Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4550-H4559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR EXPENSES OF SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON UNITED STATES ROLE IN
IRANIAN ARMS TRANSFERS TO CROATIA AND BOSNIA

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House
Oversight, I call up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 417) providing
amounts for the expenses of the Select Subcommittee on the United
States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia of the
Committee on International Relations in the second session of the One
Hundred Fourth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 417

Resolved, That (a) there shall be paid out of the
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives not more
than $1,200,000 for the expenses of the Select Subcommittee
on the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to
Croatia and Bosnia (hereinafter in this resolution referred
to as the ``select subcommittee'') of the Committee on
International Relations, any part of which sum may be used
for procurement of consultant services under section 202(i)
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
(b) Payments under this resolution shall be made on
vouchers authorized by the select subcommittee, signed by the
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and
approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House
Oversight.
(c) Amounts shall be available under this resolution for
expenses incurred during the period beginning on the date on
which this resolution is agreed to and ending on the date on
which the select subcommittee ceases to exist or ending
immediately before noon on January 3, 1997, whichever first
occurs.
(d) Amounts made available under this resolution shall be
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Committee on House Oversight.
(e) The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority
to make adjustments in the amount under subsection (a), if
necessary to comply with an order of the President issued
under section 254 of the Balanced budget and emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 or to conform to any reduction in
appropriations for the purposes of such subsection.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.

Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
Resolved, That (a) there shall be paid out of the
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives not more
than $995,000 for the expenses of the Select Subcommittee on
the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia
and Bosnia (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the
``select subcommittee'') of the Committee on International
Relations, any part of which sum may be used for procurement
of consultant services under section 202(i) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
(b) Payments under this resolution shall be made on
vouchers authorized by the select subcommittee, signed by the
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and
approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House
Oversight.
(c) Amounts shall be available under this resolution for
expenses incurred during the period beginning on the date on
which this resolution is agreed to and ending on the date on
which the select subcommittee ceases to exist or ending
immediately before noon on January 3, 1997, whichever first
occurs.
(d) Amounts made available under this resolution shall be
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Committee on House Oversight.
(e) The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority
to make adjustments in the amount under subsection (a), if
necessary to comply with an order of the President issued
under section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 or to conform to any reduction in
appropriations for the purposes of such subsection.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read
and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request to the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for purposes of
debate only, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume,
with the understanding that any additional time which I may yield will
be subject to the specific limitation for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, did the White House permit a mortal enemy of the United
States to establish a military presence in Europe, or did the White
House inspire a mortal enemy of the United States to establish a
military presence in Europe? That is the essence of the question that
this Congress will be investigating in the next months and that we at
this time are authorizing funding for, the select subcommittee of the
Committee on International Relations.
The House has just approved House Resolution 416 authorizing the
creation of a select subcommittee. We will now be considering the
resolution to provide $995,000 for the expenses of the select
subcommittee.
There is ample justification for the creation and the funding of the
select subcommittee. The chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], articulated these
reasons

[[Page H4551]]

when he appeared before the Committee on House Oversight last week to
explain the funding request. As presented to the committee, the select
subcommittee is needed to investigate questions that have arisen, very
serious questions, following the revelation that the Clinton
administration gave a green light over 2 years ago for the creation of
an Iranian arms pipeline to Bosnia and Croatia.
The administration's policy, No. 1, directly contradicts the stated
position of the Government of the United States. This Congress
repeatedly tried to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, and the
administration opposed us, and the President vetoed our attempts to do
so. The policy was also not revealed to the Congress, nor to the
American people, and it has allowed the terrorist government of Iran to
gain a strategic presence in Europe.
It also, Mr. Speaker, affects the United States exit strategy from
Bosnia.
Discussion at the committee meeting raised several unanswered
questions:
How was this policy developed?
What was the United States role in implementing it?
What will be its consequences?
Was Congress deceived or misled?
Has any United States law been violated?
The serious nature of these issues warrants further investigation by
the select subcommittee established specifically for this purpose and
deserves to be funded at the appropriate level. The $995,000 funding
level approved by the Committee on House Oversight, which is a $205,000
reduction from the original request, is, Mr. Speaker, a responsible and
prudent figure.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House funds this
very needed select subcommittee investigation in a very prudent and
fiscally responsible manner. I would hope that the House, in a
bipartisan fashion, would adopt the resolution, and I look forward to
the debate on this extremely critical matter.
The reality of the matter is that the administration now admits that
despite the fact that it opposed our attempts to openly permit the
arming of the Bosnian people by the United States directly or through
our allies or responsible Muslim governments, instead of doing that the
administration opposed congressional efforts and engaged in this tactic
of secretly giving a green light to the arming of the Bosnians by one
of the most horrendous enemies of the American people.
This is a very serious subject, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing about the establishment of this select
subcommittee--be it process, procedure or substance--that is not
profoundly flawed. Indeed, there are so many objectionable aspects to
this funding request that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Some of these many problems might have been avoided had the
Republican majority not chosen to act with such unnecessary haste. Why
all the rush? There has been no showing of such extraordinary
circumstances that require the Republican majority to ram this
legislation through the House with so little thought, discussion,
preparation or analysis. This is certainly no way to do the people's
business--a criticism that has become increasingly common in this
Congress.
Having told the minority virtually nothing about the need and purpose
of this subcommittee, and having rushed this process to a ludicrous
degree, the majority suddenly presented the Committee on House
Oversight, and now presents before this House, with a subcommittee
budget for 6 months at nearly one million dollars in taxpayer money.
Annualized, this amounts to a budget of almost $2 million, making it
the most expensive subcommittee established by the Republican majority
this Congress. That is nearly three times the average amount for each
of the House International Relations Committee's other standing
subcommittees. By any measure, this is a substantial sum of the
public's money, and we should not authorize its use without an equally
substantial and compelling justification for doing so.

