[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H829-H835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         RECENT VISIT TO RUSSIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such 
time as our friend may consume for the purpose of continuing his 
remarks.


                       tribute to barbara jordan

  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Thank you very much, and I will be brief.
  Representative Jordan's passion for a more just world was 
unsurpassed. She confirmed her vision in support of civil rights laws 
that would make our society a more equitable society. In June of 1975, 
when the House was extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for 10 
additional years, she sponsored that legislation that broadened the 
group that would include Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, and 
native Americans. In 1976 she was the first woman and the first 
African-American to deliver a keynote address at the Democratic 
national convention.
  She left the Congress to pursue her teaching career as a professor at 
the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of 
Texas in Austin to teach and to work with students, young people whom 
she loved.
  Barbara Jordan will be remembered as a tower of strength whose 
unshakable strength saw us through a national crisis. She will forever 
remain a shining example of integrity, of courage in public service.
  I know that my colleagues join me in extending our condolences to her 
family and her friends. No doubt it is some comfort to know that future 
generations will continue to draw on the inspiration from her 
remarkable life and work.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
allow Members to have 5 days to revise and extend, and I thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] for allowing us to honor this 
great American and great lady.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to yield to 
our good friends in continuing the special order in honor of one of the 
Nation's great leaders. I join with them, as a Member of the Republican 
Party, in paying tribute to the late Barbara Jordan for all the fine 
work she did, not just on behalf of the constituents that she 
represented in Texas, but for people all over this country who had the 
highest respect for her leadership in this Congress and after she left 
this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, my special order this evening is going to focus on a 
recent trip that I took last week to the former Soviet Union, to 
Russia, to talk about events that unfolded there; some special 
initiatives that I was able to convey to the new speaker of the Russian 
Duma, and to an assessment of what is happening politically inside of 
Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was on the House floor in a very 
emotional speech discussing the recent efforts by the Committee on 
National Security to remove National Missile Defense considerations 
from our defense authorization bill. As the chairman of the research 
and development subcommittee, I fought hard to include language in that 
bill originally, that was vetoed by President Clinton, that would have 
allowed this country to move forward in terms of developing an 
allowable missile defense capability similar to that the Russians 
already had under the ABM treaty. Unfortunately, and I think largely 
because of misinformation, we were never able to accomplish that, and 
had to pull that section from the bill.
  In my discussions, I talked about some of the problems that exist 
between our country and Russia. With that in mind, I rise tonight, Mr. 
Speaker, to talk about a recent trip and the broader efforts that I 
have undertaken to build a base, a foundation, if you will, between the 
people of Russia, between members of the Duma and the Federation 
Counsel in Russia and Members of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, my interest in Russia goes back to my college days where 
my undergraduate degree is in Russian studies. Twenty years ago, I 
spoke the language fluently and studied the culture, the people, the 
history, the government, and all the various aspects of Russian 
society. My language skills are not so competent today, but I can still 
communicate fairly well with Russian leaders.
  Over the past 20 years, I have been able to host a number of visiting 
Russians on trips to this country, and I have had the opportunity to 
travel to the former Soviet Union, and Russia in particular, on six or 
seven occasions.

  During my tenure in Congress, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 
Committee on National Security, I would characterize myself as a hard-
liner when it comes to military and foreign policy relations with the 
former Soviet Union, now Russia. However, I take great pride in the 
efforts to reach out and establish a solid base of understanding and a 
cooperative effort at working with the Russians to achieve the common 
objective of stability for the people of Russia and the surrounding 
former Soviet republics.
  As a matter of fact, 3 years ago Congressman Greg Laughlin, then a 
Democrat, and I formed the FSU American Energy Caucus. The purpose of 
this caucus is to foster improved relations in our Congress, we well as 
in the Russian Duma, to support joint venture agreements with American 
energy companies wanting to do business in the former Soviet States.
  Over the past 3 years, we have worked with the major energy 
corporations and have helped complete agreements on both Sakhalin I and 
Sakhalin II, the two largest energy deals in the history of the world 
that are currently underway in the area around Sakhalin Island in 
Eastern Siberia in Russia. Those two projects, along with Sakhalin III 
which is now under negotiations, will see between 50 and 70 billion 
dollars worth of western investment go into Russia to help them develop 
the one resource that they have significant amounts of, and that is 
their energy resources.
  Mr. Speaker, these deals are not just good for Russia in helping them 
bring in the hard currency they need and create jobs they need and 
helps them stabilize their economy, but it is also good for America. It 
reduces our dependency on Middle Eastern crude and allows us to create 
joint ventures to obtain new sources of energy that we can use in this 
Nation.
  The energy caucus has also allowed us to form direct ties with 
elected members of the Russian Duma as well as elected parliamentarians 
in the other energy-rich republics, namely Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan 
and Tajikistan and some of the other republics where there are valuable 
energy resources.
  Two years ago, in an effort to reach out to the Russians on another 
issue, I joined the GLOBE, Global Legislators for a Balanced 
Environment to focus on energy initiatives with the elected leaders 
inside of Russia to show that we can work together for common 
environmental problems.
  In fact, we have focused particularly on our concerns relative to the 
practice of the Russians over the past 30 years of dumping their 
nuclear wastes in the Arctic ocean, the sea of Japan, the Bering Sea, 
and other coastal waters that border various parts of Russia and the 
former Soviet States.
  To that end, Mr. Speaker, GLOBE has established a working group, 
which I chair, on the oceans involving legislators from the Russian 
Duma, the Japanese Diet, and the European Parliament. We meet on 
average twice a year and look to find ways that we can work together, 
again, on environmental issues, but again bringing elected 
parliamentarians together so that we can establish a base of 
understanding and cooperation that can help us deal with some of the 
more difficult issues that confront our two nations.
  Just last spring, a group of Russian Duma members visited Washington 
who belonged to the Duma defense 

