just common folk out there. They know what it means to have a balanced budget. They have to balance their checkbook. So let us not use these diversionary tactics, first of all, by using this term ``martial law,'' unless, of course, you want to apply it to yourselves, as you used it for the last several years. Let us talk about unity in working towards a balanced budget to bring this Government to an economic, sensible, type of plan that will move us forward in a positive fashion. Mr. Speaker, let me say that sometimes it is easy for people who observe us debating on this floor to go away with a pretty pessimistic attitude. I am optimistic about the future of this country. I think we have a great future ahead of us. But we do have some responsibilities that we have to carry forward, so the greatness of this country can continue. Those responsibilities right now center on fiscal responsibility. In order for us to get to that fiscal responsibility, we need to pass this rule. Mr. Speaker, I should point out once again, and again, we can tell it is an election year. We were just in the Committee on Rules last night, so I have lost my memory on what occurred. We did not see this kind of rancor last night. We did not see this kind of debate in the Committee on Rules. In fact, this passed on a voice vote. Do Members know why? Because it is a procedure that has been used in the past, it is a procedure that is necessary to keep this Government from shutting down by tomorrow. I urge that Members support the rule. I urge that we support the House joint resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us again address the points from the fine gentleman from the State of Texas. We have got to have a bill by Friday. Does my colleague want to shut the Government down? We have to have a bill by Friday. Now, I am sorry we cannot allow for time through next week and the following week to read some of the things that the gentleman would like to read. The fact is this Government continues second by second. Now, we can either allow it to continue on Friday, or we can shut it down. Now, today is Thursday. That means we have less than 24 hours, or about 24 hours, to do something to keep this Government operating. It is the Republicans' priority to keep the Government on course, but to run it on an economic course that is going to make common sense to the average taxpayer in this country, and that is a balanced budget. Furthermore, I think it is important to understand that the waiver that we have talked about here, the narrow waiver, it is allowed by the rules. Suspension of the rules is a rule. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has many years of experience on the Committee on Rules; he is a very capable individual. He knows this is not undemocratic; that is how the rules are written. We are utilizing the rules. I would be called out of order, the Speaker would not allow me to continue this debate today, if it was not in the rules. If I am not authorized to be on this floor with this proposal, which, as the gentleman from Texas admitted, the Democrats used while they were in the majority, if I were not allowed to do that, it would not be in the rules. Of course it is allowed. We have got to have this, Mr. Speaker. We have got to continue to allow this Government to operate in a fiscally sound manner. Now, again it is a dramatic change in the last 40 years of leadership in this House. In the last 40 years of leadership in this House we have accumulated a debt that is about $38 million an hour. In other words, our Government right now is spending about $38 million an hour more than it is bringing in. We cannot do that. No country in the history of civilization, no free country in the history of civilization, has survived with the kind of economic factors that we now have in place the way this Government has been run the last 40 years. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] knows it, the gentleman and the gentlewomen from all the 50 States in this Union know it. We have got to face up to fiscal reality, and that means that we have got to get some resolution, we have got to allow time for negotiations, and this rule allows it, and that joint resolution will allow the Government to operate in a commonsense, good judgment fashion. 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 think initially here we need to clarify a couple of points. Mr. Speaker, I think at the very initial stages here we need to correct or clarify some of the statements made by my respected friend, the gentleman from the State of Texas [Mr. Frost]. Circumvent the rules? I think the gentleman is confused. This is the rules. That is why we are down here today. The gentleman and I were both in the Committee on Rules last night. The gentleman did not ask for two rules. We had a voice vote. I did not see this kind of vigorous debate in the Committee on Rules last night. This is kind of a blind side that we are getting down here. What we are asking for is approval of a rule, and then from that rule let us go into the debate. Let us talk about he comes up with this magic phantom word called martial law. Again, in due respect to the gentleman from Texas, I call it economic common sense. What does he want to do? Stop the Government? Of course, some leadership on the Democratic party would like to stop the Government because this is an election year. This is a very convenient time to try to put blame on the Republicans, who have brought more economic sense to this Government than any governing part of this body has brought for 40 years. We have got some tough decisions to make here. We have got to move this thing forward. We have got negotiations