Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take the 1- hour Special Order to highlight a congressional delegation trip that transpired last week traveling to Moscow, Russia; Kiev, Ukraine; and Kishinev, Moldova. One of the areas that perhaps presents the greatest challenge to us over the next several years is our relationship with those critical countries. The delegation that traveled to those countries was a bipartisan delegation. In fact, I was outnumbered. There were four Democrats and three Republicans. But it was a solid bipartisan effort. We had no disagreements and we had, I think, one of the most exciting series of meetings that any delegation has had in that part of the world. It was a delegation that hit the ground running. We were hosted by the chairman of President Putin's political party in Moscow, the Unity Party, Boris Gryzlov. Even though our plane was late because of problems with the weather, we left on Saturday, we were hoping to arrive Sunday afternoon, we arrived in our hotel in Moscow at 12:30 a.m.; and there waiting for us was the Deputy Minister for Housing and Construction in Moscow. So we had our first meeting at 12:30 in the morning until 1:30 in the morning. So those who say Members of Congress do not work, I would say this delegation worked. That was to set the tone for the trip. That was the first of 41 meetings that occurred during 5 days in the capital cities of Moscow, Kiev and Kishinev. It was a very historically significant time because each of those countries are going through some very difficult turmoil. As we all know, Russia has been drifting away from the West. In fact, while we were there, we got an update on a new strategic partnership that Russia is now aligning itself with China. In the Ukraine, we were there in the midst of a crisis as the President of that country, President Kuchma, was under severe criticism for having allegedly been taped in ordering the assassination of a prominent journalist in Ukraine. The people in many regards were demanding, not just free press, but were demanding that President Kuchma be held accountable and be removed from office. In Moldova, the meetings were equally significant because, 2 days after we were in Moldova, they had their parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Communists won control of the Moldovan parliament with 71 percent of the vote, a major shift in that country, a very strategically important country, a major shift away from the democratic reforms that have been occurring in Moldova over the past 8 years. So that underscores the importance of the reason why our trip was significant. I want to go through the trip in a great amount of detail, but I would like to call on my colleagues while they are here to make whatever comments they would like to make. The cochair of the delegation is someone who I have the highest admiration for in this institution. He and I worked together on a number of issues, Russia being one of them. Seven years ago, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I were able to convince our leadership, then Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt, that we should institutionalize the relationship between the Russian Duma, their parliament, and our Congress. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I have co-chaired that initiative for the past 7 years, and we have had dozens of meetings in America and in Russia trying to build a closer sense of cooperation with the parliamentarians in the Russian Duma in all fashions. The gentleman from Maryland also is the first vice president of the Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and so he represents our country on issues affecting the European community as it relates to Russia and other Nations. He also is the former chairman of the Helsinki Commission, so he has worked tirelessly for human rights throughout the world. So it was a real pleasure to have the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on this trip. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good friend and colleague, for his own summation of our trip.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague again for stopping by this evening. He is extremely busy. Joining us from the delegation, Mr. Speaker, among the seven Members of Congress who were with us besides the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman I am going to introduce next were, on the Republican side, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and our freshman Republican, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw). Joining us on the Democrat side were the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and also a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). So it was a strongly bipartisan and well-balanced delegation that gave the people that we met with a complete picture of the political landscape in America. It was a pleasure to have one of our more junior Members of Congress with us. He is now in his second term. He hit the ground running. It was his first trip to Moscow, and he did the people of Montgomery County well by showing the very positive side of America, yet confronting the Russians where needed as well as the other countries that we visited on the important issues that face our two societies. I would like now to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership on this delegation and in the Congress and, actually, in the world. He is extremely well respected around the world for his commitment to principles that are important to any democratic nation. Just to give our colleagues one example of one of the issues that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) raised repeatedly in Russia was freedom of the press. He arranged a meeting with one of those, a fellow by the name of Mr. Kiselov, who is the equivalent to our Dan Rather or one of those kinds of people, Ted Koppel. The gentleman from Maryland was very adamant in pressing the Russians on the freedom of the press as a key part of any democracy. In fact, he challenged them on the rumored threats to shut down one of the TV stations and to further censor their media. Perhaps the gentleman would like to elaborate on that point.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for his outstanding contributions to the trip. He was a valuable partner, he was an aggressive representative of the American position, and yet he was open and aware of the need to listen to the Russian-Ukrainian-Moldovan perspective of world issues and the relationship to our relationship with those countries. I thank my colleague for being here this evening. Mr. Speaker, at this time before I introduce one of my other colleagues who was on the trip, I would like to go through and just highlight the kind of meetings we held and give the overall themes of what the purpose of our trip was all about. First of all, since we formed the Duma-Congress initiative 7 years ago, I have had two overriding purposes in our relationship with Russia. We tend to want to rely on the Presidents of our two countries to work out our relationship. As we all know, they are the heads of state and they are the ones who set the overall policy. But there is a constructive role for the parliaments to play. There is a very important role that we can do to assist emerging democracies like those we visited. The two overriding purposes I have had in forming the interparliamentary dialogue with the Russians was to empower the parliament to show the emerging Duma and its leaders how they can accomplish the same kinds of checks and balances that we provide in our government here in America. By interacting with committee chairs, by sharing staffs, by having regular meetings on issues that are both common to us like the environment, health care, social issues, economic issues, we also can confront the more difficult issues, strategic issues, defense issues, multilateral relationships. So our overriding purpose is to empower the parliament, make it more of a constructive force in the democracy so it can in fact achieve the same kind of role that our Congress plays in America, one that only makes the democracy in Russia stronger. The second purpose is to help Russia build a middle class. Because if Russia is to survive over the long haul, we can do all that we want to encourage relationships but we have to help Russia understand what it is going to take to build a middle class. The strength of America is our middle class. I am convinced that what has largely empowered that middle class has been the ability of people to own and buy their own homes, to own a piece of America, if you will, and what we have been doing for the past 5 years is working with Russia to put into place a mortgage financing system for average Russians. These discussions were a major part of our efforts in Russia. We also had similar discussions in the other countries. So focusing on empowering the parliament and building a middle class, they were the overriding themes of our talks, but we had a wide range of talks. I think, Mr. Speaker, we took the right approach. In visiting Russia, we did not go over there as if they were our enemy. Unfortunately, the presidential visit that took place last May between President Clinton and President Putin had the two of them come together and focus on things that we totally disagree on; namely, how many missiles should we point at each other. We took the exact opposite approach. The major thrust of our meetings were positive. They were about health care initiatives. They were about environmental initiatives, economic initiatives, technology initiatives, a mortgage system, ways that we could further cooperate and allow Russia to build a stable society and one that is closely interconnected with an American society. That reflects the kinds of meetings that we had. I mentioned our first meeting was at 12:30 a.m. on Monday morning when we arrived and our plane was late, we drove to the hotel and there in our hotel in downtown Moscow was the Deputy Minister of Housing and Construction Mr. Ponomorof waiting for us. And so the Members of Congress, even though they had been flying for over 24 straight hours, sat up for another hour until 1:30 in the morning and had our first meeting. On Monday morning, we arose at 8 a.m. and we had meetings with the deputy minister of the economy, the housing minister for all of Russia and the finance minister. We met with our Ambassador, Jim Collins, to get a briefing from the State Department there. For lunch we were hosted by the American business leaders, the executives of American companies who have set up operations throughout Russia, and we heard from them about what we should be doing to better improve the relationship economically between Russia and America. We then traveled to a hospital on the outskirts of Moscow, Hospital No. 7. We were joined by representatives of cancer institutes in America who had flown over separately from the Fox Chase Cancer Center and from the National Cancer Institutes, we took a delegation and traveled out to the largest hospital in Moscow, a 1,500-bed hospital that focuses on cancer and cancer research. Right adjacent to this hospital is the Blokhin Cancer Center. Our purpose was to build on a memorandum of understanding that had been signed 2 weeks earlier by the Russian and American Cancer Research Centers. So our first serious meeting outside of the government was with ties to establish closer relations between our health care system. After the meeting at Hospital No. 7, we went to the Nuclear Safety Institute, where again we ceremoniously signed memorandums of understanding that were agreed upon by our Department of Energy earlier to establish joint projects between the Kurchatov Institute, an institute in downtown Moscow, and the Nuclear Safety Institute, to bring our two countries closer together to protect the people in both countries from the threat of nuclear problems, the theft of nuclear material, the disintegration of nuclear material, the illegal dumping of nuclear waste and establishing a new framework of cooperation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting discussions on the trip was with our Russian counterparts who floated the idea that perhaps we can create a new way of disposing or actually storing our spent nuclear fuel. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, in America, Yucca Mountain is very controversial, which is the site where we would ultimately store our spent nuclear waste. What the Russians are beginning to talk about is America and Russia joining together and having a common site, probably in Siberia or in the Ural Mountains that would be managed by an international organization where America and Russia together would store their spent nuclear fuel so that we could work together on research over the next several decades of how to eliminate that spent nuclear fuel and how to develop new peaceful solutions and new peaceful uses of spent nuclear fuel, an interesting concept that we invited the Russians to come back to us with some specific ideas on. With Kurchatov we continued our discussions about cooperation, in particular some measures of providing a new form of energy that could be floated on barges involving nuclear power plants, to assist where there are energy shortfalls like that that we have just seen experienced in California. Our final major event on Monday was a dinner hosted by the executives of UKOS Oil Company, the second largest oil company in Russia, and there we talked about economic interaction, we talked about ways that American companies can more aggressively engage with the energy giants that are developing inside of Russia. As President Bush outlined to us last night, that developing an national energy strategy is critically important, our goal was to see whether or not Russia can become a key strategic ally in terms of offering us other energy resources. On Tuesday at 8 a.m. we started our meetings with the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Minister Adamov hosted us for an hour. We discussed the broad range of nuclear issues involving both Russia and America. There are productive opportunities that are arising from that meeting. I will outline them in more detail in a report that I will file. The rest of Tuesday was spent in the Duma. We met with the Deputy Speaker, all the factional leaders and the major committees in the Duma, including international affairs, foreign affairs, housing and mortgages, ecology, all the major interest areas in the Russian Duma that we could work together on. In fact, a part of our meeting with the Ecology Committee of the Duma, which is chaired by Chairman Grachev, was to sign an agreement to assist the Russians in building a cooperative effort to deal with their environmental issues and concerns. Working with a London-based group, the Advisory Council on Protecting the Seas, over the past 4 years, Russia has developed a strategy to begin to address its environmental concerns. At our meeting with Chairman Grachev, we affirmed our support to help Russia through the U.N. acquire the money to implement that environmental plan of action. Also on Tuesday, we had a dinner with the Moscow Petroleum Club. Former Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, former Ambassador to the U.S. Yuli Vorontsov, our Ambassador and a host of other dignitaries joined us for a solid evening of both social interaction and, more importantly, constructive dialogue about U.S.