[[Page H830]]
committee and along with my chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Spence, and my colleagues, the gentleman from California, 
Duncan Hunter, and the gentleman from Louisiana, Bob Livingston.
  We met behind closed doors for about 2 hours to discuss relations 
with Russian Duma members who are involved in defense and foreign 
policy issues with members of our defense and foreign policy concerns. 
We had very frank and candid discussions about everything from the ABM 
Treaty to the START II Treaty to conventional weapons to NATO 
expansion, missile treaty issues and anything you could think of in 
that realm. They were very worthwhile discussions.
  I proposed at that time that we establish a formal process that 
Members of Congress meet regularly with members of the Russian Duma 
defense committees. Mr. Speaker, there were three areas that we focused 
on in an effort to build a stable working relationship with members of 
the Russian parliament, the Duma.
  Especially with the elections just occurring in December, it was all 
the more reason why we in this Congress have to work to better 
understand where Russia is going and the mind-set of the Russian people 
and its leadership.
  With those thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, I approached you back in 
December of last year and suggested that you take a leadership role and 
write to the new speaker of the Russian Duma, who would be elected in 
January of this year, offering to establish a formal Russian Duma to 
Congress study group modeled after our Congress-Bundestag study group 
that works so closely with the German Bundestag.

  The purpose of this effort would be to have the Speaker to our 
Congress and the Speaker of the Russian Duma agree that it would be in 
the interests of both countries to have our elected parliamentarians 
work together in a very close way on a number of issues, namely, 
energy, the environment, business issues, defense issues, foreign 
policy issues, but even going beyond that to issues involving perhaps 
domestic policy considerations. Not only can we discuss particular 
issues and try to find common solutions, but work to develop 
relationships that can allow us to understand each other and also to 
deal with these tough issues where we, in fact, are going to disagree: 
Some of the treaty issues for instance, that we discussed on the House 
floor earlier today.
  With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, you drafted a letter that I was able 
to hand deliver to Moscow as a part of my trip last week. I will 
document the process that we went through to deliver what I think is 
one of the most innovative initiatives that has come out of this 
Congress in terms of working to stabilize relations with the elected 
officials inside of Russia.
  We also, in that letter, carried your suggstion, Mr. Speaker, to 
establish a new direct computer linkage between Members of the American 
Congress and Members of the Russian Duma, ultimately elected 
parliamentarians around the world, so that we have access through a 
worldwide web of communication instantly to knock down some of the 
misconceptions, some of the half-truths, and some of the problems that 
occur from time to time when misinformation gets into our hands and 
perhaps when misinformation gets into the hands of the Russian elected 
officials.
  Those were the suggestions that were contained in your letter that I 
delivered on your behalf, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the response 
that I got in Moscow last week was extremely positive to both of the 
suggestions. Hopefully, very quickly, we can work to turn those into 
reality.
  But let me backtrack a minute, Mr. Speaker, and talk about the first 
part of the trip and what we set out to accomplish. Arriving in St. 
Petersburg on Sunday, the small group that was traveling with me, which 
included Air Force liaison Steve Bull, Colonel Bull, and full committee 
staff member Dave Trachtenberg. We were to become participants in the 
conference sponsored by the ACPS organization. ACPS is the Advisory 
Council on the Protection of the Seas.
  This assemblage of approximately 175 leaders from most of the nations 
that border the seas of the world was designed to provide a particular 
focus on the problem of Arctic nuclear waste dumping. As the Vice 
President of ACPS for the United States, my job was to represent our 
country and to convey the message that we in this Congress not only 
wanted to work with our colleagues and other nations involved with 
ACPS, but that we felt it of the highest urgency that Russia deal with 
this issue of disposing of their nuclear waste in a safe manner.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the Yablakov report. It was 
developed written and released by Alexi Yablakov, a friend of mine and 
perhaps one of the most outspoken Russian activist on environmental 
issues in the country. He has been a member of President Yeltsin's 
National Security Council and a key advisor to Yeltsin on environmental 
issues and prior to that was an advisor to Gorbachev.
  It was under President Yeltsin's leadership that Yablakov was able to 
document for the first time the worst fears about what Russia and the 
former Soviet Union had been doing in terms of dumping its nuclear 
waste into the open seas.

                              {time}  1915

  The conference in St. Petersburg, Mr. Speaker, allowed us to focus in 
a positive way with the Russians. Two-thirds of the attendees there 
were Russian leaders, including leadership of the Russian Navy, to 
focus on a common solution working together to allow us to convince the 
Russians to stop dumping their waste in the oceans and to stop the 
uncontrolled pollution, especially from their nuclear waste that has 
occurred for the past three decades.
  While there were a lot of technical sessions that were held during 
the three-day conference, the end result was that we received some 
limited assurances from the Russians that for the time being they will 
in fact abide by the London convention. They did not say they would 
actually sign the London convention, which would allow them to take a 
formal step to acknowledge they would no longer dump, but they agreed 
to as much as possible hold off on dumping of nuclear waste.
  Also at the conference, Mr. Speaker, we outlined steps that we are 
taking in this country, through the cooperative threat reduction 
program, to assist the Russians in disposing of their nuclear waste. 
They do not have the technology. They do not have the resources. And 
part of what we have done through the Navy over the past 3 years is 
that we have provided approximately $30 million that we have controlled 
that has allowed the Russians to assess the impact that the disposal of 
that nuclear waste has caused on the seas, both in the northern area 
where the northern fleet is headquartered and out in the eastern part 
of Siberia in the Sea of Japan.
  The leverage that we were able to obtain by putting that relatively 
small amount of money up to help deal with a very serious world problem 
has now seen the Japanese and the South Koreans come forward with money 
that is allowing them to help finance a similar solution for Russia's 
nuclear waste out on the Pacific fleet and in the area of Vladivostok. 
And the Pacific fleet itself. So the good news coming out of the ACOPS 
conference was that we have a working relationship with Russia that we 
can build on, that the leadership of the Russian Duma, that the 
leadership of the Russian military understands that it is in both of 
our interests to work together to find common ways of preventing 
additional dumping of this raw material into the seas of the world.
  Why is this so important to America? Obviously for those who live in 
Alaska and Hawaii, the potential threat from polluted materials and 
polluted marine environment from coming into the waters off Alaska is 
real and it is significant. That is why over the past several years 
Senator Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young and Senator Frank 
Murkowski have been outspoken leaders in both houses of this Congress 
on the issue of working with the Russians to help deal with this 
problem of nuclear waste disposal.
  So all in all, our efforts in St. Petersburg, I think, were 
worthwhile and will lead to further efforts to assist the Russians in 
acknowledging the past practices that have caused worldwide 
environmental problems and to keep 