going on between the administration, the President of the United States, between the U.S. Senate and between the U.S. House. We need to allow them some continued time for these kind of negotiations. We are changing, Mr. Speaker, the habits of this House. We are changing 40 years, in my opinion, of bad habits. We cannot do it overnight. My colleague has got to allow the parties good faith, and he has got to allow them time so that these good-faith negotiations can continue. I do not think it helps the negotiations, it certainly does not help the relations between the two parties on this House floor, to use some of the types of exaggerations that I have just seen in the previous statement. I would urge my colleagues, look beyond the political aspect of this, put aside the fact that we are in an election year right now, and let us move toward the best interests of this country, and that is called economic common sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. The gentleman referred to the gentleman from Colorado. I ask that those words be stricken.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 386 is a closed rule providing for consideration in the House with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule orders the previous question to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit which, if containing instructions, may only be offered by the minority leader or his designee. Section 2 of the proposed rule merely waives the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule 11 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 Rules Committee before April 1, 1996, under certain circumstances. This narrow waiver will only apply to special rules providing for the consideration or disposition of any measures, amendments, conference reports, or items in disagreement from a conference that make general appropriations for fiscal year 1996, include provisions making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996, or any bill, or joint resolution, that includes provision increasing or waiving the public debt limit. The Rules Committee recognized the need for expedited procedures to bring these legislative measures forward as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 386 is straightforward, and it was reported by the Committee on Rules by voice vote. In order to prevent a Government shutdown and provide the conferees on the omnibus continuing resolution adequate time to iron out the differences between the House, Senate, and administration, House Joint Resolution 165 is necessary. The legislation will keep the Government operating through March 29, and in the case of AFDC and the Foster Care Program through April 3. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 386 and the underlying legislation, House Joint Resolution 165.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the words be stricken, the words of the gentleman be stricken.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 386 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think there ought to be a new song and dance out there called veto and spend, veto and spend, veto and spend. The gentleman ought to mention a little of that in his comments, the gentleman from Massachusetts. But let me also say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I respect his compliment that I have unilaterally had to take on speaker after speaker after speaker here for the last hour. Bring on your best. I think I can handle it. I am ready for it. The issue here is not whether or not we have had a great debate in the last hour, and I think we have. Certainly it has been somewhat entertaining. The fact is this: If we do not pass this rule, if we carry through with the gentleman's comments to vote no on this rule and this rule loses, we will close this Government down tomorrow. As I have said, there are times where it may be necessary to close down the Government for a temporary period of time. This is not one of those times. My colleagues do not need to bring this battle upon themselves. Do not do it. Do not do it to the American people. Vote ``yes'' on this rule and keep that Government operating tomorrow. I can tell the Republicans intend to vote ``yes'' on this rule. We do not think it is time to close down the Government, and we urge them to reconsider their strategy of closing down the Government tomorrow. Do not do it. Vote ``yes'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is awful hard not to like the gentleman from Missouri. His comments are amusing, but his comments certainly are not relevant here. He talks about the fact that I, as a representative of the majority party here today, am trying to gag the minority party. I think he probably had 20 speakers, I have spoken this entire time, he has had 20 speakers. There is no gagging going on here. Let me just say that these comments are all fine, and it may play good for the liveliness of this debate because sometimes these rule debates get pretty boring; but the fact is this. Your President, our President, the President of the United States agrees with this continuing resolution. He does not want to shut down the Government tomorrow. So I urge my colleague to call his President, call our President, call the Democratic National Committee and say, should we really vote no on this rule and shut this Government down? Is this the right strategy to pursue, to shut down the Government tomorrow? It is a darned risky strategy. I do not think they are going to succeed. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to offer some advice to the Democrats over there that are urging a ``no'' vote. Do not do it, it will backfire on you. Do not shut down the Government. Work with us on this rule. Cooperate with us. The President is going to sign it. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this thing out. We have got to keep the Government operating tomorrow. The gentleman talks about fairness and a gag, the minority leader has the right to offer the final amendment tomorrow to the gentleman from Missouri. We did not gag him. We did not gag any of them in the last hour. There is plenty of time for debate. But do not let that debate run the next 24 hours and shut this Government down. Because if they do, they are making a mistake. We do not need to shut the Government down. Vote ``yes'' on this rule or take the option of shutting it down. Do not do the latter because it will hurt every man, woman, and child 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. Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman, let me tell you, there is a big priority right here in front of you, it is in front of me, and it is in front of every one of our colleagues, and that is if you do not vote on this rule and we lose the rule and we shut down the Government tomorrow, that should not be the priority, the shutdown of the Government. We do not need it. The negotiations are not there. Our priority, the Republican leadership's priority, is to try to keep this Government operating. Now we are trying to negotiate in good faith with the President. All we get is veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, but we think we can negotiate something. We think we should continue the good faith negotiation. We do not think you need to shut down the Government tomorrow to prove your point that you are displeased with the Committee on Rules. If you are unhappy with the Committee on Rules, come up and have your representative on the Committee on Rules entertain a motion. Certainly yesterday the members of the Democratic Party on the Committee on Rules had every right, they did not do it, they could have done it, but they did not do it, to offer a motion to have two separate rules. In fact, it was members of the Republican side of the aisle on the Committee on Rules that asked the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], on the Democrat side, would they like two separate rules? The answer was no. I will tell Members, the cooperation last night in the Committee on Rules was good. It was excellent. But you cannot hardly believe in less than 24 hours the cooperation we saw upstairs in the Committee on Rules has developed into this. There has not been any tough negotiations or disagreements between us in the last 12 hours. What brought this on? Come on folks. We have got to keep this Government going. We can do it. Vote ``yes'' on this rule. It is absolutely essential if we want to keep the Government operating. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as you know, my home State is the State of Colorado. My actual home is located high in the Colorado Rockies. I wanted to take a few minutes today to address my colleagues on an issue that is absolutely critical for the Western United States, and that is the issue of public lands. I think to understand the issue of public lands, you have to have some kind of historical perspective of how the West is unique, not only in its water, and I will talk about the water here in a few moments, but also in the public lands that are entrusted by the people of this country to the Federal Government. In the early days when the settlement of the West was the crucial goal of this country, the bureaucrats in Washington, DC and the Government encouraged settlers to go West and go beyond the mountains. As they got to the mountains, because of the fierce winters we have, because of the mountainous terrain, because of the high altitudes, because of the difficulty in farming and ranching at those high altitudes, not too many people were encouraged to settle, say, for example, in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Instead they went around the Rocky Mountains and went on to the States of California and so on. And in many of these States in the Midwest, such as the State of Kansas, you are able to, on a very few number of acres, produce a great number of crops or run many, many more cattle than you can per acre in the high Rocky Mountains. So what happened was as time went on they discovered that there were people interested in going into the Rocky Mountains, but they felt that they still needed to provide a governmental incentive to move into the mountains. They knew that they could not do the land grants that they had done in some of the other States because to give that, to give a large enough amount of land for a settler out in the Rocky Mountains to really make it would be many, many hundreds of acres. And they felt, the Government at that time felt that that would be too much acreage in order for that to work. It was not going to be politically sellable. So what they did instead was had what they called public lands or use of public lands, entrust the public lands to the people of that area for the concept of multiple use. That is a very crucial issue in today's evaluation of public lands. When I grew up in the Colorado mountains, every national forest sign said, and the Federal lands signs said, as you entered into Federal property, a land of many uses, multiple uses, a land of many uses. Unfortunately, today we have some more radical groups in this country, some of the more very, very liberal groups that want to replace that sign ``a land of many uses'' with the sign called ``no trespassing.'' Are these groups well-intended? I think the answer to that question is perhaps yes in some cases. But are they well educated