Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I would say to my friend and colleague that I think this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, because now we have the American people seeing through what has been going on here and we have an instance where you have a major columnist for the Washington Post, the New York Times editorial board, Daniel Schorr, the Wall Street Journal, editorial papers across the country, my own local paper in my county has been so incensed with the President that when he visited Philadelphia this past Wednesday, they broke their tradition and editorially endorsed his opponent the day he came to Philadelphia. This is incensing people who have worked with this President, and I wanted to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], who just came over here, because like me and perhaps unlike some of our other Members of our caucus, he and I worked with this President on issues. He and I have supported him on environmental priorities. He and I have supported him on issues affecting those things that we maybe differ with our caucus a little bit. And now it has got us to the point where we are incensed and outraged because perhaps in our, I will let the gentleman speak for himself but in my case, 1972 was a turning point because it displayed the arrogance that one person could have in thinking that they were above the people and above the laws that all of us have to live under. What he has done in this case is he has gone beyond the limit. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] who, by the way, came over to sign the letter. We now have 186 signatures and, Mr. Speaker, I would urge our colleagues sitting in their offices who have not signed from either party to come over to the floor. The letter is here and, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage their constituents back home, Mr. Speaker, if they would like to make sure they communicate that, that would be appropriate because many of them are in their offices this very evening and phone calls to them might prod them to come over.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. My point is, this is something I did not want to have to do on the last day of the session, which should not be in this mode, but, Mr. Speaker, this is it. It is the last chance for us to speak out.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Put that question in the Record, Mr. speaker. The question referred to is as follows: Mr. President: Will you promise the America people that if you are re-elected, or even if you should lose in November, that you will, under no circumstances, use the Presidential pardon power to pardon either Jim McDougal, or Susan McDougal, or Jim Guy Tucker, or any member, present or former, of the White House staff, or any member of your own family, or any other person that the Independent Counsel may investigate or prosecute? Potential follow-ups: Will you promise to resign if you should use the pardon power? Why will you not give a straight answer to this very simple question? And I would just say to him that Chris Shays, in fact, signed the letter, as did many other moderate Republicans who stood up when there was a HUD scandal in the Reagan administration, asked the tough questions, went to the wall to go through the investigation in a bipartisan way, just as bipartisan Members did, Republicans and Democrats back in 1972. And I would just ask the gentleman who has been involved in the oversight committee in this area, that individual who had, as you say, trumped up charges brought against him that basically ruined his career and his family and caused him to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars, Billy Dale; that led to a trial, also like Susan McDougal. Would the gentleman tell me what the outcome of that trial was and how quickly the verdict came down?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And what the gentleman did not mention was, that verdict that came down within 2 hours was a complete and total acquittal, unlike Susan McDougal, who went on television after a jury of her peers convicted her, I believe, of four counts and her husband of 18 or 19 counts. Unlike Susan McDougal, Billy Dale was acquitted by a jury of his peers of all charges within 2 hours. But his reputation was ruined. Mr. Speaker, this kind of action is not America. We did not tolerate this when Richard Nixon was the president. We came together as a country and said this is not the kind of leadership that should be leading America. And in this case, this President had better answer for his actions and withdraw his political statements, answer whether or not he will pardon, or he should step aside, or this country should take action to remove him from office based on his actions in this situation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is absolutely correct, and the actions there are appalling to those Members who have been involved in looking at this situation, and it has just been devastating for that family. Unfortunately, as much as the media had a fond affection for Billy Dale, and some of them I even understand contributed to his legal defense fund, they did not take this case. It was early on in the Clinton administration. It was just kind of brushed aside. And it has been confusing for the American people to understand, and some who do not tune in regularly say, Well, there is another they are just charging; you know, it is another accusation; these accusations fly back and forth all the time, and it is just politics as usual. But, Mr. Speaker, this is different. As I said before, this struck me this week because I have not felt this way since I was outraged, as a public school teacher in 1972, when I, as a Republican, heard that Richard Nixon had, in fact, covered up a third-rate burglary and, in fact, accidentally or deliberately had part of his tapes erased that he kept in his office. What do we have now, Mr. Speaker? We have a President who feels such arrogance that he can stand up in a public forum on national TV and he can say with a straight face, ``I don't know whether I'm going to deal with that issue of pardons or not, it will take its course,'' and then goes on to say, ``But there is no doubt that what is being done to Susan McDougal is politically motivated because they want to get Bill and Hillary Clinton.'' Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. No person in this country, be he or she Republican or Democrat, potentate or king, President or street worker, is entitled to violate the law and violate it especially with the arrogance that we have seen displayed this week. But I think, Mr. Speaker, the bending point and the breaking point has arisen, and I sense a frustration and a feeling of incense across the country that is being displayed by the media that perhaps was not displayed during the Bill Dale situation. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I understand that comment, and I am not engaging in personalities, I am engaging in factual information in regard to comments made by the leader of this country in a national public forum where he basically allowed the impression to be left that a pardon could be offered to someone who right now is in jail for contempt, of not cooperating with the Federal grand jury and the U.S. prosecutor. I yield to my friend and colleague, Mr. Horn.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to override. On March 27, this House passed the conference report on H.R. 1833, the ban on partial birth abortions and sent it to our President for his signature. Sticking to his proabortion agenda, the President chose to distance himself from the American people and veto the ban on the most brutal form of infanticide. Following the President's decision, we set out to override his veto and to protect the life of the unborn childn. We have come far and are in sight of our destination. Today, with the bipartisan support of 285 Members of Congress, this House was able to successfully override the veto. Today, with the support of 285 Members of Congress, this House was able to respond to the millions of Americans who are outraged by this brutal form of abortion. Today, with the support of 285 Members of Congress, this House was able to send the message of the American people to a President who doesn't really seem to care what they think. Those of us who believe in the life of the unborn, those of us who fight against the crime of partial birth abortion cheer today for our success, but regret the lives and futures that have been lost since the 27th of March, since the hour that we first passed the ban. Let us delay no more, let us be resolute, and let us complete our task in overriding President Clinton's unjust and unjustified veto, that no other child may perish. We have advanced confidently in the direction of our hopes, and we await the Senate to join us in the completion of our task.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as founder and cochairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus [CFSI], I have had the distinct pleasure of traveling across the country and speaking to fire service organizations of every kind. In all my journeys, I cannot recall an organization that captures the spirit of the American fire services like the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association [DVFA]. At the end of this month, the entire Delaware volunteer fire service will assemble at Rehoboth Beach for its second annual conference and 76th anniversary. The purpose of the event is to reflect on a successful year of achievements and look ahead to the challenges facing them. There were many achievements which can be attributed to the tireless work of DVFA president, Mr. Lynn Rogers. Like most volunteer firefighters, Lynn wears many hats. A successful businessman, fire chief and family man, Lynn has successfully balanced his time to ensure that the things most important to him receive the attention they deserve. In addition, he has played an important role within the fire service at the national level through his support of the Congressional Fire Services Institute. To put it simply, Lynn Rogers is the quintessential volunteer. When CFSI had 15,000 dinner invitations to stuff, Lynn recruited over 100 friends and family members from Milton, DE and surrounding communities to help with the task. When the institute reserved a ballroom to accommodate 2,000 attendees for the Eighth Annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner, Lynn responded by bringing the largest delegation of fire service leaders to the event. And throughout his tenure as president of DVFA, Lynn graciously responded to calls for assistance, gladly providing whatever help he could to CFSI. When my Delaware colleagues speak of their fire service as the State's third political party, they do so out of respect and admiration for the men and women who contribute their time and energy to public safety. I hold them in the same high esteem, and offer my congratulations to Lynn Rogers, the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association and the Ladies Auxiliary for a successful year.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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. 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. 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. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. First of all, we did not mention the President today. We mentioned a hearing with the Secretary of Defense, and the fact that we do want to find out, as the Secretary has said, who was responsible. What we are saying is we do not just want to go from the middle down, we want everyone in the chain of command to be looked at. In terms of what happened with President Reagan, I was not here then, so I cannot speak about what you all did when President Reagan was President.