[[Page H831]]
their feet to the fire in terms of helping them find solutions that 
will prevent these kinds of shortsighted actions taking place in the 
future.
  While in St. Petersburg, Mr. Speaker, we visited the Baltic shipyard. 
The Baltic Shipyard is the largest shipyard in St. Petersburg, 
currently employing about 8,000 workers. It is the shipyard where much 
of the construction of the Soviet Navy took place. In fact, it is where 
all of the Kirov-class warships were built.
  While we were there, we were able to go up and stand next to and see 
the latest warship built by the Russians, the Peter the Great, which is 
a nuclear powered cruiser, very capable ship that is the newest ship in 
the Russian fleet, just launched this past year, and which has just 
completed its first sea trials.
  We had some very frank discussions with the management of the Baltic 
Shipyard about their capabilities. We were given a comprehensive tour 
of that shipyard, both inside and out, propeller shop, inside 
construction facilities, to see firsthand what is taking place there.
  In addition to those visits, in a meeting that we held with the 
leadership of the Baltic Shipyard on Tuesday, we delivered a report 
that was the result of an effort a year earlier where Members of this 
Congress went to Russia with the idea of helping to find a way to 
convert that shipyard away from building warships and into the field of 
environmental decontamination so that the Russians could take all of 
their surplus navy vessels that are heavily contaminated with PCB's, 
with ozone-depleting gases, with carcinogenic paints, with sludge 
material on the bottom of their hulls, to show their workers, who used 
to build these ships, that we could employ them or they could be 
employed in new technologies to clean them up. Then once the ships were 
clean, that the scrap value of those ships would allow them to be taken 
apart in Russian shipyards, perhaps the Baltic shipyard itself or in 
shipyards in America that have been hurting for work.

  We delivered the report to the Russian leadership and with it came 
the recommendations for the next step in helping to move that project 
forward. I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker, that we can work with the 
Russians to help continue to convert that Baltic shipyard into more 
nondefense uses, especially in the environmental decontamination area.
  Leaving St. Petersburg, Mr. Speaker, dealing with environmental 
issues, we traveled to Moscow and the second part of our trip focused 
on relations with the new Russian Duma members and to assess the 
situation as the Duma met in fact on that Monday that we arrived there 
for the first time ever.
  Mr. Speaker, the election results in terms of who won the Duma were 
quite interesting and certainly point up the fact that we in this 
Congress need to understand which parties in fact are in control right 
now in Russia.
  While we were in Moscow, I was able to meet with leaders of the four 
major parties who were successful in the December elections. As we all 
know, Mr. Speaker, the Russian State Duma has 450 elected officials. 
Control of that entire Duma was up in the December elections. And even 
though Boris Yeltsin made a very impassioned plea to maintain the 
control of the Duma with that party most aligned with his position on 
key issues, that in fact was not the case. It was not the outcome of 
the elections.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Communist Party, making a 
resurgence in Moscow, dominated the local elections and, in fact, were 
able to elect 158 members to the new Duma, far and away more than any 
other faction politically in Russia. Coming in second was the Liberal 
Democratic Party, that party headed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, someone 
with whom the West has got to interact and understand because of some 
of the radical positions that he has taken in the past. Zhirinovsky's 
party, Mr. Speaker, did not do as well as he had hoped and certainly 
that is good news for us, but in fact did garner 51 seats in the new 
Duma.
  In addition, another major party winning significant support in the 
Duma was the Our Home is Russia Party, which is the party of Viktor 
Chernomyrdin and the party most closely aligned with Yeltsin. That 
party was only able to secure a total of 54 votes in the Duma 
elections.
  And finally, the fourth major party getting a significant seat in 
terms of the Duma and in terms of the factional interests was the 
Yablakov Party, headed by Grigory Yavlinsky. That party is also more of 
a mainstream party, and they only achieved 45 seats in the Duma.
  Following those four key parties, a number of smaller parties, the 
Agrarian Party, the Women of Russia Party received lesser votes, but 
because of the requirement in the Russian constitution that for full 
recognition a party had to achieve 5 percent of the electorate in the 
Duma elections, none of them were able to make that cutoff. So while 
they have Members in the Duma, they do not have the status that the 
four major parties that I just mentioned have.
  In fact, the Independents, with 77 members, are a very large bloc but 
they are not organized and they are not recognized because they 
represent various independent factions.
  The point is, Mr. Speaker, that with your effort in mind, with the 
two-page letter that you gave me to hand deliver to members of the 
Russian Duma, I was able to meet with each of the various political 
factions to discuss with them your ideas and the notion that I put to 
you back in December about establishing this new interactive network 
between members of the Russian Duma and the major political factions 
and Members of our Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, we met with Zhirinovsky's top aide, Mr. Mitrofanov, who 
is a member of the Russian Duma and in fact is now chairing the party 
dealing with worldwide issues. We had a very frank and candid 
discussion with him. And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the response that 
he brought to us from Zhirinovsky's party was extremely supportive, 
wanting to reach out and work in a positive way with both of the 
suggestions that were contained in your letter.
  The suggestion about the permanent Duma to Congress forum and the 
suggestion about the worldwide internet we would establish starting off 
with our Congress and their Duma.
  The second meeting with Mr. Averchev, Vladimir Averchev, who is a 
member of the Yablakov party, a close associate of Mr. Lukin. And Mr. 
Averchev was very enthusiastic about the suggestion you made and 
offered his personal support to help build the coalition of members of 
the Duma from the various political factions to turn your suggestions 
into reality.

