[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H204-H210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, 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 rise tonight on the eve of 
the historic State of the Union the President is going to provide to 
the American people to discuss the role that Congress has played in a 
very constructive way, in a very bipartisan way in assisting this 
President in some of the most difficult foreign policy decisions that 
have ever confronted this Nation.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric about the partisan politics of this 
President not doing what he said he would do and this President wanting 
to go into war and jump ahead of events and threaten the lives of the 
American people, and we all know that is just rhetoric. This President, 
to his core, does not want war. This Congress does not want war. This 
Congress and this President do not want conflict. So when Members on 
either side get up and spew out rhetoric that makes it appear that this 
President is bent on creating conflict with Iraq or North Korea, it is 
untrue.
  I want to analyze some of the events that occurred over the recent 
recess, the role of Congress in a constructive way to assist this 
President on foreign policy. I want to lay the groundwork for what I 
think will be the President's comments tonight about some of the most 
difficult crises that we face today.
  Much of the President's speech tonight will focus on domestic issues, 
and I look forward to that because we have to have a blueprint to 
restart this economy. He will talk about education, about health care 
and prescription drugs, and those are issues that we have to continue 
to address, and this President has a plan for those issues. He has a 
national energy strategy that we passed in the House that got hung up 
in the Senate last year. We passed a prescription drug bill which could 
not get through the Senate. The President tonight will challenge us to 
complete the work domestically that he has outlined for us in the past, 
and he will outline a new vision in terms of jump-starting the economy.
  But the real focus has to do with our national security, because as 
we all know, Article I, section 8 of our Constitution, which defines 
the role of the Congress, does not mention health care as a key 
priority. It does not mention the environment as a key priority. In 
fact, it does not mention education. But Article I, section 8 mentions 
the responsibility of the Congress. In five specific instances it 
mentions this: To provide for the common defense of the American 
people. That is our ultimate responsibility, because without a strong 
defense, we cannot have an education system, quality health care, or a 
decent environment. A national security provides that underpinning.
  It is amazing to me when I hear the candidates who have announced 
they are running for the President 2 years down the road get up and 
spew out this rhetoric about how this President has caused all of these 
hostile relations with Saddam Hussein and other leaders around the 
world.
  I would remind Members, it was over the past 10 years that when we as 
a Nation did not enforce the arms control agreements already on the 
books that technologies were transferred out of Russia and China 38 
times. In fact, I had the Congressional Research Service document those 
38 instances. Thirty-eight times during the 1990s we had solid evidence 
of technology being leaked, illegally sold and transferred out of 
Russia and China to five countries. Those five countries were Iran, 
Iraq, Syria, Libya and North Korea. What were those technologies? They 
were chemical and biological precursors that would allow Saddam Hussein 
to build chemical and biological weapons. They were missile components 
to allow Iraq and Iran to build their medium-range missile systems that 
they now have today. They were nuclear components to allow these 
countries to develop nuclear weapons capabilities.

  Mr. Speaker, all that occurred during the 1990s, and the 
documentation showed it occurred 38 times. Of those 38 instances, we 
imposed the required sanctions of the treaties less than 10 times. The 
other 28 times we pretended we did not see it, partly because our 
policy towards Russia during the 1990s was to keep Yeltsin in power; 
and, therefore, we did not want to raise any concerns that might 
embarrass Yeltsin back to Moscow. So even though we knew this 
technology was flowing, we pretended we did not see it.
  I remember very vividly a meeting in Moscow in May 1997 in the office 
of

[[Page H205]]

General Alexander Lebed. He was a retired two-star general, and had 
just left Yeltsin's side as his defense adviser.
  My bipartisan delegation said, ``General, tell us about your 
military.''
  He said, ``Congressman, our military is in total disarray. Our best 
warfighters, our best Soviet generals and admirals have left the 
service of the country because of a lack of pay, because of indecent 
housing, and because of morale problems beyond their control.''
  He went on to say that they feel betrayed by the motherland, and they 
are selling off the technology that we built to use against the United 
States during the Cold War, and they are selling it to your enemies. 
General Lebed went on to say to our bipartisan delegation, ``Our 
problem today is your problem tomorrow.'' How right General Lebed was.
  Mr. Speaker, that was in May 1997 at the height of the time when many 
of us in the Congress in both parties were screaming for enforcement of 
arms control regimes, because if we had taken steps back then, Saddam 
Hussein and bin Laden and the rest of these terrorist cells would not 
have this technology that we are now having to allocate billions of 
dollars to defend against because Iraq and Iran could not themselves 
build chemical and biological agents. They got that technology from 
Russia, a destabilized Russia. North Korea did not have the technology 
for long-range missiles. They got that technology from China and also 
from Russia.
  So when I hear our colleagues, primarily on the other side of the 
aisle, taking shots at the President, saying he created all of this, it 
makes me sad because the facts do not support that conclusion.
  Mr. Speaker, we are paying the price today for the inaction of all of 
us during the 1990s. Since I was a Member of this body at that time, I 
include myself. We could have and we should have done more to reinforce 
the transparency and the control mechanisms that were in place to 
prevent these kinds of technologies from being leaked into the hands of 
unstable players.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we are where we are today, and the fact is 
that Iraq has chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. As a senior 
member of the Committee on Armed Services, I have sat through hundreds 
of briefings. I have gone to classified intelligence sessions. While I 
cannot talk about what I have seen publicly, there is no doubt in my 
mind, there is no doubt in the mind of anyone who follows these issues, 
that Saddam Hussein has the worst weapons imaginable.
  Mr. Speaker, in Ken Pollack's recent book, talking about the ultimate 
activity that we are now in against Saddam Hussein, he quotes some U.N. 
special documents that compare the atrocities of Saddam Hussein's 
regime to those of Adolph Hitler before World War II. What is amazing 
to me is those candidates running for the Presidency on the Democratic 
side who have criticized President Bush, I did not hear their rhetoric 
spewing out when President Clinton went to invade Yugoslavia. And as 
bad as Slobodan Milosevic was and is, and thank goodness he is being 
tried for war crimes today, even the actions of Slobodan Milosevic do 
not compare to what Saddam Hussein has committed on his own people.

