John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette]. The question is on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 263 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, in brief, the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 provides vital transportation resources that will ensure a strong infrastructure for the United States and contains significant safety and security protections for American families across the Nation. The conferees have provided $9.07 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration and assured the necessary funding to ensure aviation safety and security, enhance the capacity of the aviation system, improve weather forecasting systems, and provide automatic alerting systems to prevent runway collisions. These are provisions that are vital to provide the effective services and protection that the American public deserves. Mr. Speaker, the conference report also provides $333.5 million to reduce fatalities on the Nation's roadways, $3.9 billion for the Coast Guard, and $354.1 million for the Coast Guard's drug interdiction program, $1.7 billion for the airport improvement program, and highway spending that is consistent with levels assumed in the bipartisan budget agreement. Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the subcommittee chairman, for providing no special highway demonstration projects and for cutting unnecessary administrative expenses that will help ensure that America's transportation and safety needs are met as we enter the 21st century. In closing, I commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member, for their productive work in crafting this conference report. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the merits of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the 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 261 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The conference report for the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 appropriates a total of $68.5 billion for fiscal year 1998, which is $1 billion below the President's request level. As I mentioned in this House VA-HUD bill debate in July, this legislation continues to meet our obligations to our veterans. The conference report provides $18.9 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs' discretionary programs, $17 billion for veterans' medical care, and $272 million for veterans' medical research, including $12.5 million for research related to Persian Gulf war illness. We owe a special debt of gratitude to all our veterans, and these appropriations are notable increases above the amounts the President requested. I am also pleased that scientific research and our space program have been amply funded in this bill. We just marked the 40th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, and with that in mind, I am pleased that the conferees have committed the United States toward a significant presence in space. The conferees have provided $2.9 billion for the Space Shuttle Program, $2.35 billion for the International Space Station, and $13.6 billion for NASA, which is $148 million more than the President requested. I have one last point on the subject of science. I think it is very important to point out that this bill provides $631 million for science and technology research at the Environmental Protection Agency, including $49.6 million for particulate matter and ozone research. As proposed regulations are formulated by the EPA, it strikes me that it is high time we base these decisions on information from scientists calculated with scientific analysis. EPA scientific research funding in this bill, especially funding directed for particulate matter and ozone research, is absolutely necessary at a time when the American people and American businesses face the prospect of additional regulations concocted without a shred of scientific inspection. I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Jerry Lewis] and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Louis Stokes] for the bipartisan manner in which they produced this conference report. It does not appear that there were any major complications during the conference with the Senate, and I am certain their good relationship helped to assure this very productive conference. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the merits of this very important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. 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. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the single largest special interest in the last election were the labor unions which spent, according to a Rutgers University study, between $300 and $500 million in campaigns, 100 percent of it against Republicans, and of the 84 or 85 proposals being proposed or offered as bills, not a single one from the Democrat side proposes dealing with that expenditure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the Chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are here ignoring the purpose of this rule, military construction, and debating campaign finance. It should be pointed out that we are in this fix because the Democrats passed comprehensive reform in 1975, after Watergate, and the adherence to the rules they cannot abide by, and now they want to fix it. The previous speaker said his party has passed comprehensive reform on many occasions since 1989. They have, reform that they are very happy with because it does not deal with off-record spending by labor unions, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, but only those monies raised and spent by candidates. The gentleman from California only deals with soft money. He does not care about all the rest of it, he has to fix soft money. The fact of the matter is we have good laws on the books that have been broken, and rather than admit that the laws that they broke should put people in trouble with the Justice Department, they want to change the system. This is not new. I have raised two kids through their adolescent and teenage years who are now adults. I have seen people get caught, young children get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and blame the cookie jar. This is blame the system and change the subject. I have not heard much lately from the Vice President regarding campaign reform. That is perhaps because he has so abused the laws currently on the