Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the statement that the gentleman from Michigan makes. He talks about the spigots of special money flowing. That is a quote from the gentleman from Michigan. The gentleman from Michigan takes 57 percent of his money from political action committees, and most of that political action committee money comes from labor unions. Well, guess what? Some of us kind of agree with the gentleman. Maybe there ought to be an amendment that addresses that union money the gentleman gets and that PAC money he gets. But the gentleman from Michigan, in my opinion, stands in front of all of us and says, hey, what is this open rule? What do you mean, somebody else besides me has amendments? What do you mean, somebody else on this floor may be entitled to their opinion on what this bill should or should not contain? If it is what I agree with, let us have a closed rule. That is the only thing we ought to debate. But the gentleman is telling me that Scott McInnis from Colorado wants to prevent contributions in a swap to ride on Air Force One? Why should Scott McInnis be allowed to offer an amendment on that? I say to the gentleman from Michigan, it is all fine and dandy when the gentleman gets his bill heard, or when he gets his amendment, but I happen to be one of those 270 amendments. In fact, I have several of those 270 amendments, and I think I am as entitled to debate that on this House floor as the gentleman is. I am more than happy, and I am going to put in the Record the amount of money I get. I do not think it is rotten money. I think it is a right to be an American, a right of being an American to contribute to candidates one likes and to contribute against candidates one does not. Now, obviously the key is disclosure, and I do not mind disclosing every Friday afternoon on the Internet who gave money to me. But do not prevent me from being competitive with the Al Checcis of California. If someone does not like who contributes to me, vote ``no,'' but do not take the money like the gentleman from Michigan and then stand up here and say how horrible that money is. Mr. Speaker, 57 percent of that money came from political action committees. And yet the gentleman says, and I repeat it, ``spigots of special money.'' Come on. Let us get a debate here.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, I am a little surprised by the gentleman's remarks on the Committee on Rules. I am on the Committee on Rules, and about 2 hours ago the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) was in front of the Committee on Rules and they were speaking about retirement, and the gentleman certainly did not address the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) with the remarks that the gentleman is now addressing here. Of course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is not here.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman I would just say that I am just amazed, because the gentleman is taking an entirely different approach than the gentleman did just 2 hours ago when he was sitting in front of the Committee on Rules and he was complimentary and the Committee was complimentary of the gentleman. I have great compliments for the gentleman's service. The other point I want to make here, and I heard it today earlier from the gentleman from Michigan, everything is fine with the Committee on Rules as long as it satisfies you personally, but the minute somebody else wants to offer an amendment to debate, all of a sudden this Committee on Rules is the most horrible committee in 24 years. There are 200-and-some amendments. This campaign reform is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has come onto this floor. The Committee on Rules said, wait a second, we think that because there is such a divisive feeling about this, a lot of people ought to be offered the opportunity to offer their amendments. From that side of the aisle, I listened to the gentleman from Michigan earlier today, I listened to you. This is the gentleman's side of the aisle that is always complaining about the Committee on Rules never lets us offer amendments; the Committee on Rules never lets us offer amendments; the Committee on Rules never lets us offer amendments. It is a dictatorship; they just shut it off. So when we offer the amendments, you are down here the next day saying, the Committee on Rules offers too many amendments; the Committee on Rules offers too many amendments. We are never going to make you happy. Let me just say, especially based on the words I heard today, I am just very surprised by the comments of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Kentucky yielding me this time. I can tell you obviously this is tragic. It shocked everybody that has heard about it. I am not one of those kind of people that have a lot of forgiveness in my heart. I cannot forgive them. I tell you, in my opinion, this is an example of death. That is why I support the death penalty. This is inexcusable what those people did. But I also want to point out to our colleagues this is horrible, it has got to stop, but it is not the only thing that has occurred in this last week. In Albuquerque, New Mexico last week, a couple days before this, did not get this kind of attention, we had a policewoman shot and killed. We had a border patrolman shot and killed last week in the State of Texas. In my district, I am in the Four Corners, so actually within a mile or two of my district as well, we had methodically, in four separate incidents, two people, three