on the issue of multiple use and how critical it is for the everyday lifestyle of people of the West? And the answer to that is no, they are not well educated on that issue, although they profess to be well educated, when they try and lobby back here to take away the concept of multiple use as we know it in the West. Now, if you asked the question to most people, give me some examples of multiple use, they are going to say to you, well, grazing, the cattlemen, that is what they use Federal lands for, for grazing, or maybe the ski areas, they have ski areas on Federal lands for recreation. But ask them to give you some more examples of what we in the West use that land for, that Federal land under the multiple use concept. The answer really is pretty common sense. Every drop of water, for example, in the Third Congressional District of Colorado either comes across Federal lands, is stored on Federal lands or originates on Federal lands. There are a lot of other uses of Federal lands and the use of public lands that we have out in Colorado. All of our highways go across public lands. All of our electricity, the power lines come across public lands. The cable TV, the telephone, our food, there are a lot of cattle that are run out there. But the primary uses of public lands are the uses which I have just said: water, transportation, communication. And when some people back here in the East take on the position that we should not ever set foot again on public lands or that the use of public lands should be severely limited, I am not sure they understand how critical it is for the average working Joe and the average working Jane out there in the West to have multiple use on public lands. Now, do we need to have a balance on public use and on multiple use of these public lands? The answer is clearly yes. Sometimes it really, really can irritate you when you are from the West and you hear someone that comes up and pretends that because you live in the West, that you somehow mistreat the lands, the lands that we have to entrust for the next generation and the many, many generations beyond that. Those of us in the West take particular pride in the way we treat those lands. Of course, we do not want those lands savaged; of course, we do not want those lands destroyed. But we do think we have a right, for example, to take water off the Federal lands, to have drinking water, to have water for our crops, to have water for our small towns out there in the West. That water comes or originates or is stored upon public lands. The State of Colorado, let me address water here for a moment, the State of Colorado is somewhat unique in this Nation. Colorado is the only State in the United States where all of our water runs out of the State. We have no natural water that runs into Colorado. Water is crucial for us. Back here in the East, as I understand it, a lot of States' problem with water is trying to get rid of it. The big issues back here is what you do in flood stages, what you do for drainage. In our State, it is how you store water for future use. In Colorado, we do not have heavy rainfall. It is really quite an arid State. Instead what we depend upon is a 60- to 90-day period of time called the spring runoff. The snows that accumulate, in fact they are accumulating as I now address you in the State of Colorado, these snows accumulate in many places over 100 feet. And during that period of time called the spring runoff, which last 60 to 90 days, that water melts down, comes off the mountains and heads out of Colorado. In fact, the State of Colorado, I think, supplies water for 23 other States and for the country of Mexico. Because we do not have heavy rainfall, we have to depend, we have to get our water during that 60- to 90-day period of time, which obviously means you have got to capture some of that water, you have to have the ability to store that water, and be able to have that water for the remaining balance of the year where you do not have the spring runoff. And that is many of our storage projects in Colorado, if not all of our storage projects in Colorado deal with Federal public lands. If we followed the theory or the concept or the order of some of these radical groups who want no trespassing signs put up on the public lands, we would not be able to store our water, and these people know that. A lot of these people know that. That is their goal. In fact, a lot of times it is to the advantage of the downstream States to put whatever kind of restrictions there are on the upstream States so that they get more water flowing their way. The water in Colorado that we do not utilize, because we do not have the capacity to store it, goes on to other States that would like that water, that may be short of that water. Water is our largest, besides our people, water is probably one of our largest assets in Colorado. And it all ties in with this multiple use of public lands. If you look at the history of Colorado, public lands has played a very strong part of the foundation of that State. Whether it be the minerals and the gold mining of the 1860's, clear on up to the oil shell exploration of the 1970's, that is one aspect of multiple use that has to do with the building of the State of Colorado. But let us talk about another point, not the mineral extraction that has happened over the history of Colorado. Let us talk about the recreation of Colorado or the beauty of Colorado. A lot of people in Colorado make their living there because of the people and the tourism that come to visit these great, wonderful public lands. We do not want to destroy that. Tourism is our No. 2 industry, maybe even our No. 1 industry in the State of Colorado. We