Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. As the gentleman knows, as a Republican and a colleague, I supported the same position he did on NAFTA, which is opposition to NAFTA, because I felt that this administration would not impose the requirements on Mexico in terms of improving wage rates and labor conditions and tougher environmental laws. So in not doing that, our companies would, in fact, fly south to Mexico, which they have done. But the interesting point that I want to tie in here is organized labor has been so quick to criticize Republicans on issues like NAFTA when, in fact, it was this administration who shoved NAFTA down our throats in the Congress. And I want to raise one more point.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. As he is doing with fast track this week. I want to raise one more additional point before I leave and let my colleague finish his time. Unlike most of my Republican friends, I get strong support from organized labor, and I am proud of that. I come from a working class family and understand the needs of working class people. My friend, I think, probably has many similar votes. I do not know if he has the support I do, but I get a lot of support from labor. I had a group of steelworkers in today asking me about what I was going to do on fast track. I asked them this question: Where has the AFL-CIO been on the one million union jobs that have been lost in this country because of this administration's cuts in defense and aerospace? Now, we have heard Members get up and rale about the loss of decent paying wages and how critical that is. One million U.S. union jobs were lost in the past 6 years from cutbacks in defense and aerospace budgets. The AFL-CIO did not issue a peep. Union workers, steelworkers who were building the ships at Bath Iron Works, UAW workers who were building the C-17, people who were building the F/A-18-Cs and Ds, all of these cutbacks that have occurred across the country were with union plants. IBEW workers, UAW workers, steelworkers, Teamsters. Where was the AFL-CIO? Where was that on the rating card of rating Members of Congress on their votes? Why was no member of either party rated for not voting to provide the funding support to keep those union jobs in place? And to all those union brothers and sisters out there who are today working at labor positions making one-half or one-third or one-fourth of what they used to make, I ask them, what did their union dues go for? Their union dues did not go to fight for those jobs they now do not have. One million of them are out of work today because the only area we have cut in the Federal budget for the past 6 years has been the defense budget. The only area. Sure, we can talk about decreasing the level of increase, and we call that a cut. And we all know that is not what we are talking about with defense. Defense is the only area of the budget that has sustained real cuts above the rate of inflation to gut the program itself. And that has resulted in one million American men and women who carry the union card who have lost their jobs. When we cut the MilCon budget, the gentleman knows the requirements of the Federal Government, even though many on our side oppose it: Davis-Bacon. So who benefits or who loses when we cut the MilCon defense budget? All of those building trades: the steamfitters, the pipefitters, the brick layers. They are the ones who lose because we have cut back on MilCon construction projects, all of which must be done according to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates. Where has the AFL-CIO been? It has been like this: With its fingers in its ears, its hands over its eyes, and its hands over its mouth. It has not spoken one word on behalf of the union members who are today out of work because of those cuts.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the gentleman's special order and had to come over and first of all praise him for not just a special order, but for the leadership role he has played on defense issues in this Congress and in past Congresses as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement. The gentleman has fought long and hard with his colleagues on the other side to make sure that we had the money to buy the equipment with the very limited budget to meet the needs of our troops. And as he has said time and time again, we are in the midst of a crisis right now. In fact, I predict that this 10-year period in time, the 1990s, will go down in history as the worst period of time in terms of undermining our national security. In the next century, people are going to realize that the economic savings that were generated during this administration were all done on the backs of our men and women in the military. While we have been cutting defense, and now we are in the fifteenth consecutive year of real defense cuts, we have a Commander in Chief who has increased our deployment rate to 26 in the past 6 years. That compares to 10 in the previous 40 years. And none of these 26 deployments were budgeted for. None of them were paid for. The $15 billion in contingency costs to pay for those came out of the hide of the men and women who serve in the military, their readiness, their modernization, and the research technology necessary to meet the threats of the 21st century. My friend and colleague talked about missile defense. This issue is now becoming again a major national issue. It is becoming such an issue not just because of our collective work to raise the issue, but because of what is happening. We were told by the intelligence community that we would not see these threats emerge. Earlier this year, we saw the Iranians test, and we think deploy right now, a medium-range missile, the Shahab 3, that threatens all of Israel. Last week we had members of the Israeli Knesset, the chairman of their international affairs and defense committee Uzi Landau here for a week. The Israelis feel their backs are against the wall because they do not have a highly effective system that can defeat that Shahab 3 missile. They are vulnerable, just as our 25,000 troops in that theater are vulnerable. We saw the North Koreans test the NoDong missile, and we think it has now been deployed, which puts all of our troops in Asia at risk, which includes Japan and South Korea. And we have no highly effective system to take out that NoDong. Then in August, we saw what none of us felt would occur because the intelligence community told us it would not happen for years and that is the North Korean test of a 3-stage rocket, a 3-stage missile that they had the audacity to fly over the territorial land and waters of Japan. We now have evidence that has been based on intelligence community assessments that says that this Taepo Dong missile may be able to do something that we were told 3 years ago would not happen for 15 years; that is, hit the territorial lands of the United States including all of Guam and parts of Alaska and Hawaii. This is totally and completely unacceptable to us. And as my friend and colleague knows, members of both parties in this body and the other body have been crying for a response, for systems to protect our troops or allies and our people against the threat that missile proliferation in fact has produced. But to date we have not had success. I say it is largely because there has been a lack of commitment on the part of this administration to follow through and to set the tone and to do something that the gentleman has repeatedly asked for, and that is to muster all the resources of our country, our national labs, our agencies, as much as President John Kennedy did when he mustered America to land on the moon within 10 years. My colleague and friend has said that we should muster all the forces that we have in this country to solve this problem and to provide protection. And for those who say that we should not worry about missile defense, that it is something in the future, I would ask them to look those families of those 29 young Americans who were killed 7 years ago in Saudi Arabia when that low complexity Scud missile landed in their barracks and wiped them out, tell those moms and dads and brothers and sisters that this threat is not here, that it is not real. The single largest loss of life we have had in this decade of our American troops was when that Scud missile was fired into our American barracks, and we could do nothing about it because we had no system in place. What bothers me, and I think my colleague will agree with me, is that this administration talks a good game. In fact, just this week, they had a major press event. They even asked that, they are talking with the Japanese about doing a joint missile defense initiative with Japan. I happen to support that kind of a concept but what bothers me is, they are not even funding the existing systems. Yet they are putting the rhetoric out that they want to fund an entirely new initiative with the Japanese.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and chairman for yielding time to me. I want to say what a great honor it is to serve with both the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), two outstanding Americans, and what a great, refreshing breeze is flowing through this Chamber as Democrats and Republicans stand together in support of our military. I want to applaud my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) on the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, who is a true American who has done a fantastic job, as have all of our colleagues, in an impossible situation. What Members need to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that we are facing what my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) referred to as a major train wreck, because some very divergent things are happening. We are into our 15th consecutive year of real cuts in defense spending. We are facing a situation now where we have an all volunteer force. Unlike 20 years ago, where we could draft people and pay them next to nothing, today a much larger portion of our defense budget goes for quality of life issues: housing, education, health care costs. Unlike 20 years ago, in the past 6 years we have deployed our troops 26 times. That is 26 times in 6 years versus 10 times in the previous 40 years, and none of these 26 deployments by our Commander in Chief were budgeted for. None of them were paid for. So the $15 billion in contingency costs to pay for those 26 deployments had to be eaten out of an already decreasing defense budget. What is the fastest growing part of our defense budget? It is environmental mitigation. We did not even have that category 20 years ago. This year we will spend $11 billion on environmental mitigation. When we add all of those factors together, Mr. Speaker, we are facing an impossible situation. We have not replaced our equipment that needs to be replaced. We have not done the readiness that needs to be taken care of. We have not provided the R&D funding that is necessary. By the year 2000, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) pointed out, we face a major, colossal train wreck. All these new programs that have not been paid for come on line at one time. This Congress needs to understand that while this bill is important and while we all should vote yes in favor of it, the real tough challenge lies ahead. Hopefully together we can increase the top line number for defense spending.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise as one of the members of the minority in this body, and that is that I am a classroom teacher. I spent 7 years in the public schools in Pennsylvania, and in fact, besides being a teacher and a head teacher in an impoverished district, I also for 3 years was assistant director of a Title I program, and for 1 year served in a program funded by Title III. I understand the need to get money to classroom teachers so that they can better motivate children. I also served in my capacity as vice president of my local education association. I rise with unequivocal support for this bill. I praise my colleague and the leader of our committee who have done an outstanding job because this bill does I think what all of us in America want to do: It puts the dollars into the hands of those people who have the most responsibility to motivate young people, and that is our teachers. It is not the bureaucrats, it is not the pencil pushers in our regional offices, it is the men and women who serve in the classroom every day. And as one of them, I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an amendment, but because I have sought the cooperation of the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) of the subcommittee, as well as the chairman of the full committee on this issue, I am pleased to stand today in the hopes of engaging in a colloquy regarding IMF funding to Russia. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of IMF funding replenishment for Russia. And I know that is not a popular decision to make. I do so with the same concerns that members of the Russian Duma, their Parliament, have in also at this time opposing IMF funding. Their concerns are that much of the dollars going into Russia through the World Bank and IMF, and in some cases U.S. funding, have gone into the black hole of some of the oligarchs in Moscow who have not used the money properly. In fact, the people in Russia are very concerned about having to pay back many of these loans. But just 2 weeks ago, in fact the day the President left Moscow, I arrived. And as the chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission on our side, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I negotiated with the factions in the Russian Duma and came away with a set of eight principles. These eight principles, I think, are historic. What they say that the Duma will pass, according to Speaker Seleznyov, are reforms that say reforms must come first. Besides reforms coming first, the regions that have made significant progress in terms of private property issues and stabilization of tax bases should be given consideration for international funding. All programs should be aimed at developing a middle class. There should be a bilateral commission formed between the Congress and the Parliament to monitor every dollar of money going into Russia. The IMF should establish a blue ribbon international task force that should make recommendations to the IMF about reforming itself. There should be a program designed by the Congress and the Duma to bring American corporate leaders to Russia to assist and advise Russian companies that are currently on the brink of bankruptcy. Finally, that within 3 years we establish an initiative to bring up the 15,000 Russian students to American business schools to learn the ways of free market systems. The Duma, in fact, will pass this. I am asking my colleagues on the conference to agree with this. And I would like to at this time yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) the chairman of the subcommittee, to ask if he in fact would work with me in the conference process.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend and colleague and I also thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations for the past advice and counsel he has given me in this area. And I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her cooperation and I look forward to working with her as well.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3445, the Oceans Act of 1998. In my capacity as chairman of the National Security R&D subcommittee, I have spent the last several years working to promote ocean protection. I have continued to address the issue of the protection of our seas at the international level through my work as the Chairman of the Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) Task Force on Oceans, and as the U.S. Vice President for the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Seas. 1998 has been declared the International Year of the Ocean in recognition of the importance of our ocean resources--the ocean's fundamental importance to our economic well being, safety, health, and quality of life. We must continue to work to discover and to learn more about our oceans in order to achieve the long-term goals of fostering an increased awareness of the criticality of the ocean environment and assuring the sustainable use of the ocean for our continued national vitality. It is clear that we need to get smarter about the ocean. For more than half of the American population, it is truly in our back yards. For the military, it is the primary platform for defense. For the economy, it produces one out of every three dollars of the Gross National Product. We can track the spread of cholera by understanding ocean circulation and we may find a cure for cancer in the biology of the sea. The seabed may be the next place for large-scale mining of precious ores. We are surrounded by a medium about which we know less than we know about the moon! It is time to change this, and to enlarge our view of the ocean. We have mapped the entire sphere of the moon at resolutions sufficient to reveal geographic characteristics the size of a football field, as well as objects the size of bicycles within those fields. Yet, we have mapped less than seven percent of the ocean floor. Such mapping has been done at resolutions as much as ten thousand times poorer than the precision used for the Moon and Mars. We have yet to image at any resolution vast mountain chains, earthquake faults, shipwrecks, and a multitude of other features that would help us understand major features of the 197 million square miles of planet on which we live. Clearly, the ocean is more than a beautiful vista for recreation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3445 to establish a Commission on Ocean Policy. In this way, we can be more committed to better understanding and protecting our interests in this incredible resource. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raises another very valid point. I arrived in Moscow the same day the President was leaving Moscow, and while I did support the President's visit to Russia because we had made the announcement and I thought it would be very ill-timed for him not to go, it would send a very wrong signal that America was abandoning Russia at a time of economic chaos, I do not think much at all was discussed of substance. The agreements that were reached were certainly not earth-shattering agreements in the arms control arena, they were relatively minor additions to a regime that we already have in place, working with the Russians. The space station should have been a major topic because, as my colleague has pointed out, it is a very emotional issue in this body about whether or not we are going to have the ability to continue and complete that project. I think part of our problem is, and this is something the Russian people may have to deal with, and that is the effectiveness of their President. They are eventually going to have to deal with that issue. I know that is being discussed by many Russians right now, and perhaps that was part of the problem with President Clinton. But I would agree that Russia needs to understand that our continued commitment to their involvement in the space station is very seriously in question right now. We understand the economic problems they are having, but the fact is that we are putting U.S. dollars on the mark, in some cases I think more than perhaps what we originally anticipated, and that Russia is going to have to live up to its part of the bargain, and that should have been a serious topic for discussion by the White House. Why the President did not make that a key issue I just do not understand. It was a very short trip. He was only there for 2 days. But I thank my colleague for joining with me in this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, just to sum up, I want to again reiterate that this document was the Russian response to my 8 principles that I took over. It is a solid document. One point that I did not mention which is worth mentioning to our colleagues because it is significant, in the document and contained within principle 7 is that we should also, through the Commission between the U.S. Congress and the Duma, we also should, and I quote, ``prohibit financing of military industrial complex enterprises from investment funds which have been attracted to accomplish social programs for the Russian population.'' It is another very important principle that we do not use U.S. money and IMF and World Bank money to build more offensive weapons systems, but rather, we use the money to create programs that help people: Housing, mortgages, roads, hospitals, schools. They are the primary intended uses for international assistance to help the Russian economy grow and prosper. So while the situation in Russia, Mr. Speaker, today is gloomy, being portrayed as being very gloomy by the western media, I think we have an opportunity to chart a new direction. I think this Congress and the Senate and the Duma and the Federation Council can be the catalysts to chart a new beginning in our relationship with Russia. But I would be remiss if I did not mention one other concern, an issue that I addressed on my trip to Moscow last week. In the 26 meetings that I had in 5 days, I met with over a dozen Duma deputies from all of the various factions; I met with Governor Lebed; with the mayor of Moscow, Mayor Luzhkov on 2 occasions; met with ministers of the Russian government, Minister Kokoshin, defense minister of housing; the minister of northern regions, and was actually in the Duma on the day that they voted down the nomination of Chernomyrdin. But one other task that was somewhat troubling to me, and I have to mention again today, if for no other reason that this administration is not even talking about this issue. Our relationship with Russia again has been one that I feel has been too heavily dependent on the 2 Presidents personal feelings towards each other. While that is important, we must build stability beyond just the offices of the President. In addition, it is my contention that in this country, the administration has been unwilling to confront Russia when problems occur that need to be addressed candidly and openly with a great deal of transparency. In the area of arms control, we have not been willing to confront Russia, and we have evidence of transfers taking place. Something happened in July that is very troubling to me that this administration should be raising with the administration in Russia. It involved the assassination of one of the senior leaders in the Russian State Duma. I spoke about this issue on the floor of the House the second week of July when we returned from the July 4th break. I spoke about it because the individual who was assassinated had been a friend and a colleague of mine. Lev Rokhlin was the Chairman of the Duma Committee on National Security, the highest elected official in the Russian parliament working defense issues. He was a very respected Russian, had served in the Russian military, had retired as a two-star general, and had been given the highest award Russia gives to its military personnel, the Hero of Russia award. In fact, to demonstrate Rokhlin's integrity, he refused to accept the award because at that time the defense minister in Russia was Pavel Grachev, and Lev felt that Pavel Grachev was not an honest individual, was not someone of honor that he felt was appropriate to give him that award, so he actually refused to accept the Hero of Russia award because of who would have had to give it to him. But Lev served his country well. He ran for the Duma as a member of Yeltsin's own party, Chernomyrdin's party, Naschdom, Our Home is Russia. He won on that ticket. And because the Naschdom party is the second largest faction in the Russian Duma, there are certain committee assignments that they are allowed to fill in terms of the chairmanships. One of those was the chairmanship of the Duma defense committee. Lev Rokhlin assumed that role as a member of Yeltsin's and Chernomyrdin's party. But in my meetings with Lev Rokhlin, he would always raise the issue of his concern about instability in the Russian military, soldiers not being paid, not being fed. He would say to me, Curt, you have to understand, if they are not paid, these soldiers may do things that cause problems down the road for your country. They may sell off technology. They may get involved in illegal operations. So he said, you have to understand, it is very important for us