[Pages H484-H493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TRIP

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Osborne). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)
is recognized for 60 minutes.

[[Page H485]]

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take the 1-
hour Special Order to highlight a congressional delegation trip that
transpired last week traveling to Moscow, Russia; Kiev, Ukraine; and
Kishinev, Moldova. One of the areas that perhaps presents the greatest
challenge to us over the next several years is our relationship with
those critical countries.
The delegation that traveled to those countries was a bipartisan
delegation. In fact, I was outnumbered. There were four Democrats and
three Republicans. But it was a solid bipartisan effort. We had no
disagreements and we had, I think, one of the most exciting series of
meetings that any delegation has had in that part of the world.
It was a delegation that hit the ground running. We were hosted by
the chairman of President Putin's political party in Moscow, the Unity
Party, Boris Gryzlov. Even though our plane was late because of
problems with the weather, we left on Saturday, we were hoping to
arrive Sunday afternoon, we arrived in our hotel in Moscow at 12:30
a.m.; and there waiting for us was the Deputy Minister for Housing and
Construction in Moscow.
So we had our first meeting at 12:30 in the morning until 1:30 in the
morning. So those who say Members of Congress do not work, I would say
this delegation worked. That was to set the tone for the trip. That was
the first of 41 meetings that occurred during 5 days in the capital
cities of Moscow, Kiev and Kishinev.
It was a very historically significant time because each of those
countries are going through some very difficult turmoil. As we all
know, Russia has been drifting away from the West. In fact, while we
were there, we got an update on a new strategic partnership that Russia
is now aligning itself with China.
In the Ukraine, we were there in the midst of a crisis as the
President of that country, President Kuchma, was under severe criticism
for having allegedly been taped in ordering the assassination of a
prominent journalist in Ukraine. The people in many regards were
demanding, not just free press, but were demanding that President
Kuchma be held accountable and be removed from office.
In Moldova, the meetings were equally significant because, 2 days
after we were in Moldova, they had their parliamentary elections.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Communists won control of the Moldovan
parliament with 71 percent of the vote, a major shift in that country,
a very strategically important country, a major shift away from the
democratic reforms that have been occurring in Moldova over the past 8
years.
So that underscores the importance of the reason why our trip was
significant.
I want to go through the trip in a great amount of detail, but I
would like to call on my colleagues while they are here to make
whatever comments they would like to make.
The cochair of the delegation is someone who I have the highest
admiration for in this institution. He and I worked together on a
number of issues, Russia being one of them. Seven years ago, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I were able to convince our
leadership, then Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt, that we
should institutionalize the relationship between the Russian Duma,
their parliament, and our Congress.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I have co-chaired that
initiative for the past 7 years, and we have had dozens of meetings in
America and in Russia trying to build a closer sense of cooperation
with the parliamentarians in the Russian Duma in all fashions.
The gentleman from Maryland also is the first vice president of the
Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and so he represents
our country on issues affecting the European community as it relates to
Russia and other Nations. He also is the former chairman of the
Helsinki Commission, so he has worked tirelessly for human rights
throughout the world.
So it was a real pleasure to have the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) on this trip.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my
good friend and colleague, for his own summation of our trip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) and I have been friends since he came to the Congress many
years ago.