want to preserve that. And how do you preserve that? You have to preserve the beauty of the State. Sure, some of our tourists come to Colorado to visit their relatives or come to the Rockies to visit their relatives, but primarily our visitors come out there to see the beauty of those mountains, to ski our fresh powder, to hunt there during hunting season, to enjoy river rafting down our rivers right after the spring runoff. So we would be following ourselves if we really were out there to try and destroy what the good Lord had given to us, and that is the beauty of the Rocky Mountains and the beauty of the West. But by gosh, we have every right to stand in front of you here today and say, do not be so blind when we talk about multiple use that you take the concept of multiple use and dump it into the trash. It is too valuable. It is too valuable for the lifestyle of the frontiersmen in the West. That is how it came about, a land of many uses. Take a look at the native Americans. The true native Americans out there in the Rocky Mountains or in the plains of Kansas that went into those mountains during the time that the early settlers had not even approached it. Take a look at the uses they made of those lands. They hunted on those lands. They had their religious services on those lands. They were born on those lands. They died on those lands. The heritage that exists all comes about or all ties in to that all- important concept of multiple use. So my message to my colleagues here today is that the people of Colorado, the people of the Rocky Mountains and the people of the West in general support very strongly the protection and the guardianship of those public lands. We know they are not our lands. We know those lands belong to the people of the United States. Although we would like to say they are our lands, and many times we actually do, when we are out there and we infer that the lands within the State of Colorado belong to the people of the State of Colorado, we know those public lands do not belong, for example, to the people just in that State. They belong to all 50 States. We know that we have a fiduciary responsibility to the people of America and to the future generations of America to protect that land. But that concept comes down to protection of that land to one key word; that key word is balance. We have got to maintain a balance in the utilization and in the protection of the public lands of the West. It is very easy, very easy for people who have not visited the West, who do not understand the history of the West, who do not understand the people of the West, who have not studied their history in regard to the settlers and in regard to the politics of the time that encouraged the railroads to go out there, that encouraged the settlers go West, young man, go West. Not everybody has taken a look at that. But the people who want to voice an opinion on the utilization of those public lands in my humble opinion have an obligation to educate themselves on those issues, have an obligation to come out and visit the State. The Third Congressional District of Colorado, that is one of the largest congressional districts in the United States. It is the district I represent. It includes almost all of the mountains of Colorado. It includes all of the ski areas in Colorado. So if you have ever skied in Colorado, you have skied in the Third Congressional District of Colorado. You can fly literally in a small plane, you can fly for hours and hours across that district and not come to the other end of it. You can fly for an awful long time and not even see another human being out on the ground, or every once in a while you will see a cabin up there in those mountains. We have protected those mountains. Now, clearly once in a while you find people that abuse, and those kinds of people we should have a zero tolerance level for. For example, we had a disaster called Summitville in Colorado. That was a disaster, that was mismanagement, not only by the agency that oversaw the actual mining project but by the people that conducted that project. We should have zero tolerance of that. We do not want it. You do not want it. We do not want people that misuse the public lands that are entrusted to future generations. We do not want those people any more than you do. But when you make the decisions back here about multiple use or about public lands, take into consideration the long- term impacts of what your decision is going to create. How will it alter the lifestyle of the people of the West? Every decision we make back here that deals in any slight way with public lands will impact, will impact on a long-term basis the lifestyle of the people of the West. I am confident that the people of the West can manage these lands as they have for centuries, as they have with modern techniques of management and as they can in the future with abilities to take care of that land. We can do it with balance. There is nothing wrong with a well-managed ski area high in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, a ski area that mitigates the environmental impacts that it may create. If you take a look at the actual footprint or the area impacted by a ski area, I think you will find that under the right kind of guidance, under the right kind of environmental regulations, which all of us support, you can have a protected environment. You can have a thriving ski community. And you can have people who have the opportunity to live in that ski area because they have jobs as a result of that skiing opportunity, and finally many people across the country can enjoy skiing in the Rocky Mountains as a result of that ski area. You can do it in balance. It