What, then, is the majority's justification? It is now obvious that
the majority is asking for additional taxpayer money to do nothing more
than review an aspect of the President's--and this country's--foreign
policy. A particular policy, which, I might add, has proven highly
successful to date. The American people should know that this million
dollar request for their money is not being sought by the Republican
majority for use in the investigation of any crimes--for no such
allegations have been made--or to resolve any legal or factual
disputes. No, the controversy at issue, to the extent that one exists
at all, is one that relates to policy, and, as such, is an
inappropriate subject for the creation of an expensive new
subcommittee.
This is not to say that the Congress should play no role in the
conduct of this country's foreign affairs. On the contrary, we have a
responsibility to contribute to the formulation, funding,
implementation, and oversight of U.S. foreign policy. But we believe
that this role should first be exercised through our time-tested
committee system. The Republican majority chooses to ignore the fact
that the American taxpayer has already fully funded a standing House
committee to do this very job--namely, the Committee on International
Relations--and that committee has already been funded in the 104th
Congress in the precise amount of $10,056,875.
Everything the Republican majority proposes for this select
subcommittee--however unnecessary or unwise the undertaking itself--can
be achieved by the existing Committee on International Relations and
done so within its existing budget. We have seen nothing that is unique
or extraordinary to justify the creation of yet another new House
entity, with its own separate funding, staffing, and mandate. We
already have an excellent House standing committee in the foreign
policy arena, and if the Republican majority really cares to pursue
this particular matter, it should use the standing committee and
existing resources which the House created and authorized for that
purpose. Under these circumstances, to allocate an additional $1
million in taxpayer funds is a waste and an embarrassment. Surely
Republicans have more respect for tax dollars than is suggested by this
resolution.
Moreover, the creation of this subcommittee is at odds with many of
the reforms we have imposed on the House. Speaker Gingrich imposed a
strict staffing freeze, and the House funding resolution specified
funding limits, on all House committees. At the time, the Republican
majority represented that it was serious about reducing the size and
cost of government, and touted the staffing freeze and reduced funding
levels as indicative of its commitment. It even claimed credit for
reducing the number of subcommittees, and in an ironic twist, the very
subcommittee which would ordinarily oversee this matter was eliminated
at the beginning of this Congress, its jurisdiction being taken over by
the full Committee on International Relations. The creation, however,
of this special select subcommittee allows the majority to circumvent
the staffing limits and cost reductions--another example of the
majority saying one thing and doing another.
It is clear, then, that the establishment and funding of this select
subcommittee is neither necessary, appropriate, frugal, or wise. One
need not venture very far, however, to determine what is really at
stake here. Indeed, the majority's true purpose in this exercise is as
transparent as an election date in November is certain. For in the
Republican majority's actions there is the unmistakable whiff of
election year politics in the air. From Speaker Gingrich's press
release, issued during the week preceding the introduction of House
Resolution 417, it is quite clear that the objective of this proposed
subcommittee is to gin up criticism of the President's foreign policy.
That is why the American taxpayers are being asked to foot a $1
million, 6-month investigation--and everyone knows it.

This proposal to create yet another new panel can best be understood
in the context of the majority leadership's recent memorandum to its
committee chairs directing them to dig up information with which to
attack the Clinton administration. Apparently,

[[Page H4552]]

the creation of this particular subcommittee is page one of the
Republican campaign playbook. And as their candidate for the White
House continues to do poorly in his campaign, we can only assume that
we will see more of the same.
But for the Republican majority to so brazenly manipulate the
machinery of government in this manner is to violate the public trust
and squander hard-earned tax dollars. Far too much of our time and the
resources of this Congress are being spent by the majority in pursuit
of political gain in its efforts to tarnish unfairly an increasingly
successful and popular President.
The most obvious of these is the so-called Whitewater investigation,
which has now cost the taxpayer a mind-boggling $30 million. The costs
of numerous other Republican investigations of this administration,
such as the inquisition into the White House Travel Office, add up to
hundreds of more pointless hours, and hundreds of thousands of
additional public dollars. It is a staggering amount of time and money,
all of which has been enormously wasted in a partisan effort to
discredit the President and obtain political advantage.
The real tragedy in all this is that the time and resources expended
by the majority in these efforts could have been put to far better use
in furtherance of a substantive legislative agenda, one that speaks to
the needs of America's working families. This resolution, however,
represents politics at its worst, and the majority gravely
underestimates the patience of the American public in pursuing this
course. The minority has done what it can to point out the needlessness
of this undertaking. Absent a more compelling basis than has been
presented thus far, the House should reject the present effort to
convert appropriated funds to undertake yet another baseless attempt to
attack this administration. I emphatically urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on House Resolution 417.

