Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman makes a nice speech, and I dare him to vote ``no'' on this thing. I do not think he will because I know he thinks it is right. It is the right thing to do. Number two, I would recommend that the gentleman read the rules. Under congressional rule we are not allowed, I cannot call one of my big donors and say some, ``Come on, we're going to go on a congressional CODEL.'' That is against the rules. That is already in place. Number three to his point, this does not only apply to the executive branch as he has just stated in his comments. Let me read it for you. Whoever, whether it is the Democratic National Committee, whether it is Al Gore, whether it is the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, whether it is a State chairman of the Democratic Party, whoever solicits or receives anything of value in consideration of providing a person with access to Air Force One, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The legislative branch is covered. It is in our rules. If he will take a look at any of the CODELs he has been on, my bet is he has never been on a CODEL where he has had a big donor to his race or anybody's race on that airplane, with the exception maybe one Member contributing to another Member, he has never been on a plane under those kind of circumstances. He is going to vote for this. Who would not? It makes sense. The article appeared on Tax Day. That is what is ironic about this. I read the article on Tuesday, April 15. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Obviously we do not exempt Congress. Congress may not be included here, but the gentleman has every right.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what has spurred my interest in this was an article in the Washington Post on tax day, on Tuesday, April 15, the day all of the citizens in this country have to pay their taxes. Let me read this article, or at least summarize a couple of paragraphs: In the two years before President Clinton's 1996 re- election, 56 campaign fund-raisers and big-money donors hopped rides with him aboard Air Force One. Between January 1, 1995, and November 6 of last year, 477 people traveled as guests aboard the presidential jet, Air Force One, according to a review of Air Force's One manifest compiled by the White House. But Clinton aides decline to release the complete list and instead provided names only of those who contributed more than $5,000 to the Democratic National Committee or who raised $25,000 for the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton-Gore Re-election Committee. Many of these people have no history with the President, and their presence on Air Force one could add to suspicions that the plane was used as a vehicle to court and pay thanks to big donors. Air Force One is not Clinton charter airlines. It is not to be used by the President to court the big donors across this country. That jet does not belong to the President of the United States. That jet belongs to the people of the United States. And it should be used in its official capacity. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, really is quite simple. My amendment simply says, and let me read the amendment, ``whoever solicits.'' ``Whoever.'' So it could be the Democratic National Committee. It does not need to be the President or the Vice President who is doing this. It can be the Democratic National Committee. Whoever solicits or receives anything in value in consideration for inviting a person with access to Air Force One, Marine One, Air Force Two, Marine Two, the White House, or the Vice President's residence shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than a year or both. We could talk for the next hour about the Lincoln Bedroom. We could talk for the next hour in much more detail about the abuse, in my opinion, of Air Force One, Air Force 2, Marine One. And of course, Mr. Chairman we do not know the extent of the abuse because the Clinton administration will not release the manifest in total so that we can assess that. At any rate, I cannot imagine anybody on this floor voting against this amendment. I am going to ask for a rollcall because I want to see somebody stand up and justify that we should go ahead and sell Air Force One to the big donors in this country. I am going to test them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), I offer amendment No. 56 to the amendment in the nature of a substiute.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I should point out to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has probably the most partisan remarks we have heard yet this morning, not out of habit, but, again, we are trying to pass this open rule on a nonpartisan basis, and we protected one of the gentleman's amendments. He fails to mention that. Second of all, anytime someone seems to question the position of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), it seems to elevate itself from a question to a level of intimidation. It is not intimidation. It is part of the checks and balances. Members ought to ask questions around here. He is not immune from those kind of questions. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who is our in-house expert who can talk with some substance about the Y2K problem.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would just note at the very beginning of this conversation on the rule that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, makes the statement that this Y2K problem should not be political, but preceding that statement, the three paragraphs before, it was 100 percent political. So I ask her, do not make the kind of statement that this should not be political when the gentlewoman talks like that. She is trying to make it political. The fact is, the money is going to be there. We are going to appropriate the money. I will make it political: The administration should have been addressing this a year and a half ago. They have not been doing it, and now the bell is beginning to toll. We realize we have a problem there. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from the State of Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would note to the gentleman, hang around until 5 o'clock this evening, and we are going to pass the IRS reform which is the most major piece of reform. We are doing something today. It is going to be a very significant day. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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

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