people, one of them is now dead, shoot methodically four separate police officers. They are still on the loose. The fact is we have some very, and I hate to use the word ``sick'', because I am afraid the defense attorney will pick up my utilization of the word ``sick'' on the congressional floor and have it assist in the defense of insanity or something, but we have some very different individuals out there. In my opinion, the way to stop this, we can have lots of hearings, but until we have punishment that really means something in this country, we are not going to stop these kind of outrageous crimes. I commend the gentlewoman from California for standing up and bringing this resolution forward. Obviously the merits are very substantial. I pass my sympathies on to the family. But I do want to say to all of my colleagues this is not an isolated incident. We do have problems with race out there we have also got to overcome. We also have other problems out there with crime, like shooting cops and some of the other shooting incidents. We need to stand up and stop talking about all this forgiveness and punish these people for what they are doing. That will stop them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, the idea here is not for us to attack each other. That is not my intent. My intent is to, first of all, make sure that those of us speak with a true heart, number one; number two, that we have disclosure. This is a rich man's game, if you let Shays-Meehan go through. If you let this freshman bill go through, it is a rich man's game. The very wealthiest people in this country can play. Well, I am not wealthy. My dad owned a little hardware store. I raised some contributions. I work hard on raising money, because I know in my district I face the odds of having somebody wealthy run against me. I have to have that money. I have to be armed. Do not eliminate the poor man, the working person out there that wants to run for political office. If you are worried about what they are getting in contributions, make them disclose it every Friday. Then if the voters do not like who they receive contributions from, let the voters vote no. Let the voters vote. Some people underestimate the intelligence of the voters out there. Take a look at what happened as a result of disclosure in California to Mr. Checchi. The disclosure showed how many millions and millions and millions of dollars was going into that campaign. What happened, the people rejected it. They did not say he could not use the money. Of course the Supreme Court will protect him using his own money. Even the money contributed, they did not prevent that. In fact, what happened earlier, everybody, before the California reform was, by the way, thrown out because it was unconstitutional, people were concerned, how can anybody ever match Mr. Checchi's money? It is disclosure that brought accountability and disclosure that will work for us. I intend to practice disclosure. If you or I hear people saying about how corrupt it is, how corrupt the people in this House are, how corrupt you are because you have to go out and raise money because you cannot write your own check, we are going to talk about that. Every one of those contributions we are going to talk about. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield). Point of Order

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time to yield. I will not yield. I control the floor.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to stand here and tell the gentleman, I think the key to campaign reform is disclosure. I know the gentleman earlier talked about the Loral situation, which, in my opinion, is a corporation that ought to hold its head in shame for what occurred. But, you know, no campaign brought that out. None of these do-gooder bills, in my opinion, brought that out. What brought it out was disclosure. The newspapers got hold of it. If you want better campaign in this country, require disclosure every Friday, and make us put it on the Internet. If somebody in my district gave me $100,000 and you found out about it on Friday, where do you think it would be in Sunday's newspaper? It would be the headline. It is disclosure. I want to put everybody on this floor on warning, and want to be fair with everybody: Those of you on this floor who stand up, in my opinion, in somewhat of a hypocritical fashion and say, ``Let's ban soft money, let's stop the big money,'' and we heard big money from the previous gentleman, I am going to bring out, I have got your contribution reports here. For example, the gentleman who just talked about big money, and I say this in due respect, he and I had a debate on C-SPAN, but I want full disclosure. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), this is his report. In the last reporting period, $55,000 from PACs, $54,900. Page 1, PACs, 12 of them; page 2, PACs, 12 of them; page 3, PACs, 12 of them; page 4, at least 12 of them; page 5, at least 12 of them; page 6, at least 12 of them. Let us talk about the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), who was the previous speaker. The American Trial Lawyers Association, $10,000; the United Steel Workers Union, $10,000; the Education Union, $10,000; Teamsters Union, $10,000; United Auto Workers, $10,000; Human Rights Campaign, $10,000; Machinists, $10,000; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, $10,000. I just want everybody to be on notice, when you stand up here and talk about the corruption of big money, you had better check your own contribution list. I do not think it is corrupting. I think disclosure saves that. I think disclosure lets the voters make their decision. And if you are going to stand up and act like ``holier than thou,'' I have this book. You can disclose mine, I am not ashamed of any one of them. But I want to make sure the American public as they see this debate know exactly where you got your money. So if you allege this has corrupted it, you have some self-explaining to do.