-Russian relations. On Wednesday we traveled to Moldova. In Moldova the delegation met individually with all the senior leaders of the Moldovan government, the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament and we met with the parliamentary members themselves, including the Communist faction. Now when we arrived in Moldova, they were controlled by a western faction. Unfortunately, two days later, Moldova's parliamentary elections turned the control over to the communists who now control 71 percent of the Moldovan parliament. One of our prime purposes in going to Moldova was to establish a new interparliamentary linkage between the Moldovan parliament and the U.S. Congress. Chairing the American side of that interparliamentary linkage is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is the co-chair of the Moldovan American Interparliamentary Assembly, who was on the trip, for his comments both about Moldova and more broadly about the trip in general. So I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his remarks. He played an absolutely unbelievable role in this trip. He has kicked off, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a new initiative with the Moldovan parliament. Nothing could be more important right now because of Moldova's strategic location, because of Moldova's issues. Part of our visit to Moldova, besides the formal meeting, including a trip to Trans-Dniester, which is an independent enclave where the 14th Army Division of the Russian military is still located. In fact, there are so many units there that we were told it would take days and days and over a year, if you had four train loads a day hauling armaments out of Moldova it would be over a year and you still would not have removed all of the 14th Army Division. So we traveled up there, and we met with someone who calls himself President, the leader of this breakaway public, Mr. Smirnov, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) joined us in a dialogue with this breakaway group saying it is important that you reunify with Moldova and the West and the U.S. wants to help you. We also visited a collective farm or a former collective farm on perhaps one of our most emotional visits on the trip to see young children and adults who have been given the opportunity to take over the land that used to be owned by the state and now own it privately; to see the pride in their faces as they stood up before us and they told their personal stories of having taken back land that their grandfathers and grandmothers had had decades ago that now is controlled by them; and the products they are producing with no pesticides, no fertilizers, organic farming at its best. This is a part of the Moldovan experience, and the groundwork we laid will allow our Congress to play an integral role with this new communist-controlled parliament which won the elections in Moldova this past Monday. So I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), he was a very important addition to the trip and we thank him. It was really good because all of them got to see that in America there are two sides on missile defense. Every time I would give one position, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) would give the other. We said that is healthy, that is America. It was a good dialogue, and I thank the gentleman for being with us on the trip.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago 2 days ago on Sunday, February 25, the largest loss of American life in military conflict in the last 10 years took place in Desert Storm as a group of American soldiers were involved in setting up an operation to support Operation Desert Storm. Unfortunately, a Scud missile was launched by Saddam Hussein's units into the barracks, and as a result, 28 young Americans were killed and 99 others were seriously injured. Today we offer this resolution jointly as a bipartisan memorial to these brave individuals. I am pleased to be the original cosponsor with our good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), whose district half of these brave young Americans resided in. We are also pleased to have the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services with us, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is one of the sponsors of this legislation, and our good friend, the gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes). Mr. Speaker, what a tragedy this was as 28 young Americans were snuffed out in the prime of their lives because of Saddam Hussein's attack on them in a cowardly manner, without any forewarning. In fact, it was 8:40 p.m. on February 25 when parts of a Scud missile destroyed the barracks housing members of the 14th Quartermaster Detachment in the single most devastating attack on U.S. forces during that war. Ninety-nine others were killed. The 14th Quartermaster Detachment from Pennsylvania lost 13 soldiers and suffered 43 wounded. Casualties were evacuated to medical facilities in Saudi Arabia and Germany. The 14th, which had been in Saudi Arabia only 6 days, suffered the greatest number of casualties of any allied unit during Operation Desert Storm. Eighty-one percent of the unit's 69 soldiers had been killed or wounded. During the ensuing 10 years, Mr. Speaker, a number of significant events have taken place to honor the memory of these brave individuals. Tonight we pay special recognition on the 10th anniversary to Specialist Steven Atherton, 26 years old; Specialist John Boliver, 27 years old; Sergeant Joseph Bongiorni, III, 20 years old; Sergeant John Boxler, 44 years old; Specialist Beverly Clark, 23 years old; Sergeant Allen Craver, 32 years old; Specialist Frank Keough, 22 years old; Specialist Anthony Madison, 27 years old; Specialist Christine Mayes, 22 years old; Specialist Stephen Siko, 24 years old; Specialist Thomas Stone, 20 years old; Specialist Frank Walls, 20 years old; Specialist Richard Wolverton, 22 years old, all from the 14th Detachment. From other units: Corporal Stanley Bartusiak, 34 years old; Corporal Rolando Delagneau, 30 years old; Specialist Steven Farnen, 22 years old; Specialist Glen Jones, 21 years old; Specialist Duane Hollen, Jr., 24 years old; Specialist Steven Mason, 23 years old; Specialist Michael Mills, 23 years old; Specialist Adrienne Mitchell, 20 years old; Specialist Ronald Rennison, 21 years old; Private First Class Timothy Shaw, 21 years old; Corporal Brian Simpson, 22 years old; Specialist James Tatum, 22 years old; Private First Class Robert Wade, 31 years old; Corporal Jonathan Williams, 23 years old; and Specialist James Worthy, 22 years old. Mr. Speaker, tonight we pay a special tribute to these brave Americans who paid the ultimate price and made the supreme sacrifice on behalf of their country. But Mr. Speaker, the outrage is that 10 years later America still has not yet deployed a highly effective theater missile defense system to protect our troops from further attacks of this type. Mr. Speaker, that is a national embarrassment and a national disgrace, that 10 years after we had the largest loss of life from the military forces of this country in a Scud attack, a low-complexity Scud attack, we still have not deployed the highly effective system to protect our troops from further attacks of this type. Mr. Speaker, we must do better. I ask our colleagues to join with us in this battle for effective missile defense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 39) honoring the ultimate sacrifice made by 28 United States soldiers killed by an Iraqi missile attack on February 25, 1991, during Operation Desert Storm, and resolving to support appropriate and effective theater missile defense programs.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and acknowledge and support the comments of my colleagues and say that we are making progress. I fully support the PAC-3, the MEADS program which we are doing cooperatively with Italy and Germany is moving along. We have had tremendous success with the Arab program with Israel, and we are now beginning discussions with our European friends and even our Middle Eastern friends and our Far East Asia friends on how to promote effective missile defense. But I have to underscore the fact, Mr. Speaker, that missiles are the weapon of choice of tyrants and dictators. Many of our colleagues talk about the threats coming from a weapon of mass destruction or coming from the illegal use of computer systems, and my colleagues and I have been the first to acknowledge that they are real threats, the threats of chemical, biological or nuclear attacks or the threats posed by a cyberattack on our SMART systems. But the fact remains that the weapon of choice of tyrants is the missile. When Saddam Hussain chose to rain terror in Israel, he did not pick suitcase bombs. He did not pick chemical or biological agents. He picked the missiles to rain terror in Israel to which they could not properly defend themselves against. When Saddam Hussain decided to take out American soldiers, it was a Scud missile he chose, a low-complexity Scud missile. He snuffed out 28 young lives, 6 days after they arrived. These were young people who were mothers and sisters and sons and fathers. They were volunteer firefighters, and they were local businesspeople who were called up as reservists to serve the country. Yet America was not able to provide the level of protection against those missiles. Today, Mr. Speaker, over 70 nations in the world have missiles that pose direct threats to our troops, our allies, and the people of America. Over 22 Nations today, Mr. Speaker, are building missiles and have the capability of building enhanced missiles. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that Scud missile that was used 10 years ago has been enhanced three and four times by the North Koreans, by the Iranians, and by the Iraqis. In fact, Iran is now working on a medium-ranged missile that will soon threaten all of Israel. The growth in the threat of these missiles has been unbelievably aggressive. In fact, just since last September, when President Clinton made a decision on our National Missile Defense Program, September 21, Iran tested a brand-new Shehab 3 missile. The Shehab 3 missile is a couple of steps above the Scud missile that killed our troops in Desert Storm. On September 24, Libya received its first 50 Nodongs. The Nodong is an enhanced version of the Scud missile. Now Libya has at least 50 of these missiles. In October, Russia tested mobile and silo-based TOPOL MICBMs with a 6200 nautical mile range. In November, China conducted tests, their second tests of the DF31. That test also included decoys in the warhead. In January, India conducted a second Agni test, another theater missile. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, around the world, the threat of offensive missiles remains very real and very dangerous. As we honor these brave Americans tonight, as we honor and pay respects to not only what they did, but to their families for the sacrifice that they made in having one of their loved ones stand up for America at a time of need, and have their life snuffed out in the process, it is absolutely essential that this House go on record as saying with their votes that we want our government and our military to continue the work that people like the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and Members on our side have been proposing. Aggressive theater missile defense systems that can protect our troops and moving forward with missile defense programs that can protect America and our allies, that is the least we can do, Mr. Speaker, on this the anniversary of the loss of these brave Americans. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining with us. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his outstanding leadership on behalf of the Nation's warriors and patriots. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 39.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the entire hour, but I did want to rise and summarize a trip that I took last week to Colombia and Ecuador to inform our colleagues and our constituents about the progress being made in the war against drugs. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, last year I was concerned when the President and the administration requested $1.3 billion to be used in the war against drugs in Colombia and South America. I was concerned because I was not sure that it was the right approach for us to be taking; that perhaps it would send the wrong signals, and that perhaps this should not be an issue in which the American military is involved. Mr. Speaker, I went to Ecuador and Colombia to see firsthand what is happening with those dollars, what is happening with our effort to interact with the leadership of Ecuador and Colombia to see what role we are playing and what role they are playing in solving this problem. I came back, Mr. Speaker, convinced that we made the right decision. I come to the floor this afternoon to encourage our colleagues to get more information about what is happening in Latin America, to better understand the type of threat that exists there, to understand the importance of what we are doing in Latin America in the war against drugs, and to understand that there will be additional requests for dollars this year in the President's budget and the requests coming to this Congress to continue this fight for at least a 5-year period. Mr. Speaker, I started my trip in Ecuador in Quito, the capitol, where I met with and had a briefing with our Ambassador, Ambassador Gwen Clare, and with her in-country team, including the military. I had a full briefing on the impact in Ecuador of the activities involved with Plan Colombia. I heard from the Ecuadoran leadership that while Ecuador did receive some support from this program, approximately $20 million, there is simply a greater need, both in terms of supporting their military efforts and the economic efforts, particularly along the northern rim of Ecuador, in dealing with the overflow of the drug cartels in Colombia. I also discussed with the Ecuadoran leaders, the issue of the Galapagos and the Environmental Damage being caused by the ship, that just a few days earlier, had crashed off of the coast of the Galapagos, and what we in America could do to assist Ecuador. In fact, in coming away from that trip, I was convinced that Ecuador, being the key ally that it has been with America is, in fact, a country that we should renew our focus on. In meetings both before my trip and today, I met with the Ecuadoran ambassador to the United States, and I can tell you that she appreciates the effort that America has put forward and is willing to work with us on additional initiatives to cause further integration with the efforts of Ecuador in solving the drug problem and America in solving the drug problem. In Colombia, Mr. Speaker, I met again where our in-country team, including our Ambassador, Ann Patterson, a very capable lady under very difficult circumstances. I met with our leadership, military leadership. I met with our CINC, our commanding officer for that region. I met with our military leaders from all the services. I spent an hour meeting with the Defense Minister from Colombia, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the senior leaders of their military. I also met with the general in charge of their police force that comes under the military, and then they flew me out to one of the base camps about an hour from Bogota near the FARC demilitarized zone, and I spent a half a day observing the training being provided by our troops to the Colombian military. Let me give you some impressions, Mr. Speaker, for our colleagues. First of all, American troops are not being used in any combat mission whatsoever. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we imposed a limitation of 500 American troops in Latin America, in Colombia for the specifics of carrying out this plan, not one of our military is involved in any type of hostile action. They are not involved in any kind of overt action against Colombia. They are simply there providing training. They are doing training for the Colombian military in terms of going out and running exploratory patrols of how to take apart these precursor labs. They are running training in how to guard the helicopters and the planes that are spraying the coca fields. I can tell my colleagues, I was overwhelmingly impressed with our military. They are doing, as they always do, an outstanding job. All of our special forces and our military personnel there speak fluent Spanish. And I can tell my colleagues the relationship they have established at the one base I visited in Larandia was absolutely exemplary. The training that was going on was a reality training and the kinds of successes that the Colombian military is having, I think, is directly responsive to the efforts of the American military officers and enlisted personnel who are on the scene throughout Colombia. We have a dangerous situation, Mr. Speaker, in that part of the world. Our focus in Washington from an national security standpoint has traditionally been on the former Soviet Union and the 15 republics of that nation, China, the Middle East, and the threats posed by countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and North Korea. But, Mr. Speaker, I came away from my trip and my meetings convinced that one of the most troublesome threats that we faced right now in America is the huge amount of cocaine coming into our country, primarily from Colombia. It is estimated that between 60 percent and 80 percent of all the cocaine used in America is produced in Colombia. On hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that used to grow crops, used to grow coffee, used to grow the kinds of fruits and vegetables that Colombia and Latin America are famous for. When the FARC began its operations and the terrorists revolutionaries began their operations, they began to acquire a large area in Colombia, specifically, do grow initially marijuana, and then poppies, and now they are into coca, which is converted in local labs into cocaine, which is then sent back here to the States. Mr. Speaker, it is now a multibillion dollar industry in Colombia. In fact, the estimates are the FARC is receiving perhaps as much as $6 billion to $7 billion a year in income, which has allowed the FARC, which has its own zone inside of Colombia that is absolutely isolated from the rest of the country. It has allowed the FARC to produce a military that has in excess of $20,000 armed troops. This military is well-trained. They have the latest in terms of communication systems, and they have an elaborate network in place to send that cocaine through whatever means possible to America, and they are doing that. In fact, just a few weeks before I arrived in Colombia, we were able to confiscate, or the Colombians were able to confiscate a submarine that had been built with the assistance of Russian scientists that the FARC was going to use to move cocaine from Colombia to America. Mr. Speaker, the FARC has become a major force that provides a threat to America's homeland defense. Now, I have worked for the 14 years I have been in Congress on issues involving the security threats coming from Russia. I was a member of the Cox committee that investigated the transfer of technology to China. I was on the speaker's advisory group on North Korea. I have spent hours and hours focusing on the threats coming from those nations providing technology to unstable nations and to unstable groups. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am now convinced that one of the greatest threats that we face in the 21st century is the threat to our society from the continued growth of the cocaine industry in America, especially when this cocaine industry is supporting a major military establishment in Latin America, a destabilizing military establishment. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the FARC and the revolutionary groups are creating serious instability in the areas in Colombia where they, in fact, are secure. And they are now spilling over into north Ecuador, as well as having an impact in other Latin American countries. The day before I arrived at the base camp at Larandia, there was intelligence that a FARC exploratory group was going to move into a small town, which is a typical operation for them. When they moved into that small town, they would burn the local police station, and they would hunt out the police officers and either intimidate them until they complied with the FARC or until they killed them. Mr. Speaker, 3,000 individuals per year on average are kidnapped in Colombia. Many of them are police officers at the local level trying to provide protection for the people of the towns. The FARC and the revolutionaries have been going into small towns and villages wrecking havoc on the quality of life in those communities. They have been taking peaceful farmers and forcing them to stop growing legitimate crops and instead produce the coca that the FARC then buys and uses at their precursor labs to produce cocaine, which is then shipped to America. And if the local farmers do not cooperate, they, too, are harassed. Their buildings are burned. Their vehicles are trashed and burned, and in the end, the people themselves are tortured. But the FARC is doing far worse than that, Mr. Speaker, and so is the result of the narcotrafficking trade in Colombia. The day before I arrived at Larandia, there was a confrontation. The military units of the Colombian base where I lived, Larandia, were sent out, because they had intelligence that indicated the FARC was going to raid a local community and take over its police department. The Colombian military met the FARC unit on a small road outside the village. A firefight ensued. The FARC was equipped with AK47s, the latest weapons available for a military anyplace in the world today, bought with those billions of dollars of money, most of it coming from wealthy Americans wanting to have their coke, at the same time they are proclaiming that somehow they are concerned about the drug problem in America. Mr. Speaker, the confrontation that ensued resulted in the death of 3 FARC uniform personnel. One of the uniform personnel, Mr. Speaker, was a 12-year-old girl. The second FARC soldier that was killed was a 14- year-old boy, and the third FARC military person that was killed was a 17-year-old boy. And the mode of operation was the same as it always is with the FARC. When they get into a confrontation with the Colombian military, which may occur, 100 yards or 200 yards away so the soldiers cannot see who they are up against, the FARC pushes young kids in uniform out in the front so they are the first to be killed. They are the first to die. Mr. Speaker, this has happened time and time again throughout Colombia. In fact, with all of our concerns about the crimes of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, it is amazing to me that there is not an outcry in this country for a war crimes tribunal against the gross human atrocities being caused by the FARC and the revolutionary groups in Colombia and Latin America. Because what is occurring there? The hundreds of deaths, the slaughtering of young children, the slaughtering of families, the forcing of farmers to grow these illegal crops and the devastation of local villages, is a gross kind of human rights abuse that I do not think we have seen the likes of since Saddam Hussein was in his prime back in Iraq before the invasion. Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to support the Colombians in this struggle and they are winning. They are making progress. The training is working. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a summary of counternarcotics operations in Putumayo, which is the hot bed of this activity in Colombia. This was prepared at my request by our Ambassador. I submit this for the Record for all of our colleagues to review and for all Americans to understand the success that is occurring in Colombia as we begin to eradicate hopefully 100 percent of the coca production in that country which has led to the huge proliferation of cocaine into America. Summary of Counternarcotics Operations in Putumayo, December 19, 2000- January 28, 2001 (Prepared for Representative Curt Weldon) I. Introduction The first six weeks of counternarcotics operations in Putumayo Department in southern Colombia (the initial geographical focus under Plan Colombia) have seen many positive results. Two social pacts supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provide for voluntary manual eradication and alternative crop development, have been signed by over 1400 families in Puerto Asis municipality, and six more are expected to be signed before the end of March. Aerial coca eradication and ground interdiction activities have taken place in south-central and southwestern Putumayo. As of January 28, 2001, over 24,000 hectares have been sprayed in Putumayo, the most densely cultivated area in the world. There has been an unprecedented level of cooperation between the Colombian Army Counterdrug Brigade and the Antinarcotics Directorate of the Colombian National Police. The operations have proceeded with relatively few incidents of armed clashes or ground fire directed at spray aircraft. II. Aerial Eradication Although estimates vary, coca cultivation in Putumayo could be as high as 90,000 hectares (about 225,000 acres). The most dense areas of cultivation are located in southwestern Putumayo. Aerial eradication in Putumayo began in that area on December 22, 2000. As of January 28, 2001, a total of 24,123 hectares has been sprayed--22,332 hectares in southwestern Putumayo (mostly in paramilitary-dominated zones) and 1,791 hectares in south-central Putumayo. Spraying is currently taking place in southwestern Putumayo. There have been eight spray planes and/or escort helicopters hit by hostile ground fire (in six incidents) since commencement of spraying in Putumayo--fewer than expected, given the high presence of illegal armed groups operating in Putumayo. None resulted in any injury or serious damage to aircraft. III. Colombian Military Operations As of January 28, 2001 there are approximately 3,000 Colombian Army troops deployed in Putumayo, including troops from the First and Second Counterdrug Battalions of the Counterdrug Brigade. The ground troops support aerial eradication activities and conduct lab interdictions. Since the start of operations in mid-December 2000, Colombian military forces have attacked 40 targets in Putumayo, including coca base labs, cocaine hydrochloride labs, and weapons storage facilities. There have been five incidents of armed clashes between Colombian military forces and illegal groups since the start of Putumayo operations, one involving paramiltaries and three involving FARC. These clashes resulted in the deaths of two 12th Brigade soldiers, 11 FARC, and one paramilitary. The fifth incident was the firing (by unknown persons) of a rocket-propelled grenade at an embassy-contracted fuel plane (carrying Colombian National Police officers) departing Tres Esquinas. The level of cooperation between Colombian military forces and antinarcotics police during the Putumayo operation has been unprecedented, given the historic rivalries between the various armed forces and police. The forces have shared USG- supplied helicopters to move troops and police in and out of the spray/interdiction areas. The Deputy Commander of the Counterdrug Brigade now attends the daily briefings for the spray pilots, hence is better able to deploy his troops into the most effective areas and to alert the pilots to suspected locations of hostile elements. iv. u.s.-supported alternative development/manual eradication A key aspect of the multifaceted Plan Colombia projects targeted for Putumayo (and, later, other parts of the country) is to encourage small coca growers to sign agreements to voluntarily eliminate their illicit crops in exchange for government assistance with alternative crop development The U.S. Agency for International Development is working closely with the Government of Colombia's National Plan for Alternative Development (PLANTE), to put such agreements into place. Two agreements have been signed to date by a total of 1453 families in Puerto Asis municipality, providing for the voluntary elimination of nearly 3000 hectares of coca. Six more agreements are expected to be signed before the end of March 2001. The target is to enter agreements with a total of 5500 families for the elimination of approximately 10,500 hectares of coca. The signing of even two elimination agreements has had a positive effect, in that many more families are interested in signing them now that they are perceived as a reality. The signings appear to have lessened some local officials' opposition to aerial eradication as well. While in the past they often complained that government efforts were focused on the ``stick'' of spraying but not the ``carrot'' of alternative development, at least one Putumayo mayor has stated that the government now apparently intends to keep its word to combine the two efforts. v. human rights Since the first Counterdrug Battalion was formed in April 1999, we have had no human rights complaints against the Counterdrug Brigade, nor have we received any since joint operations were launched in December 2000. There has been minimal displacement, with some 20-30 people displaced since spray operations began in mid-December. In contrast, thousands of people were displaced in the area between September-December 2000 as a result of the FARC's armed seige of Putumayo. As required under the Leahy amendment, the Embassy vets all military and police units which receive USG assistance by reviewing the unit's human rights record and regular reports from the Colombian Ministry of Defense on any units or members of units which are undergoing formal investigation for human rights violations. The 24th Brigade, a member of the Joint Task Force-South under General Mario Montoya's command, is currently the only element of the Joint Task Force-South which is not approved to receive USG assistance. vi. conclusion While the government of Colombia has achieved significant success in the first phase of U.S.-supported counternarcotics operations in Putumayo, much more remains to be done. Embassy is encouraging the Colombian Army and Antinarcotics Police to pursue more joint operations, and is encouraging the Colombian Presidency to explain Plan Colombia more clearly to its citizens. The Government of Colombia has shown the political will to maintain its commitment to the aerial eradication and interdiction aspects of Plan Colombia, even if violence escalates (as is likely to be the case). Public support for antinarcotics aid is strong, but continued close engagement at all levels will be required to maintain the GOC's resolve. Mr. Speaker, in this two-page summary, our colleagues will find a detailed assessment of the successes that we are achieving, of the cooperation of the Colombian military, of the brave efforts being put forth by military leaders and police leaders who everyday are being intimidated and whose families are being threatened by the FARC and the terrorist groups throughout Colombia. Mr. Speaker, I want to also assure my colleagues one of the major concerns we have in any country is that there not be human rights abuses by the military or the police of that country. In the training that I witnessed at the Larandia operation, a major part of our training program for the Colombian military deals with human rights, showing the soldiers on the ground in Colombia that while they are there, to weed out the corrupt narcoterrorists activity. They must adhere to strict human rights concerns that we have. They must comply with international norms. They must not abuse innocent people. And while there are still incidents as there are even in our own military, from time to time, of concerns relative to human rights. I can assure our colleagues that the Colombian military, the Colombian police department have made overwhelming positive strides in stopping human rights abuses from those who are enforcing the laws and from those who are going after the narcotics traffickers. Mr. Speaker, our military again is rising to the occasion and doing an outstanding job. The Colombian soldier on the ground understands the importance of maintaining human rights and dignity, even when they are dealing with thugs involved, with growing and selling off cocaine eventually for America's soil. This summary gives a glimpse of the kind of successes that we are having in each of these areas; the efforts at cleaning up the drug labs, the efforts at spraying the crops, the efforts at protecting the human rights, the efforts at helping to rebuild the economy of these areas that have been devastated by drug trafficking. The role of America is not just training. We are also providing resources. Of the $1.3 million that we are placing into Plan Colombia, only a small portion is actually going to our military. Significant parts of the money are going into nonmilitary activities, such as the Department of State. Other parts are going into activities involving economic readjustment. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have a series of charts that I will be providing for every Member of the House that give an assessment as to where the $1.3 million is going, the kinds of equipment that we are buying, helicopters to do spraying, and helicopters to accompany the helicopters and the planes that are doing the spraying of the crops. So the effort in Plan Colombia is not just about helping the military. It is about providing a broad strategy. It is about building democratic institutions. It is about helping local mayors and local councils have better control over their communities. It is involving ourselves through Colombia in creating additional economic activities for farmers who no longer are going to produce these drugs. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we must stay the course in Latin America. One of the concerns that I had when I traveled to Ecuador and Colombia was that we in America do not know enough about our southern partners. I am very pleased that our new President has made statements that he wants to reach south. He has already reached out to Mexico. I know that he wants to reach out to Central and South America. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that many of us, including myself, have not paid attention to our closest neighbors. We have not taken the opportunity to reach out to them as equal partners in terms of economic development, environmental cooperation, cooperation in health and human services, and also dealing with problems like the oil spill off the Galapagos or the drug problem in Colombia. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I had discussions in both countries and I am now suggesting to my colleagues, especially those on the Committee on International Relations chaired by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that we look at the putting together an initiative, kind of a mini-Marshall Plan that would bring a special focus on the seven contiguous countries around Colombia, to let these countries know that Americans up north are not just in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru and Panama, that we are not just there because of the drug problem, that we want to establish a new relationship, one that encourages more economic investment and encourages real environmental cooperation, one that shows that we will assist them in improving their quality of life in health care and education; and in the end, a strong component that will support the rule of law and support the continued effort to help the Colombian people and the other nations rid themselves of this terrible narcotrafficking and production that has been occurring there over the past several years. I would hope that one of our objectives in this session of Congress would be to establish this mini-Marshall Plan to show our friends in South America that America wants to be true and close partners of theirs. Ecuador has been one of the closest allies to our country for years. It is time to let the people of Ecuador know that we appreciate that support and that we want to engage with Ecuador in a more aggressive way. I would hope that our colleagues on the Committee of International Relations led by such great people as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), who has traveled to that part of the world more than any of our colleagues, who along with his wife has a better grasp of the situation in Central and South America than many of our people who serve in State Department positions, that we reach out and work with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) and his subcommittee and work to shape a new policy, a proactive policy that has a military component but also shows the people of South America that we want to be their true friends and trading partners. I came away also, Mr. Speaker, from my trip with one additional piece of information dealing with a very controversial subject that will again be taken up by this Congress this year, and that is the School of the Americas. Every year, Mr. Speaker, when we bring up the defense authorization bill on the floor, there are several Members of Congress who offer an amendment to basically do away with the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia; and they use the argument that some of the graduates of that school have committed atrocities and have been involved in gross human rights abuses, particularly in Central and South America. Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging the fact that out of the thousands of people that have gone through the School of the Americas there have been some bad apples, just as I would acknowledge that you can take Harvard University or Yale or Princeton and find one or two graduates who have ended up in jail because of white collar crimes or because of things that they have done that are against our society. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I ask the question of the Colombians and the Ecuadorians and our leaders and our two ambassadors in those countries how important is the School of the Americas to your success, the answer was unanimous. The answer was unanimous from everyone I talked to, that the School of the Americas played an absolutely essential role in teaching South and Central American leaders that the military responds to the civilian part of society, that human rights is a part of what a military leader must consider every day he or she is doing their job, that the School of the Americas has trained young military leaders to understand the same types of leadership skills that our military has that are so frequently brought to their attention in serving in our services. So an additional point that our colleagues need to ask as they travel and deal with the situation in Latin America is how important is this institution to the continued success that we are having in cooperating with the militaries of the South American countries. Are they perfect? The answer is, no. Is our military perfect? The answer is, no. But we are both moving in the same direction, addressing the concerns of human rights and dignity as we enforce laws and as we deal with tyrants and dictators and thugs such as those involved with the FARC and the revolutionary groups that currently are running rampant in Colombia and other parts of South America. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the news is good. The success is documented, and I rise as someone who was not a big fan of this initiative 6 months ago. I was a skeptic. I am now convinced we are doing the right thing. Our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, are going to be asked this year to provide a second sum of money to continue this operation. Our colleagues need to get the facts. Our colleagues need to travel to Latin America. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I will again be organizing a delegation sometime in the mid to latter part of 2001. I have already received a commitment that Members of Congress will be able to stay overnight in a base camp so they can see firsthand and observe themselves the kind of training, the kind of interaction, can talk to the villagers, and can talk to people who are in the Colombian military to see the success firsthand that we are having. In Ecuador, we will meet with the leadership. We will also talk about environmental cooperation with pristine areas like the Galapagos. In Colombia and the other countries we visit, we will begin to focus on the success that we are having. I encourage our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, prior to the vote on these additional funds, to travel to that part of the world. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Ballenger) takes trips to Central and South America on a regular basis. If our colleagues cannot join the delegation that I organize, they can contact the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Ballenger), and I am sure he will organize an appropriate visit as well this year. I think in the year 2001, under the leadership of our new President, George Bush, Latin America is the key area of focus; that we must renew old friendships. We must show these people in Central and South America that we are not the ugly gringos of the north, that we want to be their friends. We want to be their trading partners. We want to help them solve their environmental problems. We want to help them in their effort to weed out corruption, to deal with human rights abuses, and to help them provide a solid well-trained military and police force to maintain the basic elements of democracy. In doing all of that, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced America will be better, our homeland defense will be more secure, and we will have a better relationship with those people who inhabit both Central and South America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remaining time and thank the Speaker and the staff for sticking through this Special Order.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise, first of all, in thanks for the outstanding leadership provided by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), for bringing this bill to the floor, who has been constantly supportive of efforts associated with the Fire Service, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), my good friend and colleague. Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that when the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) bites an issue, he does not let go, whether it is fighting for the support for the airborne firefighters in California, by getting the military to respond to the MAPS program, or whether it is fighting for this legislation; the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) has been there. It is not just with his words. I mean, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) has gone out on nightly experiences here in D.C. with the paid fire department when he and I rode the fire trucks to get a feel for what our paid firefighters go through. The gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) has been there on the scene in situations, in California. I have been with him on the wildlands fires, the earthquakes. The gentleman is someone who really believes that we have to do more to assist these brave Americans. Madam Speaker, this Congress and the last Congress have been the most responsive in the history of this country to the American domestic defenders, the men and women of our fire service. Both the paid and volunteer firefighters in this country have benefitted from the actions of this Congress in a strong bipartisan way. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for, again, recognizing the fire service for what it is, the backbone of our country, the people who make America strong. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I do not see him in the room, but the gentleman has been a tireless advocate for the firefighters as the original cochairman of the Fire Caucus. And, again, thank all of my colleagues and ask for a very strong vote, again, for the support of the men and women who make America such a great Nation, our fire and EMS personnel.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, because we have a historic event that will take place when we pass this bill. We have supported the law enforcement community in America. We have supported teachers in America; but in this bill, for the first time, the Congress will provide $100 million of appropriated monies for the 1.2 million men and women who serve every one of our districts as paid and volunteer firefighters. The $80 million in grants will be matched by local funding, $10 million will go for burn research, and $10 million will go to rural fire departments and those communities across the country that are desperately in need of new equipment. This is historic. To help these volunteers to continue to protect their towns is one of the most important things that we can do as a body. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to stand here, to thank my colleagues. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) made a commitment to us a long time ago. I want to thank him. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I want to thank our distinguished staff director, Mr. Dyer, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on the other side, all the Members who were involved in this because of the historic nature of this funding.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to unfortunately relate to my colleagues my concern about the conviction of an American citizen in Russia by the name of Ed Pope. Ed Pope is an academic affiliated with Penn State University who had a distinguished career in our military and who was simply doing research and marketing work with Russian institutions when he was arrested without reason earlier this year, put in a prison in Moscow without proper medical care, without proper attention. In spite of cancer, in spite of an illness that his father has that is terminal, in spite of the pleadings of many of us on both sides of the aisle, in particular the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who represents Ed Pope and his family, Ed Pope was convicted this week and given a sentence of 20 years in Russia's prisons. Mr. Speaker, Ed Pope is not a criminal. Ed Pope is innocent. I have copies of the contracts that Ed Pope had signed with Russian agents in charge of Russian institutes who had empowered him to work to market Russia's underwater propulsion technology. During Ed Pope's trial, the chief witness against him recanted his testimony. In fact, the defense attorney for Ed Pope provided information on what Ed Pope was marketing was available in open sources in this country. In fact, everyone involved with this case understands that Ed Pope is an innocent man. When I was in Moscow this summer, I held a press conference in the city and informed the Russian people and the media that this was a bad direction for Russia to take. We must with all of our bipartisan effort reach out and ask President Putin to pardon Ed Pope and let him return to his family. Mr. Speaker, on a down side and a negative tone, if you want to convict someone in this process, it would be Bill Clinton and Al Gore, because during the first few months of Ed Pope's imprisonment, our State Department and White House were silent. They did not say anything. In fact, the initial response of our ambassador was that it is a private matter between our citizen and the Russian government. Only after the media raised these questions did the administration finally begin to raise the issue of Ed Pope. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore should have demanded the release of Ed Pope but they did not. And so Ed Pope was convicted. And now I relate to my colleagues my greatest concern. My fear from sources inside of Russia just last week told me that Ed Pope will be offered in exchange for a convicted Russian spy or a spy that Russia supports in our country. And if we are asked to trade a convicted person who did crimes against this country for an innocent man, it means this administration has allowed us to be sucked into a situation where we may be forced to trade someone who was a convicted criminal to get someone back who is an innocent citizen. Russia needs to release Ed Pope, because Ed Pope is innocent, because Ed Pope has health problems, because his father is dying. There should be no quid pro quo. Russia should not expect to get a convicted spy in this country in return. This administration had better stand up for this American citizen, unlike the other American citizens whose rights have been abused over the past several years, like Lieutenant Jack Daley, like Notra Trulock, like Ed McCallum, like Jay Stuart, and like others who have been prosecuted for simply doing their job. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to demand the Russian president release Ed Pope, send him back to his family, and in no way allow the Russians to receive a convicted spy in this country in return for that action.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to share with our colleagues some very startling information and some information that should concern every citizen in America but also every citizen in Israel because Vice President Al Gore has caused increased danger to the security and safety of every man, woman, and child living in Israel today. That is a pretty bold statement. Why do I make that? Is it because the election is on Tuesday? No. It is because of what this Congress has just learned. The greatest threat to Israel's security is the transfer of technology from Russia to Israel's enemies, Iran and Iraq especially, and Syria and Libya. For the last 10 years, this Congress, with bipartisan votes, has worked diligently to stop the transfer of technology to Iran because Iran's goal is to annihilate Israel and to do it with weapons of mass destruction, missiles, weapons of mass destruction involving chemical biological or nuclear agents. But Iran or Iraq do not possess that capability. They have got to buy it. They have got to acquire it. Mr. Speaker, over the past 8 years, we have worked with this administration in what we thought was a good-faith effort to stop proliferation. I have been down in the White House twice in personal meetings with the Vice President along with colleagues from the House and the Senate where we talked specifically about stopping technology from flowing to Iran because Iran will use this technology not only against Israel but to destabilize the Middle East and eventually to harm America and its allies. Well, Mr. Speaker, we now have found an unbelievable revelation. In 1995, unbeknownst to anyone in this Congress despite our Constitution that says that no one, including the President, can negotiate a treaty without the advice and consent of the Congress, Vice President Al Gore arranged for a secret memorandum with the Prime Minister of Russia, Viktor Chernomyrdin. Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record articles and direct quotes from this memorandum which I am holding up in front of me. Moscow Joint Statement of May 10, 1995 (4) Russia will terminate all arms-related transfers to Iran not later than 31 December 1999. The United States will continue not to engage in any arms-related transfers to Iran. * * * * * (6) In light of the undertakings contained in the Joint Statement and this Aide Memoire, the United States is prepared to take appropriate steps to avoid any penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise under domestic law with respect to the completion of the transfers disclosed in the Annex . . . Mr. Speaker, what does this memorandum, signed by Al Gore, our Vice President, and Viktor Chernomyrdin say that was not given to anybody in this Congress? It is a joint statement called the Moscow Joint Statement of May 10, 1995. It talks about Russia's obligations to stop proliferation of technology to Iran specifically. Let me read section 4. ``Russia will terminate all arms-related transfers to Iran not later than 31 December 1999. The United States will continue not to engage in any arms-related transfers to Iran.'' Number 6: ``In light of the undertakings contained in the Joint Statement and this aid memoir, the United States is prepared to take appropriate steps to avoid any penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise out of domestic laws with respect to the completion of the transfers discussed and disclosed in the annex.'' The Vice President on his own, without informing anyone in this body or the other body, arranged for a secret deal with Viktor Chernomyrdin that said to Russia they could continue to sell technology to Iran which directly has increased the threat to every man, woman, and child living in Israel and every one of our allies that are within the range of Iran's weapons of mass destruction. And to add insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, there was a classified memo that our Secretary of State sent to the Russian foreign minister in January of this year. I want to quote from this memo. I am quoting the U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This is to the Russian foreign minister. ``We have also upheld our commitment not to impose sanctions for those transfers disclosed in the Annex of the Aide Memoire. The annex is very precise in its terms and we have followed it strictly. It does not include missile and nuclear-related cooperation with Iran,'' in other words allowing it, ``nor does it include conventional arms transfers to other state sponsors of terrorism.'' Listen to what Secretary Albright went on to say. ``Without the Aide Memoire,'' without this document that Gore negotiated privately, Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws.'' Following is the excerpt from the memo: We have also upheld our commitment not to impose sanctions for those transfers disclosed in the Annex to the Aide Memoire. The Annex is very precise in its terms and we have followed its strictly. It does not include missile and nuclear-related cooperation with Iran, nor does it include conventional arms transfers to other State Sponsors of terrorism. Without the Aide Memoire, Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws. So now we have the Secretary of State acknowledging publicly in a letter that we got declassified, thank goodness we have a media that is willing to stand up and expose this kind of action, while the Congress was working in good faith to stop proliferation of technology to Iran, Vice President Al Gore was allowing that technology to flow to Iran and never told the Congress. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. This is unconstitutional. This is immoral. Because we through one person, and he is not the President and he is not the Congress, through one person, our country allowed Iran to receive technology from Russia that is covered under our arms control agreements with Russia which no individual has the right to overtake or to supersede. Yet Vice President Gore did it. Every Member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, needs to ask the question of the Vice President, who do you think you are? The President could not even do this without the advice and consent of the Congress, to arrange a secret deal with his friend Viktor Chernomyrdin that allowed for 5 years Russia to continue to transfer technology to one of Israel's boldest and most aggressive enemies. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are going to expose this in detail. We are going to talk about the policies of this administration. Before I yield to my good friend and colleague, I want to say one final point. 1992 was the start. When Boris Yeltsin stood atop that tank outside the Russian White House in Moscow, with tens of thousands of Russians around him announcing he was throwing off Communism, that the Soviet Union was disbanding, he waved a Russian flag and an American flag and he declared that Communism was dead and a new strategic partnership. That was in 1992. Russia and America together. This was the scene last fall in downtown Moscow, Mr. Speaker, as tens of thousands of Russians stood outside of our embassy throwing paint at our embassy, firing weapons at our embassy and burning the American flag. The first speech given by President Putin when he took office in January of this year was to announce a new strategic relationship for Russia, Russia and China against America. The policies of this administration and this Vice President have now put us at odds unlike any other time since the height of the Cold War against the Russian people. Tonight we are going to discuss those issues. I now yield to our distinguished leader, our whip, the honorable gentleman from Texas (Tom DeLay).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), for his eloquent statement. Let me say to our colleagues who are watching us back in their offices, everybody may be saying, well, there go those Republicans 1 week or a few days before the election trashing Al Gore. Why were not they bringing this forward last year? Let me remind my colleagues, this story broke October 13 of this year in The New York Times. Prior to October 13, none of us knew that Vice President Gore had worked out a secret deal in 1995 that Madeleine Albright referred to in a January 2000 memo this year. Prior to October 13, none of us knew this. Well, that is only 2 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago. Thank goodness we have a free press. Two weeks ago The New York Times ran a copy of this document that I have now put in the Congressional Record that our Members of Congress were not aware of, that no member of the Intelligence Committee, no member of the leadership was asked to see by the Vice President when he cut the deal in 1995. We were not made aware of this until we read the story in The New York Times, along with the rest of America on October 13, and then The Washington Times reported the story after that, and other media. It has not been picked up by the TV media, and that is a legitimate question. Why has it not been? Now, why is this so outrageous, Madam Speaker? Why? Because this technology that has been transferred is used to improve the accuracy of systems against America and our allies. Is this isolated? Let me give you two examples. Madam Speaker, I was in Moscow in January of 1996. The Washington Post had just run a front page story with the headline, America Has Caught the Russians Illegally Transferring Guidance Systems to Iraq. I was in Moscow. I went to our embassy, and I asked for a meeting with our ambassador, who, at that time, was Tom Pickering. He is now the number three person in the State Department. I said, Mr. Ambassador, what was the response of the Russians when you asked them about the transfer of the accelerometers and gyroscopes to Iraq? He said, Congressman Weldon, I have not asked the Russians yet. I said, Mr. Ambassador, you are our representatives here. Why would you not ask the Russians? It was a front page story back home. It is a violation of an arms control treaty, the missile technology control regime. He said, that has to come from the White House. So I came back to Washington, and I wrote the President a letter in the end of January, 1996. Dear Mr. President, you must have read the story in The Washington Post. What are you going to do about it? If this occurred, it is a serious violation because it gives Iraq a capability that they cannot build on their own. The President wrote me a response in March of that year. Dear Congressman Weldon, you are correct. If this transfer took place, it would be a serious violation of the missile technology control regime and there are required sanctions in that treaty; and I assure you if we can prove it, we will impose the sanctions. But, Congressman Weldon, we have no proof that this transfer took place. Well, as I have done in speeches around the country, I bring the proof for the American people to see. This is a Soviet-made gyroscope and a Soviet-made accelerometer. I cannot tell you where I got these devices, but I can say they were clipped off of an SSN-19 Soviet missile that used to be aimed at an American city. We caught the Russians transferring these devices not once, not twice, but at least three times. The American government has over 100 sets of these devices today. We never imposed the sanctions required by the treaty; yet we have the proof. We have the evidence. Now, what would Iraq use these devices for? They would use them to improve the accuracy of the same missile that killed those 28 young Americans in 1991 who came home from Desert Storm in body bags because their country let them down, because we could not defend against a low complexity SCUD missile. These devices Iraq cannot build. They have to buy them, and the only place to get them is from Russia. We caught them. It is a violation of an arms control treaty. The President told me, if we could prove it he would take action. We have the evidence, and we never took any action. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the logical question is, why would we not take action against Russia if we know they were deliberately violating a treaty? And the answer is rather simple. Our policy for the past 8 years toward Russia has been based on personal friendships; the personal friendship of President Clinton with the leader of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, and the personal friendship between Al Gore and Viktor Chernomyrdin. In 1996, when we caught the Russians transferring these devices to Iraq, it was the reelection year for President Yeltsin. Unbeknownst to us but now available to our colleagues as an appendix to a book written by Bill Gertz called ``Betrayal,'' is a classified cable that President Clinton sent to Boris Yeltsin in that election year, the same year this transfer took place. What did that cable say? Dear Boris, we wish you well in your election, and I will make sure that nothing happens in America that jeopardizes your reelection. That must have included holding Russia accountable for illegally transferring technology to the enemies of America and our allies. The second example, a year later, Madam Speaker, the President of Israel, President Netanyahu, goes to the great length of announcing to the world that Israel has evidence that Russia's space agency has signed contracts with the agency in Iran building their missile systems, which is again, a violation of treaties and U.S. laws that Russia has agreed to abide by. The Congress was incensed. Democrats and Republicans said, what is going on here? What is wrong with Russia? We are helping them with their space station. We are working with them on technology, on helping their economy. Why are we not stopping this technology transfer? So the Congress introduced legislation, bipartisan, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and Jane Harmon, immediately got over 200 cosponsors to force the imposition of sanctions on Iran for violating arms control agreements. The Congress called over the CIA. The director of the Nonproliferation Center for the CIA at that time was Dr. Gordon Ehlers; and Dr. Ehlers did something you cannot do very often in this administration. He told the Congress the truth. He said, yes, the CIA has evidence, and we agree with Israel, that the Russian space agency has contractual relations with Iran to help them build their missile systems. Gordon Ehlers was forcibly removed from his job because he simply told the truth. The Congress was incensed. The bill was scheduled to come to the House Floor for a vote. Three days before or 