[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1680-H1681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          DEBATE TIME ON NATIONAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I take this 5-minutes 
special order this evening to partly respond to some of the rhetoric 
that we heard on the House floor earlier, primarily coming from the 
minority side, on the allocation of 10 hours of debate on the National 
Security Revitalization Act which we will have on the House floor 
Wednesday and Thursday of this week. While I am not going to get into 
all the details and implications of that piece of legislation, I do 
want to respond to several of the issues that were raised here tonight 
by the leadership of the minority side.

                              {time}  2240

  Mr. Speaker, we heard it said that when President Bush was in office 
we had extensive debate before our troops were asked to go into Desert 
Storm, and that, in fact, is correct, because it was asked for by 
President Bush and this Congress responded.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side, where was that 
same debate when all of us jointly asked for a debate on sending our 
troops into Haiti. We had known we were going to go into Haiti for 
months at a time. Many of us had asked for a full and open debate of 
that issue where our troops were being put in harm's way. We were not 
given 10 minutes of debates on this House floor prior to sending our 
troops into Haiti.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, where was the debate on this House 
floor that now sees American tax dollars being used to pay the 
salaries, the benefits, the housing costs, and the travel for about 
2,000 troops from Third World nations that are currently providing 
protection inside of Haiti? Where was the debate so the American people 
could vote on that issue before that action took place? Where was the 
debate on Bosnia, so we could fully debate the President's
 policy? We never had any debate on Bosnia prior to Presidential 
action.

  Mr. Speaker, I say with a great deal of concern, where was the debate 
in this House on the President's decision to go in and bail out Mexico? 
He wanted to do it to the tune of $40 billion but could get no support. 
Then unilaterally he sent a $20 billion loan guaranty. Where was 10 
minutes of debate on this House floor before the action?
  Mr. Speaker, where was the debate in this House, on this House floor, 
prior to President Clinton or even after President Clinton changing our 
policy in terms of national ballistic missile defense? Prior to 
President Clinton taking office, we had an aggressive program that was 
also attempting to protect the American people as well as our troops. 
When the President took office, he unilaterally, without any debate on 
this House floor, changed that policy.
  Mr. Speaker, we are giving ample opportunity for debate. We want 
bipartisan support. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and 
Technology of the Committee on National Security, I reached out to my 
colleagues on the other side. We forged a bipartisan national security 
bill. This bill, when it was reported out of committee, passed by a 
vote of 41 to 13. Eleven of our colleagues on the minority side 
supported that piece of legislation.
  In the committee, Mr. Speaker, many of us acknowledged that there 
were key Democrats who were at the forefront of the defense debate, 
both in the past, today, and in the future. So that bill, when it came 
out of committee, had strong bipartisan support, and, in fact, 11 
Democrats voted with us.
  [[Page H1681]] In fact, Mr. Speaker, to get their support, before the 
markup of the National Security Revitalization Act we reached out and 
made 32 specific changes in the bill. This was not some piece of 
legislation jammed down the throats of committee members. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, we reached out, and over the weekend before the markup, made 
changes that Democrats offered to us to enhance the bill and to get 
their support for that particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, in total, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence], the chairman, allowed 32 separate changes to be made in the 
chairman's mark. Mr. Speaker, this was in fact a bipartisan bill, a 
bill that reflects our concern with the direction this administration 
has been going in terms of national security. We are going to have our 
debate on the floor, but to somehow attempt to mislead the American 
people, and there were so many distortions and half-truths that were 
spoken by our colleagues on the House floor, is a gross injustice, both 
to this institution and to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance to get all those issues out on the 
table on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. I look forward to that 
debate, and I hope that the American people will also be watching the 
debate and the final vote on restoring our national security interests.


                          ____________________