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I control the time, and I will yield if I can get unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes after the gentleman concludes. (By unanimous consent, Mr. McInnis was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Texas, I realize that late nights offend him because he would prefer to be at the golf course. But the fact is the reason the Republicans run these late nights is because we have got a lot of work to do, and the gentleman can participate in that work. Second of all, in regards to the gentleman's comment about my bull elk head, I would be happy to take a promissory note from the gentleman for the amount, because I know he will pay. I know he will not take the bankruptcy for convenience. I kind of assume the gentleman is going to ask me to yield time. I will preempt that and say no, the other side can yield the gentleman time if he would like. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 462 is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, a bill that will improve bankruptcy practices and restore personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. House Resolution 462 provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also waives section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act against consideration of the bill. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. House Resolution 462 provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title and that each title shall be considered as read. The rule also waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule provides that no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the Committee on Rules report. Each amendment may only be offered in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment. The rules also waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report. This rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time after the first of a series of votes, provided that the first vote is not less than 15 minutes. This provision will provide a more definite voting schedule and will help guarantee the timely completion of this important legislation. House Resolution 462 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, we face a bankruptcy crisis in America today in which the needs of the debtor and the rights of the creditor are no longer in any kind of equilibrium. The balance between the debtor and the creditor has been lost and reform is clearly necessary. Basically we are asking that people assume personal responsibility, that they pay their bills when their bills are due, that they not give their word when they do not intend to keep their word. We need to reestablish and preserve the original balance of the bankruptcy code in areas of which it has lost its fairness and modernize the sections of the code which have become outdated. H.R. 3150 achieves these goals. When we consider the need for bankruptcy reform, it strikes me that we should simply look at some of the more startling statistics. The number of bankruptcies has increased more than 400 percent since 1980, more than 400 percent since 1980. This year there are expected to be more than 1.4 million bankruptcies, more than one bankruptcy in every 100 American households. This extraordinary increase comes during a time of economic prosperity, not a period of recession that usually would bring more people into the bankruptcy court. Instead the increase is largely due to bankruptcies of convenience. Let me repeat that, bankruptcies of convenience. We have the healthiest economy we have ever faced in the history of this country, yet our bankruptcies are exploding. Why? Because it is the convenient thing to do. It is the easy street. It is the easy way out. This increase of bankruptcies of convenience is simply a ploy that is used by some people that owe money and their bankruptcy attorneys to avoid paying all or most of their debts, even though they are financially capable and able to do so. Bankruptcy was always intended to be for a person who ran into unintended consequences who could not pay their bills to give them a new chance on life. Now what we have seen is we have seen that overwhelmed by the bankruptcy of convenience. These bankruptcies of convenience, initiated, by the way, from abusers of our bankruptcy laws, are having a very harmful impact on our Nation's competitiveness. The current system is unfair to all people who are fiscally responsible, who are penalized in the form of higher prices, credit card rates, interest rate increases. In other words, the people who do pay their bills have to carry the load for those who do not pay their bills. To reduce these costs, we must end the widespread abuses of the system. This bill is sensitive to the fact that people may lose their job, have a medical crisis or they may come upon hard times, real hard times, realistic hard times, not artificial hard times. However, what we are finding in many cases is that a growing number of people who file for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7 actually have the capability to pay at least some