                              {time}  1545

  We know that he has used chemical weapons on his own people. In fact, 
we had one instance where 15,000 people were killed by the actions of 
Saddam Hussein.
  We know Saddam has a biological weapons program. In fact, in 1992 
when Saddam Hussein was driven out of Kuwait, he signed a document 
pledging to the world community, not just the U.S., pledging to the 
world community that he would disarm, he would destroy all of his 
weapons of mass destruction. So the inspectors from the U.N. went into 
his country. We knew at the time he had chemical, biological weapons. 
We knew they were there. We saw them. We knew they could be accounted 
for, and we knew he was developing a nuclear capability.
  And yet in the mid-1990's, Saddam kicked out those U.N. inspectors, 
and we did nothing about it. In 1998 everything was gone out of Iraq 
while Saddam continued to do exactly what the world community told him 
not to do and which he agreed not to do in 1992. When President Bush 
came in in 2000, he said in his very simple analysis we cannot allow 
this to continue. We are allowing a man who will use weapons of mass 
destruction against us to build additional capability, and that is why 
the actions that we are leading up to today through the U.N. and with 
the President are so essential to be supported by all of us.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I met with some of my Russian friends recently 
and they said, You know, the problem, Curt, in your country is you get 
out front and you have all these people taking shots at your President 
and Saddam Hussein reads that as weakness, he reads that as an 
inconsistent policy towards him and if he just holds out long enough, 
the antagonism in America will go away. So in effect those people in 
some cases crying most loudly for peace are the very ones that might 
lead us to war. If we as a Nation would get behind this President and 
show solid bipartisan support that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass 
destruction that the world has acknowledged, that need to be destroyed, 
then Saddam Hussein would get the message that it does not matter how 
long he can prolong this effort and deny the U.N. inspectors; he must 
open up and let us see these weapons that we know he has.
  Colin Powell yesterday said it best, Mr. Speaker. He asked some very 
fundamental questions: Where are the chemical weapons? Where are the 
mobile vans? Where are the biological agents that we know we had in the 
past that all of a sudden have disappeared? And my colleagues would do 
well in challenging this President to repeat the fact that all we want 
is Saddam to publicly acknowledge and then allow the destruction of 
those weapons to take place. Who can be against that, Mr. Speaker? No 
one. And if he does not do that, then we have to face the possibility 
of using force to accomplish the security that our Nation deserves.
  And some would say the polls do not support the President. Mr. 
Speaker, no decent President in American history has governed by polls. 
We do not elect a President to put his finger in the air to read the 
way the winds are blowing. We elect a President to exert leadership, to 
be out front where others think perhaps he is going wrong. And this 
President has showed that leadership time and again. Mr. Speaker, it 
was this President who moved us out of the ABM treaty.
  I would remind my colleagues on both sides, remember what we heard 
from the liberal left in this city. The world was going to end, a 
nuclear race would start, Russia and China would go off the deep end. 
We pulled out of the ABM treaty because of the President's desire to 
protect our own people, and there was a giant yawn around the world. 
Ironically today we are looking to do more missile defense cooperation 
with Russia than ever before. In fact, in a recent visit with the 
chairman of one of Russia's largest space institutes, Kurchatov, they 
showed me a document and asked me to support it; but I could not talk 
about it until the ABM treaty had expired because it would violate the 
terms of the treaty, allowing Russia and America to work together for 
the common defense of our people.
  George Bush showed leadership. In spite of what the polls said, in 
spite of what our colleagues said in this body and the other body, 
George Bush stood up for what was right for America, and history has 
proven that he made the right decision.
  The same thing is applicable now, Mr. Speaker. We have some extremely 
tough challenges. We have never had a more complicated foreign policy 
situation than we have today. Thank goodness we have a President who 
understands people who can lead. Thank goodness we have a President who 
put Colin Powell in the position of power, who has integrity, who has 
respect around the world perhaps unlike any other Secretary of State in 
the history of this Nation. Thank goodness we have a President who put 
Condoleezza Rice as the head of the National Security Council, his top 
advisor on security, someone who is not a politician but someone 
who understands geopolitical issues and is there at the side of the 
President advising him on policy direction and on procedures to deal

[[Page H206]]

