Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for yielding. I came over for this special order, having watched his beginning and agreeing totally with the statement, and I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in making this a personal issue for him, for taking the time to understand a very complicated issue that many Members do not have the time to get into, but which is so vitally important to our country. As the gentleman knows from hearings that we have held in our Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, we are going through a major revolution in America that the people really do not understand. In fact, we only have had one other revolution of this kind in our country's history. It was when we changed from an agrarian country where we made most of our living on the farms and on the land to an industrial economy, where people went to work in our factories building products and materials. It was a difficult change for America, but we did it because we wanted to lead the world economy in the 1900s, and we did it very successfully. Now we are going through a similar revolution, changing from an industrial economy to an information economy, where more and more every day in our lives we are affected by the use of computers and information technology. As a result, some very interesting and difficult challenges face us, because the single biggest technology, probably, to improving our quality of life has been the use of information technology. I would argue, and I think my colleague would agree with me, that the single biggest vulnerability to continuing our quality of life is the use of information technology. If an adversary wants to take out America, they know in most cases they cannot match us gun for gun, tank for tank, plane for plane. That is an impossible task. But they know full well that our society is largely dependent upon information systems: our military systems, our smart weapons; but even beyond that, our information systems. Our banking, our communications, our air traffic control, electric grid, are all based on information technology. So if you are an adversary of the U.S. in the 21st century, you are going to try to find a way to neutralize that technology advantage, to level the playing field. That is exactly what nations are doing today. As my colleague knows, in classified hearings we have held, there are in fact countries today that are working very diligently in finding ways to be able to shut down the communications and information systems of America during times of conflict. It is a major concern for us also because we are having a difficult time keeping talented young people in the service when they can make three to four times the amount of money they are making as a software engineer for the Pentagon going out to work for a private company. So we have a very difficult challenge keeping up with that technology leap. In fact, in the past, in the history of the country, military technology has often been ahead of the civilian community: the first airplane, the first jet engine. That is changing now. With the growth of the information revolution, the private sector and information technology companies and some of our would-be adversaries have the technology capability equal to or better than we have in the military. Therefore, we have a tough time keeping up. So the kinds of ideas that the gentleman is pursuing, the kinds of strategies to focus the attention of the American people, not just our military, on information vulnerability are critically important. I will give the gentleman a couple of horror stories. I cannot give the details. But to highlight the point he has made, we had a classified hearing several years ago where it was documented to us that one of our military hospitals had all of its health care records, all the blood types of all the patients, changed by a hacker who broke into the IT system without the administration of the hospital knowing all the blood types had been changed. If the American citizen sitting at home wants to understand the impact on their life, imagine a loved one being in the hospital and all of a sudden, every blood type of every patient has been changed by someone who had access to that information system. The banking system in America likes to pride itself on being the best at information security, but we all know there was a New York bank just a few years ago that had $10 million illegally transferred out of its accounts by a St. Petersburg, Russia firm that they were not able to stop, and the banking community has had examples like that where hackers have broken in and taken money away. As the gentleman has pointed out, we need to think differently in the 21st century. If a terrorist group comes into America and wants to discharge a chemical or biological weapon, we need to have broad-based data systems so we can detect whether or not there is a pattern of occurrence of health care problems that might indicate to us that someone has released some type of toxic material. Because a warning may not be accompanied by a bomb, it may simply be a low-key release of an agent that we will not be able to determine unless we have processes in place to be able to do massive data mining. I want to also applaud my colleague because he has been assisting very aggressively in establishing the first smart region in America. The idea behind this initiative, the HUBs project, is to link up as many of our institutions in the four States of New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland to demonstrate that we can build smart regions in America, we can link technology, but we must build security in the process. We must have encryption capability, we must have security controls and access controls, not just in the government agency systems but also in our hospitals, in our schools, in our colleges, in our private business establishments. I just want to add my comments and my praise. The gentleman is a leader in this effort. I look forward to the legislation that the gentleman is working on. As I have told the gentleman, I would be happy to cosponsor it. We need forward thinking, because this is really a new challenge. It is the single biggest threat to our security in the 21st century, the threat of being able to disarm America's economy and America's quality of life by disarming our information systems.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I look forward to supporting it. The gentleman mentioned bipartisan. He is so right. The gentleman mentioned John Hamre's name. There is no one I respect more in this administration than John Hamre. It is unfortunate that he is leaving to go head the Center for Strategic and International Security, but he is a great leader. It was John Hamre who 2 years ago, in leading this administration on this issue, made this quote: ``It is not a matter of if America has an electronic Pearl Harbor, but when.'' This past year when he came in before our committee, he said that we were at war, in a cyber war, at the very moment he came in, because we were in the middle of a massive attack on our defense information systems by an organized network that we think was focused in a selected few countries, but it has been a totally bipartisan effort. The gentleman's leadership has been critically important. There is a need for more work like the gentleman is doing, and again I look forward to supporting the gentleman's legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the outstanding achievements of Dr. Hilary Koprowski--a man who has changed America, and the world, for the better. Dr. Koprowski is one of the most distinguished and respected biomedical researchers in American history. On February 27, 2000 we marked the 50th anniversary of the first application of his oral polio vaccine--one of Dr. Koprowski's most notable achievements. Truly one of the outstanding scientists of our time, Dr. Koprowski, along with co- workers, engineered a new rabies vaccine that is more effective and less painful than the traditional Pasteur technique. In addition, Dr. Koprowski has pioneered the development of monoclonal antibodies for the detection and treatment of cancer. Dr. Koprowski is known for being a creative scientist. His other contributions include a blood test for early detection of cancer, and a serum for effective therapy against cancer of the bowel. He found a connection between viral infection and diseases of the nervous system. Dr. Koprowski's other research focused on the toxic effect of free radicals on lesions caused by viral disease. Today, Dr. Koprowski is the author of more than 850 scientific papers and a member of many learned societies. He has received honorary degrees from numerous universities and is the recipient of more than eighteen major honors, including the Order of the Lion, awarded by the King of Belgium, the Legion of Honor of France and the Nicolaus Copernicus Medal of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Philadelphia Award, the Scott Award, and the Legion of Honor. Born in Warsaw, Poland, Dr. Hilary Koprowski was faced with a choice between a career in music or in science. He received a degree in piano from the Warsaw Conservatory as well as the Santa Cecilia Academy of Music in Rome. In 1939, Dr. Koprowski obtained his M.D. degree and adopted scientific research as his life's work. Music remains a significant part of Dr. Koprowski's life. His compositions are published and are currently being played by various orchestras. Dr. Koprowski often compared science to music when he said, ``A well-done experiment gives the same sense of satisfaction that a composer feels after composing a sonata.'' Mr. Speaker, Dr. Hilary Koprowski is a hero. He has been a world leader in scientific research for over 50 years. His expertise and leadership have contributed greatly to the field of science, and he has helped save countless lives. I know the House will join me in paying tribute to this outstanding scientist on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his polio vaccine discovery.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man whose life-saving work demands our attention and respect. Mr. Mark Morelli, a dedicated member of the Folcroft, Pennsylvania Fire Company has recently been honored for his heroic work during a tragic time. I come before my colleagues to recognize the heroic efforts to Mr. Morelli and congratulate him for being awarded the Valor Award by the Delaware County Firemen's Association. Mr. Morelli is being honored for his selfless efforts during last September's Hurricane Floyd that caused destruction up and down the east coast. Mr. Morelli was chosen for the Valor Award for saving the lives of three citizens trapped by the flooding waters. He called upon his skills gained during his assignment with the United States Navy by maneuvering a rescue boat against the overwhelming currents to ensure the safety of the stranded people. His courageous duties went beyond the call of duty. All Americans should applaud him for his efforts. Too often the heroic efforts of our nation's volunteer firefighters go unnoticed by the public. Mr. Morelli's actions exemplify the spirit and dedication of the men and women in the fire service. At a time when many lament the absence of heroes in today's society, I can attest that we can find role models right in our own backyards. As a fellow firefighter, I applaud Mr. Morelli's unselfish bravery. I want to extend my gratitude to him for putting his life on the line in order to secure the safety of local residents.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a revolution right now in America, only the second such revolution in the history of our country. The first was when America transitioned from an agrarian society to an industrial society. Many of our colleagues and citizens did not want to make that change, but we had no choice because the economy of the world was going to be driven by that Nation that could lead the industrial age. We rose to the occasion, and we were successful. The revolution we are going through today is an information revolution. We are changing from an industrial society to an information society. Therefore, we have to change. If we are going to lead the world's economy, we have to lead the information revolution. Therefore, it presents to us a challenge, a challenge to have the best educated, the best equipped, and the best technology available to make sure that we are leading the information revolution. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security Research, I am extremely concerned about the security implications of this challenge. In fact, information dominance, the threat of cyber terrorism, and the use of information technology is one of our three greatest threats in the 21st century. We have to be prepared. The kind of battle that will be fought in the 21st century will probably not be one fought on soil or on the water, but will be fought through computer systems and cyber terrorism acts. We must make sure that we have the tools, the people, the training necessary to meet that challenge. In the military, we are attempting to establish a program to develop young people who go through ROTC programs to gain the skills that are necessary. This legislation does the same thing in the civilian community. The greatest challenge we have in this century and the greatest factor for improving our quality of life is the use of information technology. I submit to our colleagues it is also the greatest vulnerability we have in this society, because those adversaries of America who wish to take us down, understand that if they can take out our information capabilities, they could disrupt not just our military, but our civilian quality of life. We have to be prepared, and that means we have to put billions of dollars into the R&D investment for the military, for information dominance and for protection against cyber terrorism and in the private sector, to encourage those technologies to allow us to build the systems to use data mining, to do the rapid speed transmission of data that is going to be so necessary in the 21st century economy. So for all of those reasons, I join with my colleagues in supporting this legislation. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Science. We on the Committee on Armed Services have pledged to work closely with the Committee on Science so that both our military establishment and our civilian establishment are working hand in hand to make sure that America leads the world in the 21st century in this information revolution.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to America's national heroes, and it is appropriate that I give this Special Order following a 5-minute Special Order given by our friend and colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), because in her Special Order, she paid tribute to two brave citizens of Texas, two firefighters, a man and a woman who gave their lives over the past 24 hours in protecting the people in her district. Kimberly Smith and Lewis E. Mayo, who were cited by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), are both American heroes. Unfortunately, they gave their lives in the process of protecting other fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, there are millions of people like Kimberly Smith and Lewis E. Mayo around this country who day in and day out protect America, who are always being asked to perform the impossible, whether it be responding to a house fire, a large factory fire like we saw in Massachusetts late last year that killed a multiple number of firefighters, or single family fires like we saw last summer in D.C. where three D.C. firefighters were killed. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I came down here for that service. But we tend to, as a Nation, take these losses for granted; and we tend to take these people for granted, and that is the topic of my discussion tonight, Mr. Speaker. Each year in America, we lose, on average, 100 men and women who are involved in fire and life safety across this country who are killed in the course of protecting their communities. Now, the interesting, or I would say outrageous fact is that out of the 100 or so people that are killed each year, the bulk of them are volunteers. There is no other group of people in America who volunteer their time who each year and who see upwards of 100 of their colleagues killed in the course of doing their volunteer work. Yet, that is the story of the America fire and life safety service all across this country. Now, we heard, Mr. Speaker, the President give a typical speech last month during the State of the Union and he mentioned a ton of different groups. In fact, he promised $172 billion of new programs to every group we can think of. He talked about our law enforcement, he talked about our teachers, he talked about our military. He talked about those people who need special help in America, but Mr. Speaker, in that 1 hour and 30 minute speech, President Clinton did not mention our national heroes one time. He did not mention the firefighters or the EMS personnel who are killed all across this country every year. He did not mention that there are 1.2 million men and women who every day in 32,000 departments protect America. He did not say a word about what they have been doing for a period of time that is older than the country itself and largely that time has been given by volunteers. He did not mention the fact that these people are now being asked to perform additional responsibilities. And even though many of us believe that fire and EMS services are a local responsibility, which I believe fully, we are now tasking these people to take actions that some would say are Federal in responsibility. When one asks local fire and EMS organizations to respond to terrorist incidents, when they are asked to respond to an incident involving a weapon of mass destruction, a chemical, biological or perhaps a nuclear agent, then there is a Federal responsibility to help train and assist these individuals. Now, the fire service in this country, Mr. Speaker, is a proud tradition. I know, because I would not be involved in politics today were it not for the fire service. Having been born and raised into a fire service family like my six older brothers and my father before me, I got involved in the volunteer fire company in my hometown and eventually became president and then chief of that fire company. I went back to school in the evenings while teaching during the day and got a degree in fire protection and then for 3 years as a volunteer I ran the training program for the 78 fire companies in my home county. I understand who these people are, Mr. Speaker, because I have been one. I have traveled to all 50 States where I have interacted with the leaders of these organizations; and I have seen the faces of these men and women who day in and day out give so much of themselves to protect their neighborhoods, to protect their neighbors, and to protect the people who live and work in the area that they serve. In the urban areas, they are typically paid, and in the suburban and rural areas, they are typically volunteer, but they are all professionals. They are trained, they are equipped, and they are prepared to respond. Each year, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, 100 of them, on average, give their lives, as the two just did in the past 24 hours in Houston, Texas. Yet, President Clinton made no mention of these people and the challenges that they face. In fact, Mr. Speaker, not only did he not mention them in the State of the Union speech, he gave them the ultimate slap in the face. The fire and EMS community in this country gets a pittance of Federal funding from our budget process. They get the U.S. Fire Administration, which is less than $40 million a year, and they get the U.S. Fire Academy which operates at Emmitsburg, Maryland. There is only one entitlement program and one grant program, not even an entitlement, one grant program to help the volunteer fire companies in this country. President Clinton had the audacity to submit a budget that cut that program from $3.25 million to $2.5 million. No, not billions of dollars, millions of dollars. Now, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the President sneezes and spends more money than $2.5 million, and yet, in the budget proposed for this fiscal year, he has cut the only program to provide funding for rural fire protection from $3.25 million to $2.5 million. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely unacceptable. Now, there are those, as I said, and I am one of them who believe that fire and EMS services is a local responsibility. I am not saying that we should federalize the national fire EMS service; that would be wrong and it would be a tragic thing if we tried to do it and the fire service would object to that. What I am saying is, Mr. Speaker, we should provide some support. There have been fiscal studies that have been done that shows that if the volunteer fire service in America had to be paid, if all of those 32,000 towns across America who rely on their volunteers had to replace them with a paid department, the cost to the taxpayers would be in excess of $35 billion, $35 billion. But these men and women who serve their towns are not asking for $35 billion. What they are simply asking for is the respect, the consideration, and some one-time help in giving them the resources to deal with these new threats that America is facing. Now, let us make some comparisons. We provide strong funding for our military, almost $300 billion a year, and as a Member of the National Security Committee, I support that full funding and even more for our Nation's armed services. It is important that we have the best military in the world which we have today because they are constantly put in harm's way. But, Mr. Speaker, almost $300 billion a year for the Nation's international defenders, our military, yet less than $30 million a year for our domestic defenders, the people who fight the wars on our soil. Remember, these are not just people that fight fires. These are people who have responded, the first responders, to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, HazMat incidents, shootings in our inner cities, drug deals gone sour, they are the first responder to every emergency situation in every town and city across America. Every disaster we have, they are the first in. They are there before the police, they are there certainly before the emergency management personnel; they are always there in advance of our military and their job is to control the situation, stabilize the casualties, and make sure they control the damage from extending beyond the original impact of the disaster. These are America's first responders. Yet, what is our response? Our response at the Federal level is zero. Many of these people, the 85 percent of these 1.2 million who are volunteers, go out and raise their money through chicken dinners, through tag days on the local street corners, by having bake sales, and by doing things to raise money. And they are proud, and it is a proud tradition that they want to continue. But there is, I believe, Mr. Speaker, a need for us to provide a one- shot infusion of dollars to make sure these people who are volunteering continue to volunteer, to make sure these people who are being paid have the proper training, equipment, and resources to meet the challenges they face every day. Now, is that an unusual request? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned that we fund the military to a number of less than $300 billion a year. How about our local police department. Now, law enforcement at the local level is a local responsibility. Our towns hire the police departments, they pay the detectives, they buy the patrol cars. Imagine asking our police to run a tag day to buy a police car or to run a cake bake or have some kind of a chicken dinner to buy police vests. No, that is not the case. In most cases, our law enforcement costs are borne by local taxpayers, because it is a local responsibility. But wait a minute, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government each year spends over $3 billion for local law enforcement. We now have a Federal program where we pay for one-half of the costs of protective vests for police officers across America. Now, I support that program, Mr. Speaker. But why is protecting the life of a police officer or a military person that much more important than protecting the lives of those 100 people a year who are killed in the course of serving their communities when most of them are, in fact, volunteers. Mr. Speaker, $3 billion a year for law enforcement. That money goes to hire local police. We have heard the President stand up on this podium time and time again and talk about putting 100,000 cops on the street, putting money into additional detectives and money into police vests. Well, why did the President not mention our national heroes who respond to disasters? Not even a peep, not even a word, not even a thank you. But it gets more outrageous, Mr. Speaker, because this administration just does not get it. We might remember, a few years ago President Clinton went before the American people with this grandiose idea. He said, we are going to create a program that encourages young people to volunteer in our communities across America. This new program is going to be called AmeriCorps. We are going to encourage young people to get involved; a great idea, a great concept. Do Members know, in traditional liberal fashion, the President created a big bureaucracy program called AmeriCorps, where we actually pay young people, pay them to volunteer. We actually give them an annual stipend, we give them benefits to volunteer. The last time I volunteered I did not get paid for it, because the word ``volunteer'' means you are doing it for free. But even if we were going to, say, pay a person to understand the importance of volunteering, would we not think, Mr. Speaker, that this AmeriCorps program would in some way support the 1 million volunteer fire and EMS personnel across the country? Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps program has done nothing for the volunteer fire and emergency services of this country. In fact, they do not even qualify for the program. So here we have 32,000 departments, ambulance, fire, and rescue departments all across the country depending upon people to volunteer for life safety, and we create a Federal program that does not even recognize those volunteers. Mr. Speaker, is that big government liberal philosophy or what? We do not even recognize volunteers who were here longer than the country has been a Nation, over 250 years. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced inside this Beltway we just do not get it. We think we have all the answers. President Clinton is going to create a great program called AmeriCorps, and yet does not do a thing to recognize those million people who are already volunteering, and recognize the fact that most of those 32,000 departments across the country are having a terrible problem right now recruiting young people. They cannot get people to volunteer. Did we think to go out and offer to work with them, to create incentives and programs to help bring in more volunteers? No. Because it was not a politically correct thing to do, we bypassed and ignored the volunteer fire and EMS personnel in this country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the outrageous act of this administration several years ago when they held a volunteer summit in Philadelphia was to not only not include the volunteer fire service, but not even invite them. I had to raise Cain with the White House and threaten to boycott and picket the conference in Philadelphia unless the volunteer fire service was included, and they finally were. Mr. Speaker, we have our priorities wrong. Here is a group of people who every year for the past 250 years have been all across our country, in our smallest rural villages to our largest cities, protecting our people and their property. Yet, we have done nothing to recognize those people. We have done nothing to pat them on the back and look at how we can provide some short-term funding to assist them to better serve their communities. Again, let me state, Mr. Speaker, I am not advocating that we federalize the fire service. That is totally the opposite of what I am advocating. What I am saying is that if President Clinton is going to reauthorize and request $3 billion a year for the police, if he is going to stand before us and demand that we put $1 billion a year on the table for new teachers, why does he not say one word about the real American heroes? I was a teacher for 7 years in the public schools of Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker. I am a strong supporter of public education and teachers in general. I support more money for education. But is $1 billion for teachers that much more important than perhaps some short-term stopgap funding for these American heroes who are killed in the line of duty each year, or even a mention from the President that these people deserve to be recognized? I think not, Mr. Speaker. We have our priorities all wrong, because the polls are showing the President and some of our colleagues in this Congress that education and crime are key issues. We want to come up with new ways to throw more money in each of those areas, some of it well-founded, and other is wasteful money. But not a peep is made of support for those people who day in and day out protect our towns and cities. These people, again, Mr. Speaker, are not just fire fighters. Of the 1.2 million nationwide in the 32,000 departments, 85 percent of whom are volunteer, I will remind my colleagues of who these people are. I have been to all 50 States, from Hawaii to Alaska, from Maine to Florida, from California to Washington State. These people are the same in every State that I have visited. They are not just emergency responders, they are the people who rescue the cats stuck in the tree, they are the people who pump the cellars out when they are flooded, they are the people who organize the search parties when the child has been lost, they are the people who organize the July 4th celebrations, Memorial Day parades, the local organization that runs the Christmas party for disadvantaged kids at Christmastime. They are the people who collect the money in the boots for muscular dystrophy. They are the people whose place of operation we go to to vote on election day. It is the place where young couples hold their wedding receptions. In every town in America, the men and women of the fire service are the backbone of the community. They are the heart and soul of this country. They are the same people who teach in our Sunday schools, who work in our synagogues. They are the same people who coach our youth programs. They are the same people who run our Girl Scout and Boy Scout programs across America. There is no single group of people in this country that I can think of that better represents what America is all about. Whether they be paid or volunteer, they provide a service for our citizens, and they do so asking nothing in return. They do not have high-priced lobbyists on the Hill, because all the ones who are volunteers have full-time jobs. They do their full-time job during the day, or they work shift work at night, and then when they are not working, they go over and work on the trucks, they run the fundraising events, they hold the organizational meetings, they establish the budgets, and they run their local organizations and keep their towns strong. Mr. Speaker, they are facing serious challenges today. Recruiting has become extremely difficult in every volunteer department in this Nation. The communications system for our emergency responders is a total and complete disaster. Imagine, if you will, Mr. Speaker, I had the chief of the Oklahoma City Fire Department appear before my subcommittee 1 year on the date after the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Chief Marrs, who is a friend of mine, sat at the table testifying before my subcommittee. I asked him, I said, Chief, are you better off today as a chief of that department than you were 1 year ago when the bombing took place? He said, Congressman, I am no better off today than I was 1 year ago. The problems are just as real. Let me just review one problem that every department in America is facing today, Mr. Speaker, because it is outrageous. There is no common communication frequency so that fire and EMS personnel can communicate freely, one with the other. In the case of the Murrah Building bombing, Chief Marrs testified that when they arrived on the scene with this huge building having been demolished on one side, there were frantic calls for life safety, for more ambulances, for paramedics, for structural engineers. Yet, they did not have radios that could communicate between EMS, fire, police, and other agencies being brought in because they were all on different frequencies, so they had to resort to cellular telephones. Chief Marrs testified that those cellular phones quickly became overtaxed, and they finally had to resort to writing messages down on pieces of paper and having fire and EMS personnel carry the message from one officer to another to inform him of an order or of a plan of action. Here we are in the ending of the 20th century, the beginning of the 21st century, and our fire and EMS leaders have to resort to hand- carrying messages because the communications system they have nationwide is an absolute disaster. The departments around D.C., many of them are part-time paid and fully volunteer. If they have to get involved in assisting the D.C. Fire Department, which is totally paid, and a very efficient department, I might add, under Chief Tippet, if they have to assist them, they do not have common frequencies so they cannot talk to each other. So here we are talking about incidents involving the life safety of thousands of our citizens all across America, and yet we do not have a common communications system that our fire and EMS personnel can use. One might ask the question, what role does the Federal government play in that process? As we know, Mr. Speaker, it is the Federal government, through the FCC, that issues the licensing for frequencies to be used by everyone in America. We should follow through and we should provide the support for a common set of frequencies for all fire and EMS personnel nationwide. We should provide support funding on a one-shot basis to allow local departments to come in line with that standard frequency system. Training: Our fire and EMS personnel are being asked across the country today by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice to train their men and women, most of whom are volunteers, as to how to respond if they suspect that a chemical or biological agent has been used. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, not only are we asking these people to protect our towns from the usual disasters, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, hazmat incidents, accidents. Now we are saying to them at the Federal level, they have another responsibility. They have to be prepared and know what to do if a chemical, biological, or nuclear agent is put forth in our community. So we are trying to train them. Mr. Speaker, the bulk of our 32,000 departments in America do not have the resources to continue that training beyond the one time that the Department of Justice and Department of Defense comes in and shows them the proper process to use. The bulk of our 32,000 departments in America do not have the dollars to buy a $15,000 specialized turnout suit that can be used in a chemical-bio environment, let alone maintain it. The bulk of the 32,000 departments in America do not have the ability to buy detectors to detect a chemical or a biological agent so they can warn the people to evacuate the area. What happens when they do not have that equipment? We saw the result of that kind of event in Japan just a few short years ago when a rogue terrorist group dispersed Sarin, and that Sarin gas wiped out the entire group of first responders because they did not have the proper equipment nor the proper training to deal with that situation involving a weapon of mass destruction. Training is critically important, and resources are critically important. If our local emergency responders do not have this, they are not going to be able to continue to protect our towns. What can we do, Mr. Speaker? I am not advocating a big-ticket giveaway program. I am not advocating creating a system where the fire and EMS service in this country becomes a part or an arm of the Federal Government. I am advocating that we take some steps to put a short-term infusion of dollars into this group of people nationwide. There are a number of options. We could, for instance, create a low- interest loan program. Five States already have low-interest loan programs. My State of Pennsylvania has one. In fact, in Pennsylvania, every piece of fire equipment bought by each of our 2,400 volunteer fire companies is financed with a low-interest loan. Mr. Speaker, in the history of the program we have not had one default, as the Speaker pro tempore well knows because he is from Pennsylvania, and he has been a tireless advocate for the fire service, as I have back in our State. We have not had one default on a loan by a volunteer fire company in purchasing a $500,000 pumper or a $750,000 aerial truck. The fire service is a proud organization. It pays its bills. But having a national low-interest loan program could provide low- cost money for these small departments to be able to buy the equipment they so desperately need, and also to help our big cities modernize their departments with equipment, as well. We could deal with the communications problem, Mr. Speaker, and provide that one-shot infusion of funds to standardize a national system of communication. We can provide funding for detectors for chemical and biological incidents, and turnout suits for these situations, so that they are properly protected. We could create a grant program, a one-shot grant program, that would be available to every fire department in America and every EMS and ambulance service in America, to allow them to upgrade their equipment or make their own choices about what was the top priority in their own community. Above all, we need to make sure we have a focus on health and safety, because killing 100 fire and EMS personnel in a year in America is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, if we had a situation involving our military where 100 military personnel were killed, it would be a national outrage; it would be a national scandal; it would be front page news that 100 men and women were killed in the course of performing their responsibilities as soldiers. Every year, every year, on average, 100 men and women who serve this country as paid and volunteer fire and EMS personnel are killed. Where is the outrage, Mr. Speaker? I have had the privilege in October, for 3 or 4 years, over the past 10 years, of traveling to Emmitsburg, Maryland, where we have the National Fallen Fire Fighters Memorial. The times I have been there, we have usually had between 115 and 125 families of fire and EMS personnel who have been killed. Some years it is above 100. Some years it is slightly below 100, but on average it is 100. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see these families of fire fighters and EMS personnel who were killed while protecting their towns. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) paid tribute to two of them today, two from Houston, a man and a woman who were killed in the past 24 hours. They leave their families behind, their loved ones, a tragic story. It is even more tragic, Mr. Speaker, when they are volunteers, when they do it not as their primary job but as an avocation to protect their town. They raise the money to buy the equipment to pay for the training to serve their town for free. There is no other group of people in America that does that. This President, in all the grandeur of the State of the Union, in the eight times he has given it, did not mention what he would do for this group of people one time, not one mention. In fact, in this year's budget, as I started out, Mr. Speaker, he made the ultimate slap in the face of these men and women by cutting the rural volunteer program from a level of $3.25 million or $3.5 million, whatever it is, to $2.5 million, which is absolutely outrageous. Now, there is some money in the FEMA budget for a program that has not yet been defined. I have been told by one bureaucrat that it is a program that has been favored by one of the assistants at FEMA, Carey Brown, to do education for fire prevention in innercity impoverished areas. Now, that is important but does that really address the needs of the American fire service? I think not. Mr. Speaker, there has been legislation introduced, which I am a cosponsor of, to provide funding for the fire and EMS personnel in this country. There is one bill that has overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle, in fact over 240 cosponsors, that would authorize a billion dollars for the fire and EMS of this country. I think it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a billion dollars in a year where the balanced budget is such a difficult process to keep on track. At a minimum, Mr. Speaker, we have to provide some short-term support to allow these men and women to know that we do care about them, that we do want them to continue to volunteer in their towns, and that be they paid or volunteer, we want to provide support for them in the way of communications systems, in the way of health and life safety, in the way of training, in the way of equipment, in the way of proper apparatus. That is the least we can do. So as Members of Congress come to the floor over the next several months and rail about an extra billion dollars for teachers, more teachers for the classroom, as they come on this floor and rail about billions of dollars for local police because we need to keep the crime rate down, and I support many of those initiatives, I ask my colleagues to step back and think for a moment. Are the men and women who serve this country largely as volunteers and who give 100 of their colleagues every year any less important than teachers or police or even our military? I think not, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask my colleagues, as we go through this session, to work with me in crafting an acceptable bill that is supported by Democrats and Republicans that will lay down a one-time infusion of dollars to help the men and women of the American fire service. It does not have to be a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, because to try to pass something that we all know is impossible is only falsely raising the expectations of that 1.2 million group out there who is waiting for us to do something. I think we should start with a reasonable amount. I would be happy if we could come up with a package of $100 million. There is supposedly a $20 billion item of money that we can use for special priorities this year and yet still keep our budget balanced, because of the way the economy is going. I do not want to take $20 billion. I do not even think we could get a billion; but, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that this Congress, this year, pass a piece of legislation that shows the real American heroes, America's domestic defenders, America's first responders, that we care about them, that we want them to have the equipment they need; and in the prioritization of things we are not going to forget them, like President Clinton did 2 weeks ago when he gave the State of the Union or like he did last week when he revealed his budget and cut the only program that benefits them by somewhere close to a million dollars. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support me in this effort. I thank all the Members of the fire and EMS caucus, over 340 of them in the House and the Senate, for paying attention. Now I say, Mr. Speaker, it is time to respond. I would ask our colleagues to join in this response together.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man whose life has benefited all members of the automotive and aerospace industries, Joseph J. Wood. Mr. Wood will soon be retiring from the United Automobile, Aerospace Agricultural Implementation Workers of America (UAW). For nearly forty years, Mr. Wood has worked tirelessly to ensure the fair and just treatment of union members in several fields of business. Joseph J. Wood is an International Representative with the UAW working from his home base in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Wood began his career with the Union while employed with Boeing Helicopters located in my district of Ridley Township, Pennsylvania. He was hired by the Boeing Helicopters Division in March of 1960 after receiving an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps. He became active within UAW Local 1069 and rose through the union's leadership as Shop Steward, Committeeman, Shop Chairman and then was elected President. In 1985 the UAW International Union appointed Mr. Wood to serve on the UAW National Aerospace Staff to service Local 1069 (Boeing Helicopters Division), Bell Textron Helicopter local unions 218 and 317 and GE Local 647. Mr. Wood's efforts brought out successful contract negotiations between both sides. Throughout his career, Mr. Wood's representation of working families has always been exemplary. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in a tribute to Joseph J. Wood for his selfless dedication to his community and his country. I congratulate Joe, and I know his family must be very proud of his years of dedicated service.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize the many achievements and contributions of Mr. Alphonse D. Mansi. Mr. Mansi will be retiring in February from the Boeing Company, where his presence will be sincerely missed. Mr. Mansi began his career with The Boeing Company in Philadelphia in 1960. After serving a four-year assignment under the United States Marine Corps, Mr. Mansi began in the Boeing manufacturing department. Mr. Mansi's skills and talents brought him to the Labor Relations department in 1962, where he has worked for close to forty years. Mr. Mansi has aided in the global expansion and successes of The Boeing Company by holding Labor Relations positions both in America and Canada. Alphonse Mansi was appointed Director of Labor Relations activities within The Boeing Company in March of 1976. During his appointment, he was responsible for all of the labor relations within Boeing Defense & Space Group, Helicopters Division. Mr. Mansi's dedication and loyalty to The Boeing Company has been unparalleled and has stood as a model for fellow colleagues and peers. I would care to extend my congratulations to Mr. Mansi and thank him for all of his years of hard work and commitment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the efforts of Richard Hoffner-McCall. Richard is being named as one of our country's top student volunteers in the fifth annual Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for the year 2000. The awards are presented through a partnership between The Prudential Insurance Company of America and the National Association of Secondary School Principals with the goal to honor and recognize outstanding community service by young people. All recipients receive a bronze Distinguished Finalist medallion from the Prudential Company at a ceremony in his/her hometown. Richard Hoffner-McCall is among the winners from my home state of Pennsylvania. Richard is a junior at Cardinal O'Hara High School and will be given his award in his hometown of Media, PA. Richard organized a program which collected over an astounding 5,000 items to be donated to the non-for-profit organization Operation Smile that provides free facial surgeries to underprivileged children around the globe. Mr. Hoffner-McCall should be proud to be a part of such an extraordinary group of dedicated volunteers. Richard is a stand-out citizen whose actions have made our community a better place. His generous and selfless attitude has made a positive impact on the lives of others. I applaud Richard's initiative to seek out aid for those less fortunate. I express my sincerest gratitude to him for showing that the youth of today will lead us into the future with care and concern for those less fortunate. He is a credit to his family, his community and our Congressional District.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, tonight, as I sit in the Chamber with our colleagues, it will be my 14th opportunity and honor to sit in this room as the President of the United States delivers the State of the Union address for this Nation for the year 2000, the beginning of the new millennium. I have had the pleasure of sitting through speeches by Ronald Reagan, by George Bush and, most recently, by President Clinton. We are going to hear a lot tonight, and I want to talk tonight about some of the things that we will likely hear and will not hear, and I want to talk about some foreign policy issues relative to a trip that I had the pleasure of leading with a bipartisan delegation of Members in November of last year to Russia. Madam Speaker, what we know we are going to hear tonight, because of the huge surplus that is being generated with our economic upturn and the balanced budget that we are now in the midst of securing, we are going to hear the President basically recreate Christmas all over again. The American people will hear litany after litany of new programs, new ideas, new ways to spend money that has been generated because of our surplus. And, believe me, Madam Speaker, there is going to be something for everyone. There will be a new program for everyone in the country. And Madam Speaker, it kind of amazes me because the American people have to understand, they can send us any amount of money they want, and we will find a way to spend it in Washington. But is that really what we are here for? Is our goal here to find new ways to create new programs with fancy sounding titles, with new bureaucracies, that are for the most part run by political appointees that are going to better tell the people locally how to run their lives or better solve the problems locally than if we gave the money back to the American people and then let them make those basic and fundamental decisions? Believe me, tonight, if there is one thing we know we will hear it will be a Christmas tree list of goodies that the President wants to give out all across this Nation. And he will try to hit every group in America there is. Every group. Madam Speaker, we have done some good things over the past 6 years. And, yes, many of them have been with the bipartisan effort in this body and the other body. But, yes, some of the times we have had to fight the administration every step of the way. I can recall when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), our distinguished Committee on the Budget chairman, first proposed balancing the budget 6 years ago. The President got caught and he did not know what to say. In fact, I remember the famous commercials where he would say we are going to balance the budget in 8 years, 7, 6, 5, 4. He really did not know because he had no plan. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) stuck his neck out and said we will submit a plan for a balanced budget, when no one else believed him, including some on the Republican side. The gentleman from Ohio persevered and eventually we accomplished what many thought was impossible. Now, the President will take credit for the balanced budget. But in fact if we look back over the past 7 years, I can recall a couple of years where the President's budget he submitted to us got no votes in the House. Not one vote. Because no Member from either side would support the President's budget plan. Yet tonight President Clinton will take credit for the balanced budget that we are now enjoying which has helped to promoted our economic success. Our Congress, our leadership here, with the support of some Democrats, has tried to give back as much money from the surplus as possible to the American people. But here the President has fought us every step of the way. He has rather desired to keep the money in Washington where the bureaucracy can better decide how to spend funds than allowing the American people to get that money back for themselves. There are some in this city who think that the money we collect from the taxpayers of America really is our money as opposed to their money. Here tonight we will hear the President talk about welfare reform. What we will not hear about tonight, Madam Speaker, is the President saying that he made a mistake twice and vetoed the welfare reform bill. Because two times over the past 7 years the Congress, bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans, passed welfare reform in both bodies. Two times. And in both of those cases the President vetoed welfare reform. It was not until he read the polls and he saw that the American people wanted welfare reform that he finally signed the welfare reform bill the third time, and then announced after he signed it he was going to make substantive changes to the bill that we had passed that he signed in the following fiscal year. And then good things happened with welfare reform, as we said they would, for the past 5 years, 6 years, and the President now will take credit for that tonight. He will say look at how many people are working as opposed to being on welfare. Where were those President's comments when he vetoed both welfare reform bills that the Congress passed with bipartisan votes over the past 5 years? We will hear the President talk about protecting Social Security tonight. But, Madam Speaker, we will not hear about the President last year wanting to use 60 percent of the Social Security surplus for other programs. We will not hear him talk about that. We will not hear him talk about the fact that Congress resisted and said, oh, no, Mr. President, we are not going to spend any of the Social Security Trust Fund money. We are going to protect all of that for our senior citizens. So the President will talk about protecting Social Security, but he will not talk about the fact that he originally wanted to use a significant portion of those dollars. Now, we are going to hear the President talk a lot about education tonight, Madam Speaker. And being a teacher by profession, and one of the 25 Members of Congress who used to be a classroom teacher, education is very important to me. The President is going to come out with a lot of grandiose plans to spend a lot of money that is controlled by Washington, to keep those strings attached so that the bureaucrats in this city control how local school boards and how local superintendents decide how to best meet the needs of their people. One of the things that this Congress has done for the past 5 years has been to allocate more resources to local schools, attempting every step of the way to remove the bureaucracy in Washington and allow local school boards and local parents to make decisions about where local education money could best be spent. Now the President will talk a good game there, but again it has been the Congress who has led the way, many times with the President finally signing our legislation into law to give local school boards and local taxpayers more control in terms of education. And that is where the focus should be. As a classroom teacher for 7 years, I understand the importance of allowing local teachers to decide how to best motivate kids. As someone who worked in a chapter 1 and Title I program for 3 years, I understand the importance of allowing local school districts to set the policy priorities and objectives for local students to meet. Now, we are going to hear the President make a few comments about defense tonight, Madam Speaker, but in last year's State of the Union I brought a stopwatch with me because I wanted to see if my hunch was correct regarding the President's focus on national security. My hunch was correct. The President spoke for 1 hour and 17 minutes last January. The amount of time he focused on security issues was 90 seconds. Ninety seconds out of an hour and 17 minutes. And part of that 90 seconds was when he looked up in the audience and thanked a B-52 pilot who was flying those bombing missions over in Iraq. What he did not tell the American people, which was even more important, was that that B-52 pilot was flying an airplane that will be 75 years old because we do not have the money to replace it. And what he did not talk to the American people about, and I will guarantee he will not mention it tonight, is the fact that we have 20,000 young Americans who are on food stamps today, who are serving their country and yet who have to use food stamps to take care of their families' needs. And what the President will not talk about tonight, Madam Speaker, is the fact that he has deployed our troops in more instances than any administration in the last century. In fact, Madam Speaker, if we take all the presidents who served from the end of World War II until 1991, all of those Presidents combined deployed our troops 10 times. This President has now deployed our troops for the 34th time. And none of those deployments were paid for. He has put the troops in harm's way and allowed the Congress to come up with a way to pay for those costs by cutting other parts of our already decreasing defense budget. No, the President is not going to talk about the fact that our Navy is now going down to about 200 ships. He will not talk about the fact that a couple of our Army divisions have been declared not fit to handle the kinds of missions that they are being asked to perform. He is not going to talk about the fact that General Schwarzkopf and other generals have said we could not complete another Desert Storm if it occurred. He will not talk about the fact that morale in the military is as low today as it has been since the end of World War II; that our reenlistment rate for pilots is down below 15 percent; that none of the services, except for the Marine Corps, can get young people to join. The President will not talk about any of that tonight, Madam Speaker, because in his mind that is not the State of the Union. In fact, Madam Speaker, his State of the Union is a Disney-like State of the Union, where we only talk about positive things, where there is room for both parties to share, but not focus on the negative things that have come about in some cases by the Congress but in my opinion largely by the failure of leadership in the White House. Madam Speaker, this President will not talk about security with any definitive plan in tonight's speech, we can rest assured on that. Because he took James Carville's advice very well when he was elected 7 years ago, when James Carville told him, ``It's the economy, stupid. Focus on the economy and don't worry about anything else.'' So by not talking about threats around the world, by not talking about the realities of what is occurring in Russia and China and the Middle East, between India and Pakistan, by not talking about those areas where trouble is brewing on a regular basis, the American people do not think we have to spend any more money on supporting our military. In fact, Madam Speaker, I would be surprised tonight if the President told the real story about our relations with Russia and China. Things were going well 7 years ago. In fact, we had a new era, with Russia becoming a free democracy. Both our government and the Russian government declared the two countries to be strategic partners. Where are we today, Madam Speaker? Russia's new strategic partner, as defined by the new President of Russia, Mr. Putin, is China, not the U.S. In fact, Madam Speaker, our relationship with Russia has never been worse than it is today. And in fact we have now seen over the past 12 months meeting after meeting between senior Russian leaders and senior Chinese leaders where they are now exchanging technology and both of whom are looking to the U.S. as their enemy. Why is that happening, Madam Speaker? It is happening because of our failed foreign policy. Now, the President has had some successes. He deserves to take credit for his work in helping settle the situation in involving Ireland and Great Britain, and I will give him the credit for that. But I must say that, while taking the credit for those successes, he also needs to accept the blame for the failures of our policy in regard to China and Russia. Madam Speaker, the delegation that I led to Moscow, in fact to Ukraine, Moldova, and Moscow this past November, saw firsthand the failures of this administration. Our delegation consisted of 10 Members of Congress, 7 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The purpose of our trip was threefold, Madam Speaker: It was to travel to Ukraine at the invitation of the Ukrainian Rada and President Kuchma, and to set up a formal relationship between the Rada, the parliament of Ukraine, and the U.S. Congress. This new relationship is to be modeled after the relationship that I started with Russia 6 years ago. Because of late votes in November, we had to cancel the formal part of the trip to Ukraine. However, three members of our delegation broke away and went to Ukraine and did have the meetings to begin the process of this new relationship. And I am pleased and happy that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), have agreed to co-chair this new inter-parliamentary relationship between the Ukrainian Rada and the U.S. Congress, and our trip solidified that relationship as we started the process off in November of last year. And by the way we will have another trip of Ukrainian Rada members to the U.S. sometime in the first quarter of this year. We moved on from Ukraine to Moldova, a country that is strategically important to America's interest and to the future of Russia and to the people in that part of the world. We were there at the request and invitation of the President of Moldova as well as the Parliament. It was heartwarming, Madam Speaker, that the Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament, because we could not arrive there during a weekday but had to postpone our visit until Saturday, convened a special session of the Parliament on Saturday morning. It was heartwarming to see every member of the Moldovan Parliament sitting in the chamber as our delegation walked in. And I had the high honor and privilege of addressing the session of the Parliament to talk about the relationship between the Moldovan people and the people of the United States. While in Moldova, in meetings with the President, meetings with the leadership of the Moldovan government and the majority and opposition leadership of the Parliament, we also challenged them to establish an interparliamentary relationship with the Congress, which they have accepted. And I am pleased to announce, Madam Speaker, that the two cochairs of the Moldovan Parliament-U.S. Congress interchange are in fact the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). So again the Congress, in a bipartisan way, made significant contributions to improve relations with both of those nations. Then finally, Madam Speaker, we traveled on to Moscow. Our trip to Moscow was a special trip because we were traveling to Moscow at the invitation of the Duma, the parliament in Russia. The Duma, back in September of last year, formally invited our interparliamentary exchange program, co-chaired by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and myself, to establish a bilateral relationship of elected parliamentarians to help the Russians uncover the scandal involving the finances of the Russian Government. We accepted the request of the Russians to bring a bipartisan delegation to Moscow to begin formal talks of how we could work with the Russian side to uncover the reasons and the causes of billions of dollars being stolen by Russian Government officials, by people surrounding the Yeltsin government and by Russian banking institutions, in some cases with the cooperation of American institutions. So our trip was to solidify that relationship that they had asked us to get involved with. Madam Speaker, our meetings in Moscow were extensive. We met with everyone, from the mayor of Moscow, Mayor Luzhkov, who is himself a new party official in the fatherland party, which did very well in the Duma elections in December, to leadership of the Duma, the vice-speaker of the Duma, the number two person in the state Duma, all the faction leaders, as well as leadership of Russia involving housing, helping them with their mortgage programs, which is just starting out, meetings with former Russian officials who were responsible for programs like biological weapons, so that we can learn more about the instability that exists within Russia today. But, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about one meeting that was especially important because I think this meeting and what happened around this meeting is symbolic of this administration's policies which I think have caused many of the problems that Russia is experiencing today and has caused the freezing of the relationship between the U.S. and Russia unlike at any time since the days of the Cold War. Madam Speaker, knowing that our bipartisan delegation was going to Moscow at the request of the Russian Duma, the 26 members of the Duma anti-corruption task force, I thought in advance that besides meeting with the Duma our bipartisan delegation should also meet with a man by the name of Skuratov. Mr. Skuratov is roughly the equivalent to Janet Reno in our government, the top law enforcement official in Russia. Mr. Skuratov is to weed out corruption, to investigate instances of abuse of power, and to find out if and where money is being used for illegal purposes that should have been going to the Russian people. So, Madam Speaker, as I have done in the past on previous trips to Moscow, I officially asked our State Department to set up three meetings for us in Moscow with the rest of the meetings being set up through our own contacts. The three meetings were with the defense minister of Russia, Mr. Sergeyev, whom I have met before, with the new at that time the prime minister, and the new president of Russia, President Putin, who was out of the country when we arrived and we, understandably, could not meet with him. But the third and perhaps most important meeting was the request that we made to meet with Mr. Skuratov. Now, Mr. Skuratov is somewhat of a controversial figure. Besides being the chief prosecutor in Russia, he was found to have been involved in and, at least, filmed in what appeared to be on the Russian TV an escapade with a prostitute, or a woman, in a Moscow hotel. After that little bit of film footage was played by the Russian Government on national TV, Boris Yeltsin fired Skuratov. Now, it just so happens, Madam Speaker, that he was fired the day before he was about to indict senior Russian elected officials who he had found were involved in ripping off hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that were supposed to go to the Russian people. In fact, Madam Speaker, when