to downsize our military in a logical, constructive way. We must maintain the morale of our troops if we are going to continue to downgrade our military, downsize our military in a peaceful process. Lev Rokhlin was the leading and most outspoken critic of Boris Yeltsin for not providing the adequate funding for that military. Lev Rokhlin a year ago this summer called for the public resignation of Boris Yeltsin. In the fall, he called for the impeachment of Boris Yeltsin, the first elected official in Russia to call for Boris Yeltsin's impeachment. That sent shock waves throughout Russia, because here was one of Yeltsin's own party leaders calling for his impeachment. I met with Rokhlin in Moscow in November and again in February. I said, Lev, you are making some very provocative statements. Are you not fearful for your safety? He said, Curt, don't worry, they are not going to do anything to me. After all, I am a retired military leader. For 6 months they attempted to remove Lev Rokhlin from the chairmanship of the Duma defense committee. Finally, in June, they accomplished that. As Lev was keeping his role as a Duma member, but no longer chairman of the defense committee, he was involved in investigating illegal arms sales to Armenia and to other nations from Russia, illegal activity. On July 3rd, three people entered Lev Rokhlin's home and shot him in the head. When Lev Rokhlin's daughter was called by her mother on the night that he was assassinated, Lev Rokhlin's wife told his daughter that three people came into the house and assassinated her father. The mother further told Lev Rokhlin's daughter, Tamara, that the mother was told she had to accept the blame for the murder or they would murder her, her daughter, their son, and all the family members. Tamara Rokhlin told her mother, don't worry, I will come over and I will comfort you, and we will find out who killed father. When she got to the home, Mrs. Rokhlin was not there. She was at the local police station. Tamara went to the police station and she saw her mother bruised all over her body, imprisoned. When she talked to her mother, her mother had changed her story. She said, Tamara, I killed your father. I shot him in the head with a pistol in our house. Tamara said, mother, you didn't. You told me that three people came into our house. You didn't do this. The mother said, I did it. I was the one who killed your father. Tamara then went back and, with a lawyer, assessed the home, looked at the bullet holes, and realized through the evidence that there is no way that her mother could have killed her father, especially in light of the fact that there was a bodyguard in the home for Lev Rokhlin on that night who claimed he heard no shots. In the ensuing days after the murder of Lev Rokhlin three bodies were found in the vicinity of the Rokhlin household, but before those bodies could be identified, they were cremated by the Moscow governmental authorities. When I went to Moscow this past week on Saturday I met for one and one-half hours with Tamara Rokhlin. I sat there and listened to her and her family tell the story of how her father, awarded the highest award in Russia for service to his country, had been murdered. The Russian people do not believe the statements of the Russian government, the central government that maintains that Lev Rokhlin was killed by his wife. On the day of Lev Rokhlin's funeral, 10,000 Moscow residents came out in the streets to attend his funeral. The newspaper was filled with stories of people saying there was no way that Lev Rokhlin was killed by his wife. So my final plea tonight, Mr. Speaker, is not just for these principles involving the IMF and world funding and U.S. funding in Russia, but it is a plea to this administration to live up to its rhetoric. When this administration talks about human rights abuses in China, when it talks about human rights abuses in third world nations, it should also talk about a human rights abuse in a democracy, where an elected leader in their parliament is shot down, I think because of statements he made about the need to impeach the leader of the Russian government. That is unacceptable for any democracy, and it is unacceptable for this country not to talk about this incident openly. When I went to Moscow, I talked about Lev Rokhlin's murder to everyone that I met. Mr. Speaker, everyone that I met unofficially, off the record, told me the same thing: Curt, we have no doubts. Lev Rokhlin was not murdered by his wife. Lev Rokhlin was murdered by people who did not like what Lev Rokhlin was saying. The message is simple, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to have a stable, lasting relationship with Russia, we cannot continue to follow the pattern of this administration. Candor and transparency have to be our cornerstone. These principles in our relationship with Russia are the future way to provide stability for that once great Nation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, corruption is a major problem. It comes up all the time in discussions with both elected officials and with our companies who are doing business in Russia and who want to do business there. It is a problem that has been caused by a country that was for decades very centrally controlled by a very well established Communist hierarchy. When that basically fell apart, unfortunately, there were some who took advantage of the situation and some who established criminal elements. Criminal activity does exist in Russia and in some cases it is a severe problem. Now, what has happened, on a positive note, is that our law enforcement community, Louie Freeh from the FBI and others, have, in fact, taken a very proactive role to assist Russia in learning the kinds of techniques that we use in America to deal with the criminal element, both in the corporate setting as well as in the general populous. In fact, in one of my trips last year, Louie Freeh had a significant portion of his FBI establishment in Moscow for meetings with the senior law enforcement officials throughout Russia. So we are attempting, as well as are other western nations, to assist Russia in getting control of criminal activity. But I would be less than candid if I did not tell the gentleman that it still exists and it still is an impediment to future investment. In the meeting I had with the State Duma and with the Federal Council members, I raised this issue; they are aware of it. They want to move forward. Part of the problem is until they get the economy solidified, people are going to go out and they are going to raise money any way they can to feed their families and take care of their personal needs, and if that means in some cases resorting to criminal activity, it is going to happen. A case in point is a meeting I had last year with General Alexander Lebed. I had dinner with him this past week in Moscow, but I met with him 4 or 5 times prior to that. As the gentleman probably knows, General Lebed is now the governor of Krasnoyarsk. He and his brother now are the governors of 2 republics which represent one-third of the land mass of Russia. He was a very decorated military leader in the Russian army. He told me a year ago in May, he said Curt, you have to understand one very important fact. He said, the most capable Russian admirals and generals from the Soviet military have, for the most part, left the service, because of the lack of pay and because of the cutbacks in the size of our military, and he said unfortunately, because of our economic problem, they have not been given their back pay. In some cases they have not been given their pensions. In other cases they have not been given any housing assistance. So here we have senior military leaders who at one time commanded one of the top 2 militaries in the world when they were a superpower who had access to the most capable nuclear technology, which Russia has today, sophisticated weapons, chemical, biological, nuclear capability, and who now feel betrayed by their motherland. General Lebed said to me, what do you expect them to do. If they feel betrayed by their homeland, they are going to go and raise money any way they can in order to take care of their families. Which means in some cases, these foreign military leaders are the very ones selling off technology to raise money to take care of their own personal needs. That is why those who say we should not worry about Russia have to understand. We have no choice. We have no choice unless we want to see Iraq and Iran and Libya and Syria continue to get chemical weapons, biological weapons, missiles like we just saw Iran test on July 22nd that have a medium range that can hit any place in Israel that eventually will be able to hit portions of the U.S.; unless we want to see continued development of nuclear programs by rogue nations because Russians will sell off that technology. The alternative to not helping Russia stabilize is to basically say we are going to turn our back and let them sell off whatever they need to sell that eventually is going to come back to haunt us. We have no choice but to be engaged with Russia. But the point is, to be engaged with Russia does not mean we take the policy of this administration and basically work only with the President and basically not be willing to discuss the tough issues that confront our 2 countries, and that is a key, fundamental difference. But the point the gentleman raises is a significant one. Crime is a continuing problem, but I would say that there are aggressive efforts underway to try to assist Russia in getting control of that situation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to take some time to discuss a major crisis that this country is going to have to deal with. And I know the topic of discussion all across America tonight is the delivery of the report by Kenneth Starr involving potential allegations against the President of the United States. But I am not here to discuss that, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I am here to discuss another issue that is simmering and potentially could cause not just problems internationally, but severe problems here in America as well, and that is the status of conditions in Russia and actions that this body is going to have to take involving the Russian people and the Government of Russia before the end of this month, before we adjourn. Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday evening I returned from what I believe is my sixteenth visit to Russia during the course of my lifetime of interest in Russia, the country and its people. This trip was one that was requested of me by my counterparts in the Russian State Duma, the equivalent to our Congress. They had asked me to come a week earlier to discuss ways that perhaps we could assist in further understanding the problem that Russia is experiencing now in terms of their economic instability, the political instability, and my own personal interest, the potential military instability within the boundaries of Russia. I went there with those three ideas in mind. As the chairman and founder of the Duma-Congress Initiative, which for 2 years has been the formal relationship between the Congress of our country and the State Duma and the Federation Council of Russia. In arriving in Moscow, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to see the lines of Russian people who were gathering at banks all over the city attempting to go in and receive and remove their savings, in many cases their life savings; and the frustration of those people was that they could not take their own money out because in the banks in Russia today their accounts have been frozen. And at the same time their assets have been frozen all over Russia and they cannot remove the rubles they need, the costs of just living in Russia are increasing dramatically as the ruble has been devalued and the cost of goods and services in Russia has increased dramatically. In fact, during the 6 days I was in Moscow, when I checked my hotel bill on checking out, I saw that the cost of my room went up each evening because of the problems with the ruble. In fact, in one comparison, I had eaten breakfast in the hotel, which was a buffet breakfast, a standard fee charged to everyone who went into the hotel, and on one day it was 500 