with other nations. And thank goodness we have Don Rumsfeld as the 
Secretary of Defense, someone who to his core will make sure that our 
military is the best prepared and the best equipped not to fight a war 
but to deter aggression. The reason we have a strong military is to 
deter aggression from those enemies and those adversaries who would 
want to take us down or who would want to harm our allies and our 
friends. And Don Rumsfeld plays that role extremely well.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this administration; and I am proud of 
this President, and I am also proud of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle who have worked together for bipartisan support of some very 
difficult issues.
  Mr. Speaker, in December I led a delegation that started out in the 
former Soviet Republic of Georgia. We went to Georgia for several 
reasons. First of all, to meet with President Shevardnadze to assure 
him that we are a key ally that he could count on to help Georgia in 
rebuilding their Nation, their economy, and this new democracy. We went 
up and got the briefings on the Pankisi Gorge when we went to Moscow, 
we could reassure the Russians that the Georgians were doing everything 
possible along with American assistance to drive out the terrorist 
cells that had been in the Pankisi Gorge in the past that posed such a 
threat to the people of Russia.
  But perhaps the most important reason we went to Georgia, Mr. 
Speaker, was our concern that last winter the gas supplies for the 
Georgian people to heat their homes was cut off. In the middle of the 
winter they had no heat, and so I invited to meet us in Georgia the 
president of the primary gas supplier for that Nation. President Igor 
Makarov of the Itera Corporation met us in Georgia at my request, and I 
asked him to make a public statement, which he did; and that public 
statement at our suggestion was to guarantee the people of Georgia that 
no gas supplies would be shut off this winter so they in fact could not 
be dangled by anyone using energy, using heat as a source of 
manipulation. The Congress played an extremely constructive role in 
that visit, and I thank my colleagues for their support in that effort.
  We then moved on to Belarus. Belarus has not been a friend to the 
United States in recent years. President Lukashenko has drifted aside. 
He has unfortunately manipulated the Parliament and has caused problems 
in our relationship. In fact, just before we arrived in Minsk, the 
capital of that country, he kicked out the OSCE inspectors that were 
there to monitor human rights, free and fair elections, and the 
oversight of the OSCE responsibilities that all 55 member nations agree 
upon.
  When I arrived in Minsk, our ambassador, who is a very capable man, 
said, ``Congressman, President Lukashenko is not going to meet with 
you. He meets with no one from the West nor from America.'' I said, 
``Ambassador, I would not be here if I had not received a personal 
invitation from President Lukashenko.'' At five o'clock on the 
afternoon of the evening we arrived, the foreign ministry from Belarus 
contacted us at the hotel and said that we were in fact invited to 
President Lukashenko's home for a private dinner meeting, which I 
attended along with my colleague from the Senate, Senator Conrad Burns, 
and our colleague from the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett).
  We spent 5 hours, 5 hours in the home of President Lukashenko, with 
the President and two other individuals, one of whom was a good friend 
of mine. We sat around a table and for the first hour we talked about 
ice hockey because that is a passion of the President, and Belarus was 
the Cinderella team in the Olympics in America just a few years ago. 
And then we turned to more serious issues, and I conveyed to President 
Lukashenko that we wish his people no ill will, that President Bush 
does not want to have sour relations with Belarus, but there were 
certain parameters that Belarus had to get back to so that we in the 
Congress could support an agenda to assist the people of Belarus in 
dealing with their economic problems, their health care problems. And 
those issues deal with free and fair elections, a legitimate 
Parliament. Those issues deal with the concerns that we have over 
proliferation coming out of Belarus, and those issues deal with 
restoring the OSCE representatives back into Minsk.
  After 5 hours of discussion, President Lukashenko agreed with our 
assessment. We shook hands and we thought we had reached an agreement 
that would last and change a direction of our relationship with this 
nation that some have called one of the most untrustworthy in all of 
Europe. Unfortunately, the next day the foreign ministry of Belarus 
misinterpreted what we had said, and we had to come back publicly and 
make some very strong statements against the President of Belarus.
  A week later, I was contacted by my friend who is a personal friend 
of Lukashenko, and he said, ``Congressman Weldon, President Lukashenko 
understands that perhaps things were not conducted the way they should 
have been, the way it was discussed with you and your colleagues.'' The 
bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, that 1 month later President Lukashenko in 
Vienna announced that all six OSCE reps would be restored to their 
positions in Minsk. Congress again played a constructive role in 
supporting our President in moving toward a stable relationship with 
this nation.

  We moved on to Moscow, Mr. Speaker, and there we signed a historic 
document. Members of the United States House, the United States Senate, 
the Russian Duma, and the Russian Federation Council met together in 
one room to agree to a document that we all signed, supported by almost 
100 members of our Congress, House and Senate, and the Russian 
Parliament, Duma and Federation Council. These identical pieces of 
legislation that we drafted back in the fall call for a new energy 
strategy that the U.S. should rely on Russian energy sources and move 
away from the troubled resources of the Middle East. The documents that 
we signed, which I will present to Speaker Hastert and President Bush 
this week, signify a new time in our relationship where the four 
parliaments understand a new strategic opportunity to move together, to 
help America move away from Middle Eastern crude, to help Russia 
realize the financial resources they need to help their economy by 
selling America her energy capabilities. While in Moscow we also met 
with the senior leaders of the Russian Government and the Duma and the 
Federation Council. We talked about arms control and proliferation, and 
we talked about our strategy for a new relationship, a document that 
one third of this Congress signed on to a year and a half ago before 
the first summit.
  Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of our colleagues in this body because 
prior to the first presidential summits, a group of our colleagues who 
have traveled to Russia, Democrats and Republicans together united, 
working with those think tanks to focus on Russian-American relations, 
we produced a 40-some page document with 108 recommendations in 11 key 
areas to say to our two Presidents that it was time that America and 
Russia moved together as they had announced publicly in speeches they 
had given. These 11 areas included agriculture, health care, education, 
science and technology, energy, the environment, local government, 
judicial systems, and defense and security. These 108 recommendations, 
Mr. Speaker, were endorsed by one third of this body and in the other 
body by our colleagues, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Carl Levin, and 
Senator Dick Lugar, so that when President Bush and President Putin 
were hand delivered these documents, they both knew that Congress was 
ready to move our relationship into a new direction.