{time} 1315

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a few facts on the funding. No supplemental
appropriations or reprogramming of existing appropriations are required
to support the funding amount for this select subcommittee. There are
sufficient funds in fiscal 1996 available within the appropriate House
account to fund the expenses of the select subcommittee without
jeopardizing other committee's funding needs.
Second, this funding level continues to honor the Contract With
America's commitment to reduce committee staffing by one-third. On the
first day of Republican control of the House, committee staffs were cut
by 621 positions, a 33 percent reduction from the previous Congress. As
of March 31, by not filling the total authorized positions, committees
have contributed an additional 105 positions to this reduction, an
actual cut of 40 percent. This resolution, as amended, does not violate
the commitment to reduce committee funds by 30 percent in the 104th
Congress, and the amount is also well below previous similar
investigations.
Mr. Speaker, the famous October Surprise investigation cost taxpayers
over $4.5 million. Now our friends on the other side of the aisle
apparently have found fiscal conservatism.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleagues' frugality had been apparent when
we were talking about the Iran-Contra investigation, which ended up
with nobody really being convicted. Everybody was dismissed, and we
spent $48 million; $48 million on Iran-Contra and $2 million on the
select committee. On the October Surprise they spent $1.35 million.
They cannot have it both ways. If something is done that is
questionable and needs to be investigated and we need the resources to
do it, they should be appropriated, just like you did, only you spent a
heck of a lot more money than we are talking about.
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally, the
gentleman's figures on the October Surprise should be revised to show
there was a total expenditure of $4.5 million.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this request for $995,000 to fund the Select
Subcommittee on Bosnia is a reasonable, prudent allocation of House
resources for a particularly important task.
Some of our colleagues have asked why our full committee cannot
investigate the Clinton administration's role in secretly permitting
the Iranians to provide arms to the Bosnian Muslims in 1994.
It is an appropriate question, and there is a good response.
First of all, our full committee continues to have a full and
demanding agenda.
Among the major issues our committee is extensively engaged in are
international terrorism, narcotics and organized crime, NATO expansion,
trade, China-MFN, the Middle East Peace Process, Haiti, North Korea,
Russia, and oversight of other aspects of United States policy towards
Bosnia, to name just a few.
My colleagues will recall that, in keeping with our promises after
the 1994 elections, Republicans reduced the size of our committee
staffs by one-third.
All of our professional staff are fully engaged in their regular
duties.
We do not have the staff to undertake the focused and comprehensive
investigation that the administration's handling of this arms pipeline
issue has demonstrated is needed.
Nor do we have in our regular allocation the funds that are needed to
properly conduct such an investigation.
If our committee still had a subcommittee on Europe and the Middle
East, that would be an obvious focal point for this investigation.
However, when the cap of five subcommittees was mandated, the Europe
and Middle East Subcommittee was eliminated.
The most efficient and effective way to conduct a thorough, yet
speedy investigation of a major policy change that has placed American
troops in danger in a volatile part of the world is through a select
subcommittee with adequate resources and a defined mandate.
This resolution, and its companion, House Resolution 416, meet that
test. Accordingly, I urge the support of our colleagues.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], who serves on both the
Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this funding. What is
clear here, Mr. Speaker, is that the only thing select about this
committee is the selective memory it takes to bring us to this point.
In Iran-Contra, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about criminality. In
the 4 years prior to President Clinton's presidency we had mass
executions of policy that did nothing to stop murder in Yugoslavia, and
yes, while Iranians were shipping weapons to the Muslims in Yugoslavia.
We are going to spend $1 million, but if some of our colleagues on the
other side had spent $1 for the Christian Science Monitor, or a quarter
for the Washington Post or the Washington Times, they would have known
about this a long time ago.
October 28, 1992, President Bush is the President of the United
States. Iran in particular has positioned itself at the forefront of
this fight to defend Yugoslavia's Islamic minority. Arms shipments from
Iran in 1992. What changed? A lot of things have changed. President
Bush has gone, President Clinton has come in, and he has succeeded to
stop the fighting, to stop the killing, to stop the liquidations of
villages.
What did he do to achieve this? No, he did not violate unilaterally
the U.N. embargo that existed. He did not report to the Congress that
he did not take an action. That action would have been to

[[Page H4553]]

stop, somehow, the Iranians from shipping arms there. However,
President Bush had vetoed the legislation which would have mandated a
President to inform the Congress of an action that they even requested,
let alone one that they took no action on. So in the intelligence bill
vetoed by President Bush, the President had no obligation to report
what other countries were doing.
Should we know these things? Yes, as a Member of Congress, I think we
should know these things. But let us take a look at the hard facts. The
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman] voted for a bill that included a prohibition prohibiting the
President of the United States from interfering with arms shipments
from other countries.
What do we hear about today? We are going to have a select committee
led by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] to find out why the
President did several months before we mandated him to do it, the very
same thing he did. If this confuses people, let us go from the
beginning.
In 1992, we already have the Bush administration knowledgeable of
Iranian arms into Yugoslavia, if they read the Christian Science
Monitor. What happens? In 1992 the Iranians are shipping arms into
Yugoslavia. There are ups and downs in those shipments. In 1994, yes,
the administration learns that the Iranians are going to ship more
arms. We do not ship the arms. We do not violate a Federal law. The
President does not violate the U.N. embargo. That is in April.
In May, just in case you missed the 1992 Christian Science Monitor
story, in May the Washington Post publishes reports of Iranian arms
shipments. Now to June. In June, the Congress passes an amendment
calling for a unilateral embargo. The President says the unilateral
embargo means we will have to put American troops on the ground while
there is fighting. There is debate over that. That was his policy. It
did lead to peace, so it apparently worked.
But also in June Senator McCain, on the floor of the Senate, June 24,
the Washington Times story, one more 25-cent expenditure, says,
``Iranian Weapons Sent,'' and what happens? It says it is done with a
wink and a nod. That is recorded in the Senate.
Now, in August, in August of the very same year, this Congress votes
to prohibit the President of the United States from interfering with
arms shipments from third countries. It does not exclude Iran. It
simply says the President cannot interfere with those shipments.

{time} 1330

Let us compare where we were. In 1992, the Bush administration, for 4
years, watches genocide and mass village exterminations. President
Clinton initiates a policy that may have some debate, but at the end of
the day they are in Canton, OH, and we have a peace process where the
murdering and killing has stopped.
Let us go spend $1 million. Why? My colleague from California said
it: Instructions from the Republican leadership.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The gentleman is quite right, we all voted to lift the embargo, but
we did not specify what countries should not put arms in there. That
would have required us to list six pariah states. We kind of thought
the President knew that Iran and Libya and Syria and these countries
were pariah states. We took that into consideration without having to
spell that out.
The fact is, that is the last country we would want to have get a
foothold in that volatile part of the world. That is our complaint.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how our friends on
the other side of the aisle now say during Iran-Contra they were
investigating bad things, but now we are not investigating anything. It
is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that President Clinton allowed the shipments,
contradicting his own public statements in support of an arms embargo
and possibly violating law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Armey], the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to take a moment to reflect, to reflect on the duty and the
responsibility that each of us has to the citizens who elected us to
this office. The responsibility of popularly elected representatives to
oversee and to check the executive branch is perhaps the most essential
working element of a truly free political system, as essential as
voting, because oversight of the executive branch is ultimately about
the public's right to know.
No matter what the issue, no matter how unpleasant the issue might
be, the public has, as the press reminds us, a right to know. The issue
before us today is not one of partisan politics or election year
grandstanding. At issue today is the legitimate suspicion of serious
wrongdoing on the part of the administration, wrongdoing that could
threaten the lives of our young men and women serving overseas,
wrongdoing that could result in the ominous spread of terrorist
doctrines to yet another corner of the world and put our troops at
increased risk.
It is our constitutional duty to investigate those suspicions and to
get the facts out. The duty is not optional. It is what we were elected
to do. I urge my colleagues again on both sides of the aisle to welcome
this opportunity to discover the truth. The citizens of the United
States do have a right to know what their Government is doing. It is
our duty to find out and to tell them. All Members, Democrat and
Republican, should join in getting to the bottom of this matter.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again with promises made,
promises broken.
I rise today in opposition to another million-dollar ripoff of the
American taxpayer. This bill would have us spend $1 million to fund a
select subcommittee to look into an issue that the International
Relations Committee has already dealt with.
Why is it necessary to create a whole new subcommittee with a dozen
new staffers, when we already have a subcommittee to handle issues
related to Bosnia? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is
well aware that this is an election year and that Senator Dole needs
all the help he can get.
It must be quite disheartening for the Republican leadership to see
their nominee for President so far behind President Clinton in the
polls. Apparently, the 50-plus hearings they have held on Whitewater
have not done enough to hurt the President's ratings. So now they are
trying a new approach--Iranian arms transfers to Bosnia. Somehow, Mr.
Speaker, GOP leaders will try to blame President Clinton for Iran's
transfer of weapons to Bosnia.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to arms transfers of all kinds. In fact, I
have introduced legislation that would require greater congressional
oversight of weapons transfers from the United States to dictators,
human rights abusers, and military aggressors. But I fail to see why we
have to spend $1 million of taxpayers' money--especially in these
austere times--when we already have an International Relations
Committee.
Clearly, Republican leaders are trying to create a $1 million
political entity designed to help candidate Dole, who has hit the limit
on his campaign spending. Let us face it, this is the mother of all
independent expenditures.
I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, we already have a standing
International Relations Committee charged with looking into matters
related to Bosnia. And if not to help candidate Dole, why else would we
be setting up yet another International Relations subcommittee?
Why, Mr. Speaker, we are telling the American public that we must cut
education funding, but somehow we have $1 million to blow on among
other things, new RCA color TV's and bottled water for this new and
redundant subcommittee?
Mr. Speaker, this Congress should be focusing on raising the minimum
wage, improving education, and reducing corporate welfare. We do not
need to hire