  And on the following day of our visit to Moscow, I had a chance to 
meet with Aleksey Arbatov, a leader on the Duma defense establishment. 
He, too, was extremely excited about the possibility of implementing 
both of your suggestions.
  I also had a chance to visit the Kremlin and to meet with President 
Yeltsin's key advisors on defense issues, particularly treaty issues, 
ABM, START II. And each of those key advisors, in particular, Mr. 
Kortunov, were extremely excited about the initiative that you have put 
forth.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you today and report back to you and to 
our colleagues in this body and to the people of America that you have, 
I think, created a landmark effort, very early on in this new Russian 
Duma, to reach out in a clear way to establish a working relationship 
that will help us establish a base of operation and understanding 
between our parliamentarians but, more importantly, to be able to deal 
with the difficult issues where we will not be in such agreement, and 
some of those were discussed on the floor of the House today relative 
to our defense bill.
  So the ball is now in the Russians' court. We anticipate a response 
from the new speaker in a matter of weeks and, Mr. Speaker, we hope 
that that response will be very positive.
  A word about the new speaker. While we were in Moscow, we had a 
difficult time delivering your letter, Mr. Speaker, because it was not 
until Thursday evening that the Duma could, in fact, agree on who the 
new speaker should be. As you know, Mr. Rybkin has been the past 
speaker in the Russian Duma. Mr. Rybkin represents more of the 
traditional political groups that have supported President Yeltsin's 
policies.
  In the first vote, Mr. Rybkin only achieved a total of 116 votes. Mr. 
Seleznyov, who was the candidate for 

[[Page H832]]
the Communist Party, Gennadi Seleznyov received a total of 216 votes, 
and the third party candidate, Mr. Lukin, from the Yablokov Party, 
received 56 votes.
  No one achieved the required number of 226 votes to be named Speaker 
of the new Russian Duma. Therefore, it was impossible on Wednesday to 
deliver your letter.
  On Thursday evening, after a lot of political give and take and a lot 
of horse trading in terms of committee leadership assignments, the 
various factions were able to come together and in fact elected a new 
Speaker for the Russian Duma. By a vote of 231 for the Speaker of the 
Russian Duma, Gennadi Seleznyov is in October the new Speaker, someone 
to whom your letter was delivered and whom I hope you will have an 
ongoing relationship with.
  Now, it scares many in this country that the new Speaker of the 
Russian Parliament is a Communist. And it certainly is something that 
we have to look at. But the word that I got from those who know him and 
from those around him is that he is someone that we can deal with. I 
think it is going to be very difficult for him to revert back to the 
pre-Russia days and the days of the former Soviet bloc status, but he 
is in power. He represents the largest party faction, and we need to 
make sure that we work with him and, as we have done on your behalf, 
Mr. Speaker, reach out to him in a hand of friendship to say, let us 
work together.
  Coming in second in that vote again was Mr. Rybkin with 150 votes and 
in third place again was Mr. Lukin with 50 votes. As a matter of fact, 
I was with Mr. Lukin as he went down to cast his vote. He knew he would 
lose. But in working a deal, the Yablakov Party was able to preserve 
two of the most powerful committee assignments in the Russian Duma.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Speaker, they were able to keep control of the Committee on 
International Relations, and they were also able to keep control of the 
Committee on the Budget. So it was, in fact, a brokered election. Mr. 
Seleznyov is, in fact, the new speaker. In fact, I wished him well and 
gave him your letter, and we now await his response.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the response from the Duma members that 
I met with was extremely positive. I had a chance to travel the halls 
of their Duma, much like our halls around our Congress, to interact 
with members and their staffs, to see firsthand the early days of the 
Duma organization. I implore you, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we get the 
official nod, to allow us to begin this process of aggressive 
interaction.
  Mr. Speaker, what I envision are a series of subgroups focused on 
energy issues, on environmental issues, on defense and foreign policy 
issues, on issues involving adoption. One of our meetings was on that 
very subject with Mr. Lukin's top aide, to try to clarify some of the 
adoption laws for those Americans who want to adopt Russian native 
children but who are prevented right now because of the laws in their 
country; working on issues involving education, issues where we can 
find common ground, not necessarily to reach full agreement but, in the 
end, to build better understanding and a better foundation.
  Mr. Speaker, I had some other meetings I want to briefly highlight 
while we were there. In terms of the energy caucus, we did meet with 
the major energy companies who have a presence in Moscow. I spoke to 
them at our breakfast meeting. They are very excited about the 
production-sharing agreement that was just approved by the Russian Duma 
in December that is allowing us to move forward with joint ventures.
  The only thing I would say is that the Russians have to understand 
that they cannot keep changing the rules of the road while these deals 
are being developed. In face, Mr. Speaker, I will submit a chart for 
the Record showing that much of the efforts that we have put forward to 
establish these joint initiatives have been hampered by the Russian 
legislature changing the rules along the way, resulting in significant 
increases in taxes that have caused some of our American companies to 
have second thoughts about this Western investment of private sector 
dollars.
  We also had a chance to meet with Ambassador Pickering to discuss a 
wide range of issues involving our joint relations. Then I had a chance 
to meet with the leading defense experts and think-tank leaders in 
Russia to talk about issues involving the ABM Treaty, START II, and 
Russian-American relations.
  Along that line, as I mentioned, I met with 3 of Yeltsin's top 
advisors on defense and foreign policy issues, headed up by Mr. 
Kortunov, who, in fact, is going to be the executive secretary of a new 
20-member panel that Mr. Yeltsin is convening to review all the nuances 
of the ABM Treaty for the Russian side.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we ask President Clinton, 
along with you and Senator Dole, to convene a similar 20-person panel 
to look at our concerns with the ABM Treaty and to interact with this 
effort that is going to be headed up from the standpoint of actual 
operation by Mr. Kortunov.
  Let me get into a couple of issues involving the treaty. Mr. Speaker, 
I have given you all of this documentation about relations because I 
want our colleagues to know that we are not about sticking it in the 
eye of the Russian leaders and people. In fact, we are doing more to 
reach out to the Russians and the members of their Duma than any other 
Congress has done in recent history in the area of the environment, in 
the area of energy, defense, foreign policy, and each of these other 
relationships.
  But we also, Mr. Speaker, have a common agenda that says we cannot 
overlook the reality of what is happening with those leaders in the 
Russian military who, in many cases, were there when it was the Soviet 
military, and whether it comes to treaty compliance or whether it comes 
to nuclear weapons or whether it comes to conventional arms sales, we 
need to understand the mindset of what is occurring in that country.
  To that end, Mr. Speaker, I had some very serious discussions with 
both the think-tank experts, the policy people from the USAK Institute, 
as well as Yeltsin's key advisors. I related to them the concern in 
this Congress, in this country, that Russian right now has a distinct 
advantage. Under the ABM Treaty, each country is allowed to have one 
missile defense system, and as they reiterated to me, Russia has the 
world's only operational ABM system. Even though we are allowed to have 
one under that treaty, we do not have one. They have one that protects 
80 percent of the population of Russia.
  That treaty is operational, it has been upgraded three times, and in 
fact, I tried to visit one of the ABM sites. I was told if I stayed 
over a second week they would take me to one of the ABM sites, but 
could not fit it into their schedule the week that I was there. I also 
tried to meet with General Sergev, who was the chief of strategic 
rocket forces, who heads up their missile capability. I also could not 
get a meeting with him, but I will return to Russia at some point in 
time, and I will meet with him. He is the equivalent to our Mal 
O'Neill, General O'Neill who heads our BMDO.
  The point is, Mr. Speaker, that I conveyed to the Russians that I am 
not about sticking it in their eye, that I want to work with them to 
convince them that missile defense is as much in their best interests 
as is ours, because the threat of attack from a rogue nation is 
probably more against them than it is us because of who borders their 
country.
  They expressed a desire that we cannot get away from the theory of 
mutually assured destruction, and I convinced them that we have, in 
fact, the capability, under the existing treaty, to build a system, 
just like they have in Moscow. The American people do not even realize 
that. When you ask the American people if we are allowed to have a 
system to protect us against a launch of an incoming missile, they 
would think we did, and frequently I have to tell them no, we do not 
have any such system, because our leadership, primarily our liberal 
leadership in this Congress and in the White House right now, will not 
allow us to implement what Russia already has, which I cannot 
understand, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand that notion.
  Again, I say, this as not someone who is attempting to tweak the 
Russians, 