rubles; the next day the exact same breakfast was 750 rubles. Now, I was able to absorb the increased cost for the short period of time that I was there. But, Mr. Speaker, you could imagine what is happening all across Russia as literally thousands and millions of Russian people today are very much concerned about whether or not they are going to be able to buy the goods and the services to allow them to maintain their quality of life. And then when they add to that the impact this current economic crisis is having on the Russian military, it presents real problems not just for Russia, but for America and people around the world. Because the people in the military who have seen significant cutbacks in their funding base have particular problems because they do not have decent housing, many of the senior leaders of the former Soviet military feel betrayed because they have not been given their pensions and, therefore, the situation has led to a real morale problem, problems which jeopardize in some cases the security of Russian nuclear materials, nuclear arms, and conventional weapons. In fact, just in the past several months and years, we have seen increasing incidences of Russians illegally transferring technology to other nations. Over the past several years, we have seen very sophisticated guidance systems for long-range missiles being transferred from Russia to Iraq. We just this past summer saw evidence of Russian cooperation with Iran to build a new medium-range missile, which now threatens all of Israel. And we have seen continued cooperation in some cases with rogue states to allow technology involving chemical or biological weapons to leave Russia because the right price has been paid. So the problems of Russia economically are problems we have to face up to and problems that we have to deal with. Now, because of the current crisis and instability within the banking system and the instability of the ruble, there have basically been aggressive efforts by the central government and Moscow to put some temporary holds on the slide the ruble has taken over the past several months. And that has not really worked. In fact, at this very moment, the ruble continues to be devalued in terms of the international community. The problem is that this country has basically supported over the past several years $22 billion in IMF funding that has gone into Russia that was supposed to help stabilize the ruble, that was supposed to stabilize the economy of Russia, that was supposed to provide jobs for Russian people, that was supposed to help the Russian people improve their quality of life. But as we have just learned during the past summer and even more tragically by the accounts of the comments of Anatoly Chubais in today's newspapers, Russia has largely squandered that money. $400 million that was supposed to go to the Russian coal industry to help stabilize the jobs of coal miners and stabilize that industry largely went into a hole, ended up in Swiss bank accounts, large properties being bought along the Riviera, in some cases U.S. investments. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we are learning more and more each day is that much of the significant dollars that the IMF and the World Bank have put into Russia have not accomplished their intended purpose. And, in fact, in many cases there has been outright corruption, there has been theft by international financial dealers, by the oligarchs who run the seven major banks in Russia, to the point that this help that we and other nations have provided has not been beneficial to the Russian people and there is currently a state of severe frustration. Now, our problem in the Congress, Mr. Speaker, is that the President is asking us this month to approve replenishment of IMF funds that have gone into Russia. That replenishment amounts to approximately $6 billion. The Congress has not acted on this replenishment for almost a year because of the concerns of many of us, including myself, that the IMF money going into Russia has not been used for the right purpose, that in fact many of the institutions supported by the Yeltsin administration, and in fact supported by the Clinton administration because of its support for the Yeltsin administration, have ended up having that money being ripped off and not benefiting stability in Russia's economy. And so, with that in mind, and wanting to see Russia succeed, as someone who spends a great deal of time working proactively to assist Russia in stabilizing itself, but who is also probably Russia's toughest critic when it comes to proliferation and when it comes to our military relationship and lack of control of arms that are being shipped out of Russia, I decided that it was time to look at a new way of engaging Russia. So during the month of August, I sat down and laid out a series of eight principles, principles that this body could pass as a part of any IMF funding replenishment to send a new signal to the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, as well as to the administration of this government that we are not going to tolerate business as usual, that while we want to see Russia succeed and stabilize for obvious reasons, we are not going to continue to support IMF dollars which in the end are American taxpayer dollars because we replenished the IMF to go down a virtual black hole, to allow those oligarchs in Russia and those wealthy individuals to rip off more money to be used for their own private purposes at the expense of stability in this very huge nation, which still has, by the way, over 6,000 nuclear weapons which could very easily be pointed at America at any time and a whole host of additional, probably in excess of 10,000, tactical nuclear weapons, which also could be made available on the marketplace if in fact the right price would be paid. These 8 principles were simple, Mr. Speaker. They were designed to lay out a strategy that would allow this body to support the President and his request for additional IMF replenishment, but it would say to the President that we are going to provide this funding support but we are going to do it in a new way, a new direction. We are no longer going to tolerate the way that President Clinton and President Yeltsin have allowed dollars in Russia to flow that should have been used for stability in the Russian economy. The interesting premise, as I get into this, in August was that I knew all along that the leadership in the Russian Duma also opposes IMF funding. Now, one might say why in the world would elected leaders in Russia oppose more IMF funding for their nation, especially with the economic crisis? Well, there are two simple reasons. The first is the same reason that many of us have been very concerned about IMF funding for Russia, and that is the Russian Duma officials and the members of the Federation Council have sat along the sidelines and watched the Yeltsin government allow IMF dollars and World Bank dollars and in some cases U.S. dollars to go into corrupt institutions, to not be used for the proper purpose that those dollars were allocated, and have watched those monies not benefit the Russian people but, rather, a few very, very wealthy individuals, who have unfortunately taken money that should have gone for economic stability in Russia. The Duma deputies have said why should we support a continued effort for a western bailout of these failed banks and institutions that we, as a nation, are going to have to pay back sometime, because these are, in fact, loans? So the Duma has been opposed and continues to oppose the IMF funding just as many of our colleagues in this body oppose it. There is a second reason why the Duma opposes IMF funding, and that is because they understand that there are some very difficult and tough decisions and reforms that they have to make. The World Bank, in talking about the release of this most recent tranche of money for Russia, said that Russia has to impose some very tough reforms. They have to stabilize their tax system so it is coherent and so that it is consistent, one that everyone can understand, that will encourage and promote additional business investment. They have to control the growth of the central government and the regional governments so that inflation is kept under control. They have to provide mechanisms that allow for private property and for land use reform, so that investors can come in to Russia as a free market system and be able to invest their money and enjoy the benefits of free and open markets. These are reforms that in some cases the Duma has been reluctant to support. Now, back in July, when the first crisis occurred this year, the Duma, in fact, did pass some of the recommendations that were put forth by the Yeltsin government by then Prime Minister Kiriyenko and by the IMF, and those reforms were a partial solution to a problem that continued to grow out of control, but the Duma has been reluctant to support additional IMF dollars because they don't want to make the changes necessary in terms of reforms. Mr. Speaker, I can understand to some extent why the Duma is reluctant. They see the Yeltsin government not controlling the extent of where these IMF dollars are going and how they are being used, and so, therefore, they are reluctant to come in and make the tough decisions of reform that are so necessary for Russia's economy to stabilize. Yet, the Duma also wants to see investment come into Russia to encourage the kinds of reforms that have been taking place in the regions. Russia is a very large country. In fact, it has about 89 krais and oblasts and independent republics that are a part of the Russian territory. So in effect you have 89 separate, smaller governments and in many of those smaller governments they are making significant reforms. They are providing for private property. They are controlling their budgets. They are making the tough decisions involving tax policy, and yet they are not being recognized by the international financial community and by this government in the form of support financially. In fact, over the past year, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), a very successful banker, and I have traveled to Russia four times to work with them on what we think will be one of Russia's key points of success out of these current doldrums they are in, and that is a mortgage financing system. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this document is the culmination of the meetings, extensive meetings, we have had with the leadership of the Russia Duma and in some cases portions of the Yeltsin government, talking to them about establishing a mortgage financing system similar to our Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in America. The idea here is that the Russian people don't want hand-outs. They don't want to be always on the end of the receiving line. In fact, there are many Russians who want to be able to buy a home, buy an apartment or buy a flat, but to do that they have got to be able to borrow the money at realistic interest rates, for terms of up to 20 or 30 years, as we do in this country. Now, the problem in Russia has been that the 7 oligarchs who run the 7 largest banks in Russia who determine the bulk of economic activity in that nation have been ripping off the Russian people. Now, that's a strong word but I have no other word for it. It is ripping off the Russian people. The interest rates they have been charging over the past 4 and 5 years have averaged between 15, 25, 50, in some cases 75, percent, and they have not been willing to loan money for housing for more than 2 to 3 to 4 years. No family can afford to buy a property under those conditions. What we have proposed is a program initially controlled by the U.S., with Russian involvement, that would set parameters that are very similar to the mortgage financing mechanisms in this country. Mr. Speaker, in the meetings we have had with the Russian Duma and the regional governors who are members of the Federation Council, without exception, they have accepted our ideas. The problem has been an interesting one. The battle has not been with the Russian leaders to agree to this program. It has been with the Clinton administration that hasn't been willing to support this initiative and it has been with the Yeltsin