[[Page H4554]]

a dozen new staffers and create the most expensive subcommittee in the
House of Representatives. Moreover, let us not forget the memo
Republican leaders sent around to Republican committee chairmen asking
them to use their committees to find dirt on President Clinton.
Mr. Speaker, let us create this subcommittee. All I ask is that we
call it what it really is: the select House subcommittee to sling mud
on Democrats and elect Bob Dole for President.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], my friend and the chairman of
the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to describe the Clinton
administration's policy on arms embargo against Bosnia: breathtakingly
duplicitous. Duplicitous first in that the White House repeatedly and
strenuously rebuffed congressional efforts to lift the illegal and
immoral arms embargo in violation of Bosina's legitimate right to self
defense. Duplicitous in that the President authorized a policy which
effectively sanctioned arms shipments from Iran, of all places, Iran, a
terrorist state, to Bosnia via Croatia.
This latest fiasco underscores the crisis of leadership we have seen
time and time again over the last 3 years. I commend both Chairman
Gilman and Chairman Thomas for their leadership in pursuing this
matter.
The House Committee on International Relations recently held a
hearing on United States policy towards Bosnia which delved into
charges that the Clinton administration approved or allowed Iran to
ship arms to Bosnia. Frankly, that hearing raised more questions than
it answered.
Mr. Speaker, as a House sponsor of the bipartisan effort to lift the
arms embargo against Bosnia, I am extremely concerned about the
implications and consequences of such a policy should these allegations
be substantiated. It is ironic that President Clinton apparently was
willing to turn a blind eye toward Iran while blocking a majority of
Congress, a bipartisan majority, that called for the United States, not
Iran, to take the lead in upholding Bosnia's legitimate and fundamental
right to defend itself.
In a recent interview, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard
Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton agreement, indicated that the
situation on the ground in Bosnia had reached such a crisis that the
Bosnian Government would not have survived without outside arms
shipments. In attempting to justify the Clinton policy on Iranian
shipments. Mr. Holbrooke concluded, and I quote, ``We knew that the
Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political interest. It was a
calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a
lot of bad choices,'' close quote.
Bad choices, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, but there had to be a better
choice than the one that was embraced by President Clinton. Should the
Bosnians been given the means to defend themselves in the face of
aggression and genocide? Absolutely. Should those arms have come from
Iran? Absolutely not.
In the past 2 years, Mr. Speaker, Members from both sides of the
aisle have put aside their differences to respond to this senseless
slaughter of innocent civilians by well-armed Serb militants in Bosnia.
Repeatedly we have raised our voices, calling upon the President to
display a determined U.S. leadership in the face of this naked
aggression. These calls were repeatedly rebuffed.
When we voted in an overwhelming manner in support of lifting the
arms embargo on June 8, 1995 and again on August 1, we were told by the
White House that such an action was not in the interest of the United
States as it would lead to an Americanization of the conflict. It would
result in the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops, and undermine the
U.N. Security Council.
Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, the fundamental issue at
stake here, as in so many other instances, is one of leadership and in
this case flawed leadership. For nearly 3 years, Mr. Speaker, the
Clinton administration, like the one before it--and I was equally
critical of the previous administration, as my colleagues know on the
other side--passed the buck on Bosnia.
But the President and then candidate Clinton said that he knew
better, and he argued that during the campaign years and during his
first few months in office. They said the Europeans should handle this.
Now they turn a blind eye to who would provide the arms and allow the
Iranians to do it. It is shameful, and unfortunately it has led to the
situation that we are in today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of this resolution. It is a good one.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time
is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida has 15\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I was not here when we had the Iran-Contra
investigation of clearly illegal activities, but I was here when the
new Republican majority took over the Congress with promises to slash
congressional spending, to cut committees, to reduce staff, to
eliminate duplication, to reform the legislative process. Now we have a
proposal that does just the opposite of all those promises.
In that process of eliminating committees and slashing congressional
expenses, the majority eliminated the two subcommittees that would have
had jurisdiction over this matter, the Europe and Asia Subcommittees of
the International Relations Committee. The purpose of that was to save
half a million dollars over the entire year. The average subcommittee
spends $189,000 over a 6-month period.
This subcommittee will spend $1 million over a 6-month period. It
will be the most expensive subcommittee in the entire Congress, more
expensive than the health, Social Security, crime, and military
readiness subcommittees. Any of those other subcommittees pale by
comparison to what we are going to spend here.
In fact, this spending is understated. I grant you there is a line
for new RCA color TV's and other things like that, bottled water, but
there is not an inclusion for money for the travel for the witnesses.
That is a major expense. I think this amount of $1 million is
understated.
But we already spend $3.2 million and we employ 132 staff people to
review U.S. foreign policy. We have three committees that are looking
into the Bosnia issue. Talk about creating more duplication. Do we
really need a fourth committee that is going to be more expensive than
any of the other subcommittees in the entire Congress? I cannot imagine
why.
The other reason why this proposal does not make sense, is that in
the very same year that this activity took place, which no one has even
alleged is illegal, but in that very same year we passed a law that
says ``no funds appropriated by any provision of law may be used for
the purpose of participation in, support for or assistance to the
enforcement of the Bosnia arms embargo by any department, agency, or
other entity of the United States.''

