Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of inconsistent comment this evening relative to just three legislative days ago, as our friends across the aisle said, actually it was a little more than that, because it was on the calendar a couple of weeks ago when we tried to come up with a rule to protect the Lowey amendment, do the things they asked, and lo and behold, 135 Democrats took a hike on us and did not support the bill. We listened to them before, we tried to work it out in a deliberative and I think nonpartisan way, and we did not get their support. So now we are trying to do our job faithfully, and we have come back for what is one of the important appropriations bills, and we have tried to craft a way to let the deliberative body work its will. There has been some mischaracterization, if not misrepresentation, of the fact that the sky is going to fall automatically if we pass this rule. That is not the case. If somebody, some Member, wishes to get up and strike on a point of order, that is a privilege. That happens to be a House rule. If somebody says that is unfair, what they are really saying is the House rules are unfair. If Members are saying that the rules that have served this House so well for so long are unfair, then come on up to the Committee on Rules and let us talk about changing them, and why Members think they are unfair. But that is not something that is done lightly. So I think there has been a series of mischaracterizations going on, as I have listened to the concern about the people who have failed to get the authorizations of measures that they want enacted. We all know that we are not supposed to do a lot of authorization on appropriations bills. The failure of the authorizations process to get the work done now has been picked up by the appropriators, trying to pick up what pieces they could to do a good faith job, and the Committee on Rules tried to do a good faith job to bring a rule forward that would get enough votes to pass so we could have a debate. That went down by a big number. That went down 291 to 125 three legislative days ago, so I remind Members of that. Now we are coming back with a different one and saying okay, let the body work its will in a different way. We will have what is basically an open rule. Now, open rules used to be something we spoke of around here with a certain degree of reverence, that that is something we all strive to achieve is the open rule. I know the number of times that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), when he was Chairman Moakley of the Committee on Rules, we brought him to task because he did not have enough open rules. I know his colleagues on the other side regularly tried to do that to Chairman Solomon and the rest of us in the majority. We understand that. But we do strive for open rules and we do it in a good-natured way. The only thing that is different is that we did protect the issue of the pay raise, so if Members are trying to shoot this rule down, they are basically saying, let us get the pay raise back on the floor. At least some will characterize it that way. I think there is much more at stake than the pay raise issue obviously. We had the contraception question. We have had the question of Y2K. On the contraception question, again, we had our chance, 135 Members on the other side voted against the Lowey provision apparently because it was protected in that rule. We had the Y2K. It surprises me a little bit that we are talking about Y2K as an emergency. It is not an emergency to those of us who understand the consequences of Y2K. We have been for some time trying to encourage the Clinton administration to get a grip on the fact that the calendar is real, that the year 2000 is coming and that we do have a problem. Most people in the world know that the year 2000 is on the calendar, and they have a fairly approximate idea of when it is coming. Even if one does not know much about the computer problem, one can at least understand the calendar. We have not done well with the Clinton administration. Some agencies are ahead of others. Again, I will join with my colleague who congratulated the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for the work he has done trying to bring attention to that and trying to stimulate some interest in the administration to get that job done. The debate about whether or not is it an emergency payment or not an emergency payment, therefore, if it is an emergency, we all know we do not have to figure out a way to pay for it. If it is not an emergency, then we have to figure out a way to pay for it. It is a little extra harder because we have to actually designate the money from some revenue source. So I would say that that is a secondary debate to the debate that Y2K is very serious. We all agree on that. We are not going to put off the solution because we cannot decide whether to pay for it from here and designate what the source of payment is going to be. I think that is a bit of a red herring before us. I think what is, frankly, out here is this, that the authorizers did not get that their job done. The appropriators tried to pick it up. The Committee on Rules has tried to work with everybody. Apparently it has not happened. The next step is, we can go the other route and say, fine. We can bring a rule out here with no protection at all on it and let it go to the floor. I would urge all those listening to understand that this is a good faith effort to try and bring forth some kind of a workable rule to get this legislative appropriations bill on the floor. It is a legislative appropriations bill, because it is about 80 percent legislation. We know that. It is way overburdened. That is wrong, but that is what we are presented with. We are presented with a schedule. We are presented with a calendar of our own. We