                              {time}  1600

  That was a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker. In May of last year, 
when I led a delegation of 13 colleagues to Moscow on the last day of 
the Moscow summit, we had a luncheon in the Presidential Hotel in 
downtown Moscow with Members of our Senate, our House, the Russian Duma 
and Federation Council. One of the former candidates for the Presidency 
of Russia, Gregor Lavinsky, stood up to give a speech. Mr. Speaker, he 
held up this document and he said this was the basis of the Russian 
approach to both summits.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, when the Congress unites and takes away the 
partisan rhetoric, we can accomplish great

[[Page H207]]

things, and we can do it together, with our President, to move us in a 
new direction, as we have done with Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, on our trip to Moscow in early December, I was 
overwhelmed with what occurred when we went to the Russian Academy of 
Sciences. In the former Soviet States their Academy of Sciences are the 
ultimate, the elite, those who really are the most respected people in 
those Soviet societies.
  In Russia, its Academy of Sciences is the ultimate body. It is even a 
part of the government. Irregardless of who the President is, the 
Academy is part of the government as advisors.
  I had been asked to speak to the Academy of Sciences, so we scheduled 
a visit. I walked in the room, and there before me were 300 
academicians from all over the country. At the head table up front was 
former Presidential candidate and Communist Party leader Zyuganov, the 
former Foreign Minister and a whole host of former Russian leaders from 
all factions.
  The Chairman of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mr. Osipov, was 
seated at the center of the head table. He brought me to the front and 
sat me down and said, Congressman, we are asking you to speak about 
this document for this new relationship which your Congress produced. I 
said, I will be happy to. He said, following your speech, we will open 
it up for questions.
  I spoke for 25 minutes with our colleagues in the audience before 300 
academicians. When I finished, Chairman Osipov asked them to ask us 
questions, which they did. Some were tough; most were positive.
  But, Mr. Speaker, something then very strange happened. Chairman 
Osipov asked me to stand up and brought out a black cap and black gown, 
and they asked me to put it on. And then probably the most rewarding 
event that I have had in all of my years in public office, the Russian 
Academy of Sciences, the social science network, made me the first 
American member of their Academy. What an honor was bestowed upon me 
and all of my colleagues, because it was a process that involved 
members of both parties.
  Following that ceremony, something extremely unusual happened that I 
wish I could share with every colleague in this body and the other 
Chamber. The Russian Academy of Sciences voted unanimously to make this 
document their document; to make our document, A New Time, A New 
Beginning, the official document of the Russian Academy of Social 
Sciences and to distribute it to every member of the Russian Duma and 
Federation Council.
  Mr. Speaker, when members of both parties come together on foreign 
policy, we can achieve unbelievable results. We can shape the system, 
we can open new doors, and our colleagues from both parties deserve the 
praise that should be lavished on everyone for this new relationship 
that we have achieved with Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, following our trip to Moscow in December, I went back to 
Moscow a second time in January for another very special purpose. Igor 
Kurchatov is the founder of the Soviet nuclear bomb. Much like those in 
America that were nuclear scientists who did not want their careers to 
focus on killing people, but rather wanted peaceful use of atomic 
energy, Igor Kurchatov was told by Stalin to build a nuclear bomb to 
respond to the American program for nuclear weapons following World War 
II. Igor Kurchatov built the Soviet nuclear weapons program. During the 
Cold War, it was Kurchatov's work and the work being done at our labs 
that allowed the two nations to build all of these nuclear weapons.
  January 8, 2003, was the 100th anniversary of Igor Kurchatov's birth, 
the celebration at the institute named after him that day. It is the 
largest nuclear institute in Russia, with thousands of scientists.
  Mr. Speaker, I was given the honor of speaking as a keynote speaker, 
along with the Japanese Prime Minister and the former Foreign Minister 
of Russia, to talk about this new relationship and about this 
laboratory that was built and designed for production of nuclear 
weapons, but now was being transformed for peaceful purposes.
  The director of that lab, Dr. Evgeny Velikhov, is one of my best 
friends. He is a real scholar and a real leader for all of humanity. He 
has taken an agency in Russia that was designed to develop nuclear 
weapons and has transformed it into peaceful projects with our nuclear 
agencies and labs in America.
  I would include at the end of the speech, Mr. Speaker, my speech at 
Kurchatov entitled A New Millennium. That speech outlines a new 
relationship between the U.S. and Russia to take apart our nuclear 
weapons, to dismantle our chemical and biological weapons, to follow 
through on the recommendations in our document to allow the U.S. and 
Russia to work together.
  That speech, Mr. Speaker, was extremely well received on the Russian 
side, and I challenged them to build a new network of interaction 
between our labs and the Russian labs.
  Following that speech we cut the ribbon on a brand new training 
facility that is retraining 600 Russian nuclear physicists who used to 
work on bombs to do software engineering for Russian IT companies 
working with American IT companies.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way. The new relationship with 
Russia just did not happen. It happened because the Congress, Democrats 
and Republicans, worked together, following the leadership of 
Presidents Bush and Putin, who set the vision for our nations, who 
talked about a new time and a new era of cooperation and support. 
Amazing things can happen, Mr. Speaker, when this Congress comes 
together and realizes that foreign policy challenges require us to act 
as a common body.
  Yes, we can disagree in the process, but not to the point where we 
undermine our strategic leadership needs as best put forth by Colin 
Powell and President George Bush.
  Mr. Speaker, we want to expand those programs, those nuclear 
nonproliferation programs, those cooperative threat reduction programs. 
But let me issue a word of caution to some of my colleagues in both 
bodies, because some have put out some misinformation that perhaps we 
in the House do not want these programs to move forward.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. To those who have said 
publicly that the House is trying to handicap cooperation with Russia 
and dismantling chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, I say 
hogwash. What we did do last year, Mr. Speaker, as the stewards of the 
American taxpayer dollars, is to say that every dollar we spend in 
Russia, we must hold them accountable for how those dollars are 
ultimately given out.
  Why is transparency and integrity and fiscal responsibility so 
critical here, Mr. Speaker? Well, for one reason, last year there was 
an audit done by the Department of Defense inspector general, who found 
$95 million misused by some unscrupulous people inside of Russia. Mr. 
Speaker, that is unacceptable. As much as I want to take apart chemical 
and biological weapons and reduce Russia's nuclear stockpile, I do not 
want $95 million siphoned off for some other purpose, and neither does 
any other taxpayer in this Nation.
  For my colleagues in both bodies to stand up and to say in op-eds and 
public speeches that somehow this body wants to stop those programs is 
absolutely false and is an outrageous misstatement. All we want in 
expanding these programs is transparency. All we want are some basic 
conditions that show the Russian side and the American contractors 
doing this work in Russia that we want accountability for every dollar 
spent. We should seek no less for the taxpayers, because it is their 
money that we are spending.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees much of our defense 
procurement, I can imagine the outrage if one of our defense 
contractors could not account for $95 million of taxpayer money. It 
would be a national scandal. But there are those in this body and the 
other body who want to pretend that is not a problem.
  This year we in the House will continue to support expansion of 
programs for nuclear nonproliferation, for cooperative threat 
reduction. In fact, I am preparing a new package of legislation at this 
very moment. But in the end we will also guarantee that every dime of 
money that we spend is accounted for and is not being abused by anyone.
  Mr. Speaker, following our trip to Moscow, we went on to Belgrade. We