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. 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 myself such time as I may consume, especially in consideration of the remarks made by the gentleman over there who, at times, tends to drift from substance to partisanship. Nobody on the Republican side said we ought to do this later. We heard from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). We heard from the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). There are a lot of people over here who have a pretty good understanding of this issue and who are focusing a lot of resources on that. The difference between you and the difference between me is the gentleman wants to do it; we want to do it right. That is exactly what is going to occur here. No one is saying do not fund this thing. We heard the chairman, or if you did not hear the chairman from the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), he was here, he addressed that issue. I take issue with the fact that my colleagues stand up here and say, well, Republicans want to do this later. They do not realize it is an emergency. You would have to have fallen off the swing twice on your head to figure out this is not important. Clearly, it is important. Clearly, we have an understanding of the Year 2000. I am not sure the administration understands the importance of this. But in these Chambers, I think both sides understand the importance of this, and that is why it is receiving the priority. It is going to get the funding. It is getting the kind of attention it needs. We have some of our very best minds, as reflected by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) working on this. So the gentleman is out of line, in my opinion, when he says, well, we are waiting till later. Again, the difference between that side of the aisle, the Democrats who want to do it, and this side of the aisle, is that we want to do it right. Madam Chairman, I urge the passage of the rule.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). (Mr. TIAHRT 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, I appreciate what the gentleman has had to say. We should know that while they have not asked for that, the Vice President has been very busy preparing for his telephone tax, the Gore tax, which goes in effect here in just a couple of days. I hope the consumers out there note that. 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 485 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Madam Speaker, this is an open rule that waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failing to comply with clause 2(l)6 of rule XI requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report, or clause 7 of rule XXI, requiring printed hearings and reports to be available for 3 days prior to the consideration of general appropriation bills. House Resolution 485 provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 485 also provides that the amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole House. House Resolution 485 waives points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, which do not comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized or legislative appropriations in a general appropriations bill, and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill, except as specified by the rule. Additionally, Madam Speaker, House Resolution 485 waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report, and provides that such amendments shall be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time period specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Furthermore, this rule provides for priority in recognition for those amendments that are preprinted in the Congressional Record, and provides that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, provided that the voting time on the first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This rule was reported out by the Committee on Rules by voice vote. Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation, which makes the appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies for fiscal year 1999, is important legislation. Nearly 90 percent of the activities funded under this bill are devoted to the salaries and expenses of approximately 163,000 employees who are responsible for administering programs such as drug interdiction, presidential protection, violent crime reduction, and Federal financial management. Additionally, H.R. 4104 provides $1.8 billion for drug-related activities, including a $195 million national media campaign targeting youth drug use, and doubles the funding for the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to recognize two young students from Colorado who best exemplify the spirit of learning and of academics that we pride ourselves upon on the Western Slope. Their names are Casey Smith and Nancy Strippel and they are both Presidential Scholars from Grand Junction, Colorado. They are the only two from our State, and both attend the same high school, Grand Junction High School, which makes their achievements all the more remarkable. They visited our nation's capital this week in order to receive their Presidential Scholar medallions which were presented to them by the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, as you also know, the United States Presidential Scholars Program was established in 1964, by Executive Order of the President, to recognize and honor some of our Nation's most distinguished graduating high school seniors. In 1970, the program was extended to recognize students who demonstrate exceptional talent in the visual, creative, and performing arts. Each year, up to 141 students are named as Presidential Scholars, one of the Nation's highest honors for high school students. The Scholars are chosen on the basis of their accomplishments in many areas--academic and artistic success, leadership, and involvement in school and the community. The Scholars represent excellence in education and the promise of greatness in young people. In honoring the Presidential Scholars, the President of the United States symbolically honors all graduating high school seniors of high potential. The Presidential Scholars Program has honored over 3,700 Presidential Scholars for over 30 years. All these distinguished young people have demonstrated leadership, scholarship, contribution to school and community, and accomplishments in the arts, sciences, or other fields. The work of the Commission on Presidential Scholars reaffirms, on behalf of the President, the Nation's commitment to education that enables people to lead lives of challenge, accomplishment, and fullfilment. I would also like to commend the work and dedication of Lorena Thompson, their teacher who deserves a great deal of credit for the success of these two scholars. Her devotion to teaching and evident ability to inspire the youth of Colorado, is truly what education is all about. I thank her for her labor on behalf of her students. I also want to congratulate the faculty and staff of Grand Junction High School who also deserve our thanks for the work they do. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am very proud of the accomplishments of Nancy and Casey, and know that they will achieve even greater success in the next stages of their already remarkable lives.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, we have great news from the State of New Mexico. My district is in the State of Colorado and as many of us know, we lost our colleague Steve Schiff who represented very ably over the years the First Congressional District of the State of New Mexico. After his passing, the Governor of the State called for a special election. And last night, the people of New Mexico made a very good, good decision. They are sending to Washington, DC a very capable, very competent, very energetic, very dedicated and very patriotic brand-new Congressman. That Congressperson is Heather Wilson. Heather Wilson is the mother of three children, Joshua, Caitlin and Scott. Congresswoman Wilson is 37 years old. She will be sworn in tomorrow. She is married to an Albuquerque gentleman by the name of Jay Hone. She is a distinguished graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. She is a Rhodes Scholar who earned her master's and doctoral degrees in Oxford University in England. Her dissertation, ``International Law and the use of Force by National Liberation Movements,'' was published as a book and won the Paul Reuter Prize from the International Community of the Red Cross in Geneva, Switzerland. For 7 years, Heather Wilson lived and worked in Europe. She was a negotiator and defense planning officer with the United States Air Force in England, where her work included negotiating all aspects of cruise missile deployment in Britain and managing to bring a $125 million construction project to completion on time and under budget. She then went to the United States Mission of NATO in Belgium where her work included arms control negotiations. She was the acting representative of the Secretary of Defense at the Conventional Forces in Europe, CFE, and handled negotiations in Vienna, Austria. After leaving the Air Force in 1989, Heather became the Director for European Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council staff at White House. In 1991, Wilson founded Keystone International, Inc., in Albuquerque to work with senior executives and large American defense and scientific corporations with business development and program planning work in the United States and Russia. Keystone's clients included McGraw-Hill, Martin-Marrietta and others. Heather has written for the Wall Street Journal and publications specializing in foreign policy and defense issues, and has been a spokesman on those issues at Harvard University, the Military Academy at West Point, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and other organizations. She has also appeared on national television programs including Firing Line and CNN's Crier and Company. She is active in civic affairs. Heather is a licensed foster parent, a member of the Albuquerque Kiwanis Club, and Kiwanians throughout New Mexico ought to be proud of what she did yesterday and who is going to represent their State. She is a strong advocate for improved public schools. She was a bronze medalist in the 1990 American Rowing Championships. What is exciting about Heather is not only her background, which is fairly extensive as I read by this resume, but the excitement that she reflects. One can tell by just talking with Heather how thrilled and honored she is to represent the fine State of New Mexico. So New Mexico, despite the fact that there were some people who ran a very, very negative nasty campaign against her, her positive attitude, her ``can do'' attitude, her personality, clearly her background is what prevailed in that election. Mr. Speaker, it shows that negative elections do not prevail. We can tell just by talking to her, just how excited and how positive this person is. That is what this Congress is made up of, a lot of people. That is what is should be totally made of. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that tomorrow New Mexico will have a new United States Congressman sworn in. They have a lot to be proud of. I can tell my friends in New Mexico, as their neighbor from the north in Colorado and on behalf of all of my colleagues, we are thrilled to see their new Congressman in Washington, DC.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled ``Extension of Remarks'' on Thursday, June 25, 1998.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many can remember, but about 2 weeks ago CNN started their headline news. Their leading story on CNN was how the United States military used a poisonous gas that by international treaty is a violation and considered a war crime. CNN did not say there was speculation. CNN did not say there was an allegation. The CNN/Time article said it was used to go in and get American defectors. What CNN/Time failed to mention to the American public was their source of information. The original source of information was a lieutenant. The lieutenant did not remember this gas. In fact, he said he forgot it for 25 years, went without this memory, until he happened to be interviewed by one of the reporters with CNN and Time. During that interview on Easter Sunday, and by the way, the gentleman is a heavy drinker, he all of a sudden recalled that 25 years ago the United States military went and used poisonous gases on the Viet Cong. It is an international war crime. So CNN goes to their second source. CNN does not mention to the American public that their second source has filed for a full disability, so he has every incentive to come out and agree with the first source's story. Guess what? Thank goodness, Newsweek decided to look a little closer, to investigate the facts, not to run a story that impugns the United States government, impugns the United States military, impugns the commanding officers during that period of time, impugns the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, by alleging that this poison gas, a war crime, was used in secret. No, Newsweek decides to do their homework. Guess what they find out? They are the ones that come out and say, wait a second, the other people involved in this say this is a bunch of nonsense. The pilots say, it could not possibly happen, we did not have masks. The general, who by the way was a third source for