Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, it is.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The fact of the matter is we lost some of those men because we did not get there quick enough.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may interrupt, that was never reported to the American people?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The point is they could get within a half a mile and be more accurately targeted in. That is the problem.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You have been in the military you might tell our [[Page H 13788]] colleagues how far a mortar will go, how far they can stay back from that 2\1/2\-mile-wide corridor to hit American troops if they wanted to lob something in there.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. And they are having Americans killed, you might add.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That should be sufficient, Mr. Speaker. You know one of the problems you have when you are in public life is sometimes you are misquoted, and yesterday I was on CBS' morning show along with Senator McCain, and I was on CNN ``Talkback Live,'' and last night I was quoted on NBC News, Tom Brokaw's news report, talking about my opposition, unequivocal opposition, to sending our troops to Bosnia. But one of the reporters from the AP wire service took one line out of my statement on CBS news which said, you know, ``He's hell-bent''; I was referring to the President, ``He's hell-bent to send our troops there, and, if he does that, we must support them,'' is what I meant to say, but we were running out of time, and I said ``him.'' And so they put that on the AP wire, and it went all over the country, and in every major newspaper in the country I was quoted as saying, ``He's hell-bent to do this, and, if he does, we must support him.'' Mr. Speaker, it made it look like I was in favor of sending our troops to Bosnia, which is 180 degrees from the truth. I am absolutely and unequivocally opposed to sending our troops to Bosnia, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the people who may be paying attention to this special order exactly why. I met today with the Prime Minister of the Bosnian Moslem Republic, Mr. Silajdzic, and we had a nice long talk with other members of the Committee on International Relations talking about whether or not there were perils involved for our troops in Bosnia. I also had an intelligence briefing along with members of our committee, some of which I cannot go into here tonight because it was a closed briefing, and it was an intelligence briefing, and it is not for public consumption. But the bottom line is, things that I can say that need to be reported to my colleagues and to the American people, is there are 6 million land mines over there, and a number of our troops are going to be blown apart, or lose their arms and legs by stepping on these mines. They cannot be detected by metal detectors, many of them, because they are made out of plastic, they are very cheap, and they blow off the feet, and some of them jump up and will blow of legs and even kill people, but they are designed to maim. Six million of them. They only know where there are about 100,000 to 1 million of them. That means that at least 5 million of them are not known where they are, so that is a real peril to our troops. Our troops are going to be on a corridor that runs many, many, many miles, probably from around Sarajevo up to Tuzla, and we are going to have troops in a 2\1/2\ mile wide corridor, and they will be subject to terrorist attacks, a terrorist, a Bosnian Serb, a Moslem from Iran, a number of people who are disenchanted with the peace accord, maybe some people who live around Sarajevo who fear they are going to lose their homes when the Bosnian Moslems return. These people may perpetrate a terrorist attack on our troops. They could put a truckload of dynamite, just like they did in Beirut back in the early eighties, and drive it through a barrier and blow up a lot of our young men and women. They are being put in harm's way with no end in sight. The President said they will be brought home in 1 year, but in 1 year will we resolve this problem? After having talked to the leaders of these various countries and these various sects over there, I am convinced that there is not going to be a solution to this. These hatreds go back hundreds of years, and these people do not like each other at all, and it is my feeling that in 1 year we will still be mired down in this quagmire. The only difference is we are probably going to have an awful lot of our young men and women maimed or killed unnecessarily. I do not think anybody knows for sure how many are going to be lost, but make no mistake about it, there will be many. All those land mines, all of these age-old hatreds, putting our troops in between warring factions, hoping that things will work out even though some people who were supposed to be included in the negotiations have not yet agreed to them. As a matter of fact, the Bosnian Serb leaders are still trying to renegotiate part of the agreement that deals with Sarajevo and the property around that. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about sending our troops. I oppose sending our troops. Every time I get more information from the intelligence community or from the leaders of that part of the world, the former Yugoslavia, I become more concerned about the safety of our troops and am more convinced that this will not be a solution to these age-old hatreds. The solution is to embargo products that are going into the warring factions, to force them to the conference table, to make them sit down and work out an agreement without outside forces being involved because, if they really reach an agreement and they really want peace, they are going to work it out and have troops there of their own to be a barrier between the warring factions. To put our troops, and the British troops, and the British troops, and other troops in between all these warring factions is a recipe for disaster, and I think the President is making a very, very major mistake. I see my colleague from California here who shares my views. He is going to be taking, I believe, the next hour to talk about this issue. But I wanted to make very, very clear to AP and to the people across this country who may have been misled by that AP story that I am unalterably opposed to sending our troops, I think it is a tragic mistake, I think the President is leading us down the road to a real possible disaster, and I think that the American people ought to know there is a better way to skin this cat than putting American young men and women at risk.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] for this special order. I think it has been very enlightening, and I know many Americans watching it had a lot of their questions answered. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we spent $2 billion going on $3 billion in Haiti, and it is a mess. We tried to do nation building in Somalia. We lost 18 young Americans, and we left Somalia, and the dictators, the warlords that were in charge, are still in charge over there. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and nothing was accomplished. That foreign policy led to disaster. Now the President that got us into those two messes is going to send 20,000 to 30,000 young Americans into Sarajevo, into Bosnia. There are 60,000 people around Bosnia, Bosnian Serbs that say they are not going to abide by the treaty. Some of them said, ``You saw Americans dragged through the streets of Somalia dead and naked. You are going to see the same things around Sarajevo.'' They are telling us what is going to happen. There are 6 million land mines over there. We only know where 100,000 to 500,000 of them are, 6 million land mines. This is a recipe for disaster. We saw a terrible tragedy occur in Beirut when I first came to Congress. We saw 240-some marines blown to smithereens. The same thing may very well happen in Bosnia. The President is making a monumental mistake. I do not think the American people want this to happen. I know they do not, and the President should listen to them.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk tonight about the Clinton foreign policy. The President has been asking us over the past couple of days to support him in sending troops to Bosnia. Before we start doing that, we ought to look at the record of the administration in dealing with foreign policy issues. So let us start with Haiti. Mr. Aristide down there said he was going to become a true lover of democracy. He said that he was going to privatize a lot of the Government agencies down there, Government functions. He said he was going to have free and fair elections and step down as President. We found out just recently that he is not going along with the privatization program that he promised. [[Page H 13692]] There have been a lot of killings recently, and he has used some very harsh rhetoric when speaking to crowds, which has led to additional killings. He said that he may not step down as President, may try to keep an extra 3 years. We have been putting pressure on him, and now it appears as though he will put in a puppet to replace them to keep control for the next 6 years and, during this time that we have been giving him hundreds of millions of dollars and keeping American troops down there, he has spent $1.8 million of American taxpayers' money to lobby the Congress of the United States to get more money. He is using our taxpayers' dollars to get more money. This has been a total failure by the administration. It has not completely manifested itself yet, but it is getting there. Things are getting out of control. Mr. Aristide has paid one firm $48,000 a month. Ira Kurzban, a Miami attorney who has worked for Castro, who has worked for the Communist Sandinistas, who has worked for Mr. Aristide, in fact, his wife, Kurzban's wife, was so enamored with Castro, the Communist dictator in Cuba, she kissed him. And this is the man who is representing him in getting $48,000 of American taxpayers' money to represent him to lobby Congress. There is another firm getting $50,000 a month. Another getting $41,000 a month. Another getting $12,500 a month. Another getting $10,000, another getting $5,000. All United States taxpayer money to support a failed policy in Haiti. Then we talk about Somalia. In Somalia the President went over there and said he was going to nation build, to bring democracy to Somalia. He said he was going to bring the horrible Mr. Aideed, the tribal leader over there, to justice. Mr. Aideed used his forces to kill 18 American military people. What happened? A year later, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to stabilize the situation in Somalia, we pulled out. Aideed is still there. Another foreign policy failure. And it cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and a lot of American lives for nothing. Now the President says he wants to send 25,000 troops into Bosnia to nation build, to stabilize the situation, to bring about peace and democracy there in a country that has a history of hundreds of years of war between religious factions and various ethnic groups. Our troops are going to be put right smack-dab in the middle. Sixty thousand of the Serbian, Bosnian Serbs around Sarajevo have said they do not like the agreement, they are not going to go along with the agreement, and they have guns and weapons. And our troops are