are presented with a budget we have to deal with. So if the question is, shall we go forward and deal with the business of getting these agencies funded, the answer is yes. Vote for the rule. Yes, vote for the previous question. Voting no on the previous question, throwing this thing into a controversy which is sure to destine it to another defeat, another round of this, is not going to get this appropriations bill passed. Some of those Members who live in the area and represent workers in the area have a great concern, naturally, doing good jobs of representing their districts, and the people in their districts are going to be very, very concerned, if this thing goes down a couple of more times because we cannot get it together. I can guarantee Members that the provision that has been suggested with regard to the motion on the previous question on Members pay and the Lowey amendment and Y2K will appeal to some Members but it will not appeal to enough because we did that. We already did that a couple of days ago, three legislative days ago. We did some other things as well. But you will not be allowed to bring a rule forth that will get necessary majority support with just those provisions. It is not going to happen. The final point I would make on this is, there is not going to be a better offer right now than voting yes on the previous question and voting yes on the rule to get this piece of legislation on the floor. If we do not pass it, it goes home. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following: 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. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. While it is a closed rule, I think that it is an appropriate one, given the very narrow, significant scope of this bill. The family is the building block of every community in this Nation. Not only is this a recognized principle in our culture, but something we have actively encouraged by enacting laws promoting more family involvement in education decisions, stronger child support enforcement, and special tax benefits for families. We recognize the rights of parental notification and consent when a child gets a tattoo, or a body piercing, or even takes an aspirin at school. How can we tell moms and dads across the country they have no right to know if a perfect stranger takes their daughter miles away from home, to another State, to have a life altering medical procedure without their knowledge. Today, we seek to ensure that basic right is not emasculated. Opponents of the Child Custody Protection Act want to turn this into a debate about abortion. This is not about abortion. It's about family, parental support and parental responsibility and about children growing up in a society of confusing mixed messages. States have the right to pass consent or notification laws for minors, yet these laws become meaningless when a young girl is assisted taking a trip to another State to avoid the difficult task of counseling with her parents about an unplanned pregnancy. I urge all of my colleagues to think about the natural role of a parent, the importance of States' rights and, most importantly, the well-being of the children--at risk in these situations. I think these justify a closed rule and I urge support for the rule and H.R. 3682.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Pursuant to House Resolution 491, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 297) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the subcommittee, who is going to perform on this and I hope to tell us the merits of this legislation.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the ranking member has indeed made a point of view about the urgency of the need for dealing with the Y2K problem. In my opening remarks, I stated that we indeed have plans to provide dollars to deal with those issues despite the fact that the administration seems to have overlooked this matter. So I guess I would simply say that the lack of planning on the part of the administration should not precipitate a crisis on the majority side of the House, or in the House at all, and it will not. We have an orderly and fiscally responsible way to proceed to deal with Y2K, and I would daresay our track record on Y2K is a whole lot better than the administration's so far, and I think that that has been carefully articulated and accurately articulated by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules reading from the administration's statement, and from the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee who is the coauthor of this legislation. So it seems to me that we all agree that there is a need to deal with a problem that the administration has overlooked and we have indeed said that we are going to do it in a thoughtful, orderly and responsible way; and, therefore, there is no reason at all to vote against the rule. There is, however, a problem. But the dime is not the problem. Getting off the dime is the problem. Those who would like to help the majority on this side might like to communicate with the White House about getting off the dime and helping us deal with Y2K, because indeed it is a serious problem. Behind all of the Y2K issue which has come up, we know that there is a very serious, necessary piece of legislation for this body, and that is appropriating sufficient funds for the defense of our Nation and our national security, and that includes our intelligence capabilities as well. This bill, I believe, does that well. I believe the rule is certainly an appropriate rule for the circumstances that we have that deal with the issue. I think that all parties have understood that we have a plan to deal with the money issue for the Y2K on a governmentwide basis that will solve not only the problem for the Defense Department but for those other computers that run those elevators and airplanes and other things that have been talked about. All of this having been said, I believe that the right statement, that we cannot wait, is correct. We cannot wait. We should pass this rule right now, and get on with the debate, and then pass the defense appropriations bill. Therefore, I urge support for the rule.