[[Page H208]]

met with the Prime Minister of Serbia, the leadership of the Parliament 
there, and we got an update on the progress that Yugoslavia is making 
following the war of just a few short years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, I was disappointed. We bombed 
Belgrade, we bombed Yugoslavia, and we promised after the bombing as a 
Nation and as a group of nations that we would help them rebuild if 
they followed certain conditions. Mr. Speaker, they have followed those 
conditions. Our embassy in Belgrade certified to us that they are 
making progress, yet we, Mr. Speaker, and our allies have not taken the 
steps to properly support the rebuilding of Yugoslavia, and that is an 
outrage.
  So I come back tonight and I plead to our colleagues in both bodies 
to work to live up to the promises that we made to the people of 
Yugoslavia, that they, in fact, can rebuild their country which we 
bombed just a few short years ago to rid them of the scourge of 
Milosevic.
  Our last stop on that trip, Mr. Speaker, was in Vienna. The trip to 
Vienna had two purposes, to receive at the IAEA the most recent 
briefing on nuclear weapons in both North Korea and Iraq. For 2 hours 
we sat at their headquarters, and they walked us through this Agency's 
assessment of the nuclear capability and potential of Iraq and the 
nuclear capability and potential of North Korea.

  I would tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, it was not a pretty 
briefing. In fact, I invited the IAEA to come to Washington, which they 
accepted, where they will allow for every Member of Congress to receive 
the same briefing, the briefing as to the capabilities of both North 
Korea and Iraq with nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities such as the 
reactors that are being built in North Korea, the reactor being built 
in Iraq, and the potential for that material to be used illegally by 
either or both nations.
  Mr. Speaker, we also in Vienna visited the OSCE, hosted by our very 
capable Ambassador Steve Minikes. At the OSCE headquarters I had the 
privilege to speak to 10 of the major nations' ambassadors, including 
Russia, about America and our policies relative to the OSCE. Ambassador 
Minikes and the OSCE team is doing a fantastic job. Again, it is 
because of the bipartisan support of people like the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and 
those people who involve themselves in the interparliamentary dialogue 
that is a part of the OSCE process.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I come full circle, and I come full circle because 
tonight in a few short hours the President will stand behind us and 
give a speech, and a major part of his speech will focus on foreign 
policy. I say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, we have proven time and 
again that we can take on any challenge the Nation has and win if we 
stick together, if we take apart the partisan rhetoric and get down to 
the substance of what America needs to do.

                              {time}  1615

  None of us want war. None of us want conflict. None of us want to see 
Americans go overseas and shed any blood. Now is the time for us to 
stand together, at the most difficult point in the recent history of 
this Nation. We face the scourge of terrorism. We face uncertainty in 
the Middle East. We face China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, India 
and Pakistan, all of which require us as a Nation to act together; to 
disagree on the way we approach these solutions, but to do it in a 
civil way, to show these countries that, in the end, we are united. I 
would just caution our colleagues in both bodies in both parties to 
understand the importance of that approach to these very difficult 
foreign policy challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, one final word. Over the recess, as it was for the past 
year, we have tried to take a bipartisan delegation into North Korea, 
to DPRK. In May of last year, 13 of our colleagues were together. We 
went to Moscow, we went to Beijing and Seoul, being promised all along 
we would get visas to go into North Korea to open some dialogue with 
Kim Jong-il and the North Korean Supreme People's Congress. We were 
denied that ability; even though we had been promised, we were not 
given the ability to travel in there to open doors.
  In August we received an e-mail from the North Korean Government to 
try again. I went back up to the U.N. two more times and met with the 
DPRK ambassador, Ambassador Han, and pleaded with him to allow us to 
bring a delegation in. In January of this year, with his support, I 
reissued a letter asking for support for our delegation to visit, equal 
Members of Democrat and Republican from this body. With the support of 
President Jiang Zemin in China, which we received in May of last year 
personally, and with the support of Kofi Annan who called me at home a 
week ago and said Congressman, we are behind your effort; with the 
support of his chief interlocutor who has been working the DPRK issue 
for the U.N., Maurice Strand; with the support, quietly, of our own 
government, aware of what we were doing and not telling us to oppose 
it, the North Korean Government again has consistently opposed an 
effort, an honest effort by Democrats and Republicans, to open a new 
dialogue.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleagues in both parties who have 
stood together and said, we will go back to Pyongyang, we will take a 
delegation in, we will have a discussion, we will tell Kim Jong-il and 
the North Korean people that we wish them no ill will, we do not want a 
war with them, we want to encourage the south in its effort to 
establish a peaceful relationship, but there are certain things that 
the DPRK must do, as outlined by our President and Secretary of State. 
They must return to their commitment to a safe policy of relationships 
with our neighbors. They must end their program of developing highly 
enriched uranium which will lead to nuclear weapons; and if they take 
those steps, then we can peacefully cooperate with them. We can become 
a trading partner, and we in this body can open new doors and new 
opportunities as we have done with Russia, as we have done with other 
nations around the world.
  So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage our colleagues tonight who 
have done so much, so much good with so much foreign policy challenge 
existing around the world, Democrats and Republicans have consistently 
united; and I encourage my colleagues to look for that opportunity 
again, so that following the State of the Union tonight we can come out 
with one voice, with one Nation and say that we all want to avoid war. 
But we must continue to exert the pressure that was required by the 
U.N. resolutions in 1992, that was required by the arms control 
agreements that North Korea has now opted out of, and if they come back 
to the normalcy that they were once a part of, that, in fact, we can 
have peaceful coexistence without conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I will 
insert the speech, ``A New Millennium,'' that I presented to the 
institute as a part of the Congressional Record at this time.

