[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E757]]


                   IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 416

                                 ______


                              HON. JAY KIM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 9, 1996

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
416, the resolution to establish a select subcommittee of the 
International Relations Committee to investigate the United States role 
in Iranian arms transfers to republics of the former Yugoslavia. As a 
member of International Relations Committee, I feel it is our duty to 
the American people to closely examine the Clinton administration's 
foreign policy decisions, especially those of such questionable intent.
  As we all know, in September 1991, the United Nations imposed an 
international arms embargo on the area comprising the former state of 
Yugoslavia. The United States, under the leadership of President Bush, 
supported the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 713 as means 
to stem the flow of arms to the warring parties. When President Clinton 
took office in January 1993, his administration proposed lifting this 
multilateral embargo in order to help the besieged and poorly armed 
Bosnian military forces. After failing to gain international approval 
for lifting the arms embargo, the Clinton administration decided 
instead to abide by this resolution and even began helping enforce it.
  Over the next 2 years, the Clinton administration consistently and 
repeatedly voiced its opposition to lifting the arms embargo by arguing 
that such a shift in policy would result in a pullout of European 
peacekeepers involved in the United Nations Protective Force (UNPROFOR) 
operation. In addition, the administration claimed that lifting the 
embargo would enrage our allies, endanger U.N. forces, necessitate 
further United States military deployments and weaken other 
international sanctions against Iraq, Libya, and Serbia.
  During those 2 years, this Congress voted twice to unilaterally lift 
the embargo on Bosnia, in response to a growing sentiment among the 
American people. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration continued to 
resist these efforts through vetoes. The irony is, however, that while 
the Clinton administration publicly opposed a lifting of the embargo, 
it tacitly allowed arms into Bosnia from, of all countries, Iran.
  The sad truth is this administration did not inform Congress of its 
decision to turn a blind eye, the news media did! According to the 
press, in April 1994, the Clinton administration was approached ``with 
the idea of opening an Iranian arms pipeline through Croatia into 
neighboring Bosnia.'' National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and Deputy 
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott then presented the proposal to 
President Clinton who, on April 27, 1994, formally signed off on the 
idea. If this is not the epitome of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
  According to Clinton administration's own Department of State, Iran 
remains atop the list of countries that sponsor terrorism throughout 
the world. Iran is also considered one of the most egregious violators 
of human rights. Now I ask you, how can a President, who allegedly 
stands against terrorism and human rights violations allow one of the 
worst violators of basic United States foreign policy to obtain a 
foothold in Bosnia? In addition, if President Clinton was so worried 
about endangering U.N. forces when he opposed lifting the embargo, how 
can he explain allowing Muslim extremists to deliver arms into a 
country where U.S. forces are now stationed? Does he believe U.S. 
forces are less important than U.N. forces? I should hope not.
  Once again, the Clinton administration has apparently mastered the 
art of flip-flopping on foreign policy. These questions that remain, 
however, are more serious than just U.S. credibility abroad. The most 
important of which is--did the administration violate U.S. law by 
allowing these transfers to occur? This, and many other questions, need 
to be answered to this Congress and the American people. That is why I 
strongly support House Resolution 416 which will establish a temporary 
select subcommittee to investigate this behind-the-door activity and 
determine what actions must be taken if U.S. laws were violated. It is 
unfortunate that it comes to this, but without congressional oversight 
into the actions of executive agencies and the President himself, every 
law is at risk of being broken. In that regard, I urge my colleagues to 
support the passage of House Resolution 416.

                          ____________________