going to be there to maintain the peace. This is a recipe for disaster, another in a series of failed foreign policy programs pushed by the Clinton administration. Do you know how many land mines there are in Bosnia? Six million. Six million. It is almost like you could not walk anyplace without stepping on a land mine. Do you know something even worse than that? We only have a map showing where between 100,000 and 1 million of them are. That means at least 5 million land mines are out there that we do not know about. Our troops are going to be put there in between warring factions who hate each other, and we are supposed to keep the peace. If they break across the 2\1/2\-mile-wide line that we are going to be patrolling, then we have, we will be able to defend ours, shoot to kill. But when we do that, there is going to be retaliation. There is going to be a lot of Americans killed. It is unfortunate that the President, time after time after time has had failed foreign policy, and we in the Congress of the United States have been unable to do anything about it. As Commander in Chief, he does not listen to the will of the Congress of the United States. We did not want him to send troops into Haiti, but he did it anyhow. We did not want him to nation build in Somalia, but he did it anyhow. We do not want him, by a vote of over 300 to less than 125, we did not want him to send troops into Bosnia, but he has said last night on American TV we are going to do it anyhow. To heck with what the people in the Congress of the United States want; to heck with what the American people want. So I just like to say to my colleagues we ought to send the President a very strong message, try to stop him any way we can from sending troops over there. Once they get there, we have to support them because they are our young men and women. We cannot leave them in harm's way without proper military equipment. But the President bears the responsibility. He said last night he bears the full responsibility. You bet he does. securities litigation reform act Mr. WHITE submitted the following conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 1058) to reform Federal securities litigation, and for other purposes: Conference Report (H. Rept. 104-369) The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1058), to reform Federal securities litigation, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the following:

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of years I and some of my colleagues and some staff people have been doing an investigation into the death of Vince Foster who was found at Fort Marcy Park a year ago July. It was in 1993, 2 years ago in July. And over the past couple of years we have researched, we have looked into the Fiske report. We have gone out to Fort Marcy Park. We have talked to numerous people who were witnesses or not witnesses to his death but were at Fort Marcy Park and we found some startling things. One of things that has really bothered a number of us in the past couple of months is that we found out, when we looked at the report that was filed by the FBI, that there is some severe inconsistencies. The man who found Vince Foster's body, who was called the confidential witness, was alleged to have said in the FBI report that when he found Vince Foster's body he looked directly into the face, specifically observing that the eyes of his body were partially open and slightly glazed and that traces of dry black blood were running from the side of the mouth and nose down the right side of his face. When I talked to the confidential witness, he swore under oath before a court reporter that there was no blood on the side of the man's face. You might say that might be just a mistake. But the report went on, he further advised that there were traces of blood stains on the shirt to include the upper right shoulder area, along with traces of what he considered to be vomit or spilled wine, possibly purplish in color. He says there was no blood on his shirt, that there was no blood on the side of his face and no blood on his shirt, and he told the FBI that. Yet the FBI put in a report that there was blood on the side of his face and on his shirt. Another part of the report says, he further maintained, this is the FBI saying this, he further maintained that he was fixated on the face of the body and did not pay specific attention to body extremities, including the hand. In this regard, he advised he could not remember the exact position of the thumb, stating that while he did not observe a gun, there could have been a gun in his hands. When this was read to the confidential witness, he went into orbit. He said there is absolutely no question whatsoever that I say the hands clearly, the thumbs were out, the palms were up and there was no gun in the hands. He said, I was right there. I looked right down in his face, no further than 18 inches from the body. So the FBI, according to him, misstated that. Now you would say if that was the only problem with the investigation by the FBI, that they may have just made some mistakes, even though there is some glaring ones here. Then we ran into another witness who was out at the park that same day and an hour earlier. That fellow, when he was there, his name was Patrick Knowlton. He said that when he went into the park he saw a car, a brown car with Arkansas plates, and it was a Honda and that it was an older model. Yet in the FBI report they say it is a light blue car with Virginia plates. He said, I never said that. I said it was a dark brown car with Arkansas plates and they put it down as a Virginia car with Virginia plates and it is light blue. He also saw some suspicious people in another car who were doing some things there and they may have been