                            A New Millenium

       To stand before you today--as an American, as a member of 
     the United States House of Representatives--and deliver the 
     keynote address in celebration of the 100th birthday of Igor 
     Kurchatov, is an astonishing privilege. An invitation to 
     attend this important occasion would have been honor enough. 
     That I stand here as a principal speaker is so much more than 
     I could have ever imagined. It is truly a humbling 
     experience.
       How far we--the United States and Russia--have come! From 
     adversaries to friends, from competitors to partners--we have 
     moved huge distances from the world of our youth. The cold 
     war is over, finished forever. Today, Russians and Americans 
     are called to be the instruments of a new and, hopefully, 
     more peaceful, prosperous, and democratic world in which each 
     and every human being on this globe will live in peace and 
     dignity.
       I have had a lifelong interest in Russia. I have studied 
     Russian language, history and culture. Over time, I have been 
     blessed with many opportunities to travel to this great 
     country. I have learned that the Russians are a proud people, 
     historically aware, and mindful of Russia's unique global 
     role.
       I also have a passion for science and the good things it 
     can accomplish. My home city of Philadelphia was the home of 
     a famous American, Benjamin Franklin. As a child I was told 
     of the wonderful discoveries and practical application of 
     science by Mr. Franklin, who is one of the founders of our 
     nation. I have since been interested in what science can do 
     for mankind. Russia and science make such a wonderful 
     combination, a combination that could springboard to a 
     wonderful and prosperous future.
       One hundred years ago--on January 8, 1903--Igor Kurchatov, 
     son of a nobleman who was himself the grandson of a serf, was 
     born

[[Page H209]]

