If indeed there is a threat to national security, particularly at those closed bases or the base that is being decommissioned... Why should we grant a blanket exemption under this bill when the President has the authority as Commander in Chief to exempt any individual military facility? In particular, why is it in the States of California, Idaho, and South Carolina that we would exempt facilities that are closed or being decommissioned? It is particularly puzzling.
Patricia Schroeder: “If indeed there is a threat to national security, particularly at those closed bases or the base that is being…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing national security concerns related to military facility exemptions during a House debate.
Share
More from Patricia Schroeder
Editorials all over America are joining those of us who keep calling for the release of whatever it is that was produced by the outside counsel for over a half a million dollars of tax money on Speaker Gingrich's violations of the ethics…
I find that fairly astonishing, that they tell us we can go outside and talk about it, but we cannot talk about it on the floor.
But that ``it'' cost a half a million dollars and we cannot see it. This morning's Washington Post has a clarification of what the Speaker said about the ``it'' in it. And I hope that everybody reads it, because while the Speaker said one…
I guess the question is, how long does it take for a reasonable investigation? Our problem is 2 years seems like a very long time. In the past, and we can bring those charts to the floor except they probably would be ruled out of order…