{time} 1345

That was congressional will. We passed that in the very year that
these alleged decisions took place.
I do not even understand the allegation, to be honest with you. There
is clearly no illegal activity involved. The President did not do
anything. We did not violate any arms embargo. We did not send any
arms. The reality is the administration did exactly what the Congress
wanted them to do. Do not waste another $1 million of the taxpayers'
dollars.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the administration did not do what we wanted them to do.
We wanted them to lift the embargo and let the Bosnians defend
themselves. We passed that twice, and the President vetoed that. That
was the will of the Congress and the will of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

[[Page H4555]]

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for
House Resolution 416.
This Member would say to his colleagues that there are serious issues
involved here. The administration, and some on the other side of the
aisle, would have you believe that this a political exercise--payback
for the October Surprise investigation.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The October Surprise fiasco
was a conspiracy theorist's fantasy, concocted whole-cloth by a seedy
mixture of arms merchants, convicted felons, and washed-up academics.
Convicted scam artists were claiming that a decade earlier they had a
direct role in deceiving the American public. Mr. Speaker, it was pure
bunk. Eventually a strong consensus developed that the October Surprise
charges leveled about President George Bush were wholly without merit.
Mr. Speaker, I believe some people in the White House and top
advisers to the President's foreign policy need to remember this is not
a dictatorship. This is not a banana republic. In order for foreign
policy to be sustainable over the long run, it must be supported by the
American people and by the Congress of the United States.
Now, clearly, despite what one reads in the papers, the Congress of
the United States and the American people would not have found it
acceptable to have arms coming in from either Iraq or Iran. The
administration understood that. But, nevertheless, they proceeded with
a wink and a nod to the knowledge of Iranian arms and fighters coming
through Croatia to Bosnia.
As a former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
I can tell you that about two-thirds of what you read in the paper is
inaccurate. That fact it has been read in the paper that perhaps arms
were coming from Iran is no confirmation and no real warning to Members
of Congress that in fact the administration would do something so out
of touch with what the American people would want. It was inconceivable
for Members here to really believe that the administration would permit
perhaps as many as 2,000 Iranians and weapons from Iran to come into
Bosnia. Ridiculous. Out of the question. Unthinkable.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a conscious policy to deceive Congress is not a
partisan issue. It goes to the heart of our constitutional system of
government. Willful deception of the Congress and the American people
is a corrupting influence that can, and, if left exposed, will,
unchecked, undermine our system of government.
No one, regardless of political affiliation--not our Democratic
colleagues--should be willing to tolerate such contempt for Congress in
a constitutional system of government.
This Member would be perfectly willing to exonerate the
administration if the facts do not support those allegations. However,
the Congress has a right and a duty to learn the facts regarding the
administration's knowledge of and role in Iranian arms being sent to
Bosnia through Croatia. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, the administration's
response has been clumsy and a patronizing effort to stonewall us.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no question that President Clinton and
his top national security advisers did indeed knowingly tolerate and
perhaps encourage the shipment of Iranian arms and Iranian fighters to
assist the Bosnian Muslims. There also seems to be little doubt that
the administration was implementing this policy at the very time that
it was telling Congress that it was fully supporting the arms embargo.
The issue is quite simple--key policymakers in the Clinton
administration deceived the American people and the Congress in order
to implement a clearly intolerable policy, a policy that apparently
resulted in the deployment of hundreds of Iranian fighters in Bosnia
perhaps as many as 2,000 Iranians.
Mr. Speaker, a conscious policy to deceive the Congress is not a
partisan issue. It goes to the heart of our constitutional system of
government. Willful deception of Congress and the American people is a
corrupting influence that can, if left unexposed and unchecked,
thoroughly undermine our system of government. No one, regardless of
political affiliation, no not our Democrat colleagues, should be
willing to tolerate such contempt for Congress in our constitutional
system of government.
This Member would be perfectly willing to exonerate this
administration if the facts do not support such allegations. However,
the Congress has a right to learn the facts regarding the
administration's knowledge of and role in Iranian arms being sent to
Bosnia through Croatia. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, the administration's
response has been a clumsy and patronizing effort to stonewall.
Resonses under oath to the initial inquiries made at the
International Relations Committee hearing by this Member, together with
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, the distinguished
chairman from New York, Mr. Gilman, and other demonstrated a remarkable
case of selective amnesia by the administration on virtually every key
point regarding the administration's complicity with the Iranian arms
shipments.
During repeated questioning, senior administration officials voiced
no recollection of events that clearly transpired. Peter Tarnoff, the
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and hence the chief
political liaison from the State Department to the White House,
repeatedly insisted he was not privy to White House decisions on the
Iranian arms and fighters that apparently were made. Regrettably, the
Clinton administration's own actions make the creation of a select
subcommittee inevitable and necessary.
In fact, the representatives of the administration, on a wide variety
of issues, seem to frequently ignore the requirement to tell the truth
under oath by feigning an inability to recall details they surely do
recall. The witnesses appearing before the committee may indeed not
have thorough knowledge about the details we requested, but someone
does have knowledge and the Congress, and the American people are
entitled to the truth from those who are involved or otherwise
knowledgeable. That is the objective of the select subcommittee
proposal in House Resolution 416.
Mr. Speaker, this Member does not relish the task that lies ahead for
the select subcommittee. The integrity of this institution, the
integrity of the American system of representational government, the
integrity of the executive branch, and the integrity of the executive
branch's relation with Congress demand that we fully investigate the
Iran-Bosnia arms transfer fiasco.
The Member urges adoption of House Resolution 416 and House
Resolution 417.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a true champion of the Bosnian
people, particularly on this matter, and a member of the House
Committee on Oversight.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Maryland.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 6\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, human beings have a tendency to, unfortunately, respond
to previous wrongs against them or slights that they have seen, real or
imagined. October Surprise has been mentioned by the chairman of this
proposed subcommittee every time I have heard him speak on this issue.
I have spoken to him personally. He feels very deeply that October
Surprise hearings were a mistake. He may have been right.
I stand before you disavowing the issue of money. I do not think that
is what this is about. If in fact there was a legitimate purpose for
this investigatory committee, an unusual creation within the committee
itself, then the $990,000-some odd dedicated to that objective would be
justified.
The fact of the matter is, however, as the gentleman from Connecticut
has so ably pointed out, everybody knew what was happening. The outrage
that I hear articulated is not justified by some surprise.
During the Bush administration, everybody knew, everybody knew, that
the Iranians were trying to make hay out of what was happening in
Bosnia. Everybody knew that the Iranians had sent people to Bosnia. It
was in the newspapers, much less an intelligence report.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I will yield to the gentleman from Nebraska, unlike most
of the gentleman's colleagues, when I ask them to yield.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in
yielding. I would say to the gentleman that I disagree with him. The
fact that it is in the paper is no confirmation it existed. As I
suggested to the gentleman, about two-thirds what I read in the paper
was in fact not borne out in what the facts were before the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. I just wanted to give my alternative
view on that.