Boris Yeltsin fired Skuratov the first time, the elected parliament in Russia, the upper council equivalent to our Senate, the Federation Counsel, overrode Mr. Yeltsin by a wide margin and said, you will not fire Skuratov; we, in fact, endorse him. So then President Yeltsin fired Skuratov a second time, and the Federation Counsel reinstated Skuratov a second time. So Yeltsin fired him a third time, and the Federation Counsel reinstated him a third time. Now, Yeltsin says all along the time period here that he kept firing Skuratov because he was an immoral person. Now, I do not know whether Mr. Skuratov is an immoral person or not, Madam Speaker, but I can tell my colleagues this, not only was he fired by President Yeltsin three times even though the Senate in Russia supported him, but over 25 deputy prosecutors that were working with Skuratov on the corruption in Russia were fired along with him. Now, the hotel film footage only showed one man, it did not show 25 other prosecutors, involved in immoral acts. Yet all 25 of these prosecutors working for and with Skuratov were relieved at the same time. Now, why would they be relieved? What was so significant that Yeltsin found it important to fire them? Well, that is why I felt it was important for us to meet with Skuratov and to hear what he had to say. So, Madam Speaker, we requested through our State Department the opportunity to meet with Skuratov. Some strange things occurred, Madam Speaker, that I want our colleagues to hear, which is the reason why I have taken the floor tonight, which I am sure President Clinton will not talk about tonight in the State of the Union speech because it has been a part of our policy toward Russia for the past 7 years. We do not like to see or hear bad things coming from nations where our relationship is based on personalities, like President Clinton to President Yeltsin. When we arrived in Moscow, my staff asked the State Department if the meeting had been set up with Mr. Skuratov. The State Department said, no, we could not arrange the meeting with Mr. Skuratov. We were very disappointed, to say the least. The Monday morning we arrived at the Duma headquarters, equivalent to our Capitol building, we were brought into the committee room where the chairman of the security committee for the Duma was about to host us, Mr. Ilyukhin, and that was to be followed in a large hearing room for a public hearing hosted by the chairman of the anti-corruption task force involving over 20 members of the Russian Duma. During our meeting with all the Members of Congress, both parties, and Mr. Ilyukhin, a couple of deputies said to him, do you think it would be possible for us to have a meeting with Mr. Skuratov? Upon which Mr. Ilyukhin said, sure, that is easy. We can set that up for you whenever you like. I looked over at the State Department official in the room with us and I said, well, that is interesting because our State Department said they could not reach Mr. Skuratov. The members of the Duma said, no problem, we will arrange the meeting for you. The irony of the request and the fact that the Duma members would set up the meeting was, Madam Speaker, that the State Department then requested of me if they could attend the meeting with Mr. Skuratov which they had failed to set up. On Tuesday evening, after our meetings with the Russian leadership, with Mayor Luzhkov, with the leaders of the Duma, the Federal Counsel, and with agencies of the Russian Government, at 6 o'clock in the evening in a secret room in our hotel Mr. Skuratov was seated waiting for Members of Congress to arrive. I was surprised when we arrived in the meeting room that there was a State Department employee at the end of the table. I asked him to identify himself, which he did; and he said he was there at the suggestion of our Ambassador Jim Collins. So I began the meeting. It was ironic, Madam Speaker, that the State Department that could not set up the meeting for Members of Congress with Mr. Skuratov would want to have an official present at the table to monitor what was going to take place. So I thought I would ask Mr. Skuratov how he found out about the meeting. I said, Mr. Skuratov how did you know to be here today? He said, some of my friends that you met with asked me to come over and meet with you, and I told them I was more than happy to meet with Members of the U.S. Congress. I said, Mr. Skuratov, when did our State Department contact you to tell you that Members of Congress wanted to meet with you? He said, Oh, Congressman, your State Department never contacted me. In fact, I did not know you wanted to meet with me until Monday night late there was a message on my phone machine at my home asking me to call the embassy back in Moscow. That was the evening after we had gotten a commitment from the Duma members that we would get a meeting with Mr. Skuratov. Madam Speaker, it is obvious what was going on here. Our State Department did not want the 10 Members of Congress on the trip to meet face to face with Mr. Skuratov. Well, at that I was very upset, along with our colleagues who were with me. We asked the State Department official to leave because we felt he did not have a purpose in being at the meeting with us except to take notes and perhaps report back to the Yeltsin government. Then something strange happened, Madam Speaker, almost like it was out of a James Bond movie. Here we are in Moscow, in the National Hotel on the third floor in a private room, and the Members of Congress, including myself, have just kicked out our State Department official who was in this meeting; and a woman knocks on the door and she has got a fur coat on and a fur hat and a purse. And she comes in; and I say, excuse me, this is a private meeting. Would you mind leaving, stepping out of the room? She said, oh, I was sent here by the U.S. State Department, by our American Embassy in Moscow. I said, well, this is a private meeting. Would you please leave? Upon which, Madam Speaker, she took off her fur coat, took off her fur hat and placed her hat, coat, and pocketbook on the table we were meeting at and walked out of the room. Now, Madam Speaker, I have met a lot of women in my life and I do not know of any women that go around leaving their pocketbooks in a room full of strangers. And I just wonder, Madam Speaker, if that pocketbook had something inside it that will allow someone else to listen or monitor what Skuratov was telling the Members of Congress that were in that meeting. Sounds like a James Bond thriller. Well, sometimes I think this administration gets involved in James Bond types of activities, especially when someone is about to say something that might embarrass this administration in terms of our policy toward Russia. Well, Madam Speaker, with the consent of the Members of Congress with me, I told the staff to remove the purse, remove the coat, remove the hat so that we could continue our meeting. And we did. Madam Speaker, for 2\1/2\ hours Members of Congress and senior committee staff from the Committee on Banking and Financial Affairs, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Armed Services sat and listened to Skuratov tell an unbelievable story. Now, Madam Speaker, I have the notes from both the trip and the meeting, which are available to any Member of Congress who wants them, which we have already given to our FBI about what Skuratov said. Let me just give my colleagues a few highlights, Madam Speaker, because I think the American people would have liked to have heard this tonight as a part of the State of the Union, why our relationship with Russia has turned so sour. It is because, while we were reinforcing Yeltsin, the Russian people knew that Yeltsin and his cronies were ripping off hundreds of millions and billions of dollars of money that was supposed to go to help the Russian economy. This is what Skuratov said. He said that he had evidence not just to indict Yeltsin's daughter, Tatianna, but to even lead to Yeltsin himself that Skuratov was about to indict the senior members of Yeltsin's family and the senior leaders of the Russian Government when he was brought down and when the prosecutors with him were fired. He said he also had evidence that up to 700 senior Russian officials, 700, were involved in insider GKO bond trading, meaning they were making money off of Russia's economic problems. While the U.S. and the West were bailing out Russia's economy with money from the IMF and the World Bank, 700 Russian officials were reaping the financial benefits of insider trading of GKO bonds. He gave us one example. He said the foreign minister in Russia during his investigation he found was making an annual salary of between 4 to 5,000 rubles a month. That is not much money when we convert it to U.S. dollars. The foreign minister was making 4 to 5,000 rubles a month. Yet Skuratov had evidence that he was involved in insider bond trading in the millions of U.S. dollars. We have to ask the question, how could a person making 4 to 5,000 rubles a month get access to millions of U.S. dollars? He said that was the norm in the Russian government of Boris Yeltsin. He also told us that in the most recent IMF tranche of money that this country guaranteed to go into Russia, it was over $4 billion, that he could only account for about $300 million that went through the normal banking process in Russia, that over $4 billion of that IMF money did not go through the normal banking process that IMF funds would go through. Madam Speaker, Mr. Skuratov went through a whole litany of the details of the investigation that he was in the midst of when he was fired. He told us that there is evidence in Russia and evidence available to document the ties to Russian criminal elements and in some cases U.S. institutions. We asked him, ``Well, what kind of cooperation did you get from our government?'' He said he had had one brief meeting with FBI Director Louis Freeh but no further subsequent meetings with the FBI. We have since met with the FBI, we have given them the information, and because I have the highest confidence in Director Freeh and his agency, we are convinced that he will use that information and pursue further information that Mr. Skuratov has identified for us. But, Madam Speaker, my point is a simple one. We will not hear that story tonight in the State of the Union. We will not hear the story about the instability in Russia. We will not hear the story, Madam Speaker, about the billions of dollars of U.S. money that has been ripped off while we sat back and reinforced Yeltsin every step of the way with the Russian people losing confidence in its relationship between Russia and the U.S. We also will not hear this story, Madam Speaker, that I would like to see the President tell, the story of Lieutenant Jack Daley, a 15-year naval intelligence officer who was lasered 3 years ago by a Russian spy trawler called the Kapitan Man. Jack Daley was flying a surveillance mission monitoring Russian spy ships that were spying on our submarine fleet out in Puget Sound. During the mission where he was flying in a helicopter with a Canadian pilot, they both had a sensation in their eyes as they were taking photographs of this spy vessel. When they landed, they were taken to the base infirmary and were told that they had been lasered by a high- powered laser generator. Madam Speaker, what we will not hear the President talk about tonight is the fact that our State Department interfered with our Defense Department and would not allow our DOD personnel to go on board that Russian ship until we had notified the embassy in Moscow that they had done something wrong. In fact, Bill Gertz in his book ``Betrayal'' revealed for the first time the classified cables that were sent between our embassy and the Moscow embassy, our State Department and our Department of Defense. So instead of protecting our own naval intelligence officer who had been lasered by a Russian spy ship, we were trying to make sure again, like we were with the money laundering, that Boris Yeltsin was not embarrassed. Then something terrible happened with Jack Daley's career. For 15 years he had been an outstanding sailor, given the highest awards that one can get in the Navy. But because he questioned why his government was not supporting him but instead protecting Russia and Boris Yeltsin's leadership, Jack Daley's career was almost brought to a grinding halt. In fact, Madam Speaker, he was bypassed for a promotion until bipartisan Members of Congress, people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and people like myself and others got involved, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), in Jack Daley's case and we said to this administration, ``You can't get away with ignoring harm done to an American soldier because you don't want to embarrass Boris Yeltsin and his relationship with Bill Clinton.'' When Jack Daley was bypassed this past summer a second time for his promotion, those of us in the Congress on both sides of the aisle following the case were livid and we demanded that our Defense Department protect our own military officer. In September of this year, finally, John Hamre, our Deputy Secretary of Defense, called me and he said, ``Congressman, I think you'll be happy. We had a special Navy panel review the Jack Daley case and he is being given his promotion.'' Madam Speaker, the point is that what we will not hear the President talk about tonight are the multitude of times that we have pretended reality was not what it is in Russia or in China, when we ignored arms control violations, 17 by the Russians, 20 by the Chinese over the past 7 years, when we had the hard evidence of deliberate arms control violations by both countries we pretended it did not happen because we did not want to upset the relationship between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin or Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin. We will not hear that story tonight, Madam Speaker, because the President will only talk about the glitz, he will only talk about the economy going well, he will pretend the world is safe, there are no problems. He will not talk about the fact that he reversed himself on missile defense because the bipartisan Congress for 6 years every year passed overwhelmingly bipartisan measures demanding that this administration move to protect our troops and our people. He will not talk about the fact tonight that the day after last year's State of the Union speech when he did not talk about missile defense at all, he had Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen give a major foreign policy speech when he announced that we were in fact changing our position and now supportive of missile defense as a Nation. He probably will not talk about the fact that in last year's State of the Union speech he did not talk to any great length about the increasing threats from weapons of mass destruction or cyberterrorism but in fact the week after the State of the Union speech, he gave two speeches, one was on cyber-terrorism and he said he would request billions of new dollars, and the second was on weapons of mass destruction and he again said he would request billions of dollars. My point, Madam Speaker, is we are going to hear a good speech tonight. It is going to give the President a good bump in the polls. It is going to make the American people feel good because there is going to be something in it for everybody. We are going to praise people in the audience, we are going to applaud our troops as the best that have ever existed in the history of the country, we are going to talk about the economy and we are going to say everything is rosy, but we are not going to hear the kinds of things that I have outlined in my 1-hour special order today, Madam Speaker. Again, there are things this President can take credit for and can share jointly with the success this Congress has had. But it is not just accepting success. He also has to be honest with the American people about problems we have not yet solved, about the failed relationships our country now has with China and Russia, about the fact that we are not properly funding the men and women serving our country and still have up to 20,000 young military men and women who have to receive food stamps because we do not pay them enough to take care of their families. These are the kinds of stories, as well as some of the others that I have talked about, that I would have hoped to hear from the State of the Union. Madam Speaker, in going over these highlights tonight, I have focused every step of the way on the fact that our successes have been bipartisan in this body and the other body. None of our successes that I have outlined today, welfare reform, balanced budget, protecting Social Security, pushing education funds to local schools, trying to increase funds for our military, dignity in the way we enforce arms control agreements, none of those successes were Republican successes alone. Sure, the Republican majority allowed those bills to come to the floor, but in most cases, if not all, it was support from the Democrat side that helped those bills become reality and become the law of the land. We will not hear those stories tonight. We are going to hear a one-word standup session about how great Bill Clinton has been for America for the past 7 years. And there are going to be those around the country who are going to say, if we just had control of the Congress, these are the Democrats now, we could do so much more. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to remind the American people of a simple basic fact that is irrefutable. For the past 50 years, since 1952, the party of President Clinton, the Democrat Party, has had a chance to govern America time and time again. Let us look at the history of this country. Under JFK, we had a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress. Under LBJ, we had a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress. Under Jimmy Carter, we had a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress. Under Bill Clinton, for the first 2 years, we had a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress. Madam Speaker, every American and every colleague needs to ask themselves, how many times in the last 50 years has the Republican Party had the President and the Congress? The answer, Madam Speaker, is zero. The Republican Party has not controlled the White House and the Congress since 1952. Our message, Madam Speaker, is we have done good things over the past 5 years. Yes, the President will take credit for many of them tonight, from the balanced budget to welfare reform, to saving Social Security, to helping boost up our defense. He will take credit for all of them. But, Madam Speaker, imagine if the Republican Party for once in the next election cycle, after 50 years of not having a chance, had a chance to control the House, the Senate and the White House, something the Democrats have had time and again. Remember, Madam Speaker, when the Democrats controlled the Congress and the White House, they did not protect Social Security. They did not reform welfare. They created bigger programs, out-of- control programs. They had the opportunity time and time again, and they drove this country into a massive deficit because they always controlled the Congress until 6 years ago. So I would only hope tonight as we listen to the President's last State of the Union, and I know my colleagues will give him the respect that he is due as our Commander in Chief and as our President, while I may disagree with his policies and may disagree with some of his decisions, I respect the fact that he is our leader and he is our President and so I would hope, and I know that our colleagues will give him that respect tonight, but I only wanted to share, Madam Speaker, some thoughts of things that maybe could have been said, should have been said but will not be said tonight in this State of the Union speech for America for the new millennium. Madam Speaker, I will include one further item. During our trip to Moscow, the leader of the Kurchatov Institute and a good friend of mine, Yevgeny Velikhov, gave a speech in our honor at a luncheon he hosted. It is important to understand who Yevgeny Velikhov is. He is the director of one of the largest institutes in Russia called Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. It is the institute that developed all of Russia's nuclear programs, their nuclear technology. Yevgeny gave a speech about relations between the U.S. and Russia that is absolutely unbelievable. My point in placing this speech in the Congressional Record at the end of my comments today, Madam Speaker, is that Yevgeny Velikhov represents mainstream Russia. Russian people want to be our friends. Russian leaders want to work with us. But we cannot have a policy as we have had over the past 7 years of being so enamored with Boris Yeltsin, or a personality, that we ignore the reality of what is occurring in that country, because if we do that again, the Russian people will have the same feeling toward us then as they have toward us now. They have seen us ignore the corruption, they have seen us ignore the involvement of Yeltsin's own family and his friends in stealing money from the Russian people. They have seen America turn its back when we had evidence of the selling off of technology from Russian criminal elements to foreign nations. We have got to change that policy. People like Yevgeny Velikhov understand that. The future of our relationship with Russia I think can be bright as I think our relationship with China can be bright. There, as this past weekend I had a chance to speak to the Mid-Atlantic Monte Gade Society of Chinese Scientists, I said it is an absolute tragedy that this administration is blaming the whole fiasco over the Chinese technology transfer on one man who they claim stole technology. Instead of focusing on a Chinese or Asian American, this administration should look to itself and to its failed policies of allowing proliferation to occur and technology to be transferred legally to anyone who would pay the price. Madam Speaker, I would hope that as I close this special order today our colleagues will think beyond the rhetoric of what we are going to hear tonight and put our minds together to work, as we did in the last year of this session of the Congress, on some good initiatives, the kinds of things that we have passed, the kinds of foreign policy actions that we have taken, and drag the President along for the good of America into the new millennium and the 21st Century. Madam Speaker, at this point I would enter into the Record another speech of Yevgeny Velikhov. E.P. Velikhov's Speech at the Meeting of Kurchatov Institute's Scientific Society With a Group of USA Congressmen Ladies and Gentlemen, we gathered in a memorable time when the ages are changing. This calendar event is being reinforced by one of the also important circumstance for the whole mankind: 2000 years of Christ's birthday. His teaching changed our world. When the mankind was keeping to his commandments it progressed, but as soon as they were forgotten the mankind became sunken into deep crisis. And we, having achieved this century border, have got into this no way state. Practically all the XX century beginning from 1917 and ending by 1990 year, we were living behind the ``iron curtain'' in the state of ideological confrontation. And all these years the idea to conquer the world has dominated as in the Soviet Union as well in the United States of America. But reasonable people from both sides (and their number was not small) understood that there are on the both sides of the ``iron curtain'' the real alive people, who were ready for cooperation. And overwhelming ideological barriers we were going toward each other creating step by step a bridge of confidence and understanding. When almost 10 years ago the ``iron curtain'' has broken we hoped for a strengthening of this bridge, for the sound forces going through it in both direction. Unfortunately this has not happened. The ideology has broken, but in the result of this powerful ideological burst a foam appeared, which has flowed from us to the USA and from the USA to us. Americans have felt on themselves what is the Russian crime, corruption, they saw ``new Russians'', our bankers, oligarchs, who have ``green cards'', huge amounts of money for villa construction, wealthy holidays. Exactly they became to represent the Russian face in the West. And the West has shuddered. But we also have shuddered. Flow of the people, representing wrong side of American life, started into Russia. We have seen here your expert--economists, whose ideas have not been accepted in the USA as they were not perspective and harmful, but they have found a fertile soil in the Russia. We have seen in our space also American businessmen, who tried to involve us into adventure projects. I personally confronted one of such so called businessman, who proposed to cooperate in a major project on unlawful ground. Certainly, the roots of many vices such as corruption, stealing, unlawful privatization, drags, pornography, prostitution, are situated also in our ground, but in many respect the people's awareness connect them to America and the USA is not accepted in Russia now as a prospering and educated society. It seems that we have forgotten 10 Christian commandments. It appears on the border of centuries that a huge charge of mutual good will, which we have had at the end of 80-ty years, has been almost used up. And instead of the ``iron curtain'' we begin to construct a ``stinking trench'' behind the rusted barbed wire. Lets look at today's time: as earlier we threaten each other by nuclear restriction and think up limitations, sanctions. We appeared to be in a situation dangerous for the world at the end of XX century. Meantime the USA and the Russia are playing today a huge role in the establishment of a stable and secure peace, democratic order. It is clear, that being in confrontation we can only negatively influence as on our countries as well on the world as a whole. I would not like to be a pessimist. We have way out and we can see it if we return with open face to our youth. It is a new growing force of Russia, it is that base on which we can build the world and the order. ``Junior Achievements of Russia'' is gaining power by us. One million of young men and girls from 80 regions of Russia, who study economics, business and management are today in its ranks. After 5 years they will be 5 millions. And this is a great power, which is ready for democratic transformation in the country. Altruism is laying in the base of their activity--one of the best features of Americans which the Russian youth has accepted and absorbed. As many Americans members of ``Junior Achievements'' see the highest sense to serve to the society. Finally, we can learn in our new construction against our businessmen, who are heading this movement. They are those people who a faithful to the principles of ``pure business'' and they are true to their duty. They are ready to invest into creation of new society. The resume from my speech suggests itself: experience which has come from ``the top'' appears to be not quite satisfactory. It came to us with the people who have forgotten the Christ's commandments. But we have sound forces, who not only accept them but they are leaving in accordance with them. We connect the Russia's future with them and the future of Russian-American relations. I call upon to support the people who have the life principle to serve to the society.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Commander Brian Nutt, who for the past two years has served as the Deputy Director of the House Liaison Office of the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs. Commander Nutt will soon be leaving Capital Hill to attend Prospective Commanding Officer Training, and will eventually take over as the Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. Bremerton (SSN 698) stationed in San Diego, CVA. As the Chairman of the House Armed Services Research and Development Subcommittee, I have relied heavily upon Commander Nutt's support for some of my most important endeavors. In the last year, I have traveled on several Congressional delegations with Commander Nutt. During these trips, I worked to foster improved relations between the United States and Russia. The success of my endeavors was in no small part due to the contributions of Commander Nutt. I am not alone in my deep respect for Commander Nutt. He has made many friends here on Capitol Hill with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Each and every Member of Congress who has worked with him has come away with a better understanding of how the decisions which we make in this House will affect the men and women who protect and serve our nation. Commander Nutt's skill and dedication have reflected well on him and all of our men and women in uniform. Commander Nutt has consistently worked to remind this Congress that we must support our troops. No nation has ever been defeated because it is too strong, and we must understand that one of our most important responsibilities outlined in the Constitution is the defense of the American people, wherever they might be, at home or abroad. Leaders like Commander Nutt have made our military the envy of the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in bidding him farewell, and in wishing him continued success as he embarks on his newest journey to protect our country's national security. I would like to submit for the Record a history of Commander Nutt's service to the United States: Commissioned through Officer Candidate School in Newport, RI (Nov 82) Completed Nuclear Power School in Orlando, FL (Jun 83) Completed Prototype Reactor Operation Training in Idaho Falls, ID (Dec 83) Completed Submarine Officer Basic Training in New London, CT (Mar 84) Junior Officer Sea Tour--U.S.S. New York City (SSN 696), Pearl Harbor, HI (Apr 84-Feb 87) Received my Dolphins (qualified ``Submarines'') Jun 85 Completed Submarine Officer Advanced Course in New London, CT (Mar-Sep 87) Served as Weapons Officer on U.S.S. Louisville (SSN 724), San Diego, CA (Oct 87-Oct 89). Served as Submarine Liaison Officer on the staff of Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group THREE, San Diego, CA (Nov 89-Nov 91) Served on the Combat Systems Training Team conducting submarine weapons certification, San Diego, CA (Nov 91- Oct 93) Served as Radiological Controls Officer on the submarine tender, U.S.S. Frank Cable (AS 40) in Charleston, SC (Nov 93-Feb 95) Served as Executive Officer on U.S.S. Puffer (SSN 652) in San Diego and then decommissioned her in Bremerto, WA (Apr 95-Jun 96) Served as Executive Officer on U.S.S. Alabama (SSBN 731) in Bangor, WA (Jul 96-Sep 97) Served as Officer of Legislative Affairs, Deputy Director, House Liaison Office (Nov 97-Dec 99) Commander Nutt's inspirational leadership, breadth of vision, and complete success have earned the award of the Meritorious Service Medal for his superb accomplishments

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. I commend the gentleman from Maryland for introducing this bill, and as a former firefighter, appreciate his initiatives to help the firefighters of our nation. This bill would clarify the overtime exemption for full time firefighters and EMS personnel. This would apply to all firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians (EMS), rescue workers, ambulance personnel, and hazardous materials workers who are employed by a municipality, county, fire district, or state fire department. As the founder of the Congressional Fire and Emergency Services Caucus, and one who has continually kept informed on these issues, I realize the importance of this bill. By giving these men and women the opportunity to be treated fairly in the workplace, we are recognizing that firefighters and EMS personnel are employees that deserve overtime for their valiant efforts. These individuals are professionally trained in fire suppression, and work to keep our communities safe. Every day across America the story is the same: public officers--be they firefighters, emergency services personnel, or law enforcement officials--leave their families to join the thin red and blue line that protects us from harm. They put their lives on the line as a shield between death and the precious gift of life. Mr. Speaker, I know the dedication of our men and women in the fire community, and know the risks they take each day they do their job. As we all know, recent Court rulings have stated the EMS personnel do not qualify for the overtime exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act because the bulk of their time is spent doing non-fire protection activities. This is absurd. During working hours, these men and women sit on alert for the calls that come in, and spend their time working on their fire stations. This legislation is long overdue, and I believe that we are taking the right steps by granting our firefighters this overtime status. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Maryland for introducing this important piece of legislation, and I look forward to working with him again on other fire related issues.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, when will we ask the question? When will this administration formally ask Russia to provide the details contained in secret KGB documents that define the significant number of locations throughout America where, during the Soviet era, military equipment, hardware, and possibly even material for weapons of mass destruction was stored in buried sites? Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the highest ranking foreign intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet Union, Stanislav Lunev testified before my subcommittee and said that one of his jobs when he worked at the embassy here in Washington undercover as a Tass correspondent was to locate sites where the Soviets could drop equipment that could be stored in the soil of America. Last Wednesday, again before my subcommittee, Oleg Gordiefsky, the highest ranking ever internal KGB intelligence officer, who now lives in Britain, testified that the KGB files, as documented by Mitrokhin, contained in a new book just released last month called The KGB Files, are in fact true. Those files document significant numbers of cases around the world, in Europe and in North America, where during the Soviet era the KGB arranged for the storage of military material and hardware on the soil of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, we have known this for at least 6 years. The FBI has told me and the Pentagon has said publicly we have not yet asked the Russians for the specific sites. This past weekend I spoke at an international terrorism conference in Europe, where I had a chance to meet one of the highest-ranking intelligence officials from Belgium. I was told by that official that in the last 2 months, Belgium has uncovered three sites where these materials were stored by the Soviet Union without the knowledge of the Belgium government. Switzerland has also identified one site that was booby-trapped where materials were stored. Mr. Speaker, when is this administration going to ask the Yeltsin government to give us the KGB documents that identify the sites in California, in Montana, in Minnesota, in New York, in Texas, and across this Nation where specific caches of arms and military hardware and equipment were prepositioned during the Cold War? It is absolutely a national disgrace that this administration, having known about this prepositioning of equipment for at least 6 years, has not yet seen fit to ask that question of the Yeltsin government. This body needs a demand that this administration take action. Because, Mr. Speaker, the safety of the people of America are in question as long as those materials have not been identified and have not been removed by our Government. In four instances, one in Switzerland and three in Belgium, sites have been found and they have been dug up. It is about time this administration asked the question of the Russian leadership where those sites are in America. We should demand no less from our Government.