of their debts. In fact, a study by Ernst and Young showed that 15 percent of the people who filed under Chapter 7 could have repaid 64 percent of their unsecured debts. This bill repairs a system that rewards abuse of the system. In other words, the current system rewards one to abuse the system. This bill changes that. This bill makes bankruptcy really applicable to those people that need it and takes it out of the reach of those people who abuse it or use it as convenience. At the heart of these reforms is implementation of a needs-based mechanism that ensures that those debtors who can afford to repay some of their debts simply repay what they can afford to repay. At the same time, H.R. 3150 preserves the right of bankruptcy relief for those in true financial straits by targeting only those who have the ability to repay. Contrary to what we will hear certainly and what I would expect today in the floor debate, this bill provides that none of the reforms will adversely impact the priority treatment accorded to child support claims. That is a critical issue for me. That an important issue for me. In fact, H.R. 3150 incorporated additional safeguards to enhance the existing protections for family support. H.R. 3150 represents another example of this Congress's efforts to encourage individual responsibility. The Republican Party feels that individual responsibility is a basic and fundamental standard that we should all accept. The current system promotes fiscal irresponsibility and gives people a loophole that encourages mismanagement of individual finances. Bankruptcy was designed to serve as a last resort to be utilized only in the most desperate circumstances. That is not what is happening today. In fact, today we see bankruptcy kind of synonymous with the word convenience. We see personal responsibility for some reason not politically correct to talk about. With the changes in this bill, we will renotify people that they do need to be held accountable for their debts that they have accumulated. We will remind them about keeping their word. We will remind them to not go out and spend money that they do not have. Accept personal responsibility. I actually am optimistic that the country is taking a turn, it is going back to the fundamentals of this country, basic responsibility, strong education, et cetera, et cetera. But any formula you look at for the success of this country has to incorporate within its terms personal responsibility. With regard to the consideration of amendments, the Committee on Rules has done its best to accommodate Members who filed amendments with the Committee on Rules. We have been more than fair in permitting six Democrat amendments, five Republican amendments, and one bipartisan amendment. We faced numerous duplicative amendments in the Committee on Rules and we did our best in the Committee on Rules to allow a wide variance of amendments on a number of key issues. In reviewing the amendments provided to the Committee on Rules, we also noted that there are those Members who simply do not wish to see any changes in the bankruptcy laws. We have some Members that want this to continue to be a tool of convenience. We have some Members who for some reason have put personal responsibility aside and use this charade of the current bankruptcy system as the policy that ought to be in place. This rule is a fair rule, Mr. Speaker, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of amendments and the merits of this important bill. 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.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York kind of surprises me. I am listening very carefully to his points about the private sector unfunded mandates. While the gentleman was speaking very artfully, I might add, I was looking up the voting record 2 weeks ago. The gentleman who today, as he said, feels and speaks very strongly against mandates on the private sector voted against, voted against the Mandates Information Act which was the Republican Party majority's way of trying to avoid mandates on the private sector. I guess, as the gentleman said, we are entitled to change our mind. He has changed his mind in the last 2 weeks. Welcome on board. Let us talk about the facts of what we have today; and that is the Congressional Budget Office, which, again, the gentleman very eloquently spoke of, but he did not quite include all of the facts. One of my favorite things I like to listen to is Paul Harvey. He has got a little thing: ``And now for the rest of the story.'' Well, let us talk about the rest of the story. I quote from the CBO study, ``H.R. 3150 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.'' There is a possibility, a remote possibility about some type of unfunded mandate on the private sector out there; but, of course, we could have eliminated even this type of concern a couple of weeks ago with the assistance of the gentleman from New York, which we did not receive. I think that this point of order is not appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman from New York has said, and I will quote him here in just a moment, is the very clear definition of the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The gentleman from New York very ably states the Democratic Party position. That is, they do not have a problem with unfunded mandates on the private sector. The Republican Party has a big problem with unfunded mandates on the private sector. The gentleman should keep that in mind. There is a distinct difference between his side of the aisle and