administration that hasn't been willing to put forth support for the initiative as well. So here we have the two parliaments working together on some novel ideas to help the Russian people and yet because we have this Clinton- Yeltsin relationship focusing on failed, corrupt Moscow-based institutions, the Russian people have not been able to benefit. So in going to Russia last week, I took 8 principles with me, 8 principles that I told my Russian counterparts and all the factions of the state Duma, if you enact, following your enactment perhaps we can change directions in terms of the way that we relate to Russia and its economy. I am here tonight to announce, Mr. Speaker, that my key counterpart in the Russian Duma, Deputy Valentin Tsoy, who is a leader in the regional fraction, and a key ally of Duma Speaker Seleznyov came back with a Russian version, which I have just had translated, that, in fact, has Russia agreeing to 8 major principles, 8 major principles that they have now told me they will pass in the state Duma that we, in fact, can pass in this body to chart a new course in our relationship with Russia. The concept of this administration dealing with Russia over the past 7 years has been heavily relying on Clinton to Yeltsin and that worked when both presidents were strong and both presidents had the commanding support of their populous. That doesn't exist in Russia today. In fact, most of the polls I have seen show that Boris Yeltsin would be lucky to get 20 percent of the vote if he were up for reelection. He is a very unpopular president. This President, likewise, has some problems with the Congress, not just because of the current situation involving Ken Starr. We can, in fact, Mr. Speaker, move in a new direction under the leadership of the two parliaments. Let me go through the 8 principles that the Russian state Duma, in an official document presented to me, have proposed as their response to my initiative, to reform the way international money goes into Russia. Number one, it will be the policy of both this Congress and the Russian state Duma that any additional western monies coming from the U.S., the World Bank or the IMF, should be used on programs such as mortgage credits, such as the one that we have worked on for the past year, and housing construction which will enable the development of a middle class in Russia. The reason why this is so important is the same reason why what FDR did after the great depression was so important. By establishing financial institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, he gave the American people the chance to buy homes at low interest rates over long periods of time, and by creating funds that allow Russian people under very strict guidelines, where reforms have been made in the regions and nationally, reforms involving eviction, and the ability to have mortgages and our real estate industry, we can help Russia create that middle class that has been the key component of a strong America. Mr. Speaker, as we know, in this country, the middle class is what drives our economy. It is what makes America strong. Russia, largely, has no middle class today. So the first principle says that any money going into Russia should be aimed at those institutional programs that ultimately benefit the middle class, such as mortgage financing programs. The second principle deals with the regions, and it simply says that money going into Russia should not just go to central institutions in Moscow. Russia is a huge nation, 89 smaller subordinate governments. Where those governments are making reforms, international monetary funds should be used to encourage continued success in those reforms. That's not been the case under the current administration, under the current IMF policies. In fact, the second principle deals specifically with that issue and it says that where these real economic reforms are taking place in the region, tax reform, privatization, and land reform, that, in fact, all the international monetary organizations should be looking to support that reform by helping create additional programs that will encourage more of that activity. That principle further goes on to state that the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of regional economic reform programs should be clearly defined. This will allow the regions to be sure that they will be objectively evaluated and guarantee them the necessary incentives for the establishment of effective economic reform programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, this comes to the Duma, that this administration and the Russian Yeltsin government have said doesn't want to work with them to help reform the Russian economy. The second principle clearly states a refutation of that fact. The third principle is a very important one, because it says, and remember this is being proposed to me in response to my initiatives to the Russians, that after a complete auditing, the international financial community and the U.S. Government should stop any and all funding to those institutions ever again. So when we do audits and determine that corrupt banks in Moscow have abused the IMF and the World Bank, they should not be entitled to any additional funding support from any international or U.S. organization, but that principle goes on to further state that not only should those institutions not receive financial resources in the future, but we further state in this particular principle, and I quote, the return of allocated funds from unscrupulous partners needs to be achieved through joint efforts and these funds that are collected need to be redirected toward specific programs that are, in fact, covered by these principles. So the Duma, in fact, wants to state with us that not only should we cut off funds to corrupt institutions in Russia, but we should go after those corrupt institutions and attempt to collect those dollars that have been misused and allocated in an improper manner. The fourth principle, Mr. Speaker, is one that we should have done in the past. It calls for the creation of a joint Russian American oversight commission, to monitor all allocated expenditures by the U.S. Government and by the international financial organizations so that the IMF and the World Bank, so that the American funds going into Russia which average about $600 million a year through programs like cooperative threat reduction or Nunn-Lugar, so that every one of those dollars is monitored in a formal, structured way, by a joint interparliamentary commission, made up of the staffs of the Congress and the Russian Duma, the Federation Council and the U.S. Senate; not that we stop those funds because we can't stop IMF dollars, we are only one nation involved in the IMF, but so that we can tell our constituents that we are sure that every dime of money going into Russia in the end is going to the right purpose. It is going to help the intended problem for which that money was intended. Right now there is no such oversight responsibility, there is no capability for the Congress and the Duma and the Federation Council and the Senate to monitor the ultimate use of these dollars. And that is why the corruption in Russia has allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to disappear and end up in U.S. real estate investments or in other places that benefit those oligarchs and other wealthy individuals who have raped the Russian people and then raped the international financial institutions supporting it. The fifth reform deals with the IMF, the fifth principle. This principle acknowledges that the IMF is not working right now, Mr. Speaker; something many of us in this body have talked about. But instead of abolishing the IMF, what we say in this joint statement of principles is that the IMF should, within one year, have completed an external study of the way the IMF operates. An international blue ribbon task force should be convened, made up of some of the world's top financial scholars, so they look at the IMF and the way it operates, issues involving transparency and the way it sends money into countries and comes back and makes specific recommendations for reforming the IMF, and those recommendations then should be acted on by the IMF board. The sixth principle, Mr. Speaker, is a very important one and one that we have heard over and over again in this body, and it is one that we have heard Boris Yeltsin complain about in Russia that the Duma would never enact, and that says that any case of investment in Russia must first of all be preceded by the passing of reform legislation; that both the Federal Government and the Regents must continue to enact reforms involving the kinds of issues raised by President Clinton when he was in Moscow last week and by Members of this body, so that we know that the dollars that are going into Russia are preceded by the reforms that are necessary to stabilize that country's economy and those reforms that are necessary to make sure that we have an accurate accounting for every dollar going into both the national and the regional governments. The seventh principle says that within 180 days the Congress and the Duma will work together to bring in American business interests and leaders and international financial experts who will work with the industrial leaders in Russia who are having difficult problems. Companies in Russia that are bankrupt or that are uncompetitive will be looked at in a one-on-one relationship with specific recommendations being made to those entities about how they need to reform, so they then can qualify for some of the kinds of programs that are available from the international financial community. The final point, Mr. Speaker, or the final principle, is one that deals with the long-term success of the Russian economy and the free market system. We have to understand, America has been working with a free market system for over 200 years. While we are doing things fairly well, we still have not solved all of our problems. Russia has only been working at this for seven years. They have a long way to go. After having been controlled by a very autocratic, authoritarian central government, they are now being faced with trying to understand how free markets work, and that is not easy. So our eighth principle is a simple one, and that is a principle that says that the state Duma in Russia and the U.S. Congress believe that a program needs to be established that would, within three years, bring 15,000 young Russian students to American business schools. If every business school in this country took one Russian student as an undergraduate or graduate student and trained them in financial services, in economic activity, in planning and budgeting, in the business ways that we conduct our businesses, we would create a next generation of young people who would be forced under this program to go back to Russia and live, not stay in the U.S., and help develop a totally free market system. Mr. Speaker, these principles are in writing. They have been sent to me by my friend and counterpart in the Russian Duma, Deputy Tsoy, and I now challenge this institution and our leaders to rise to the task and challenge Russia to work with us to really reform the Russian economic system. And I propose that we pass these reforms on the same day, what a historic day that would be, for the first time, to have the Russian parliament and the U.S. Congress pass very tough reform principles that would say to both administrations, you have had it all wrong. You have had six and seven years to help that country get its act together, and you failed miserably. Hundreds of millions and billions of dollars have gone down black holes and disappeared. And while we want to see Russia stabilize itself, you are now going to abide by our principles. You are now going to allow us to play a responsible role in determining the end result of those dollars that are intended to help Russia stabilize itself, to help the Russian economy grow, to help create more jobs, to help improve the quality of life for the Russian people. I think we have a historic opportunity. I would be happy to yield to my friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Weldon), no relative, by the way.