     to a life of great destiny. Igor Kurchatov was one of those 
     central persons of 20th century Russia, who helped to define 
     Russia's role in the modern world. He was a remarkable man 
     who left his mark and legacy on Russia forever.
       We gather here today more than 40 years after his death to 
     pay tribute not only to him, but the institute that bears is 
     name. Indeed, the occasion of Igor Kurchatov's 100th birthday 
     provides us with an opportunity to salute the entire Russian 
     scientific community, especially the nuclear science 
     community. For it is my firm belief that the emerging future 
     of a prosperous, democratic Russia will rely on the hard work 
     and talent of Russia's scientific and engineering community--
     a community that Igor Kurchatov was instrumental in 
     establishing.
       As I briefly trace some of Igor Kurchatov's 
     accomplishments, I want to begin at the end of his life--in 
     1958, more than 40 years ago. In his last public address, 
     Kurchatov said, ``I'm glad that I have dedicated my life to 
     Soviet nuclear science. I believe that our people and 
     government will use science only for the good of mankind.''
       Today, on the 100th anniversary of his birth, I believe 
     Kurchatov's final wish is coming true. From my position in 
     the United States, I have had the opportunity over the past 
     decade of seeing the Russian scientific community emerge from 
     the shadows of the cold war and turn their formidable talents 
     toward peaceful contributions to Russia and to the world. 
     Even as I speak here today, the men and women in the 
     institute that bears his name are hard at work, beating their 
     swords into plowshares. And they are not alone in this great 
     task--as scientists and engineers at other Russian institutes 
     also turn to science to serve--rather than destroy--humanity.
       Igor Kurchatov was both a world-class scientist and a loyal 
     citizen of the Soviet Union. He was the father of the Soviet 
     Union's atomic bomb. His country depended on him to create 
     and provide its nuclear deterrent during the cold war. He 
     succeeded in this demanding task under very difficult 
     circumstances, despite the tyranny of his bosses: Joseph 
     Stalin and Lavrenti Beria. He succeeded very well. The Soviet 
     nuclear arsenal became and remained a serious worry of the 
     United States throughout the cold war.
       In retrospect, I can say that the nuclear deterrence of the 
     United States and the Soviet Union provided the basis for 
     stability during dangerous times of enmity and opposition. 
     These weapons kept us from ever firing a shot in war or anger 
     against one another. However we might think about that 50-
     year era and whether nuclear weapons and the threat of mutual 
     assured destruction through their use was moral or wise, 
     deterrence worked. Both countries--indeed the entire world--
     escaped the devastation of nuclear weapons because both 
     countries had them and both recognized the consequences of 
     their use.
       The scientific infrastructure that Igor Kurchatov created 
     to bring this about is, and will remain his enduring legacy, 
     long after the days of the nuclear deterrence created by the 
     capability of mutually assured destruction fades from our 
     collective memory. What Kurchatov created goes well beyond 
     nuclear weapons and encompasses the entire range of peaceful 
     uses of the atom. No one can dispute the world-class 
     capabilities of Russia's present nuclear science network. It 
     is your inheritance from him.
       The later part of Kurchatov's career was spent increasingly 
     on peaceful uses of nuclear strategy. He oversaw the 
     construction of particle accelerators and research in fusion. 
     This new focus occupied him as his health gradually 
     deteriorated. Like his fellow scientist Sakharov, he called 
     for an end to nuclear testing.
       Kurchatov died in February 1960 of a blood clot in the 
     brain. His last public appearance was to attend a performance 
     of Mozart's Requiem. The haunting refrain of dona eis requiem 
     (grant them peace) must have rung in his ears as he returned 
     home from the concert hall moments before he died. I repeat 
     that refrain now: dona eis requiem, grant the world peace, 
     grant him--Igor Kurchatov--the peace that belongs to a man of 
     peace.
       You--the scientists and citizens of Russia--carry his torch 
     into tomorrow. You are carrying it into an uncertain future. 
     The future is always uncertain, no matter how hard we try to 
     prepare for it. Your work will delineate the tomorrows for 
     your children and grandchildren. It will define the future 
     and improve it for Russia and the world. You--the scientists 
     and engineers of Russia--have already begun the next phase 
     of scientific endeavors for your country, and you have 
     done it in the most difficult and troubling of times, and 
     in the face of grave uncertainty.
       I stand here today and tell you that you are not alone in 
     this quest. The United States of America will stand with you 
     as you build a new prosperous and democratic Russia. I am 
     proud that the United States has been a partner with Russia 
     and its scientists in so many ways since the end of the 
     Soviet Union. I, as a member of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, have supported all of the efforts of our 
     U.S.-Russian partnership--whether through the International 
     Science and Technology Center, the Initiatives for 
     Proliferation Prevention, or the Nuclear Cities Initiative. I 
     have supported the joint U.S.-Russian work on nuclear 
     materials--the conversion of Weapons-grade highly-enriched 
     uranium (HEU) into Low-enriched uranium (LEU) for use in 
     peaceful power reactors, the transformation of Weapons 
     Plutonium into MOX fuel, also for peaceful use in reactors, 
     and the safeguarding of nuclear material through the joint 
     Materials Protection Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program.
       The list of our partner projects goes on and on. I expect 
     that we shall walk hand-in-hand in the scientific community's 
     efforts against terrorism. These programs are also a key to 
     Russia's and the United States' joint efforts to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
       I am particularly interested in how you, the scientists and 
     engineers of Russia, can transform your nation through the 
     commercialization of Russian science, often in cooperation 
     with U.S. companies. I see such commercialization as a key to 
     future Russian prosperity.
       Last month, I attended and addressed the annual meeting of 
     the United States Industry Coalition, a group of more than 
     140 companies working with Russia and other former Soviet 
     republics in cooperative scientific commercial ventures. 
     These private companies have put aside all vestiges of cold 
     war thinking. They are committed to and see the importance of 
     creating jobs and viable business in Russia as their 
     contribution to peace. I believe that such cooperation with 
     the U.S. will help create, if not become, the locomotive of a 
     new and prosperous Russian economy that takes full advantage 
     of your greatest strengths--the thousands of excellent 
     scientists, engineers, and technicians.
       The institute that bears Igor Kurchatov's name plays a 
     major role in all of these efforts. Its leaders, Academicians 
     Evgeny Velikhov and Nicholai Nicholoaivotich Ponomarev-
     Stepnoi, have shown an aggressiveness and entrepreneurial 
     spirit that should be emulated by all the science institutes 
     of Russia. They see the future of Russia in high tech 
     industries. One of the most foresighted efforts in this area 
     is their participation with the United States Industry 
     Coalition to create a sister organization, the National 
     Industry Coalition here in Moscow, to encourage Russian 
     companies to take advantage of Russia's technical expertise 
     in new business ventures.
       The Kurchatov Institute is not just standing still, waiting 
     for tomorrow, but it creating the future. I urge all the 
     scientific institutions of Russia to emulate the endeavors of 
     those who are creating a new high tech commercial community 
     in Russia. This need not just be an effort on behalf of 
     weapons scientists.
       We have the opportunity to accomplish so many things in our 
     new U.S.-Russian partnership. We are already doing so against 
     the horrors of terrorism and will do much more in that 
     critical area. In fact, there are few areas where the United 
     States and Russia cannot work together.
       Last year I put together a blueprint for a U.S.-Russian 
     partnership. This document was endorsed by one-third of the 
     United States Congress. I called it A New Time, A New 
     Beginning. In this document I present a new vision for U.S.-
     Russian relations. I wrote in because I believed then, and 
     even more so today, that now is the time, with Vladimir Putin 
     and George Bush as presidents of our two countries, to 
     improve our relationship for the long-term. It is time to 
     stop the roller coaster ride of the past decade and settle 
     down into a steady forward path. Our route must continue to 
     take full account of defense and security issues, even when 
     they collide. However, it is now time to move beyond these 
     issues as we step into the new millennium. It is time to take 
     a holistic approach to cooperation--one that takes into 
     account Russia's myriad concerns and needs as well as those 
     of the United States.
       I would like to describe the series of initiatives that I 
     have proposed. These initiatives take a comprehensive view of 
     what might be accomplished if we--the United States of 
     America and the Russian Federation--set our minds and hearts 
     on them. They deal with initiatives in environment, energy, 
     economic development, and health care--as well as defense and 
     security. Let me describe what I believe can be accomplished 
     if we have the will and perseverance to stay the course.
       It is time for greater cooperation on agricultural 
     development. This means not only improving production, but 
     expanding private-sector investment.
       We must facilitate Russia's accession to the World Trade 
     Organization (WTO) and its acceptance of all WTO agreements. 
     In addition, we should increase funding for OPIC and the U.S. 
     Export-Import Bank projects here in Russia. Also essential 
     for economic development is improvement of intellectual 
     property rights so that companies will invest here.
       Energy and natural resources are one of the great strengths 
     of Russia. We should cooperate in oil and gas exploration, 
     for example in Timan Pechora. Success in joint cooperation on 
     energy will hinge on eliminating bureaucratic obstacles on 
     both sides of the oceans. Our collaboration should 
     investigate the energy security implications in this new 
     environment of sub-national terrorism and the efforts of both 
     our nations to snuff out such terrorism.
       Of course, I consider cooperation in science and technology 
     to be a linchpin of our future relationship. Our future 
     economies will rest most assuredly on the ability to 
     capitalize on new science and technology and create new 
     businesses that meets the world's needs.
       This cooperation includes cooperation in the area of 
     nuclear fuel cycles. We must put

