[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              RUSSIAN AID

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak about the former CIA agent 
who has been arrested as a spy here in the United States, charged with 
spying for Russia, and before that for the former Soviet Union. I want 
to speak about it in my capacity as the chairman of the subcommittee 
that has to deal with foreign aid and will have to present legislation 
to the United States Senate this year regarding foreign aid to Russia.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know I am 
deeply disturbed by the exposure of such a senior CIA official, who 
turns out to have been--if the facts are right in the indictment--a 
long-time spy for the former Soviet Union and then for Russia. I used 
to be the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I know what 
a penetration of the CIA of this magnitude can mean. Enormous damage 
has been done. Millions of dollars will be spent to try to determine 
what the damage is and, even then, this country will never know with 
certitude the extent of the damage.
  I think the administration, and I know the intelligence community, 
and certainly the oversight committees here in the Congress will take a 
thorough look to find out how badly our capabilities have been damaged. 
But for years to come, because of this spy case, whoever is in charge 
of our intelligence apparatus will have to live with the knowledge that 
they are not absolutely sure of what they are basing things on.
  But at the same time, Mr. President, as terrible as the spy case is, 
I greatly regret the connection some people in this body are making 
between this spy case and the Clinton administration's policy of 
providing aid to Russia. Anyone who is surprised by the fact that 
espionage continues, even though the cold war is over, does not know 
much about what goes on among the major nations of the world. Spying is 
a fact of life in international relations. Rivals do it to us; friends 
do it to us; and we do it to them. It went on long before the cold war, 
and it will go on long after the cold war.
  Some who stand up now and seem surprised about it make me think about 
the character in ``Casablanca'' played by Claude Raines, who comes into 
Rick's Cafe and says, ``I am shocked to find out gambling is going on 
here,'' as he pockets his winnings from that night.
  As to Russian aid, I ask Senators to keep in mind the real reasons 
why we decided last fall to provide a major aid package to Russia. 
First and foremost, we are trying to help Russia become a democracy. 
Why? Because we Americans believe democracy is the best form of 
government and because history shows that democracies do not fight each 
other. The aid we are giving Russia is not a gift; it is an investment 
in our own national security. If we can help the forces for democratic 
reform win out in the power struggle now underway in Russia, we will 
have done far more to protect our national security than buying several 
more aircraft carriers or 100 more B-2 bombers or hundreds more 
intercontinental missiles.
  Supporting reform through aid to Russia is not different in purpose 
than the nuclear arms control negotiations several administrations, 
Republican and Democratic, carried on with the former Soviet Union. We 
wanted nuclear arms control agreements because it increased our 
security by reducing the threat to the United States. It was not done 
as a favor to the Soviets. And we kept on with those negotiations 
despite many ups and downs in United States-Soviet relations over the 
years. The reason we did so, despite confrontation and crisis, is 
because of a broad understanding that reducing Soviet nuclear weapons 
helped our national security.
  Spies were discovered here in the United States, just as some of ours 
were discovered there during the negotiations, but they went on just 
the same. Afghanistan was invaded, and the negotiations went on just 
the same. Why? Because we knew it was in our best interest.
  The same idea is at work here in the policy of Russian aid. The 
President, joined by a strong bipartisan consensus in Congress, adopted 
a policy of supporting the forces for democracy in Russia. That is a 
policy that has to be carried out for several years. We are not going 
to see success in a few months or a year. A revolution is being waged 
in Russia today, one fought in the political and economic areas rather 
than on the battlefield. We have chosen to help one side in that 
struggle--the side trying to build democracy.
  We should not let the spy case go on without vigorous action to 
prevent a recurrence in the future. We should protest and try to root 
out whoever is involved. We should send them out of this country, and 
we should arrest them if we can. But, Mr. President, there has been one 
major error made by everybody who has talked about the aid we are 
spending to Russia. Everybody talks about cutting off aid to the 
Russian Government.
  Mr. President, one fact that has been missed by practically everybody 
who has talked about this, written about this, commented on this, is 
that no aid money goes to the Russian Government. Let me underline 
that: No aid money goes to the Russian Government. The vast bulk--over 
75 percent of our Russian aid package--goes directly to the private 
sector. It never reaches the hands of Russian Government officials. It 
is aimed at building a private sector in the Russian economy and 
bringing thousands of young Russians to the United States in exchange 
programs or cleaning up the environment or feeding the old, poor, and 
vulnerable sectors of the population. It is aimed at training farmers, 
economists, bankers, business men and women, and the thousand and one 
other things necessary to overcome the 70 years of communism.
  The remaining aid, less than 25 percent, is used to provide technical 
assistance in building effective, workable democratic institutions at 
the Russian federal governmental level. None of that aid goes directly 
to the Russian Government. It is provided primarily to U.S. companies 
and individuals with special expertise, who are contracted by the 
Agency for International Development.
  So it is not a question of cutting off aid to the Russian Government. 
There is none to cut off. We can cut off some aid to the Russian 
people, and if we do, we stop helping the very things in Russia we want 
to win in this struggle: The democratic reformers and those who are 
trying to build a free-market economy.
  I would rather see the United States in economic competition with a 
democratic Russia with a strong economy than to see us go back to the 
days of competition with a totalitarian government with enough nuclear 
power to destroy us and the rest of the world, even as we destroyed 
them. We are safer and the world is safer if we can help democracy 
really take hold in Russia.
  So I urge my friends in the Senate to keep the national interests 
foremost and not to succumb to the temptation to make a partisan issue 
out of our policy on Russia. It is too important for our country to 
exploit for partisan advantages. I remind people: Do not act shocked 
that there are spies in the world. I am glad when we catch them. I hope 
if there are other Russian spies in this country--and I fully expect 
there are--we will catch them very soon. But let us not think that the 
national intelligence networks of our country, or any other country, 
suddenly folded up and went home when the cold war ended.
  Finally, I know foreign aid is not popular with many Americans today. 
But I also know that the American people support the support of 
democracy and free market reform in Russia.
  Our aid is not a gift to the Russian Government. It is an investment 
in our own national security. It is an investment in the security of 
the rest of the Democratic world. And we, as the leader of the 
Democratic world, have that responsibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in a period for morning business with 
Senators recognized therein for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, would it be in order to speak on the 
balanced budget amendment at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may speak on any issue he desires 
during morning business. He has 10 minutes in which to do so.

                          ____________________