Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the preceding speaker make the statement we are declaring war against accuracy by saying that we want to count everyone. It kind of does not make much sense, and the statement, I think, would probably would be appropriate if it were clarified.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is obvious from the discussion we are going to have a lively evening, and we have got some real substance here as we have two very well-educated gentlemen going back and forth. I think, in regards to the census part of this rule, I think it was best summarized by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and that is, as my colleagues know, it is fundamental, and I quote her again because I think it was an excellent quote, fundamental to our democracy that everyone counts. That is exactly the point that the gentleman from Florida is making, and that is this is not the time for a census experiment. This is not the time to put experimental aircraft in the side of this count. This aircraft has to fly and has to fly for a long time. Let us do it, and let us do it right. Sure, it is going to cost a little more money, sure we have got to count everybody, but that is what the Constitution demands. That issue aside, the issue of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley): His amendment is certainly to bring up some lively debate that it is in order that that debate be allowed on this floor. And finally, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that throughout the number of speakers that we have had today in regards to this rule I have not heard anyone that objects to the rule. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my good friend from the Committee on Rules, said, I think, and I quote that he reluctantly supported it. We have got the support for the rule. It is time to move the rule. It is time to get on with the general debate. 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Addressing the previous speaker, I am a little surprised by her comments. She says fundamental to our democracy, and I am quoting, everyone counts. That is exactly why we are going out and counting everybody. That is exactly the benefit. I take it from her comments that she supports our position. So I welcome that. I also would hope that she supports the rule. In fact, during this debate today, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anyone say they are going to vote against the rule. That is what we are debating right here. We are going to have, and in fact the Committee on Rules was generous to allocate two full hours to this debate, so I think it is about time that we move rapidly to a vote on the rule. Let us get into the debate.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, to respond to the previous speaker, this is a very fair rule. We appreciate his support. We have made it fair because we want open debate on this in regards to the Hefley amendment. This is not where that debate should take place. That debate should take place in the general debate. We are prepared to debate it, but the key here is openness and open debate by the Members of this body. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is entitled to that open debate, just the same as I am entitled to that debate, just the same as anyone on that side of the aisle is entitled to that debate, so that is why that is in order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of the debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 508 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4276, the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(1)(6) of rule 11, requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report, and clause 7 of rule 21, requiring relevant printed hearings and reports to be available for 3 days prior to the consideration of a general appropriations bill. The report has been available for the required time, but a printing mistake necessitates the rules waivers. The rule also waives section 401(a) of the Budget Act, prohibiting consideration of legislation, as reported, providing new contract, borrowing or a credit authority that is not limited to amounts provided in the appropriations acts. This is simply a technical waiver. House Resolution 508 provides for one hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, and clause 6 of rule 21, prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill. House Resolution 508 provides for the consideration of the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, which may only be offered by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified, and shall not be subject to further amendment or to a demand for a division of the question. The rule also waives all points of order against amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The rule also accords priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and allows the chairman to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less than the traditional 15 minutes. These provisions will facilitate consideration of amendments and guarantee the timely completion of the appropriation bills. House Resolution 508 also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. H.R. 4276 appropriates a total of $70.89 billion for fiscal year 1999. The bill provides ample funding for the Departments of Justice, State, and local law enforcement, the Violence Against Women Act, and restores Local Law Enforcement block grant funding. I am also pleased to say that the bill provides $533 million to combat juvenile crime, including $283 for juvenile crime prevention programs, $5 million more than President Clinton has requested. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 508 is an open rule, an open rule, Mr. Speaker, providing Members with every opportunity to amend this appropriations bill. In addition, the Committee on Rules has made three additional amendments in order. The rule makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) dealing with fisheries and enforcement. In addition, we have made in order the Hefley amendment, that will prevent funds from being implemented to enforce Executive Order 13087 and Executive Order 13083. I am concerned, frankly, Mr. Speaker, that the President has decided to use executive order strategy to incrementally implement portions of an agenda. One of the President's advisers has recently put it best when he described the President's intent with this flurry of executive orders, which I think is causing an immense problem for this Congress: ``The stroke of the pen, the law of the land. Kinda cool.'' Mr. Speaker, it is Congress' sole authority to make law. We must restrain the abuse of executive orders. The Committee on Rules has made in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) dealing with the Census. In this bill, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has crafted a plan to ensure that Congress and the administration jointly decide how to conduct the 2000 Census. Unfortunately, the amendment says that the U.S. Congress has no role to play in the 2000 Census, and the administration can move forward with a risky new plan that uses statistical sampling methods. Let me read the current law: ``Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as 'sampling'.'' The law is clear, sampling is illegal for the purposes of reapportionment. Mr. Speaker, every American must be counted. We should not allow the government bureaucrats to guess. We should not jeopardize the 2000 Census with an idea that the GAO and President Clinton's Commerce Inspector General call ``high risk.'' In addition, we cannot gamble with the trust the American people have in a successful Census. In the past, by naturalizing criminal aliens in time for the 1996 election, the Clinton administration has proven they will abuse power for political purposes. President Clinton should not be allowed just to delete certain American citizens from being counted. Our plan will safeguard the Census. This bill provides $956 million for the Census, including $4 million for the Census Monitoring Board, an increase of almost $600 million over fiscal year 1998, and $107 million over the President's request. This Congress is insisting that we pay whatever it takes to do a good job counting every American, just as the United States Constitution requires us to do. It is not a poll, it is not guesswork, it is an enumerated count of the American people. We cannot afford to let this administration guess about the official Census count. We will fulfill our constitutional duty to count the people in full. We must make sure we count every American. H.R. 4276 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, as was the open rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed directly to the general debate. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of H.R. 4276, pursuant to House Resolution 508, debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) printed in House Report 105-641 be extended to 2 hours.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who is not only chairman of the committee, but also the sponsor of the bill.

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

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

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that this agreed-to increase in debate time on that particular amendment is premised on the understanding that this would be the only amendment offered with respect to the Census. Is that the understanding of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)?

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an individual who has, for the past 30 years, faithfully and honorably served in the United States of America while in the United States Naval Reserves. His name is Michael D. Widler of Grand Junction, Colorado. During his distinguished career, Mr. Widler, a Master Chief Petty Officer, provided exceptional service and sustained outstanding performance while serving with the Naval Security Group, from October 8, 1969 through October 7, 1998. Master Chief Widler has been the only member in the history of the Security Group Reserve Program to attain the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer in the CTA rating. He has served in numerous active duty and reserve assignments in Colorado, Alaska, Kansas and Washington D.C. He has served as the key enlisted member of national teams where he was instrumental in the development of an action plan to restructure portions of the Naval Reserve program. He served as the national advisor to validate Naval Reserve support billets at the National Security Agency. His career has been distinguished by excellence in leadership and a deep commitment to the United States of America. Master Chief Widler has continuously demonstrated superior management abilities, administrative expertise and an abiding concern for his shipmates. His outstanding performance, inspiring leadership and total dedication to duty have reflected great credit upon himself, the State of Colorado and the United States Navy. Please join me in thanking CTACM Mike Widler for his 30 years of service and on a job well done.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, Whereas, in 1842, El Pueblo was built a few miles above the junction of the Napeste River, present day Arkansas River, and Fountaine-qui-bouille, present day Fountain Creek, just north of the Mexican Border, and Whereas, the Native American inhabitants of the area, had been displaced from their homes without regard to their survival and had suffered immensely, and Whereas, at Christmas 1854 a party of Utes, and some Jicarilla Apaches, led by Chief Tierra Blanca fought with the occupants of El Pueblo resulting in the deaths of at least twelve Spanish surnamed individuals, and the capture of the two boys, and the deaths of an unknown number of Native Americans, and Whereas, the settlers killed at El Pueblo were early residents of Pueblo, braving new frontiers and looking for a better way of life, and became victims at a time when cultures were in conflict, and Whereas, it has been one-hundred forty-four years since the tragedy at El Pueblo. Now, therefore, I Scott McInnis, a United States Congressman from the State of Colorado, on behalf of the Fray Angelico Chazes Hispanic Genealogical Society of Southern Colorado, proclaim this a significant event in Pueblo and Colorado's history and what led to this tragedy could have been prevented by the promotion of greater understanding between peoples and cultures and should never be allowed to happen again.