our side of the aisle. We do not think we ought to be putting unfunded mandates on the private sector. I will quote the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and this is him speaking, ``I do not have a problem with unfunded mandates on the private sector.'' I do. I think the people are out there working, trying to make a living. By the way, they fund us. They are the taxpayers. We work for them. For us to continue to go back to the private sector and continue to hammer them and hammer them and hammer them with more taxes, and that is what unfunded mandates are, more taxes and more taxes and more taxes, we are going to break the bank. We are going to break the bank. We have to get off the shoulders of the working people out there. It is a clear distinction between gentleman's party and ours. Now, on the point of order, I realize the gentleman diverted us from the point of order. Let me make it clear that the point of order does not fit the claim that the gentleman was making. I wish the gentleman could have been in attendance at the Committee on Rules last night. We would have been happy to discuss with the gentleman, previous him to coming to the floor and tying us up for an hour or so with this point of order, that while I think the point of order certainly is put forward with good intent, it is not right. It is out of order. It just does not fit. It is not fitting the claim. The gentleman's argument, the puzzle does not come together. Under the rules that we have here, the point of order cannot be sustained, in my opinion, because, and I do not want to say it does not make sense, because that sounds derogatory, and I do not intend to be derogatory to the gentleman from New York, but it certainly falls short of the standards that need to be met. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McINNIS. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the point of order lies against the public sector. I think what is critical here and what the chairman has come down to say from the Committee on Rules, he came out of the Committee on Rules because he saw this on television, that is to reemphasize the difference between this side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, and the gentleman's side of the aisle. That is, we do not buy into this unfunded mandates stuff. I know, and I will approach the gentleman again, this is the gentleman's quote from just a couple of minutes ago, that the gentleman does not have a problem with unfunded mandates on the private sector. Once again, on the Republican side of the aisle, we have a heck of a problem with unfunded mandates on the private sector. As I said earlier, how much more burden can we put on these people? I just came from my office where I met with some people out there that are in small business. Their main discussion is that we continually put it on top of them, we continually hit them with these mandates, more regulations, more rules. It is appalling for me to come over here to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the rest of the story is that the Republicans are not going to buy into unfunded mandates. These people in my office, these are not wealthy people, these are small business people. In fact, several of them were having difficulty coming to Washington, just being able to afford the lodging over here. They talk over and over again about how crushing, how crushing the Federal Government can be to small business with a lot of these kinds of mandates. I realize that we are on the point of order. As I said to the gentleman, with all due respect, I think his point of order, while offered in good intent, does not fit the claim he is making. I think the gentleman then kind of moved the point of order into a discussion on mandates, and the gentleman's position is, he does not mind mandates, Federal mandates on the private sector, unfunded mandates, by the way. Let me explain what the ``unfunded mandate'' means. That means a regulation by the Federal Government, often an order by the Federal Government, on a small businessman, ordering them to perform something, or in an intergovernmental way, it can be intergovernmental, on a State government, ordering them to do something but not paying for it. That should not happen. It should not be. That is why, and it is pretty easy to focus on, and that is why it is not too often, but this morning, anyway, we have been able to draw a clear distinction between the Republican side and the Democratic side. But boy, if there is one this morning, here it is right here, unfunded mandates. We are not going to go into it. We do not support them. This kind of legislation we are talking about, I wish we would have had some of the points that the gentleman made in this kind of debate 2 weeks ago when we had the bill, the Information Act. That would have been a lot of fun to have that kind of debate. Let us wrap it up. The way to wrap it up is really quite simple. Number one, the Republicans will not, contrary to what the gentleman from New York's policy is, we do not support these kinds of unfunded mandates. We do have a big problem with unfunded mandates. As the chairman from the Committee on Rules said, he would be the first one down here pushing this point of order if in fact he felt there was an unfunded mandate on governmental units. Mr. Speaker, the second issue that we should summarize on is, hey, let us stop this unfunded mandate stuff. This point of order is not in order. It should be ruled on by the Chair.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to--