is the same thing with water storage projects. We have some groups back here in the East that will never find a water storage project that they can support. Not because the project does not make sense. You can have water projects out there that make sense. But these groups will try and convince many other people who live outside the West that these water storage projects for some reason devalue our public lands and the public lands for the future of this country. It is about time that some of those groups be brought to their senses, that some of those groups finally put into their vocabulary a word that very few of them have ever really thought about, and that is called balance. At the same time we must serve notice to all people who enter the mountains and all people who come into the West, if you have come out there to take an unfair advantage of the land, just the same as coming out there to take unfair advantage of the people of the West, it is not acceptable. We are trying our hardest out there to adapt policies that will indicate a zero tolerance level for the kind of ignorance that propels people to come out and destruct that, destroy that land, or to ignore the environmental regulations that are so important to preserve our public lands. But we can do it in balance. I think that we should treat with a discount these groups clear over here on the left that demand that the land of many uses sign be replaced with a no trespassing sign, and I think we can discount the people over here who decide that that land should be developed at whatever the cost and the development should be the No. 1 priority of the public lands. Both of those groups are on the fringe. Both of those groups represent, in my opinion, a very minority of minority views on what the utilization of public lands should be for the best interests of the United States of America. Instead what we should do is strive to have our oversight and our regulation and our utilization of public lands carved out of the middle, the middle that is represented by the word called balance, the middle that believes in multiple use of Federal lands, the middle that thinks that you have to have reasonable environmental regulations to guide the utilization of these Federal lands, the middle that believes that development or extraction of minerals or utilization of the land for grazing has to be done in consideration of the preservation of that land, but also the middle that understands that there are things called jobs that people; for example, the ranching families that have been out there, some of them for well over 100 years on the same ranch, that these people have a right to utilize that land, that these people are good guardians of that land, that in order for people to keep their jobs out there in the West they have got to have highways, they have got to have transportation, they are entitled to communication, that carefully regulated it is OK to put a power line into a community up there in the mountains so they can have cable TV or they can have electricity or they can have telephones. It is OK to have a highway, an interstate for example, through Glenwood Canyon, which has as its top priorities safety through the preservation of the environment. We can do it. The Glenwood Canyon, by the way, I think, is one of the outstanding examples in this country of how you can go into some very pristine country, some very important environmentally beautiful country, and preserve that while still keeping in mind the consideration of the safety of the people that visit the West, that travel through the West or that live in the West. I know that my remarks have focused on that word called multiple use, and I know that my remarks have focused on that word called balance. It is because we think those people in the West, those of us who represent the people of the West, we are very proud of our heritage, we are proud of the heritage of the United States of America. But we think that the entire country needs to understand that our heritage is built in part not just on strong people, not just on our good friends and the first Americans out there, the Native Americans, but also built on the ability to utilize public lands in a reasonable and well-thought-out manner. I cannot tell you how disappointing and discouraging it has been to see that sign that says ``Welcome to the White River National Forest'' and then underneath it the sign that says ``A land of many uses.'' How discouraging it is to go by and see the sign that now just says ``Welcome to the White River National Forest.'' Where is the sign that said ``A land of many uses?'' That is the historical use of that land, that is the protected use of that land, that is the use that everyone in this country and every group in this country that really cares about the West and the preservation of the West, that is the term that they will take the time to educate themselves on. It is absolutely crucial. If you want to address the issues in the Rocky Mountains, if you want to address the issues of public lands, and I would say not just the Rocky Mountains. This obviously expands up to Alaska and expands to the other areas of the country in which large tracts of public lands exist. If you want to voice your opinions on that, look and study the history of the West, and what built it and, again, what the politics were, and finally what the people today do for that. You know we are really very fortunate, we think, to live in the Rocky Mountains, and many of you know what it is like. You have been out there, you skied, you have come out there to see the beauty we have got. Maybe you have gone out to see some of the wildlife, the mountain goats