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would follow up by saying, and I think he would agree, Secretary Perry's statement was an eloquent statement. I think he did accept the responsibility himself for the incident, and I appreciate his candor in that regard. Let me go further and state that the disappointment that we feel is that what is happening right now in the Pentagon is exactly what the New York Times today editorialized on. That is, they are using one low- level enlisted person as the scapegoat, much like was done in the crash of the Ron Brown airplane. There was a lower-level enlisted person who was held accountable. As much as we have seen time and again, there is an investigation and there is blame, but it seems as though that blame only goes one way, and that is down. What I suggested today, and what I would ask our colleagues in this body to support me on, is the need for us to have not just the investigation by the Air Force three-star general about those lower who were involved in the chain of command, including the base commander, who has been criticized, and perhaps he deserves that; but I think we also need to know who is culpable above that level. Is it, in fact, the commander of the CINC operation who, in fact, has the ultimate responsibility for that theater, and who, under the Goldwater-Nichols reform that this body passed a few years ago, reports directly to the office of the Secretary of Defense? Were there, in fact, any preliminary warnings made? Were there, in fact, any assessments of that facility? Why was the security of that facility in Saudi Arabia less than the security currently involved in Bosnia with our troops, where we have gone to great lengths? These are questions that need answered, not just from the general on the scene, who is being blamed for what occurred and who will likely be, as the New York Times put it, the scapegoat, but who is looking at his superiors and what their role was? When Secretary Perry says that he is confident that this three-star Air Force general can do this assessment, I say I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that we are empowering a three-star to investigate his four-star boss, and even, if necessary, the Secretary of Defense and his underlings in the Pentagon itself. Therefore, in thanking my colleague for yielding, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this body needs to make sure that there is an independent assessment, whether it is done by the General Accounting Office, the Justice Department, or whatever. There needs to be an independent assessment so that general who is being targeted right now and may be the subject of a court-martial can feel confident that the same look is being done of those above him.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And with Sam Johnson from this body, another POW. And you are to be commended for that because you have righted a terrible wrong in letting those families know that we are going to continue to persevere to force a full accounting and to force a full assessment and to have a process in place to make sure that what happened in Korea and what happened in Vietnam never happens again in this country. I commend you for that action. I wanted to mention that today. I know that is not the subject of your special order but so that all of those troops and all of those families across the country know that it was Chairman Bob Dornan who has been diligent and tireless in this effort to make sure that they are not forgotten. Just before I let you complete you special order on what I think is an outrageous topic but one that needs to be aired, I just want to say that I hope you will join me in requesting answers from this administration on what our plans are the in Middle East, what our game plan is, what our strategy is. Are we, in fact, letting Saddam suck us into a tar pit where we are going to lose additional lives, where we are not going to have a clear way to get out? Why are we not getting the kind of support from our allies? Why is the President not consulting with the leadership of this body, both Republicans and Democrats, because it is not an urgent situation. He could have called them today. He could have come back from his campaigning. We are talking about kids' lives. Kids' lives are more important than campaigning out in California. If he is going to deploy them, he has a responsibility to let the intelligence leadership know, the leadership from both parties' standpoint, and the various committees, because we are the ones who have to answer when we go back home to our constituents, who have kids in the service, what is going on. I can tell you, I am frustrated. I go home, last weekend, I do not know what is happening, as a senior member of the security committee, I have no idea what is going on with this President and that is outrageous. I thank my colleague and friend for yielding. I wish him well in his deliberations this evening as he does a service for this country with his report.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I accept the gentleman's challenge. I will be happy to do those special orders with him. As the gentleman has pointed out, I hope it is under a Dole administration but we will do it under any administration, God willing, we come back. One quick final statement, Mr. Dornan, and I know you will agree with me. Why do we raise this issue as we are about to adjourn today for the weekend, and why would the Democrats characterize this as politics? It is not politics. In fact, what is our greatest concern, in the 4 years that I have served here under a Clinton administration, I think back to that outrageous moment when we were called down to the basement of this building for a briefing--and the gentleman was there--by Warren Christopher and Les Aspin, giving us a summary of what was occurring in Somalia. And there were a number of Senators, I think there were over 300 of us all total in this one room and they said to us, asking us a question. ``What do we do next?'' They had no clear policy. And we had just lost 19 brave young Americans. When we finally got to the answers of why we lost those 19 brave young Americans, we were told that the commanding officer in Somalia had requested additional backup about a month before for his troops. He said he could not handle the situation. He was denied that request. And when Les Aspin was asked why he was denied that request, his answer was that he though there was not the appropriate political climate in this city to support the backup support for those troops. Mr. Speaker, that is the only time in the 10 years I have been here that I have ever heard that we imposed