John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment merely makes a technical correction in the last line of the report from the Committee on Rules that erroneously, by a typo, has put a $5 billion figure in there. It was meant to be $5 million. I tried to move this by unanimous consent, and it was objected to. The amendment further protects the language in the bill from a point of order that allows the FHA loan ceiling to go up.

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

Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 501 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 501 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4194, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The rule also includes a customary waiver of section 306 of the Budget Act relating to the prohibition on including matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget in a measure not reported by it. H. Res. 501 provides for one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. This amendment, offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) will require studies on issues related to flame resistant standards and fire-related deaths. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI, except as specified in the rule. The rule also makes in order the amendment printed in the Congressional Record numbered 12 which may be offered only by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes 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 division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment. The rule also accords priority in 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 any first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. These provisions will facilitate consideration of amendments and guarantee the timely completion of the appropriation bills. House Resolution 501 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 501 is an open rule providing Members with every opportunity to amend this appropriations bill. As I stated earlier, the Committee on Rules has made in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) consisting of the text of H.R. 2, the United States Housing Act, which passed the House by an overwhelming 293 to 132 vote last year. This bill will reform failing public housing authorities, impose professional management standards on projects receiving Federal money, and impose a rational housing policy reforms. While this legislation passed the House last year, we have allowed it to be offered on this bill because it is necessary to advance this important housing reform legislation before the end of the legislative session. H.R. 4194 appropriates a total of $70.89 billion for fiscal 1999. I want to mention a number of important provisions in this bill. First, as I mentioned, the House will have the opportunity to consider a comprehensive housing reform amendment. However, in addition to these critical reforms, the appropriations bill amply funds housing programs for the Nation's elderly and the disabled, homeless assistance grants, Native American housing, the HOME program, and increases funding for severely distressed housing. Regarding appropriations for our veterans, this country has a commitment to our men and women in uniform and we, as Americans, owe these dedicated men and women a debt of gratitude. Under this bill, medical care for our Nation's veterans is funded at $17.1 billion, an increase of $39 million over the President's request, and veterans medical research is funded at $310 million, $10 million over the President's request. Overall, the Department of Veterans Affairs discretionary programs are funded at $19 billion, $168 million above the President's request. Finally, H.R. 4194 also continues this Congress' efforts to protect America's environmental resources. This bill provides needed funds for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, Clean Water State Revolving Funds, State Air Grants, and a number of programs that will ensure clean water for our citizens. We do not often get credit for our efforts on environmental protection, but this bill is yet another example of the strong environmental protection efforts we have made. The Committee on Appropriations has balanced a wide array of interests and has ensured that all funding is spent efficiently and where it is needed most. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for the bipartisan manner in which they constructed this appropriations bill. H.R. 4194 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 that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the merits of this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Smith), who is going to speak against the rule.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will agree to withdraw any amendments that I was going to propose.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I have the good fortune of not having any amendments.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we are allowing nongermane amendments because many Democrats, as well as Republicans, asked for their amendments to be made in order.

Mr. LINDER. Is the gentleman seeking a response?

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment to point out that the gentleman who just spoke is supporting all kinds of campaign finance reform except that which would include regulating labor union contributions from whom he received $427,000 in the last campaign cycle. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This entire debate defies credulity. We have Members releasing press releases in March castigating the Republican majority for closing the rule on debate, and then getting a totally open rule and standing up here opposing the rule because it is too open and allows too many people to make too many amendments. We had the gentleman from Texas talking about concocting a procedure. Concocting a procedure. This is an open rule. This just says that anyone who has an amendment may be allowed to offer it. This debate begins with the gentleman from Michigan, the minority whip, saying the money spigots are open. The money spigots are open and will remain open under every one of these proposals being debated, because none of them touches the money that unions spend on elections, 99 percent of which goes to Democrats. A Rutgers University study in the last cycle said that the labor unions spent between $300 and $500 million on politics. That is more money than is spent by the Republican and Democrat parties combined. But they do not want to touch it. That is money that is forcibly taken from the members and spent on candidates that the members may not support. They do not want to change that. That is money that is not even recorded or reported. They do not want to change that. No, they want to stop money from legal companies or corporations where their shareholders can sell their stock if they do not like what the corporation does. The union member has trouble leaving the union and getting a job. No, those money spigots will remain open because none of these bills touches labor union monies, because that all goes to Democrats. We then heard from the gentlewoman from Connecticut who wanted to discuss the tobacco issue. I hope she did not embarrass the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), because he took $16,000 in tobacco money in the last several years. But at least he took legal tobacco money from legal American corporations. It appears that the only tobacco money that the gentlewoman from Connecticut appreciates is illegal tobacco money from China, because we know that Ted Sieong, the largest distributor of Chinese cigarettes, or of cigarettes, Red Pagoda, gave huge sums, hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the Democrat party, to the Presidential campaign. And when we seek to ask him about it, to see if current laws are being violated, if there is current breaking of current laws, the Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight march in lockstep, 19 of them, to say, no, we do not want this testimony, we do not want the American people to hear, we do not want any of these people investigated. We now have 94 people who are under suspicion for illegal activities in campaign fund-raising and campaign contributions who have either left the country, taken the Fifth Amendment, or refused to testify. And when the committee sought to subpoena them, those 19 Democrats marched in lockstep to say, no, we will not allow their testimony to be heard, we will not allow the American people to understand what laws have already been broken. We know what laws were broken. The gentleman from Texas said that the White House has not admitted to breaking any laws. The White House does not admit to anything. The fact of the matter is this White House has been accused of a lot of things, and at no point did they say they did not do it. They said it has not been proven. They said they have not been charged, there is no evidence, but they do not deny. And the President himself said on tape, we found a loophole. We used, yes, this bad soft money that they want to abolish. The President used it. And he put it on the air. And he, according to his words, improved his standing in the polls using large sums of soft money illegally. When the President, when the Presidential candidates take $70 million from the taxpayers, they also are bound by the Federal laws not to spend a penny more. That is precisely what happened with Bob Dole. This President spent that, and what he admits to is $44 million more. No, he has not admitted to doing wrong in front of the public, only on a tape. Only on a videotape. There is a problem with our campaign finance laws. We have two systems, a Presidential system, where they get $70 million from the taxpayers, report all their spending and spend no more; and we have the congressional system, where we report everything. The Presidential system is one that was broken, and that is not the one being addressed here today. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and support this rule to get on with the debate.