or the Rocky Mountain elk, or the mountain lions, or gone out there, and now a big fad is fishing, or you have been on our rivers to raft. You too can continue to enjoy the beauty of what you like about those public lands in the future, but do not shut us out of it, do not let some of these groups convince you that that land out there is being wasted. Do not let some of these groups convince you that the only way to enjoy water in Colorado is to make sure that it runs out of the State, that the only way to protect water coming off those mountains is not to store it, not to allow it to be taken out of the rivers so that the communities and the towns and the people can thrive and the crops can thrive on the use of that water. Instead, what you should do is encourage these groups to come in and work with us as partners. We are a partnership. This great Nation of ours depends upon team players, and that is what the middle of America is about, it is a team player. Our team in the middle is much stronger than either team on the fringes. But those teams on the fringes; for example, those groups that want development at any cost or those groups that do not want any development regardless of the merits of the development, sometimes those groups have more ability than the groups in the middle to pass on their message, to make the American people believe that they really are the experts or to make the American people believe that they represent the majority of the American people or to make the American people believe that they represent the best interests of the American people. Instead, next time you hear from some of these groups, put them aside, just discount what they have said until you have the opportunity to talk with somebody in the middle. Now, I know that many of you may not have had the opportunity to visit the great Rocky Mountains or the great State of Alaska. If you have that opportunity, come out. We have a lot to offer. We do have a good lifestyle out there. We do have clean air, and you can bet your bottom dollar we want to protect that clean air. We do have crystal clear water in our streams, and you can bet your bottom dollar we want to protect that. We have some of the best fishing in the world. We have some of the best hiking trails in the world. Just in my district alone we probably have 54 mountain peaks over 14,000 feet. We have got mountain climbing. We want to preserve that. But we also have jobs. That is how those of us who still manage to stay out there, that is why we are able to stay there, because we know how to make a living out there. And our ability to make a living really determines whether or not we can let our next generation, my kids and my kids' kids, and whether my wife's family can continue to operate in the ranching business. If we manage those lands well, we can guarantee that the next few generations will have the same kind of opportunities we did. We are good guardians, and we can be better guardians, we want to be better guardians, but do not shut us out, do not go to the people of the West and say, all right, let us start with grazing fees, for example. You know a lot of the people or some of the groups, let me put it that way, or some of the people, I will put it that way, that are proposing a hike in the grazing fees in this country. They are not out to make sure the Government gets a better deal. That is just a mask, that is just the surface of what they are trying to portray. What they really want to do is eliminate grazing from Federal lands. What they really want to do is go after multiple use. It is a disguised attack on multiple use. I think as a U.S. Congressman that the Government should get a fair deal on grazing fees, for example. If the grazing fees, if the cattle market, is good, then the grazing fees should be higher. If the cattle market goes to pot, as it has done this year, any of you in that business know how terrible it has been, then the fees ought to drop so that we can sustain the lifestyle of those kind of ranching, and so on, on those public lands. But do not be taken by the people that say, well, there is great, great abuse going on out there and these ranchers and farmers are just wealthy farmers who take advantage of the Federal Government. A lot of those groups do not have, as I mentioned earlier, do not have in mind the idea that we have to improve the deal that the Government is getting. Instead, what those groups have as their sole intent is to shut the door on the people of the West, to move the people of the West out of the West and to hang up no trespassing signs. That is why the people of the West, that is why when President Clinton first became the President and they had talked about the grazing fees and the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, came out, that is why people in the West were so defensive. It is one thing to come in here with reasonable negotiations for a reasonable grazing fee. It is quite another thing to come into the West under the guise of saying you want reasonable grazing fees and trying to drive people off the land. To show you how intense the battle has become in the West I am not sure that during my lifetime you will ever see another ski area, a new ski area built in the Rocky Mountains. Now maybe the demand is not out there for it. But if the demand were there, should you automatically eliminate the possibility of a new ski area somewhere in the Rocky Mountains or should you rather approach the question by saying does it make sense, does it make sense environmentally, does it make sense for the community, does it make economic sense because the last thing you want is a company that gets into development of an