Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I see that the gentleman is very aggressive in his comments. I would just remind the gentleman that he had that provision right in his lands last week, and he voted against it, so today all of a sudden he shows up, and all of a sudden we are going to get another ``no'' vote when the provision is gone. I mean, which way, which direction? I think it is time we level this thing off, calm it down, and let us hear from the other side of the issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some excitement here. If I just heard the words do not fool with this hobnob, or I am not exactly sure of the quote, but that is pretty close to what the gentlewoman from Texas just said. But the gentlewoman, when she had the Haitian provision in the last rule voted ``no'' on that. She voted ``no'' on that. Now she is saying vote no again. In other words, give me this way, give them this way. She has got to make some choices. She needs to be consistent in her voting record if she is going to get up and say hobnobbing fools. That is not what is happening here. What is happening here is the Congress is doing the business of the people. This Congress has to wrap this up in the next few days. The way to do it is we get the more level heads here on both sides of the aisle, as it should be, to come up with a compromise. That is exactly what has occurred here. Mr. Speaker, as I said, my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), brought up this issue, but their record is consistent. And I listened to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and she as well is consistent in her statements. And I think that is important. We have the consistency here, and we have some level heads that are trying to come up with a compromise. We do not have the perfect bill. If somebody over there who is objecting to this rule can come up with a perfect bill and deliver the 218 votes and the votes in the Senate and the President's signature, come up with it. So far, we have not discovered it. We would like to do it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much as time I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I understand the previous gentlewoman's comments, but I think the issue here is not at all about women's health. Obviously people on both sides of the aisle in this fine institution care about women's health. There are women on both sides of the aisle. There are men on both sides of the aisle that care. This is a very important issue. It is a critical issue in any home in this country. So to suggest that perhaps some people do not care about the women's health I think is a little off base. I am trying to focus and bring us back to the direction that we are going. First of all, we have got a fair rule. Second of all, this rule follows the same structure as other conference committee reports. Third of all, let me talk about compromise. I spent this afternoon, I visited with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and she was adamant, she was adamant about this Haitian issue. But as I said to her and I say to my colleagues, look, we are trying to put together a good bill. We cannot make everybody happy. That is the struggle we are facing. My colleague over there, the gentleman from Maryland, said we had a good bill, but there were areas he had difficulty with. That was understandable. That was why it did not pass. It was a message to us. We have got to restructure it. We have got to rebuild this car. This car is not going to sell. Now we have got a car that can. And for people who want to put a modification on the car, they want to add a stereo or they want to put something else on it, that is fine if you can deliver the purchase price for it. That is our difficulty here. We are not attacking or assailing these issues. We are just saying we are trying to round up the votes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, may I get a time check?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has more time on her side than I do on mine. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) will yield to her. If not, I would be happy at some point towards the end to yield to the gentlewoman when I know I have time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the previous comments. Obviously I guess the definition of a border is a line drawn in the sand to see how close you can get to it without going to the other side. I think that civility, when you talk about the leadership should be ashamed of themselves, that is not necessary. The leadership here on both sides of the aisle have been working very hard, and they are going to have some pretty intense hours here in the next few days to come to some kind of compromise. I do not think we ought to take cheap shots about saying leadership should be ashamed with themselves. Furthermore, I have been involved in working in the Committee on Rules and so on, and I have not seen any so-called right wing extremists, which again questions on civility, jumping out and making demands. The fact is, to my colleague, she did not deliver the votes. She voted yes the other day on the rule. I carried the rule. We lost that rule by a majority. The issue here is not whether there are right wing extremists. I have not discovered them in this body. The issue is not whether or not the leadership ought to be ashamed of themselves. The fact is, for the majority of this bill, can we satisfy most concerns on the floor? The answer is yes. We cannot satisfy the gentlewoman's. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has got a problem for the Haitians. But can we deliver the votes on the compromise on a bill that is mostly good? The answer is yes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I listened to the gentlewoman from Florida and tell my colleagues that our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), is extremely disappointed as well on the Haitian issue, and that is understandable. But we cannot get the votes in here and give everybody what they want. I mean when we give one group what they want, then another group is mad. We are trying to come up with a compromise so that we can get on with the Nation's business. The compromise will satisfy the most pressing needs which this bill does. The compromise will satisfy enough votes to secure the votes necessary to pass this bill, which this bill does, and so all of us are going to have to come to the table. So I appreciate the comments, and I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who stood up relentlessly for the Haitian issue. But the fact is we have to come to a compromise. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously I take issue with some of the comments made by the previous speaker about the majority going out there and speaking to the press. Frankly, we have not had much time to speak to the media. We have been up there in the conference room trying to work out a compromise. Now last week that very gentleman stood up here and talked about a provision that was offensive to some Democrats over there. They could deliver those votes if that offensive, as they put it, provision was dropped, and it was. Now today it is a different trail, it is a different direction, it is a different path. As my colleagues know, I do not know which way they are going to travel. And the comments at the end just are taking a cheap shot at the Republicans. As my colleagues know, it is time to put that partisan stuff aside. We are in the final days, and the only way we are going to resolve this is to quit playing that partisan stuff and come together in a compromise. In addition to my comments, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) because I would like him to address these comments that are totally out of line in my opinion.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all I need to correct the statement made by my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). The statement if I recall correctly from the record here a couple of minutes ago was that there had not been a Democrat who had signed the conference report. In fact Senator Byrd has signed the conference report. I know that this has just come up. I just wanted to bring that to the gentleman's attention. Obviously we are not going to have the perfect bill. We went through this on some other legislation the other night. We had extensive debate on this bill. We have gone out, we have talked with our colleagues, we have worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and determined what needs to happen with this bill so that this Congress can conclude its business for the American people and move on. We came up with several elements. Those are going to be described in some detail by the gentleman from Arizona whom I intend to yield to here in just a couple of minutes. But the point here is this was a compromise. There were Democrats involved in this. Obviously the rule I think today will pass with bipartisan support. I hope it passes with bipartisan support because this bill deserves bipartisan support because it is built on a bipartisan structure. The other day there were strong objections made by the other side. Frankly we looked at some of those objections and we have refined this bill so that we address in a fair manner those objections. Another point that I think we need to make. We have had some sacrifice on this side of the aisle. My colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart) is very, very disappointed. He is very upset about this. I just spent the last 15 minutes trying to calm him down on the Haitian issue. I do not know anybody who has been more ardent in their support or have voiced their expressions on a more regular basis on this House floor in support of these Haitians. But that Haitian provision had to be dropped. That is the only way we could pick up those votes. He is very upset. He keeps standing up for the Haitians. I admire that position. But the fact is we have got to get these votes. We have got to move this bill. Ninety-nine percent of the content of this bill I think satisfies a lot of people. But we are never going to have the perfect bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule for the conference report to accompany H.R. 4104, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report will be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 575, I announce the following suspension to be considered today:

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman, that is exactly the point. It is a very complicated bill. It has lots of different projects in it. We are not going to get everybody in here happy about this all the time. But this is probably, this is clearly the most critical bill dealing in helping our national parks we have had this session. We cannot put together the perfect model because we have too many players and projects. This is the best we are going to get. And if the gentleman could have done better, he should have introduced it. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the gentleman from Minnesota has brought up a couple of valid points. I am not sure that the gentleman is aware of the historical perspective up in the Committee on Rules. Waivers were offered, and on top of that, we gave the other side an hour, 1 hour, of debate on the substitute. I am baffled by the fact that there is such strong criticism coming about this bill, yet no one who criticizes has decided to step forward with a better car.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), out of fairness, for him to respond.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield in a moment, if the gentleman would sit around and listen to the debate. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the gentleman's are very eloquent comments, but where is the meat? The gentleman has an opportunity to offer a substitute. If he thinks this is a rotten bill, he should come up with a better car. We are not prohibiting. Our rule is very specific. Let me make it clear that this rule allows the opposition to come up with a substitute through the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). He is free to do that.