{time} 1500

He serves on the Committee on Armed Services and is one of the most
knowledgeable Members in the Congress on matters related to our
national defense. But probably less well known is his extraordinary
depth of knowledge of Russia, of the former Soviet Union, of former
Soviet officials, and present leaders in Russia itself. He is a friend
of many, a colleague of others, and an interlocutor of many more.
Obviously, our relationship to Russia is one of the most important
relationships that we have as a Nation. The relationship between Russia
and the United States is one critical to international security and
stability. As vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have the
opportunity to meet regularly with members of the Duma. However, under
the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and
with the concurrence, as he pointed out, of then-Speaker Gingrich and
minority leader Gephardt, we established a formal relationship.
It is interesting to note that the supreme Soviet, when the Soviet
Union was still in existence, sought a formal relationship with the
Congress. We demurred and did not want to enter such a relationship.
The reason for that, of course, is they were not a democratically
elected parliament. We have seen historic changes, revolutionary
changes as Russia emerged as a new democracy. It is a democracy,
obviously, struggling with its economy and struggling with a developing
democracy. It was the thought of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon), with which I strongly agreed, that the better and closer
relationship they had with representatives of the people's House and of
the United States Senate, really the examples for democratic
parliamentary bodies in the world, it would assist them in their
developing democracy and would assist us as well in establishing a
relationship which would lead to better understanding and, therefore,
more cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned that I chaired
and am now the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission. That
commission focuses on human rights. I kidded when we were in Moscow,
when Viktor Chernomyrdin was at dinner with us, that I was coming back
to the United States and raising a human rights issue about the
gentleman from Pennsylvania making us work so hard. Forty-one meetings
in 4 days is quite a schedule. But I found the meetings extraordinarily
productive, worthwhile, and I think establishing a better relationship
between our two countries and, indeed, between the leaders in Moldova,
although they are now new, and the leaders in the Ukraine, although now
troubled.
I had to leave the trip early and go to Vienna for a meeting of the
standing committee of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in
Europe where I have the privilege of representing our country, but I
know from talking to Members who concluded the trip that it was an
extraordinarily worthwhile trip.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) is going to speak after
me. He is a new Member of Congress. This was, I think, his first visit
to Russia and to some of the former Soviet states. It was my 15th or
16th visit. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has been
there, as I recall his saying, 23 times.
Mr. Speaker, we need to continue these visits. We need to continue
this conversation. We need to continue with cooperation. There will, of
course, be and are times when we disagree; but we need to disagree
while talking to one another. We need to disagree while understanding
the perspective of one another. It is critical for our own countries
and critical for all the world, and I want to thank the gentleman for
his leadership and to tell him how much I appreciate co-chairing the
Congress-Duma committee with him and the worthwhile work that we and
other Members of the House of Representatives and the United States
Senate and

[[Page H486]]

the Duma are doing to establish an ongoing, continuing, positive
relationship with this great merging democracy, Russia.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
his leadership on this delegation and in the Congress and, actually, in
the world. He is extremely well respected around the world for his
commitment to principles that are important to any democratic nation.
Just to give our colleagues one example of one of the issues that the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) raised repeatedly in Russia was
freedom of the press. He arranged a meeting with one of those, a fellow
by the name of Mr. Kiselov, who is the equivalent to our Dan Rather or
one of those kinds of people, Ted Koppel. The gentleman from Maryland
was very adamant in pressing the Russians on the freedom of the press
as a key part of any democracy. In fact, he challenged them on the
rumored threats to shut down one of the TV stations and to further
censor their media.
Perhaps the gentleman would like to elaborate on that point.
Mr. HOYER. I will take a little more time. I know the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has a meeting to go to, and I want to get to
him, but I did have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Kiselov, who, as
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) pointed out, is sort of
our Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather rolled
up into one. Media-MOST and NTV is the only independent TV station in
Russia. It is funded by, in part at least, by a gentleman named
Gusinsky. We urged the members of the Russian Duma and other officials
with whom we met to ensure that they would continue to be free and
independent.
It is interesting that Ted Turner, who has so successfully opened up
the eyes of the world to other lands through CNN, an extraordinary
contribution to the interchange of peoples and the knowledge of one
people of another, it is interesting that he has made an offer, along
with partners, George Soros and others, to participate at the level of
$30 million in helping to finance this independent TV station. We urged
the leaders in Russia to ensure that that station would remain
independent, because we know that a democracy cannot flourish without
an independent press, without independent criticism, without an
independent voice letting the people of that democracy know what their
government is doing. If it is only a government-owned station, or if it
is only a station owned by an organization like Gasprom, dependent on
the government, then it will not be a free and objective voice. It will
not be an alternative voice.
So that was one of the issues that we had the opportunity to raise. I
know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is probably
the expert in this Congress on national missile defense, will relate
the numerous discussions we had on that issue to ensure that there is
not a misunderstanding on either side as to what the objectives are and
what the sense of responsibility is with respect to defending our
peoples, both in Russia and in the United States, from those who would
terrorize our peoples by ballistic missile attacks from a Third World
nation.
So the issue of independent media outlets, the issue of defense and
security arrangements between our two peoples, were very important
issues among many, many others that we raised. I am not going to go
into them all, because I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) will as well. But we talked about health issues, we talked
about the environment, we talked about fighting drugs, and we talked
about confronting terrorists in a cooperative way, because all of those
issues were convergent in the best interests of both of our citizenry.
Again, the discussions that we have that lead to better understanding
and more cooperation will certainly result in a more stable and secure
international environment.
Again, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak briefly about
the importance of NTV and Media-MOST to the growth of the democracy in
Russia. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague again for stopping
by this evening. He is extremely busy.
Joining us from the delegation, Mr. Speaker, among the seven Members
of Congress who were with us besides the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) and the gentleman I am going to introduce next were, on the
Republican side, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and our
freshman Republican, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw). Joining
us on the Democrat side were the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich),
and also a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). So it was a strongly bipartisan and
well-balanced delegation that gave the people that we met with a
complete picture of the political landscape in America.

