Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 174th Assault Helicopter Company (AHC), Dolphins & Sharks (both pilots and enlisted crew members) who played such an important role during their service in Vietnam and Laos during 1966-1971. They will be gathering once again for their reunion in Fort Walton Beach, Florida on October 5, 6, and 7 of 2001. The contribution of the 174th AHC to the American war effort is significant and they should be recognized for their valor. The personnel of the 174th AHC were an elite group formed at Fort Benning, Georgia in 1965. The 174th was deployed to Vietnam by U.S. Navy ships in 1966, landing at the Vietnamese port at the City of Qui Nhon. The unit's three primary ``homes'' in Vietnam were Lane Army Heliport near Qui Nhon (1966; II-Corps), Duc Pho in Quang Ngai Province (1967-1970; I-Corps), and Chu Lai, base camp for the Americal Division (1971; also I-Corps). The 174th flew various models of the UH-1 ``Huey'' helicopter. The unit served long and proud in Vietnam and saw much combat action in the rice paddies and mountains in the northern half of South Vietnam from 1966 until 1971, and in Laos during Operation Lam Son 719 in 1971. Representative of the sacrifices of this great country is the proud and gallant record of combat service of the 174th AHC. Members of this company engaged the enemy and these engagements have taken their toll. Sixty members of this special corps of Dolphins and Sharks died gallantly for the cause of freedom. They shall not be forgotten. The 174th AHC has on countless occasions proven its high spirit and ``can do'' attitude as is so appropriately emblazoned on the Company crest-- ``Nothing Impossible.'' The proud legacy of the 174th remains. They proved that the preservation of freedom required heroic sacrifice. They proved that their loyalty to American ideals and their desire for peace was their first priority. When our country needed them, they answered the call, and served proudly. It is this same spirit of sacrifice and duty that has made this nation great. As the members of the 174th Assault Helicopter Company gather for their 2001 reunion, I wish to extend a heartfelt ``thank you'' for their actions in Vietnam and Laos. During this dangerous and uncertain time, we are reminded that in every generation, the world has produced enemies of freedom. The evidence of this fact is clear today after the recent attack on America. The resolve and commitment of those who have fought for freedom throughout our history continues to be the calling of our time. The proud legacy of the 174th Assault Helicopter Company is the inspiration for today's America and those who will be called to serve. We can never repay them except by promising each other to never forget. God bless the men of the 174th AHC and their families. I hope that their reunion is a success and I wish them well in the future.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) for his involvement and participation in the trip. He was a vital part of our delegation. He will be a continuing rising star in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to introduce another member of our delegation who played the most critical role in the Italian portion of our trip. The expertise of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on Afghanistan is broad and deep, and it did not start with the bombing of the World Trade Center. He has traveled to that region of the world on numerous occasions. He has interacted with the leadership of Afghanistan, those in exile and those trying to take back their country, and probably has as good a perspective as anyone in the Congress, if not on the Hill, on Afghanistan. I also appreciate the cooperation and support of his assistant, Al Santoli. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank our friend and colleague for his comments, for his outstanding leadership, for his involvement on these issues long before September 11. Mr. Speaker, I would ask our colleagues to read the text of the material that is in this special order, the additions that we have supplied, and get a full sense of understanding of what 11 Members of Congress did over the past 5 days. We will be briefing the administration and our leadership, the Speaker and the minority leader and Members of the other body throughout the next several weeks. Together, supporting our President, we can win, we can replace Osama bin Laden, we can remove the Taliban and allow the people of Afghanistan to regain control of their homeland.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to lead a Special Order that we expect will involve a number of our colleagues who just returned last evening, as I did, from a whirlwind 5-day trip around the world to try to deal with the issue of, not just the terrorism that occurred on September 11, but to improve and change our relations with Russia. Mr. Speaker, this trip was not scheduled after September 11, but rather had been scheduled in August, when our Russian friends contacted me and asked me to bring over some ideas that I had to improve the relationship between our two countries and to give them some of the ideas I was working on as the basis for the upcoming Bush-Putin summit and to change direction in our relationship. The preparation of a document entitled ``A New Time, a New Beginning'' was, in fact, the subject of that presentation; and the delegation that traveled with me that I had the pleasure of chairing, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), my good friend, as the cochair, was designed to present this document to the Russian leadership. We did that in a series of meetings in Moscow over 3 days. We met with the representatives to the President of Russia; the Prime Minister of Russia; President Putin; leaders of the Duma; Deputy Speaker Sliska; the chairman of the International Affairs Committee Yablako; Chairman Kulikov; and a number of the various leaders of the Russian Government. And every one of them was extremely excited about this new direction in our relationship. The package, which will not be presented here in detail, that will occur several weeks from now, it is just for discussion purposes now, involves us in 11 specific areas with the Russians. Instead of focusing on the differences in defense and foreign policy, the new initiative focuses on cultural relations, economic relations, energy and natural resources, defense and security, environmental cooperation, health care, judicial and legal, local government, science and technology, space and aviation, and agriculture. I will include a summary of these documents now, to be made a part of the Record of this Special Order at this point in time in the presentation. A New Vision for U.S.-Russian Relations Those of us who value the U.S.