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 484 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Greater San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the allowances of time might be for both sides.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to concede that it is clear that the majority is a lot better at responsibility than it is at rhetoric. For that reason we are taking a fiscally responsive approach to this matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, to demonstrate that point.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only on this subject. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 484 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4103, the FY99 defense appropriations bill. The rule 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, clause 7 of rule XXI requiring printed hearings and reports to be available for 3 days prior to consideration of a general appropriations bill, and section 306 of the Budget Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless reported by that committee. This pertains to scoring provisions which have in the past been carried by the DOD bill, and which have been signed off on by the Committee on the Budget. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker, this is an important appropriations bill. This is a somewhat complicated rule. I am trying to explain it. I would appreciate the Members' attention. The amendments about which I expect we will have significant debate throughout this hour, based on our conversations yesterday in the Committee on Rules, pertain to two distinct issues. The first is an amendment brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, addressing a deplorable circumstance involving the sale by a contracting firm of the congressional Medal of Honor. We applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for taking this on, and I note there is no disagreement with self-executing this provision into the legislation to take care of this matter. The second issue addressed through this provision of the rule pertains to the year 2000 issue. The shorthand is Y2K. Members should get used to it, we are going to hear it a lot, the matter of preparing the Defense Department's computer systems to deal with the so-called millennium bug, which will occur as the year 2000 begins. Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Steve Horn) of the committee on Government Reform and Oversight has for some time, in fact, quite some time, been pushing the entire executive branch to become more aggressive in preparing for this problem, the Y2K problem. The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) recently issued a report card on the progress being made by Federal agencies, a report card full of Cs and Fs that would cause any parent real alarm if it were brought home from school by their child. The fact is that the administration has been woefully, if not negligently, slow in coming to grips with this Y2K problem. It has consistently underestimated the needs of all agencies in ensuring that mission critical computer systems across the board do not fail come January 1, 2000, and particularly those systems upon which our national security depends. The truth is, no one can credibly say that they did not see this problem coming. Most of us have known for some time that the year 2000 will begin and that our computer-oriented society needs to prepare for the change. In fact, some of us have repeatedly engaged the administration on this issue as it applies to the intelligence field. Likewise, the defense appropriators, frustrated by the fact that there were no additional funds requested for the DOD's FY99 budget to meet the Y2K need, sought to force the administration to face facts by including additional monies in this spending bill for the Y2K fix. However, because the administration adopted what could be described as a head-in-the-sand approach to this problem and abdicated its responsibility to identify the true need and target a source for the necessary funds, the money as of now does not have an offset. In other words, there is a problem and no money to fix it. While I strongly support efforts to boost the intensity with which we tackle the Y2K problem, I do not believe that poor planning and a lack of willingness on the part of the administration to face this problem head on should justify our abdication or any abdication of the principles of fiscal discipline. For that reason, I have opposed using an emergency declaration in this bill to bail the administration out of the mess it has created. Therefore, what we are doing in this rule is striking that emergency declaration, with the knowledge that we fully intend to come back in the coming weeks with a separate bill, hopefully one that is paid for, to address the Y2K problem government-wide. In addition to self-executing out this emergency provision for Y2K, the rule also removes the emergency designation for the $20 million allocation in the bill relating to the tragic cable car incident in Italy, leaving the funds intact and fully offset from the Navy operations and maintenance account. Mr. Speaker, the rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill 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. This is not unusual for an appropriations bill. The rule provides priority in recognition for those amendments that have been previously printed in the Congressional Record, and it provides