It was a pleasure to have one of our more junior Members of Congress
with us. He is now in his second term. He hit the ground running. It
was his first trip to Moscow, and he did the people of Montgomery
County well by showing the very positive side of America, yet
confronting the Russians where needed as well as the other countries
that we visited on the important issues that face our two societies.
I would like now to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me; and I want to
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for
his extraordinary leadership in this Congress and on this trip due to
his vast knowledge of Russia and the former Soviet Union, the
extraordinary contacts he has as a result of those 23 visits. I can
report to the House that the gentleman is well known and well regarded
among Russian officials, members of the Duma, as well as members of the
Putin cabinet and members of the Russian military.
My colleague has devoted years and years to the study of Russia. And
with his relationships and in developing relationships with people in
Russia, that reflects so well on this Congress and provided such great
guidance to us on this trip. And, of course, he will agree that we were
blessed to have as a co-chair on the trip the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), who just spoke, who also has a marvelous background with
his many visits to Russia. I cannot imagine a delegation that could
possibly be better led than this one led by my colleague, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
I wanted to thank my colleague for his foresight in establishing with
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the Congress-Duma committee. I
wanted to say just a few words about how interesting I found this
relationship during our visit to Moscow; how useful I found it to be to
have an established format and framework in which Members of Congress
could talk with Members of the Russian state Duma and have a very free
flow of information and questions back and forth.
In fact, we had that free flow of information. I was able, along with
the members of our delegation, to ask some tough questions of our
Russian guests regarding, first off, the question of freedom of the
press that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has just eloquently
addressed. We were able to ask the members of the Duma why this
crackdown is occurring against the independent media in Russia. We
asked about the background for it, the reasons for it, and we got some
mixed results.
Some of the members on the Russian side denied that there was any
serious crackdown or infringement of freedom of the press in Russia.
That is not the information that we have been given by human rights
advocates, by our embassy personnel and by others. We did not resolve
this dispute in our discussions, but we had a good opportunity to talk
about it and to raise the issue and to make sure that the members of
the Duma understand that the Members of Congress are well aware of this
issue.
I and other members of the congressional delegation were able to
raise questions about legislation the Duma is considering that would
restrict religious practices in Russia by regulating organized
religion, and legislation that would restrict and limit political
parties in Russia. Both of those restrictions are of great concern to
those of

[[Page H487]]

us in this country who understand how important it is not just to have
a free and independent media but also, obviously, to have a free
exercise of religion and a political system that allows political
parties to organize free of government control.