-Russian relationship have been on a roller-coaster ride for the past decade. During the heady days of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the following collapse of the Soviet Union, it appeared that our two countries would cooperate as never before. The world cheered when Presidents Bush and Yeltsin hailed a new ``strategic partnership'' between America and Russia. There followed, however, a dark period--marked by misguided American policies and rampant Russian corruption. The Russian economy sagged as American aid--money meant for the Russian people--was siphoned off and stashed in Swiss banks and American real estate investment. At the same, NATO's war in Kosovo strained the already sinking bilateral relationship. What were the results of this increasingly bitter disenchantment? A more aggressive Russian foreign policy, increased proliferation from Moscow to rogue states, and the final coup de grace: Russia and China announced last year a new ``strategic partnership''--against the interests of America and the west. Now is the time, with new leaders in Washington and Moscow, to improve the relationship for the long-term. My interest in this relationship began when I was nineteen years old, when a college professor convinced me to switch my major to Russian Studies. Since that time, I have been fascinated with the Soviet Union and Russia--and have traveled there more than twenty-five times. I began my travels when I was a member of my local County Council and was invited to travel to Moscow by the American Council of Young Political Leaders. I have continued to visit Russia since my election to Congress, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and later as co-chairman of the Duma-Congress Study Group, the official interparliamentary exchange between the U.S. and Russia. My interactions with leaders across Russia have taught me that the Russians are a proud people, historically aware, and mindful of Russia's unique global rule. Increasingly, they are becoming aware of the limitless possibilities for U.S.- Russian cooperation on a host of issues. This brief paper, then, is an effort to weave together a comprehensive program of U.S.-Russian cooperation across a wide-range of issues. Too often, the focus of our bilateral relations has been on defense and security--precisely the issues on which our interests often collide. It would be more useful, as we move forward with a Russian policy for the 21st century to take a more holistic approach--one that takes into account Russia's myriad concerns as well as our own. Therefore, in consultation with many of the leading experts on Russia, I propose a series of initiatives to engage Russia on issues like the environment, energy, economic development, health care--as well as defense and security. Some of these are new ideas, but many are not. Many of these initiatives are already underway, and need additional support to make even greater progress. Such engagement is in the U.S. interest as well as Russia's. For if the U.S. and Russia are cooperating on issues across the board, Russia will be more likely to work closely with America on the national security issues that matter most to us--missile defense, the war against terrorism, and proliferation. This is not, and will never be, a finished product. The contours of our bilateral relationship change daily with world events. Not will it likely be turned into a grand legislative proposal, although certainly parts of it may be. I hope only that it is a starting point for discussions between Russia and America on ways that we can forge a new relationship that will benefit both our countries. For if we make a new American-Russian relationship, one based on common interests that benefit the citizens of both countries, than we will make great progress--not just for America and Russia alone, but for peace and stability across the globe.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that I hope our colleagues will support. The 11 members of our delegation will be the original bipartisan sponsors of this bill. We have not yet dropped it. But it will be, in fact, the first time that the parliaments and the governments, legislatures of Russia and the U.S., pass an identical bill, perhaps even on the same day, because they are 8 hours ahead of us, that calls for the creation of a joint task force to work together on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, we thank our Russian friends for their condolences, we thank them for offering to allow our airplanes to use their airspace to assist us in intelligence, and we thank them for their support of our trip on the second leg of our journey to Rome. In Rome, Mr. Speaker, we traveled for 30, 40 minutes outside of town under heavy security to visit the King of Afghanistan living in exile. The king of Afghanistan was thrown out of that country in 1973. He has lived outside of Rome under heavy security since that time. We made a special visit to him to enlist his support in eventually returning to his native country to convene a cooperative effort with those leaders in the northern front, now called the Joint Task Force, or the Unified Front, to overturn the Taliban government, to remove Osama bin Laden, and to support the people of Afghanistan taking over their government. Our meeting with the King lasted for 90 minutes. It was extremely constructive. Our colleagues will discuss it in more detail when they speak. Following that meeting, we met for 90 minutes with approximately 10 or 12 leaders of the various military factions in Afghanistan who had flown in to meet with us and the King. We were convinced that this new effort is broad, it is across the spectrum in Afghanistan, and involves all the various tribes. We are convinced that we should continue, as our President has said, to support this Unified Front with both money and any type of military support that they would require. In fact, we have prepared recommendations to present to President Bush, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the National Security advisor, on additional efforts that can assist this Unified Front to remove Osama bin Laden. Following our trip to Rome and our meetings with the King and the Unified Front, we went on to Ankara, Turkey. On Sunday and Monday in Turkey we met with leaders of their parliament, leaders of their government, and thanked them again for their outpouring of support for our people. We thanked them for their steadfast loyalty to America during very difficult times. Turkey has been one of our strongest partners during good times and bad times. Turkey, a 99 percent Muslim nation, has no problem standing up with America and proudly performing any task that we ask them. In fact, Turkey has a unique position. They are best of friends, not just with the U.S., but also with Israel, with Russia, and with Pakistan. In our meetings with the Turkish military and with the Turkish leadership, we came to the conclusion that we should put further emphasis on Turkey playing a lead role in helping us to remove Osama bin Laden and to remove the Taliban, assuming they continue to disagree with the President's request to turn bin Laden over. Again, we make specific recommendations to the administration which are contained in a document that I will offer as part of the Congressional Record. The document referred to is as follows: U.S.-Russia-Turkey Partnership: Anti-Terrorism and Afghanistan [A Bi-partisan Congressional Delegation led by Representative Curt Weldon: Russia-Italy-Turkey--September 26-October 1, 2001] overview This Congressional delegation to Moscow was originally planned in August as part of the continuing dialogue of the Congress-Duma Study Group, chaired on the U.S. side by Chairman Weldon (R-PA). After the September 11 terrorist attack in New York and Washington, the delegation saw an opportunity to reinforce President Bush's coalition building effort and expanded its mission to consult with leaders in the region to gain information that could prove helpful to the Congress and Administration in furthering the war on terrorism. As a result additional stops were scheduled for Rome and Ankara. In addition to the original agenda in Moscow that sought to expand the basis of discussions with the Duma (atch 4, ``A New Time, A New Beginning,'' an eleven point agenda), the delegation prepared and presented to the Russians proposed legislation (atch 5) on counter terrorism that the delegation hopes to see passed in both the Duma and Congress. In Moscow, representatives of the Duma, Federation Council and executive branch officials were enthusiastic about both the 11-point program proposed for broadened Congress-Duma discussions, and the counter terrorism legislative