[[Page H4556]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respect the gentleman's
alternative view, but I will tell him in discussions I had with Bosnian
officials, there was no secret about this. As Chairman of the Helsinki
Commission, I knew it. I do not know where the Committee on Foreign
Affairs was on this or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
was on it, but I can tell you that Bosnian officials, President
Izetbegovic, did not make it a secret, I would tell my friend. The fact
of the matter is that we all knew. The newspapers said it, and, I
agree, you cannot take everything you read in the newspaper, so you try
to confirm it.
But the central fact of the history is not so much that we knew that
Iran or somebody else might give arms. It was that all of us wanted the
Bosnians to get arms. That is the central fact here.
The central fact further is we all know, the papers reported, that
the President did not preclude that knowledge. But what nobody has
mentioned is we did not have U.S. troops on the ground. The English
did, the French did, the Danes did, and a number of other countries had
troops on the ground.
The fact of the matter is that they did not interpose an objection
either. Why? Because they were conflicted about this policy. They knew
that under the United Nations charter, an independent, sovereign nation
had the legal right to defend itself.

But under the Bush administration and our Western allies, we took a
stance in the United Nations that no, we will have an arms embargo. The
French and English in particular felt very strongly about it, because
they had troops on the ground and they were concerned about the
escalation. But they were on the ground, and they could have stopped
this in its tracks. Perhaps they had a wink and a nod, because on a
public negotiated level, they could not reach a multilateral lifting of
the arms embargo. But they did not want the Bosnian Government to fall,
and, therefore, of necessity they needed arms.
Let me give you an analogous situation. Saddam Hussein remains in
Iraq right now. The 500,000 troops we sent, billions of dollars we
spent, and Saddam Hussein sits in Baghdad today. Why? Why? Because the
Bush administration made a judgment, that we all went along with, the
Congress did not stop it, that maybe we ought to leave Saddam Hussein
as a balance against the Iranians, because if we remove him and make
Iraq very weak, Iran remains. A practical, pragmatic decision, perhaps
not the moral judgment of eliminating someone we believe is a butcher
and a war criminal himself.
Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, had this judgment
to make: Do I allow them to go through and be able to defend their
lives, their homes, and their very nation, or do I say no, die.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, did the
gentleman know that as of January of this year that they were still
sending weapons in from Iran, after our troops were there, after we had
20,000 American troops on the ground?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the answer is I do not
have specific knowledge of that.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We have it here.
Mr. HOYER. Let me respond. The fact of the matter is, we are
conflicted as well on the policy of making sure the Bosnians have arms.
We have had significant discussions about U.S. involvement in doing
that, U.S. trainers doing that. We have a conflict on the floor on
that. If you are a Bosnian leader dedicated to the protection of your
country, you seek aid where you can get it. None of us on this floor is
an apologist for Iran. We do want Bosnia to survive.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say we had 20,000
American troops on the ground. We remember what happened in Beirut,
Lebanon when 235 marines were blown to hell because of a terrorist
driving through a barricade. After we had 20,000 Americans on the
ground, Iran, who was behind what happened in Beirut, still was
funneling supplies in. Not only that, there was also a terrorist
training camp found by the NATO forces over there. So for the gentleman
to say that this is not a big deal, it is a big deal.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Are you not pleased it has not happened here?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
resolution. The administration's ill-advised actions regarding Iranian
arms transfers to Bosnia raise many questions to which Congress and the
American people have a right to know the answers.
In 1994-95, the President's public policy was to support the arms
embargo against Bosnia--because to lift it would put at risk the forces
of our NATO Allies who were in Bosnia--and to pursue the international
isolation of Iran because of that rogue country's promotion of anti-
American terrorism. In fact, Assistant Secretary of State Strobe
Talbott testified that lifting the arms embargo was inadvisable because
it would allow Iran access into Europe.
Little did we know that the President's secret policy was to support
Iranian arms smuggling into Bosnia through Croatia, allowing Iran to
establish itself as one of the Bosnian Government's most significant
patrons. And that it was quite possibly Mr. Talbott himself who advised
the President to adopt that secret policy.
We need to know how this secret strategy was arrived at. How much
consideration was given to the possible consequences of such a radical
shift in American policy?
For more than 2 years, the Clinton administration has been deceiving
Congress about its policy in Bosnia. Not merely concealing convert
activity, but deceiving the American people about its objectives and
goals. Its distortions were so complete that the Central Intelligence
Agency was unaware of the switch in tactics and thought the State
Department was running a rogue covert operation. This must be
investigated by Congress so that we and the American people can know
how our foreign policy has been managed. These actions may or may not
have been actually illegal, but they are definitely irresponsible,
shortsighted, and foolhardy. And the administration must be accountable
for them.