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Most people of America did not know Officer Gibson and they did not know Officer Chestnut, but they know what they did here, and now most people in America honor and respect and really know these officers. Every 48 hours in this country somewhere we have a police officer who loses his life or her life in the line of duty. It is unfortunate that it takes a tragedy like this to move the word ``hero'' from the sports page back to the news page. Many years ago, I lost a very, very close friend of mine whom I was with about an hour before his death. He was very young. And I remember at the service the story that I think we can relate here very easily, and I think it applies here. His grandpa was an old cowboy, I live in the mountains of Colorado, and he was weathered, very seasoned, very wise. I was crying, I was very upset. And much like here, I think his comments rest. Those comments were, despite all of this tragedy, do not be too sad, because all that has really happened here is that Officer Gibson and Officer Chestnut have just saddled up their horses, they have ridden ahead on the trail, they have set up camp, and they have put the coffee on for us.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize an individual, who for the past 50 years, has donated his life to the ongoing fight against cancer. Dr. Geno Saccomanno, a cytologist from Grand Junction, CO, is a simple, dedicated man with a personal history that rivals most in accomplishment and commitment. Some of his most notable achievements both professionally and philanthropically, include his groundbreaking and world-renowned cancer research methods, his two popular cytology texts, his scholarship fund for underprivileged high school graduates, his St. Mary's Saccomanno Education Center, and the Catholic school and church that will be built on land he recently donated near his home. As you can see, Dr. Saccomanno is a man who works for the good of all people, in every area of his life. When Dr. Saccomanno arrived in Grand Junction as a pathologist in 1948, he was the first to pay appropriate attention to the most pressing local cancer issue. As he had noticed in some of his doctoral studies at St. Louis University, Dr. Saccomanno saw correlations between cancer incidence and the coal mines working in Western Colorado and Eastern Utah. His analysis of this issue set the stage for a long life in lung cancer research and diagnosis. Considered today by colleagues and professionals worldwide as one of the world's foremost pioneers and prophets in lung cancer research, Saccomanno's research techniques are considered a standard in laboratories around the world. His first method of cell separation to detect mutation utilized his wife Ginny's blender and a few simple medical tools. Through the years, his techniques have grown and developed with the aid of technology so much that his research methods are widely praised and world renowned. In fact, the American Cancer Institute is currently attempting to duplicate his processes with a computer. Dr. Saccomanno has won several well-deserved awards and published a myriad of medical reports during his 50-year career, all that have led to a considerable reputation among a wide range of people. He is revered by everyone, from his colleagues at St. Mary's to VIP's at the Department of Energy to his friends at the National Cancer Institute. Today, the 82-year-old Dr. Saccomanno continues his work in the field he has grown to love. Each morning he makes the daily trek from his home to the lab where he continues to look at his vast collection of tissue samples, lung X-rays, and secretions searching for a clue that would someday lead to a cure for cancer. Dr. Saccomanno's obvious dedication to his life's work and the medical field is something that is admired by all. I would like to take a moment today to thank Dr. Saccomanno for both his efforts in finding a cure for cancer, as well as for all that he has done for his community. He is an excellent example of how important dedication and perseverance are in one's personal and professional life. He sets a standard that we should all strive to emulate. It is an honor for me to count Dr. Saccomanno as one of my constituents and to represent him in Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. If the gentleman wants to handle the two-way conversation strictly on his side that is one point, but let me respond to the question that he has asked. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not prevented in any way whatsoever from offering his own amendment to put the congressional or the legislative body in there, number one. Number two, I have never ridden on Air Force One as he knows. I do not know many Republicans that have.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Of course the gentleman from California, I find it a little ironic. He is criticizing the Republicans on tobacco money. Between 1987 and 1997 he took $75,800 from tobacco companies. The second thing I want to point out, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is very clear in saying that I am not going to vote for his bill. The gentleman from Connecticut is not going to vote for my bill. The bill I am on is the Doolittle bill. I think that is the bill that is going to bring us campaign reform. But he is not going to vote for it. He is going to oppose it. I do not think he should stand up here and say that I am not voting for his bill and make it look like I am against reform. His bill is like wildflower mixed with a bunch of thistle in it. It is not a good bill. Mine is.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.