Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I am a little confused as to the order. Points of Order

Mr. McINNIS. I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I make a point of order to that point.

Mr. McINNIS. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McINNIS. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I had the floor. I was on my feet and had the floor.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Edwards), I used to be a police officer, and I never recall ever being asked to respond to a situation where somebody claimed they were forced to use their credit card. My colleagues know there is personal responsibility. Of course people, as we know, when we buy a car we always have people trying to sell us another car, but does that let us say, well, I do not need to pay for the car I originally bought because somebody else wants to sell me an additional car? I mean, it just does not make logical sense. Because of the time restriction, let me go on to a couple other points, and, Mr. Speaker, I control the floor. To the previous remarks made on the amendments submitted, let us talk about the fairness of the Committee on Rules. I think there has been a little misdirection here. We had 39 amendments, 39 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules. The chairman of the Committee on Rules has said repeatedly he wants to make it as fair as possible, but he also has to manage this rule. Of the 39 amendments, 11 Republican amendments, 27 Democratic amendments, 12 amendments were made in order. Now several of the amendments were repetitive. Of the 12 amendments that were made in order, 5 of them were Republican, and by the way the Republicans control the majority of this committee, and 6 of them by the minority of the committee were made in order for the Democrats. In other words the Democrats got one more amendment than the Republicans did, and then one bipartisan amendment was made as well. The other issue that I think is critical is that the gentleman from New York stood up, and frankly I question about some of the whining because I think this has been a very, very fair approach. His statement was that the Democrats had 12 priority amendments and that the Republicans only made one in order. I do not know where he was. I thought he was in the committee. Physically he was at the committee last night, but that is not what occurred in his presence. In his presence what occurred is that the Democrats had 7 priority amendments, and we made 3 of them in order, 3 of them. And let me add again that the Democrats have one more amendment in order on this bill than do the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take it from the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that he associates small business people, which I have a lot in my district, with drug dealers. Is that what the gentleman is saying, because they came and charged in the store for some reason, it is the store merchant's responsibility? It is the small businessman in my district's responsibility if somebody comes in and charges something in their store and does not pay for it? I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), there is a time in this country to accept personal responsibility. If you cannot afford it, do not buy it; and if you do buy it and you cannot afford it, do not blame it on the merchant. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it amazes me to hear the gentlewoman from Texas talk in such a manner as she does. It takes all responsibility away from the person who goes in and purchases the product. My question to the gentlewoman would be, has she ever been the recipient of a bankruptcy? In other words, has she ever been the creditor? I was. When I first got out of school, I had my little business. I had three small children and my wife. My wife and I were struggling. We rendered the service. You know what? The person walked out on us, for a bankruptcy of convenience. So you can give all these sorry stories and sob stories, but, let me tell you, there is the other side of the story. In your statement you need to be there and reflect on the other side of the story. And there is nothing, nothing wrong with personal responsibility in this country. Now, for the second point made by the gentlewoman from Texas about the unfairness of this, how it ought to go back for more hearing. Let me say, I know the gentlewoman, to her credit, comes to the Committee on Rules on a regular basis. This bill has had over 60 witnesses. Every interest group I know has testified either in committee or had opportunities to testify somewhere in the process of this. This is not something that fell out of the sky. There are a lot of people out there that are suffering. There are a lot of people that are suffering, not because they went and bought something they knew they could not afford. There are a lot of people who, on good faith on a person's word, sold them something, and the person did not keep their word. Let me give you an example. Come to my office. I invite the gentlewoman from Texas to my office, room 215, Cannon Building. You will see a bull elk in my office. Do you know where I go got that? I represented a woodsman, and this woodsman owed me about $5,000 personally. I loaned the money. He never paid me. I told him, I said, ``You gave me your word.'' He said, ``I gave you my word.'' I said, ``Are you going to declare bankruptcy?'' He said, ``No, I am going to give you something of value.'' He brought me in this bull elk. He kept his word. The other issue that is critical, and this is nothing but a diversionary tactic, is this child support thing. Let me repeat this very