[[Page H210]]

     to rest public concern about the safety, environmental, and 
     proliferation concerns associated with nuclear power. Over 
     the long-term fusion may be the key to the world's energy 
     needs. Therefore, we must cooperate more on fusion research.
       We should also cooperate in the embryonic nanotechnology 
     industry.
       We have the opportunity to perform joint cutting-edge 
     research in medical technology and treatments. The Department 
     of Energy and Institutes such as MINATOM can collaborate on 
     breakthrough technologies such as radiopharmaceuticals and 
     advanced medical diagnostic and treatment equipment. We can 
     also encourage research on devastating chronic illnesses such 
     as cardiovascular disease and diabetes between the U.S. 
     National Institutes of Health and appropriate Russian 
     Research institutes. Our cooperation would include a more 
     extensive exchange of physicians and scientists.
       Scientists would also cooperate in Space and Aeronautics on 
     projects like space solar power, propulsion technology and 
     weather satellites. They would also expand cooperation on 
     marine science research and on developing Russian 
     technologies for environmental protection and remediation.
       I would like to see creation of a fund from Russian foreign 
     debt transferal that would be the economic engine for many of 
     these initiatives. For example, commercial success in 
     technology could lead to repayment of loans or grants from 
     the fund. Such repayments could then be the basis for new 
     investments in these programs.
       Of course there are many other ways in which we should 
     become partners. I propose to also include cultural and 
     educational development, improvement of the Russian judicial 
     and legal systems in order to firmly establish the ``rule of 
     law,'' as well as assistance to local Russian governments so 
     that they can provide necessary services to the public and 
     also encourage democracy at the grass roots level.
       This is a very ambitious agenda that I propose. I put it 
     forward because I happen to believe that there is no limit to 
     what we can achieve in our partnership. After all, it is a 
     new time. And new times call for new beginnings.
       Much has happened in the one hundred years since the birth 
     of Igor Kurchatov. The vast scientific and technical complex 
     that is his legacy has done much to advance knowledge and 
     technology. It will do much more if we set our minds to it.
       Before leaving Washington to travel to Russia and 
     Kurchatov, I sought the personal feelings and thoughts of 
     another great leader in the world of nuclear physics--a man 
     who met Igor Kurchatov and professionally respected the work 
     of this great man. Born in the same decade as Igor Kurchatov, 
     Edward Teller was a key architect of the early nuclear work 
     of the United States. Now in his 90's, living in California, 
     Edward Teller wanted me to relay his personal feeling on this 
     great occasion.
       He said, ``like Igor Kurchatov, I long for peace far more 
     than I oppose war.'' He went on to say that ``cooperation 
     between scientists is the most important aspect of the United 
     States and Russia working together--it is a splendid 
     foundation for future progress when former adversaries work 
     together.''
       One hundred years after the birth of two men who devoted 
     their lives to nuclear research and whose lives and thoughts 
     were focused on peace while their countries used their work 
     for security--it is appropriate that we look to move to a new 
     level of cooperation in nuclear science that forges a 21st 
     century U.S./Russian alliance that builds on and rededicates 
     our two great nations to the peaceful use of nuclear energy 
     for the improvement of the quality of life for all human 
     beings on the face of the Earth.
       I propose that we create the Kurchatov-Teller Alliance for 
     Peace that brings together in a formal way Kurchatov 
     Institute and the labs of the Ministry of Atomic Energy with 
     Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Teller's base of operation 
     today) with Oak Ridge, Argonne, Los Alamos and the labs of 
     our Department of Energy for the specific purpose of 
     enhancing the use of nuclear power worldwide while 
     controlling proliferation. Projects like Thorium Power (that 
     offer so much promise in stopping weapons production and 
     eliminating environmental problems) and cutting edge research 
     by scientists in both nations can be brought together within 
     one new bi-lateral entity that truly moves us into a ``New 
     Time and New Beginning.''
       We are still at the beginning of the 21st Century. Much as 
     Kurchatov set out to do in the last century, we have the 
     opportunity to solve the problems and challenges of the next 
     100 years. The scientists and engineers of our countries--
     together with the businessmen and entrepreneurs in both 
     countries--could solve nagging problems of safe, 
     environmentally friendly, and plentiful energy sources. They 
     can solve difficult and complicated medical issues and use 
     science to increase agricultural production. We have an 
     almost limitless horizon before us.
       Our task ahead is daunting--some might say impossible. But 
     I am the eternal optimist--perhaps born out of being the 
     youngest of nine children in a poor family. My parents never 
     completed high school, yet they were the smartest people that 
     I have ever met--they had common sense and moral decency.
       My father, who only went to the 8th grade, gave me some 
     advice as a youngster that is just as fitting to our 
     challenge. He said in life you can accomplish almost anything 
     that you can dream. He used to say ``Your only limitations in 
     life will be those that you self-impose.'' And that applies 
     to us today.
       Together, following in the footsteps of the great 
     scientific leaders of our past, like Igor Kurchatov, our two 
     great nations can solve any problem, overcome any challenge 
     and rise to any occasion for the good of mankind--if we work 
     together as one.
       And so, I shall end where I began, by expressing my 
     profound gratitude for the honor you have bestowed on me by 
     inviting me to make this address. I am your friend and I will 
     continue to work for our joint U.S.-Russian interests. Let us 
     work together. Let us clear out the underbrush, let us do 
     away with petty bureaucratic obstacles on both sides of the 
     Atlantic. Both governments have to commit themselves to 
     making cooperation easier, and not filled with time-consuming 
     procedures. You can be assured that this U.S. Congressman 
     will work tirelessly toward this goal.
       Again, I thank you for inviting me. I wish you all well. 
     God bless the United States and Russia.

                          ____________________