{time} 1400

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I know it is an election year and this
type of partisan ploy is expected, but still I find it incredibly
difficult to understand how my balanced budget minded, fiscally
conservative Republican colleagues, who shut down the Federal
Government to save the future of our children, can come before this
House and stretch out their hands for $1 million to fund a special
committee for 6 months when its oversight work could easily be done by
the House Committee on International Relations, of which I am a member.
It is the right committee on substance, on policy and process as it
relates to this issue. The most expensive subcommittee of the House
Committee on International Relations does not spend in 1 year what the
Republicans are proposing to spend on this committee for 6 months.
Mr. Speaker, we can get to the truth that the majority leader spoke
of without more government and more tax dollars. In truth, the genesis
of the Bosnian crisis and the arms issue goes back to the Bush
administration, and if we are going to have this committee, I hope we
bring out members of that former administration to discuss what they
did and did not know and what they did and did not do.
Mr. Speaker, these are the same Members who stood before the House

[[Page H4557]]

arguing that children in my district did not need school lunches, that
the cost of safe drinking water and clean air were too high, that
energy assistance for seniors and financial aid for college students
had to be forfeited in time of fiscal constraints.
Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more than a baldface use of taxpayers'
dollars to fund a Republican campaign gimmick, one that was expressed
in a memo from the Republican leadership to cause political harm to the
President. What a waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say we have a
letter from the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the
Committee on House Oversight. He said that these funds are coming out
of the standing committee special and select account. The money is
there. There is no problem with it. In addition, there are no new funds
required because it is coming from the $6 million that was saved by
cutbacks in the cost of running the House and the committees of the
House.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and maybe to the American
people who may be paying attention, while President Clinton was saying
to the American people and to the Congress he did not want to lift the
embargo against Bosnia, behind the scenes covertly he was talking to
the Croatian Government saying that is OK, let Iran, another country
whom we are embargoing, send these weapons underground in an
underground pipeline into Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, he was telling the
American people, he was telling the representatives of the American
people, something else, lying to us, and yet dealing with the Croatians
in a way that would allow the Iranians to send these weapons in.
A cache of weapons was found by NATO forces in a safehouse there
where Iranian terrorists were, and these are some of the weapons that
were found: mortars; toys that children might pick up that would blow
up in their hands; all kinds of weapons of destruction by the same
people who were behind the bombing of our barracks in Beirut that
killed 235 of our men.
Mr. Speaker, the President misled the Congress of the United States
of America. Now, my colleagues have said on a number of occasions today
we are going to spend $1 million on a witch hunt and this is nothing we
should be doing, we should not be spending this money. I want to remind
them on Iran-Contra, that resulted in no one going to jail, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent $48 million, and a lot
of people thought it was a witch hunt. Admiral Poindexter's career was
tainted and it almost ruined him.
My Democrat colleagues spent $2 million on the select committees in
this House, $1.35 million on October Surprise, and it ended up costing
a total of almost $5 million. Yet we are talking about less than $1
million to get to the bottom of this issue of whether or not the
President of the United States may have violated the law, No. 1; or,
No. 2, deliberately misled the Congress of the United States by sending
incorrect messages up here through his Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker, let me end by saying that Secretary of State Christopher
said to us on a number of occasions, ``We do not want to lift that
embargo,'' and yet under the table they were working with the Iranian
terrorists to fund that. I think it is wrong. We need to investigate.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It deserves sober
debate.
The uncontroverted facts underlying all of this are as follows: They
involve no U.S. covert action, nor any ``action'' for that matter. The
President of the United States sent to our Ambassador in Croatia
instructions to take no position about country C's, Croatia's, request
for our views about country A's, Iran's, shipment of arms to country B,
Bosnia. That is what happened. No instructions.
``Acquiescence'' somehow gets transformed into ``complicity'' which
somehow gets transformed into ``duplicity,'' which in the continued
rhetorical inflation on the other side gets transformed into ``contempt
of Congress.'' That, in turn, gets bootstrapped into the notion that
this is ``serious Presidential wrongdoing.''
Give me a break.
Republican former Senator Warren Rudman, who looked at details of
this as explained by the Intelligence Oversight Board's own
investigation, found no illegality or wrongdoing. He said, in effect,
this is a question of ``politics;'' namely, the wisdom of the policy.
We can look at the question. We should look at it. The majority has
every right in the world to hold the administration accountable for
that. But let us be a little bit more accurate in the characterization,
which has now taken on almost a caricature quality.
Let us stipulate that there is a problem that needs looking into. Do
we need one committee to do it? Perhaps the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence. Two? The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Three? The Committee on National Security. Now let us have four, and
create a Select Subcommittee of International Relations to boot!
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate for the past hour, I
am struck by one aspect of the comments I hear from the other side of
the aisle: ``Methinks thou dost protest too much.'' I am beginning to
wonder whether there is more here than even I had thought.
As a scientist, I like to deal with the facts and I am interested in
finding out the facts. I do not put more credence in allegations unless
we can investigate them. On that basis, I believe it is important to
proceed with this investigation and try to determine what the facts
are.
It appears that the President did allow the Iranians to get arms into
Bosnia, and I believe it is important to determine whether, if fact,
that happened.
There has been a great deal of discussion here about the cost of the
inquiry. I would point out first of all this cost is being handled
within the committee budget of the House of Representatives; that that
is still 30 percent less than the committee budget under the previous
Congress, and certainly appears to be a reasonable expenditure in terms
of determining the truth of the situation.
The real issues are whether the President did in some fashion deceive
the public and the Congress by publicly stating his opposition to arms
going into Bosnia and at the same time allowing arms to go into Bosnia.
Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps a more serious allegation, and one that
certainly has to be investigated, is whether the President knowingly
allowed the Iranians to be the source of those arms, to provide the
pipeline for those arms to get into Bosnia.
I recall when I heard the first news reports of our troops coming in,
the international troops, IFOR, and discovering various caches of
weapons from the Iranians and finding a number of Iranians there. I was
dismayed as a citizen and as a Member of Congress to find that Iranian
influence had extended there.
Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my dismay when I found out that the
President had some complicity in this. As I said, I believe it is
extremely important for us to investigate this, to determine as best as
possible what the facts are in the situation, and make our conclusions.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to
investigate the United States role in the Iranian arms transfer to
Croatia and Bosnia.
The Bosnian arms embargo was established in 1991 by the United
Nations in an effort to prevent the Bosnian conflict from erupting into
widespread civil war. By placing an embargo on the region, it was
thought that none of the warring factions could gain a decisive
advantage over the others. However, the embargo had little effect. The