quickly. The President of the California Family Support Council says, ``H.R. 3150 contains a wish list of provisions which substantially enhances our efforts to enforce support obligation during the bankruptcy of a support obligor. It closes many of the loopholes which currently exist in bankruptcy and which greatly hamper our efforts to enforce support,'' speaking of child support, ``debts, when a debtor has other creditors who are also seeking participation in the distribution of the assets of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.'' That letter was sent to the chairman. I would be happy after their turn to yield a couple of minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). I would like the chairman to go into a little more detail about that hearing a couple of minutes from now. Let us address that. I do not want one diluting the importance of this bill by some diversionary tactic by saying, well, this takes away from child support. It does not. The rule is fair. We ought to pass the rule and pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, let me tell him, the golf comment was preceded by a comment from the gentleman from Texas regarding recess period and a few other things. He speaks, on which is pretty typical with his approach, speaks on one hand for the microphone about bipartisanship and cooperation, and I want to help you, and then, on the other hand, spends the rest of his time attacking the Republican leadership and the Republican efforts to, in this particular bill, say, look, it is not wrong in this country to say you have to accept personal responsibility. It is not wrong in this country to say, if you are going to buy something, you have got to pay for it. It is not wrong in this country to say, when you owe somebody money, when you gave them your word, your word that you are going to pay for it, keep your word and pay your bills. It is always this party that feels very strongly when we have somebody that comes up in a hardship case, let us say somebody gets a cancer, they are uninsured, they are down on their luck. I mean, that is what it is designed for. But as is typical, the liberals have taken advantage of it, taken bankruptcy way beyond what its original intents were, and now we have a system of convenience. Look, go ahead, charge everything you want. Take every credit card you want. If you are worried about paying your bills, file bankruptcy. It does not matter. You are not shamed in the community. You do not have to worry about anything. That kind of behavior should not go on. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, first of all, as a suggestion, I think he has got his, with good intent, but I think his facts are wrong. I would suggest that he visit with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on our side, and the gentleman can talk to him about his concern he has got on unfunded mandates. What especially bothers me, though, about the gentleman's comments, he talks about, in his short career up here, about how this bill has been rushed more than any other bill. I am not sure where the gentleman has been. I realize he is busy. Let me tell the gentleman, there have been lots of hearings on this bill. Let me just read it. With regard to H.R. 3150 alone, the subcommittee held four hearings. Over the course of those hearings, more than 60 witnesses representing a broad cross-section of interest and constituents in the bankruptcy committee testified. Nearly every major organization having an interest in reform had an opportunity to participate in these hearings. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) if he would just comment about the comments just made by the gentleman from Massachusetts how this bill was rushed to the floor, no chance for input, and so on and so forth.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be passed and it will be passed, and then we are going to get to have debate, and that debate is all about personal responsibility. No matter how the Democrats want to cut it, the fact is that it is about personal responsibility, about keeping our word, about not buying something if we do not have the money to pay for it. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural vote, Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an explanation of the previous question.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I see that my respected colleague from the State of Texas is next, and since she will be speaking after me, I would like to go through those political contributions. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), 58 percent of her funds come from political action committees: $47,000, industrial unions; $41,000, unions; public sector unions, $34,000; transportation unions, $26,750. Let me get a little more specific. Communications Workers of America, $15,000; Teamsters Union, $13,000; Association of Trial Lawyers, $10,000; American Federation of County Municipal Employees Union, $10,000; United Steel Workers Union, $10,000; Laborer Union, $7,500; Food and Commercial Workers Union, $7,000; IBEW Union, $7,000; National Association of Retired Federal Employees, $7,000; United Auto Workers, $6,500. I think this is very key. This is disclosure. Some people have no objection to that. Actually, I have no objection to it. I think disclosure does it. I just want to be up front where these contributions come from as we listen to the statements throughout this long evening.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Texas, I was interested in the gentlewoman's comments from Michigan and wondered if he had an idea of the political contributions that this particular individual had?