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I understand the gentleman's question. Let me first all applaud him for his work on the Space Station and space research. He had been the leading advocate in the Congress on that issue, and I applaud your performance on the committee. It is second to none on that issue. I applaud you personally. In terms of Russia and its tax policy, the problem has been they have not had a fair, coherent tax policy at all up until this year. They just in fact passed a new tax code this year which they are in the process of attempting to implement. In Russia in the past, they have had a myriad of taxes. In fact, in some cases American businesses who are attempting to do joint ventures in Russia may have to pay as many as 15 or 20 different taxes to all kinds of different levels of government with no coordination. In some cases an American company would get involved in a joint venture, only to have the tax structure change while they are in the process of completing that venture, thereby causing companies to not want to invest in Russia. In fact, we did a comparison between western investment in China and Russia over the past six years, and the difference is unbelievable: $350 billion of western investment in China, and during the same period of time, about $10 billion of western investment in Russia. A lot of that was due to an inconsistent, unfair tax code. That now is being changed and the tax code is now being implemented. The problem Russia has is not necessarily the rate itself, it is the collection of taxes. Everyone in Russia does not pay taxes. There is not a uniform way of collecting taxes, and the wealthier few in Russia who have largely benefitted from the outside dollars coming in from international monetary organizations, in some cases have paid no taxes at all. Gasprom, arguably the most successful corporation in Russia, which was a private state entity that has now been allowed to operate as a free market institution, was just recently hit by former Prime Minister Kiriyenko because they owe $2 billion in back taxes. Here you had one of the most successful companies in all of Russia, the leading energy company in Russia. They were not paying their taxes. So the Russian government has not done a good job in collecting taxes, especially from those people and companies who have the ability to pay taxes. In the end, I think your point is well taken, and that is that lower taxes will eventually allow the economy to grow, but at this point in time it is a more fundamental notion. It is an established tax system that is fair, that is equally applied to everyone, that has tax rates that the wealthiest will pay similar to what the poorer people will pay.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in October of 1996, Captain Brian Alkire of the Sheffield Township, Indiana Fire Department ran into a raging structure fire to warn seven other firefighters of a fire burning in the attic above them. Before he was able to escape with the last firefighter, the roof collapsed, trapping him and Firefighter Louis Lawson in the burning building. Even though he lost his protective headgear in the collapse, Captain Alkire continued to search the toxic, superheated, and smokey room for his colleague before emerging from the structure completely on fire. He saved the lives of those seven firefighters, but as a result of his efforts he received several weeks in the Wishard Burn Unit, numerous skin-grafting surgeries, and months of occupational therapy. In May of 1998, Baltimore Police Officer Marc Camarote rushed into a working structure fire protected only by his service uniform to rescue two people from a blaze that demolished the entire house. February 1, 1997 found Firefighter Martin Gotte in a burning building across the street form his firehouse, his arms around a little girl whom he rushed from certain death to the skilled hands of first responders who resuscitated her back to life. Lieutenant Walter E. Webb from Washington, D.C.; Lieutenant Earnest B. Copeland from Dallas, Texas; Firefighter Anthony Glover, Nashville, Tennessee; the list goes on and on. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I could fill the Record today with names and stories about first responders who have showed such great valor that it might rival the volume of the federal tax code. Every day across America the story is the same, public safety 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. It is proper then, if not perhaps a bit late, that we should commemorate their dedication and sacrifice with a Medal of Valor that carries the full weight of the Congress and the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support our military and our dedicated soldiers, sailors, and marines, but I think we must constantly be reminded that we have a corps of domestic defenders who are deserving of the same level of support and attention. As our military defenders are honored for gallantry above and beyond the call of duty, so too should we honor our corps of domestic defenders. Of course, any of you who are familiar with the first responder community will remark that they are probably the last group of people to stand on formality and decoration. Most of them would, on their day off, put their lives at risk to save even a cat in a tree, and they would do so without hesitation. Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, our District of Columbia Fire Department lost a firefighter, Sergeant John Carter. It is both tragic and typical of the first responder community that Sergeant Carter came in to work before his shift started to respond to that fire. Mr. Speaker, this kind of dedication is beyond our power to adequately commemorate even on the House Floor. In my own Congressional District in October, Mr. Speaker, the Malvern Fire Company will dedicate a monument to their fallen first responders. Across the country, communities will recognize the 94 fire and emergency services personnel who have lost their lives in connection with their duties as a public safety officers this year. This number I'm sure, is supplemented half-again by fallen law enforcement officers. I am pleased then, Mr. Speaker, to give my full support to H.R. 4090, the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor. While we cannot, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, with our poor power add or detract from the gallantry of their work with our actions, we can honor first responders with a Medal that will identify them as heroes to all Americans. While it would be impossible to name every first responder deserving of this award let me, Mr. Speaker, conclude my remarks by offering the names of fourteen first-responders, in addition to those already mentioned, who would be a good place for the newly formed committee to start: Louis Giancursio--Rochester, NY; Mark E. Gardner--Baltimore, MD; Anthony W. Rivera--San Francisco, CA; Robert Crabtree--Carboro, NC; Jeffery A. Barkley--Phoenix, NY; John Barrett--Bronx, NY; William Benevelli--Boston, MA; Eric Britton--James Island, SC; Myles Burke-- Philadelphia, PA; William Callahan--Bronx, NY; Robert Foster--Fort Worth, TX; Landon West--Fort Worth, TX; Mike Lachman--Fort Worth, TX; and Cody Stilwell--Fort Worth, TX.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us get our facts straight here. I chair the Duma Congress Study Group. I probably spend as much time with members of Duma as any Member of this Congress. In fact, I know over 200 of them personally. Let us not put rhetoric on the table. Let us talk about this amendment. This amendment does not abrogate the ABM Treaty. In fact, I have been the one to offer to stand up and oppose any attempt to deliberately abrogate the Treaty. What does it do? It stops this administration from imposing significant amendments and expansion of the ABM Treaty that harm our national security without the advice and consent of the Senate. That is all it does. Five times this body has gone on the record and said that the U.S. Senate must be consulted. The ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations just made a statement. He said the President said he will submit that to the Senate. Well, I will call to the attention of my colleague and friend a letter sent on May 1, 1998, by Secretary Cohen to the services saying, ``you will begin to implement the Missile Defense Treaty signed.'' That has already been done. And following that, the Secretary for Research and Development, John Douglas, has begun already implementing this agreement without the Senate even being considered to give the document to them. That is already in place. What we are saying is give the Senate the chance. Why do we say that? Now, the gentleman talked about the negotiations in Geneva. I went there. I think I am the only House member that sat across from General Koltunof, the chief Russian negotiator, for 2\1/2\ hours. I said to the general, why do you want to expand the Treaty to include Belorus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine? They do not have ICBMs. He said, congressman, you are asking that question to the wrong person. We did propose to expand the ABM Treaty. The gentleman sitting next to you, Stanley Rivilus, our chief negotiator. Why do we want to expand the ABM Treaty, because it locks us into a treaty that we cannot modify for our own best interests. What about the demarcation limitations, the other expansion? The demarcation limitations do not down our missile defense capability. Let me show my colleagues something that I got today. This is a document of the most capable Russian air defense system that they just tried to sell to Israel. This system we cannot match. It is better than PAC-3 when it is deployed. It is called the ANTEI-2500. This system, I wonder where the demarcation numbers came from. This system just barely complies with them. So now what we found is this administration has agreed to demarcation standards that benefit Russia, that give Russia a capability that we cannot go beyond, even though this system is better than our PAC-3. If my colleagues support Israel, if they support Israel's defense, if they support the defense of this country and our ability to develop capable theater missile defense systems, then they will support this amendment. All it does is it says that we will withhold the funding from ACTA until the Senate is given the required documentation. That is all it does. It does not abrogate any treaty. It does not control the administration. It says, let the Congress play its rightful role. And I think this Congress deserves to do that because we need to understand our lives and our friends and our allies who are at risk here.