4 days before the bill was to come up on the House floor for a vote, my office got a call from the Vice President's office. Would you tell your boss, the staffer said to my staff, that Vice President Gore would like to meet with Congressman Weldon in the Old Executive Office Building. My staff told me. I said, sure, I will be happy to go down and meet with him. I said, what is the topic? They said the Iran missile sanctions bill. I drove down to the White House, went into the Old Executive Office Building where the Vice President's office is, and there in the meeting room, along with myself, were some of the following people: Senator Carl Levin, Senator Bob Kerry, Senator John McCain, Senator Jon Kyl, Congressman Lee Hamilton, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), Congresswoman Jane Harmon, Democrats and Republicans from the House and the Senate who were assembled while the Vice President and Leon Firth, the security adviser, pleaded with us for 1 hour not to bring up the Iran missile sanction bill. He pleaded with us that this would harm the personal relationship that Bill Clinton had with Boris Yeltsin and that Al Gore had with Viktor Chernomyrdin. When the Vice President finished lobbying us, all of us, Democrats and Republicans together, said, Mr. Vice President, it is too late. The technology is flowing. It is continuing to flow into Iran, and it is not being stopped. Later that week, that bill passed the House with 396 votes. That was not a partisan bill. Almost every Republican and most all of the Democrats supported the bill to slap the administration across the face because they were not enforcing an arms control agreement that we had entered into with Russia to stop technology from going to Iran. Two months later, after we came back from Christmas break, the Senate was going to take up the same bill. My office got another call from the Vice President's office. Again, they asked me to go down to the White House to meet with the Vice President, and again I drove down to the Old Executive Office Building. Again, while I was there, along with the same core group of people, in fact, I think Senator Lieberman may have been in the meeting, the Vice Presidential candidate, I think he was in the meeting with us; and for 1 hour and 30 minutes with Jack Caravelli from the NSC, the National Security Council, and with Leon Firth, the Vice President lobbied us not to have the Senate pass the Iran missile sanctions bill. When he finished we said the same thing: it is too late, Mr. Vice President. The following week, the Senate voted that bill; 96 Senators voted for the bill, which meant it had a veto-proof margin in the House and in the Senate. But let me tell my colleagues what is so disgusting, Madam Speaker. In neither of those two meetings, which were private meetings with the Vice President and Members of Congress, did the Vice President tell us that he had worked out a secret deal with the Russians to stop proliferation. In neither of those two meetings, with Carl Levin, with Bob Kerrey, with John McCain, with Lee Hamilton, and with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) in neither of those meetings did the Vice President hold this document up and say, well, do not worry, fellows, I have a secret deal with the Russians. He never told us. Yet, that deal had been concluded 2 years earlier. Now, why am I so incensed? Because, Madam Speaker, for the past 8 years, this administration has called upon me time and again to get Republicans to support their objectives in regard to Russia. Every time a vote would come up for cooperative threat reduction funding for the Nunn-Lugar program, I would get a call from the White House to help out, and I would help out. Every time the administration wanted something done on our side, I would be glad to help out. When they wanted to convince the Russians that we were taking the right action in Bosnia, I traveled to Moscow with information from the State Department to convince the Russians of the merits of the President's position. Yet, the Vice President did not have the decency to tell not only me, but Members of Congress, that he had cut a secret deal with the Russians to continue to allow technology to flow to Iran. Madam Speaker, that is not allowed under our Constitution. Now, the President can set foreign policy; he can enter into treaties, although they have to be ratified by the Senate, but he can do that. The Vice President has no ability to negotiate secret agreements with any Nation, especially when he does not come back and tell the Congress. In fact, the most outrageous part of this whole thing, Madam Speaker, is there is another document I have not gotten ahold of; I will have it and it will be in the Congressional Record eventually. That other document is a letter that Viktor Chernomyrdin wrote to Vice President Gore after this deal was cut. I know how the letter started. It said, Dear Al. Dear Al. This was in late 1995. I am going to quote from the letter. I do not have the letter yet, I am getting it. Quote: ``It is not to be conveyed to third parties, including the U.S. Congress.'' So the Prime Minister of Russia sends a letter to our Vice President where he confirms the fact that Russia will continue to send technology to Iran, even though it violates our laws and treaties, and furthermore, Chernomyrdin says, and you cannot tell your Congress that we have entered into this agreement. Madam Speaker, that is not just outrageous, that is sickening. That is absolutely sickening, that the leader of Russia, Victor Chernomyrdin, could have an agreement with our Vice President that the Congress should not be informed. And there it is, Madam Speaker. It is a quote directly from that letter. I will have that letter in the Record. So a secret deal is cut by Al Gore with Viktor Chernomyrdin that allows technology to flow to Iran, even though those of us in the Congress in both parties are saying it has to stop, it is getting out of hand, it is threatening Israel, APEC is going crazy because they know what happened to the Israeli people in the midst of Desert Storm when they were killed by those Scud missiles, and we are seeing some of that today over in the Middle East. And our Vice President agrees to a letter from Viktor Chernomyrdin that the U.S. Congress should not be informed, and this man supposedly wants to be our President. I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who has traveled to Russia. He has been a leader in working with their corruption problems. As a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he has reached out to help them put into place their financial house. He has offered to assist them in bringing stability to the Duma, using some of the techniques we use in our Congress in a bipartisan manner to help oversee the financial transactions that have occurred in Russia. I am happy that he is here tonight, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquent statement and for his tireless work, and I want to acknowledge his leadership in trying to build a stable relationship with Russia. I know the Russians appreciate that, I know the respect the gentleman has, and as a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, they look to him for guidance as they did last year when he was there to help establish a sound financial system. Now, someone listening to this in their office or one of our constituents might say, well, wait a minute. The President does have a right to negotiate secret agreements, and we are not saying that that is not the case. The President does have a right to act in our best interests and sometimes he may have to make an agreement. But there is a process in place for a few Members of the House and the Senate to be told about those kinds of arrangements. We have a House Select Committee on Intelligence and a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They are a very small number of Members from both parties, they are bipartisan, most of their meetings are held in private on the fourth floor of this building, and they are briefed by the administration or the CIA on sensitive issues that cannot be disclosed in public. Madam Speaker, that is not what we are talking about. Because number one, this was not the President acting; this was an agreement between the Vice President and the prime minister of Russia. Number two, the Vice President cannot make treaties. There is no place in the Constitution for the Vice President to represent America, unless the President for some reason is incapacitated. Number three, any agreement has to be shared with the leadership in the Congress so that Congress is aware of what is transpiring. None of those things happened, Madam Speaker. We only found out about it 5 years later because a New York Times writer got a copy of this memo and spread the story out on the front page of the New York Times. Madam Speaker, how could it come that our Vice President could have this kind of a relationship with Viktor Chernomyrdin? It goes back to what I said at the outset, our policy with Russia has been flawed. It was based on personal friendships as opposed to support for institutions. I wanted Boris Yeltsin to succeed as much as President Clinton did when he took office. I was a big supporter of his. But instead of supporting a person, as Republicans did with the Shah of Iran, for instance, we should have been supporting the institution of the presidency. We should have been supporting the institution of the parliament, which in Russia is the Duma and the Federation Council. We should have been supporting the institution of a court system, of a free market system. But instead, our policy was based on personal friendships between two sets of people, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, Al Gore and Viktor Chernomyrdin. In fact, Madam Speaker, there is another document that needs to be brought forward so the American people can see it. That relates to the special relationship that Vice President Gore had with Viktor Chernomyrdin. During the days that Viktor Chernomyrdin was the Prime Minister of Russia, there was a process started called the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission to work in a very positive way, much of which I supported, on helping build stable relations. But the Vice President became too enamored with the man, as opposed to the process. Our intelligence community got some evidence that Viktor Chernomyrdin was involved in corrupt activities in Russia with the oil and gas industry. So as they do frequently, our CIA wrote a memo that went to the Vice President, a classified memo, which they do frequently, to the Vice President telling him that the CIA had evidence that his partner and friend, Viktor Chernomyrdin, was involved in corruption with the Russian oil and gas industry. What was the Vice President's response? He was very upset, red-faced, and allegedly wrote the word ``bull,'' and I cannot say the last four letters, but Members can use their imagination, across the front of the memo, and sent it back to the CIA, because he did not want to hear it. He did not want to hear that our intelligence community said his partner was involved in corruption. The Russian people knew he was involved in corruption, which is why he ultimately had to leave office. But our Vice President did not want to hear it. Here is the rub, Madam Speaker. When the Vice President was asked about this memo on Tim Russert's show nationally telecast just a few weeks ago, the Vice President's statement to Tim Russert was that it never happened, it was not true. However, in our Russia Task Force, we interviewed a CIA lawyer. Guess what he informed the committee: that more than one CIA analyst saw the notation on a document relating to Chernomyrdin. So now we have a CIA lawyer saying, yes, we have a document that at least two people have seen with the word ``bull'' scribbled across the front of it relating to Chernomyrdin. The White House stated in a letter in October of this year that, after a diligent search, ``We cannot locate that document, and neither can the CIA.'' If that is the case, it means the document is either lost or stolen. Federal law prohibits the destruction of White House records. If that occurred, that is a Federal offense. But now, mysteriously, the White House counsel now acknowledges that the Vice President ``recalls having a strong reaction to a CIA report when it was originally shown to him,'' and that ``he may have uttered such a comment and it may have been written down by someone else.'' So we went from a complete denial by the Vice President of ever having written any such statement down and ever knowing about it to now having White House counsel saying, well, yes, he did perhaps utter that statement when he saw the report, but he does not think it was he that wrote it down. Somebody else must have written that word down based on what the Vice President was saying. The problem was, Madam Speaker, the President and the Vice President did not want to hear the bad news. We all wanted Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin to succeed, but the to deal with Russia, we have to be candid and consistent. Do Members know why the Russian people hate Americans today, Madam Speaker? It is because they feel we let them down. When Boris Yeltsin left office last fall, the polls in Moscow were showing his popularity was 2 percent. Only 2 percent of the Russian population supported Boris Yeltsin, but Bill Clinton and Al Gore still support him. When the Russian people knew that Boris Yeltsin's friends, including his daughter, Tatiana, and the bankers that he put into office, the oligarchs, were stealing billions of dollars of money that were going to Russia to help improve the economy, the Russian people knew what was going on. They knew that we knew what was going on. We pretended we did not see it because Bill Clinton and Al Gore did not want to embarrass their friends. When technology was being transferred to Iraq and Iran, the Russians knew that we knew it was taking place, but they knew that we were hiding that fact. They lost respect for us, because they knew that all America was trying to do was to basically wash over any problems that Russia had. When Lieutenant Jack Daley, a 15-year career naval intelligence officer, was lasered in the eye by a Russian spy ship out in Puget Sound, the administration's response was to send a secret cable to Moscow telling the Russians that we have caught them lasering one of our military persons in the eye. What was the response of the administration? They tried to ruin the career of Jack Daley. After 15 years of the highest ratings in the Navy, in two consecutive ratings he was given the lowest rating that he could get, and his superior officer told him this, and I quote directly, ``Jack, you don't know the pressure I am under to get rid of your case.'' Thank goodness we have a group of stalwart Democrats and Republicans in this body, people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who joined with us and called the Defense Department and said they cannot do this to an American soldier in uniform. He has been injured. He has been lasered by the Russians, and they were taking the side of Russia. Thank goodness we stood up, and in September of last year former deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre called me on the phone and said, Curt, we have just convened a special board of inquiry and they have just reported that Jack Daley was wronged. He got his promotion. How about Jay Stuart, a career Department of Energy intelligence official who had an outstanding career, given the highest award, but because he was telling Hazel O'Leary that there were problems with Russia's nuclear weapons, his job was eliminated. His career was ruined. Or how about Notra Trulock, whose simple offense was he told the truth? He has not been able to work for the past 3 months. Time and again, Madam Speaker, this administration has played politics with our relationships. Today our relationship with Russia is as bad as it ever was under the Communist rule. In fact, I would say it is far worse than that, because the Russians no longer trust us. They do not know what our foreign policy is. They think it is a roller coaster, up and down. We use Russia when it is to our convenience, and we ignore them when it is in our best interests, according to our administration. Madam Speaker, I can tell the Members this, that it is absolutely unacceptable that the Vice President of the United States 5 years ago entered into a secret agreement with the Prime Minister of Russia that allowed technology to flow to Iran, as acknowledged by Secretary Albright in her letter that I just put in the Record, that would have been subject to sanctions under U.S. laws and arms control treaties. The President wonders why this Congress will not support treaties that he has brought up, like the treaties involving strategic arms reductions, or treaties involving chemical weapons, or treaties involving a nuclear test ban? How can this Congress trust this administration on treaties when we have had secret deals and arrangements made by individuals that basically say those treaties are not worth anything? Madam Speaker, this is not the way this country has operated. We have had some embarrassing things occur in our history by leaders in both parties. I am not saying this is only done by Democrats, because that would be false. But I have never seen an incident where a Vice President negotiated a secret deal to allow technology to continue to flow to one of our enemies, and agree with the leader of that country that the Congress should be kept uninformed, even though we admitted that every violation that occurred was a violation of an arms control agreement that would have required sanctions. Madam Speaker, there is no wonder why we do not have the respect around the world from China, Russia, from the Middle East, the Palestinians, North Korea. Foreign policy has to be based on consistency and candor, and we have neither.