that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment, and may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, providing that the voting time on the first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Nothing new there. The one provision of this rule that makes it a modified open rule, rather than a fully open rule, is that one which limits debate under the 5-minute rule on amendments to section 8106 of the bill to 1 hour. This debate centers on the highly controversial substantive issue of the War Powers Act, a matter of critical importance to all Members, but also one with the potential to become bogged down in extended debate. If memory serves me right, the author of this amendment agreed that an hour would be sufficient. In the interest of ensuring that the underlying appropriations bill is not unnecessarily sidetracked, we have acceded to the request of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to limit debate on this one matter. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the traditional motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would like to briefly extend my thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for their efforts to rebuild our Nation's defense capabilities, including particularly the critical needs of the intelligence community. The headlines in recent days and weeks have been full of instances where the eyes, ears, and brains of our intelligence capabilities have come under sharp focus. The truth is that we need good, timely, and well-analyzed intelligence now more than ever for our decision-makers as we grapple with the 21st century and the host of new threats and uncertainties confronting our national security, to say nothing of the technology we now face. Now is not the time to become complacent and let down our guard. Good intelligence requires a long-term, steady commitment of attention, oversight and resources. The lesson we keep learning when something goes wrong in this arena is that we need to rebuild our capabilities to produce better and more focused intelligence, not further cut back on the tools in the tool box we make available to our policymakers. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and for the underlying bill. [From the Washington Post, May 21, 1998] For Gore, Low Profile on a High-Tech Headache (By Stephen Barr and Rajiv Chandrasekaban) When it's time to talk technology, Vice President Gore never seems to be at a loss for words. Wiring schools to the Internet. Celebrating the virtues of electronic mail. Using computers to streamline government. But when it comes to the Year 2000 computer glitch, arguably the nation's most pressing technological problem, Gore has been strikingly silent. There have been no public speeches, no ``town hall'' meetings, no photo ops with programmers. For Gore, that may be because the Year 2000 glitch isn't just a technological worry, it's also a political one that could be potentially damaging to him, political analysts say. Industry experts contend that the federal government has been slow to address the issue, raising worries that crucial computer systems--from those that control airplane traffic to ones that process payments to schools, farmers and veterans-- could grind to a halt on Jan. 1 2000. That's right when Gore might find himself campaigning across Iowa and New Hampshire, seeking the Democrat presidential nomination. ``It's very much a factor in his positioning for the 2000 race,'' suggested Andrew L. Shapiro, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. ``Al doesn't want it to be Al's mess.'' Gore spokesman Lawrence Haas said the vice president receives regular briefings on the government's progress in fixing Year 2000 computer problems, Haas personally directed the Cabinet to make the fixes a high priority and has spoken about the potential crisis to the President's Management Council, a group of senior political appointees. ``He is not avoiding the issue,'' Haas said. Asked to point out speeches in which Gore has talked about the so-called millennium bug, Haas could not identify one. The Year 2000 problem stems from the fact that many computer systems use a two-digit dating system that assumes that 1 and 9 are the first two digits of the year. Without specialized reprogramming, the systems will recognize ``00'' not as 2000 but 1900, a glitch that could cause computers to either stop working or start generating erroneous data. Virtually every Cabinet department and federal agency promises it will have fixed and tested its computer systems and links before the 2000 deadline, but any significant airline delay, power outage or telecommunications breakdown could give Gore's political opponents an opening to question his credibility or mock his efforts to ``reinvent'' government. Republicans, in particular, appear ready to try to pin any problem on him. In a recent memo to ``members of Congress and conservative leaders'' on the Year 2000 problem, would be GOP presidential contender Steve Forbes recently asked, ``What has the administration's technology point may, Vice President Al Gore, been doing for the past five years?'' Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif.), a House Government Reform subcommittee chairman who has held hearings on the Year 2000 problem since April 1996, said, ``All of us have wondered where he is, since he is supposed to be the expert on all the good things in the 21st century--telecommunications, computers, technology.'' Administration officials noted that President Clinton created a special White House council in February to lead the government's effort to prevent widespread computer problems in 2000 and said Gore was personally involved in recruiting John A. Koskinen, who has specialized in crisis management, to lead the council. The vice president, Koskinen said, has ``provided the support and leadership that we need at this stage. It doesn't do us a lot of good just to have people talking. My sense is to try to figure out the points of leverage, what are the issues that need to be raised and at what time.'' Greg Simon, Gore's former chief domestic policy adviser and now a technology policy consultant in Washington, said public speeches by the vice president could ``give out the impression that he's promising to fix everyone's [Year 2000] problem. ``It's more effective for him to work behind the scenes,'' Simon said. Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), who called on the White House last year to designate a Year 2000 czar, said she hopes Koskinen can spur the government to work faster on computer fixes. Like some other lawmakers, she said the White House has not used its bully pulpit enough to educate the public about possible economic consequences or inconveniences. ``Ignoring this problem is a bigger risk than addressing it,'' Morella said. Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), who heads a special Senate committee and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stephens (R-Alaska) recently called for $2.25 billion to be set aside to deal with the computer fix. White House officials said Clinton is doing his part too. The president is planning an address on the issue in the next month or so, aides said. Clinton raised the Year 2000 problem with Latin American leaders at their summit and worked with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to ensure that the communique issued at the end of the recent meeting of the Group of Eight major industrialized nations called attention to the computer challenge. Asked about the Year 2000 problem at a Rose Garden event earlier this week, Clinton said the government plans to share information with other countries ``and do everything we can do to make sure that when the new millennium starts, it's a happy event and not a cyberspace headache.'' Gore is taking the issue seriously, Haas said. ``The other party has been quite open about its political strategy of tying any problems that occur specifically to the vice president,'' he said. On the Year 2000 computer front, Haas said, ``We have the right people in place, we have the right process in place and we do not expect major problems.''

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by way of introduction, I want to read a quote from the National Journal. And I am quoting. It may possibly be of interest to some of our guests in the room. ``Gore has said virtually nothing about it. Indeed, he has rejected pleas by industry leaders and legislators to play a larger role.'' We are talking about year 2000 here. ``Back in January, Morella buttonholed Gore at a White House photo op and urged him to lead the Nation's repair effort, but Gore balked, saying it would take too much of his time, Morella recounted. And then, according to Morella, he paused and said `Maybe you should do it.' '' Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern about the level of funding in the bill for the Everglades restoration, to get right to the point. Specifically, I am concerned about the level of funding for the Kissimmee River Restoration Project, the Central and Southern Florida Project, as well as funding provided for the Everglades Critical Projects. Clearly, the committee has done a very judicious job of balancing the competing interests in a very difficult bill. It goes without saying that the committee's task was not made any easier by the Clinton administration's irresponsible, if not reckless, budget request, which essentially gutted all funds for beach renourishment work by the Corps. As the Committee sought to restore these devastating cuts, it had a lot of devastating choices to make, I know. Unfortunately, that has resulted in fewer funds available for the Corps and its responsibilities when it comes to the Everglades. Earlier today I received an analysis prepared by the Jacksonville District of the Army Corps which estimates that the progress on all of these projects, the Kissimmee River restoration, the Central and Southern Florida Project, and the Everglades Critical Projects, would be significantly delayed if these funding levels were enacted. Mr. Chairman, suffice it to say that the Federal Government has made a significant commitment to the restoration of the Everglades, a vital national treasure. As the energy and water bill moves to conference, I would request the committee review the analysis prepared by the Jacksonville District of the Corps. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations again for their hard work, and look forward to moving forward on this issue. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) has been a great friend of Florida, a Member of Congress who is, I think, outstanding. He has been a mentor of mine. He has served his district and our country faithfully, professionally, successfully, with integrity, and for a long time. I think we would say just about the same thing for the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), except it was California, in his case. I am proud to know these Members, and I hope they can help us with the Everglades. Mr. Chairman, I include this Corps analysis for the Record.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary service and sacrifice for this Nation of two officers of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Richard G. Fecteau and Mr. John T. Downey. On June 25, 1998, George Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, will present the Director's Medal to Dick Fecteau and Jack Downey for reasons that, to some extent, I am able to describe in this forum today. Except for their kind indulgence in allowing me to commemorate this event on the floor of the House, Dick Fecteau and Jack Downey will receive their awards as privately and as quietly as they served, and sacrificed for, our country. In 1951, fresh from college, Dick Fecteau and Jack Downey joined the clandestine service of the Central Intelligence Agency. After a period of training, they were sent to east Asia to conduct agent re-supply and pick-up operations over China as part of our war effort in Korea. In such operations, Mr. Fecteau and Mr. Downey were to drop supplies and to retrieve agents for debriefing by flying in low, among the trees, and literally snatching agents from the ground. These operations are extremely difficult and demanding in peacetime. Needless to say, in war zones, they are outright perilous. In November 1952, Mr. Fecteau and Mr. Downey were part of a crew that was to fly into China, swoop to tree level, and snatch an agent from the ground. As their plane descended and approached the snatch site, it was hit by machine gun and small arms fire. The plane crashed and burned, killing the two pilots. Mr. Fecteau and Mr. Downey survived, but they were captured by the forces of the People's Republic of China. In 1954, 2 years later, China sentenced Mr. Fecteau and Mr. Downey to life in prison. Their sentencing was, I understand, the first time that the families of the two learned that they were still alive. Over the next 20 years, Mr. Fecteau and Mr. Downey were subjected to extensive and aggressive interrogations and to long periods of solitary confinement. Year after year the two endured this suffering and deprivation and they did so with dignity and courage and an abiding faith in our country. This Nation ultimately did not fail them. In December of 1971, nearly 20 years later, our government finally obtained the release of Dick Fecteau. And in March of 1973, we obtained the release of Jack Downey. Dick Fecteau returned to the agency and continued his career. In 1976 he retired and joined the staff of Boston University, his alma mater, as assistant director of athletics. He retired from BU in 1989. Today Dick Fecteau lives with his wife, Peg, outside of Boston. Jack Downey retired from the agency in 1973. Some of us feel that a baccalaureate from Yale is perfectly serviceable; but Jack, however, went on from there to Harvard Law School, and in 1976 he entered legal practice. In 1990 he was appointed to the bench in Connecticut and became a senior judge in the State system. Today Judge Downey lives with his wife, Audrey, in New Haven. These, Mr. Speaker, are the extraordinary stories of two extraordinary people. Their awards, it seems to me, are most properly for the totality of their lives; for answering their country's call; for engaging in perilous operations under fire; for enduring unimaginable hardship in Chinese prisons; and, perhaps most of all, for returning to their families, to their communities and to their country and continuing to contribute and give and make a difference in their communities. These awards, Mr. Speaker, are for the extraordinary lives of Dick Fecteau and Jack Downey. I am honored to commemorate their lives before this body. Dick and Jack, thank you and Godspeed. May this Nation always have citizens such as you to count on.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will yield further, I think that there are many possibilities for continuing good legislation, and, as he knows, we will seize them all. With regard to the gentleman's observations on the number of amendments on campaign finance, surely we are going to have a full, deliberative debate on this subject which is, of course, what we all want.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will yield further, I am advised that that is a subject that is very timely and in fact is presently under discussion and that we will have to await further notice from the leadership on.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will yield further, I would estimate, although I would not want to guarantee, but the best guess at this point would appear to be 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. as a range for Monday night, and, depending on other matters, it looks like now 10-ish or about Wednesday.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we have concluded legislative business for this week. The House will next meet on Monday, June 22, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Monday, we will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices. Members should note that we do not expect any recorded votes before 5 p.m. on Monday, June 22. On Monday, we will also consider H.R. 4059, the Military Construction Appropriations Act, and H.R. 4060, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. On Tuesday, June 23, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business. We will again consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices. On Tuesday, the House will also take up the Agricultural Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening, Republicans and Democrats will face off in the annual charity congressional baseball game. We hope to finish legislative business by 5 p.m. and head to the diamond for batting practice. On Wednesday, June 24, the House will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the following legislation: The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act; and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. On Thursday, June 25, the House will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, we hope to conclude legislative business for the week by 6 p.m. on Thursday, June 25. Friday, June 26, as we know marks the beginning of the Independence Day District Work Period from which the House will return on Tuesday, July 14.