Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that first of all to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the waiver is very specific. He said it is not specific at all. It is very specific. Second of all, I guess the gentleman is going to sing in a different tune now. I do not remember that when he said prior to June 30 he specified it or restricted it to certain conditions or a single subject. The fact is we had this rule for a purpose. The rule was not just created last night in the Committee on Rules, it is there as a management tool. One of our responsibilities in the Committee on Rules is to manage these bills primarily today so that we can keep the Government operating, which is a concern of everybody in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from Texas who just spoke, I want to assist the gentleman a little. We are not talking about a rule on a bill. The gentleman's procedure, if he was following procedure, we are discussing a rule on a rule. I just want to point that out to the gentleman from Texas. The gentlewoman from Colorado, of course, stands up and talks about the gentlewoman is leaving the U.S. Congress and that we get great pay back here. I would also remind the gentlewoman we have great retirement funds back here.

Mr. McINNIS. No, the gentlewoman has had her time. All of you have had your time. In fact, your time has expired. To the gentleman from California, if the Republicans did nothing else this year, just to hear the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Massachusetts talk about a balanced budget is a victory for this country. We have had lots of debate. We have had more debate in 1 day, and I bet some days we have had more debate in 1 hour than the Democratic Congress has had in 26 years. You have had an opportunity to do this. We are trying to reverse that.

Mr. McINNIS. The gentlewoman has had her opportunity with time. The gentlewoman took several minutes up there. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I ask that she allow me to continue with my time which I intend to do. There was some statement made about martial law. The gentleman from California talked about martial law. I wonder if the gentleman from California made those same kinds of allegations to the Democrats, the distinguished Democrats who serve on the Rules Committee. I wonder what their feeling would be if the gentleman from California went up to these four Democratic Members who last night voted unanimously by voice vote for this rule, went up and said, ``You just put in the Marshall plan,'' or, ``You put in martial law.'' Of course, he is not going to say that to them. What are they doing? It is rhetoric. Mr. Speaker, this rule has been used on a regular basis, and I gave citations, statistics to the Democrats. It is a management tool; it is a rule on a rule. Now the gentlewoman brought up the issue, what about the bill? The bill is not here because right now negotiations are going on with the administration, in good faith, to determine what the administration can live with and what they cannot live with. Once we determine some kind of an agreement, we will get it over here because we do not want this Government to shut down. It is a waste of our resources to go ahead today and slap a bill together without consulting with the Democratic administration, sending it over there and finding out the President is not going to approve it. Come on. We need to work as a team, and that is what we are encouraging. The Committee on Rules last night worked as a team. That is why this came out as a unanimous vote. I think that all of us should work unanimously to try to get our business done today so that we can keep the Government open tomorrow.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 342 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 342 is a simple resolution. The proposed rule merely waives the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House for resolutions reported from the committee before March 16, 1996, under certain circumstances. 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: make general appropriations for fiscal year 1996; include provisions making continuing appropriations, that includes provisions increasing or waiving the public debt limit. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 342 is straightforward, and it was reported by the Committee on Rules with unanimous voice vote. The committee recognizes the need for expedited procedures to bring these legislative measures forward as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 342. 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 what is an important issue to remember here is that this decision on this budget is the most important economic decision of this generation. Not only is it the most important decision of this generation; it is the most important economic decision this generation is going to make for the next generation. So, I find it a little interesting that my colleague and my friend over on the other side of the aisle sits there and talks about the time it has taken to change the last 24 years of deficit spending; 24 years, by the way, which were under Democratic control. It is time that people in American have a balanced budget. It is time the people in America can expect this Congress to step forward, and if it takes some time to reverse 24 years of mismanagement of this budget, the American people can expect us to step forward with some solid decisions. Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by my colleague on the other side who stands up and says that perhaps it is a badge of courage, or a badge of accomplishment, if we pass a lot of legislation. I do not think we need more laws in this country. I think we have a lot of laws in this country. The IRS has 72,000 regulations. We need more laws to tell the American people that we are doing a good job in Washington, DC? I think what the American people are saying is, why not take a look at what we have got on the books? Is it working? This is the first time since the days of the Great Society that a Congress has had enought guts to stand up and say, hey, what happened to individual responsibility? Should this program be questioned? Is it accountable? Those kinds of questions ought to take priority over passing a bunch of laws. If we are going to measure the accomplishments of the U.S. Congress by a score board on how many laws we pass, geez, talk about inefficiency, that is not what we are going to do over on this side of the aisle. If we are going to pass a law, it is going to mean something, and we have passed legislation here that meant something. But, Mr. Speaker, you know what is good? We have stopped legislation that is bad legislation. Why not talk about what we have stopped in these Chambers that was bad legislation? I think that, first of all, it is kind of a diversion from the rule. This rule came out of the Committee on Rules on a unanimous decision. There wasn't this kind of discussion in the Committee on Rules last night. But I guess it did offer an opportunity on the House floor to try and take one more shot at discrediting what the Republicans are trying to do. But I think the biggest credit for the Republicans is taking a look at 24 years of deficit spending, a Government right now that spends $30 million an hour and adds that to its debt every hour of the day. Some $30 million more going out than coming in, that is what we ought to take at look at. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When I stand here and listen to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I would kindly remind my colleague that there has been more discussion and more debate about a balanced budget in these Chambers in 1 day than they have had in the last 24 years on the Democratic side of the aisle. We are serious about this situation. We have determined there are more people riding the wagon than there are pulling the wagon. It is about time we get some people helping contribute to this. The gentleman talks about management as if the last 24 or 26 years of deficit is good management. He talks about competency as if this Congress is held out by the American people as being economically competent. Go out and ask the American citizens, would they let the U.S. Congress run their checkbook? Go out across this country and say to somebody, If you got a gift of $100 million and you wanted to donate $10 million to the needy people of this country, would you send that check to Washington, DC, for distribution? Of course, they would not do that. The other point that should be brought up here is part of the delay in this process is there are Members on their side of the aisle who are devoting their resources and their energy not into helping us find a solution for this budget deficit but in making sure we are not the ones that find the solution. We want them to join the team. The time has come for economic reality. The President of this country stood up here and said the era of big Government, which was supported by that side of the aisle for the years that it had control, it is over. Power needs to shift back to the States; power needs to go back to the individuals. We have moved the President, but I am not sure we have moved many on your side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke is an eloquent speaker, and not exactly on point, but he is an eloquent speaker. I guess the gentleman brings up that we finished talking about the word management. Now let us talk about the word participation. The gentleman acts as if there was no opportunity to participate last night. The Committee on Rules had an open meeting. By the way, the meetings under the Republican management of this Congress have been open, sunshine. They are open to the press. By the way, we do not have proxy voting anymore. Under the old management team, the Democratic management team, you could go home to your district and you could have a proxy vote cast on your behalf. You did not even have to be at a committee hearing. What did we do? We said, ``Wait a minute, we are going to change the management around here. We expect you to be at your meetings. If you are going to cast a vote, you are expected to be there and cast a vote in person.'' The gentleman does not bring up the point that last night his colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle did not carry this kind of debate in the Committee on Rules. In fact, they voted for this rule. In fact, they voted for it unanimously. We did not even do a rollcall vote on it. We did a voice vote on it. I think it is important to remember those kinds of things. I think it is important to take a look. I think the gentleman is credible when he starts talking about his personal efforts at balancing the budget. I think he is terrific in that area. But my big question is, Why did his party not follow him? The party had 26 years since the last time this country balanced their budget, and I do not know how many years the gentleman has served over there. I know it is many, and I know he has served with distinction. But my question that I would like at some point to be answered is, Why did the gentleman not convince his own party during the period of time that he served to balance the budget? That is all we are trying to do. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman brings up the point about the interest rates. Do Members want to lower interest rates for the working Joe and working Jane in this country? Then balance this budget. Quit spending more money than you bring in. There is not a family in America that gets to operate under these fiscal rules. There is not a special district, there is not a city, there is not a county, there is not a State in this country that gets to operate under such crazy fiscal rules. Constantly, for a period of 24 years, you spend more than you bring in. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker. point of order

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would be interested to know how the gentlewoman from Texas voted on the balanced budget amendment, after she stands down here and talks about how everybody supports a balanced budget. Furthermore, I should point out to the gentlewoman from Texas, with all due respect, she had 26 years to balance the budget her way, 26 years to do something. The gentlewoman had the President of her party last year; she had at least 2 years while I was here to balance this budget.

