[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 139 (Sunday, October 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11337-S11338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      GORE-CHERNOMYRDIN AGREEMENT

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise as one Senator in this 
body

[[Page S11338]]

and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to express the hope 
that by noon tomorrow the State Department will provide for the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee the document that it has rightfully 
requested so that it might know the truth with respect to the Gore-
Chernomyrdin agreement.
  Since I have been a Senator these last 4 years, I have had occasion 
to meet with the Vice President and Mr. Chernomyrdin when they came to 
Capitol Hill to trumpet what was represented to us as the great 
successes of their relationship and our outreach to Russia and to help 
Russia in its transition to democracy. In every way possible, we have 
hoped to conduct our business with Russia on better terms than we have 
in the past.
  I think it is appropriate for this Republican to say that, without 
question, no one should question the motives of Vice President Gore 
with respect to what he has tried to accomplish in this relationship. 
However, there is reason to believe that some of what has gone on with 
the best of motives may, in fact--I emphasize ``may''--have violated a 
law and a statute of this country, if not a constitutional requirement 
in article II of the Constitution that agreements be reviewed by 
appropriate congressional committees.
  I am told that with respect to the Gore-Chernomyrdin relationship a 
House committee was informed. Congressman Hamilton said he received 
some information to that effect. Dick Lugar, the Senator from Indiana, 
has said he knew in general terms what they were trying to achieve.
  But then all of us were taken aback a couple of weeks ago by an 
article in the New York Times in which this agreement was specifically 
quoted. I do not know of any Congressman or Senator who has yet to say 
they have seen the particulars of this arrangement. That is the point 
of the Foreign Relations Committee's inquiry of the State Department.
  Let me read briefly a sentence from that New York Times story that 
quotes what the Vice President pledges to do. He pledges to ``avoid any 
penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise under domestic law.''
  There is nothing in the Gore-McCain law of 1992 that allows the 
executive branch to unilaterally waive the law. Their duty under that 
law is to impose sanctions, and then to waive them if that is the 
judgment of the executive but not to do it in a way that keeps Congress 
in the dark and violates specific terms of American law.
  Why should we care? Many of our friends on the Democratic side said 
this is all just about politics. You shouldn't be raising that now.
  I point out to them that the Vice President, the executive, and the 
State Department have had 5 years to take this out of politics and to 
simply disclose, as is rightfully our right to know, those documents 
and those particulars as to agreements.
  Some of my colleagues have said these aren't agreements; that these 
are understandings. If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, 
to me it is a duck.
  In my opinion, when you see specific responsibilities and 
considerations on both sides and end dates, folks, that is an 
agreement, and the Congress has a right--and particularly the Senate--
to see this document, and in confidence if necessary. But we have a 
right to documents that have been requested of the State Department.
  I hope that it exonerates the Vice President. But let me tell you why 
I am concerned that it may not.
  The Washington Times, a week ago, ran a story in which a letter was 
leaked from the State Department--not by the Republican Party but by 
the State Department somehow to a reporter of the Washington Times--a 
letter from the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to the Russian 
Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov. You have to read these words to, 
frankly, understand it and really believe it. I don't know how words 
can be any clearer that the administration is admitting to a violation 
of law.
  This is what the Secretary wrote to the Russian Foreign Minister:

       We have also upheld our commitment not to impose sanctions 
     for these transfers disclosed in the Annex to the Aide 
     Memoire. The Annex is very specific in its terms, and we have 
     followed it strictly. . . . Without the Aide Memoire, 
     Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been 
     subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws. 
     This possibility still exists in the event the continued 
     Russian transfers after the December 31 termination date.

  Madam President, the Secretary of State has said here that they have 
violated the law.
  What the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the majority in this 
party are asking for is to have the proof of the State Department's 
assurances to us that they haven't violated the law. That is all we are 
asking for. If they haven't, we will be glad to say that to the whole 
world. But what we have received so far is their assurances that they 
haven't violated the law.

  Guess what. I want to believe them. But I am entitled as a Senator to 
see the document so I might know that they have not violated the law as 
the Secretary of State has said.
  Should we know that? I think we should.
  Does that mean the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement isn't a good deal? I 
don't know that. It may be a great deal.
  But it is not a deal where the means justify the ends to violate 
American law and treat the Senate with disrespect. It does not warrant 
that. We are a country of laws, and we need to obey them.
  We are simply asking, as a signatory to this letter, that the 
administration comply with the law authored by the Vice President 
himself.
  In addition to Sam Brownback and myself, the signatories to this 
letter are the majority leader, Trent Lott, the majority leader whip, 
Don Nickles, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse 
Helms, John McCain, Fred Thompson, the chairman of Governmental 
Affairs, Richard Shelby, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, John 
Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Richard Lugar, 
who, by the way, wouldn't mind knowing the truth of what has been 
represented to him, too. He is curious about indeed what the facts are.
  I regret that this is close to an election. I don't believe politics 
should be international. I think they should stop at the water's edge. 
But I think the responsibility lies with the administration to foster a 
bipartisan foreign policy. That is clearly not happening here.
  We are entitled to know the truth. If the law has been complied with, 
this is over with. If it has not, then, frankly, that ought to be known 
by the American people as well.
  Whether or not a Kilo-class submarine is a dangerous weapon, frankly, 
is a judgment the administration is entitled to make. But there may be 
other weapons on that, as the Secretary suggests, that were subject to 
sanctions.
  We have a right to know whether or not we have been treated as 
mushroom farmers--keep them in the dark and shovel the manure on them.
  That is not how it is supposed to work--not according to our 
Constitution, not according to our statutory law and various 
provisions.
  We are entitled to know the truth. As one Senator, I plead with the 
State Department to show us the documents and this goes away. But you 
have to show us the documents. We are owed it. We deserve it. We are 
entitled to it. It ought to happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask to be able to proceed for 8 minutes 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. We are operating 
under a time agreement until 7:30.

                          ____________________