[[Page H4558]]

already well-armed Serbians were able to easily roll over the
militarily weaker Bosnians, claiming much territory and causing
horrific casualties. While still opposed to direct United States
intervention, the Republican-led Congress called for a lifting of the
embargo so that the Bosnians could, at least, acquire the arms they
needed to defend themselves. On eight separate occasions, the President
rejected congressional attempts to lift this embargo.
While publicly supporting the arms embargo, President Clinton had
secretly approved a shipment of Iranian arms to Bosnia in 1994. This is
a classic Clinton flip-flop. Last year, he blocked our efforts to lift
the arms embargo, and he has allowed Iran--a known sponsor of
terrorism--to ship arms directly to Bosnia. There are 20,000 Americans
risking their lives in Bosnia because President Clinton sent them
there. By allowing Iran to establish a foothold in the region, the
President has significantly increased that risk.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues never cease to
amaze me. They yelled for years about lifting the arms embargo, as did
I. We all knew that the arms embargo could not be lifted because
Britain and France objected. But we all knew this was going on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they want to waive the House rules to form this
committee. They touted the new House rules for saving money and now
they want to waive it like they have waived all the other House rules.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to blow a million bucks on this
unneeded committee when all they needed to do was plunk down a quarter
for the June 4, 1994 Washington Times. We knew it was happening then.
These arms shipments were widely reported in 1994. Because the
Republicans did not pay attention then, the American taxpayer will pay
a million bucks now.
The Republicans should hit the library and read the old newspaper
clips of this story instead of hitting the American taxpayer in the
wallet. The Committee on International Relations can handle it on its
own. If they had not abolished the Europe and Middle East Subcommittee,
that subcommittee would be in effect now, doing these kinds of things.
Mr. Speaker, they talk about Iran. Where were they during the Iran-
Contra scandal? This is a political ploy. It is election year politics
at its worst and it should be defeated.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point once more.
There is a big difference between complicity in permitting Iranian arms
to come in to Bosnia or permitting it to happen on one hand, and
accepting newspaper reports which indicate that arms are coming in from
the Arab world or even specifically from Iran.
This Congress was not informed and certainly had no expectations that
anybody would be dumb enough in the White House to permit Iranian arms
and troops to come into Bosnia.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just simply conclude by saying I think we have
explored all aspects of this over the last several hours. There is no
question that we are in the middle of a political campaign, and I think
the gentlewoman from Georgia who called it ``an independent
expenditure'' was probably close to being accurate.
But there is no question we also hear something else here which is
regrettable. It is a ``get back,'' a position taken by many on the
other side that this is a response to prior investigations. Well,
regardless of whether they turned up any indictable offense, every
prior investigation was warranted by the facts, by allegations of
illegality. this one is not, and does not deserve this expenditure and
this emphasis of time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, a previous distinguished speaker from the other side of
the aisle said that the facts are uncontroverted with regard to what
the President did. If that is the case, then why does the minority
oppose the investigation of the facts?
The distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] a few minutes
ago said the arms embargo could not be lifted because the British and
the French objected. The British and the French and the Germans
objected to the decision of the Clinton administration to appoint a
Secretary General of NATO who is a socialist, and yet he was appointed.
The United States is the only remaining superpower in the world, and
if the United States would have exerted leadership as the Congress
demanded of the President with regard to Bosnia, the multilateral
embargo would have been lifted. We said, ``Mr. President, if you
cannot, even with exerting leadership as the only superpower in the
world, lift the multilateral embargo, the lift it unilaterally because
the people of Bosnia have a right to defend themselves.'' But no, he
vetoed that.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time the administration was vetoing the will
of the Congress with regard to letting the Bosnian people defend
themselves, the administration through Mr. Tarnoff was admitting
publicly, quote, ``Iran engages in terrorism by assassinating its
opponents. It provides material and political support to Palestinian
rejections trying to undermine the Middle East peace process through
violence. It seeks to subvert secular regimes in the Muslim world.''
Mr. Speaker, that is the administration talking about Iran at the
same time that it is giving a green light to Iran to enter Bosnia.
This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker. This is not political. I
reject that allegation. What would the other side require to realize
that the national interest of the United States is legitimately
involved in this issue, Mr. Speaker?

{time} 1415

So we will be investigating this. We have done this. I commend the
gentleman from California, Chairman Bill Thomas, for his leadership in
bringing forth this select subcommittee under cost, under the actual
request that was made because he was able to do it as efficiently as
possible.
I would like to submit for the Record a memorandum from the Office of
Finance to Chairman Thomas that states that the $995,000 of the cost of
the subcommittee can be absorbed within the fiscal year 1996 funds.
I would urge all of my colleagues to take seriously the national
security interests of the United States. This is a very serious issue.
It deserves to be legitimately and thoroughly studied.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the memorandum to which I
referred:

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 1, 1996.

[Memorandum]

To: Chairman Bill Thomas, Committee on House Oversight.
From: Tom Anfinson, Associate Administration, Office of
Finance.
Subject: Funding for Special Select Subcommittee.
Please be advised that your amendment in the nature of a
substitute of $995,000 for the cost of the Select
Subcommittee, based on current projections, can be absorbed
within the Fiscal Year 1996 funds provided for ``Standing
Committees, Special and Select.''

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 203, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page H4559]]

[Roll No. 152]

YEAS--225

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--6

Coburn
de la Garza
Ford
Hostettler
Molinari
Scarborough

{time} 1436

Mr. SCHUMER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Messrs.
STOCKMAN, HOEKSTRA, and UPTON changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table

____________________