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, I notice I did not get an answer to my question which was, how did the gentlewoman vote on the balanced budget amendment?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I assume that answer means the gentlewoman voted ``no'' on the balanced budget. Let me move on to the rule. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] stated that we have never before June 30 ever had the same day two- thirds requirement waived, and my good friend, the gentleman from the Committee on Rules stated another statement similar to that. But I felt in order to be more credible up here I would use your statistics on has this occurred before. Waivers of the two-thirds vote requirement for same-day rules in the 103d Congress before June 30: House Resolution 61, Family Medical Leave Act, February 3, 1993. House Resolution 111, emergency unemployment, March 3, 1993. House Resolution 142, budget resolution, March 30, 1993. House Resolution 150, supplemental appropriations, April 1, 1993. House Resolution 153, supplemental appropriations April 21, 1993. I go on. House Resolution 322. House Resolution 356. Emergency supplemental appropriations. House Resolution 395. The point that I am making here is that it is somewhat incredible for Members I guess opposed to this rule, and I am not even sure they are opposed to the rule, to show up at the microphone and say we are setting history or a new precedent. This whole book, which is your statistics, is full of the precedent. Mr. Speaker, we need to have a management tool. I believe last night, if I heard the gentleman correctly and I will yield to him so he has an opportunity to correct me if I am wrong, but last night in the Committee on Rules the gentleman said, we understand the need for management. This went out of the Committee on Rules unanimously. There were not these kind of eloquent speeches last night in the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the gentlewoman from Texas, as well as her colleagues. I think if Barbara Jordan were here, she would be proud of the words spoken on her behalf by all of my colleagues, and I commend that.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is going to be, chairman of the DCCC, what kind of fundraising he has been attending in the last couple of months. Mr. Speaker, I think that the people in this Chamber should be aware of the fact that the gentleman from Texas is head of the DCCC, and certainly he is out there doing fundraising under his duties as well. That is the issue here. The issue is we have to get to a balanced budget. Quit trying to divert on some of this sidelight stuff, unless you want to implicate yourself.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly important not to lose track of the overall focus of what we have got to do with the Government in Washington, DC. That is, we have got to bring fiscal sanity back to this city. Right now this government is adding to the debt at a rate of $30 million an hour. Thirty million an hour goes out more than comes in. The answer is not in additional taxes. I just heard the previous speaker say we are holding the children of this country hostage, or innocent people hostage. Hostage? We are holding this entire country hostage and the next generation hostage to a deficit that has got to become controlled. There is not a family in America that runs their budget like this budget has been run for 40 years. Sure, we have had 20 days of discomfort up here. But this country has had 40 years of discomfort. You cannot continue to use this congressional voting card, which is the most unused credit card in the history of this country, you cannot continue to accumulate deficit after deficit after deficit. There are going to be some adjustments. There are changes that need to be made. Anytime we take business as usual in Washington, DC. and change it and make it more sane and make it more common sense, it is going to cause a disruption. Do not let that disruption divert attention away from a balanced budget. Our country needs one. I think it is fair to address some of the hardships that some Federal employees are facing as a result of their pay being delayed. They are all going to be paid. Let there be no question about that. They will be paid. The question is the delay. And are there hardships? Certainly there are going to be some hardships. Let me tell the Members what we did in Colorado. On New Year's Day, a local banker by the name of Bob Young, Robert Young with Alpine Banks called me at my home, and we talked and fine-tuned a program. His bank, the day after New Year's Day, announced that all Federal employees could go to the Alpine banking system in Colorado and draw interest- free an amount equal to the net amount of their last paycheck, so they will not miss any payments. Alpine Banks is committed to do this during this period of shutdown. Since then we have gotten banks in Pueblo, CO, the Minnequa Bank, and a bank in Durango, CO, the Burns Bank, and we have been in contact with many other banks to also join this program. We want to work with those people. We want to help them with these hardships. But the minute we put this Government back to business as usual, we take the pressure off the Speaker of the House, we take the pressure off the President of the Senate and we take the pressure off the President of the United States to negotiate an agreement. The only reason these people are negotiating right now is because of the pressure that society is putting on them, partially because the Government is closed down, but more importantly because this Government continues to spend without control. Finally, let me say this. I have heard a lot of speakers on the other side of the aisle criticizing our attempt for a balanced budget. I hope some of the Members speak as strongly about Hazel O'Leary's disappearance of several hundred thousand dollars. They have an opportunity to come to some of these committee hearings and ask Hazel O'Leary: How come you spent $500,000 to charter a private jet to go overseas? How come you have an advance team of 31 people? How come you have a film crew follow you all around