area like that and halfway through the project has to give it up or file into bankruptcy because they have run out of capital. Those are the kind of questions that should be asked. We know in Colorado for example that it is crucial, it is absolutely crucial, as I said in my earlier remarks, that we have the capability of storing water, storing water for future use. I am not sure once the Animas LaPlata project is built, and I hope that it is built, I am not sure that during the rest of my lifetime that we are going to see another water storage project in Colorado. Now we ought to ask the same questions. First, is there a need for additional storage; second, are we using the current storage to our maximum benefit? Maybe we need to clean out some of the current water storage projects we have so they can hold more water. Third, does it make economic sense? Fourth, if we were to build a new project, can we protect the environment like we need to? Can we mitigate the environment in such a way that could actually enhance the environment? You know, it used to be a statistic; now it is 3 or 4 years old. But it used to be that all the good stream fishing in Colorado was below a water storage project. We have brought water, we have brought green, to a lot of the area in Colorado because of our utilization of water. Well, let me conclude my remarks by saying this. I know that with a budget, a big issue back here, and I know in the past few days the tragedy in Cuba has taken a lot of time on this floor so we can depend and kind of direct where this country should go, but I felt that it was appropriate tonight, especially having just come back from Colorado, I felt it was appropriate to take a few minutes to talk to you about the importance of multiple use for our fine State. I am doggone proud of being from Colorado. I feel good about the West. I feel good about the way we have taken care of the West. I feel good about some of the improvements that are being made in the way we take care of the West. And I also feel very strong and very committed to oppose those people who want to shut the door on the West, to oppose those people who want to take that sign, ``A land of many uses,'' and replace it with a sign of ``No trespassing.'' That is why I am here tonight. I appreciate all of you listening. I appreciate your consideration. But every time you pick up a bill, or every time you pick up a letter from, say, the Sierra Club or someone else, that talks about public lands, take a look at what we have talked about this evening: The historical use of those lands, the environmental mitigation on those lands, the need of the people of those lands, and the life culture and the lifestyles of the West.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Addressing the gentlewoman from Colorado once again, the gentlewoman has had her time. The gentlewoman knows we are each allotted an equal amount of time. You have consumed all of your time; we now wish to continue with the allotted time we have. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat another important part of the rule. We got somewhat diverted on the balanced budget issues. We went the whole spectrum, from there to whether this rule has been utilized. We covered the spectrum of the balanced budget, we talked about retirement pay, we talked about pay increases. Let me refocus this issue back on the rule. It is a rule on rules, and it says, in our rule, this narrow 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 makes general appropriations for fiscal year 1996, include provisions for making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996, or any bill or joint resolution that includes provisions increasing or waiving the public debt limit.

Mr. McINNIS. I will not yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado. What I think is important is that the Rules Committee is ably represented from the Democratic side, at least during the period of time that I have been able to serve on that committee. I can assure my colleagues that at any time when I was present, I have attended almost all of the meetings, at any time that I was present when members of the Democratic side felt that a rule was somewhat unfair, was somewhat nondemocratic, even had the slightest inkling of cutting the Democratic side short, they opposed it and they debated and they were well within their rights to do it, and I would say they did it, I think, very profoundly. Last night we did not have that. Last night, not one Democratic member of that Committee on Rules stood up and made any of the kind of statement that we heard from the gentleman from California or from Maryland or Massachusetts or the gentlewoman from Colorado. They understood last night, we need this as a management tool. They understood we need to put the Government back to work. They understood that it took teamwork. They understood that it was going to take cooperation. That is why this rule passed with a unanimous vote and not only did it pass with a unanimous vote, it passed with a voice vote. What has happened today, what we have witnessed today, is some people who--by the way, many of the people who spoke today did not take the time last night to come to the Committee on Rules, to attend that Committee on Rules and see what was said. Instead today they have tried to divert from a procedure and try and get into peripheral arguments dealing with everything from the Marshall plan to the history of pay of the Congress, to how many days the U.S. Congress works. This debate today is on a rule. This is a procedural debate. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this rule and to follow the lead of the Committee on Rules.