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our distinguished whip for appearing tonight. He is very busy. I want to also thank him and point out to our colleagues, the whip is very much interested in working together to build a solid foundation with the Russian people. In fact, he led a delegation to Russia in the last session of Congress to try to foster that one-on-one positive relationship between the people of Russia and the people of the U.S. We do not have a problem with the people of Russia. We want to be their friends. We want to be their strong trading partners. What we do not want to have is the reinforcement of a government that is not acting in the best interests of Russia. That is why the Russian people no longer trust America. In fact, as I pointed out the other night, one of my Duma friends was visiting here 2 years ago; and he made the statement that for 70 years, the Soviet Communist Party spent billions of dollars to convince the Russian people that Americans were evil and they failed. He went on to say in just a matter of a few short years, your government has managed to do what the Soviet Communist Party could not do, and that is to convince the Russian people that Americans are evil. Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem right now. You cannot blame the Russians. If they saw billions of dollars of IMF money that was supposed to go to help them build roads and bridges and schools and communities end up in Swiss bank accounts and U.S. real estate investments and if they saw our President and our Vice President going like this and like this pretending they did not see it because they did not want to embarrass their personal friends, Boris Yeltsin or Viktor Chernomyrdin, no wonder the Russian people do not trust Americans. No wonder they do not trust what our intentions were. That is why 8 years after Russia became a free democracy, the people of Russia question what America's real intentions are. With that, I would like to yield to one of our most eloquent and outspoken rising stars in the Congress from the great West from the State of Arizona, our good friend J.D. Hayworth.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the 1995 law that was passed, which was championed by John McCain, basically prohibited Russia from sending technology to Iran. There is now evidence in a secret agreement that Vice President Gore worked out with Viktor Chernomyrdin, the same Viktor Chernomyrdin that the CIA told Vice President Gore was involved in corruption with Russia. That agreement never came to the Congress. No member of the Senate intelligence Committee, the House Committee on Intelligence, no member of the leadership in either party was aware that Vice President Gore on his own made an arrangement with Viktor Chernomyrdin to allow Russia to transfer certain technology to Iran. Now, the State Department and the White House are not denying this. What they are claiming is the technology was not covered by this law. That is hogwash. This technology was covered. But what Vice President, what the President for that matter, has the power to overrule the Congress? I mean, this gets back to shades of what the Democrats raled about during the Vietnam era and during the era of the Central American fiasco. No President has the right, no Vice President has the right especially, to enter into a secret agreement with a foreign leader that does not involve the express advice and consent of the Congress. And yet that is what Vice President Gore did.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct. And for other colleagues who are listening in their offices, the kilo class submarine is a submarine that can do tremendous harm to America, our Navy, and our allies. Iran now has that because of what Vice President Gore did secretly in this agreement with Viktor Chernomyrdin. And even Madeleine Albright now has acknowledged what he did. My colleague probably is aware that there is a classified letter that was written by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in this year to Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. And that is what it says. This is quoting Madeleine Albright. ``Without the 1995 Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement, Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws.'' So now we have the Secretary of State this year affirming that what was done by Vice President Gore secretly in 1995, if that had not been done, those transfers would have caused sanctions to be placed on Russia. I mean, this is amazing. Russia is trying to become a democracy and it appears as though we are going to a totalitarian state where the Vice President thinks he could do whatever he wants. He does not have that authority.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and good friend for yielding. I thank the gentleman for following up on this Special Order. I was not aware we would be up so soon, but I appreciate your interests. The gentleman and I have traveled to Russia together. As the gentleman knows, we have tried to find a way to build a relationship with Russia, one that differs significantly from what we have seen over the past 8 years. Let me start off by following up with the comments the gentleman has just made, which I think the most important issues confronting this election and that is the status of our relationship with Russia and the problems that Russia currently presents to us from a threat's standpoint. The best way to characterize where we are today is look at where we were in 1992. As President Bush was finishing up his last year in office, Boris Yeltsin was leading the overthrow of the Communist system and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I am sure my colleague remembers the vivid pictures on CNN of Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank outside of the Russian White House waving an American flag and a Russian flag with tens of thousands of Russians around him as he proclaimed the end of Communism, the end of the Soviet Union; and he announced that there would be a new strategic partnership, Russia and America working together. After 7 years of Clinton-Gore, last fall what did we see on CNN? We saw this picture: we saw tens of thousands of young Russians outside the American embassy in Moscow throwing paint at our embassy, firing weapons at our embassy, and burning the American flag. In fact, it got so bad that for a while our State Department had to issue warnings to Americans that wanted to travel to Moscow because the hatred for America had grown so great in such a short period of time that the Russian people were adamantly opposed to any Americans in their country. How could this policy and how could this feeling between Russia and the people of Russia against America grow so rapidly? In fact, one of President Putin's first speeches this year, after he was sworn in in January, was to announce a new strategic partnership for Russia. That partnership was Russia and China against the West, against America. It is because our policy for the past 7 years, 8 years under Clinton and Gore was based on a personal relationship between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin and Al Gore and Viktor Chernomyrdin, and they felt as long as those two people were in power in Russia, nothing else mattered. Instead of doing institution building, building the institution of the parliament, the court system, the free market economy, if they just focused on those two people, those two personalities, then America would be okay. That worked in the beginning, when Yeltsin was strong and when he was honest. As Yeltsin became an alcoholic and surrounded himself with thieves who were the oligarchs running the Russia banking system; as Chernomyrdin got involved in corruption and in the oil and gas industry, the Russian people became to lose confidence in their leaders, but there was Bill Clinton and Al Gore still supporting these two failed leaders. We knew 5 years ago that the oligarchs were siphoning off billions of dollars of IMF money and because President Clinton and Al Gore did not want to embarrass their friends, they pretended they did not see it. They pretended it was not happening. Just last year we saw the Bank of New York, several officials being indicted by the Justice Department for allegedly siphoning up to $5 billion of money that should have been going to the Russian people. So the Russian people saw this IMF money and World Bank money coming in, but they saw it not going to help them improve their communities, but rather they saw that money be shifted to Swiss bank accounts and U.S. real estate investments. What did we see? We saw Russia sending technologies to our enemies. We saw Russia, as my colleague just pointed out, sending technology to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, all covered by arms control agreements, and this administration not wanting to call Russia on those, because again it was based on personal friendships. One instance in particular that I can relate to was in January of 1996, I was in Moscow. It was a month after The Washington Post had run a front page story that highlighted the fact that we had evidence, America had evidence that Russia had sent guidance systems to Iraq to improve the accuracy of their missiles. Now, that is a violation of an arms control treaty called the Missile Technology Control Regime. So I asked the American ambassador to Russia, Tom Pickering, who is now number three at State, I said, Tom, what was the response of the Russians when you asked them about The Washington Post story? He said, Congressman Weldon, I have not asked them yet. I said, why would you ask them? It is a gross violation of a treaty. He said that has to come from the White House. I came back to Washington, and I wrote to the President. I wrote him a letter. He wrote me back in April, and he said, Dear Congressman Weldon, you raise serious concerns; and, in fact, if Russia did send those items to Iraq, that is a flagrant violation and I assure you, we will take aggressive action. We will impose the required sanctions, but he said, Congressman Weldon, we have no evidence. That is the story they used 37 times in violations of arms control agreements in 8 years. Well, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) I brought the evidence tonight so the American people can see them. As I have shown around the country, this is a Soviet Union accelerometer and this is a Soviet gyroscope. These were taken off of Russia SSN19 missiles that used to be pointed at America's cities. Under arms control negotiations, these devices are supposed to be destroyed. They are not supposed to be reused. We caught the Russians not once, not twice, but three times giving these devices to Saddam Hussein. What would Saddam use them for? He would use these devices to provide the guidance system to make those SCUD missiles more accurate, those same SCUD missiles that killed those 28 young Americans in Duran, Saudi Arabia, in 1991. These devices would make those missiles have much more accuracy. Iraq cannot build these; neither can Iran. They are too sophisticated. The only way Iraq or Iran can get these devices, the only way Syria and Libya can get these devices is if Russia sells them to them or gives them to them, and that is why we have arms control regimes. We caught Iraq getting these devices from Russia three times. We imposed no sanctions. Why would we not do that? People would say to me, well, Congressman Weldon, you mean to tell me the President would deliberately not hold Russia accountable? The answer is yes. Why? Because 1996 was the year Yeltsin was running for reelection. In fact, the secret cable is now public that Bill Clinton sent to Boris Yeltsin in 1996. It was the Dear Boris memo, and it was a cable that the American people can get in the back of a book called ``Betrayal,'' written by Bill Gertz. That cable to Boris Yeltsin from Bill Clinton says, ``Don't worry, Boris, we will not do anything to weaken your chance for reelection this year.'' So the policy, whether it was the theft of IMF money or whether it was the transfer of technology, was to keep Boris Yeltsin in power. My colleague mentioned another incident involving transfer of technology to Iran and the Iran Missile Sanctions Act. My colleague did not mention one part of that equation I would like to go into some elaboration on. Before the vote on that bill in the House, even though it was supported overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans. In fact it was a huge bipartisan base of support. The week before the bill came up for a vote, I got a call from Vice President Al Gore and his staff said to my staff, Vice President Al Gore wants Congressman Weldon to come down to the Old Executive Office Building to talk about the Iran Missile Sanctions bill. So I went down to the White House. I was joined in the Old Executive Office Building by Carl Levin, by John McCain, by John Kyl, by Jane Harman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and Lee Hamilton. There were about 12 of us who sat in the room as the Vice President of the United States, the current candidate for the President, sat with Leon Fuerth, his top security advisor, and for 1 hour the Vice President lobbied us not to pass the Iran Missile Sanctions bill. Because he said if we did, it would upset the relationship between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin and he and Viktor Chernomyrdin. When he finished, all of us in the room, Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House Members, said to the Vice President: Mr. Vice President, it is too late. You do not get it. The technology is flowing like water down a waterfall, and you are not stopping it. Two days later, in spite of that personal lobbying by the Vice President of the United States, the bill came up on the floor of the House for a vote and 396 of us voted in favor of that bill, slapping the Vice President and the President across the face, because we knew they were being ineffective and we knew that instead of doing what was right, they were standing up for their friends, Boris Yeltsin and Viktor Chernomyrdin. We broke for the Christmas recess and we came back in February. In February, the Senate was going to take up the same bill. In February, the bill came up. A week before the vote, the Vice President's office called my office again and said: The Vice President would like Congressman Weldon to come back down to the Old Executive Office Building. I went back down. Again, there were 10 to 12 Members of the Senate and the House, Democrats and Republicans. The same group. This time the Vice President had two people with him, Leon Fuerth, and Jack Caravelli from the National Security Council. They met with us for 90 minutes to try to convince us not to let the Senate vote for the Iran Missile Sanctions bill. When he finished, we again told the Vice President: Mr. Vice President, you do not know how serious this is. This technology is helping Iran and Iraq develop new capabilities. But there was the Vice President, currently running for the presidency, telling us do not worry, we are going to take care of all of this. We are getting Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin to go along with us. The Senate voted 96 to 4 in favor of that bill. The Vice President also told us and ensured us that he would take care of everything. That he was the one negotiating with Chernomyrdin, as my colleague pointed out, and I think he mentioned this earlier about the memo that the CIA wrote to him. We have evidence that his partner, Viktor Chernomyrdin, was involved with oil and gas corruption and the CIA sent him a memo to warn him that his friend and partner in Russia was not a clean person. The White House has now acknowledged, though they initially denied it, they have now acknowledged that people remember that memo. And there is a CIA analyst who has said he saw the memo with the words scribbled across the front. The Vice President wrote a word across the front that we are not supposed to use on the floor of the House, but it started with ``bull'' and we just cannot complete the rest of the word, because Vice President Gore did not want to hear from the CIA that they had information that his friend and partner was involved with corruption in Russia. So the policy of this administration for 8 years was deny reality. Then we find out, as my colleague just pointed out, that Vice President Gore went beyond denying reality. He did his own diplomacy and actually negotiated with Chernomyrdin the allowance for Russia to transfer technology to Iran which was strictly prohibited by the law that was passed by this Congress. In fact, when he was in the Senate it was passed under the leadership of John McCain. It is outrageous that a Vice President could secretly allow a country like Iran, when this Congress had gone on the record expressing our grave concern with what Iran was doing, that this Vice President could allow that technology to continue to flow to Iran. And we now find out that Russia did not pay attention to what the Vice President said. They went beyond the original understanding. In my opinion, this requires a serious investigation by the Congress. Now, we are not going to be able to do this before the election. But the American people deserve to know what this Vice President did in a secret negotiation with the prime minister of Russia, a man who eventually left office in disgrace, that the CIA said was involved in corrupt activities. This country deserves to know what this Vice President did in arranging for some kind of a secret allowance for Iran to get technology from Russia, even though the law of the land in this country prohibited Russia from sending that technology to Iran. How many other guidance systems went to Iran? How many other weapons besides the submarine and the arms that went to Iran? And what is the impact going to be on our security? In fact, I would say to my colleague that I think this Congress ought to consider taking some type of action even before we leave this week to show our absolute outrage that any elected official, President or Vice President, would unilaterally take action that would eventually harm America. Let me say before returning back to my colleague, I do not rise as a rabid conservative Republican, and I know my friend feels the same way I do, wanting to trash the administration. I have been to Russia 21 times. Every time I have gone, I have taken my colleagues on the other side with me. In fact, I have enjoyed a great relationship with the Democrats in our bipartisan Duma-Congress initiative. Each year, when the administration sought votes on the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the Nunn-Lugar program, I would get calls from the White House and from people in the administration asking me to lobby my Republican colleagues to support the initiative, which I did. So I supported this administration in some of their policy issues toward Russia, and I am absolutely outraged, however, that this new revelation has come out that the White House has still not provided documentation to us, even after the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has written to the White House requesting copies of the memo and the letters that were written from Viktor Chernomyrdin to Al Gore in which he says specifically: Do not tell any third parties about this agreement, including your Congress. Mr. Speaker, Viktor Chernomyrdin has no right to be above our Constitution. He has no right to send a letter to Vice President Al Gore saying ignore the Constitution of America; we will have some secret arrangement where I will tell you that only certain types of things can be shipped to Iran. Even though Vice President Gore knew there was a law on the books that specifically prohibited the transfer of technology to Iran, even though Vice President Gore knew that our vote on Iran proliferation was 396 votes in the House and 96 votes in the Senate. As my colleague, I think, agrees with me, the biggest scandal of the past 8 years is what this administration has done to our defense and foreign policy. The past 8 years will go down in history in my opinion as the worst period of time in undermining America's security. Not just because of what we did in these secret relationships in supporting people in Russia as opposed to institutions in Russia, but because of what we have done to force Russia into a new coalition where Russia and China have gone together in what they both characterize as a strategic partnership against America and the West. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be trying to rebuild the confidence and the trust between these countries and us for the next 25 years. That is the legacy of this administration. It is a legacy that I think is absolutely embarrassing. Now, my colleague I think was quoting from the Task Force, which I was a member of, where we looked in depth at these issues. And the American people need to look at these issues, as well. Because the rhetoric coming out of the Vice President's mouth, the rhetoric coming out of those who were supporting what they would say has been a strong foreign policy is just rhetoric. In fact, if you look around the world today, the instability in the relationships that America has with Russia, with China, the situation in the Middle East, the problems with North Korea are all problems that are not going to go away and problems which we have to address up front. I know my friend feels like I do, we want Russia to be our good friend, we want the Russian people to be our good friends, and we want the Russian people to know that we are on their side. We are embarrassed that our administration ignored the transfer of illegal money out of Russia to illegal bank accounts. We are embarrassed that some of the current problems of the Congress with Russia were caused because we did not hold Yeltsin accountable when there were institutions in Russia that were in violation of arms control agreements. And as a result, when Yeltsin was about ready to leave office last year, all the polls in Moscow showed that only two percent of the Russian people supported Boris Yeltsin. But even though only two percent of the Russian people supported Boris Yeltsin, there was Bill Clinton and Al Gore still supporting Boris Yeltsin and Viktor Chernomyrdin and his successor. Because Viktor Chernomyrdin eventually left and a whole multitude of prime ministers came in behind him. It was summed up best by a visiting Duma deputy who came over in the middle of the Kosovo conflict. We had a press conflict and he said, you will, America for 70 years the Soviet Communist party spent billions and billions of dollars to convince the Soviet people that Americans were evil, and they failed. But your President and your administration in just a few short years has been able to convince the Russian people that Americans are evil. What a terrible statement for an elected official of the Russian Duma to make that for 70 years the Soviet Communists tried to convince Russians that we were evil and they failed, and yet our policies from 1993 up until the Kosovo fiasco just a few short years ago turned the Russian people against us. We have to correct all of that, and we also have to hold this Vice President accountable for the actions he took unilaterally.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I think it is just basically because the policy of this administration, two people, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, was as long as they got along with their counterparts in Russia, Boris Yeltsin and Viktor Chernomyrdin, to them nothing else mattered. In fact the Duma felt totally left out of the process. The Duma members told me. In fact, one of my Duma deputy friends, a very respected member of the Duma, Vladimir Luhkin, used to be the Soviet ambassador here in the U.S. He was recently the chairman of the Committee on International Affairs, and he right now is the chairman of the pro-Western Yablako faction. I am going to tell you what he said to me. And I never said this publicly before. I was in Moscow and arrived the day after President Clinton left Moscow right after the economic collapse. Luhkin called me into his office. He said, Curt, I have a very serious concern that I have to raise with you. I said what is it, Vladimir? We have been friends. He said, the word around the Duma is that your President had discussions with Boris Yeltsin over what the U.S. response would be if Yeltsin disbanded the parliament altogether. He said, the fact that your President even engaged in those discussions is terribly alarming for us, because that would mean that your President does not even support our constitution, which is the basis of our democracy. So here we have the members of the Duma seeing our administration go to Moscow and openly discuss with Yeltsin, and I assume Chernomydin, the possibility of them disbanding their parliament and simply having what basically they used to have in Russia, one or two people running the system. That is why the Russian people have no confidence. If I were a citizen in Russia, I would not trust America, either, after I saw the world community sending billions of dollars into Moscow to help the Russian people build roads and schools and communities and to see the bulk of that money siphoned off to Swiss bank accounts. I would not trust America either.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman knows full well that before Boris Yeltsin would leave office he made sure that his successor, who he hand picked, President Putin, would give him and his family amnesty. So that when Putin took over for Yeltsin, he immediately signed the first series of decrees, presidential decrees, that gave lifetime amnesty for Boris Yeltsin and his family because two of his daughters were involved in much of this corruption. To answer the gentleman's question, the reason why that amnesty was given was because the Russian people know full well that Yeltsin was taking care of his friends. He was taking care of those around him. He was the one who hand picked the bankers, the oligarchs where he was shuffling the money through. So the people that got wealthy were those close friends of Boris who kept him in power. Now this administration should have had the integrity to say to Yeltsin, look, we want democracy and free markets to succeed. We are not here to take care of your friends. But because they were so enamored with this personal friendship and relationship, they ignored the reality of what was occurring. That is why the Russian people in the end said we have no respect for America because you do not care about Russia's people; you care about your friends. You care about Boris Yeltsin and his family. You care about Yeltsin's friends and cronies and you care about Chernomydin and his friends and his family. What we said for the past 5 years in going over to Russia, to our government, is why do we not put the money out into the regions where the regional governors are making reforms? Let us reward them. Let us help them build new institutions, new communities. This administration wanted everything to go through Yeltsin and central Moscow because they wanted Yeltsin to be the strong man. They did not want the regions doing good things on their own because they would not be as loyal to Yeltsin. So we in fact helped cause the problem in Russia that focused everything in Moscow, through Yeltsin and Chernomydin and their friends, and now we find out that Al Gore even had secret dealings and agreements with Viktor Chernomydin that jeopardized the security of the U.S. and most specifically, and this is the key point, the first threatened nation to what Russia gave Iran is not the U.S.; it is Israel. The people of Israel now tonight can thank Al Gore for a secret deal that he evidently worked out with Chernomydin that allowed technical supplies and equipment, components and military hardware and submarines to go to Iran, which will directly threaten Israel's security. Now Al Gore can talk a good game but the facts are, that is where the allowance was to send this technology, and the number one enemy of Iran is Israel. That is an absolute travesty. That is an absolute disgrace because, as the gentleman pointed out, Iran now has the Shahab 3 and Shahab 4 missile; they are now building a Shahab 5. Iran now has the ability to hit Israel directly and with this agreement that Chernomydin and Al Gore work out privately, Vice President Al Gore in my opinion helped Iran develop that technology that now directly threatens the safety of the people of Israel.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. That is amazing. I do not know how. In fact, my colleague was with me when we met with Skuratov, who was the prosecutor general in Russia who is the equivalent of Janet Reno who told us he evidence of hundreds of insider people around Yeltsin who were involved in insider trading with GKO bonds, who made tons of money off of the economic problems of Russia. I do not know how this could occur. It is outrageous, but the fact is that we now have to live with this. I am outraged at this most recent story that my colleague brought up tonight, and I would urge our colleagues to take some kind of aggressive bipartisan action to hold this Vice President accountable for what he did. We have to stand up for what is right, and in my opinion what the Vice President did is not just wrong, it is unconstitutional and this Congress has a responsibility to make a statement on that before we leave this year, and I would say that should happen sometime this week.