a political decision on how to support and deploy American troops. It may have happened before I got here, whether it was Vietnam or Lebanon ow whatever, but it is the only time in the 10 years that I have been here that a political decision dealt with by this administration caused indirectly or directly the loss of 19 young American lives. Mr. Speaker, we could not even go into Mogadishu and pull those bodies out when they were being massacred. The reason why we are raising this issue today is we are not going to let this President repeat what happened in Somalia. We are going to demand that this Congress play its rightful role under the Constitution, under the War Powers Act, in having consultations on what our plans are, to make sure we are giving adequate backup. If this President thinks we should take some action, maybe it is to go in and get Saddam. Then he needs to sell that plan to the American people and the Congress, and not allow this to go day by day, step by step, into a bigger and bigger conflict, and then all of a sudden next week we are into a wholesale war and the Members of Congress all of a sudden stand up and say, hey, what happened here. How did we get in this mess. We are saying up front now we are putting the administration on notice that we want to know the justification under the U.N. resolutions. We want to know we were in compliance with the War Powers Act. We want to know what the ultimate game plan here is. Is it just a short-sighted, 1-day plan? Or in fact is there a long-term scheme to go in and do something else besides enforce the U.N. resolutions that were passed when President Bush was in office? I thank my colleague and friend for yielding and wish him well in his special order.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Your bill today, if I am not mistaken, passed with a unanimous vote. As you very eloquently put it, you were the author and the prime mover of this, but you had strong support from your ranking member, Owen Pickett, and you also did your legislation in total consult with, as you said, one of our most respected former POW's, Pete Peterson.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. How many years have you worked on this issue?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I commend him for his leadership on armed services issues. He has been one of our brightest stars on the committee this year, and we appreciate that. The issue here, Mr. Speaker, is we supported I publicly supported, President Clinton when he said we were going to send our troops to take action because of the situation with the Kurds. But then, Mr. Speaker, we heard that the first strikes were not successful, that some of the cruise missiles were off by as much as 500 miles. We were not given a specific briefing on that. I sat through the limited briefing that occurred last week, but then a second wave of a attacks occurred, and we were told that was a mop-up operation. By now, day by day, hour by hour, new information comes out, Mr. Speaker, that we have no idea what is going on. It is all from the news media that we are now sending 8 or 10 F-117's over, that we are redeploying some other troops, that we are now putting in Kuwait, that perhaps Saudi Arabia is not being as supportive as it was, that the whole coalition that was there initially in Desert Storm is falling apart, that we cannot get that kind of support because the action has not taken--we need to have those questions answered because these are our kids that this President is sending into harm's way. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, if there are casualties over this weekend, we are going to demand to know why we were not consulted, and we are going to demand to know why we did not have compliance with the War Powers Act; why, in fact, we are going beyond the U.N. resolutions where unilaterally it looks like the United States alone is taking up this mission. These are questions that Floyd Spence and Ron Dellums and Ben Gilman and LeeHamilton need to have answered and should have been briefed on. But, Mr. Speaker, as of today, as the gentleman pointed out, less than an hour ago in an arms national security markup meeting when I asked the chairman very directly, ``Mr. Chairman, have you at all been briefed on what is going on''; he said, ``No, I will be coming out with a statement and a letter shortly, today or tomorrow, expressing my concern on this issue.'' Mr. Speaker, we are talking about American kids. We are not talking about some far-off. We are talking about our kids that are now being put on alert status to be sent over into a hostile environment where we know this madman is out to get them, and if this President wants us to get behind him, then he better make that case to us. We will support the troops, no doubt about that. The question is, will we support the President, and that remains to be seen based upon what the plan is. None of us know what the plan is. We read about it every day and not only hear about it from the news announcement by a man named McCurry. He is not the President of the United States, and he is not charged with the responsibility of briefing us.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is, the gentleman is proceeding out of order. This is a matter before the Ethics Committee. The gentleman knows the rules of this body.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at what is currently happening here--comments being made. First of all, there is no Member of this body who does not fully support our troops. Let us make that statement known up front. In fact we on this side have restored $8 billion of cuts that this administration made to support those troops. What is happening right now is that this President is going beyond the mandates of the U.N. resolution, which do not give the United States unilateral authority to go in and take action in Iraq. There is no provision in there for unilateral action. The allies are not behind us, as President Bush had when he went in there in the first place. In fact, Saudi Arabia is now considering denying us basing rights for the F-117's. We know nothing about what is occurring. As a senior member of the Committee on National Security, I asked our chairman, who has not been briefed, about what is occurring, and we are about to send our young pilots into harm's way with no plan, no functionary understanding for us in this Congress about what the ultimate game plan is. The War Powers Act requires this President to consult with us, and we in this institution should demand that take place. If anyone wants to charge politics, I would say the politics is this administration rushing to send our troops into harm's way with no justifiable situation that merits that action.