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. Mr. Speaker, as I have done frequently in the past, I want to just talk this evening about a situation that occurred in a hearing this week relative to our relations with Russia. The last time I addressed this body it was to focus on a new direction in our relations with Russia, a new set of eight principles that the factions of the state Duma had agreed with, allowing us to continue to provide investment and economic opportunity in Russia but to set some new guidelines. That bill, which I dropped approximately one month ago, had 25 Democrat and 25 Republican sponsors when I introduced it. We have now gotten additional support and, in fact, we are hoping to continue to grow the kind of movement in the Congress that says that in spite of Russia's economic problems, we must still be engaged but be engaged in a different way. I rise tonight, however, Mr. Speaker, to discuss a security issue relative to Russia based on a set of hearings that I have conducted on my subcommittee over the past 5 years. Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the highest ranking GRU defector ever from the former Soviet Union, Stanislav Lunev come before our Committee on Armed Services, and in a hearing that was open to the public, but in which hearing we had to hide his identity because he is in a witness protection program in this country, he testified about his role as a GRU agent and what his responsibilities were. During that testimony, besides giving us an insight into the mindset of Soviet intelligence, he talked about what he thought may in fact continue to be some problems with our relationship with Russia today. One of the more troubling things that Lunev spoke of was when he was assigned to the Washington embassy of the former Soviet Union, under the cover of being a Tass correspondent, one of his primary responsibilities was to identify and locate potential sites for the drops and the location of sensitive Soviet military equipment and hardware that could be accessed in time of a conflict in the United States. Now, we had no separate way of corroborating the testimony of Mr. Lunev at that time, yet these comments were made on the public record and were obviously of great concern to us. Well, this past summer something new happened, Mr. Speaker, and that was that the Cambridge scholar Christopher Andrew, who has written over 10 books, very scholarly books on intelligence operations around the world, and who has specialized in the intelligence of the former Soviet Union and the current practices of the current intelligence operations inside of Russia, Christopher Andrew was able to get access to a series of files that have been given to the British Government. For 6 years he worked on the files in a way that allowed him to produce a book last month which was the basis of the hearing that I chaired. I want to go through that because the testimony of Christopher Andrew reinforces what Stanislav Lunev had said in our committee hearing 2 years prior. Some very troubling information came out of that, and there is, I think, reason for us to move quickly. I have written to Secretary Albright and hope tonight to dwell upon why I think it is important for the administration to act on the findings of Christopher Andrew in his book. It seems as though, Mr. Speaker, that the head archivist for the KGB files in Moscow for a period of over 20 decades by the name of Mitrokhin did not like the kind of activities the KGB was involved in in the Soviet era. During his tenure as the chief archivist, there was a decision made in Moscow to relocate the central files of the KGB from downtown Moscow to one of the Ring Road sites. Since Mitrokhin was in charge of the archives, his job was to monitor these archives and always keep them under his control. In fact, he oversaw the move of the files had to be checked out of the Moscow site and then checked in at the new site, both of which were done by Mitrokhin and people who worked for him. Now, he had been recognized during his career as an outstanding public servant in the Soviet Union. In fact in the book, there is a photograph of the documentation awarded to him signed by the chief of the KGB praising him for the outstanding work he did on behalf of the Soviet Union. But because Mitrokhin privately did not like many of the practices of the KGB, especially those individual attacks on people and the attacks on ethnic groups, he secretly during his career of over 2 decades on a daily basis copied down in his own handwriting as many of the KGB files as he could. Each day during his tenure as the head archivist of the KGB, he would then place these handwritten notes inside of his clothing, would sneak them out of the KGB headquarters, and on a daily basis put them under the flooring of his dacha. He did this for a number of years, assembling a huge file of handwritten notes that basically were copied from the KGB archives. In 1992, after the reforms took place in Russia, Mitrokhin emigrated through one the three Baltic states. He initially went to an American embassy and told them who he was and the kind of information he had. For some reason, he was not able to link up with the American Government to allow him to emigrate to the West. He then went to the British Embassy, and the Brits offered him complete asylum for himself and his family. In fact, since 1992, he has been living along with his family under a secret identity in Great Britain. He brought the files with him, the handwritten notes that he had copied from the KGB archives. Obviously, there was a huge wealth of information about actions that went on within the Soviet Union by their intelligence services. The Brits, when they got this cache of information, realized they had something that was invaluable because it gave the West the first complete insight into what kinds of actions and activities the KGB was involved in, what kinds of things against America and the West. There were some other startling pieces of information in those files. The British Government, in getting these files, wanted them to be thoroughly examined, reviewed, and translated by someone that they had confidence in. And because of Christopher Andrew's reputation as a Cambridge scholar and Russian intelligence expert, they brought him in and gave him complete access to the Mitrokhin files. For 6 years, Mr. Speaker, Mitrokhin on a regular daily basis met with Andrew and he and Christopher Andrew developed this publication which was released on the market in September of this year, just one month ago, entitled ``The KGB Files: The Sword and the Shield, the Mitrokhin Archives and the Secret History of the KGB.'' There is extensive documentation of what Mitrokhin found and the files that he was able to remove in his own handwritten notes. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not have time tonight to go into all the details the way the KGB manipulated the response in America to the J.F.K. assassination, the way the KGB attempted to manipulate the perceptions of the FBI here in our country. But all that is here in the book. But there is one set of facts that I do want to focus on this evening because they involve the security of American people throughout this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the response to date of what is contained in the files. In the files, Mr. Speaker, Mitrokhin spoke of the KGB during the Cold War era prelocating military hardware and equipment throughout Europe and throughout North America. These caches of weapons included transmitter technology, included in some cases detonating devices, in some cases included classified information about that country and its operations, and perhaps even included material that would be necessary for producing a weapon of mass destruction or perhaps even a weapon of mass destruction itself. When Mitrokhin copied down the notes in this area, he could not copy down, because of time limitations and his own interest, every detailed location of every site in both Europe and North America because there were extensive amounts of sites all over the world, but he did document a few. But he also referenced locations throughout North America, many of which were in the United States where the KGB deliberately stored military materiel under the Earth in selected spots that were booby- trapped. These booby-trapped spots evidently are still in place today. Now, when Mitrokhin in the archives gave this information to Christopher Andrew, who published this in his book, this reinforces, Mr. Speaker, what Stanislav Lunev told us 2 years ago, that the Soviet Union and the KGB had taken great efforts to pre-position military hardware inside of our country's borders buried at specific locations that could be accessed by Soviet operatives if and when the time came for conflict with the Soviet Union. These sites were also located throughout Europe and the European countries. In fact, in the Mitrokhin archives it was noted that many, if not most, of these sites were booby-trapped with bombs that would go off if someone attempted to dig up the cache of weapon materiel. Mr. Speaker, at least two countries that I am aware of, in getting information from the Mitrokhin files, were able to get the exact locations of the sites that Mitrokhin copied down from the KGB files, Switzerland and Brussels. In each case, the governments of those two countries went to the exact sites identified in the KGB files as outlined in this book. The exact locations marked off by landmarks above ground led the governments and the agents of both of these countries to sites where they dug down. In each case, the sites were booby-trapped. In fact, following the Swiss excavation of the one site, the Swiss Government put out a warning to its citizens that if they were to encounter a similar site, they should not go near it because the bombing device that was used to protect the site of the Soviet weaponry was strong enough to kill a human being. The Swiss Government and the Belgium Government dug up these sites, and exactly where the Mitrokhin files said they would be, they found the military hardware that the Soviet Union had placed there without those countries having any idea of what the Soviets had done. Now, someone would consider that to be an act of provocation for a foreign government to specifically locate materiel that could be used for war on the territory of another country during time of peace. In fact, in the book, Mr. Speaker, there are photographs of the site in Switzerland where the digging was done, where the cache of weapons was located, and there are photographs of what the Swiss recovered from that site. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a press release dated September 15, 1999. [From the Agence France--Presse, Sept. 15, 1999] KGB Caches Discovered in Belgium Brussels, Sept. 15 (AFP)--Three secret depots used by the Soviet intelligence service, the KGB, have been discovered in Belgium, national papers reported Wednesday. The caches were found in forests in the centre of the country, and contained radio sets dating from the late 1960s, according to Jos Colpin, spokesman for the Brussels prosecutor's office. The location of the hiding-places was revealed in documents passed over to Britain in 1992 by the former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin. Those documents form the basis of a new book--the Mitrokhin Archives, by British academic Christopher Andrew, to be published shortly. This press release is from Agence France-Presse, and the headline is ``KGB Caches Discovered in Belgium.'' One month ago, Mr. Speaker. And this is what it read from Brussels. September 15 is the date. ``Three secret depots used by the Soviet intelligence service, the KGB, have been discovered in Belgium, national papers reported Wednesday. The caches were found in forests in the center of the country and contained radio sets dating from the late 1960s, according to Jos Colpin, spokesman for the Brussels prosecutor's office. The location of the hiding places was revealed in documents passed over to Britain in 1992 by the former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin. Those documents form the basis of a new book, 'The Mitrokhin Archives,' by British academic Christopher Andrew, to be published shortly.'' Well, that book has since been published. So now, Mr. Speaker, we not only have the testimony of Lunev 2 years ago that, in fact, his job as an agent in the Soviet Embassy here in Washington was to locate sites in America where weapons caches could be prelocated, now we have confirmed information that several of these sites have been located based on the Mitrokhin files in both Switzerland and Belgium. The question then arises, what about the sites in the United States? Now, after talking to Christopher Andrew at length and after talking to the highest ranking KGB defector ever from the Soviet Union, Oleg Gordievski, who I had flown over here this past Wednesday to also testify before my committee, we now have information that in the Mitrokhin files are references to a number of sites throughout the U.S. where similar caches of weapons and technology were stored by the Soviet Union underground in specifically marked locations. In talking to Christopher Andrew personally and in the hearing, we questioned him at length about whether or not the specific sites were noted as they were noted in the case of the Swiss and the Belgium sightings of the KGB materials. Christopher Andrew said that, to the best of his ability, he went through the Mitrokhin files, the notes, and he could not find specific locations in America of the kind that were provided for Switzerland and Belgium. Now, I also called in the FBI, Mr. Speaker, last week before Christopher Andrew came in; and I talked to Louis Freeh and asked him to send over some agents, which he did. On Wednesday of last week, I met with three FBI agents who focus on Russia; and I asked them if they were aware of the Mitrokhin files, and they said they were. They agreed it was a massive source of unbelievable data that allowed to us see the kind of activities that the KGB had been involved in. I asked the FBI if they knew whether or not their ability to have access to the Mitrokhin files provided by the British intelligence service allowed the FBI to see specific locations, and they told me that it did not. They knew of the general locations. They knew that there were locations supposedly in Minnesota, someplace near Brainerd, Minnesota; in Montana; in New York, presumably by the harbor there; near a pipeline in Texas; near harbor installations in California, as well as a number of general sites throughout America. Neither the FBI nor Christopher Andrew were able to give me specific locations where we could direct our military or the FBI to go in and conduct an expedition to actually dig up the equipment much in the way that the Swiss and the Belgians did. Our military, Mr. Speaker, in a press conference that was held at the Pentagon last month, was also asked a question by a media reporter after the book came out, if our military had been advised or if they knew that there were caches of weapons and materials that had been stored in the United States without our knowledge as documented by the Mitrokhin files. The military officer who was conducting the press conference said the military was aware of the book, aware of the Mitrokhin archives, but were not aware of any specific sites identified. Mr. Speaker, at the hearing that occurred this past Wednesday, where I had Christopher Andrew himself and where I had Oleg Gordievski himself, the highest ranking KGB defector from Russia ever who in fact was the KGB London chief who ran that office there, and who worked in the KGB for decades, both of them unequivocally, emphatically said there is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever in their minds that the Soviets stored military equipment and hardware throughout the United States at installations that their agents dug up, placed this equipment underground, that this equipment was probably booby-trapped and it included not just telemetry equipment, not just radio equipment but probably included material that could be used for weapons, detonation equipment or perhaps even material involving weapons of mass destruction. So now, Mr. Speaker, we have three people. We have Stanislav Lunev who 2 years ago said his job as an agent in Washington was to locate sites, in fact he said they were out in the Shenandoah Valley and in suburban Washington that he specifically went to to point out to his superiors back in Moscow, locations where the Soviets could drop materials, military materials, materials that could be accessed by Soviet agents. This past Wednesday, we have two other individuals, Gordievski, the KGB defector, and Christopher Andrew who has worked for 6 years with Mitrokhin on the archives, who have both unequivocally stated that there is no doubt in their minds that there is equipment today throughout the U.S. stored in sites that only the KGB knows the exact locations of. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, because this means that throughout this country, perhaps in forested areas as we saw occur in Belgium, perhaps in remote towns and villages or perhaps outside of major cities, there are perhaps scores of locations that have been secretly listed in the KGB archives that Mitrokhin did not copy down the exact locations of because he could not copy down every location of every site. That was not his main purpose. He wanted to show examples. The examples he picked were in Europe. But there is no doubt in the minds of the London chief of the KGB and Christopher Andrew who worked with Mitrokhin that in the KGB files back in Moscow are the specific identifying locations of every site in the U.S., in every State where these materials were deposited during the Cold War. That would lead one to the obvious question that we would think would have already been asked, and that is what I asked of the FBI: Have we as a Nation since we found out this information asked Russia to give us the identity of the sites? Mr. Speaker, I can tell you in my conversation with the three FBI agents that I met with, their answer was that our government has not yet asked the Russian government to give us the exact locations of these sites. To further confirm that, when the Pentagon press conference was held last month on the same issue when it came up at a press conference, the Pentagon officer that was responding was asked the same question, have we asked the Russians for the specific sites of the U.S. locations. The answer was the same answer that I got from this FBI last week: ``No, we have not asked that question.'' Mr. Speaker, on the record this past Wednesday, Christopher Andrew told me on the record that our government has known about the sites in the U.S. for a minimum of 3 years, that he is aware of, where FBI and U.S. intelligence had access to the Mitrokhin files. His best guess is that the British intelligence probably gave these archives to the FBI when they got them back in 1992 and in 1993. And if that is the case, it means our government has known that this information existed for 6 or 7 years. Mr. Speaker, what this tells us is for the past 6 or 7 years, no one from this administration has felt it important enough to ask the Russian government to give us the sites where these materials were stored by the Soviet Union during the Cold War which are still in place and which are probably in fact booby-trapped as the sites in Switzerland and Belgium were booby-trapped. Now, Mr. Speaker, to me that is an outrage. It is an outrage and a dereliction of duties on the part of this administration. If we know as I now know that we know that the Mitrokhin archive records show that there are specific locations in America that we do not have the exact identity of, then it behooves this administration to make this a formal request of the Russian government. What amazes me, Mr. Speaker, is over the past 6 and 7 years, we have given the Russian government on average a billion dollars a year through direct programs. We have replenished the IMF with billions of dollars to help Russia's economy, even though much of it was ripped off by the corruption in Russia, largely centered around Boris Yeltsin. And we have also given money to the World Bank which has been used in Russia. We have leverage. I think it behooves Russia without leverage in this age of new cooperation to give us the specific information from the previous Communist-controlled KGB about where these materials were stored. We do not have that information today, Mr. Speaker. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a letter for the Record signed by myself and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 22, 1999. Hon. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Albright: This week, the House Military Research and Development Subcommittee will hear testimony from author Christopher Andrew (``The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB'' and ``KGB: The Inside Story'') on KGB operations during the Soviet era and contemporary Russian threat perceptions. In his most recent book, Andrew documents the extent to which Soviet leaders were convinced of an imminent nuclear was--as late as the 1980s. He also describes in great detail the lengths to which they were willing to go to prevail in the event of such a conflict. Among the more chilling revelations is the documented pre-deployment of arms and high explosives in Europe and the United States. These plans were documented by KGB archivist and defector Vasili Mitrokhin-- who shared the most extensive collection of classified KGB notes ever with the British Intelligence Service, the United States and author Christopher Andrew. While the disclosure of the KGB's weapons pre-deployment plan has led to the unearthing of weapons caches in Switzerland and Belgium, we understand that the United States still has not located Russian weapons sites here. According to officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States only has information on the general vicinity of pre-deployed Russian weapons caches--such as the one reported to be located near Brainerd, Minnesota. The Mitrokhin files were made available to the West in 1992, and European weapons sites were identified and removed last year. We are concerned that the United States still lacks the critical information necessary to remove these known dangers to its citizens. More troubling, these recent findings appear to confirm the testimony of former Russian military intelligence officer Stanislav Lenev, who last year told the House Military Research and Development Subcommittee of GRU operations involving the pre-deployment of atomic demolition units (often referred to as ``nuclear suitcases'') in the United States. We are writing to inquire whether the United States government has ever asked the Russian government to provide detailed site information on pre-deployed weapons. If not, why not? Do we plan to request that information of the Russian government now? If the United States has requested that information of the Russians, please inform us when those inquiries were made, and what information was provided. As we struggle to forge a new relationship with Russia, the existence of these weapons sites only serves to aggravate remaining tensions between our countries. We believe it is absolutely essential that the United States aggressively pursue the Russian government to identify all pre-deployed weapons sites in the United States, and that we eliminate such remnants of the Cold War. We ask your cooperation to ensure that happens, and look forward to hearing from you on the status of that effort. Sincerely, James Oberstar, Member of Congress. Curt Weldon, Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota is a colleague of ours, a very capable Member, a member of the other party who lives and represents the district including Brainerd, Minnesota. I went to the gentleman from Minnesota when I had interviewed Christopher Andrew and when I told him I had Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievski coming to Washington to testify in open hearing. The gentleman from Minnesota came over to that hearing because obviously he is concerned for the safety of his constituents. He expressed the same degree of frustration that the administration had not yet asked the question as I did. So he and I penned this letter which is now a part of the Congressional Record for all Americans to see which he and I signed jointly on October 22 and sent to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In the letter, we outline that the Mitrokhin files which our intelligence and the British intelligence have said are the most significant information we have ever gotten from the former Soviet intelligence service and the fact that we have had access to these intelligence files for at least 3 and probably as much as 7 years, and yet we have been told by both the military and by the FBI that we have not asked the Russian government to provide detailed information on these predeployed weapons and military technology. And we asked the Secretary of State in the letter, if our information is wrong, if the FBI is mistaken, if the military is mistaken, then, Madam Secretary, tell us that we have asked the Russians, tell us when we asked the Russians and tell us what the response was so that we can reassure our constituents that we have located and dug up every site where the Soviets prelocated this military hardware and equipment. And if we have not requested that information from the Russians, which I am assuming we have not, then the question is, why have we not and when are we going to question the Russians to get their intelligence service, now known as the SBR, no longer the KGB, to give us the exact locations of the storage of these materials. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to alarm the American people. I do not think that the Russians would be foolish enough, even the KGB, to store portable weapons of mass destruction in America underground, although I was with General Alexander Lebed 2\1/2\ years ago in May in his office in Moscow when he outlined to me that one of his responsibilities when he worked for Yeltsin as security adviser was to locate 132 suitcase- sized nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union had built, and using all the influence of his office, he was only able to locate 48 of those devices. Each of these small atomic demolition munitions, carrying a capacity of one to 10 kilotons. That is about the size of the bombing of Hiroshima, 10 kilotons, so it would produce a massive, massive explosion. After Lebed told us the story, and there were five Members of Congress with me from both parties, I came back to Washington and I asked the CIA if we had any information to know whether or not Lebed would in fact know this information that he had told us about trying to identify these small nuclear devices and whether or not we knew if they were safe. The CIA told me we did not have any way of knowing whether or not Lebed was being factual with us. A TV producer for ``60 Minutes'' got ahold of our trip report when it was filed 2 months after we had been in Moscow and met with Lebed. The producer asked me if I was willing to do an interview on camera, which I agreed to. They traveled to Moscow and interviewed General Lebed, who by the way is now the governor of Krasnoyarsk, one of the largest republics in Russia. Those interviews aired in the lead story on national TV 2 months ago last September, and in that story Lebed reaffirmed what he told me and our delegation, that there were in fact loose nuclear suitcases, small atomic demolition munitions that he could not locate when he was Boris Yeltsin's top security adviser. The Russian government ridiculed Lebed when that came out publicly and they called him a traitor and said they had never produced such devices. The worst part is, Mr. Speaker, when a press briefer over at the Pentagon following the criticism by the Russian government of Lebed, when that press briefer was asked to comment on the revelation by Lebed about the small nuclear suitcases, our government official at the Pentagon said, we have no reason to doubt the Russian government, thereby agreeing with the Russian government that they never produced these devices. I then brought over a Russian friend of mine, Dr. Alexi Yablakov, who is one of the leading academic scientists in Russia, and in October of that year I had him testify before my committee. In a public hearing in Washington, he stated, not only was he aware of these devices but he had scientist friends who worked on these devices, some of which were being produced for the KGB. That is in the public record. So we had another individual from Russia, Alexi Yablakov, confirming what Lebed said about the production of small nuclear weapons that are portable and can be carried around. Again, the Russian government criticized Yablakov and said he was a fool and did not know what he was talking about. Wanting to get to the bottom of the story, I traveled to Moscow in December of that year and I had a meeting with the defense minister of all of Russia, Defense Minister Sergeyev. He knows that I have been working on some proactive, positive efforts to help the Russian military, help them develop housing for their troops, helping them develop solutions for a terrible problem they have with their nuclear waste. After discussing the positive things that we are doing with the Russian military, I asked Defense Minister Sergeyev point-blank across the table, Defense Minister, will you please tell me, what is the truth about these small atomic demolition devices that Lebed has said existed that he could not locate and that Yablakov has verified were produced. The defense minister for Russia said to me in that meeting, yes, Russia produced such devices during the Cold War. And he further went on to say, and so did you in the States. He said, we are aware that you destroyed your small atomic demolition munitions years ago because we had witnessed such destruction. He went on to say, ``Congressman Weldon, I assure you that by the year 2000, we will have dismantled all of our small atomic demolition munitions.'' That was 2 years ago come this December, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not they have all been destroyed, we have no idea. Whether or not Lebed was accurate in saying that some of them could in fact be up for sale to rogue nations or terrorists, we do not know. Whether or not Lunev was correct in saying his job as a Tass correspondent was to locate sites to put materials, we have to assume. But we now have two additional witnesses. We now have the highest ranking KGB defector in the history of the KGB, Oleg Gordievski, and we now have Christopher Andrew who has had access to the Mitrokhin files of the KGB's own archives telling us, there is no doubt, 100 percent certainty that the Soviet Union located military hardware and equipment inside the territory of our country at a number of locations which may have included, may, a nuclear device. Now, we have no evidence to verify that such a device was located, but in the written and stated public testimony of both of these individuals on Wednesday, they both said there was a possibility that such devices could have been stored in an underground facility or an underground pit that would have been dug up by Soviet operators during the Cold War. Now, Mr. Speaker, again I am not trying to arouse a sense of uneasiness. I am just saying that we just do not know, we just do not know what types of devices were stored in our country underground at specific locations by Russian agents, Soviet agents, KGB agents. But we do know the storage was completed, we do know that there are sites all over this country where these materials are today still under ground probably in locations that are booby trapped if people were to approach them not knowing what they were encountering, and to the best of my knowledge at this moment our government has not asked the question of the Russian government about where these sites are. Now one would ask the logical question: Why would our government not want to ask the Russian government? After all, they have said publicly that the files are the best information we have ever gotten. Our intelligence service has said publicly that this is the best hard information we have ever gotten from the KGB. We have independently confirmed by Oleg Gordievsky, the highest-ranking KGB defector ever who was the London chief of the KGB desk for the Soviet Union. So we have confirmation. There is no reason to doubt that what Mitrokhin found in the archives is true and that all over America today, perhaps in mountainous areas, perhaps in national parks, perhaps in remote and isolated areas that only the Soviet KGB knows, are stored Russian military equipment, technology and hardware, and the door is left open that perhaps there are weapons stored at some of these sites, weapons that could kill or harm significant numbers of American people. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that we have not asked the question. I bring this special order tonight before our colleagues and the American people because I want answers. I want to know what this administration is going to do to hold Russia accountable, to obtain the information from the SVR-KGB archives about the specific sites that have been identified that we know are in the KGB archives that we need to see and be able to respond to. Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff for sticking around for this special order, I urge our colleagues to contact and interact with their constituents, and I urge Americans all over this country to interact with Members of Congress to demand of both a Member of Congress and the White House that we get answers about the Mitrokhin files, about this particular information relative to weapon storage and military material storage and to also begin to ask questions about much of the other material that is contained in the Mitrokhin archives. This is only the first edition. Christopher Andrew expects a second edition to be out sometime in the Year 2000 which will go into more detail. We cannot wait for the second edition because we are then going to be able to see some people in America who during the Cold War the KGB thought were really acting on their behalf as opposed to America's behalf. They are going to be named in the next edition, and perhaps America will have a better insight into what really happened in this city during the Cold War period when the Soviet KGB was relying on key Americans to help them weaken our country and perhaps prepare for the ultimate, which would have been a direct military confrontation with our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I bring this information to the attention of our colleagues in the spirit of wanting to work in a positive relationship with Russia, one that I consistently say must be based on strength, consistency and candor. In my opinion this administration has none of those three attributes, which is why we do not today have the information relative to this because I am convinced this administration does not want to raise this information because they think it would further embarrass Boris Yeltsin, and that has been the basis of our relationship for 8 years. President Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, Al Gore, Victor Chernomyrdrin until he was removed from office, anything that surfaced that would embarrass either of those two Russian leaders we pretend it did not happen, whether it was the theft of IMF, whether it was the abuse of one of our Navy officers like Lieutenant Jack Daly, whether it was arms control violations, which I have said at numerous times on the floor of this House, or whether it was instability in Russia, that we did not want to call the attention of the people of this country for fear that it would embarrass Yeltsin in his homeland because that is the mainstay of our relationship, and I am convinced that that perhaps is the reason why we have failed to ask the question of the Russians about these devices, because this administration perhaps fears that when we start to dig up all over America locations of equipment that we know have been there for 3 or perhaps 7 years, there are going to be a lot of people in this country who are going to start to ask some very difficult questions of their elected leaders.

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 thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for yielding me this time, and let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for his help in getting this bill to the floor today. I rise to pay a very appropriate thanks to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), author of this legislation. I have had the pleasure for the past several sessions of the Congress representing the Republican side of the aisle on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has had a tremendous career in providing leadership to this body for preserving fly-away space for the migratory birds in North America. Madam Speaker, there is no other program that I can think of that enjoys such bipartisan support in voluntarily protecting land for birds and for wildlife and habitat. We in this body tend to get in disagreements from time to time over the issue of takings and over the issue of forcing property owners to make their land available for the public. Well, this program is the exact opposite. The father of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), if I am not mistaken, was the initiator of this entire program decades ago. This program, started by the father of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and supported by the late Silvey Oconte, who were both tireless advocates for conservation issues in America, has provided the ability of our Government to protect over 34 million acres of land, 34 million acres of land, without taking anyone's property without their consent, but by simply entering into agreements where we bring conservation groups together so they can use the leverage to provide other funds, matched in such cases by State and local governments, to protect this land for migratory birds. We now have a massive network of open space that would not have been protected were it not for this legislation, were it not for this program. What the bill of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) does, which I am very proud to be a cosponsor of, is it allows for the expansion of this council, to make sure that those conservation groups who are most heavily involved maintain their seats on this oversight board that recommends projects to us. I will be remiss if I did not mention, Madam Speaker, Ducks Unlimited. Ducks Unlimited has put millions of dollars into programs that have allowed us to voluntarily protect land as provided for by the legislation of the North Americans Wetlands Conservation Act and by the role that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I play on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Groups like Ducks Unlimited need to be a part of this process. This legislation allows for the expansion of the council for two more seats so that Ducks Unlimited, hopefully, will be able to maintain that seat in the future. Once again, I rise in strong support of this. I urge all my Republican colleagues and, really, all of our colleagues to join in enthusiastically voting for the legislation of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which is right. It is important for our country. I think it also speaks to his leadership following in his father's footsteps on conservation issues for America.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss Russia, the current problems that we are seeing unfold in Russia, discuss consistent with the hearings that are being held in the Committee on International Affairs and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and other committees of this Congress, the Committee on Government Reform, what impact, if any, the U.S. has had in the current economic and political turmoil inside of Russia and the former Soviet States. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I have discussed many times on this floor in the past, and I do not just come here tonight to criticize this administration, although some of my comments will appear to do just that. I come to offer some suggestions for perhaps a new way of dealing with Russia. In fact, what I come to offer tonight, Mr. Speaker, is a new vision for Russia, a new way that this country can relate to the people in Russia who have been dominated by a centrally-controlled Communist regime for 70 years and for the last 6 years or 7 years actually by a government that was totally focused on Boris Yeltsin and the people around him. Mr. Speaker, I want the same thing for the Russian people that the President wants, and that is a stable, free democracy, a free market system allowing the people of Russia to enjoy the benefits that we in the West and we in America enjoy. I want them to be trading partners of ours; I want them to reap the benefits of free markets; and I want them to become a partner with us in helping to ensure world stability. From my position as chairman of the National Security Research Committee, my job is to oversee $38 billion a year of defense spending for new weapon systems and new technologies, and money of those technologies and much of that investment is focused on threats, either perceived or real, coming from Russia and the former states. So it is my interest, as a subcommittee chairman, to try to find ways to work with Russia so that perhaps we can create a more stable relationship, not have to spend so much of the taxpayers' money on building exotic new weapon systems that are designed to kill people. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I think we made a fundamental mistake in 1991. The Russia that people were so excited to throw off communism, they were so happy to finally be able to have the opportunity to enjoy the kind of democracy and free market capitalism that they saw us enjoying in the West. And in those first few months we were so excited with the leadership provided by Boris Yeltsin. And all of us were solidly behind him at the time, that I think we forgot one very important and basic notion, that Russia's success as a democracy was not dependent upon one man. It was not going to depend upon Boris Yeltsin, but rather we should have focused on upon helping Russia establish the institutions of a democracy that would last beyond one person. If we look at America, we can see that quite evident in our history. Yes, we have had great leaders from George Washington, to Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Ronald Reagan, all good people. But America's success is not based on individual people and the work that they do. It is based on the institutions that allow our government to have a system of checks and balances. It is based on a Constitution. It is based upon the institutions mandated in that Constitution that allow people to assume positions, but that the institution can never be circumvented by those individual people. In our rush to help Boris Yeltsin, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that our focus was wrongheaded. We were so preoccupied with reinforcing Boris Yeltsin, the man, that we forgot that Russia could not and would not succeed and become more stable unless we focused on institutions and strengthening those institutions. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to me that for 7 years, as Boris Yeltsin called the parliament in Russia, the lower house, the State Duma, and the upper house, the Federation Council, repeatedly called them a bunch of misfits and rogues and crooks and thugs, and while there may be one or two in that Duma or perhaps more that would fit those categories, what we did as a country was reinforce Yeltsin's notion of what the Russian Parliament was, that it was not an institution to be taken seriously. And, therefore, the President, largely through his policies of reinforcing Boris Yeltsin, sent a message to the Russian people and to the elected leaders of the state Duma that America's policy was based on a strong Yeltsin and that we were not, in fact, concerned with helping to strengthen the institution of the state Duma and the Federation Council and those institutions that would allow Russia's Constitution and the Russian government to stabilize itself. And now we are paying the price for that, Mr. Speaker. Yeltsin's popularity in the most recent poll in Russia is 2 percent. In fact, one poll had him being disliked by the entire electorate, which is something I cannot believe, that everyone in Russia that would be polled would say that Yeltsin was not good for Russia as a nation and that, in fact, he should be replaced. But the most recent poll that I see, provided by one of our think tanks here in Washington, showed Yeltsin's acceptance rate in Russia at 2 percent. Now that leaves us as a country that has been Russia's closest partner in this new experiment in democracy as a country that has totally reinforced Yeltsin at the expense of the support for other institutions inside of Russia. And therefore, with Yeltsin's popularity plummeting at 2 percent, it is no surprise that the Russian people, and the Russian Duma and the Federation Council see America as an equal partner to the problems that Boris Yeltsin has brought to Russia, the problems of the threat of billions of dollars of IMF money, the problem of the misappropriation of dollars that were supposed to go to help stabilize Russia's economy and help create a middle class, the problems of a Russia that has not had control of its technology and has allowed proliferation to occur on an ongoing basis. So now, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a very difficult position, that the Russia that is, in fact, no longer supportive of Boris Yeltsin in fact no longer has trust for America's interests. We do not have to just look at the words that support this, Mr. Speaker. Just a few short months ago there were thousands of Russian young people, old people, standing outside of our embassy in Moscow, throwing rocks and bricks at the American embassy, something we had never seen, even under communism. We did not see massive demonstrations against our country; but recently, in the last several years, that is exactly what we have seen. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the Russian Duma members perhaps summed it up best when he was visiting Washington in May of this year. I stood next to him at a press conference, and he was talking about the Russian perception of our involvement in Kosovo, and this is what he said. He said: ``You know America, for 70 years the Soviet Communist Party spent tens of billions of dollars to convince the Russian people that America was an evil Nation and that American people were evil, and they failed. But,'' he said, ``You know, in just a few short months and a few short years your administration has done what the Soviet Communist Party could not do. It has convinced the Russian people that America's intentions are not honorable, that in fact you have supported Yeltsin every step of the way, even when he's been out of line, even when he has overseen the misuse of dollars, even when friends, the oligarchs who started and who run many of the Russian banks have, in fact, siphoned money away from the Russian people, put it into Swiss bank accounts and U.S. real estate investments, leaving the Russian government and the Russian people to pay those loans back even though that money was misappropriated.'' Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that our policies in regard to Russia have not been successful? Now there are committees of this body and the other body holding hearings that started in September and will continue through the end of October and November about Russia. Some would characterize these hearings as: Who Lost Russia? Mr. Speaker, I am one that is convinced that Russia is not yet lost, but I do think it is certainly appropriate for the American people and its leaders to look at what happened and what went wrong. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this administration has to bear a significant part of the responsibility for Russia's economic and political turmoil today. But we cannot just stop by pointing fingers at this administration because the logical response is: Well, what would you have done differently? It is easy to criticize, but what different approach would you take? And also the criticism would be such that the administration would say, well, hindsight is always 20-20. It is easy to say what we could have done, but where were you while these last 7 years unfolded? Well, Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise tonight, because over the past 7 years I have not been silent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago, working with the Russian members in the state Duma, I started a caucus to deal with Russians on energy because I knew that helping them develop their energy resources was the quickest way to bring in hard currency to help stabilize Russia's economy, and so working with those Duma deputies from energy-rich regions, we got our energy companies together: Occidental, Mobil, Marathon, the key companies that wanted to do business in Russia to see if we could not encourage joint ventures and, in the process, encourage the Duma to pass production sharing laws, which they did twice, to allow American companies to invest in Russian energy. And it was 5 years ago that we began a process of engaging the Duma on Russia's environmental problems to make sure that we were helping Russia deal with its nuclear waste issues and the problems of clean air and clean water and maintaining an environment for the Russian people to live and to work in, and it was the day that the current speaker of the Russian Duma was elected to that post that I was in Moscow almost 6 years ago with a letter from then Speaker Gingrich inviting the Speaker of the Russian Duma to engage the Congress in a formal way, an institutional relationship with the Congress so that we could begin the process of helping strengthen and helping to empower the parliament in Russia so that it could play its rightful role in making sure that Russia's democracy succeeded. For the past 6 years, Mr. Speaker, working with my colleague on the other side, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) we have led delegation after delegation to Moscow and St. Petersburg, and we have hosted delegation after delegation to Washington. We have discussed issues that confront us, and we have discussed opportunities to join together. But we have worked together in an effort to strengthen the Duma to make it a more powerful force in the governing of Russia. Mr. Speaker, it was 5 years ago that I brought over then General Alexander Lebed, who is today the governor of Krasnoyarsk. I brought him over to testify 5 years ago of what he thought was happening in the Yeltsin government 5 years ago, and he said before this Congress and my committee that the current administration was corrupt. And following General Lebed's testimony, I brought over the leading Russian environmental activist Alexei Yablakov, Dr. Yablakov himself a member of the Academy of Sciences, and at two hearings on the public record he said that the leadership in Russia was corrupt, that it was siphoning off money that should have been going to the Russian people, and he begged America to come in and help establish proper oversight. Mr. Speaker, that was not last year, it was not last month. Those hearings were 3, 4, 5, and 6 years ago. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress have been telling this administration repeatedly that its policies were going in the wrong direction, that reinforcing Boris Yeltsin as a person as opposed to reinforcing institutions of the presidency, of the parliament and of the Constitution in Russia would eventually cause us major problems. Mr. Speaker, it was 3 years ago that I brought in Stanislav Lunev, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet Russian Intelligence Service, to talk about some of the continuing problems that Russia was going through and how we needed to be aggressive in dealing with Russia, to ask candid questions. So over the past 5, 6, 7 years, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has repeatedly questioned the policies of this administration relative to our embracing Boris Yeltsin, embracing him under any circumstance, fearful of embarrassing him. And that has been our policy for the last 7 or 8 years, Mr. Speaker. Actually starting with the last year of President Bush and then beginning with the leadership of President Clinton, we have seen a consistent policy of reinforcing one man instead of the institutions that Russia needs to strengthen itself so that it may survive for a long period of time much like America has survived. So with those thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, a year ago I traveled to Moscow because I knew at that time that the Russian Duma was opposed to any more IMF funding going into their country. Now, imagine that, Mr. Speaker. Here, the elected Russian leaders equivalent to our Congress who were about to receive another $4 billion in outside aid from the International Monetary Fund, and here they were standing up, all seven major factions saying to the world, we do not want anymore IMF funding. We do not want any more dollars coming into our country. Now, at the same time, the U.S. Congress has been saying the same thing. In fact, for 8 months President Clinton could not get the support in the Congress to support additional IMF funds to replenish the ones that had been committed. Why would the Russian Duma members oppose more IMF funding for their own homeland? The reason is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Because for the previous 5 and 6 years, Duma Members had seen billions and billions of dollars go into Russia that were designed and supposedly earmarked to help Russian people, and time and time again, they saw those dollars simply flow through the system, through the oligarchs running the banking system in Moscow, many of whom were Yeltsin's friends and back out the other side. Where were the dollars going? To U.S. bank accounts, to U.S. real estate investments, to Swiss bank accounts, to the Russian people in some cases who were former leaders of the Communist party and the KGB who had offshore accounts. In fact, there are reports being investigated today that Boris Yeltsin himself and his family had secret bank accounts where they have stashed significant amounts of money for his retirement days. So it was no surprise, Mr. Speaker, that the Russian leaders said, we do not want any more, we do not want any more of your money. With those thoughts in mind, and realizing that if we did not get additional IMF dollars into Russia, their economy would collapse, I traveled to Moscow and I took with me eight points. Because I was convinced that if I could convince the Duma to accept a new direction in dealing with Russia, that perhaps we could bring some discipline and some new direction for the way that Russia was moving. To my surprise, the Duma deputies that I met with and worked with representing various factions agreed to all eight points. Mr. Speaker, last week I submitted those eight points in the form of legislation. I want to review those eight points tonight because I think they represent a new direction for the U.S. in terms of dealing with Russia. The Joint Statement of Principles Governing Western and Foreign Assistance to Russia is simple, but I think it is profound. In fact, I have introduced it and it is out now, H.R. 3027, for those Members who would like to become cosponsors. The eight principles lay out a new direction in terms of our relationship with Russia, both monetarily and in terms of dealing with them on issues of transparency. The first is a simple one, Mr. Speaker, and that is to establish a joint Russian-U.S. legislative oversight commission to monitor all Western resources going into Russia. Today, there is no such effort. Today, we have no capability to monitor inside of Russia where the dollars are going, the dollars from the International Monetary Fund, the dollars from the World Bank, and the dollars from the U.S. taxpayer. I might add, Mr. Speaker, we put approximately $1 billion a year of U.S. taxpayer money into Russia, much of it through the Cooperative Debt Reduction Program, other money through our military-to-military efforts, environmental cooperation, and cooperation with Russia in helping them stabilize their economy. So we, in fact, directly and indirectly put billions of dollars into Russia every year. There is today no ability for the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma to monitor where those dollars end up. Now, the administration would have us believe that they can watch over where the money is going, but I would say this, Mr. Speaker. Not being able to trust the Russian regime of Boris Yeltsin, which I think is a uniform given right now, I think everyone understands and it has certainly been pronounced in the press, as just several weeks ago we saw the first indictments handed down in the New York Bank case where there is expected defrauding of up to $4 billion to $5 billion of IMF money for the Bank of New York that was assisting some of Yeltsin's friends in Moscow. We need to have the capability inside of Russia, one that understands the Russian process, but is backed up by the integrity of the U.S. The only way to accomplish that is to get the Russian Parliament, the Duma, and the Federation Council to join with the Congress in establishing a bilateral commission, separate from our two governments, separate from Bill Clinton and separate from Boris Yeltsin, whose only purpose would be to monitor where the monies are going; not to determine where they go, because we do not want congressional interference in saying that money should go to this agency versus that. That is up to the two administrations, whether it would be Clinton or Yeltsin or their successors. Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a process where our two elected parliaments, representing both political parties in America and representing all of the political factions in Russia, can monitor where the dollars are ending up in Russia. The Russians love that recommendation, because the Duma today has no input in terms of monitoring where the money has gone and where it is going today and where it will go in the future. The second principle was to focus Western resources on programs like housing that will help to develop a Russian middle class. Now, Mr. Speaker, over the past 7 or 8 years, we have pumped billions of dollars into Russia. Do we see a housing industry developing? Absolutely not. To date, Russia does not even have an established mortgage program. Three years ago, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and I traveled to Moscow. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), as we know, is a very successful banker from North Carolina, and he envisioned a plan where, initially controlled by a U.S. commission, we would help Russia establish a Western-style mortgage program, with tight discipline, a program that would bypass Russian banks because of their corruptness, that would establish standards based on the U.S. mortgage system with tight controls to which Russian entities could apply. We outlined this in a piece of legislation. The Russian Duma was so excited, they produced this document, Mr. Speaker. It says, Housing for Our People. That was over 3 years ago, Mr. Speaker. We came back and we told the administration, the Duma, including the Communists in the Duma, we are ready to embrace a Western-style mortgage program initially controlled by the U.S., so that we can maintain the integrity of it when it is first started, and once it becomes successfully operational, then after a period of years, turn it over to the Russians to operate like our Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Mr. Speaker, the Russians even gave it a name. They called it Natasha Mae like our Fannie Mae. They were excited about this idea, because for the first time, it would create a mortgage program at low interest rates and we envisioned below 10 percent interest rates for terms of 30 years to help develop a housing market to create jobs and housing for Russia's people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was over 2 years ago that I came back from Moscow on one of our trips, after having negotiated the first phase of this, and I went to the administration very quietly. I went to Ambassador Morningstar with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), who at that time was in charge of the Russia desk at the State Department. And I went to him because Russia was very paranoid at that time about our expanding NATO. Russians were being told by the ultranationalists in Russia that this was America's way of threatening Russia and using NATO to take over Russia. They were scaring the Russian people. And if my colleagues understand the history of Russia as I do, where Russia has been invaded from the west and the north and the south repeatedly in its history, my colleagues will understand why Russians might be paranoid and might believe the outlandish rhetoric from some of the ultranationalists in Russia trying to benefit politically from scaring the Russian people, basically putting in false ideas about America's real intentions. But the gentleman from North Carolina and I went to Ambassador Morningstar; and we said, Ambassador, you have a chance here, and we want to give you a chance to have President Clinton do something extremely positive to show the Russian people that NATO's expansion is not about backing Russia into a corner. Take this housing mortgage initiative. We as Republicans will help you get some small seed funding from the Congress. Take that seed money as we have done with Israeli housing and go to our NATO allies, all of them, and ask them to put a per capita amount equal to what we put up and create a NATO housing mortgage fund. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if we had taken the initiative 2 years ago, over 2 years ago with a very small amount of money going to our NATO allies and said put up a per capita amount and we will create a NATO housing mortgage fund to show the Russian people that we want them to enjoy the benefits of democracy, we want them to enjoy the benefits of free markets, and a benefit from the kinds of systems we have in the West because as we all know, when housing starts up in America, our economy is strong, because housing starts create jobs. The administration had no interest in our idea. In fact, Mr. Speaker, for the past several years, the administration's only support for mortgages in Moscow has been to the established banks that we all know in many cases are corrupt, where they are charging interest rates of 15 to 30 percent for terms of 5 to 10 years, which we all know no Russian family could afford to be able to purchase a home. A missed opportunity. So our second initiative says to those lending institutions putting money into Russia that you must focus the resources on programs like housing that will help to develop a Russian middle class, because the long-term success of Russia is going to require a strong middle class, much like America and much like Europe and much like Japan have. Today, Russia has no middle class. Mr. Speaker, this is an area where all of us should come together. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if we would have taken the $20 billion of IMF money that has been dumped into Russia, which who knows what it has been used for. I cannot point to one thing in Russia today that has been built with the $20 billion of IMF money we put in. But imagine, Mr. Speaker, if we had built $20 billion of homes for Russia's citizens. Even if they went bankrupt or belly up, would they be any worse off than they are today? They have nothing to show for the billions of dollars of U.S. and World Bank and IMF money that has gone into their country. If we had put the money into mortgages, we would have $20 billion worth of new housing, and all the jobs that would have gone along with that to show for our investment. The third priority, Mr. Speaker, in our joint statement is to make western resources available to reform-minded regional governments. Our policy for the past 7 and 8 years has been to reinforce Yeltsin in Moscow. Think of our policy: Clinton/Yeltsin, Major/ Chernomyrdin. Everything has gone through those figures. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, anyone who travels to Russia knows that Moscow is Moscow and the rest of the Russian people consider the rest of Russia to be almost a second nation. What has been our policy? It has been to reinforce Yeltsin and his cronies in Moscow, and not reinforce those reform-minded regions that are making outstanding progress in privatizing their land; in collecting more taxes; in making responsible actions to control corruption; in putting into place a legal system with a fair court system. We have done nothing of substance over the past 7 years to help direct our assets and our resources toward those regions to allow them to continue their reforms. If anything, they have looked at America and said, well, you in the West and you in America only want to reinforce Yeltsin, and he is corrupt. You are ignoring us out here in the regions where we are doing good things, where the governors in fact are making the reforms that we wanted to have happen in Moscow. Mr. Speaker, the fourth principle was to deny any corrupt institutions, especially those in Moscow, any future resources. If a bank, if a lending institution or a business, is found to be corrupt, then what we say is we go after those companies, those individuals, try to bring them to justice, try to recapture any money that is left, sell off any assets we can seize, and never give them any more money again. Again, the Russians were ecstatic. The first four principles, all of them they loved. Number five, and this one came from George Soros, who has probably been the single biggest private entrepreneurial in Moscow for the past 20, 25 years, I traveled up to New York to meet with him before I went to Moscow a year ago and I said, ``Mr. Soros, what would you do after this economic collapse of August a year ago, what would you do to help the Russian economic situation?'' He said, ``Congressman, there is only one thing that I could think of that needs to be done.'' He said, ``The International Monetary Fund is out of sync. It does not understand emerging economies like Russia's. What I think you need to do in the Congress is to call for the IMF to empanel an international blue ribbon commission to make recommendations back to the IMF, to reform itself, to make it more responsive to emerging economies like the Russian economy.'' So the fifth recommendation is just that, to have the International Monetary Fund establish a blue ribbon task force to make recommendations as to how it can reform itself. Mr. Speaker, the sixth is probably the most substantive point of all the principles that we laid out, and this is absolutely amazing because this principle was a principle that the IMF has been demanding of Russia for the past 4 years and could not get. This principle is the principle Bill Clinton has been calling for for the past 4 years and could not get, and that was to put the horse in front of the cart, make the reforms precede and not follow the resources; to have the Russian Government understand reforms must come first and then the dollars will flow. Now, the IMF said that was necessary, and the Duma said no way are we passing your tough reforms. Mr. Speaker, if I was in the Duma I would say the same thing. Why should I pass tough reforms simply because the IMF board and Bill Clinton want us to pass them, or Boris Yeltsin, so we can get more IMF money when for the first 7 years that IMF money was coming in you ignored us, you pretended we were not here? In fact, you called us thugs and rogues and thieves and yet now you want us to do what you call the responsible thing? I do not blame the Duma one bit. I would not come in and bail out a bunch of corrupt thieves that have siphoned off billions of dollars. When the members of the Duma, when the factions in the Duma see that we are willing to put some other principles down on the table, all of a sudden it is a different story because with these principles they see that we want the money to flow in a different direction. We want to recognize the regions. We want to help reward those regions that are doing good things. We want to have legislative oversight of where the money is going. When those things are done and the Duma understands, it must make the tough decisions. It must reform the budget process. It must collect taxes. It must make people pay for their electric and their housing, something that never happened in a Communist regime, and it must begin to privatize the land in Russia. The seventh principle, Mr. Speaker, was to create a joint U.S.- Russian business-to-business relationship program, where we would identify as many CEOs in America as possible, at the small- and medium- sized corporate level, and we would link them up directly with the corresponding Russian CEO of a small- to medium-sized enterprise so that we could identify for every enterprise and business in Russia an American CEO that would become a mentor so they could work together one-on-one, discuss profits, motivating employees, meeting bottom lines, marketing techniques, the kinds of things that Russian entrepreneurs have to learn to compete in today's market worldwide; establishing a one-on-one program where American business leaders can interact with Russian business leaders one-on-one. There are some efforts underway along that line but they are primarily at the upper, larger corporate level as opposed to small- and medium-sized manufacture and business establishment. The last principle, Mr. Speaker, was to say that within 3 years we would bring 15,000 young Russian students to America. These students would be both graduate and undergraduate students. They would be enrolled in American schools that are offering degrees in business, finance, accounting, and economics. The principles would allow them to get their degree and go back to Russia and create the next generation of free market leaders. Now there was a stipulation in this principle, Mr. Speaker. None of these students could stay in America and live. When they completed their degrees, they would have to go back to Russia to their communities, to their towns and cities and regions, and live to help Russia create a new generation of free market leaders. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the kind of approach that will allow us to help Russia help itself; not just pumping in billion after billion, uncontrolled as it has been done for the past 8 years. Mr. Speaker, the bill that outlined these principles was dropped in the House last week. As I said, it is H.R. 3027. I was proud when I dropped the bill into the hopper that I had 25 Democrat cosponsors and 25 Republican cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, 50 Members of Congress made a statement last week and now we are up above 50 Members of Congress. I have had a couple more Democrats and more Republicans come on as cosponsors and come up to me and want to get more information, but when we dropped the bill last week, 25 Democrats and 25 Republicans said our policy needs to change. We need to deal with Russia in a new way. Yes, we need to work with Russia. Yes, we need to help Russia stabilize itself, but not the way we have done it in the past. I would encourage my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to sign on as cosponsors of H.R. 3027, so that we can set a new course and a new direction in terms of our relationship with Russia and the Russian people, because the Duma, Mr. Speaker, in Russia feels the same way that we do. In fact, we will be taking a delegation probably to Russia sometime before the end of the year. As we all know, Russia is having their Duma elections in December. All of us are watching and hoping that those people who win in Russia will be people who want to continue a strong relationship with the West. Mr. Speaker, my policy of engaging Russia is one that allows me to consider myself to be a friend of the Russian people and the Russian Duma, but they know very well, Mr. Speaker, in the 19 times that I have been to Russia that I also can be their toughest critic because I am also convinced that part of our problem with Russia is that we have been so enamored again with President Yeltsin as the leader that we have been unwilling to ask the tough questions. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan had it right. Back when he was in office during the midst of the Cold War and the Soviet Union was maintaining its huge empire of Eastern Bloc regions, Ronald Reagan stood up and gave a famous speech where he called the then Soviet Union an evil empire. People were aghast that the President of the United States would say that. Mr. Speaker, the 95 percent of the Russian people who were not members of the Communist party and benefiting from that system agree with him. So 95 percent of the people in Russia who were not communists understood Ronald Reagan when he said it was an evil empire because by not being members of the party they were not benefiting from the spoils. They saw that what Ronald Reagan said was true, and that is why today he still is very much revered in Russia. Russian people are very bright people. They respect honesty. They respect candor, and they respect consistency. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, in the last 7 years we have given them none of that. We have pretended things are not what they are. We have so been enamored with Boris Yeltsin that any time something happened involving the theft of IMF money, economic turmoil, we pretended it did not happen. When we had intelligence reports that came before us that showed that there was evidence that Chernomyrdin had people supporting him that were corrupt, what did Vice President Gore do? He wrote the word ``bull'' across the report and sent it back to the intelligence community because he did not want to hear it because it was saying something he did not want to be true even though it was true. Mr. Speaker, for 7 years when it came to Russia abusing its money going in, we turned our head the other way because we did not want to embarrass Boris Yeltsin, but it is not just with the money, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1997, as I have mentioned on this floor in the past, one of our career Navy intelligence officers, Lieutenant Jack Daley was flying a reconnaissance mission in Seattle, with a Canadian pilot in a helicopter monitoring a Russian trawling ship that we knew was spying on our submarine fleet in Seattle, in Pugent Sound. Lieutenant Daley had a sensation in his eye while he was taking photographs of this trawler that they knew was a spy ship because we had boarded the ship in the past and we saw sonar buoys on the ship which are only used to spy on submarines, and we also knew that ship was a spy ship, by the way called the Kapitan Man, because there was no cargo being brought into port and no cargo being taken out of port. It was spying on our submarines. Lieutenant Daley had this sensation in his eye while flying on this helicopter mission and so the Canadian pilot, in this joint exercise, they landed their helicopter, they reported to the base infirmary and the doctor there said, ``You are suffering damage caused by a laser. Lieutenant Daley gave them the film from the camera and, sure enough, as they were taking photographs of this Russian trawler they were lasered from the ship. Mr. Speaker, that is damage by a foreign nation to one of our own, our flesh and blood, an American hero, one of our soldiers in uniform. What did we do? Well, the record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, but I can say in cables that have now been declassified, the Department of Defense cabled back to the State Department and got our current ambassador involved, Ambassador Collins, and the current Russian leader in the State Department, Strobe Talbott, and Bob Bell from the Security Council and each of them was consulted about what to do because this American pilot had been lasered by a Russian ship. Initially, they wanted no American to board that ship. They did not want an international incident created. The Department of Defense said, no, that is one of our people; we are going to go on that ship so the cable that came back said, only search the public areas of the ship. Now, Mr. Speaker, can you really believe that? That we are now going to board a Russian ship that we know is a spy vessel and we are going to look for a laser generator or a laser gun but the boarders that are going to go on the ship are being told only inspect the public portions of the ship? Do we really think the Russians are that stupid to leave the laser generator out in the open? So obviously we boarded the ship, and we saw nothing. Lieutenant Daley was taken down to San Antonio for further medical evaluation, and, in fact, it was determined that he had serious laser damage done to his eyes. The outrage here, Mr. Speaker, is Jack Daley did nothing but do his job as a 16-year career Navy officer doing naval intelligence. He made the mistake of asking for his country to defend him when a foreign ship and its crew lasered him in the eye. What did our administration do? We did not want to offend Boris Yeltsin. We did not want to make an incident here. So the State Department cabled back and tried to quash this thing. Jack Daley was passed over for promotion right after that incident and a second time this past July. Even though his career had been an outstanding career with all positive evaluations, twice since that incident, he was bypassed for promotion. This is what Jack Daley's commanding officer said to him, Mr. Speaker, in Jack Daley's own words. He said, ``Jack, you do not know the pressure I am under to get rid of your case. Jack, you do not know the pressure I am under to get rid of your case.'' A career Navy intelligence officer being told by his superior that they have to get rid of the case because we do not want to embarrass Boris Yeltsin. Do we really think the Russians respect us? They are not stupid, Mr. Speaker. How about arms control violations? I did a floor speech last June a year ago where I documented, based on a work done by the Congressional Research Service, not by me, and my colleagues know they serve both sides of the aisle, they are nonpartisan, they documented 17 cases, 17 cases since 1991 of arms control violations by Russian entities where technology was sent to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and India. We imposed sanctions that are required by arms control treaties zero times, zero times. Mr. Speaker, I was in Moscow January 1996. The previous December, the Washington Post carried a front page story above the fold, front page, headline: ``Russians caught transferring guidance systems to Iraq''. So I am in Moscow in January. I said to Ambassador Pickering who is now the third ranking leader in the State Department, ``Mr. Ambassador, what did the Russians say when you asked them about this transfer of these guidance systems, because you know that is a violation of the missile technology control regime.'' He said, ``Congressman Weldon, I have not asked them yet.'' I said, ``Well, why have you not asked them?'' He said, ``That has got to come from Washington.'' So, Mr. Speaker, I came back, and I wrote a three-page letter to President Clinton at the end of January 1996. I said, ``What is the story, Mr. President? You saw the Washington Post headlines. If this occurred, it is a violation of an arms control treaty, and that requires us to act.'' The President wrote me back in March or April that year; I still have the response. He said, ``Dear Congressman Weldon, you are right. If this violation took place, it is serious. If it took place, it would be a violation of the missile technology control regime. But, Congressman Weldon, we have no evidence.'' Mr. Speaker, I was not aware at the time, but I am now, in fact I carry a set of these around with me most of the time, the Russians transferred three different times over 100 sets of these devices to Iraq. These devices are used to make Iraq's missiles more accurate. Mr. Speaker, 17 times Russian entities violated arms control treaties, and we did nothing. Do we really think the Russians are going to respect us? Do we really think when we abandon Jack Daley that they are going to respect us? Do we really think when we ignore billions and billions of fraud with our IMF money that they are going to respect us? I would not respect us, Mr. Speaker. That is the failure of this administration. Now, why would this be the case? Well as I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, our policy has been wrong-headed. We have been so preoccupied with Boris Yeltsin's success that nothing else mattered. That is a pretty hefty statement that I would make. How can I back that up? Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues, if they have not yet read the book by Bill Gertz, who is probably the toughest foreign policy and defense investigative writer in this city for the Washington Times, get a copy of this book Betrayal or simply turn to the back of the appendix section, because in the back of this, Mr. Speaker, there are two things that the American people and our colleagues need to see. First of all, on page 219 of this book, a document that was classified top secret, I do not know how Gertz got it because it was top secret, now the American people can read it, my colleagues will get the full chronology of the State Department cables of the Jack Daley case. So my colleagues can see for themselves that what I am saying about Jack Daley and the involvement of our State Department in trying to keep this thing quiet is right there in the State Department's own words, now declassified in a book that we can buy off the shelf at a bookstore. Further back in this appendix, Mr. Speaker, on page 275, is a two- page document called ``confidential''. I do not know how Bill Gertz got this either, Mr. Speaker. But this confidential document is interesting. It is a cable summarizing a personal meeting between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. Guess what year it was written, Mr. Speaker? 1996, Mr. Speaker, which is the same year that Boris Yeltsin is running for reelection as the President of Russia. Let me just read one of the paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, of this now publicized cable between our President and the Russian president. ``The President'', our President Clinton, ``indicated that there was not much time, but he wanted to say a few things about the Russian elections. First of all, he wanted to make sure that everything the United States did would have a positive impact, and nothing should have a negative impact. He was encouraged that the Secretary of State was heading to Moscow to meet with Mr. Primakov, and he wanted the April summit to be a positive event. The United States will work to Russia to ensure this so that it would reinforce everything that Yeltsin had done in this regard.'' It goes on to say that the President wanted to make sure that America would not let anything surface that will allow Yeltsin's election to go the wrong way. Do we wonder why we have a problem, Mr. Speaker? We were so enamored with Boris Yeltsin that institutions did not matter. Yeltsin was our support, not Russian democracy, not Russian capitalism. Do we wonder why today, with Yeltsin's popularity at 2 percent, that the Russian people and their parliament have no respect for us? Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Russia, we must work in a proactive way, because Russia still has tens of thousands of warheads on tens of thousands of missiles that are aimed at America's cities. We do not need a destabilized Russia anymore that sells off this technology to rogue states and rogue terrorist groups. But it does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we ignore the reality of what Russian individuals and entities are doing. I am not saying that everybody in Russia is corrupt. But when things are going wrong in Russia, we must challenge them. When Russia is not being honest with us, we must challenge Russia. We must let them know that we want transparency, just as Ronald Reagan did. When they do not give us transparency, they must know there is a price to pay. So along with working in a new direction with Russia, I want to underscore and reinforce to our colleagues that we must also challenge Russia and what is happening there and whether or not there are forces within Russia that are looking to create instability in our relationship with that Nation. Now, I am convinced that there are many positive leaders in Russia, many of whom are my good friends. I hope that they win their reelections come December of this year. But I want to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there are some things that trouble me greatly about Russia that we just do not know enough about and that this administration is not asking Yeltsin to explain because they do not want to embarrass him. Some examples. Ken Alibek, Mr. Speaker, was for years the head of the Russian's biological weapons program. Under the Soviet Union, Ken Alibek lived in Russia. His job was to monitor and to oversee the entire biological weapons program for the Soviet Union. I have met with Ken Alibek five or six times. This is his book called Biohazard. He is convinced that Russia's biological weapons program continues today. Mr. Speaker, we need leadership that is willing to challenge Russia on these issues. When someone like Ken Alibek comes forward, yes, we must work to help stabilize Russia, but we must tell the Russians that we want to know whether or not what he is saying is true. We are not doing that today, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking the tough questions. Or how about Stanislav Lunev? Mr. Speaker, I had Stanislav Lunev, as I mentioned earlier, testify before my committee 3 years ago, as the highest ranking GRU defector ever from the Soviet Union. We had to put him behind a screen, and he had to wear a mask over his head because there is a price on his head from certain aspects of the Russian leadership because of what he has told. Part of what he said in my hearing 3 years ago was that his job when he worked for the intelligence for Russia, the Soviet Union, and his cover was that he was a correspondent for, I think it was, Tass here at the Soviet Embassy, that one of Lunev's jobs was to look for sites where the Soviet Union could preposition military hardware and equipment on American soil. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a pretty provocative statement. What Lunev said several years ago was that the Soviet Union through its intelligence service deliberately, in a very provocative way, put military equipment and hardware on American soil in predetermined locations. In fact, he told us that that was part of his assignment. In fact, Mr. Speaker, later on this week, I will join Mr. Lunev in looking at one of those sites right outside of Washington where he looked, as a career intelligence officer for the Soviet Union, and scoped out for a drop by the Soviet military and intelligence services. But not much has come about since Lunev made his comments until 1 month ago. One month ago, Mr. Speaker, this book came out. It is called the Mitrokhin Archive. It seems as though, for 30 years, the chief archivist of the KGB in Moscow did not like the KGB and what it was doing. Very quietly, for 30 years, this Russian gentleman, day by day, wrote down and copied every memo that he was putting in the KGB archives in Moscow. He snuck them out of work every day inside of his clothing, took them to his home and buried them under the floorboards of his house. In 1992, after the Soviet Union collapsed, he emigrated through the Baltic States. His first trip was to a U.S. embassy, and we turned him down when he told us that he had secret documents from the KGB. He then went to the Brits. The Brits took him in, gave he and his family complete asylum where he lives in Britain today under an assumed name. The British intelligence then had Mitrokhin link up with Christopher Andrew, who is a Cambridge scholar and an outstanding expert, probably the number one expert in the world on the Soviet KGB. For 6 years, Mr. Speaker, Christopher Andrew translated the Mitrokhin archives and files. This book is the first edition of documenting those files. On October 26, Mr. Speaker, Christopher Andrew and Gordievsky, another high-ranking KGB defector will travel to Washington, and they will testify before my committee. The American people then can see for themselves and hear the kinds of things that were done during the Soviet era that we need to make sure are not happening today in Russia and that we need to have the will and the tenacity to question the Russian leadership about, not worrying about embarrassing Boris Yeltsin, but whether or not the KGB leadership still continues to do the kinds of things that were done under the Soviet era. Why is this so critical? Because in the document by Christopher Andrew in the Mitrokhin files, as a follow-up to what Lunev said, they actually give the locations in countries around the world where the Soviet Union prepositioned military equipment. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? There are sites in the U.S. that are identified in the KGB files where the Soviet Union prepositioned military equipment and buried it and booby-trapped each site. Now, in the book are photographs in the center where one such site was identified in Switzerland. There are the photographs of that site. The Swiss authorities realized it was booby-trapped, which it was. When they dug down, they found exactly where the KGB files had stated was military hardware that the Mitrokhin files said would be there. The question, Mr. Speaker, is: Where are these devices on American soil? What towns and cities and park lands currently have in place military equipment and hardware prepositioned by the KGB? This administration, Mr. Speaker, that has known about these files for 6 years should have been asking those questions of Russia's leadership. We are going to ask those questions now, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to find out if, once again, we have been afraid to ask the tough questions because we do not want to embarrass Boris Yeltsin. Mr. Speaker, there is just one overriding thought here in this whole relationship. We want Russia to succeed. We want the Russian people to have a free democracy. We want Russia to have the institutions that we have in America. But you cannot get there when we deny reality, when we pretend things are something they are not. Because the only thing that occurs then is the other side loses respect for you. I am convinced that is the problem with Russia today. They have lost respect for America. The Congress, with H.R. 3027, and our new vision for Russia, is outlining a new direction based on three simple premises: Strength, consistency, and candor. Help create the institutions of a true democracy, a strong middle class, a strong parliament, and a strong constitution that will survive individual personalities. If we want Russia to succeed, we must follow these steps, Mr. Speaker. This is the only way that America and Russia can work together and thrive in the 21st century.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this final act to support this legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doolittle), my good friend; and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for his support. I also thank the chairman of the full committee and subcommittee, and the ranking members. Madam Speaker, 222 years ago last month the cry, ``Remember Paoli,'' sounded through the ranks of the patriots who at that time were fighting in the Philadelphia campaign to protect the beginnings of this Nation. It was an unbelievable battle that occurred at Paoli that resulted in that cry. I remember Paoli because 53 young Americans had been butchered by the British. They were butchered by the British with their bayonets because the British did not want to fire their guns to send the signal that they were on the attack. Fifty-three brave young Americans ended up lying on the ground at Paoli where they are at this day buried because they were fighting for the independence of this great Nation. Madam Speaker, 222 years later, we remember Paoli. We remember Paoli by this legislation, setting aside the 40 acres of that great battle; that battle where America lost, where young Americans were massacred. But the rallying cry became the call for the patriots at Valley Forge, and before that at Brandywine to go on to defeat the British and to allow this Nation to achieve its independence. This, in fact, was one of the most historic campaigns in the Revolutionary War; and today we take action, the final action before this bill goes to the President for his signature to preserve the 40-acre site which is about to be developed. In fact, it is interesting, Madam Speaker. The deadline for development of this site was the end of October, so we are just a few short weeks away from being able to say that we have saved this site from having been developed. Secretary Babbitt was up at the site not long ago. He lent his personal support, and support from Democrats and Republicans in both this body and the other body have allowed us to move this legislation forward. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who has been a tireless champion of the Brandywine site which is in his district and the Paoli site which abuts his district and in my district, and the Valley Forge site which is in my district but abuts the district of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who is not with us today, all were instrumental in moving this forward. Senator Santorum did a remarkable effort in the Senate, and we thank everyone who played a major role in getting us here today. I thank all of my colleagues. At this time I would ask to insert in the Congressional Record a letter from a fourth grader signifying the over 4,000 letters and correspondence and phone calls we received from young children asking us to save this site, and I further include the chronology of our battle to save the Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields. February 5, 1999. Dear Congressman Weldon: I wrote this letter because we need to save Paoli Battlefield. We can't develop Paoli Battlefield because we would love to share the battlefield with generations. We can't stop honoring the fallen soldiers. If we do will lose another battle. Thank you for helping us save Paoli Battlefield. We know how important Paoli Battlefield is, and it is very nice of you to be a part of remembering Paoli. Sincerely, Emily Murray.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to stand before you today to recognize the tireless and exemplary efforts of the Marple Newtown Caring Coalition. This organization brings together schools and the community as partners in order to work side- by-side for substance abuse prevention education. During the week of October 23-27, the Marple Newtown Caring Coalition alongside numerous schools and community programs across the country will be participating in Red Ribbon Week. The goal behind Red Ribbon Week is to educate students of all ages from kindergarten through high school on the grave dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. The Red Ribbon Campaign first originated in 1985 after the tragic death of Special Agent Enrique Camarna of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in the battle against drugs. Red Ribbons are worn by school students as a symbol of intolerance against drug use and a commitment to a drug-free lifestyle. On October 25th, Marple Newtown Caring Coalition will proudly host the Red Ribbon Week Celebration in my Congressional District. The presentation will bring representatives from over 10 elementary and high schools together to promote substance abuse prevention. This gathering of students of all ages and different schools works to facilitate a bond between students and adults to achieve better communications for safe schools and communities. I applaud Marple Newtown Caring Coalition's endeavors to educate the entire community on the necessity of drug prevention education not only for the future of our community, but also for the future of our children. The Coalition stands behind a proactive approach by bringing parents, teachers, students, law enforcement officers and community leaders together to strive toward a healthy, drug-free atmosphere in our communities. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is imperative we support and encourage students and adults working together to end the destruction of drug abuse and move towards a reality dominated by drug-free and alcohol- free students. I would like to ask my colleagues to support their local Red Ribbon weeks at schools within their districts. With organizations like the Marple Newtown Caring Coalition and our local schools around the nation, we can strike a serious blow in the fight against drugs.