involved in the Foster case. And he said, in the report according to the FBI, he could not further identify this particular individual nor his attire and stated that he would be unable to recognize him in the future. He said that is an absolute lie, because I told the FBI agent specifically I not only could identify him, I could draw a picture of the guy because I would never forget his face. Yet the FBI says he could not identify the gentleman. Then we go back to the confidential witness. There is another part of the report that says, and the possibility does exist that there was a gun in or near his hands that he might have seen. The confidential witness said that is an absolute lie. Now, another lady drove up near the park and her car broke down, and it was a Mercedes. When she went into the park to try to find help, she sighted two cars and in her report to the FBI she states the cars were of different color than what she said. She has been contacted. The interesting thing about all of this is the two FBI agents that did the investigation, gentlemen named Larry Monroe and Bill Colombell. All three of these people say that the report that they gave to the Fiske Commission was wrong, that it was lies. If one of them was a lie or a mistake, you could understand it or if two of them. But three, these people interviewed three people and there are glaring misrepresentations in these reports. I have said to the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight here in the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who is also looking into this for the Speaker, that we ought to have those FBI agents come in and explain these inequities and inconsistencies, these inconsistencies in this report, because according to the witnesses who found the body, according to the witnesses who were there, according to the witnesses who saw the cars and the people involved, they say these are out and out lies in these reports. If the FBI lied to Mr. Fiske or if they were asked to lie to Mr. Fiske, that is a breach of faith. It is something that has misled the American people as to whether or not this may have been a suicide someplace else or maybe even a murder. These things need to be brought to the attention of the American people. We have, I believe, Mr. Starr, the special counsel or prosecutor, who has been looking into this. it has been brought to his attention. I hope he pursues this and finds out why these FBI agents did not write the report the way the people who found the body and the way the people who were at the park saw it. I think he should ask those FBI agents directly, why did you misrepresent these things in this report? In addition to that, I believe it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States and our committee to call these FBI agents in and go ask them directly face to face why these things are inaccurate.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, what Speaker Gingrich said this morning on CNN, and I watched it very carefully, he said everything was on the table except one thing, and that was that we have to have a balanced budget in 7 years scored by CBO. That is it. He did not say there was no compromise.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very civilized debate and I appreciate that from all of my colleagues. There are some things, though, that have not been explained that I think need to be explained. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about just prohibiting access from lobbyists, we are talking about our constituents' access, because the legislation that the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and others are sponsoring is going to limit access by our constituents. If they come to Washington and want to take us out to lunch or to dinner, we are going to have to say no in many cases, especially if we have a long-term relationship, if they are not a dyed-in-the-wool friend. In addition to that, my colleagues, remember this: It says, gifts and meals valued at $10 or more count toward the cumulative limit of $100. Now, it says you do not have to keep records on that, but I am telling you that you are going to have to keep records on that, everything over $10. Everything over $10. Now, how many in this place are [[Page H 13085]] going to be watching everything over $10?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], my dear friend and colleague. (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Mississippi, of course. The fact of the matter is we have constituents coming in here by the hundreds and everybody here knows that, and if my colleague has the money to buy every one of them lunch, then congratulations. I do not. The fact of the matter is, you are going to have to keep track of everything over $10, because at some point in the future, you may be called up before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and you are going to have to answer. Now, in addition to that, remember this: If you violate the ethics laws, and we did not think when we had the House bank scandal we were going to have problems, but we did, and a lot of people were defeated and some even went to jail over it. I am telling you, we are going to have problems with this, and there is going to have to be legal fees paid. Now, if you go before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and you have to plead your case because of some of these improprieties or alleged improprieties, you are going to have to hire an attorney and you are going to have to pay for it and it is going to cost you a lot of money. Now, let us talk about my bill, my approach. It has been said by the proponents of the Waldholtz bill that they have broad bipartisan support. Well, we have broad bipartisan support on my substitute. We