[[Page H833]]
but as someone who devotes a good part of his time to building strong 
relationships with the Russian people, with their leadership and their 
Duma.
  I would tell you this, Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric we heard 
coming out of the White House this week, the leaders that I have met 
with in terms of the Russian think-tanks and the advisors to Yeltsin 
were more concerned from a START II standpoint, with President 
Clinton's goal of expanding NATO, than they were with the prospect of 
America developing a treaty-compliant missile defense system much like 
they have around Moscow, but you never hear President Clinton talk 
about that.
  Mr. Speaker, he only talks about what we want to do in the Congress 
of a date certain system as being something that could jeopardize START 
II. I think that is a red herring. I do not think that is the case. We 
are going to make that case this year politically, as Mr. Clinton 
attempts to prevent us from moving forward with what I think we need, 
and that is the capability much like the Russians have today.
  Mr. Speaker, besides the issue of the existing ABM system in Moscow 
and the treaty, I raised the notion with the Russians that I understand 
the importance of the ABM treaty politically to them, but that we now 
have a responsibility in a world that is no longer bipolar of 
protecting our people against a rogue attack. This is extremely 
important, Mr. Speaker. Some in our Congress, particularly on the 
Democrat side, the more liberal Members, would say that, ``The 
intelligence community says there is no threat in the next 15 years.''
  I wrote to Gen. Mal O'Neill today to get his views on the most recent 
intelligence estimate, which I had a classified briefing on about a 
month ago. I think I was the first Member to have that. I walked out of 
the briefing, because it was so poor.
  Mr. Speaker, our intelligence community, in the most politicized 
effort I have seen in my 10 years here, has said that Russia has not 
changed in 5 years. Despite cutoffs of power to their strategic nuclear 
force headquarters, despite no housing for the military, despite 
military personnel not being paid for months, despite tremendous morale 
problems, and despite the leakage of technology, both deliberately and 
accidentally, out of Russia, our intelligence agency comes forward and 
says that nothing has changed. That to me is unbelievable. In the first 
quarter of this year, Mr. Speaker, I will chair hearings in the R&D 
committee, and we will expose what I think is a consistent pattern of 
sanitizing intelligence data.
  This, to me, is outrageous. As someone who spends the bulk of his 
time working on building and improving Russian-American relations, I 
find it unconscionable that anyone would attempt to sanitize 
information that would allow us to make an objective decision about 
what the threat is. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, while I was in 
Russia, while I met with the embassy staff in Moscow and then had a 
private meeting with Ambassador Pickering for an hour and then met with 
the leading advisors to President Yeltsin, I asked them about 
an incident that occurred in early December of last year.