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill contains a number of provisions critical to protecting military access to the radio spectrum. We all know how important spectrum is to information technologies, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), which are critical to a wide range of military and civilian applications. The importance of ensuring the continuous availability of critical information was demonstrated recently, when the Air Force successfully managed the so-called roll-over of the GPS clock--an event similar to the Y2K transition that we have heard so much about. By successfully managing the GPS roll-over, the Air Force has ensured the continued stable reception of GPS signals by tens of millions of global users who depend on GPS for everything from air navigation and farming to guiding the war fighter on the battlefield and managing the Internet. The concerns leading up to the Y2K-like rollover of GPS highlighted the potential global impact from any disruption to GPS services. To its credit, the Air Force, in close cooperation with industry, engaged in rigorous testing and analysis to ensure GPS signals would continue to be received through last month's transition. This effort upheld national policy, as expressed in both Presidential directives and Congressional legislation, that GPS signals will be continuously available and receivable at all times, everywhere in the world. I and many of my colleagues believe it is in our national interest for the government and industry to continue to cooperate in ensuring that GPS spectrum is protected from disruption and interference. The GPS spectrum band is coveted by commercial interests because of increasing demand for limited international spectrum. The American public has invested well over $14 billion to date to have the GPS services we enjoy today and we need to guard this investment from any harm. I urge the Department to continue its efforts to ensure GPS signals are continuously available in support of national policy, and applaud the continued strong congressional support for initiatives that will help us achieve that goal.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss security issues facing this country and to focus the bulk of my discussion on the issue that is going to be, I think, a major issue for the rest of this year and well into the Presidential elections next year, and that is a national debate on who lost Russia. What caused the current economic and political instability that is occurring in that nation that still possesses a vast supply of nuclear material, weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and pose a significant security threat to America? Before I talk about Russia and present some perspectives, I would like to first of all commend the Congress, Members on both sides of the aisle, for the passage today of the final conference report on the defense authorization bill. This bill, which passed the House with an overwhelming margin, is a tribute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the two leaders on defense issues in this Congress, and to all the Members who worked hard on giving our military the best possible support in terms of resources to meet the challenges and threats of the 21st Century. I am concerned that the bill does not have enough in the way of resources to meet the level of deployments that have been entered into by this administration and by the President. In fact, the level of deployments over the past 7 years are now at 33, and that, in fact, compares to 10 deployments in the previous 40 years from World War II until 1990. We cannot continue to have our troops stationed around the world, involved in harm's way in every possible place, from the Balkans and Kosovo to Macedonia and Somalia and Central America and now perhaps East Timor, and provide less resources to pay for all these deployments. That has been our big problem over the past several years. So while this bill does not address all of our needs, it certainly is the best possible legislation that we can come up with given the amount of dollars that the administration made available and the amount that we in the Congress were able to plus up above the President's request. I would hope the President would sign this bill into law as quickly as possible. There was some last-minute controversy raised because of provisions dealing with changes in the management of our Department of Energy-run laboratories. But I can say this, Mr. Speaker, that those changes are needed. They are important, and they are critical. We could not have passed DOE reform legislation in my mind that the President would have signed had it been in a freestanding bill, and, therefore, including it as a part of our defense authorization bill was extremely important. The second issue I would discuss briefly, Mr. Speaker, is an announcement that is going to be made tomorrow by the administration regarding a change in the policy over encryption. Encryption is the technology that we use in the information age to protect and secure transmissions of data. Up until this point in time, we have had strict limitations on the type and capability of encrypted software that we allow our companies to sell overseas. The reason is that we do not want terrorist groups in rogue States to be able to get the capability to classify their communications so that our national security agency and intelligence community cannot get into the kinds of transmissions involving illegal activities and drug sales and arms transfers that is so important to our security. For the past several years, it has been a stalemate. Many of the software companies have been pushing very hard to pass legislation to remove all limitations on being able to sell encryption software abroad at any bit strength, any capability. Many of us in the Congress who are concerned about security issues and Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on both sides of the aisle have raised our voices and have said we cannot just in one fell swoop wipe away the controls that allow us to maintain the kind of access to secure systems that allow America to protect our troops abroad as well as our homeland here. In fact, in each of the last two sessions of Congress, I have offered successfully amendments in the Subcommittee on Defense to the encryption bill, overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and Republicans, to slow down this process and to force us to look at the security concerns. We have said during our opportunities to amend this bill, both last year and most recently in July or August, this past summer, that we were looking for a compromise, that we were looking for a way that we, in fact, could allow our companies to maintain their market share worldwide but also, at the same time, provide mechanisms for the national security agency and the intelligence community to make sure that they were being consulted when this technology was being sold. In a meeting I had with Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre just 1 hour ago in my office, he told me that tomorrow the administration will be announcing what I think will be a successful compromise that will allow industry to be happy but will allow those of us who have security concerns to be happy that we are, in fact, not giving away capability to our adversaries that may come back to haunt us. This compromise which has yet to be worked out in terms of legislative language will do three things. It will allow a process to be kept in place to make sure that our intelligence and defense community have a process before an application is granted for an encrypted software to be sold overseas above the 64-bit strength capability. This gives our technical people the ability to monitor the kind of software encryption that we are selling so that they understand the implications of the sale. Secondarily, the companies will certify the end user of this encrypted algorithm software so that we know where the encryption is going, to make sure it is not going near the hands of a terrorist group or perhaps a nation that is a direct opponent of the U.S., thus could cause security problems for us. The third provision would allow the Defense Department and the administration and intelligence community to oppose the sale of this more capable encryption to a nation or to an entity that we feel would pose a security threat to America. Based on these three conditions, the administration and Dr. Hamre are going to announce this change tomorrow, and I am convinced that this change would not have occurred were it not for the efforts of members of the national security committee, and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligences who stood up and cast very difficult votes. The intense lobbying campaign by the private software companies who have significant PACs and who were having a significant influence on Republican and Democrat Members brought tremendous pressure to bear on many Members who wanted to make sure that our security was not being jeopardized. In last year's vote in the House Subcommittee on Defense and last year's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and in this year's votes in the House Subcommittee on Defense and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligences, Democrats and Republicans stood together. They said that we want to make sure, in spite of the tremendous pressure by these software companies, that we give every possible consideration to our security concerns. Those security concerns apparently are now being met. Tomorrow we will hear the outline of the specifics from the administration. I have offered my support to Dr. Hamre to work to develop bipartisan legislation to amend the Safe Act, the Goodlatte bill, to provide for a compromised solution to what has been a stalemate in this country over the exportation of encrypted software. I want to particularly thank the Members of Congress who were leaders in this effort and who, without their support, this compromise would not have occurred. On the Committee on Armed Services in particular, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). He was the cosponsor of the amendment that I offered this year which passed in the committee with a vote of 46 to 8. Overwhelming support by Republicans and Democrats. That bipartisan support was obtained because of the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) on the Democrat side. I would also thank our distinguished ranking member the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who took a leadership role in this effort in the committee, supported by the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence). The other leaders on the Committee on Armed Services were the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). Each of these Members took the tough stand. They stood up under tremendous pressure and intense lobbying by private industry to say that we had to stand up for the security concerns of the intelligence community, the national security agency. It is because of their efforts and the efforts of the leaders on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that we were able to reach this compromise which, hopefully, all of us can rally around legislatively. I am looking forward to working together to achieve a balance. I have already discussed this in a very preliminary way with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the chief sponsor of this legislation. I want to applaud him for being responsive to our reaching out to try to find a way to deal with the concerns of industry and their economic success and the concerns that we have relative to America's security. Mr. Speaker, the real topic that I wanted to address tonight is the beginning of what I think will be a major national debate over the next 14 months that should occur over the issue of who lost Russia. Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago the people inside of the Communist-dominated Soviet Union were excited, were anxious, and were looking forward to what they saw coming: A major revolution of a Communist-dominated superpower, one of only two superpowers in the world at that time, that was repressive of their rights, that was repressive of the freedom of information and access to the kinds of freedoms we enjoy in America in free markets. The Soviet people were just chomping at the bit to throw off communism and become a free market democratic nation. What happened? That revolution occurred. Gorbachev started it in a very heoric manner, followed by Boris Yeltsin, who, again in a very heroic manner, held the effort to lead the Soviet Union away from communism, away from a closed central economy to free markets and democracies. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, here we are 8 years later, those Russian people who for 70 years were dominated by communism are today looking back and they are saying to America, where is the realization of the dream that you promised? Where is the success of our economy? Where are the freedoms from the kinds of oppression and criminal activity that we see all over our country today? Where is the growth of our country economically as a major player in the world's economy? Where is the economic benefit? Instead, many of those same people are worse off today than they were under communism. Senior citizens, who rely on pensions, have seen inflation running up in the hundreds and thousands of percentage increases over the last 8 years, have looked at their savings dwindle to nothing. The people who have relied on job growth have not seen any significant job increase except for a very small percentage of Russians, many of whom were connected to Yeltsin's inner circle, members of the Intelligencia, or, ironically, members who were well connected to the communist leadership of the previous 70 years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the amount of dismay in Russia today is unbelievable. I think it was best summed up by a member of the Russian Duma who I had the pleasure of doing a press conference with at the height of our bombing of Kosovo, which the Russians found offensive and because it did not initially involve them, found the running contradictory to our trying to improve relations. He said, for 72 years, the Soviet communist party spent billions of dollars to try to convince the Russian people that America and its people were evil. But the Russian people, the 95 percent who were never able to join the communist party, did not believe the propaganda, did not believe the rhetoric coming out of Moscow that America was an evil nation. They rejected the plea of the communists that America was their long-term enemy. He went on to say that, in a matter of a few short months and years, we have managed to do what the Soviet communist party could not do in 70 years. Because of our failed policies, because of our situation involving Kosovo, we have, in fact, convinced many Russians that we are an evil nation, that we are the enemy of Russia, that the success that we guaranteed would occur with free markets and democracy has not occurred, and that we are, in fact, part of the reason why Russia is having the economic and political turmoil that exists in that country today. Mr. Speaker, I do not think any one of us in this country can blame any one person for Russia's problems, but I can tell my colleagues they are severe. It hit me 2 years ago when I was asked by the Speaker of the Russian Duma to attend a conference in Moscow representing the U.S. to talk about why more western companies were not investing in the Russian economy. I went over and represented America and was there joined by parliamentarians and ministerial leaders from 13 other western nations. I was accompanied by representatives of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia and the U.S. Russian-American Business Council, both groups representing the bulk of our American companies doing business in Russia. And I had to be given, in a very embarrassing way, the following statistic: Since the Russians threw off communism and went to a democracy and a free market economy in 1991, there had been only $10 billion of western investment into the Russian economy. During that same period of time, there had been $350 billion of investment in the Chinese economy. Now, I am not here to say that we should not invest in China. In fact, I have supported the normalization of our relations with China. But how is it that the reward for the world's only other superpower in transforming from a communist nation to its free democracy would have such little positive impact yet the reward for a nation that retains communist domination would be so much greater in terms of western and U.S. investment? Three hundred fifty billion to China, $10 billion to Russia, just in the 6 years from 1991 until 1997, which was when this conference occurred. The Russian people throw up their hands and they ask the question, what went wrong? The members of the Duma, people who I have worked with for the past 5 years, friends of mine, all the factions, say to me, Congressman Weldon, how is it that America has guaranteed and helped support $20 billion of U.S. guaranteed IMF and World Bank funding, and actually it is much higher than that, and $1 billion a year of U.S. Treasury funding, taxpayer dollars, into our country and yet most, if not all, of that money has been siphoned off by crooks, by corrupt business leaders, by thugs, by friends of Boris Yeltsin, by people who are well connected in Moscow who took hard-earned American and western individuals' money through their taxes paid to their governments and put that money in Swiss bank accounts and U.S. real estate investments instead of benefiting the changes that were necessary for the Russian people? Mr. Speaker, for those people, who I agree with, who say that, well, we cannot blame one person, we cannot blame Bill Clinton for the fiasco in Russia, I would agree. But I would say this, Mr. Speaker: There certainly is, in my opinion, a significant amount of responsibility that this administration must bear for where Russia is today. Just 3 years ago, former Russian Ambassador Pickering, who is now the number-three person in the State Department, was touting around the world in speeches that within 3 years Russia will be a stable economy, it will be a world-class economy, it will solve its economic problems. And look at where we are today. Last August, a major economic collapse, devaluation of the ruble, long lines at banks with Russian people trying to withdraw their savings, instability. Now we have revelation after revelation of Russian bankers, Boris Yeltsin's friends, friends of the establishment, who siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars, western dollars designed to help build homes and bridges and schools and roads and to reform the coal industry, gone, evaporated, benefiting a few and leaving the Russian people in disarray and in dismay. It is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, that this body conduct a thorough examination of what happened and what went wrong with our policies toward Russia since 1991. Now, I am not going to be partisan and say that we should not look back to the Bush administration. Because we should, because that is when the reforms in Russia started. But, Mr. Speaker, I can say without any hesitation that there is no doubt in my mind that the policies of this administration, starting with the president and those of the chief Russian advisor to the President, Strobe Talbott, have had a direct impact on the destabilization of Russia's economy and their political situation. Why would I make such statements, Mr. Speaker? Well, let me try to explain them. And in explaining them, let me look at where we have been, the kinds of decisions we have made, and perhaps what we should do in the future to change our position with Russia. First of all, Mr. Speaker, our policy for the past 8 years has largely been focused around a president-to-president relationship. Everything focused on Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. As long as those two men were cooperating, were trustworthy of each other, had a common understanding of the working relationship, that was the most important thing our country focused on, reinforcing Boris Yeltsin under any circumstance. And that was the policy of our State Department and that was and still is the policy of our administration. When Boris Yeltsin called the Duma a bunch of rogues and crooks and thieves, which some of them are, what did our administration say? It did not disagree with Boris Yeltsin and say that we should help to build a more stable institution of a parliament. It remained silent. And those people in Russia mistook that silence as though somehow we were embracing Boris Yeltsin's notion that the parliament in Russia did not matter. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last year I arrived in Moscow in September, the day that President Clinton was leaving; and one of the most respected members of the Russian Duma, the former Soviet ambassador to Washington, speaks fluent English, current chairman of the Committee on International Affairs, and a pro-Western leader, the Vladimir Luhkin, called me into his office and he said, Curt, I have some very disturbing news that is running through our Duma and you need to confront the administration to see if this happened. I said, What is the matter, Vladimir? He said, We have received word that Boris Yeltsin and your president had discussions privately as to what the position of the U.S. would be if Yeltsin decided to disband and ignore the Duma completely, in direct violation of the Russian constitution. Vladimir Luhkin said to me, Curt, if that discussion took place, that is going to cause serious problems because our Constitution mandates that we have a balance of power, similar to what you have in America, and for your president to even engage in that kind of a discussion would be very destabilizing. I went back to the administration and I raised that issue, and I was assured at that time that our President never had that discussion with Boris Yeltsin. We will probably never know the answer to that, but I took the administration at face value. But I did believe, with no doubt in my mind, that all of our policy considerations for 7 years, 8 years, have been focused around the premise that under every circumstance we must make sure that Boris Yeltsin is strong. And if we follow that, a similar attitude prevailed in the relationship between Vice President Gore and Victor Chernomyrdin, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, much of which I supported, was designed to focus on their relationship. Where we failed, Mr. Speaker, was to reach out to the other power centers in Russia, to reach out to the other factions and the Duma. Some of the administration officials would say to me, Well, wait a minute. What did you want us to do? Help the communist gain more power in Russia? Negotiate with the communists? To that I say this, Mr. Speaker: How does the administration rectify that statement when the communists in Russia were, at least, elected in free and fair elections, when the administration has put so much effort into a government in China that is entirely communist with no free and fair elections? So if their policy is that in Russia we will reinforce Yeltsin under any circumstance at any cost because we were fearful of the communists, what in the heck is our relationship with China, which is totally dominated by one party communist regime, with no free and fair elections and many concerns about human rights and access to markets? So I do not buy that argument. But the policies of this administration, constantly reinforcing the notion that under any circumstance we could not let anything to happen to embarrass Boris Yeltsin, have contributed to where we are today and the instability in Russia today. Let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. We have arms control agreements with Russia. Those arms control agreements require that when there is a violation, we hold those Russian entities accountable. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on the House floor, in spite of a memo from the administration that the President would veto the bill, every Member of this body, every Republican and every Democrat who voted, voted in favor and against the President in favor of requiring the administration to impose sanctions on entities transferring technologies to Iran. That is as direct a slap in the face of the policies of this administration as anything I have seen in the 13 years I have been here. It was not a partisan issue, because every Democrat joined every Republican. Now, why would we have to resort to passing this legislation forcing the administration to impose sanctions when violations occur? The reason is, Mr. Speaker, because over the past 7 years we have seen time and time again violations of arms control agreements by Russia and China, and we have ignored them. Mr. Speaker, I was in Moscow the December before the presidential election of Boris Yeltsin to his second term. The Washington Post had just reported a front page story that we had caught Russia transferring accelerometers and gyroscopes to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, accelerometers and gyroscopes are the guidance systems that guide missiles. They are the devices that make missiles more accurate, the kind of missiles that killed our 28 young troops in Desert Storm when Saddam fired that Scud missile into the barracks, the kind of guidance system that North Korea wants for their missiles aimed at America and aimed at South Korea. The Washington Post reported in a front page story, above the fold, we have caught the Russian entities illegally transferring this technology. I was in Ambassador Pickering's office in January of that year and I said, ``Mr. Ambassador, I'm sure you saw the Washington Post article. What was the response of the Russians when you asked them to explain what we found them doing?'' And he said, ``Congressman, I haven't asked the Russians yet.'' I said, ``Why would you not ask them? The Washington Post reported the story in December and they reported this transfer took place 6 months beforehand. Why wouldn't you ask the Russians? You're our representative here.'' He said, ``Mr. Congressman, that request has got to come from the White House.'' So I came back to Washington and I wrote to President Clinton. I said, ``Mr. President, you must have read the Washington Post story. This would be a gross violation of an arms control agreement, the Missile Technology Control Regime. If this occurred, what are you doing? And have you asked the Russians yet to explain what we have found?'' The President wrote me a three-page response in April of that year. ``Dear Congressman Weldon,'' to paraphrase, ``if what the Post said is true, you're right, it would be a gross violation of that treaty, and I assure you we will take aggressive steps to implement the requirements of that treaty.'' But the President went on to say, ``We have no evidence, we have no proof that it occurred.'' Mr. Speaker, here is the proof. A Soviet accelerometer and a Soviet gyroscope, markings in Russian on both of them. These were clipped from Russian SSN-19 missiles that were on their submarines aimed at American cities. Evidently, as Russia decommissioned some of these nuclear devices and ICBMs, someone clipped off the guidance systems which only three countries manufacture, the U.S., Russia and China, although some European countries, but in terms of our relationship, the U.S., Russia and China, very expensive devices. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea cannot build this quality of device. This is the proof, Mr. Speaker. They are real. And it was not just one time and it was not just one set. Mr. Speaker, we have in America over 100 sets of these devices. They are the ones we caught. And it did not happen once. It did not happen twice. We caught the Russians transferring these devices to Iraq three times. What did the administration do in spite of President Clinton's letter? We did nothing. When I questioned the administration, why did we not do anything when the President told me that we were going to hold Russian entities accountable? The response was very quietly, ``Well, Congressman, we got assurances from Russia that they would conduct a criminal investigation and they would go after anyone they caught who had done this.'' That criminal investigation ended that year, Mr. Speaker. There were no sanctions filed. The devices were transferred, perhaps thousands of them, and these guidance systems then can be placed into missiles or redesigned or reverse engineered so Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and North Korea have better ways to aim their missiles with accuracy at American cities and American troops. Now, why would we not impose sanctions that are required, Mr. Speaker, especially if this administration claims that arms control agreements are so important? In fact, Mr. Speaker, I did a floor speech 14 months ago, and people can get this from the Congressional Record at that time where I documented 37 violations of arms control agreements like this one by the Russians and the Chinese since 1991, since the President took office. In those 37 violations, we caught the Russians and the Chinese sending these kinds of devices to Iraq, sending other technology to Iran, sending chemical and biological and nuclear technology to Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, Pakistan and India, 37 times. That was not my investigation. That research work was done by the Congressional Research Service, an agency that serves Republicans and Democrats, has no partisan nature to it, they simply do the work that we ask them to do. Their study documented 37 violations. How many times did we impose sanctions? Twice. The two times we imposed sanctions were when we caught China transferring M-11 missiles and ring magnets to Pakistan and then we waived the sanctions after 2 years. Now, why would we not impose the required sanctions when we caught the Russian entities transferring technology? It gets back to the policy of this administration toward Russia. Boris Yeltsin was running for election as the President of Russia. We did not want to embarrass Boris Yeltsin. Every step of the way, the President gave Boris Yeltsin the benefit of the doubt. ``We won't embarrass you, Mr. President, we won't do anything to undermine your leadership in Russia, even if you're allowing things to occur that we know are direct violations of these agreements.'' In fact, Mr. Speaker, in a book that was written by Washington Times defense writer Bill Gertz called ``Betrayal'' which I encourage every one of our colleagues to read, in the back of that book is an irrefutable document. In the back of Bill Gertz' book ``Betrayal'' is the presidential memo cabled from Bill Clinton to Boris Yeltsin in the year he was running for reelection that basically said this and people can read it for themselves: ``Mr. President, I'll make sure that we don't do anything to undermine your chances for reelection. I will make sure that we don't do anything to embarrass you as you embark upon your effort to be reelected.'' Mr. Speaker, that has been our policy for 7 years, not just during the election year. We have been so enamored with the relationship between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin that even when Yeltsin was not dealing with the problems that we knew were there, we ignored them, we pretended it did not happen, we made up excuses. The same policy, Mr. Speaker, applied to a Navy lieutenant in what in my mind is the most outrageous story I have heard in the 13 years I have been in Congress. A 16-year career Navy officer by the name of Lieutenant Jack Daly, in our naval intelligence service, was assigned duty up in the Seattle area working with our Canadian military friends to monitor Russian trawlers that we knew were spying on our nuclear submarine fleet. Lieutenant Daly and his Canadian counterpart would fly helicopter missions and take photographs of these Russian trawlers that we knew were spying on our ships. We knew that because we had seen evidence in the trawlers of sonobuoys, devices that are used to put out in the water to monitor the routes of submarines. And we saw these ships coming into port with no cargo and leaving with no cargo. We knew they were spy ships for the Russians. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Daly and his Canadian counterpart who were assigned to intelligence operations made a mistake. They did their job. They were flying in a helicopter, taking photographs of a Russian ship called the Kapitan Man. They were photographing the ship because it was a Russian spy ship spying on our submarines. They were taking photographs of the ship from their helicopter. The Russian ship saw the helicopter, and they activated a laser generator, aimed the laser at the helicopter and lasered the eyes of both of the individuals, Lieutenant Daly and his Canadian colleague. They knew immediately they had some problem. They did not know what it was. They landed, they went to the medical site at their base there, and the doctors examined them and said, ``You've had some kind of damage.'' They flew them down to our laser specialist in Texas at our military medical facility and they confirmed that he had been lasered by a laser that is not normally available anyplace that ordinary people can access. They were told that the laser came from that Russian ship. Now, Mr. Speaker when they came back to shore from the helicopter and reported to the DOD command officers that they think something had happened, DOD immediately wanted to go on board the ship, to board it, to see whether or not they had been lasered. Bill Gertz in his book, Mr. Speaker, for every Member of this body to know and to read and to document, for the first time reveals the classified cables between the State Department and the Department of Defense and our embassy in Moscow and the Russians. An American was harmed, doing his job, and yet we find evidence that there were discussions by the man who is currently our ambassador in Moscow, Jim Collins, about how we have to control this situation, we do not want to offend Russia, we do not want to embarrass Boris Yeltsin. So the military was told, ``Don't board the ship. Don't board the Russian trawler. Don't look for that device.'' And the military said, ``Wait a minute. We've had a career officer harmed. We want to go on board the ship.'' ``Then fine,'' the State Department said, ``you can only board the public areas of the vessel.'' Mr. Speaker, how stupid are we? We are going to board a Russian trawler that we know is a spy ship, we are going to look for a laser generator, and we are telling the inspectors that they cannot go into the nonpublic areas? Where do we think the Russians are going to put the laser generator, on the front deck? I mean, cut me a break. Are we that stupid or naive? No, Mr. Speaker, the point was we wanted to give Russia an out. We knew what happened. Again, the policy, ``Don't do anything to embarrass Boris Yeltsin. Ignore the reality. Pretend it did not occur.'' That is what we did. But the worst part about that, Mr. Speaker, is Lieutenant Daly's career was ruined. He had had a stellar career up until that point in time, he was bypassed for two promotions, his superior officer told him this, and I want to quote what he said to him. He said, ``Jack, you don't know the pressure I'm under to get rid of your case.'' Amazing, Mr. Speaker, in America, that a 16-year career naval intelligence officer who is harmed by a Russian laser generator, only trying to get the satisfaction of his country defending him, would be told by his superior officer, ``Jack, you don't know the pressure I'm under to get rid of this case.'' Finally, because of the pressure of Norm Dicks, a good friend on the Democrat side, and Members on this side, including myself who have raised a stink on this issue, who have told Secretary Cohen and the Navy that we will not tolerate this activity, just last week the administration announced they are now going to re-review whether or not Lieutenant Daly has been mistreated in his effort to secure a promotion to the next rank in the service, another indication of this overriding policy of reinforcing Yeltsin and that relationship under any circumstances. But let us get to the real problem, and that deals with the IMF funding. Mr. Speaker, we had a golden opportunity. The reformers took over and when Yeltsin first started out, he was a Godsend. He was standing up, reinforcing Gorbachev, standing on top of those tanks and defying the Communists to take him out as Russia was moving toward democracy and free markets. All of us, and me included, stood behind him and said, ``We want you to succeed.'' But we got mixed up along the way, Mr. Speaker. We got so enamored with Yeltsin that when he did stupid things, instead of saying, ``Mr. President, these people that you're putting in charge of these state enterprises, these multibillion-dollar enterprises that are going to become your banking system, these people that are going to run your huge state enterprises, are not qualified. You're picking them on the basis of friendship and ties as opposed to what is best for your country.'' We set in motion the beginning, in my opinion, of the economic turmoil that Russia is experiencing today. Mr. Speaker, all along the way, when we saw Yeltsin doing stupid things, when we saw the oligarchs, the seven oligarchs, most of whom were no more qualified to be the manager of a big bank than I am in Russia, we stood back and we did not engage, because we did not want to offend Boris Yeltsin, we did not want to offend the group of intelligentsia and the oligarchy that was running Russia, because we felt that was our solution. For the first few years it worked, when Yeltsin was strong and Clinton was strong, the policy worked and our countries were making some progress but we were not willing to be candid. Where are we today? Yeltsin's popularity is less than 5 percent, our own President has his own problems, but in Russia, what are the Russian people saying? ``America, you're not our friend. You saw these things occurring and you did nothing.'' You knew what was going on. How can the Russian people respect us today, Mr. Speaker? They saw what was happening. How can the members of the elected Duma respect us? The only time we came to them was when after the fact and all the economic problems occurred, and the IMF was very weary about putting more money into Russia. We said to the Duma, ``You've got to pass tough legislation. You've got to reform your finance system. You've got to collect more taxes. You've got to make your people pay electric bills and water bills, which they never paid before under communism. You've got to get tough with your people or we're not going to give you more money.'' And the Duma basically thumbed their nose at the IMF, they thumbed their nose at Yeltsin, and they thumbed their nose at America. Why? Because the Duma deputy said, and I think rightfully so, ``Wait a minute. You now come to us in 1998 and 1999, and you ask us to pass tough reforms, but you did not involve us when all of this honey was being given out. You didn't involve us when you were sending Boris Yeltsin's friends the billions of dollars of IMF and World Bank money, when you were sending everything through central Moscow siphoned off by Yeltsin's crony friends instead of helping the Russian people, and now you want us to make the tough decisions. You want us to go to our constituents who see the turmoil in our country, and you want us to do the right thing.'' Is there any wonder the Duma said, ``No way''? Mr. Speaker, our policies failed. We failed to help Russia establish a true democracy, a strong president, and Yeltsin could have been for the long term a strong President, ended up not being a strong President. And a strong parliament, one that could work in tandem, as we have in this country, a check and a balance. Instead, we put all of our eggs into Yeltsin's basket, and we ended up with a basket of broken eggs, and now we are being asked to pay the price, and it is not small chicken feed, Mr. Speaker. Twenty billion dollars at a minimum into Russia's economy. Is there any benefit to the Russian people? I would say no. Three hundred million dollars for the coal industry to help Russian coal miners; where did that money go? It ended up lining somebody's pocket, building some residences on the French Riviera, buying real estate property in America, and leaving the Russian people holding the bag to pay all that money back. And where was America? Where was America telling the Russians the tough things they had to hear? When we saw the Russians transferring technology, we did not have to embarrass Boris Yeltsin. We simply had to offer him our help to work with him to identify the people selling this technology and to tell him we are going to take efforts to go after those companies. We do that in America all the time. If a company in America is illegally selling products to nations that are unstable, we make no hesitation about punishing them. I do not care if they are in my district or not. I want them punished. The same thing should have applied in Russia. If we had entities that we knew were violating arms control agreements, we should have punished them, and we should have been consistent, and we should have been fair, and we should have showed them that our goal was not to embarrass Yeltsin, it was not to embarrass Russia. It was to stop proliferation to nations like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea. That is the problem. And when we saw the IMF money being drained away, we should have told President Yeltsin that we are not going to tolerate this, we are not going to stand for this. But what did we do? We turned our head. We turned our cheek. There is a report running in the media that Vice President Gore was given at least one major CIA brief that linked Chernomyrdin directly to corruption in Russia. The Vice President is a good friend, was a good friend of Chernomyrdin, wrote across that document: Bull, and you complete the rest, and sent it back to the CIA. He did not want to hear it; he did not want to hear the facts. We wonder why Russia is an economic and political basket case today, Mr. Speaker. Our policies encouraged the kind of disarray that we are currently seeing in Russia's economy. There is an alternative way, Mr. Speaker, and as we begin hearings on who lost Russia, as we saw the New York Times 3 weeks ago on a front- page magazine story on who lost Russia and then followed that up with a Washington Post story this past weekend, and as the Congress begins to hold hearings on this whole issue, and by the way, Mr. Speaker, I think that Congress also has to bear some of the responsibility, and that includes my own party, and as I said before, some of these policies started under President Bush, so I am not saying it is all partisan, but I can tell you this President and his administration have exacerbated the problem unbelievably. But how do we solve it? Well, there are some solutions. Mr. Speaker, I am Russia's toughest critic, but I am Russia's best friend. I have been there 19 times. I know the Russian people; I know their leaders. When I saw the possibility that this Congress would not support more IMF funding and that Russia perhaps could have a meltdown, complete meltdown, with a major nuclear force still in place, more destabilized today than any point in time under communism because under communism they had discipline, they had the rule of law, they did not have the corruption they have today. Today they have corruption, they do not have the rule of law, and they have instability. So I was concerned that I needed to get our colleagues to support the President even though I disagree with the positions he was taking in terms of IMF funding. So I went to Moscow and arrived the day the President left a year ago, and I took with me, Mr. Speaker, a set of eight principles because I knew the Duma was opposed to IMF funding just as the Congress was. Now you might say why would the Russian Duma be against us putting another $4 billion in the Russian economy. Well, why? Because the Duma knew Yeltsin's cronies and friends, and they were going to be left to hold the bag to pay the bill, and they were going to be asked to pass the reforms and had no say in where the money was going or how it was being spent. That is why they opposed IMF funding. So I said to my Duma friends, ``Here are eight principles. Look at these eight principles. If you can agree with these principles, I will go back to Washington, to my leadership in Congress, and I'll see if they'll agree that you pass these principles in the Duma in the morning,'' since it was an 8-hour time difference, ``and we'll pass these eight principles in the Congress in the afternoon on the same day. These principles will guide all funding going into your country from the west, international funding, World Bank funding, funding from the IMF and U.S. funding, a billion dollars a year going to Russia.'' What are the eight principles? Here they are, Mr. Speaker, in summary. I will put the full eight principles in the Congressional Record. Number one, Mr. Speaker, that we establish a joint U.S.-Russian legislative oversight commission of elected officials to monitor every dime of money going into Russia, not to say where it should go; that is up to administrations; but to monitor where it is going. Today there is no such capability, and much of the money is being siphoned off illegally, and the Russian Duma has no ability to monitor what Yeltsin does with the money or his people. So establish a legislative oversight commission, Democrats and Republicans joining with all the factions of the Duma and the Federation Council and monitor where the money is going. Number two, to focus our resources on programs like housing mortgages that benefit and create a Russian middle class. If you look at America's economy, our success economically is because when housing starts are up, our economy is strong, and our housing starts are up when mortgage rates are low. Russia has no mortgage system. Three years ago, Charles Taylor and I went to Moscow and we said to the Russian leaders, ``Work with us on a private mortgage program like our Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and if you agree to our tight discipline, we will go to the Congress and try to get some seed money.'' The Duma deputies agreed. Here is the document we produced, Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago: Housing For Our People, a picture of the Capitol Building and the Duma. You know there is no White House in either picture? There is no Washington White House, and there is no White House where President Yeltsin works. It is the two capital buildings. It is where the two parliaments work, the parliaments of the Duma wanting to establish a private, western style housing mortgage financing system. Our goal was in this second principle to say that programs that encourage a middle class are what we should be providing funds for. Number three, that we should agree that western resources should be made available to reform-minded regional governments. Russia is a large Nation, over 60 States and oblasts, and many of the regions are doing good things. They are privatizing their property, they are collecting more taxes, they are having people pay for their utilities. But because all the money went through Yeltsin in Moscow, those regions were not being recognized and rewarded. The money was being siphoned off to Yeltsin's cronies, and the regions who are reforming were standing there saying, ``We're doing the things you told us, America; when are you going to help us?'' And the help never came, and our policy was let us focus on regions where they are doing good things and help them continue to do good things. All around Russia, out in Siberia, Vladivostok, St. Petersburg, Nizhni- novgorod, Samara, all around the country, the fourth principal: Deny Moscow-based institutions any additional funds where we know they have abused IMF World Bank and U.S. dollars. If we know a bank is corrupt, hard and fast rule, they get no more money. And in fact let us go after those perpetrators and try to collect the money they abused. Number five, reform International Monetary Fund. This was a recommendation that I got after talking to George Soros in his office in New York to convene a blue ribbon task force that the IMF would then listen to that would tell it how to be responsive and make reforms to be more accountable to emerging economies like Russia. Number six, and boy is this significant to put the horse in front of the cart. Reforms would precede and not follow. Resources. No reforms, no money. You make the reforms you have asked for, and then we will provide the resources you need, but no money until you do the reforms. Number seven, have a 90-day plan to establish a relationship between CEOs of American companies and Russian enterprises, a one-on-one relationship so they can learn how we develop profits in America to make their companies more profitable in Russia, to learn how to motivate workers, how to manage their costs. And the last item: To bring 15,000 young Russian students to America, undergraduate and graduate, have them attend our business, economic and finance schools all across the country, pay their way over, and get our schools to give them an education with the understanding they must go back to Russia to live. They cannot stay in America, in effect creating a new generation, the next generation of Russia's free market leaders. Mr. Speaker, the Duma agreed to all eight principles, all eight principles. They said, ``We'll do the reforms if you tell us that you're going to let us march to where the money's gone. If you let us have a say, if the regions are recognized, we'll do it,'' and they passed it. It came back to Washington, and I went to Speaker Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich said, ``Well, Curt, I don't know whether we want to do this, that is the administration's prerogative. Let me talk to the White House.'' The White House said, ``We don't need those guidelines. We don't need those principles. The eight principles in their entirety are as follows: Joint Statement of Principles Governing Western and IFI Assistance to Russia (Draft Prepared by Congressman Curt Weldon) (1) Focus Western resources on programs--like housing--that will develop a Russian middle class Funds flowing from Western governments and International Financial Institutions (IFI) should be directed to segments of the Russian economy where they will help develop a broad Russia middle class, who will in turn have an economic stake in democratic institutions and greater economic reform. One such sector is housing, where there is an overwhelming need for greater investment and the Russian people face tremendous shortages. A major impediment to a robust housing market is that all but the most wealthy Russians lack a mechanism to finance the purchase of a home. Development of a mortgage finance system, with longer term loans (20 to 30 years) and reasonable interest rates, would greatly strengthen the Russian economy, increasing employment, tax revenues, and economic and political stability. (2) Make Western resources available to reform minded regional governments Some significant portion of the funds from Western governments and IFIs should flow from the Russian central government to the Oblasts and Krais, which are the source of most of the economic reforms occurring in Russia. Tax reform, privatization, land reform are all areas where the regions have accomplished far more than the central government in Moscow. In determining the flow of these resources to the regions, priority should be given to those regions that have and are implementing the strongest reform programs. The criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of regional economic reform programs should be clearly identified, which will assure all regions that they are being treated equitably and provide the necessary incentives for regions to implement viable economic reform agendas. (3) Deny corrupt Moscow-based financial institutions access to Western resources Greater steps must be taken to ensure accountability for previous and future resources provided by Western governments and IFIs. The simple notion that any bank, government agency, regional government, or NGO that cannot account for previously supplied funding should be ineligible for future funds must be strictly enforced. This will have the practical effect of preventing the large, corrupt Moscow based banks from accessing future IFI resources. (4) Establish a joint Russian--U.S. legislative oversight commission to monitor Western resources Opposition to further assistance from IFIs run strong in both the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma. One way to counter this tendency and promote a stronger Duma is to create a joint Russian-U.S. Legislative Oversight Commission, composed of Members of Congress and Duma Deputies and staffed by experts in both legislatures, to monitor the use of Western government and IFI funding to ensure that the designated end recipient, not only receives the resources but uses them for the intended purposes. (5) Reform the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Both the Congress and Duma should urge the International Monetary Fund to establish an International Blue Ribbon Commission composed of the most prominent financial experts to make recommendations for reforming the IMF to achieve greater transparency and more effective programs with less financial risk. If the IMF is unwilling to create such a commission, then the Congress and Duma should consider creating its own commission of experts and then press the IMF to implement the recommendations. (6) Put the horse in front of the cart: make reforms precede--not follow--resources In all too many cases, resources from IFIs come first and promised reforms come much later, if at all. It is time to make reform precede--not follow--important economic reforms at the national and regional levels. The Yeltsin administration, the Duma, and the financial oligarches have every incentive to promise reform prior to receiving financial assistance, but they have very little incentive to make good on the promises of reform, which in the short term are often difficult for the government to implement and painful for the Russian citizens to endure. (7) Jointly develop a 90 Day Action Plan to reform de facto bankrupt industrial giants Working the Congress and the Duma, the Administrations should empanel a group of international financial experts and give them 90 days to develop a comprehensive program to reform, privatize, or shutter the industrial behemoths that are essentially bankrupt and uncompetitive in a market economy but are kept limping along by subsidies because of local political imperatives and the fact that in many areas they represent the only source of employment. Many formerly state owned enterprises (for example--food processing plants, breweries, and confectionary enterprises) have made successful transitions which make products without government subsidies that compete with imported items--clear evidence that Russian enterprises can be competitive. (8) Western government and IFI resources should go to civilian agencies and programs--not to prop up the Russian military industrial complex Nothing could do more to endanger U.S.-Russian cooperation, especially in the eyes of the Republican Congress, than using funding from Western governments and IFIs to prop up the ailing military and military-industrial complex. Both the Administrations and the legislatures need to make sure that proper controls are put in place to prevent such an eventuality.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue. I rise to say that I have the highest regard for my good friend from Michigan, and he knows that. We are good friends; but I have to oppose him on this issue, Mr. Speaker. This bill is a good bill. In fact, it is an excellent bill. I understand the concerns about not involving the committee, and I empathize with that and think we do not do a good job in that regard. But I think it is also fair for Members to understand, this Congress could not get a major DOE reform bill through this body with the President's signature. It would not happen. It will happen as a part of this defense bill. It is important that we understand a motion to recommit opens the entire conference up well beyond the scope of just this issue, and that is going to cause problems for every Member in this institution who has an interest in this bill, including issues like the pay raise. We just cannot say it is a free vote that we vote for the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, there is a big problem here. It was the Secretary of Energy who, in 1993, did away with the FBI background checks. It was the Secretary of Energy in 1993 who changed the color-coded classifications status at our labs. It was the Secretary of Energy in 1994 who overruled the Oakland office and allowed an employee who had given away secrets to still work. And it was the Secretary of Energy who in 1994 gave away the warhead design for the W-87 warhead to a U.S. News and World reporter. We need this bill and we need Members to vote ``yes'' on the bill and ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, and I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding to me, and I rise as a good and long-term friend of the Russian people. Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of traveling to Russia some 19 times. I will be leading another delegation to Russia within the next 30 days. I have over 150 members of the Federation Duma who are personal friends of mine, and I am working on initiatives like developing a housing mortgage financing system for the Russian people, helping them deal with the problem of nuclear waste, helping them encourage more economic investment, helping to strengthen the regions and regional leaders; and right now in fact I have 20 young Russian leaders coming to my district as a part of an exchange program that we started this past summer where 2,000 young Russians are coming to America; and I just initiated a new program to have staff members in this Congress engage and participate with exchanges with staff members of the Russian Duma. All that being said, this legislation is necessary not because we have a problem with the Russian people, but in my opinion because of the policies of this administration, which have helped cause the instability in Russia, both economically and politically. Mr. Speaker, proliferation is out of control in Russia, not just in words or rhetoric. I have here, Mr. Speaker, a Russian accelerometer and a Russian gyroscope. These were clipped off of Russian SSM-19 missiles. We caught them, Mr. Speaker, not once, not twice, but three times, being transferred from Russia to Iraq. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have over 100 sets of these devices. We did nothing about the transfer, Mr. Speaker. We did not impose the required sanctions under the missile technology control regime. We basically allowed Yeltsin to tell President Clinton, do not worry, we will conduct a criminal investigation, and nothing happened. So why should we be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if Russia cannot control proliferation? I did a floor speech last June, which I will include in the Record again, at least the study done by the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Speaker, I documented 37 violations of arms control agreements in the last 6 years by Russia and China. Thirty-seven violations. We imposed the required sanctions twice, and that was when we caught China transferring M-11 missiles and ring magnets to Pakistan, and what did we do? After 2 years we waived the sanctions. We saw technology flow to Iran, to Iraq, to Syria, to Libya and North Korea from China and Russia. I was not surprised when India and Pakistan's saber rattled, because we saw Russia transferring technology to India and China transferring technology to Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, the problems that are inherent here are in many cases our own doing, an administration that has been so preoccupied with not embarrassing the relationship between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton that it does not want to call into question, when we have solid evidence that technology is being sent abroad illegally, and the same problem with the IMF funding. We did not want to embarrass Yeltsin because his crony friends were ripping off billions of dollars of IMF money, and we wonder why Russia is a basket case. The policies of this Government are turning their head the other way, are ignoring obvious violations of arms control regime violations. An obvious turning of our head when billions of dollars of IMF money is going to the failed oligarchs who corrupted the Russian banking system are many of the reasons why Russia today is a basket case economically and politically. We passed the Iran missile sanctions bill in the last session with 395 votes in this body, and 96 votes in the Senate, in spite of Vice President Gore lobbying 12 of us personally. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) was there, Mr. Hamilton of Indiana was there, Senator Levin was there, I was there, twice not to pass that bill, because the Congress has lost confidence that this administration can stop proliferation. And this is not a Republican issue. Democrats and Republicans have joined together and said to this administration, we cannot keep bolstering up Yeltsin when it is obvious the system around him is corrupt and all we have done is reinforce Yeltsin's leadership, and now we are paying the price. The Russian people and the members of the Duma look at us and they say, where were you, America, when you basically turned the other cheek and pretended these transfers were not taking place? Where were you, America, when Yeltsin's cronies were siphoning off billions of dollars of IMF funding? Why did you not call into question what Yeltsin's cronies were doing? Why did you not call into question Yuri Koptev in the space agency when these transfers were taking place? Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Russian people have lost their confidence in America as a friend and partner? The 95 percent of the Russian people, Mr. Speaker, who are good and decent people, who are not members of the Communist oligarchy, many of whom took over the reigns of the Yeltsin administration, they see through this charade in Russia. These people saw the IMF money being bilked away, these people saw this kind of technology being sold abroad time and again, and they saw this country and this President ignoring the realities of the instability just so that Yeltsin could be reelected again. We have a terrible crisis on our hands, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the last individual who spoke. This should not be a time to bash Russia as a nation, nor the Russian people, nor the emerging Russian leaders; and they know my position very clearly on these issues. This is a time where we have to call into question our administration for helping to foster and encourage this kind of instability in Russia today. We need to pass this legislation, not to create the feeling in Russia that somehow they are our enemy, because they are not. We need to pass this legislation because we need to let Russia know that we will no longer tolerate incompetence, gross abuse, and tolerate the illegal activities that the Yeltzin government foisted on the Russian people for the past 7 years while we turned our heads, pretending that these situations were not real. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, as they did 2 years ago. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that the distinguished chairman and the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman, introduced in the House, we could have overridden that veto. But it was the Speaker of the House, a month before the congressional elections, who said that we would not be allowed to vote to override the President's veto. I am convinced had we had that vote, with the support of AIPAC, and they were in the room when we met with the Speaker, with the support of those people concerned with proliferation, we would have sent this administration this signal 2 years ago. Here we are 2 years later. Technology is still flowing. The fat cat oligarchs are still getting richer and the Russian people are still suffering. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last week the President signed H.R. 4, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, into law. This measure unequivocally states that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as it is technologically feasible. In signing the bill, the President has at long last acknowledged that the missile threat that he has so long denied, and the need to defend against it. Mr. Speaker, there was no signing ceremony, no fanfare, not even a press conference announcing this significant action. Unfortunately, there is a reason the President chose to downplay this event. In characteristic style, he is already trying to redefine the meaning of this law. The ink on the bill was not dry when the President released a statement noting that the ``legislation makes clear that no decision on deployment has been made. . . . Next year, we will, for the first time, determine whether to deploy a limited national missile defense . . .'' This is Orwellian. The President signs a bill that says that it is our policy to deploy a national missile defense, and in the same breath says that a decision to deploy will be made next year. It would be comical if the stakes were not so high. I guess we should not be surprised anymore. The President has already successfully redefined the word ``is,'' and once again it provides him with a convenient escape hatch. Perhaps we should have reconsidered the use of that word in our policy statement before submitting it to the President, because he has already made it clear that to him, ``is'' does not always mean ``is.'' But most people understand that when we say it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense, that the decision to deploy has been made. The question is not whether to deploy, only when. And contrary to the President's interpretation, Congress was clear on this point. Before the House voted on this measure, both the original bill and the conference report, I called on my colleagues to vote against this bill if they agreed with the President that we should hold off the decision on whether to deploy, and told those who agreed with moving forward with that decision now to vote for it. There was considerable discussion about whether we could deploy a system now. It was repeatedly noted that the bill was not mandating when to deploy, it was simply stating that the decision was being made to do so as soon as it is technologically feasible. Similar debate ensure in the Senate. This time, the President says that Congress itself has qualified that it ``is'' the policy to deploy. He argues that the bill language subjecting deployment to the authorizations and appropriations process means that no decision has been made. That argument is a Trojan horse, because all policy decisions are subject to the authorization and appropriations process. He further argues that the bill's language supporting continued reductions in strategic nuclear arms means that the decision must account for arms control and nuclear nonproliferation objectives. Congress said nothing of the sort, and made absolutely no linkage of these objectives. Mr. Speaker, no amount of tortured linguistics by this President or anyone else can change the legislative record. We were clear that passage of this bill would formalize U.S. policy to deploy a national missile defense system, and it was overwhelmingly adopted in both bodies. It is time for the President to stop rewriting the dictionary, and get down to the business of executing the law and ensuring the security of this nation.