[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

                          ____________________