have over 100 cosponsors, because Members, when they find out what they are going to be up against, realize that it is better to have complete and full disclosure than to start worrying about everything over $10 that we are going to have to be accountable for. Now, what is wrong with full disclosure? Who are we answerable to? Who put us here? Our constituents. Our constituents put us here. If we do something wrong and it is in the paper, they are going to hold us accountable. So what is wrong with disclosing everything? Mr. Speaker, what my bill says is that everything above $50 we keep track of, if it is a meal or a gift or whatever it is. We keep track of it and we report it on our FEC report. I guarantee you, these people up here are going to be watching our FEC reports because they already do, and if we abuse our privileges in the House, they are going to report it on the front pages of our papers, and we are going to be held accountable by our constituents and maybe even thrown out of office. So that is the way to handle it. Have full disclosure. Do not mess with this minutia that is going to get us into trouble before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Now, I would like to talk about these charities. I go to about two of these charity events a year. One is the Danny Thompson event in Sun Valley, ID. I do not even know who I am going to play with when I play in that event, because it is drawn by lottery. You do not know if it is a lobbyist or a businessman or who it is. So this idea that we are being lobbied all the time is crazy. We have more of these lobbyists in our office every day than we do on the golf course, so that is a bogus argument. The fact of the matter is the Danny Thompson Golf Tournament has raised collectively over $3 million for cancer research, and with the private foundations that give matching funds, that translates into $30 million that has been raised for cancer research. In this past year they found a cure for kids who have lymphatic cancer that is going to save thousands and thousands of young kids' lives. Now, is the Federal Government going to pick up the tab for that? What is wrong with us playing in a charity event that helps those things and helps those kids? I see nothing wrong with it. The answer, my friends, is complete and full disclosure. Let those people, let the American people know what we are doing and let them be the judge, not some Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to me be divided between myself and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the Republican whip of the House.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], my dear friend and colleague. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], my good colleague. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I support this rule. There has been a lot of misunderstanding and I think misrepresentation about Medicare. Medicare is going to increase the benefits by $1,900 over the next few years. The percentage of growth is going to be 6.5 percent, which is above most private health plans. So senior citizens need to know that their benefits are going to increase, an they are going to have to pay, according to the plan we have, 31 percent of the premium, but 69 percent is going to be paid for by the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about another aspect of this that I think is important to my colleagues. This morning on Business Day, on CNN, they had a financial expert on there that predicted, if we stick to our guns and we get to a balanced budget in 7 years, that interest rates on home mortgages will drop down to between 5 and 5.5 percent, which will be the lowest interest rate on home mortgages since the 1950's. Likewise, interest rates on short-term financial transactions like car loans will drop dramatically. What that means to the average taxpayer is more money in their pocket. They will be able to afford cars that they cannot now afford, because they will be able to afford the payments because of the lower interest rates. They will be able to buy homes which will be a boon to the housing industry and to economic expansion. So this balanced budget that we are going to see in 7 years, if we stick to our guns, and we intend to do that, is going to be beneficial to everybody in the country who buys anything, because interest rates are going to drop and they are going to drop precipitously, according to most economic experts. Now, in addition to that, we are talking about tax cuts for average families, a $500 per child tax cut for the families that have children. We are talking about a capital gains tax that is going to benefit probably 75 percent of the people in this country regarding capital gains. So this package that we have talked about, this balanced budget approach, will result in lower home interest rates, lower car interest rates, lower interest rates on small loans. It will translate into lower taxes for the average family and lower taxes for the business people. It is going to be good for the entire economy. Mr. Speaker, regarding the senior citizens, I am very disappointed that my colleagues keep beating on this issue and trying to frighten them. We all know that the Medicare trust fund is going to go bankrupt if we do not do something about it. We are doing something about it. We are going to solve the problem. There is going to be a 31-percent cost to the senior citizen, but 69 percent is going to be paid for by the taxpayer, and they are still going to have their benefits go up to 6.5 percent a year, which means they are going to have a $1,900 increase in benefits over the next 5 to 6 years. Mr. Speaker, this is a good package, it is good for America, and I hope my colleagues will reconsider supporting it.