  The Jordanians, Mr. Speaker, as documented by the Washington Post on 
December 15, confiscated the most advanced telemetry equipment that 
would only be used in a long-range ICBM, intercontinental ballistic 
missile. These accelerometers and gyroscopes only could be used in a 
long-range missile. They were from Russia and they were heading to 
Iraq. The Jordanian and Israeli intelligence confiscated them. We now 
have in our possession some of these items that have been photographed 
by the Washington Post.
  I asked everyone I met within Moscow, ``How do you explain, if there 
is stability here, how do you explain the most advanced technology that 
can help the Iraqis develop a long-range missile that could threaten 
any American city, how do you explain that leaving Russia?'' Because 
either answer is a problem for us: If the Russians say they know 
nothing about it, that is a problem, because it means they do not have 
control of their technology base; and if they say it was a legitimate 
sale, that is a problem, because it means they are exporting technology 
that, down the road, in Saddam's hands will threaten American 
interests.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about pie-in-the-sky ideas. We are 
talking about reality. Mr. Speaker, what bothered me most was when I 
talked to the Russians who advise Yeltsin. One, by the way, is a good 
friend of mine. I have been on three or four delegations with him over 
the past 10 years. I was active with him when he was a member of the 
Young Communist League, the Comsomol; he is a member. He just wrote a 
book on missile proliferation.
  When I asked him, ``How do you explain this incident,'' he said to 
me, ``We don't know anything about it.'' That was reported in the 
Washington Post. I would invite any Member of this Congress to request 
a classified briefing they can receive as a Member of this body on the 
evidence that we have in our hands on this advanced technology going to 
Iraq for a long-range ICBM, not just one delivery, but evidence of 
other deliveries coming out of Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, the ABM Treaty does not protect us against Iraq having a 
long-range missile. It does not protect us against China's CSS-II. It 
does not protect us against North Korea's No Dong or Taepo Dong-II 
missile, which now has ranges close to Hawaii and Alaska.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to address these issues up front and candidly 
with the Russians. They respect that. In all of my dealings with Russia 
over the past 20 years, in hosting over 100 Members of the Duma in my 
office last year, the one thing Russians respect, including my good 
friends over there, is when you are honest with them. That is why they, 
in the end, liked Ronald Reagan. They always knew where he was coming 
from.
  But if, in fact, they see that our policy is set first and then we 
sanitize all of the information we get so it does not undermine the 
policy, that is not something they will respect. It is not something 
that is going to be in our best interests.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I sense that is beginning to happen now. 
It scares me. In the hearings that we will hold this year, we will look 
at that issue. We will look at the intelligence relative to Russian 
command and control.
  Let us get back to the issue of the technology being transferred. Is 
it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that no one would even tell me that we had 
questioned the Russians on how this material was being transferred? I 
think I know why, Mr. Speaker: Because when we expose the facts and 
when we get on the record that Russia has, either directly or 
indirectly, legally or illegally, transferred this advanced equipment 
to Iraq, it is going to be a violation of the missile control 
technology regime, which Russia just entered this past fall. Guess 
what, Mr. Speaker? When Russia is in fact in violation of the MTCR, 
this country must take actions. Those actions could lead to sanctions.
  Is this administration so naive that it would ignore what the 
Russians are doing, so we do not have to impose sanctions or even 
discuss it, so we do not talk about this? Mr. Speaker, I am not going 
to let that happen.
  I raised this issue with the Russians directly at the same time I 
talked about helping them with their energy, with their environment, 
with their defense, with adoption and all the other issues I talked 
about. But I am not going to ignore reality when it comes to what 
people in the Russian military may be doing on their own.
  We have got to understand that, Mr. Speaker, because this 
administration does not want to confront reality. They are so bent on 
bolstering up Yeltsin, whom I support and whom I hope succeeds. Even 
though the most recent polling data in Russia shows he only has 8 
percent support in the entire Russian electorate, I want to see Yeltsin 
succeed. I want to see democracy succeed. I want to see economic reform 
succeed. But I do not want to do it in a vacuum, and not protect the 
people of this country.
  I also proposed the question to those that I debated from the think-
tanks and from Yeltsin's key advisory group on defense and foreign 
policy issues, how they would explain to me their concern with any 
treaty without them 

[[Page H834]]
understanding our mindset, and our mindset is very important, that they 
have to understand as well as we understand theirs.
  I related a story to them, Mr. Speaker, of my first session in this 
Congress, in 1987. My first amendment on the floor of the House was an 
amendment offered on the defense authorization bill that was very 
simple. It was offered at the time that the liberals were telling then-
President Reagan that we should adhere to the strictest possible 
interpretation of the ABM Treaty.
  My amendment was very simple and said, ``The Russians,'' at that time 
the Soviet Union, ``had violated the ABM Treaty by the installation of 
the Krasnoyarsk radar system where it was installed.'' My amendment 
passed the House in a recorded vote 418 to 0. No Member disagreed with 
me. But the liberals said, ``It is not an important violation. It is a 
trivial violation.''

                              {time}  1945

  That radar is really being used for space-tracking purposes. It is 
not for missile defense, and it is not for a national missile defense 
system. I argued and many of our colleagues argued that, in fact, it 
was deliberate, and it was being placed there so that Russia could 
eventually have the option of breaking out of the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, last year I read the Russian media every day as a 
student of Russian relations. Last year I read the Journal of Russian 
Military History, and an article in it written by General Voitinsev. 
General Voitinsev for 18 years was the leader of the Russian Air and 
Space Command effort, the top guy. General Voitinsev in his article, 
his memoirs, on the record publicly said he was ordered to leave 
Krasnoyarsk radar where it was, knowing full well it was a deliberate 
violation of the ABM Treaty, knowing full well its ultimate purpose was 
for a tracking system to develop a capability to break out of the ABM 
Treaty.
  Now, this is not a Republican conservative saying this, this is not 
some think tank expert in America; this is the Russian general 
responsible at the time for overseeing the placement of the Krasnoyarsk 
radar system.
  He went on to further state, and I will provide this to any Member of 
this body who wants the detailed wording from the article, he further 
said he was ordered to place the radar there by General Ogarkov, 
General Ogarkov was being ordered by the Politburo, and told Voitinsev 
that if you do not place it where we tell you, which is the 
Krasnoyarsk, in direct violation of the ABM Treaty, you will be removed 
from your post.
  I confronted the Russians with that, and they did not deny it, 
because they know it is true. But the important point is, Mr. Speaker, 
that both sides have to approach these issues in a frank, open and 
candid manner. Neither side should bury their head in the sand and 
ignore reality. And I say that not as an alarmist, but as somebody who 
delivered your letter to the new speaker of the Russian Duma, Mr. 
Seleznyov, who met with the Duma leadership, who met with Zhirinovsky's 
party, who met with the Yablakov party, the Russia Is Our Home party, 
and the Communists, to convince them that we want to work with them, 
but we cannot do that in a vacuum.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the intelligence community of this 
country to be sanitized by anyone in the White House. I am not just 
talking about the President; I am talking about key policy advisers or 
anyone else who may have an ultimate objective and who says we can't 
allow anything to get in the way of that objective. That is not the 
purpose of the intelligence community.