proposal. All of the Russian officials encouraged the Delegation to pursue its fact-finding opportunity with the exiled Afghan King and United Front/Northern Alliance leadership in Rome. The main objective of the counter terrorist, fact-finding portion of the trip was to explore recommendations by key allies that would enhance the understanding of Congress by seeking insights into the difficult challenges in the fight against terrorism, especially in Afghanistan. In Rome, the delegation had an in-depth discussion with Zaher Shah and United Front field commanders from diverse areas of Afghanistan provided a detailed briefing on the current military situation. Turkish military and foreign policy leaders, as well as members of Parliament, gave the delegation poignant insights and their perspectives on defeating the Taliban and other terrorist forces. findings In all countries, there appeared to be unanimous support and approval for the President's efforts to build a strong coalition against terrorism and to put an end to Osama bin Laden (OBL) and the extremist Taliban regime. Russian and Turkish leaders supported the delegation's effort to meet with King Zaher Shah, whom they believe can be a unifying figure, as well as the United Front commanders. Both Russia and Turkey recommended that Afghan resistance forces conduct the bulk of the fighting and hunting bin Laden inside of Afghanistan with adequate support from America and our allies. Humanitarian support in areas controlled by the United Front is also a necessary component both during and after the current crisis. In Rome, the resistance commanders, representing all groups and many regions of Afghanistan--north and south--expressed a willingness to work with the King as a symbol of unity and were confident that with adequate material support and limited air support that they could overturn Taliban rule in a rapid period of time. [There is less than two months before Winter sets in, when snow will prevent offensive actions in much of the country.] Most commanders believe they could root bin Laden and his terrorist forces out of their mountain bases. Russian and Turkish experts expressed serious concern about instability in Pakistan. The consensus advice to the United States was against basing US forces inside of Pakistan or using Pakistan territory as a support base for military or humanitarian efforts. All parties reminded the delegation that Pakistan facilitated the creation of the Taliban and has been its primary political and military backer. King Zaher Shah presented a three-part plan for peace in Afghanistan: (1) Conduct a loya jirga of tribal elders inside of Afghanistan; (2) Establish an interim coalition government, including any moderate Taliban, to serve for two years to begin post-war recovery, integrate returning refugees and to write with Constitution; (3) Conduct nationwide elections to choose leaders and to choose a form of government. King Zaher Shah and the field commanders believe that the Taliban are weak and vulnerable. The Talibs have lost the support of the Afghan people due, in large part, to their brutal rule and the presence of international terrorists as their shock troops. The United Front commanders claim that the core of Taliban forces are some 10,000 international terrorists recruited by bin Laden and some 25,000 Pakistanis. They estimate the Taliban's Afghan troop strength at 40,000. The resistance claims 70,000 to 75,000 total anti-Taliban forces. The resistance commanders also claim that many Afghan Pashtuns currently allied to the Taliban are in contact with the United Front and plan to switch sides when a coordinated offensive begins. They believe the Taliban could collapse rapidly. In order to begin the offensive before Winter sets in, the United Front requires an immediate infusion of ammunition and other supplies. Essential items include communications gear, long-range artillery, rockets, anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft capability. The Taliban is estimated to have approximately a dozen fighter aircraft, a limited number of attack helicopters and 20 battle tanks, which must be eliminated if the battle is to be won. Zaher Shah expressed an openness to direct U.S. military support for the resistance if the United Nations did not respond in a timely manner. Turkish experts recommend that currently an emergency humanitarian aid program is desperately needed. And a much-needed infrastructure development program should be done in a way that would not overwhelm the Afghan people's ability to absorb it. The Under Secretary of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Ugur Ziyal, said Turkey has accomplished effective programs using limited funding--unlike high-cost and high-overhead UN and USG programs--by working closely with the Afghan people. Turkish officials expressed a frustration of often being ignored by the West, especially in dealing with their own terrorism problem, which has led to the deaths of over 30,000 citizens during the past two decades. However, Turkey considers the United States as a steadfast friend. As they already have modest humanitarian aid programs in United Front zones of Afghanistan, they would be willing to be a facilitator of US aid. recommendations Avoid placing US forces in Pakistan. Expedite US assistance to the Afghan United Front to conduct operations before winter begins. Be prepared to respond to possible rapid changes on the battlefield and in Kandahar and Kabul. Support the return of King Zaher Shah to Afghanistan as a unifying figure between all ethnic groups and factions and to conduct a loya jirga. After the Talibs/bin Laden are defeated, cost-effective developmental assistance--not bloated ``nation building''-- could go a long way. Turkish experts said $10 to $20 million of targeted aid would do tremendous good if a team of experts worked with indigenous Afghans. Develop greater intelligence cooperation with turkey. Utilize Turkish NGOs as conduits for some U.S. aid into Northern Alliance zones of Afghanistan. Establish a Congress-to-Congress working group with Turkey. Consider forgiveness of Turkey's FMF debt. codel weldon Representatives: Curt Weldon, Solomon Ortiz, Bob Clement, Dana Rohrabacher, Clifford Stearns, Robert Cramer, Roscoe Bartlett, Nick Smith, Silvestre Reyes, Brian Kerns, Todd Platts. Staff: Al Santoli, Office of Rep. Rohrabacher; Xenia Horzczakiwskyj, Office of Rep. Weldon; Doug Roach, Professional Staff Member, Committee on Armed Services. key contacts Russia: Ambassador Vershbow, U.S. Ambassador to Russia; Lyubov Sliska, 1st Dep. Speaker of the Duma; Andrey Kokoshin, Dep. Chairman of the Committee on Industry, Construction, Industries, and High Technologies (former National Security Advisor to President Yeltsin); Vladimir Lukhin, State Federation Council Chairman, Yablako, Former Chairman International Affairs Committee/Russia Ambassador to the United States; Konstantin Kosachev, Vice Chairman International Affairs Committee; Anatoly Savin, Kommeta Institute; Anatoly Kulikov, Chairman of the Terrorism Task Force, Russian Duma; Valkov, First Dep. Head of Pres. Putin's Advisory Committee; Vladimir Andrianov, Sr. Advisor to Prime Minister; U.S.