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, because I was attending the funeral services of police officer Dale Claxton, who was shot in his patrol car, I was not present to participate and vote on Wednesday, June 3, 1998. Mr. Speaker, on the morning of Friday, May 29, 1998, Cortez Police Officer Dale Claxton was fatally wounded. Officer Claxton was a cherished and beloved husband, father and member of the community of Cortez, Colorado. He is survived by his wife Susan Claxton and his children Judy Claxton Choate, Caitlin Claxton, Colton Claxton and Corbin Claxton. The tragic and sudden death of Officer Claxton has left a tremendous hole in a community and he will be greatly missed. Additionally, deputies Jason Bishop and Todd Martin of Montezuma County Sheriff's Department were wounded as well. The death of officer Claxton as well as the injuries sustained by deputies Bishop and Martin remind us that every day thousands of brave men and women put their lives on the line providing the thin blue wall between the law abiding citizenry and lawlessness.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask for its immediate consideration. The clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 445 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported from that committee on the legislative day of May 22, 1998, providing for consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, an amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or an amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

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, House Resolution 445 is a simple resolution. The proposed rule merely waives the requirement of clause 4(b) of Rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House for resolutions reported from the committee on May 22, 1998, under certain circumstances. This narrow, short-term, waiver only applies to special rules providing for the consideration or disposition of H.R. 2400, BESTEA, which will authorize funds for the Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, transit programs and for other purposes, amendments thereto, a conference report thereon, or an amendment reported in disagreement from a conference for H.R. 2400. Mr. Speaker, House resolution 445 was reported by the Committee on Rules with voice vote. The Committee recognizes the need for an expedited procedure to bring this important bill forward as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, approval of the conference report to H.R. 2400 will provide desperately needed funds to help rebuild America's roads and bridges. This legislation provides the resources to meet America's infrastructure needs. Simply put, this bill is going to build America, reduce congestion, save lives. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 445. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Chairman, I am sure that all of us are familiar from watching the movie Gunsmoke or some of the other westerns, or if we have ever studied western history, we have heard of something called snake oil. That is just about what is to be sold on this House floor, and it is called snake oil. How does one sell snake soil? First of all, one goes out there and convinces the people, goes into town ahead of time and convinces everybody that they are deathly ill, that the consequences of not buying the snake oil will be devastating to the community as a whole. That is exactly what they are trying to do on this floor. Then, after they have convinced them about these horrible consequences, you ride into town on a white horse and say, I have the snake oil. I have the cure. The solutions are heavenly. Everybody in the community will live happily ever after. Well, what are we doing here on this so-called campaign finance reform? What does it mean? Well, of course, that is all in the eyes of the beholder, but let me go over a few buzzwords we have heard this morning. Just a couple of minutes ago, I heard the good gentleman, a good friend of mine, the gentleman from Arkansas, quoting the scriptures on campaign finance reform. Then we hear the word ``reform;'' now we hear the words ``real reform;'' then we hear about restoring public confidence. They are all buzzwords. Convince them there is an illness out there. Exaggerate the abuse that goes on out there. Talk about corruption. Describe the institution of Congress and what a horrible institution it is. The previous speaker from California talks about buying a seat in the U.S. Congress: Make it corrupt. Make it sick. We have to be able to sell this snake oil. Use the words, ``special interest.'' Of course, we have to use the words ``special interest,'' as if everybody in here does not have a special interest. Mine happens to be water, mine happens to be kids, abused children, mine happens to be the military, a strong defense. I do not deny having a special interest, and none of my colleagues should either. Use the words ``soft money'' over and over and over again. If we are going to convince them of this disease, we better use the word ``soft,'' ``soft,'' ``soft'' like it is the word ``cancer,'' ``cancer,'' ``cancer.'' Talk about the horrors of the two-party system, how horrible, what bad shape this country is in because we have the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Never once look back in history to see that history proves it is the most successful political system in the history of the world. No, no, no, we do not want to look at facts. Do not look at the bottom line, talk about how this empowers individuals. Then, after we have done all this, sell the snake oil. That is about what is going to happen, folks. The average person out there is going to get sold some snake oil because, unfortunately, they are going to believe a lot of what we say. I hope the people listening to me today do something that they should do when the snake oil salesman rolls into town and that is, look at the bottom line. Do not buy it on what you hear, do not buy it on what you see, buy it on what you know to be true.

Mr. McINNIS

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 purpose of debate only. House Resolution 449 is a straightforward resolution. The proposed rule merely waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. This resolution was reported out of the Committee on Rules by a voice vote. Mr. Speaker, the approval of House Resolution 449 will allow us to move forward with the consideration of the conference report to H.R. 2400, the new highway bill entitled the Transportation and Equity Act for the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that will provide desperately needed funds to help rebuild America's roads and bridges. This bill provides the resources to meet America's infrastructure needs. Furthermore, the legislation improves safety on America's highways. For example, the conference report significantly strengthens drunk driving protections, including an increase in funding to help States enact and enforce programs to combat drunk driving. States can strengthen the .08 blood alcohol concentration legal limits, license revocation for repeat offenders, young offenders aged 21-34, and other targeted efforts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 449 and the underlying legislation. 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 449 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) I should point out that I am overly impressed with the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) about worrying about the taxpayer. Also, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) impresses me. I am glad that both of these individuals have come forth on behalf of the taxpayer. Because, in 1997, under the National Taxpayers Union, both of them were rated with F's as big spenders. But, apparently, in the last couple hours we had have had a conversion. I am pleased to see it. I am impressed. I am excited about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to congratulate the chairman. He has done a heck of a job. He ought to be very pleased with those numbers that have just come out of the United States Senate and the announcement from the White House. Congratulations. 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. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.