  We who are the elected representatives of the people of this country 
need data based on fact, and we are going to get that data.
  It really bothers me that as the chairman of the Committee on 
National Security, Subcommittee on Research and Development, that I 
have to go out and establish an ad hoc advisory group made up of former 
intelligence officials, and Russian experts and Soviet experts to 
advise me, because I questioned some of the data I am getting and the 
lack of answers I am getting from our own intelligence community. Mr. 
Speaker, that is outrageous.
  Is it not outrageous that we have an incident that we cannot even get 
detailed response from what the Russians' position is on transferring 
sophisticated technology and equipment to Iraq? Is it because we do not 
want to jeopardize their membership in the MTCR? That is outrageous, 
Mr. Speaker.
  I again invite every Member of this body to ask for the classified 
briefing that is available today on what happened in December and what 
the results of the evidence that we have are in terms of this material 
being transferred to Iraq and the implications that has for Iraq's 
capabilities of developing one long-range missile.
  Furthermore, I also, Mr. Speaker, had a chance to meet with a Russian 
company, Rosvoorouzhenie. We talk about arms sales. This is the new 
company that has been formed in Russia; this is their slick marketing 
brochure. They gave me all of their copies of them, of anything I 
wanted. I met with the leadership of this company that has as its total 
purpose the marketing of arms all over the world, and where basically 
we can buy anything and everything that the Russians are making today.
  What concerned me most is not their ability to sell their helicopters 
and their guns and these other armaments, because companies do that in 
this country, even though we can limit that. It is the fact, where does 
it stop, Mr. Speaker?
  One SS-25 with a range of 10,000 kilometers on a mobile launch system 
pulled by a tractor, basically pulling the back of a truck, can reach 
any city in America, one SS-25; and the Russians have probably 500 SS-
25 launchers. One SS-25 removed from Russia and taken to a Third World 
nation presents an immediate threat to this county. That is a 
possibility, Mr. Speaker.

  In hearings that I chaired last year, the CIA said on the record it 
would be possible to take one battery out without us knowing it. I am 
not talking about a nuclear weapon being on the tip of that missile. I 
am talking about a conventional weapon. It could be a chemical or 
biological weapon, or it could be just the threat itself.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the threats that are there. This is reality. 
And for us to have a lasting relationship with the Russians that works 
in both of our interests to build trust and understanding, and help 
them economically and socially, we must base our discussions on factual 
information and we trust be willing to share the bad stories.
  When I was in St. Petersburg speaking at the ACOPS conference, 
talking about the Russian dumping of nuclear waste, I started off by 
saying, you know, we come from America and we are quick to criticize 
you for problems that we think only you have.
  I remember a hearing that I called for in the last session of 
Congress when I was the ranking member of the Oceanography 
Subcommittee, and I was listening to a Navy official testify about the 
problems of the Komsvolez, a Russian submarine that went down off the 
coast of Norway, that is sitting on the bottom of the sea, that has 
nuclear missiles and also has a nuclear rector on board.
  And I said to that Navy official when he was done, I am concerned 
about the Komsvolez, but let me ask you a question. Can you tell me 
about the Thresher and the Scorpion, the two American submarines that 
are on the bottom of the ocean, nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
  He said to me, Congressman, we cannot discuss that in an open 
session.
  I said, you expect us to be critical of the Russians for accidents 
they have had, but not to be critical of ourselves for accidents that 
perhaps we have had.
  Mr. Speaker, in this era of a new dialog with members of the Russian 
Duma, above all, we have got to be candid. When we have problems, we 
have to acknowledge them, and when they have problems, we have to 
confront them. To do anything less is a disservice to our country and 
to the people of Russia.

  Mr. Speaker, Russia has changed a lot. The Duma is in place now; the 
Federations Council largely appointed by Yeltsin is in power. Yeltsin 
is having a terrible problem right now as he is appointing a lot of 
reactionary leaders, Kremkov to replace the most recent foreign 
minister. He is changing and checking up his cabinet to try to get 

[[Page H835]]
back support from the nationalists who won the election in December. 
But, Mr. Speaker, in the end, for us to maintain solid relations, we 
have to be candid with one another.
  The Russian military is still led by some of the same leaders who 
were in the leadership positions when it was the Soviet military. I 
read a series of articles recently by one of the commanders of one of 
the major Russian fleets. I believe it was the North Fleet, where he 
talked about Russia being involved in world war III. This is just a 
recent article that appeared 3 weeks ago. I will be happy to provide it 
for any of our colleagues.
  This Russian admiral, who is now in a key position of the Russian 
Navy, talked about Russia already being involved in world war III with 
the West, that it was not the traditional war, it was a velvet war 
where America was attempting to undermine Russia, and that the only way 
Russia was going to eventually succeed was to eventually have the use 
and capability of its nuclear arsenal. As much as we want to brush away 
those kinds of statements and those kinds of positions, we have to 
confront them head on, Mr. Speaker. We have to confront the elected 
officials in Russia head on.
  If they have problems with us and what we have done, then they should 
be able to confront us and we should openly discuss it and debate it. 
But we should never allow anyone in Russia to give us false information 
or, worse yet, to give us no information about problems and concerns 
that we have with events that are unfolding in terms of defense policy 
and foreign relations in particular.
  I think the Russians will ultimately respect us for that position, 
and hopefully, this process that we have established will allow us, 
through your good efforts, Mr. Speaker, to have an ongoing 
relationship, and open dialog will occur in both countries. That is the 
only way that, down the road, irregardless of who the President of 
either country is, that we can build long-term trust and understanding.