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me answer the distinguished ranking member. First of all, he says there has been no debate on this issue. I would remind my colleague there have been 5 separate votes on this issue on this floor. And I will include those votes, in the Congressional Record. Since 1995, this body has voted 5 times, overwhelmingly each time, to require that this administration before it takes plans to implement submit that treaty to the Senate. Our point is that this administration is already implementing the terms of the agreement. I just read to the gentleman a letter dated May 1, 1998, from Secretary Cohen to the services saying to proceed with implementing new missile defense treaties. Agreed to in September of 1997. It is already underway. It is preceding even giving the treaty to the Senate which this body has voted on 5 times overwhelmingly in favor of. You have to match the facts with the rhetoric, and the rhetoric coming from that side just does not match the facts. Support the amendment of the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to our two fallen heroes. I spoke on the floor last night discussing actions that we can take in light of this terrible tragedy. All of our colleagues have come together in discussing ways that we can assist the families of these two brave heroes. As I mentioned last night, over the past 12 years I have been in this body I have had the pleasure of working with public safety leaders around America in both law enforcement, fire, EMS and life safety concerns. In fact, in this city I have had the pleasure of working closely with the Capitol Hill Police in a number of exercises and in a number of situations that I have been able to witness their activities. We take our Capitol Police, as we do our law enforcement and public safety officials, for granted across this country. Just in the 12 years that I have been here, I have seen our Capitol Hill police respond to fires in the Cannon Building, the Longworth Building, again in the Longworth Building just a month ago; emergencies in this building, bomb threats, situations involving people who become ill or are struck with heart attacks or other situations. The Capitol Police are always there. Mr. Speaker, it takes an event like this where we lose two lives to realize how valuable these people are day in and day out. In fact, 3 months ago my colleague, a good friend of mine, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I, after the fire in the Longworth Building, decided that we should take the time to recognize these brave heroes. So we went to Bill Livingood, the Sergeant at Arms and the chief, and we said, how about if we in the Congress recognize those people in your department who were taken to D.C. hospitals for smoke inhalation and for anxiety caused by their efforts in removing our constituents and ourselves and our staffs from the Longworth Building during that fire? We assembled them all in a House hearing room in the Rayburn Building, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I both spoke to them. At the end of the service, one of the officers said, this is the first time that the Congress has actually recognized what we do in a formal way. Last night, Mr. Speaker, in our bipartisan caucus meeting here in this body I suggested, along with the gentleman from Maryland, that we establish a permanent Congressional Recognition Program for our Capitol Hill Police; not just to recognize these brave heroes when they pay the ultimate sacrifice but to make sure that we have a way of paying attention to what they do every day that we are in session. I would say to America, in this time of national grief, in this time of tremendous outpourings of emotion and sympathy from all over the country, and having walked down the front steps you see police officers from across America coming to this city to pay their respects to our two heroes, I would say to America, let us use this opportunity, this low point in terms of our national morale, to renew ourselves in two ways: First of all, that is to make sure that the families of these two brave heroes never forget that we care, nor forget their loved ones. We are doing that. The leadership on both sides of the aisle has put into place a memorial fund. We passed special legislation. We will do everything possible to make the lives of the siblings and the wives of these brave heroes comfortable for the rest of their lives, as much as we can, given the fact that they have lost their fathers and husbands. But I would say to America, there is something else we can do. Besides taking care of these two families, each of us in this country needs to reach down and understand. As I said last night, looking for role models in this country should not divert us toward Hollywood, should not divert us toward the movies or TV, should not even divert us to athletic competition, because the real role models, the real American heroes, if you will, are not in Hollywood. They are not on the ballfields. They are false heroes. The real heroes and the real role models are the men and women in our neighborhoods who serve as our law enforcement officials, our sheriffs, our paid and volunteer firefighters, our paramedics and EMS personnel, because not only do they do their job and work to save lives and property every day, as these two brave individuals did, but they also make our community strong. Every American that wants to pay tribute to Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson should make it a personal, a personal challenge to reach out in their own communities, maybe establishing a Hero Scholarship Fund such as the Heroes Program in Washington; maybe establishing a support group, but getting involved locally with those public safety heroes in America who every day protect all of our lives. We are doing that in Washington, and I would just ask this country to come together in this time of national sorrow and allow us to all more fully appreciate the public safety heroes and role models in America who truly are the best that America has to offer.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, during the past 12 years I have had the honor of serving this institution, I have had the pleasure of working in a very close relationship with public safety officials throughout America and especially here on the Hill. In fact, working with our very capable Sergeant at Arms, Bill Livingood, and Chief of Police, Gary Abrecht, I have been able to see our officers not just in the tragedy of this past weekend, but responding to fires and EMS calls and calls for bomb threats in our buildings. In fact, just 3 years ago, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland and I called together, with the Sergeant at Arms and our Police Chief, almost 40 of our Capitol Hill Police officers to give them citations and thank them for protecting the lives of our staffers and Members in what could have been a very tragic situation in the Longworth Building. Mr. Speaker, as we come here tonight to pay tribute to these very special people, there is really a message for our entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, that message is for all America: As we as a Nation, in our 200 years of existence, look out for heroes, we sometimes look to Hollywood or we look to our ball fields, our football fields and baseball fields, and we get frustrated because we cannot find them there. Well, Mr. Speaker, this tragedy reminds us that our heroes are not in Hollywood, they are not on TV, they are not on our ball fields. They are in our neighborhoods. They are our law enforcement officials, our sheriffs, our fire officials, our EMS personnel, who every day risk their lives, and who, unfortunately, time and again, lose their lives, as these two brave heroes did last Friday. I join with our colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, in recognizing that we celebrate the heroes of this institution, the heroes of our neighborhood, who we have lived with and worked with for the time we have spent working in this Nation's Capitol. I rise to join with my colleagues in honoring the families and the memory of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson, two real American heroes.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, last evening I gave a keynote speech at the John F. Kennedy School of Harvard University to a group of 25 Duma members from Russia, parliamentarians who were here for 2 weeks of orientation in the ways of our operation of the American democracy, our Congress and our system of government. It was an eye- opening experience, and I wish them well as they spend the next 2 weeks learning more about America and our democracy. Working in Russian issues as I do, I have two other facts I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues. One is a very positive development in Russia, and we have all watched with a great degree of concern as this emerging democracy over the past several years has evolved in giving people additional rights and freedoms. One of my good friends, Aleksei Yablokov, who has testified twice before Members of this Congress and our subcommittees on issues involving the environment, nuclear contamination and small nuclear bombs, unfortunately had an incident where one of the Russian publications, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, wrote an article about Mr. Yablokov calling him a traitor because he came before the U.S. Congress and told in a very open setting about his concerns that Russia had, in fact, built small nuclear suitcase bombs, that these bombs might not be accounted for. Mr. Yablokov sued this publication and just recently, in fact last week, the Moscow Municipal Court ruled in favor of Aleksei Yablokov, ordered the newspaper, the Gazeta, to print a public retraction by the 9th of September, 1998, and to pay Yablokov 30,000 rubles because of this libel case. It is a credit to the Russian system that an individual with the integrity of Aleksei Yablokov can sue and successfully win compensation for wrongs committed by the Russian media, and for that I applaud Russia. The second issue concerns me, Madam Speaker, because during the recent break one of my good friends, a member of the State Duma from the our home is Russia party, Lev Rokhlin was assassinated. He was the Chairman of the Duma Committee on National Security. I had met with him on numerous occasions, and while I in many cases did not agree with his political positions, I respected him. He was a retired Russian general, someone who was known for committing himself and his political leadership to support for the troops, for their quality of life. Lev was also one of the most outspoken critics of Boris Yeltsin. In fact, last year he called publicly for Yeltsin to be impeached. For these calls, Lev was removed from his position as chairman of the Duma Defense Committee. He was involved more recently in investigating whether or not Russian oil companies took money for use in the Caucasus, to be used to buy weapons, instead of being used for the people and for the Russian government. There are suspicions that Lev Rokhlin was assassinated because of his outspoken comments. The official line out of Moscow is that Lev was killed by his wife, a wife who shot him in a fit of anger. But Lev's children have publicly come out and said that is not the case, that Lev was assassinated, and that his wife had to say what she did because she also was told she would be assassinated. In addition, Yuri Markin, a lawyer that worked with Rokhlin, said that he believed that there was an assassination attempt on his life the same night Lev Rokhlin was killed. Mr. Markin claims Lev was assassinated because he in fact was revealing things that were going on inside of Russia that were not legal and that in fact involved organized crime. I encourage, Madam Speaker, the Russian government to fully investigate, as Boris Yeltsin has promised, the unfortunate and untimely death of Lev Rokhlin, so we can, as we have in the case of the environmentalists winning the money from the slanderous article by the Russian newspaper, so that we can have peace of mind that Lev Rokhlin was not killed by some organized criminal element in Russia because of what he was saying and because of the job that he was performing as a member of the State Duma. The Russian people understand this issue. In fact, at Lev's funeral last week over 10,000 Russian citizens came out in force. Most of them have a suspicion that Lev was in fact assassinated by forces other than his wife. I would ask our administration to lend its support to my call for the Russian government to have a full accounting as to the circumstances and facts surrounding the death of Duma Deputy Lev Rokhlin.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, Mr. Zeke Forlini, one of my constituents, on receiving the Pio Zapazodi Congressional Award, recognizing his dedication to the EMS and firefighting community. As co-chairman of the Congressional Fire Caucus and a former firefighter and chief, I have witnessed first hand the dedication of many men and women to the community. However, there are some unique individuals whose service is heads about the rest. To recognize those individuals, Delaware County has established the Pio Zapazodi Congressional Award, named after a longtime, dedicated leader in the fire community in Upper Darby and the entire county. Zeke is a leader in the local fire community and an individual I consider to be a close friend. In the early nineties, he helped to develop the Emergency Services Training Center in Folcroft, Pennsylvania. Using his own equipment from his own concrete business, Zeke donated countless hours and resources to the construction of the training center. His efforts and assistance played an important role in the timely opening of the center which is an important resource to the fire and EMS community of Delaware County. In addition to his time and money, Zeke has offered his guidance to the project, giving direction to many smaller projects at the center. Zeke has seen the training center project through from beginning to end, going so far as to supply the refreshments for the dedication of the building. And when the future of the building was questionable, Zeke arranged the pouring of 185 yards of solid concrete for the foundation. Zeke continues to be active in the emergency services community, dedicating much of his personal time to the Board of Fire and Life Safety. Mr. Speaker, this man's commitment to his community is truly an example for our entire region. His considerable generosity and genuine interest in the welfare of our county is only matched by the many well- deserved friends he has accumulated over the years. It is a fitting tribute that the entrance to the Emergency Services Training Center has been named ``Zeke's Way,'' With his continual gifts of time, guidance, and friendship, it is evident that Zeke Forlini has earned the Pio Zapazodi Congressional Award. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Zeke Forlini for his selfless dedication to the fire community.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, each night on the evening news in our media across this country we see the devastation being caused by forest fires and wildlands fires. Florida is being devastated as we stand here today; Texas, the West, California. Today at 11:30 in the Rayburn, Room 2216, a bipartisan group of our colleagues will come together and announce a six-part initiative that will deal with the issue of wildlands and forest fires. We will review what actions Members of Congress are taking to enhance the capability to use, in one case, Cold War technology to detect these fires at their inception. We will talk about resources that this Congress has in fact provided this year and in past years to improve the capability of our local emergency responders to deal with these disasters. I encourage our colleagues to join with us in announcing these initiatives to assist these States during their time of need.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention the dedication of four of my constituents to their communities. This Wednesday, June 17, 1998, Mr. Wilbur C. Henderson, Mr. Lee Taliaferro, Jr., Mr. Lester J. Smith, Sr., and Ms. Carol Lecher will be honored by the Neighbor to Neighbor Community Development Corporation at their First Appreciation Dinner, which recognizes citizens committed to community service. Wilbur Henderson, a leader in the business community for over fifty years, is Chairman of the Henderson Group, Inc., specializing in investment real estate. Currently he sits on the Board of Directors of the Greater Philadelphia First Corporation; the Board of Directors of the Renewal Counseling Service; the Board of Trustees of Drexel University as Trustee Emeritus; and the Board of Trustees of Florida Technical School. Aside from his obvious dedication to education, Wilbur serves Folcroft Union Church as a Senior Deacon and is a member of the St. Alban-Swain Masonic Lodge #529. Wilbur's generous contributions to his community have provided a handicapped equipped van and mechanical wheelchair lift for the members of the First African Baptist Church of Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania. I wish to commend Wilbur Henderson for his outstanding service to the local community. Throughout his life Lee Taliaferro has dedicated himself to his fellow citizens. In his thirty years at the Budd Company, Lee was elected to many positions including trustee and member of the executive board, as well as a national delegate of the United Auto Workers Union Local #13. After retiring from the Budd Company, Lee continued his life of civil service. A member of the Darby Township Volunteer Fire Company #4 for over thirty-five years, Lee served as Fire Chief, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Fire Marshall. Lee also held the positions of Judge of Elections and Township Commissioner. Lee has also served God as a loyal member and trustee of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church. I wish to congratulate Lee Taliaferro for receiving this award in honor of his timeless service to his community. Lester Smith, owner of Smithy's Barber Shop in Darby Township, has served both his family and community faithfully. After serving in the Air Force for four years, Lester returned to his family and help his father raise his nine brothers and sisters. He joined his father in the family business after attending Tri-City Barber School. Today, Smithy's Barber Shop stands as a landmark in Darby Township, with players of the Philadelphia Eagles frequenting the shop. Lester has sponsored a softball team in his community and has served St. Barbara's as an usher and president of the Men's Club. For his dedication to his community and family, I recognize Mr. Lester Smith. Carol Lecher has been an educator in the Southeast Delco School District for over thirty four years. But her educating has not stopped at the doors of Harris Elementary School. She has taught both Sunday School and Summer Vacation Bible School at the Media Presbyterian Church and has been instrumental in the development of the Neighbor to Neighbor Community Development Corporation After-School Tutorial Program. As an educator, Carol has touched the lives of many young people and continues to do so today. My deepest regards go out to Ms. Lecher for her selfless service. In addition to these outstanding civil servants, I would like to thank Mr. Richard A. Dent and the entire Board of Directors and Advisory Board of Neighbor to Neighbor for sponsoring these awards in recognition of those individuals who seek to serve their communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing all of these fine Americans.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I respect the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), ranking member, although I strongly disagree with him. The ranking member is correct. We should not have to have this bill on the floor of this body today. But let us for a moment stop and think about why we are here. Mr. Speaker, what we have had over the pattern of the past 6 years, and even beyond that into the ending of the last administration, was a pattern of not enforcing arms control agreements. That is what this whole debate is about. If our bilateral relationship is based on arms control agreements, then we have to enforce them when violations occur. It was just 3 years ago, Mr. Speaker, that we saw the case where the Russians were transferring guidance systems to Iraq. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hold up two devices because this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about some paper debate or discussion. We are talking about devices that can harm the American people and our friends and our allies. Mr. Chairman, this is an accelerometer and this is a gyroscope. These were both manufactured in the former Soviet Union. In fact, they were taken from, SSN-18s, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, on three occasions, Russian entities sent these devices to Iraq. Now, why is that important to us? Mr. Speaker, the largest loss of American life in our military in this decade was when 28 young Americans were killed by the Scud missiles. What do these devices do? They give the Scud missile pinpoint accuracy. What did the administration do when they found out this violation occurred three times? Not once, but three times? They said: We will convince Russia that they should not do it again. Mr. Speaker, last fall the Russians quietly ended the criminal investigation of this transfer. No charges were brought. No criminal proceedings were started, and the entire technology transfer took place. We then have to deal with the consequences. Last summer, Mr. Speaker, we saw again Russia transfer technology; this time, technology to allow Iran to build a medium-range missile that will hit Israel and 25,000 of our troops from any place within Iran. We caught them dead in the water. We asked the administration to take action. To this date, no sanctions have been imposed. Now, what do we have to do? This body passed legislation, with the other body, authorizing and appropriating 180 million additional dollars this year that could have gone for other purposes, to defend Israel, our Arab friends, and our troops against that Iranian missile proliferation. There is a real dollar that we have to pay because we could not control proliferation. But the reason for this bill today is not just these instances. I did a floor speech 3 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, and I documented in the Record 38 consecutive occasions of arms control violations in 6 years by China and by Russia to Iran, Iraq, to India and Pakistan. This administration imposed sanctions three times out of 38 and waived all three of those sanctions. Do we wonder why we have a problem in the Middle East? Do we wonder why India and Pakistan are sabre rattling? Do we wonder why Iran and Iraq have medium-range capability now that threaten our allies? This is not about tweaking Boris Yeltsin or the Russian Government. If America has a company that violates our export laws and sends technology overseas, I want to prosecute that company. I want to make them pay. What is wrong with our country saying to Russia if they have an entity that is proliferating technology, that entity must pay? We are not against the Russian Government. We are not trying to back Boris Yeltsin into the corner. Mr. Speaker, I formed and I chair the Congressional Dialogue with the State Duma. I hosted eight of those leaders in this city 3 weeks ago, headed by the first deputy speaker. We are not about tweaking the Russian leadership. We want to work with them. I proposed, along with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) a new housing mortgage financing mechanism. We are working with them to bring new economic development into that country. I want to empower the State Duma and we want to bring new markets into Russia. But we cannot tolerate this. This administration has got to understand if the basis of bilateral relations is arms control, then we have to enforce those agreements. And if we cannot enforce those agreements, then they mean nothing. Our soldiers were killed in Saudi Arabia, 28 of them, young men and women, because of a Scud missile attack. They now have enhanced capability because of Russian technology. The Iranians will have that capability within 12 months. Are we going to wait until Israelis are dead, until more Americans are killed, and then say we should take some action? I wish we were not here today. But unfortunately, because of this administration's lack of adherence to arms control agreements, we are where we are and this agreement needs to be passed.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding student from my district--Alexander (Sasha) B. Schwartz. Sasha, a sophomore student at Radnor High School, has won a place on the U.S. Mathematics Olympiad Team which will compete against seventy- five other nations in a two day, nine hour mathematical examination to be held this summer in Taipei, Taiwan. Sasha took part in the American Invitational Math Exam along with 250,000 other students nationwide. After being named one of the 7,500 students who qualified for the United States of America Math Olympiad, Sasha competed in a grueling six hour exam. As a result of his extensive studying and preparation, Sasha tied for first place in the nation and was named to the National team. Armed with only a compass, protractor, ruler, and pencil, Schwartz will lead the six-member team in a two-day, nine-hour exam in Taipei, Taiwan this coming July. At a time when many question the quality of our mathematic education in this country, Sasha proves that the United States will produce many of the best students in the world. Sasha's exceptional achievement also speaks for the superb quality of our public school systems in Pennsylvania, highlighting that of Radnor Township. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating this amazing young man on his achievement and in wishing him and the entire U.S. Mathematics Olympiad Team good luck in the upcoming competition in Taipei.