Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time remaining to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a parliamentary inquiry, not a speech.

Mr. McINNIS. Regular order.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to vote on rollcall Vote No. 223 because I was serving as the chairman pro tem of the Committee on Rules, during this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment offered by Representative Furse.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, after hearing some of the comments earlier this morning, let me tell Members that the children that are in the direct line of fire are in the direct line of fire because they have got something called the Federal deficit which is about to explode in their lap. If we want to help the children of the future, we better do something about this deficit and we better be prepared to address the bureaucracy on the food School Lunch Program. Do not let the Democrats on the fringe left parade around and say we are taking food out of the children of this country. We are not doing that. We are just saying we have got to change the status quo. We need to introduce something called business management 101 to operate that program. That program is going to be run much efficiently under Republican control and a lot more kids are going to get fed under Republican control than the Democrats ever dreamed. In addition to all that, we are going to get that next generation out of the Federal deficit like the Democrats want to end it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 100 is a very simple resolution. It is an open rule providing for 90 minutes of general debate. Sixty minutes shall be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Additionally, 30 minutes is to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Finally, this resolution provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This open rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote. This open rule demonstrates that the new majority intends to honor its commitment to have a more fair and open legislative process. The resolution provides the House with an opportunity to review the bill, debate it, and yes, if necessary, to amend the legislation. To date, 83 percent of the rules reported out of the Committee on Rules have been open, or modified open, rules. This is a dramatic contrast between the 44 percent of open, or modified open, rules reported out of the committee during the 103d Congress. The legislation is designed to improve the Federal regulatory system by: First, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, second, amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require the preparation of regulatory impact analyses whenever a major rule is promulgated by a Federal agency, and third, directing the President to prescribe regulations for the executive branch aimed at protecting citizens from abuse and retaliation in their dealing with the regulatory system. One particular provision of this legislation is very important. By deleting the prohibition against judicial review contained in section 611 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we will prevent Federal agencies from merely including boilerplate provisions certifying that a proposed regulation will not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Even the National Performance Review, which was chaired by Vice President Gore, made the deletion of the ban against judicial review its primary recommendation with respect to the Small Business Administration. I am pleased to see this provision included in the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the following:

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to insert extraneous material into the Record.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary who chairs the subcommittee that reported this legislation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you to advise the House of news that another police officer has fallen in the line of duty. The officer, Shawn Leinen, was 27 years old and married to Susan Leinen, who is 6 months pregnant with their first child. Shawn was an officer with the Denver Police Department, and on seven separate occasions, he was cited for professionalism as an officer. He loved his duties and understood the risks, but always kept [[Page H2378]] the risk as secondary, having it overridden by protection of the citizens. Shawn was brave, not foolish; Shawn was honest, energetic, and even praised by individuals whom he had previously arrested. His death was senseless and as a former police officer, myself, it is hard not to feel deep bitterness and want for retribution against the 16-year-old kid who is now only a suspect. This death was not just senseless, but cold-blooded murder. Shawn's widow, Susan, sits alone tonight, but she must know that Shawn's sacrifice, his call to duty, is recognized by the people who he protected. Their child will be born without its father, but will soon understand that dad was a hero. Our tears are in part for Susan's task in passing to that young child a response to the question, ``Why?'' Maybe our remembrance here in the Halls of Congress will assist in that effort. Maybe our thoughts and sympathies here in the Halls of the Capitol of this Nation will help Susan, as a policeman's widow, find some comfort in her days ahead. Mr. Speaker, our men and women in blue have again suffered a loss, but in their loss their resolve becomes only more firm. May God be with Shawn his widow, Susan, both their families and with that small yet-to-be-born child.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. We have just been advised that the time has just now been changed, so the date is February 10 at 3 p.m.

Mr. McINNIS. All right; I have got a typographical error. It is Monday, February 13, at 3 p.m.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute for the purpose of making an announcement. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to Members that the Rules Committee will meet next Monday, February 13, at 2 p.m. to consider a rule for H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act. The Rules Committee anticipates reporting an open or modified open rule with a possible time limit on the amendment process. The rule will likely accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record, though this would be optional and not mandatory. The Rules Committee intends to make in order as base text for amendment purposes the text of H.R. 872 which was introduced today. The new bill reflects a consensus product of the various committees of jurisdiction. Members should draft their amendments to this new base text and are urged to use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted to the new base text. If Members wish to avail themselves of this pre-printing option, amendments should be titled, ``Submitted for printing under clause 6 of rule XXIII,'' signed by the Member, and submitted at the Speaker's table. Amendments must still be consistent with House Rules since neither the rule nor printing in the Record will afford any special protection against points of order for such amendments. It will not be necessary for Members to submit their amendments to the Committee on Rules or to testify on them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to visit with you a little about the baseball strike and the very issue that is addressed or has been brought to us in the last week, should the U.S. Congress deal with the baseball strike? I think in order for us to assess an answer to that question, we need to look at what the historical standards have been in the U.S. Congress or in the White House before we intervene in a labor dispute between two private parties. First of all, how about Presidential involvement? You should know that in the past, it is very rare for a President to intervene in a labor dispute. It has occurred, but the standard that seems to have been set in the past is that it was necessary for a precedent to occur, and the President was brought in when the strike or the labor dispute would have had a crippling impact on the entire Nation. I will give you some examples. For example, in 1945, at a time of war, President Truman intervened and ordered the coal miners back to work. In 1946, he did so with the railroads. In 1952, again during a time of major conflict, he ordered the steel workers back to work. President Nixon in 1972 ordered the dock workers back to work, obviously a crippling impact because we were not able to bring imports into the country. President Carter, 1978, with coal, and in 1979 with rail. President Reagan in 1981 intervened with the air traffic controllers. But even that intervention was somewhat unique because it dealt with Federal employees. And President Clinton last August intervened in a labor dispute that involved rails. But nowhere in our history can we find, especially in a sport or a pasttime, that a President has intervened. I do commend the President the other day for asking the two parties to come to the White House, although I think the President was overly optimistic on his chances of succeeding in bringing about a solution to this dispute. As a result of that, I think the President made a mistake when he offered to both of those parties congressional assistance. Should Congress intervene? The answer is clearly no. Baseball, the lack of professional baseball, is not a national emergency. I would like to see baseball. I am a baseball fan; my son is a baseball fan. But it is not going to have a crippling impact on this country if we do not have professional baseball for a few weeks or even this summer. It is not going to cripple the Nation. It is not like our coal or our steel or our dock workers. We should not intervene in a private dispute. As you can see, where does this lead? Where does it lead if Congress does intervene? We had a bill introduced, a bill in this Congress, this is a bill to establish a new Federal agency, the National Commission on Baseball. Federal employees, seven full-time Federal employees will determine such things as what the price of tickets should be, what the contract should be, individual negotiations of contracts in the minor leagues and the major leagues, and where this baseball stadium should be built. The Federal Government will be negotiating TV rights for the baseball teams. The Federal Government will have the right under its Baseball Commission to subpoena people, as if it is a criminal action. You do not want the Federal Government intervening in the private marketplace. And baseball does not, by the very merits of its sport, does not demand that the U.S. Federal Government intervene in the strike. I think that it is absolutely necessary, especially when you are talking about two very wealthy parties, nobody is going to go hungry between the owners and the players. Granted, there is a ripple effect for people that work for baseball, but does that upon itself mandate that they come in? It sure does not for Bridgestone Tire Co. down in Oklahoma or Caterpillar. The President has not asked Congress to intervene in those because they do not meet that standard of having a crippling impact. In conclusion, I urge all of you not to allow Congress to intervene in the baseball strike. Let the titans of money resolve it amongst themselves. And for gosh sakes, do not create a new Federal agency called the Commission on Baseball with full-time employees, another building in Washington, DC, another bureaucracy, the right of subpoena, the right to determine private contracts. We do not need it. Baseball players, baseball owners, go out there and settle it yourselves. It is your fight, not the fight of the U.S. Congress. We should not give you 1 minute of time by taking it away from the debate on crime, which is a national crisis, on the Federal deficit, which is a national crisis. Go settle your fight amongst yourselves.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, credibility, credibility, credibility. Here was the story yesterday: The nominee for the Surgeon General of the United States of America advised the White House, the U.S. Senate, that he had performed only one abortion. Within hours he changed his story and gave a written statement that in fact it was less than 12 abortions. Then the pro-life group, some pro-life group came out and said it looked more, based on an excerpt from testimony of this gentleman from years back that it was 700 abortions. That was the story yesterday. Today, last night or last night's news makes today's story. It was not 1, it was not 12, it is now 39. The issue is not abortion. The issue is credibility. Where is the credibility of this nominee for Surgeon General? Can he devote the time necessary for rural health and other key issues? It sound like another story of, ``I didn't inhale.'' Do yourself a favor, do your country a favor, ``Withdraw, your nomination, Dr. Foster.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, well, we have another issue boiling out there. It is the issue of the appointment of the Surgeon General, and this issue is about credibility, credibility, credibility, credibility. This is how the story goes so far. The Surgeon General has the administration supply information to the chairwoman of the Senate committee which will hear the confirmation. That information is that he had only performed one abortion. Later in the day that is revised by the nominee, who says, ``Well, it was not really one. I think it was less than a dozen.'' Now all of a sudden out there it was not one, it was not a dozen, it is 700. What is the truth? I am very concerned that we will get a Surgeon General nominee out there who is going to draw away and distract from the real issues of health care in this country and make the focus his credibility. If he is not telling the truth, if the administration is not giving us the truth, he ought to step out and let somebody else in.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me so I may have the opportunity to address the floor for a couple of minutes. First of all, I think it is appropriate once again to address the fact that this is going to be a very controversial bill. We are going to have some very interesting debate on both sides of the aisle, and I think it should be highlighted that the chairman of the Rules Committee chose that an open rule would be appropriate. In the last couple of weeks I have heard some comments about ``Gee, we see the open rule really when it is a noncontroversial bill.'' Well, today is a good example of when we have a controversial bill and we see an open rule through the Speaker of the House and through the chairman of the Rules Committee. I think that fact should be noted. Let us talk about the substance of the bill. Obviously, the substance of the exclusionary rule, I think, has merit and will prove to be constitutional in a court of law. Every time we pass some kind of criminal statute in these chambers they are always challenged on a constitutional basis. A defense lawyer's job is to challenge it in any way he can. But I am confident that the constitutionality of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule will be upheld. What is the exclusionary rule? We have a lot of people today, perhaps some who are observing this action, who do not understand what we mean by an exclusionary rule. Very simply, let me explain it in this way: I used to be a police officer, and let us say that I stopped someone incorrectly and in the process of that error in judgment in stopping, say, a motor vehicle, I confiscated or found evidence that led to charges being filed against a defendant. Then the court could come in and say that because of my error of judgment in stopping the person, they are going to exclude any evidence or any fruits of my search that resulted because of my improper stopping. I think the gentleman from Florida gave an excellent example in that particular case. I do not want to be repetitive, but I think it is important. In that particular case a police officer stopped a car; the car only had to have one license plate. The police officer was in error. He thought the car required two license plates. So when he stopped the car, he was in error. But in the process of going up and checking the driver's license, he noticed in the back seat of the car a certain amount of cocaine. I think there were 240 pounds of cocaine there. The court threw out the cocaine as evidence in the criminal trial because the officer improperly stopped the person for missing a license plate.Now, there is not a person on the Main Street of America who would agree with that finding, and there is not a person on the Main Street of to say that we should have a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida for the open rule that he has helped to facilitate. I think the substance of the issue is on our side. I think we are going to have bipartisan support, and I predict the bill will pass.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to congratulate Josephine ``Jo'' Gore on the occasion of her retirement from the Delta County clerk's office on January 9, 1995. During her 14-year career, Jo has served in the Motor Vehicle Department and the county clerk's office. Her professionalism and devotion to the people of Delta County has not gone unnoticed. Jo has successfully moved Delta County into the 20th century with the coming of the high-technology age. With the ever-growing population of Delta County and the advent of Amendment One, we have seen Jo's role in the community grow in importance. She will surely be missed. Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in congratulating Jo Gore on her transition to civilian life. I wish her the best of luck in whatever she decides to do. I know all of us in Colorado thank her for her dedicated, professional, and selfless service to Delta County CO.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding Coloradan, Mrs. Cindy Bowen, on the occasion of her being awarded 1994 Commissioner of the Year. Each year the Colorado Counties Board of Directors select a Colorado county commissioner in recognition of their achievements and contributions they have made the previous year. Cindy Bowen is no exception. Her innovative approach to problem solving made her a valuable player, not only in local politics, but in national politics as well. Through her hard work, Commissioner Bowen was instrumental in convincing Members of Congress of the need to increase funding to counties in order to compensate taxpayers for the impact of tax-exempt supporters. Furthermore, Cindy Bowen is very active in several public land issues and participated in reviewing the Department of Interior's rangeland reform proposals. In my opinion, Cindy is a very intelligent choice to be named this years Commissioner of the Year. this occasion, and saluting Cindy Bowen.