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think we need to lay out very clearly here, especially in light of the criticism from the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) about the process that we are following. The gentleman from California is quick to step up to the plate and criticize this bill. But the gentleman from California has not been very quick to step up to the plate and offer a substitute. Offer something better. It is very easy to stand on this House floor and criticize the Republicans and criticize the Democrats who have worked to put this bill together. But I think that that criticism loses some of its credibility when one who steps up has the opportunity under the rule, has the opportunity under the rule to offer a substitute to put in place of this a better bill, stands up and criticizes us. I think this criticism would be much better received had they had a substitute on that side. I would add that that is not a Democrat or Republican kind of bill. This is a bipartisan bill. So, we have a few Members on the Democratic side criticizing this thing. But still, out of fairness, the Republican leadership out of fairness insisted that these Democrats who are objecting to this bill have an opportunity, out of fairness, have an opportunity to offer their own proposal. They declined to do that. Why? Because they do not want any criticism. It is much easier to criticize somebody than offer a substitute or come up with a good alternative. And that is the exact route they are traveling, and in my opinion that route comes to a dead end. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill, a good rule; it is a fair bill, and a fair rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first I should mention that in Ohio we establish the American Discovery Trail, an important aspect of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, who I think is a good leader on this bill and somebody who understands the details of this bill. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, during the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Madam Speaker, the proposed rule is for a modified closed rule providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule provides that no amendment will be in order except, one, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be debatable for a period of 20 minutes; and two, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) if printed in the Congressional Record on October 5th, 1998, which shall be debatable for 1 hour. The rule provides that the two amendments listed above may be offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member specified, or his designee, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This rule was voted out of the Committee on Rules by a voice vote. Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998, addresses a wide variety of important national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage areas, national forests, and many other public lands issues and concerns. This bill includes new protections for national parks and heritage and wilderness areas in 36 States throughout this Nation. There are over 80 proposals from approximately 70 Members of the United States Congress within this underlying legislation. This is critical legislation. This deals with our national parks. It is a good approach to our national park needs. As I stated earlier, Madam Speaker, this provides much protection and many of the projects that are critical across the country for our national park system. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4570 is a bipartisan effort. As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, we have a number of different congressional districts who have projects contained within this bill, both Democrat and Republican. This is a bipartisan bill. It is an effort to get a number of very important pieces of legislation passed because, obviously, we are in the final few days of this session. Madam Speaker, some groups have expressed concern with a few sections included in 4570. Consistent with the bipartisan spirit in which this bill was drafted, compromise language has been worked out for many of these sections, including major changes to the San Rafael section, the NEPA parity provision, Chugach, Cumberland Island, hazardous fuels reduction, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Paoli Battlefield, Tuskegee Airmen, and the Emigrant Wilderness provisions. Other controversial sections are also deleted by the manager's amendment. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources, has made significant efforts and he has made significant concessions to the groups that have expressed concerns with the provisions of this bill. Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this bill includes over 80 proposals from about 70 Members of Congress contained within the legislation. I am one of those 70 Members with provisions in this bill. Title 13 of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998 proposes a transfer of the title to the facilities of the Pine River Irrigation Project from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to the Pine River Irrigation District. My piece of this bill is an excellent example of how we, the United States Congress, can govern in a better way, a way that involves communities and local and State government, a way that empowers the people that we represent. In response to local initiative, and in my opinion demonstrating one of the best examples of the so-called ``New West'' model of cooperation to achieve local control of public resources, a proposal to transfer title to the Pine River Irrigation Project was worked out. I believe this type of action, shifting Federal control of appropriate projects to local communities, and doing so only after significant commitment by interested government agencies and extensive input from the public impacted by the proposal, will serve as the model for the future efforts of this nature. Madam Speaker, this bill contains too many other examples of good governance and good public lands policies to discuss in detail. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 573 and ask for its immediate consideration.