books. We now see, according to Time Magazine, that his former chief adviser, Mr. Peter Knight, is under investigation by the Justice Department because of his multilayered connections to a Massachusetts manufacturer. They won $33 million in Federal contracts and regulatory breaks from this administration, while the firm and its officers raised or gave a total of $132,000 for the President and his party in the last election. It goes on to say that Mr. Knight is the epitome of a new generation of money men in both parties whose works does not end with the election, it really just begins. This is the influence peddling. It has nothing to do with money raised or spent legally by Members of Congress or the Senate for election. This is influence peddling, and there are laws on the books currently against that. It was brought up earlier that the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] has admitted to raising illegal foreign contributions and is accepting his punishment. It was further brought up that a gentleman raised money for Senator Bob Dole's presidential campaign and spent time in jail. Both are true. The Justice Department worked fast, swift, and sure against Republicans. But what has it done against Charlie Trie or John Huang or the lady from Thailand, whose last name escapes me? It has not even begun hearing them. The gentleman who helped Senator Bob Dole's Presidential campaign was in jail before. John Huang has not even been questioned. If the Justice Department worked as meticulously and as quick in the questions of Democratic abuse as it does Republican abuse, we would not be having this discussion. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as non-germane to this rule. So the vote is without substance. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive or policy implication whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record, I insert an explanation to the previous question. [From the House Rules Committee] The Previous Question Vote: What It Means The previous question is a motion made in order under House Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A Member might think about ordering the previous question in terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote on the bill or amendment before it? In order to amend a rule (other than by using those procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against ordering the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the Floor over to the Minority party. If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor then moves the previous question on the amendment and the rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as amended. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair whether it is within the Rules of the House to refer to Members in the other body.

Mr. LINDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 228 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The conference report for H.R. 2016, the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, shall be considered as read. The House rules provide for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, this conference report appropriates a total of $9.2 billion, which is $600 million less than was appropriated last year. It is important to note, however, this amount is $800 million more than the amount requested by the President. We know that much of this Nation's military housing and on-base housing have deteriorated to substandard conditions, unsuitable for the men and women who serve our Nation. While our Armed Forces deserve the very best we can provide, the current facilities assure that we will not be able to retain the best and brightest in our military. This bill addresses the need to improve the quality of life of our military and their families. Specifically, the bill provides $3.9 billion for family housing, including funding for new housing and improvements. Regarding improvements in the quality of life that I mentioned earlier, H.R. 216 provides $32 million for child development centers, $163 million for medical facilities, and $3 billion for the operation and maintenance of existing family housing units. It is also important to note that the conference report appropriates $857 million for environmental cleanup and $104 million for environmental compliance. I hope that we can pass this bill quickly so that there is no delay in cleaning up contaminated sites on our military bases. This bill achieves our goal of spending taxpayer money more efficiently and where it is needed most. Notwithstanding the constraints we now face after decades of fiscal irresponsibility, H.R. 2016 effectively funds programs that will provide child day care centers and improved hospital facilities. These appropriations guarantee the health and safety of the families and children of our service men and women. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking minority member, for their continued bipartisanship. These two men and their committee understand that this is an important bill for the men and women who defend our country. I urge the House to pass this rule without delay so that we may proceed with the consideration of a conference report that will improve the quality of life, housing, and medical services of our Armed Forces, their families and their children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 228 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to yield myself 1 minute to point out to the gentleman from Rhode Island that rules of the House require that he address his comments either to the Chair or the House, not to the gallery; and, No. 2, his argument that the top 4 percent gets 60 percent of the benefits, or whatever, only is true if we use phony numbers to define who is wealthy; and, No. 3, I am curious to know when he referred to the former member from Oregon, the former gentleman from Oregon, whether it was formerly a gentleman or formerly from Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his comments with respect to his comments on the Pell grants and funding for education. We are going to, without reducing any of the amounts of the numbers of students available for them, save $1.7 billion in improving the way they are administered, and that is a real savings that governments ought to look to. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad]. (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)