-Russia Business Council; American Chamber of Commerce; Moscow Petroleum Club. Italy: Exiled King of Afghanistan, King Mohammad Zaher Shah (86); Prince Mir Wais Zaher (40), youngest son and ``closest aid''; Mostapha Zaher, King's grandson. United Front/Northern Alliance Commanders: Malik Zarin (Konar Province); Haji Nasir (Nangehar Province); Haji Khaleq Ghor (Onazon and Farak Provinces); Commander Arif (Kandahar Province); General Awari (Shomali Plains, Kabul area, and Bagram Airfield, North of Kabul); Commander Kazeni (Parwan Province); Abdul Khalig (Kuman Province); Commander Jegdalak (Kabul Area); Commander Zaman (Nangahar Province); Yunis Kanoni, delegation spokesman (Panjer Valley). Turkey: Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Ugur Ziyal, Undersecretary (DEPSEC equivalent), (Faruk Logoglu, new Turkish Ambassador to the USA). Turkish General Staff: LTGEN Koksal Karabay, Turkish Gen. Staff (TGS), Turkish Land Forces; LTGEN Turgut, TGS, Turkish Air Forces; MGEN Nusret Tasdeler; COL Kusu, briefer; Namik Tan, American Desk, Dept. Head. Meeting With Ambassador Ziyal, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkey--Oct. 1, 2001 key points The Ambassador lived in Afghanistan in 1948-1952. There is no ``nation'' of Afghanistan, just a collection of various groups/tribes/clans/warloads. They unite to confront foreigners. It is near impossible to assert central control, but the exiled-King could be a unifying symbol. The Taliban originated in Pakistan. They were initially welcomed because they established order out of the chaos of the end of the war against the Soviet invasion they ``bring out worst in humanity and Islam'' they are ``hardest on their own'' who deviate from their hard line--viewed as heretics. They were supported by Arab Afghans--``radical Saudis pumped in millions''--and support was provided by other Gulf Arabs. The Taliban ``became force of evil.'' OBL is a supreme organizer. He created a ``senseless organization of terror.'' The OBL/Taliban network ``recruits the young to brain wash them.'' It is impossible to protect society against suicide bombers. Turkey has a humanitarian (3 clinics) presence in Northern Alliance areas in Afghanistan. Turkey had a school in Kabul, but couldn't agree with Taliban on a curriculum and the Turks left--``Taliban wouldn't listen to reason--they are fanatics.'' King is a figurehead. Authority lies with tribal leaders. There could be a role for him as an umbrella, interim leader. Tribal leaders will cooperate if they see it in their interest to do so. Groups change sides very easily--for various reasons: money, power, jealousy. Rep Bartlett: (Referencing Turkish General Staff Brief: ``There seems to be a bewildering array of terrorist groups. The US is focusing on the Taliban. How much of the ``problem'' is the Taliban? Ambassador: OBL is 5 percent of the (terrorist) problem. ``US tends to personify issues, for example Saddam and Sadat.'' Particular realities of each nation need to be addressed without regard to what leaders happen to be present at the time. Is the King's three part plan realistic? Ambassador: Yes. Local tribal leaders are the only real option, however. Forming a ``Democracy is a tall order--until quality of life versus survival becomes the issue, Afghanistan leaping to a democracy is unlikely.'' Rep Ortiz: Are you concerned about the survival of the Pakistani government? Ambassador: ``We are concerned.'' On the Peace Process: ``American policy has hurt American standing in the region--Arafat sees he made a mistake.'' We talk to both sides. With Barak, things were close. It is important that Israel be accepted--it would benefit regimes in the area. Saddam has gained ground just by giving lip service/propaganda. Everyone in the area is concerned, even the Omanis. Israeli responses to Palestinian attacks are disproportionate. Recommended course of action: The Northern Alliance first needs ammunition and U.S. military strikes against main Taliban armament (10 planes and 20 tanks). ``The U.S. needs to stay involved to raise the quality of life'' Afghans need help to survive what the Taliban has done to them--large sums of money is not required if you employ Afghans to provide assistance to fellow Afghans. (``UN overhead very high''). ``We would be willing to help.'' Chairman Weldon: How much would it take--$10 million--or $20 million? Ambassador: ``That would go a long way if implemented locally--billions would be a disaster. It could not be absorbed--would only lead to corruption.'' Need allies on the ground--United Front/Northern Alliance-- ``and they are willing.'' ``They are willing because the Taliban is seen as destroying the country and way of life'' Ambassador felt that Taliban could fall within 30 days. ``If allies of the Taliban see them losing, their allies will desert them.'' Mr. Speaker, this document entitled ``U.S.-Russia-Turkey Partnership: Anti-terrorism in Afghanistan'' has a summary of our trip, the details of who we met with, the specific recommendations, and a call for action. Mr. Speaker, we also need to understand as Americans that if and when we remove Osama bin Laden, that is not going to eliminate the terrorism problem in America. The government of Turkey identified at least a dozen other major terrorist groups that have killed over 30,000 innocent people in Turkey over the past 10 years. We need to understand that Osama bin Laden is only one network, accounting for about 5 percent of the international terrorism in the world. We must understand that this is just a beginning. Removing the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, allowing the people of Afghanistan to take back their country, is only the first step in what President Bush has described as a long-term process. We in the Congress went on this mission in full support of our President. At every stop, we reiterated the fact that we only have one President in America, one Secretary of State, and the 11 Members of Congress who traveled together were in total and complete unanimity that our President speaks for us. We are behind his leadership 100 percent. I want to thank our colleagues for traveling. They were outstanding Members. I am going to ask each of them now to make comments about their thoughts on the trip. I will simply be here to monitor the time so everyone gets a chance to speak. Mr. Speaker, I yield to our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), an outstanding senior Member of the Congress who has been in the House for 20 years, a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. This entire document, which we have briefed to the administration, and which I have given to Senator Levin and Senator Lugar and have talked to Senator Biden about on the phone, will be presented to our colleagues in a formal context after we have had a chance to make some modifications and changes. We have also presented this initiative to the White House, to the Vice President's staff, to the National Security Council, the Defense Department, and the State Department. Truly, it was a landmark opportunity for us, a historic opportunity, to change the direction in our relationships with the Russians. Mr. Speaker, the other activity that we did on this trip, which grew out of the September 11 incident, was to try to find a way to further support our President to build an international alliance that would work together on terrorism. To that end, we drafted a piece of legislation, had it translated into Russian, faxed it over in advance of our trip, and asked the leaders of the Duma, which is their congress, to consider passing an identical bill to one that we have passed in the House. This legislation calls for the creation of a joint task force on terrorism involving Members of the House and the Senate, the Duma, and the Federation Council. Our Russian colleagues were very much supportive, indicated that they could pass such a measure in 3 weeks. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will enter the actual resolution in the Congressional Record. H. Con. Res. -- Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for his leadership and support as a co-leader of this delegation. We came away with some very special feelings, and he came away with some special symbols of our relationship. I thank him for the cooperation that he has given me. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), our next member of the delegation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), our good friend and colleague. To follow up, we met with the King for 90 minutes at his residence on Sunday, and following that we met for 90 minutes with a dozen or so members of the Unified Front. It was on Monday, the day after we left, that that group came together and publicly announced a solidarity. We would like to think that our conversations with both of those groups helped to convince them that America was there to work with them as Afghanistani people take over their own country and take back their land from this terrorist operation, this Taliban organization, that does not abide by the rules of civilization, but rather, abides by some commitment to destroying and killing people. We also said to them, Americans are good people. In fact, we are the largest supplier of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people even today; that assuming we can get rid of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, and begin to clean up this terrorist network, we are prepared for the long haul to support efforts and endeavors to help them improve their health care, feed their people, take care of their housing and environmental problems; to work with them to join the community of nations. I think, in fact, this trip did have a significant part of the success in allowing, the day after we left, the King and the opposition leaders to come together in a way that we have not seen up until now. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan is another one of the vital leaders of the task force who was a leader on technology issues in the House. He played a critical role and was involved in both our discussions and in questions, and in engaging in our meetings. We had some 19 meetings in each of our stops. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his comments, for his outstanding contribution on the trip, and for his involvement in the follow-up that is going to be necessary to implement the recommendations that we have, in fact, suggested. Mr. Speaker, I now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my good friend on the other side of the aisle and this was truly a bipartisan effort. We are good friends anyway, but when the plane took off the ground, we were all one group working together. This gentleman is the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus, representing all of our Hispanic Members in the House, and besides that, a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services, and someone who is a tireless advocate for defending our country, my good friend from El Paso, Texas.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). Besides his intellect, besides his aggressiveness and his common sense, his wit added much to the trip. He kept us all smiling as we went from city to city, plane to plane, nonstop, in trying to accomplish and did accomplish all of our objectives. So it was great and the gentleman's humor added much to our trip. I thank him.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the next member of the delegation who traveled is a senior Member of the House, someone who has earned the respect of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He is involved in a number of issues. This, I believe, was his first trip to Moscow; but he was as involved as any other Member and played a key role in helping us articulate our message to the leaders in each of the countries we visited, the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), for his comments and for his outstanding contributions on our trip and in our meetings. He mentioned a point that we will be following up on, that is, the fact that Turkey, which has been one of our most loyal allies, has approximately $5 billion of foreign military sale debts, that we have sold them equipment to help defend our interests and their interests in the region. Just by their involvement in Desert Storm where they immediately supported the U.S. President's position against Iraq in 1991, when that occurred, they cut off approximately 2 to $3 billion of sales annually of products to Iraq, resulting in a $30 billion net decrease in their economy. They did that because they are our friends. When our President asked them to respond, they did not hesitate. They immediately cut off contact with Iraq; and they immediately, even though it cost them billions of dollars, they immediately said we are going to stick with America because America stuck with us back at an earlier time when their sovereignty was being threatened. So the comments of the gentleman about the need for us to consider forgiving that $5 billion of debt, maybe over a period of time, maybe all at once, whatever it might be, I think is an outstanding recommendation and one that I would wholeheartedly support.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman and thank him for his comments. I would just add that as we found out that Turkey is a 99 percent Muslim state, yet it is 99 percent behind America and the allies in this effort. That proves the point that President Bush and all of us have been making. This is not a war against Islam. This is not a war against Muslims. This is a war against a radical band of cowards who hide in the hills, right now hiding in the deep caverns of the mountains of Afghanistan because they know they have done wrong and they are afraid to show their faces. They are being hidden and kept their by the Taliban government that is just as bad as they are because they are harboring these terrorists that will not bring them forward. Turkey is a critical player. I thank the gentleman for raising that point, and I thank him for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to one of our junior members. When you first come to Congress you are not expected to play a pivotal role. You are expected to be involved and learn and try to sort out what is going on; but this gentleman has hit the ground running. He has been in the House less than a year. He comes from a very dynamic part of Pennsylvania. He jumped at the opportunity to play a role as we asked to have some younger Members in seniority go on the trip with us. Two freshmen Members traveled on this trip with us. They were outstanding contributors. This gentleman, who should have a seat on the Committee on Armed Services because of his interest on defense and security issues and because of his commitment to America's security, was an outstanding contributor. He was involved in our discussions. He was articulate in asking questions, and he was credible in offering advice in each of our meetings. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to welcome the gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time and would now tell him that I am the proud owner of my third Dalmation. He has two; I now have three. So we are part of the Dalmation Caucus. I rise in strong support of this legislation, Madam Speaker. We have to ask the basic question: Who are the firefighters? We think they are the people that put out the fires. They are older than the country is itself. The first fire department was formed 250 years ago. They are in every community, 32,000 departments. But they do not just fight the fires. They are the first in on the floods, the hurricanes, the tornadoes, and the earthquakes. They rescue the cats in the trees. They pump the cellars out when they are flooded. When a child is lost, they are the first ones to organize a search party. The places where they work are where the Boy Scout troops meet and the Girl Scout troops meet. It is where you vote on election day. They organize the parades, the July 4 celebrations. They are the heart and soul of America. There is no single group of people in this country, none, that does what our firefighters do. Eighty-five percent of them are volunteers. Imagine, Madam Speaker, having our police department hold a chicken dinner to raise the money to buy a police car. Imagine asking our highway department to have a tag day to buy the garbage truck. Yet, all across America, fire departments, many of them volunteer, go out and scrape to raise the dollars to protect their towns. They are now being asked to deal with unbelievable disasters. The World Trade Center is the epitome of what can occur, but they were there. I was on the scene Friday when it happened. I was talking to the head of the local union, Kevin Gallaher, and to the national president, Harold Schaitberger. They said firefighters have made it to the 80th floor to rescue people coming down. The least we can do is to have our country pay tribute to them. The least we can do is do what my colleague said and start to fund them at somewhere near the level that our military and police officers get. Our military gets $300 billion a year. Our police officers get $4 billion a year from the Federal Government. The amount of money our fire and emergency service workers get is $100 million for the first time this year. We can do better. I support this legislation. I congratulate my good friend and colleague and my other good friend and colleague and the chairman of the committee. I ask my colleagues to vote for the flag but vote for the support of our America's heroes, our fire and EMS personnel.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I rise in an attempt to try to set the record straight on some of the facts for those who have spent the time attending all the classified hearings and briefings and asking the questions of both the intelligence community and the members of the committee. I might say for the 6 years that I chaired the Research Committee, we opened up our briefings and hearings to every member. I do not know how many of those my colleague attended. I know I attended 160. So we can get up on the floor publicly and talk about something, but it is something else to sit in on all the classified briefings and ask the tough questions of the people who are making these decisions. I am not challenging the gentleman's motives because he has the right to do what he thinks is in the best interests of the country, but I also think we need to understand that many of our colleagues have sat through these briefings, and let us clarify some misinformation. First of all, we do not have an adequate testing program. It was this Congress for the past 6 years, 7 years, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote that called for more money for testing. It was this Congress, in spite of the objections of those who opposed missile defense, who now say we need more testing, who opposed us when we put more money in for testing. It was this Congress who led the effort to find a way to come together in a bipartisan effort to support a consensus around missile defense. It is this Congress that tomorrow will send 12 Members of Congress to Russia to seek very deliberate discussions to build a cooperative arrangement with the Russians that does not have them feel as though they are isolated. I invite my colleague to go with us. We still have room on the plane. I can get him a visa tomorrow so that he can support our effort which his colleagues will be a part of to meet with the Russian Duma leaders, to meet with the Russian defense ministry to show them that we do care about a cooperative arrangement as opposed to sitting on the floor of the House and in some cases, not particularly perhaps the gentleman, but in some cases demagoging this issue. Let us get down to the facts and let us talk about tests. The last time I checked, we had about 31 tests of our missile defense programs. Sixteen times, I will admit, we did not have successes. But that was not because of missile defense. It was because the contractors could not get the rocket in the atmosphere. Now, if the gentleman's argument is that that constitutes a failure, then he better shut down Cape Kennedy, because the same technology for stage separation, the same technology for launching a ballistic missile is the same identical technology for launching rockets. If you believe that is a reason to cancel missile defense, you better shut down our space program. It is the same technology. Of the 15 times that we had tests where we did get out to the atmosphere, we hit the target 13. We missed it twice. Thirteen of 15 where the interceptor saw the target and hit it is not a bad track record. I ask for my colleague to dispute that with the facts. I will back mine up with ballistic missile defense organization numbers. So, in fact, our testing program has been successful. The point is, Madam Chairman, the colleague is saying we need more money for weapons of mass destruction. Cut me a break. If you check the facts of our defense bill, in each of these last 7 years, we have put more money into weapons of mass destruction than the President asked for. We have put more money into cyberterrorism, more money into detection systems by hundreds of millions of dollars every year. And my colleague says, well, an airplane is not going to be impacted by a missile defense system. Well, I hate to make the comparison here, but what do you think an airplane is? It is a large missile. It just so happens that these terrorists could use people on that plane because they did not have the technology ready to put that missile on a cargo ship off of our coast. We have no defense against that kind of capability. I can tell you, when the Iranians, when the Iraqis, the Syrians and Libyans have that capability, which they are very close to now, we are not going to have the capability to defeat it and then it will not be an airplane, it will be a missile without people in it. So I say to my colleagues, support the compromise. I am not happy with this. But the gentleman and the ranking member do what they have to. Support it. It is good policy and it is a good vote in favor of, I think, a logical solution.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have served on the Committee on Armed Services for 15 years, and I love that committee because we are a bipartisan committee. I have as much respect for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) because the two gentlemen work in concert on every issue. We have had a bipartisan approach under Floyd Spence, under Ron Dellums, and under Les Aspin. We have worked together to reach compromises that may not be what we want at the time, but in the end worked to the best interest of our military and our personnel. We worked out our differences. The amendment my colleague seeks to offer today was offered identically by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) in the committee. The amendment has some problems. Despite what my colleague has said, the Pentagon has estimated it will cost $100 million a year to implement this. Despite what my colleague has said, it will require us to establish a new classification system that will require every private contractor to open their records, and we do not even know what it will look like. My colleague knows that I am a friend of labor. I have been with my colleagues on that side of the aisle on some key labor issues. I do not want anyone thinking I am not in favor of equal competition for workers. Mr. Speaker, what bothers me about this motion to recommit is we sat down, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairmen of the subcommittees, the ranking members from the other side of the aisle, we worked out a good-faith agreement. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will notice the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) is not offering this amendment. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) told me on the way over that the gentleman did not even talk to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) about this amendment. My friend and my colleague on the other side knows full well that we reached an agreement to solve a problem that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) raised that I agree with; but this is not the solution. This Congress 1 year ago in our defense authorization bill with a bipartisan vote established a task force, which organized labor has a member of that, will report back in March on a plan to correct the A-76 process. My amendment that we offered with the support of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) in the en bloc amendment puts a moratorium of 50 percent of all A-76 work through that time. We also require that there must be a 10 percent threshold met. It was a good-faith compromise that the administration reluctantly accepted. Now my colleague comes up on the final vote, without consulting with the members of the leadership of his own party on the committee, and seeks to undo the bipartisan spirit of trying to resolve the A-76 process which I agree needs to be changed and modified. This is not, in my opinion, a good-faith effort on behalf of working people. This is a chance to perhaps have Members of the other side score points when we had a good-faith agreement with the leadership on the other side of the aisle on the committee, a unanimous agreement to move forward and resolve this problem. I ask my friends and colleagues to follow the request of the leadership of this committee, the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the leadership of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and the other Members on both sides of the aisle and allow us to enact this bill and reject this amendment and do the right thing for the military in this country and move on to resolve the problems with the A-76 process.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to applaud those colleagues of ours who will join me tomorrow, equally divided between both sides of the aisle. Ten of our colleagues will join me as we travel to Moscow. The purpose of our trip is to lay the foundation for a new relationship with the Russian people and the Russian Government. Over the past 2 months, we have worked out an in-depth assessment of a way to engage the Russian people. Not to pour massive amounts of American money into Russia, because that is not the answer, but ways to continue to support those efforts that are already underway by private foundations, by nonprofit groups, by academic institutions, and, in some cases, by governmental entities. The document and the process that will be speaking to our Russian counterparts will include a new era of engaging Russia, the culture, the economy, the environment, justice and legal system, health care, science and technology, defense and security, agriculture, space, local government and energy. Today, I had a chance to brief our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in both parties, and the White House and the National Security Council as well. This new initiative is designed to create a new era of opportunity for us where Americans and Russians can work together. We will also be providing an opportunity for the Russian Parliament, the Duma, and the Federation Council to enact a piece of legislation that I will be introducing in the Congress, and they are identical, that calls for a joint task force on terrorism, a legislative task force that has Russian members of the Duma and the Federation Council working with Members of the Congress and the Senate, the House and the Senate. This will follow and support the efforts of our two Presidents. Our meetings will include senior leaders of the Duma, members of the Federation Council, the Minister of Interior for Russia, and members of President Putin's leadership in terms of security and foreign policy and the other major issues that we will be dealing with. We will leave Moscow on Saturday and travel to Rome where we have planned meetings with the King of Afghanistan, who is in exile, and leaders of the opposition forces in that country. We will be extending our best wishes and our praise to the King as he attempts to reunify the people of that troubled country and to let him know that Americans do not have a problem with the Afghan people, that we want to be their friends. We will leave Rome and travel on to Turkey where we will meet with the leadership of the Turkish Government, letting them know that we appreciate their support and solidarity with the U.S. and the allies, that we appreciate the work of the Turkish military, and that we appreciate their friendship during this troubled time. I look forward to the trip. Our colleagues are giving up time that they could be home with their constituents. It is an important role they are playing to support our President in his effort to have a unified world in eradicating the terrorism that has done so much devastation here in this country in this past month. So I thank our colleagues for being involved in this process. We will issue a report upon our return, giving the response by the various parties that we meet and making recommendations back to our colleagues about future actions.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed a very difficult, trying time in Washington. I know we cannot speak to the gallery, but tonight I hope our colleagues will join with me in recognizing one of our Urban Search and Rescue Teams from New Mexico, who are here observing our proceedings, for the great job they did at the Pentagon this past week.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I want to thank our distinguished chairman and ranking member for their support of three amendments in this en bloc amendment that I introduced. The first one I think is perhaps the most important that I want to talk about. Two years ago I made a recommendation to our leadership that we establish a task force that would integrate our domestic response network, our fire and EMS community, with our military. That task force recommendation was accepted and the panel that was established became known as the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, more commonly known as the Gilmore Commission, because the Gilmore Commission has been chaired by Governor Gilmore of Virginia. This commission for the past 2 years has been looking at ways that we can further integrate our military and the response of our first responders, our fire and EMS personnel. Madam Chairman, this commission has done tremendous work in giving us recommendations to assist our domestic defenders who just this past week were the first responders at the World Trade Center. In fact, Madam Chairman, I went to New York on Friday. I went up on Friday for a very specific reason. The Gilmore Commission, the task force we are extending for 2 years, had members from all aspects of our urban response network: the military, domestic fire service. The representative of the New York City Fire Department in charge of Special Operations Command was Ray Downey. Ray Downey is a friend of mine who escorted me at the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Thirty minutes after the buildings collapsed in New York this past week, as the New York City firefighters were providing their first response, Ray Downey was killed. Ray Downey was the chief of the special operations function for the New York City department. He was a member of the commission that we are going to extend for 2 more years in this amendment. He was the point person to help us understand how our military and our urban response community and civilian response community could interact. He was making specific recommendations, Madam Chairman, that have helped us better integrate our two networks. In fact, one of the results of their recommendations was that initiative last year that is, in fact, the subject of a second amendment that we have accepted. That amendment deals with the recommendation by this Congress that we accept the firefighter assistance program that we first put into place last year. Last year it was $100 million. We had $300 billion of requests across the country. What we are asking for is an extension of that program, and the amendment here says that Congress should renew the authorization for that program. That program, again, was a bipartisan effort. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), Congressmen on our side, including the chairman of our Committee on Armed Services and our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), were the reason why that recommendation became law. This year we are in the process of giving out $100 million of direct grants through FEMA that are going to local fire and emergency services groups across the country, including the New York City Fire Department. So the recommendation in the second amendment is to continue that program and to name it after the honorable Floyd Spence, without whose acceptance, as our committee chairman, it would not have become law. That does not diminish the work by other colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and a whole host of other Members from the Congress. But we are naming it after Floyd Spence because he was the one, as chair of the committee, that allowed this program to move forward. Madam Chairman, these two amendments are critically important because they both deal with events of the past week. They also show that this committee was far in front of the Congress and the American people in preparing for the kind of incident that we saw occur on Tuesday. That kind of foresight is what this Committee on Armed Services has been doing since I have been here in Congress for 15 years. It continues with the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member. I thank them both for including the amendments that I offer. I thank them for their commitment not just to our military, but our domestic defenders.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I thank our distinguished chairman for yielding the time and for his leadership on this bill, and I thank our distinguished ranking member for his cooperation. This is truly a bill that I think reflects the need for this Congress to move forward aggressively in supporting our defense in a way that we perhaps have not done over the past several years. I am ecstatic that we have struck a balance. We have continued to fund aggressive support for missile defense, we have continued to fund aggressive support for modernization, and in this bill we begin to address the needs of the readiness shortfall that our troops have experienced. Madam Chairman, just 2\1/2\ weeks ago, a group of five of us traveled around the country interacting with 20 of our colleagues as we toured 24 bases in 15 States to get a glimpse of the capability of our military to respond. What we saw was atrocious. We saw military bases that one would not put their worst enemies on. We saw raw sewage coming out of barracks. We saw day care centers for the children of the offspring of our personnel with mold on the wall, without adequate fire protection. This bill begins to address those long-term maintenance and improvement needs that we have had for so many years and begins to address the readiness shortfall. I commend the leadership of both the majority under the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the full committee, and the minority under the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for allowing us to move forward in this area. But we have done other things besides readiness. We have continued to work on this committee in addressing the issues relative to terrorism. I am proud of the fact that this committee has been out on the forefront, even though we have had some silent ears in the past, of calling for additional funds to combat terrorism. In fact, Madam Chairman, it was this committee 2 years ago that called for the need for an integration of our intelligence capabilities, the establishment of a national data fusion center, and a national operations and analysis hub. It was this committee that called for that. Yet the CIA and the FBI have not yet torn down the stovepipes that exist between our intelligence agencies. It was this committee that said all 32 Federal agencies must come together, because the most significant need for our military and our warfighters in the 21st century is the ability to do profiling, to use our intelligence systems to understand the enemy, to understand terrorists and terrorist groups and terrorist organizations. This bill again reaffirms that priority. In fact, we are working for some specific funding to implement that during the process of moving this legislation. It is this committee who again, Madam Chairman, reestablishes the Gillmor Commission. The Gillmor Commission was created by this committee to look at the interaction between the military and our domestic responders. Long before the World Trade Center, we were on the cutting edge of telling the Congress and the American people that our domestic defenders, our international defenders, our military and our fire and EMS must work together. In this bill, we will continue the effort of that. In every possible area of terrorism, we have been in the forefront and we will continue on the forefront. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to respond to our colleague's comments. The gentleman raises a valid point, and I want to acknowledge the fact that many of our colleagues who oppose missile defense are working in a very constructive way to move forward with this sense of unity; and we appreciate that. I want to assure the gentleman that we are working together. In fact, on Wednesday, a group of us will travel to Moscow. We have been working for 2 months quietly behind the scenes with the administration, both the Department of Defense, the National Security Council and the White House, to put together a major package, the most comprehensive package ever, to engage Russia and its people in the area of the environment, education, health care, culture, agriculture, across-the-board, with a component of that being defense. We are very sensitive to the gentleman's comments that we do not want to have this become an issue that becomes divisive. I share that feeling. Even though we may disagree on missile defense, I share the gentleman's sentiments. And I know many of our colleagues, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and others, feel the same way. So we are using every ounce of energy to reach that compromise to work together. There will be members of the minority party on the trip. In fact, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has agreed to go, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is looking at going with us. We will have constructive discussions. I want to assure our colleague, the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department understand the gentleman's comments. We do not want to have this become a split between us and Russia, and I want to pledge my support to working every possible way I can to make sure that we do exactly what the gentleman has asked us to do, and that is not box Russia out. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments.