[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9059-9064]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       UPDATING THE WAR WITH IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is 
recognized for 60 minutes or until the hour of midnight, whichever 
comes first.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing 
me, and I will not take the full hour, but I rise this evening to 
discuss and put on the record some concerns about the current war and 
about where we are going and some problems that we will face in the 
future, and I hope to lay these comments on the record so that our 
colleagues can use them for the basis of discussion and perhaps action 
over the next several weeks and the rest of this session.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, what we saw today on our national 
television around the world is a complete vindication of the efforts of 
our President, our Secretary of Defense, our Secretary of State, the 
National Security Advisor, and most importantly our military. We heard 
nothing but shrill rhetoric coming out of this city, and in some cases 
coming out of this body, from those who said that military action was 
not justified and that it would not be successful.
  Now, granted we have not completed this action, Mr. Speaker, but here 
we are 3 weeks after the actual military conflict as begun and we now 
have secured a major portion of Iraq and the capital city of Bagdad. 
Saddam Hussein is on the run. He either has been killed or he is hiding 
like a coward and is looking for a way out, perhaps in the neighboring 
country of Syria.
  But, Mr. Speaker, through all of this our military has performed in 
an absolutely astounding manner. The brave men and women of America who 
went over to serve have done an absolutely fantastic job. Our hearts 
and our sympathies go out to those family members of those brave 
Americans and British troops who paid the ultimate price and to those 
hundreds who have been injured and have received casualties because of 
this conflict.
  But in the end, Mr. Speaker, the plan established by our Pentagon 
leaders was a valid plan, is a valid plan, and, in fact, has 
accomplished not only what we could have in our wildest dreams imagined 
and expected, but it has even surpassed our expectations in the 
success, in the efforts to secure the oil fields, to open the port 
facilities, to prevent missiles from being lobbed into Israel and 
Jordan and Kuwait which we knew the Iraqis wanted to do, to show the 
people of Iraq in all the cities that we are there not to dominate or 
take over their country but rather to liberate them and eventually turn 
the country back to them so they can elect their own leaders in free 
and fair elections.
  Mr. Speaker, as well as things are going we must also look to where 
we are going to the future. And I mention that because we need to 
continue to pursue several other issues. The first of which is the 
request to convene a war crimes tribunal, not just to hold Saddam 
Hussein accountable but to hold the leaders of his regime accountable.
  Several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I introduced legislation which has 
received scores of Members who have co-sponsored it to create such a 
war crimes tribunal. Yesterday, Senators Specter and Bayh and I 
announced the reintroduction of a concurrent resolution between the 
House and the Senate that calls for this war crimes tribunal. We hope 
to have this legislation passed both bodies within a matter of weeks. 
And the legislation specifically focuses not just on the well-
documented war crimes of Saddam Hussein himself, but also of those 
leaders in his entourage and those military leaders and those military 
police and thug leaders who have increased the amount of atrocities 
they have committed on the innocent Iraqi people, our POW's and our 
troops over the past 3 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I am talking of people like Tariq Aziz. Tariq Aziz has 
been invisible over the past several days. I met the man over a decade 
ago when we had the attack on the USS Stark. I know him. And I want our 
colleagues to go on record as saying that, Tariq Aziz, you will be held 
accountable. You will not be able to walk away from this conflict 
because you publicly on international TV supported the types of 
activities that were used in direct violation of the Geneva Convention 
that resulted in the deaths of Americans POW's. And, Tariq Aziz, 
wherever you are, you will pay the ultimate price if

[[Page 9060]]

it takes us the rest of our lifetime to track you down and put you in 
the proper attitude of a criminal court, much like we are trying 
Milosovic right now in the Hague.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that this war crimes resolution be 
brought up on the floor of this body and the other body to send a clear 
and unequivocal signal to the leadership of what is left of Saddam's 
regime that they will be held accountable for what they have done and 
for what they continue to do. The best thing these leaders of a former 
regime in Iraq can do is to lay down their arms, turn over our POW's, 
blend into society and admit, in fact, that Saddam's regime was 
oppressive and out of control. And if they do that and if they do not 
commit war crimes, then, in fact, they will not be held accountable 
under this action. But we will pursue those people who have, in fact, 
committed war crimes. And, in fact, we have asked our military and our 
allies to document, along with the Iraqi people, to document dates, 
times, places, so that in the end justice will prevail for the years 
and years of human rights abuses that Saddam Hussein and his regime 
have perpetrated on innocent people. And especially in recent times on 
our POW's and our soldiers who were sucked into situations where people 
were pretending to be coming forward in a gesture of surrendering, 
hiding behind the garb of civilians only to inflict serious wounds and 
killings on our troops. All of which is unacceptable under the 
international rules of conflict. So, Mr. Speaker, this is an item that 
I would hope all of our colleagues would support.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to address the cost of this conflict. As the 
vice chairman of our Committee on Armed Services and the chairman the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces which oversees the bulk of 
our procurement dollars for the military, we are facing a crisis. We 
have used significant amounts of ammunition in this conflict. We have 
tested the machines and equipment from helicopters, to tactical 
aviation units, to our ships, to our ground combat vehicles. There is 
need for repair, upgrades, improvements and replacements of this 
equipment.
  Now, granted, Mr. Speaker, the emergency supplemental that President 
Bush asked for that has passed this institution will go a long way to 
meet those immediate shortfalls that have to be taken care of; but, Mr. 
Speaker, we are beginning, when we return from this two week period, to 
mark up our defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2004. And, Mr. 
Speaker, we have serious problems. We are going to have an extremely 
difficult time in meeting the kinds of resources challenges that will 
allow us to motivate an increase in our ship building program, to 
continue to purchase those unmanned aerial vehicles, to move forward in 
our tactical fighter programs, the FA-18, the joint strike fighter and 
the F-22, as well as continue to pursue missile defenses like the PAC-3 
that was so successful in this conflict, or THAD or our international 
missile defense capabilities.
  To do all of those things is going to require us to be extremely 
prudent in how we spend the Defense Department dollar. And I want to 
send out a signal to our colleagues that many have come forward and ask 
for specific add-ons in our defense bill this year. In fact, within the 
jurisdiction of my subcommittee alone, Mr. Speaker, I have received 
requests from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that total $14 
billion above what the President has asked for. Now, in the past we 
have been able to meet the needs of many of our colleagues as long as, 
in fact, their priorities have been requested and are supported by the 
military services.

                              {time}  2310

  Our policy has been and will be in this new markup process in May 
that we will not be able to even consider requests for add-ons where 
the military services have not, in fact, indicated their support. To 
plus up that kind of funding would, in fact, be a gross disservice to 
the men and women serving our country.
  To our colleagues I say, during the next several weeks and months, we 
are going to have to make some difficult decisions about which 
priorities we, in fact, can fund.
  It is also going to provide, Mr. Speaker, a unique opportunity for 
us. I think there are some ways that we can, to some extent, 
revolutionize some aspects of our defense spending and free up some 
money that can help us meet the shortfalls caused by the war.
  Within a period of several weeks, Mr. Speaker, I will be coming out 
with a new initiative that I have discussed with my colleagues in this 
body on a number of occasions, but I hope it receives strong bipartisan 
support that will unleash the power of the private sector to privatize 
much of our military base housing around the country.
  Currently, and what has been the practice in the past, Mr. Speaker, 
is that we use taxpayer dollars to fund the construction of new family 
housing and barracks units for our troops. These construction projects 
are extremely expensive, very inefficient and oftentimes, because we do 
not have the funding to maintain them, within a matter of a few short 
years, these housing units become extremely costly to operate and, in 
fact, have serious problems.
  The private sector, which for years has been developing university 
housing for our university campuses and other types of private sector 
funding, have come forward and told us as they have shown to both the 
Army, the Marine Corps and the other services, that they can take the 
needs that we have in housing, and using private funding that they 
secure from private sector lending institutions, they can finance the 
actual construction of brand new family housing units and barracks 
units on any base throughout this Nation.
  In taking this approach, it negates the need for the Federal 
Government and our Defense Department to put the funding up front to 
build these homes. In fact, the private sector will come in, design the 
homes, family housing, barracks units, to the specifications of our 
military, will abide by contracts such as those that have been 
developed especially by the United States Army and allow us to build 
state-of-the-art housing units with all of the amenities that are even 
much more improved over what exists today, as well as providing 
infrastructure in the form of water piping, sewer system, playgrounds, 
swimming pools and community centers, and do it all within the cost of 
what we are currently spending in terms of housing allowance for our 
troops.
  By taking a bold initiative, Mr. Speaker, as I will present and offer 
over the next several weeks, we can, in fact, put into place a 
multibillion dollar 5-year housing renewal program for our troops. This 
multibillion dollar program, which could see as much as $20- to $50 
billion of new housing, is a real shot in the arm for our local 
economies, provides brand new state-of-the-art housing for military 
bases around the country, totally funded with private dollars.
  By doing that, giving the upgraded housing to our troops so that we 
can maintain and increase the quality of life for their families and 
for these troops that will be coming home from Iraq, by taking those 
actions, we can then reduce the military construction budget where we 
spend between $2.5 to $3 billion every year. That money then, Mr. 
Speaker, can be channelled into those program shortfalls that we are 
going to have to meet this year because of the Iraqi war.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to be prepared in this 
body to support the President in aggressively asking our allies, those 
that especially did not provide troops in that 50-Nation coalition, to 
put money on the table to help us defray some of the costs of this 
conflict.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the revenues realized from the sale of 
Iraqi oil also should be used, especially to help in the beginning of 
the rebuilding of Iraq and the stabilization of Iraq's infrastructure 
and their economy, and that should begin immediately by using the 
frozen assets that President Bush and the administration have frozen 
over the past several years.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about reconstruction of Iraq. We need to 
understand the activities in rebuilding Iraq,

[[Page 9061]]

while led by the U.S. and Great Britain, and I fully support that 
process, must also involve the Nations of the world. I think it would 
be extremely shortsighted for us, as much as many of us have very 
serious reservations about allowing those Nations that were not a part 
of our coalition benefit, I think it would be a serious mistake for us 
if we did not allow the U.N. to play a constructive role.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, Nations of the world, along with the U.S., 
have frozen over $6 billion of Iraqi funds that are currently being 
held in banks around the world. That money cannot be accessed unless 
all the Nations of the world are a part of a coalition with us. So I 
encourage the administration, as Secretary Powell and as the President 
has stated, to work together with the U.N.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, I think the U.S. and Great 
Britain and Australia should play the lead role, and I think our 
companies and our consulting contractors should have an edge over those 
other contractors and Nations that did not see fit to support the 
liberation of the Iraqi people.
  Let me talk about the three most prominent Nations that did not 
support us in this effort, Mr. Speaker, the first being Germany. Some 
would say that we should not allow Germany, France and Russia to play 
any type of role in a post-Iraqi renewal. I think we have to look at 
this very carefully Mr. Speaker.
  In the case of Germany, she has been a long-time ally of ours, and if 
we look and listen to the leaders of the German military, if we listen 
to much of the mainstream political leadership coming out of that 
Nation, it is very supportive of the U.S. and our position. My own 
feeling is that our problem with Germany resulted from a regime that 
today is very unpopular in that Nation, and I think the feeling towards 
Germany should be focused on the leadership of that Nation as opposed 
to the German people. They continue to house significant amounts of our 
troops and our military bases in Germany, and their military continues 
to play a very close working relationship with our troops.
  Hopefully, Germany will deal with its own leadership problems 
internally, and hopefully, the German government will, in fact, take 
action separate from the words and actions of Mr. Schroeder that will 
allow Germany to again become a solid partner of ours.
  In the case of France, Mr. Speaker, I would say perhaps it is a 
different story. France has also been a long-term ally of ours, and I 
have been a long-term friend of both the Germans and the French. In 
fact, I was to have received the highest award that France offers for 
homeland security in traveling over there in March which I refused to 
do because of my concerns for the comments of both their foreign 
minister and President Jacques Chirac.
  My concern with France is much deeper than it is with Germany, Mr. 
Speaker, because it is not just one person. It is, in fact, a pervasive 
attitude among the leadership of France that the U.S. was inherently 
wrong in our effort and that we should be condemned really by the 
Nations of the world for the actions that we took in regard to Iraq.
  As I wrote to President Chirac and President Schroeder one month ago 
or several weeks ago when this conflict started, I cannot understand 
how they could be more hypocritical.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that it was only 4 years 
ago that Jacques Chirac was pounding on America's door, begging and 
imploring us to send our troops into harm's way in Yugoslavia. It was 
the same Jacques Chirac who recently said that America should be 
condemned for taking military action without U.N. support. It was the 
same Jacques Chirac who 4 years ago convinced our President at that 
time, along with the German leadership, that we should use America's 
sons and daughters, through NATO, the first time NATO had ever been 
used since NATO is a defensive organization, a collective organization 
of countries that pledge to defend each other, the first time in the 
history of NATO that it was used in an offensive mode to attack a 
sovereign non-NATO Nation. Because of Jacques Chirac and because of the 
German leadership and our own President, in fact, we sent more troops 
than either Germany or France. We invaded a sovereign country to remove 
a leader because of his human rights violations.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us, including myself, acknowledge that Milosevic 
is a war criminal, and he is justifiably being tried in The Hague for 
his crimes, but Mr. Speaker, as we all know, when that conflict 
started, we did not want Russia involved. In fact, the only way we 
ended that conflict after our aerial bombing campaign did not dislodge 
Milosevic was to convince the Russians to come back in and as a part of 
the G-8 process help us negotiate a framework to get Milosevic out of 
power.
  In the end, Russia was a key ally, but if we remember just 4 years 
ago, it was the same Jacques Chirac who was telling America we cannot 
go to the U.N. to get Security Council support for the action against 
Milosevic because Russia will veto any Security Council resolution. So 
the same Jacques Chirac, who was today condemning America for not 
getting a U.N. resolution of support, is the same man who 4 years ago 
convinced America not to go to the U.N. but to invade Yugoslavia in a 
NATO-led mission to remove a leader of another Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I really have a problem with France. I think France has 
made some very fundamental blunders in its relationship with the U.S. 
that are not going to be easily healed. I do not want to create rifts 
between Europe and America, but Mr. Speaker, the continued arrogance of 
Jacques Chirac and the French, as we now look to rebuild Iraq, is mind 
boggling to me, and I think the French people have to understand this 
is not some parting feeling that we have that will go away quickly.

                              {time}  2320

  The feelings of the comments, of the actions taken by the leadership 
of the French Government, to me, are despicable, and France is going to 
have to eventually answer for the actions and the lack of support they 
have taken. And, most importantly, for the absolute hypocrisy of the 
French Government 4 years ago in sucking us into a conflict with our 
troops without going to the U.N. and then now saying that we should not 
have used our military to remove the worst human rights abuser on the 
face of the earth since Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
  And, Mr. Speaker, that is not my assessment. That is the assessment 
of Max Vanderstahl, the U.N. Special Rapporteur For Human Rights, who 
just a few short years ago documented, in an official U.N. publication, 
that there has been no regime since Adolf Hitler that has committed the 
kinds of human rights abuses that Saddam Hussein has been documented as 
having committed, including Milosevic.
  So, Mr. Speaker, France is a different story. And my own feeling is 
that we should look very closely at any involvement of those companies 
and entities in France, especially those funded with government 
subsidies because, as we all know, significant parts of the French 
economy are directly tied to the French Government. And I for one, Mr. 
Speaker, will have an extremely tough time justifying any governmental 
entity that is a ``business entity'' benefiting in the reconstruction 
of Iraq.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me talk about Russia. Now, I am not here to 
make apologies for Russia. I was extremely disappointed that Vladimir 
Putin did not come out and support the United States in our effort. I 
was convinced, as someone who chairs the interparliamentary dialogue 
with the Russian Duma, as someone who has traveled to that country many 
times and knows all of their leaders, I was convinced that Russia would 
in fact support us. And I am still convinced to this day that if it had 
come down to a U.N. vote in the Security Council that Russia would have 
abstained as opposed to vetoing or opposing a resolution. That would be 
my best guess.
  But, Mr. Speaker, let me talk about Russia for a moment. What Russia 
did

[[Page 9062]]

in not supporting us was wrong, and I have conveyed that message very 
strongly to my friends in Russia in the Duma, the federation council, 
and to the Russian leadership. Likewise, I have expressed in very 
strong terms, as I have done for the past 10 years, my outrage that 
technology has continued to flow out of Russia into the hands of Iraq 
and other unstable nations. And that is an issue that we have to deal 
with that I will talk about in a moment.
  But I want to look at the Russian perspective for just one moment, 
Mr. Speaker, and I want us to try to put ourselves in the minds of the 
Russians. Because since Putin has decided to fundamentally put his 
country in the camp of the U.S. and the west, there has not been much 
that we have done to give him political victories back home. After all, 
Mr. Speaker, it was the U.S. that pulled out of the ABM Treaty.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I have been a leader in 
saying that that treaty had outlived its usefulness. But we all know 
that the ABM Treaty was an extremely important political statement in 
Russia in terms of bilateral security with the U.S. The fault with the 
ABM Treaty was not that we pulled out of it, as President Bush did, 
with my support, it was how we handled the pulling out of the ABM 
Treaty. We did not give Putin any degree of cover politically back home 
in his country.
  And the same thing occurred with the expansion of NATO. Again, I 
supported the expansion of NATO and all of those countries that are 
currently NATO members, including the Baltic States; the former Soviet 
states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; the former eastern block 
nations, all of which are a part of NATO. I absolutely supported the 
membership of those countries into the family of nations in NATO. But, 
again, from the Russian perspective, we move NATO up to Russia's 
doorstep. Again, we did not take the appropriate steps to give Putin 
the political cover to his people that this was not some kind of an 
overt move or some kind of overt effort to try to threaten Russia and 
its stability and security.
  The third thing was, Mr. Speaker, the war in Kosovo, which I just 
described a moment ago, 4 years ago, where we bombed Milosevic and 
deliberately kept Russia out of the equation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 4 
years ago I led a delegation of 11 of our colleagues to Vienna, five 
from the Democrat side and five from the Republican side. I let each of 
those 11 Members read on the airplane ride to Vienna an internal memo 
that was written by Strobe Talbott to Vice President Gore and Sandy 
Berger that outlined the fact that we did not want Russia involved in 
helping to find a solution to get Milosevic out of power. So, again, we 
sent the wrong signal to Russia.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, the one priority that Russia has 
consistently asked for, that President Bush promised he would deliver 
to President Putin over 1 year ago, was the elevation of Russia out of 
Jackson-Vanik restraints. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is strong 
overwhelming bipartisan support in this body to elevate Russia out of 
Jackson-Vanik, and many of my colleagues have cosponsored that 
legislation. President Bush promised President Putin over 1 year ago 
that we would elevate Russia out of Jackson-Vanik. Because of actions 
by Members in the other body over issues like poultry imports and steel 
imports, action was never taken on elevating Russia out of Jackson-
Vanik. So another commitment that we made to Russia never materialized.
  So if you look at it from Putin and Russia's standpoint, it really 
has been a one-way effort in terms of trying to convince the Russians 
that we want to be their equal partner. That does not justify Russia's 
action in not supporting us. In my opinion, Russia should have been 
with us because they have the same problems with terrorism that we 
have. And, in fact, I might add, Mr. Speaker, Russia has been very 
cooperative in working with us in sharing intelligence and allowing us 
to use airspace and allowing us to use former Soviet military bases for 
our troops in fighting the war against terrorism.
  But my disappointment in Russia and its position is also partly 
modified by the reality of what happened over the past several years 
that I think caused Russia not to be as supportive as perhaps they 
should have and could have been.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. Speaker, in Russia today we still have a major problem. One of 
the points that I have made to my colleagues repeatedly over the past 
10 years is that much of our problem with homeland security today has 
come about because we did not enforce the requirements of arms control 
regimes in the mid to late 1990s that allowed technology to flow out of 
Russia into the hands of five nations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and 
North Korea.
  As a student of Russia and someone who has spent much time working 
with the Russian leaders, during the late 1990s I saw instance after 
instance where we had solid evidence that technology, including 
chemical precusors, biological technology, technology associated with 
missile systems, and conventional weapons was being sold out of Russia 
into the hands of people in those five unstable nations. In fact, in 
1998 I did a floor speech where I laid on the Congressional Record 
documentation prepared by the Congressional Research Service outlining 
38 times that we caught Russian and Chinese entities illegally 
transferring technology to five nations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and 
North Korea. In all 38 of those cases, we did not take the appropriate 
steps. In fact of the 38 cases, we imposed the required sanctions 8 
times.
  I was in Moscow in January 1996 a month after the Washington Post ran 
a front page documenting the story of accelerometers and gyroscopes for 
Iraq's missiles. I went to see our ambassador, Tom Pickering, in Moscow 
in January. I asked, What was the Russian response? That is a 
violation. They are not allowed to transfer that kind of technology to 
Iraq. His answer was, You have to ask Washington, I do not make that 
call.
  I wrote to the President and he wrote me back in March, Dear 
Congressman Weldon, I share your concerns. We are investigating the 
allegations that are in the Washington Post, and if it did occur, it 
would be a violation of the missile technology control regime, but we 
have no evidence.
  Since I work closely with the intelligence community, several of my 
friends in one of our agencies brought in a package and showed me two 
devices which I have used in speeches around the country probably 500 
times, a Soviet-made accelerometer and a Soviet-made gyroscope that we 
caught being transferred out of Russia to Iraq 3 times.
  During the year that our President told me he was investigating the 
transfer of illegal technology to Iraq, we caught Russian entities 
illegally transferring technology 3 times. Over 100 sets of those 
devices were in the hands of our intelligence agency. What were they 
used for, to improve the accuracy of the missiles that Saddam Hussein 
fired against our troops in 1991 and tried to fire against our troops 
just over the past several weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem of our homeland security today is because we 
did not take the appropriate steps in the 1990s to secure the weapons 
of mass destruction within Russia's borders. We made some success, the 
Nunn-Lugar program, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Program did make good strides. They allowed us 
to take apart nuclear weapons and dismantle offensive arms. They 
allowed us to begin to control the amount of chemical and biological 
agents and understand them. But even that program did not go far 
enough. In fact, that program did not have enough in the way of 
accountability to make sure the funds that we were expending were being 
used for the proper purpose for which they were intended.
  Just this past month, we held a hearing in the Committee on Armed 
Services where over $100 million of U.S. money was paid to a U.S. 
contractor to

[[Page 9063]]

build a plant in Russia that was supposed to destroy fuel that Russia 
had which we felt was a potential threat.
  After $95 million of that money was spent and the plant was 
completed, we realized that Russia no longer had the fuel. They in fact 
used the fuel for their space program leaving us with a $95 million 
empty plant and an absolutely red face.
  Mr. Speaker, in our programs to help Russia control and monitor these 
weapons of mass destruction, it is essential that we have 
accountability. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues, now is not 
the time for us to back away from engaging Russia in helping her 
control these technologies that are the reason why we went to war in 
Iraq in the first place, these chemical and biological agents, these 
weapons of mass destruction, these potential nuclear programs.
  In fact, it was retired Soviet General Alexander Levitt who 
entertained a delegation that I took to Moscow in May of 1997 who 
responded to a question I asked him about the status of the Russian 
military in this way. I said General Levitt, you have just left 
President Yeltsin's side as his top defense adviser. You have been in a 
position of overseeing all of Russia's military on behalf of your 
country's President. Would you tell me the status of your military?
  He looked at our bipartisan delegation and he said it is in total 
disarray. He said our best Soviet war fighters, our most competent 
Soviet generals and admirals have left the service of their country 
because they have not been paid. They do not have decent housing, and 
morale among our troops has never been worse. So Congressman, all of 
those technologies and weapons that we built during the Cold War to use 
against you are being sold by those generals and admirals, and they are 
being sold to your enemies.
  How right he was in 1997 to tell us what would happen in the future. 
Those Soviet generals and admirals, not the Russian government, those 
Soviet generals and admirals who felt betrayed by the motherland 
resorted to selling off technology to unstable leaders like Saddam 
Hussein. So today in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and North Korea, we have 
technologies that flowed out of Russia into the hands of evil people 
and are now being considered for transfer to unstable terrorist 
organizations.
  Now Russia still contains vast amounts of weapons of mass 
destruction. When I had Dr. Alexa Yobakov come to Congress in the fall 
of 1998 to testify before my subcommittee, and he is perhaps the most 
respected environmentalist in all of Russia, he said this about 
Russia's chemical weapons stockpile. He said publicly we have claimed 
that we produce and have 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapons. But he 
said my hunch is that our actual inventory is probably closer to double 
that amount, 80,000 to 100,000 metric tons of chemical weapons.
  These are the same chemical agents that we have been so concerned 
about Iraq using. We cannot now move away and not help Russia stabilize 
the security of those weapons and destroy them because if we do, they 
will ultimately get again in the hands of the wrong people.
  Likewise, Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Union before it became Russia and a 
nation that divided itself, produced significant amounts of biological 
weapons. In fact, a good friend of mine, Dr. Ken Alibek, who at one 
time was the number two leader of the Soviet agency that produced the 
biological weapons for the Soviet Union and is now a professor at 
George Mason University here in the States, in testimony again before 
my subcommittee in 1998 and in his book ``Biohazard'' that he has 
produced nationwide, Ken Alibek talks about the significant amount of 
biological weapons that the Soviet Union produced again to use against 
America. In his book he documents 60 strains of anthrax, smallpox, 
botulism, VX gas, mustard gas, all of which the Soviets produced and 
stockpiled so that one day they might have to use them against us. 
Well, those stockpiles are still there, Mr. Speaker. Those biological 
agents are still stored throughout the former Soviet Union.

                              {time}  2340

  It is not enough for us to pull away and think that somehow Russia is 
going to have the money and the will to take apart and destroy all of 
those chemical and biological agents.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, in the transition of Russia from a 
communist society to a free market democracy, many of their most 
competent nuclear scientists are out of work. They used to produce 
nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads. Today they have no work. They are 
driving taxicabs. So it is equally essential that we not allow those 
scientists to end up working in Iran or Iraq or North Korea or Syria or 
Libya or China or India or Pakistan, helping them develop a new 
generation of nuclear weapons.
  For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we renew 
our effort to help Russia, in spite of our concerns with their position 
on the Iraqi conflict, to stabilize, secure and destroy those weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Because of that, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, joined by my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, with our lead minority sponsor the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards), I will introduce the most comprehensive 
nuclear nonproliferation cooperative threat reduction program with 
Russia and the former Soviet States in the history of our relationship.
  This 35 page bill will be introduced tomorrow. I would encourage our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to sign on as original 
cosponsors. At this point in time we have approximately 10 Members of 
the Republican Party and 10 Members of the Democrat Party. I have not 
yet introduced the bill, nor have I sent it out for consideration.
  Tomorrow this comprehensive legislation will be filed, which builds 
and expands upon our successes in the Nunn-Lugar program and the 
nuclear nonproliferation and weapons of mass destruction programs and 
creates new possibilities to go into Russia and to help them identify, 
secure and destroy these nasty weapons that we do not want to get in 
the hands of other leaders that might one day do what Saddam Hussein 
did in Iraq.
  It is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, now at this critical 
juncture, that we redouble our effort with Russia to help her stabilize 
and destroy these most nasty weapons that are the most significant 
threats to our homeland security.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is creative. It creates a number of 
new initiatives, all of which are involved to have a closer working 
relationship.
  Mr. Speaker, in my initial discussions with the Russians, they have 
told me if America passes this kind of comprehensive legislation, they 
will work with us to open up all of those other secret sites that up 
until now Russia has been unwilling to allow our scientists to visit.
  If we truly want to secure the homeland, Mr. Speaker, then we have to 
go to where the threats are, and the threats to our security and our 
homeland, the threats of chemical, biological, nuclear strategic 
missile systems, are contained within the confines of the former Soviet 
States.
  This legislation gives us new initiatives to address those threats 
cooperatively with Russia, and, in doing so, convinces the Russians 
that they have got to stop keeping some of their facilities closed and 
off limits, but rather allow us to work collectively together.
  It also provides something new, Mr. Speaker. It provides for an 
accountability process that will prevent future expenditures of U.S. 
money from being misspent the way we have seen dollars misspent in past 
programs, where the projects were not in fact doing what was intended 
to be done and did not accomplish the objectives that we laid out 
initially.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join on this 
legislation tomorrow morning. Our press conference at 9:30 in the 
Capitol will be attended by support groups that I think represent the 
broad cross-section of ideology in America. The Carnegie Center for 
International Peace, the Heritage Foundation, the Organization of 
Vietnam Veterans and the Nuclear Threat

[[Page 9064]]

Reduction Campaign will all join with us in a bipartisan announcement 
to put forward a new initiative, a bold initiative that allows us to 
deal with the underlying threats to our homeland security, the reasons 
why we had to go to war in Iraq, because Saddam had obtained these 
terrible technologies from a destabilized Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, the minister of atomic energy from Russia, Rumyantsev, 
is in our city tonight. I will be meeting with him tomorrow morning at 
9 a.m. I know the minister well. He wants to work with us in a 
constructive way to reduce threats. We must seize the opportunity and 
the initiative. We must not allow ourselves to be clouded, to think 
that somehow pulling away from Russia is the answer. It is the worst 
solution. It is the worst alternative in terms of dealing with the 
concerns of our homeland and its security.
  So I would encourage our colleagues to look at this legislation, to 
cosponsor it and to work to get it brought up on the House and Senate 
floors as quickly as possible.
  Finally, in closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just speak a word or two 
about a man who I think will go down in history as the 21st century 
Winston Churchill. I was not a big fan of Tony Blair's up until this 
year, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you, I have changed my mind.
  You know, Britain went through a very difficult time when Adolf 
Hitler was in power in Germany, and I remember from my history lesson 
the position of Winston Churchill as a minority voice in Great Britain, 
calling out for the people to be wary of this man Hitler and what he 
might do to dominate people around him and to eventually inflict pain 
on Britain.
  The people of Britain laughed at him. They said Churchill was an 
alarmist. Instead, they listened to Neville Chamberlain. Neville 
Chamberlain had a very famous meeting with Adolf Hitler. At that 
meeting he supposedly received assurances from Adolf Hitler that Hitler 
had no intention of harming Great Britain, that Hitler had no intention 
of harming Europe.
  So Neville Chamberlain went back to Britain and gave a famous speech. 
In that famous speech he pronounced those famous words: ``Don't worry, 
Britain. Peace is at hand.'' Within a matter of a few short weeks, 
Britain was being bombarded with missiles launched by Germany, Adolf 
Hitler.
  It was Winston Churchill who then rose to prominence. It was Winston 
Churchill, who had been mocked by the people of Britain, who stood up 
and provided leadership, and perhaps Britain, Europe and the world's 
worst hour. It was Winston Churchill who had the courage to do the 
right thing, in spite of the animosity generated by the people of his 
Nation and by those who said, ``We can negotiate with Hitler. He will 
listen to us. He has agreed not to attack us and agreed not to harm 
Europe.''
  Thank goodness for Winston Churchill, that he was there, to call to 
arms Great Britain, Europe and eventually America.
  I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, Tony Blair is the Winston Churchill of 
the 21st century. Under absolutely outrageous odds, from his own party, 
internal bickering and sniping at him, to the British people, to world 
opinion, to the European leaders, his neighbors, Tony Blair stood up, 
and he stood for his convictions, and he did the right thing.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in final summary of my discussion 
about the war to pay tribute to someone who I think will go down in 
history as an equivalent to Winston Churchill in the 21st century, a 
man who stood up and did the right thing under impossible conditions.
  Now, that is not to minimize the leadership of our great President. 
George Bush provided the vision, but it would have been far easier for 
Tony Blair to blend in with the European crowd, with the Jacques 
Chiracs, the Gerhard Schroeders, and said that is not our battle, that 
is not our worry. Tony Blair did not do that.
  This Nation, this body and the world owes Tony Blair on this evening 
of the celebration of the stabilization of Iraq and Baghdad a 
tremendous vote of thanks.

                          ____________________