the world? There is a lot of waste in this budget. Use your time today that you are devoting to attacking the Republican Party, take that time and take a look at the waste that we have got in our budget. We can work on this as a team. I am optimistic we can get an agreement. But let me say, the most crucial thing we can do in this generation is to hand the next generation a balanced budget. I urge each and every one of you to join us as a team and give America the biggest present they could have, and that is a balanced budget for the next generation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the gentleman's cute props and while I appreciate my colleague's earlier statements about the child that was crying, certainly we divert from the primary issue here, and that is to balance the budget for the Federal Government and focus on some short-term hardships. We understand there are hardships out there. I have got a program that I am going to talk about on a 5-minute special order on how we can help on some of those, but do not let us lose focus on the most important issue facing this country in generations, and that is to balance this budget, to control Government spending. Remember, right now this Government spends $30 million an hour more than it brings in, and if you want to talk about an impact on the children and the future of this country, it is handing them this credit card, the congressional voting card, which is accumulating that kind of debt. That is what is going to break the backbone of this country. We can focus on these short-term hardships. We can do something about it. But until we address the long-term problem, we are not going to get anywhere.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. That is what we are going to do. That is the beauty. I know that right now the storm is out. A lot of people like to bring their ships into the harbor when the storm is out there. We are right in the center of it. We are willing and ready to do that, and I think that is the optimistic news for this country. Mr. Speaker, I will end on an optimistic note. No. 1, the spending and the spending and the spending of this government has to be brought under control. We are going to do it. For those young people in our country, let me tell you, there are so many more things that are going right with this country than are going wrong, and you have a great future. My colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], myself, and most of the people, a majority in this body, will deliver to this next generation economic sensibility in the Nation's Capitol. We will deliver to that generation a credit care like the one I have that is not loaded with debt. We are going to do something about it. We are in the new world. We are ready to take the pot shots that people are making at us. We do it for the next generation.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we have got to address is this deficit. This Government is accumulating a debt of $30 billion an hour more than it brings in. In other words, it is spending $30 million an hour more than it brings in. How, you would ask, is that done? It is done by using a credit card. The most misused credit card in the history of this country is right here in my hands. What is this misused credit card? It is the congressional voting card. For 40 years this card has been inserted in that slot and additional debt has been put onto the next generation. It is like any other credit card. You can go ahead and charge things without having the cash to pay for it. That is exactly what this country has done. The status quo in this country is not a pay as you go. The status quo is not to act like every other American family has to act; that is, they cannot spend any more than they bring in. The status quo in Washington, DC is to get more taxes and more taxes and spend more money and more money. If the money coming in does not match the money going out, that is okay, just spend more money, and periodically go back and get more taxes. We cannot continue to allow this society to run on a deficit. It does not work. No country in the history of this world has been able to run their country with deficit spending like some in this body would like this country to run. Mr. Speaker, we are up against the status quo. Anytime you take on the status quo--and frankly, there are a lot of us who have had enough guts, and there is the momentum this year to take it on--whenever you take on the status quo you are going to be criticized. They are going to blame everything they can on you. Tonight, earlier, I heard one of my colleagues even somehow associating the tragic plane crash last night in Colombia to the Republicans and the balanced budget idea. That is the kind of thing we are being blamed for. We are going to throw seniors out on the street. No more student loans. What a bunch of baloney. No more school lunches for the kids. What a bunch of garbage. That is not going to happen. A year from now the people of this country will be enjoying the fruits of a balanced budget. And you know what? None of these scare tactics being used by the protectors of the status quo will come true. We can all remember in our own history when Christopher Columbus sailed for the new world. Where was that criticism? ``What is the guy, crazy? The world is flat.'' He had to sail through some rough waters. He had to go through severe criticism, but he did it. Look what happened. He sailed into a new world. In this country, we can do the same thing. Sure, we get a lot of naysayers around here that say to us, ``You cannot balanced this budget,'' or ``Let us pretend we are balanced it,'' and continue to spend more and more and more. We are being criticized for everything you can imagine, but we are determined to sail through those rough waters. We are determined to deliver to the next generation a balanced budget. We are determined to force the Government in Washington, DC to behave just like every other family in America has to behave. That is that they cannot spend any more money than they bring in.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 313 and ask for its immediate consideration.