  We have key concerns. We have a need to protect our people, and we 
ought to be able to address those issues directly with the Russian 
leaders. The Russians have concerns with perhaps where we are going. 
They may think that our purpose in trying to get rid of the ABM Treaty 
is just to gain an advantage with them, when in fact our major purpose 
is to protect us from another rogue launch; not necessarily an all-out 
attack from Russia, it is from the peril of an Iraq getting a long-
range missile, or from China, or North Korea or from some other rogue 
nation. The ABM Treaty does nothing to protect us from those instances.
  With the Russians offering to sell the SS-25 as a space launch 
platform or from a variation of that, with the Russian marketing 
efforts underway to market their missile systems around the world, we 
need to be more vigilant than ever.
  I would make the case, Mr. Speaker, that Russia today militarily is 
more destabilized than it ever was under Communist leadership. Central 
command is not what it was. During our hearings in the first quarter, 
we are going to look at the central command, we are going to look at 
the command structure; we are going to look at the potential for a 
breakdown in the control of that nuclear arsenal, and we are going to 
confront it in an intelligent manner.
  It really galled me last night to see President Clinton stand up 
right behind us, right behind me in this podium, and tell the American 
people for the second time that he can say no longer are Russian 
missiles pointed at American children. That is the most outrageous 
statement this President has made, among many outrageous statements.
  Any expert who knows anything about missiles, including the Russian 
military expert who controls those missiles, as he said on ``60 
Minutes'' when he was interviewed, those missiles can be retargeted in 
a matter of seconds and minutes, and that is exactly what can occur. 
And to the American people some kind of false sense that all is well 
and there are no problems is the absolutely worst thing that this 
administration could be doing.
  We in the Congress are not going to let that happen. We are going to 
be vigilant, we are going to be aggressive; we are going to pursue 
issues that we want answers to like the transfer of this technology to 
Iraq and why it occurred and how it occurred. We are going to pursue 
questions about the sale of sophisticated weaponry, the leakage of 
nuclear materials, the breakdown of command and control in the Russian 
military, but we are going to do it openly and honestly; and we are 
also going to work with the Russians to stabilize their economy, to 
help them environmentally with their energy issues and every other area 
where they have common concerns. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, we can 
achieve ultimate success.

  I applaud you for the leadership role that you have taken in this new 
initiative with the speaker of the Russian Duma. For those who would be 
critical of you, I would say, here is another example where you have 
created a new effort in the Congress and in Washington to achieve a new 
level of relationship with Russia that we have never had before. I am 
optimistic it will be successful, and I am optimistic that in the end, 
we can in fact peacefully coexist if we are both honest and candid, one 
with the other.
  I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert support 
documentation of my trip in the Record, as well as the letter itself 
from you to Speaker Seleznyov, and would invite my colleagues to follow 
up on this issue if they have particular issue areas they want to focus 
on, to let them know that we will be trying to form these focus areas 
once we get the word from the Russian Duma that they are ready to 
proceed with this exciting new opportunity.
  I thank my colleagues for bearing with me as I provide this report on 
the trip and our relations with Russia.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                        Office of the Speaker,

                                 Washington, DC, January 17, 1996.
     Hon. Gennady Seleznyov,
     Speaker, State Duma, Russian Federation.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to seek your assistance and 
     support for a project that I feel will have long-term 
     benefits for both Russia and America and our respective 
     legislatures. I propose that we establish a standing Duma-
     Congress Study Group composed of members of the Russian Duma 
     and U.S. Congress to develop an ongoing relationship between 
     our legislatures.
       I have asked Congressman Curt Weldon, who first brought 
     this proposal to my attention, to personally deliver this 
     letter to you and brief you in greater detail on the Study 
     Group. Congressman Weldon has focused much of his work in the 
     Congress on a range of Russian-American issues, including 
     energy development, the environment, and arms control.
       These are just a few of the many important issues that 
     confront our two nations, and I am convinced that an 
     effective way to develop greater understanding between our 
     two nations and make real progress on these issues is to 
     establish a mechanism for a long-term dialogue between our 
     two legislatures. Many formal linkages already exist between 
     our two Presidents and executive branches, but no formal 
     organization exists to facilitate communication between our 
     legislators. I believe such a legislature-to-legislature 
     organization would complement, rather than hamper, the 
     bilateral activities of our executive branches.
       The Study Group, as I envision it, would consist of eight 
     to ten members from each of our legislatures who would meet 
     for three to five days two times each year, once in Russia 
     and once in the United States, to discuss a range of key 
     Russian-American issues that would be agreed upon in advance. 
     The goal would be to make the sessions somewhat informal so 
     as to develop the sort of personal relationships that lead to 
     frank and candid discussions.
       In a related area, I am very enthusiastic about a larger 
     project to link legislators around the world via a computer 
     network. This effort, called the 21st Century International 
     Legislator's Project, under the directorship of General 
     Charles Boyd (USAF Ret.), will produce information transfer 
     among legislators around the globe at an unprecedented rate. 
     Participation by Duma members will be important to the 
     success of this project, and I will provide for you by 
     separate communication the details of this historic effort to 
     share with your fellow members as the initiation date nears.
       I would appreciate your careful consideration of the 
     proposal to establish a Congress-Duma Study Group. If you 
     agree that such an organization should be established, I 
     would ask that you appoint a member of the Duma to serve as a 
     point of contact for Congressman Weldon to work with in 
     developing the Study Group.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House.

                          ____________________