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue the dialog that we started before theHouse went into special orders regarding the current situation in Iraq. As a senior member of Committee on National Security and chairman of Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, I take great pride in supporting our troops in all possible ways. I supported the President when he initially went in to take action in Iraq because I had an idea of what was occurring. In fact, I sat through a briefing a week ago that, I might add, was attended by less than 100 of my colleagues, where we were briefed by the State Department and the military on what was happening. Unfortunately, the briefing, which was closed, did not tell me much more than that as reported by CNN and the national news media. My concern is right now, Mr. Speaker, that we are reading reports that the President, in his position as Commander in Chief, is now escalating that. First, we have seen additional shots of cruise missiles. Now we are hearing that F-117's are being transferred to the theater. We are hearing that those F-117's may be based in Kuwait, partly because the Saudis are saying they do not want to have them based in their country. We are furthermore hearing that Saddam, in fact, has considered Kuwait's action, in allowing the basing to take place there, an act of aggression against Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we may want to, in fact, support all of this. But the point is that the President is doing this unilaterally. There, in fact, has been no consultation with this body. My colleagues on the other side raised the issue of how they supported President Bush during Desert Storm. In fact, I went back and checked the Congressional Record. Two of the three speakers who stood up just a few short moments ago actually voted against President Bush's involvement of our troops. That is OK, because they should have that right to speak their mind. But we are not being given the opportunity to even understand what is going on, let alone vote to put our troops into harm's way. Right now we are sending young troops and 117's over to the Middle East and no one has been briefed. The chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the chairman of the Committee on National Security, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, even the majority leader has told me he has not been given a briefing as to what is going on. This, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable. We need to know what is going on because we are putting our troops in a situation this weekend that could result in actions, hostile actions against our people. I, for one, as a representative of 600,000 constituents, I want to know what, in fact, my constituents are being subjected to in terms of this President's operations. Mr. Speaker, that has not been done. I yield to my friend.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman raises an excellent point and one that we need to keep in mind. President Bush went to the United Nations six or seven consecutive times and had the United Nations pass very specific resolutions, and then he came to this body and allowed us to have a vote, and I might add, by the way, just for the record, that I checked the Record. The Speaker at the time, Mr. Foley, voted ``no'' against President Bush; the majority leader at the time, Mr. Gephardt, voted ``no''; Mr. Bonior voted ``no''; all against the deployment and the support of our troops in the Middle East as requested by President Bush. But that is OK. They are allowed to do that. My point is that we are not being given that opportunity. Who knows what this President is getting us into? We have no idea. We do not know. All we know is our allies are not supporting us except for Great Britain, and all we know is now even some of the Arab countries are having second thoughts about what unilateral actions we are taking. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is outrageous and should allow this body to have a vote. Mr. Speaker, I am preparing right now today, and I would hope that our colleagues who are sitting in their offices, or their staff members, would call my office to support not only a letter asking what is going on but a resolution asking for the legal justification under the United Nations resolution that is very specific for us to take unilateral action, and also asking for the compliance with the War Powers Act. Why have not the leader of the Committee on National Security, why have not the bipartisan leaders of the Committee on International Affairs been consulted in the current plans for this weekend? Perhaps it is that we do not have any plans, or perhaps those plans have not been totally thought out. We, in this body, whether a member of those appropriate committees or not, have the right and the responsibility to know what situations our troops are being placed into, and in my opinion based upon what I am seeing and hearing that, in fact, is not occurring. This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that is going to be on the minds of the American people this weekend because right now our kids who fly those F-117's are gassing them up and fueling them up for a 2-day flight to the Middle East. There is not one Member in this body who has any idea of what they are doing there. Are we going to be attacking specific targets? Do we know if there is backup support being provided? What is our exit plan? Is our goal to go in and get Saddam Hussein or to go in after chemical weapons facilities? What we are going after? No one knows. Mr. Speaker, we demand some answers.