Time/CNN, 88 years old and in an assisted care facility, denies that he said what Time and CNN said he said. Peter Arnett, we all know Peter Arnett, what was his response to Newsweek? ``It is one side of the story. I think it was a fair article.'' Yes, well, Mr. Arnett, you were not on the receiving end of this thing. How would you like to have your integrity, and to the executives at CNN and Time, how would you like your integrity impugned? How would you like that to happen to you before they went and verified the facts? Not a credit to Time magazine, not as the partnership of Time/CNN, but in credit to Time, I will say, and in reverence to full disclosure, Time magazine has said that they are going back to the story, they are going to reinvestigate the story, and they will report the facts as they find them. So at least they have acknowledged that they need to look at this just a little closer. But does this remind Members of a Richard Jewell kind of case? Remember Richard Jewell, the so-called alleged Olympic bomber, who the press could not wait, within hours, and in fact, they were there at the time the police went to Mr. Jewell's apartment? They destroyed the man. Just remember this story. All of us remember 2 weeks ago what Time and CNN did. Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Members that Time and CNN and every other press, every other publication or every news media in this country expects the United States Congress to have integrity, expects us to check our sources. We know any time or a lot of times we do not, we get barbecued by them. That is as it should be. But it should also run in the other direction. In my opinion, the United States of America has a military that is second to none, has a military that has lots of officers and lots of enlisted people who have very high integrity, are people of strong dedication, strong moral values. How do Members think they felt when on the lead story out of CNN, and Time runs a big story in Time magazine, that says that the United States military committed war crimes, war crimes? The same kind of crimes, war crimes, that people were executed after World War II for committing war crimes. These national publications accused our government of committing a war crime by using, by the way, the chemical sarin, of using that chemical. My gosh, these are two of the leading media institutions in this country, and they have an ethical obligation to check those sources. Thank goodness that Newsweek stepped forward and ran the kind of investigation they ran. I beg of Time magazine, to all those executive officers, and I hope some of them are listening tonight as I speak to my colleagues here, I beg of these people, go back, check that story. And if that story is not true, give the United States military, the United States military personnel, President Nixon and everybody else that was impugned by those articles and by that press release, give them the same kind of coverage and retraction of this article as you gave in attack as a result of this article.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not disagree point blank or broadly against severability. I think it is appropriate. But let me say that it is the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) and individuals such as the gentlewoman, that are saying to the country out there: This is absolutely constitutional. This is not a breach of the freedom of speech. This campaign reform, do not let anybody divert attention by saying it is unconstitutional. It is constitutional. What happens is the gentlewoman then gets out there, saddles this thing on a lot of people, and I frankly believe parts of it are unconstitutional. But until it gets to the Supreme Court, my colleagues are able to squash the constitutional rights on something that you are going across the country, and I say ``you'' generically, that that side that is supporting this, the Democrats are going across the country guaranteeing everybody this is constitutional. They criticize us. Every time that I have said about this bill I think there are some unconstitutional provision, I get criticisms. Why do I dare question the constitutionality? Mr. Chairman, my point is this. If the gentlewoman would criticize me for questioning the constitutionality, then she should back up her product.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I hope that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has the opportunity. Now, let us focus on this other bill and the importance of that issue. It is like going to a car dealership and, frankly, you people want to sell us a car. You say, all right, tell me about the car. It is a great car. What happens once I buy the car and I get out, what if a key part of the car, the motor does not work? Can I bring the car back? Oh, no, no, no. You take the car. If a key part of it, i.e., just like in a bill, if a key part of it is unconstitutional, you still have to take the bill. That is what you are saying to us. I think that the whip brought up a very good point. This is a very complicated piece of legislation. It is very ``intertwined,'' I think was the word that was used by the whip. One part depends upon the other part that depends upon this part. It is just like in the car. The car has lots of parts that depend on that motor, and the motor has lots inside it that depend on the fuel and other parts. So what we are saying is, wait a minute. Either this car is good enough that you are saying to me if it breaks we will give you another car, if the motor goes out. That is what we are asking here. We are saying if our colleagues are so confident about this bill, then if a key part of the bill is found unconstitutional, which all of them deny it is, they are all saying it is very constitutional and this is constitutional to do this, this is constitutional to do that, I say back it up. Support. What we are saying is if it is not, let us bring it back to the drawing board. Bring the car back to the garage. Do not say to the buyer of the car, ``Sorry. The motor broke, but we do not allow that. You are going to have to keep this car.'' We are saying bring it back. That is a pretty logical request to make.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that the gentleman's remarks, if he takes a look at them in the transcript, he will find that they are very broad, not limited specifically to this bill: ``24 years, we have never seen a committee run like this committee.'' Two weeks ago with the budget, they did not do this. I tell my colleague, if the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) were standing right here, the gentleman and I both know the gentleman from New York, he would be red in the face.