[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10568-H10569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REVIEW OF TODAY'S HEARING IN THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
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 rise this evening, or this
afternoon, to review a hearing that was held this morning in the House
Committee on National Security. I think that this should be of concern
to every Member of this body. The hearing this morning, which lasted
for approximately 3 hours, had before us Secretary Perry; Secretary of
Defense, General Shalikashvili, Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff;
and Gen. Wayne Downing, director of the Downing Assessment Task Force.
General Downing is the author of the report that was done following the
attack that resulted in the deaths of 19 of our troops in that housing
complex in Saudi Arabia jut a few short months ago.
Mr. Speaker, this hearing today was important because it revealed
some concerns that I raised that I think should be the concern of every
Member of this institution. During the discussion by General Downing of
his assessment of the attack on the barracks in Saudi Arabia, he made
some very critical comments about the Pentagon and the Defense
Department and what we should have done and could have done to better
protect our troops.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, one of the suggestions that he made was
that the Pentagon needed to provide more focus on the operation in the
Middle East in terms of protecting our pilots and the enforcement of
the no-fly zone for the Iraqis. It was because we did not have it as a
separate line item in the budget where we could provide adequate
resources, where we could have had the backup materials and equipment
in place to better support the command officer in that theater. When he
made that comment and that suggestion, I was taken aback, Mr. Speaker,
because exactly 1 year ago the House Committee on National Security
included as a part of our defense authorization bill a very specific
requirement addressing that very concern because a year ago we felt the
same thing. We felt there was not enough focus within the Pentagon in
terms of prioritizing resources for the Middle Eastern operation. We
asked for that, and even though the Pentagon certified to us just a few
short weeks ago that they were doing that, in fact they in fact had
not done that.
So here we were recommending something that now after the fact we
find out perhaps helped cause the loss of life in that barracks.
[[Page H10569]]
Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, they said we need more focus on terrorism,
and I pointed out in the hearing, and I will point out to our
colleagues, that it was our Committee on National Security in a
bipartisan manner and this House in cooperation with the other body
that included over $200 million of additional funds for antiterrorism
initiatives to properly protect our troops, and when we approved that
funding this year the President and the Secretary of Defense were
criticizing us, saying we were giving the military more money than what
they needed. These very dollars that we plused up, $200 million, the
technology work in the area of bombs and weapons and antiterrorism,
could have helped us in this situation, yet we in fact were criticized.
{time} 1400
What bothered me most this morning, Mr. Speaker, and should bother
every American is the fact that now we know the Air Force has assigned
a three-star general to look at accountability and to possibly
instigate a court-martial proceeding against the general in charge of
the operations in Saudi Arabia. What is so outrageous about that is
that there is no one looking at the general's level above him in terms
of culpability, only below him.
When I asked Secretary Perry this morning who is going to look at
those above that general, including the CINC commander, including the
Secretary himself and his staff, the Secretary of Defense told me that
this same three-star general was tasked with that responsibility.
What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that we now have a three-star Air
Force general who has been charged with investigating a four-star Air
Force general who happens to be his commanding officer, who absolutely
had control over these decisions. Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous. I
have never heard of a fair process occurring when the person doing the
investigation actually reports to the person who may in fact be a
subject of the inquiry. That does not even include the Secretary
himself.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
excellent question to the Secretary this morning. I was reminded, as
the Secretary and others talked about responsibility, and
responsibility being on the base commander, I was reminded of Stonewall
Jackson's comment that defending Harpers Ferry was like trying to
defend the bottom of a teacup. Somebody placed those thousands of
Americans in the bottom of a teacup right next to public roads where
terrorists could drive up or down in large trucks. Then we are charging
the base commander with the responsibility for defending the bottom of
that teacup.
I think the gentleman made exactly the right questions when he asked
whether responsibility could go up as well as down.
____________________