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will yield further, as the distinguished gentleman well knows, the debate is well underway on this and has certainly caught the interest of the Members, and I think the people who are interested in this subject and will continue on. Obviously next week we have a very heavy schedule of appropriations bills which are, I think, the highest priority for this body at this time, and so my guess is, unless we have some kind of a serious change in what I have outlined, that we will not get back to the question of campaign finance until shortly after the break. It is impossible to say exactly when, but there is a general understanding that it will happen at about that time, so far as we can foresee the schedule at this moment.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington, my ranking member.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I strongly believe that the scope of the resolution takes care of that problem. I am not going to forgo my responsibilities as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I am sure the gentleman is not as the ranking member to discharge the things that we have responsibility for. I would hope for very close working cooperation between the Select Committee and the other committees. And I would hope we could avoid any possible redundancy that way.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, the honorable chairman of the Committee on Rules, for bringing forward what I think is a very worthwhile resolution. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of moving the previous question, I urge a ``yes'' on the rule and I urge a ``yes'' on the underlying resolution. So it is yes, yes, yes, is what we have got in front of us here. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are talking about fault. I have been hearing from the other side of the aisle fault in the way we went about our business; that we could have done it better if we had done this or that. There has been a lot of fault-finding going on. I can assure the minority that a very strong effort has been made to provide a workable, efficient, bipartisan approach to the task at hand. Is there a task at hand? You bet there is. There is a task at hand because every day you can pick up the paper and read some new saga unfolding in this area. And if the media is ahead of Congress doing its job of oversight, we have got a problem. I am willing to say that the media is ahead just on the basis of the Jeff Gerth story today in the New York Times alone. So we have got to do something about this. Now, we have heard some noise about the cost. This is going to cost too much money because we have not limited it the right way or done it exactly the right way. I remember the October Surprise. We went out, we did the job, it cost about a million and a half, something like that. Democrats were very eager to try and prove something. They were unable to do it. We had a good October Surprise event, we closed it down when there was nothing there, and it cost $1.3 million. I am not saying it was money well spent because I never thought there was anything there, but at least we satisfied ourselves. So I think we are very definitely in the ballpark when we look back at October Surprise in how we are approaching money. Mr. Speaker, the problem with the money is it is virtually impossible to tell how much we are going to spend until we find out how much cooperation we are going to get from the dozens and dozens of witnesses who are not in the United States. That is going to require some expense to get those people who are material to what we are finding out, trying to find out about the truth. Of course, we are going to hope for more forthright cooperation from the administration than we have had to date, because in truth, factually, the administration has not been fully forthcoming to date. So the cost could go up a bit if we fail to have the cooperation of the witnesses and the administration. We have been challenged about whether or not a select committee is the way to go. We are actually cutting across the jurisdiction of eight standing committees. I do not see any other choice except a select committee. Some say the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence could do it. Yes, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence could do it if we enhanced our staff and we got into what is likely to be the partisan question of campaign finance. Frankly, as chairman of the committee, I do not want to take the nonpartisan Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence into an area that is so sharply partisan and likely to cause partisan question. With regard to the policy of President Reagan, let me point out, the issue before us is not the policy of President Reagan. It is the change from the policy of President Reagan and President Bush. What caused President Clinton to change the procedure? We have a ``why'' to ask and an answer to find. The minority report before us, as this is reported today, talks about this is a resolution of routine occurrence and that is a bad thing. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing routine about the restarting of the nuclear arms race that is going on, which I believe is a result, in part, of the policies that have failed in China. That is certainly the testimony of the Indian Government. We have clearly got exploiters in North Korea who are taking advantage of this proliferation opportunity. We read it in the New York Times. I have not had the chance to talk to North Koreans about this. I would like to. They are exploiting us. So we have something here that is hardly routine facing the United States Congress and our responsibility to the citizens of this country in exercising appropriate oversight about policy and other activities that are happening that are indeed troublesome by admission on both sides of the aisle. I therefore think we are going in the right direction and doing the right thing.