{time} 1515

There is no doubt that while Russia is moving toward a more
democratic society, dedicated to free enterprise and the development of
free markets, there are still some efforts involved to centralize
society and government, efforts that we do not fully support here in
this country. We were able to raise these issues with our colleagues
from the Russian Duma in a way that I think was very positive. In turn,
as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) knows, this format gave
members of the Duma the opportunity to raise issues with us. I and
members of our delegation asked them about the arms transfers to Iran
which concerned us. Their reply was that this was an economic matter,
that the budget problems they have in Russia leads them to sell their
arms technology and the ability to establish nuclear reactors, for
example, to Iran to help with their budget problem. And so they asked
us, in turn, to help them with their debt, to help the Paris Club of
Nations to understand the need to either forgive or restructure some of
the Russian debt that is owed that is a crushing burden on that
economy. Much of that debt is Soviet era. Some of that debt is World
War II era. The Russians made a good argument for the need for some
debt relief. But that, of course, did not change our belief that these
arm sales and technology transfers to Iran is not something that we
view as simply an economic issue as the Russians do but something that
we consider to be a security threat to this country and a political
problem for this country that must be addressed and must be changed.
And, of course, the issue that we discussed the most with our Russian
hosts was the question of arms control and missile defense. While we
did not have a complete meeting of the minds on that issue and while in
fact our own delegation had several different views on the question of
missile defense in particular, we did have a good discussion which I
think would be summarized that the Russian officials as well as the
Russian military would like to see continued arms negotiations,
bilateral negotiations as opposed to unilateral reductions, because the
process of going through bilateral negotiations allows confidence and
trust to be developed on both sides and allows the negotiations of
verification provisions that would make sure that through inspections
and other mechanisms, we can be sure that the reductions in arms that
are being negotiated are actually implemented, something that is not
available when one country unilaterally cuts its weapons.
On the question of missile defense, the Russians are very alarmed by
the possibility that this country will unilaterally deploy a national
missile defense. They seem anxious to work with Western nations on the
notion of missile defenses. They recognize that the biggest threat to
them as the biggest threat to us is the concern about rogue nations,
terrorist use of weapons and of course the possibility of accidental
launches. I think while we certainly did not come to a meeting of the
minds, there is a greater understanding, I think, as a result of this
visit regarding the potential for the United States and Russia and our
European allies and NATO to work jointly to develop a joint missile
defense system that would protect all of the Western democracies and
our emerging democracies, such as Russia, against the very real threats
that our President has quite rightly pointed out that are posed by
rogue nations and others.
I thank the gentleman for this opportunity to speak. I did not mean
to talk this long this afternoon, but the gentleman has given me an
opportunity to learn a great deal about Russia and the former Soviet
Union. It was a fascinating trip. I believe that this kind of travel is
very useful for Members of Congress. And when there is an organization
in place, such as the Congress-Duma Committee, it gives a wonderful
opportunity for a better understanding between parliamentarians of
different countries. I thank the gentleman for the work he has done
over the last decade or so here in Congress dealing with Russia, I
thank him for his leadership on the trip, and I thank him for his time
this afternoon.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for his outstanding
contributions to the trip. He was a valuable partner, he was an
aggressive representative of the American position, and yet he was open
and aware of the need to listen to the Russian-Ukrainian-Moldovan
perspective of world issues and the relationship to our relationship
with those countries. I thank my colleague for being here this evening.
Mr. Speaker, at this time before I introduce one of my other
colleagues who was on the trip, I would like to go through and just
highlight the kind of meetings we held and give the overall themes of
what the purpose of our trip was all about.
First of all, since we formed the Duma-Congress initiative 7 years
ago, I have had two overriding purposes in our relationship with
Russia. We tend to want to rely on the Presidents of our two countries
to work out our relationship. As we all know, they are the heads of
state and they are the ones who set the overall policy. But there is a
constructive role for the parliaments to play. There is a very
important role that we can do to assist emerging democracies like those
we visited. The two overriding purposes I have had in forming the
interparliamentary dialogue with the Russians was to empower the
parliament to show the emerging Duma and its leaders how they can
accomplish the same kinds of checks and balances that we provide in our
government here in America. By interacting with committee chairs, by
sharing staffs, by having regular meetings on issues that are both
common to us like the environment, health care, social issues, economic
issues, we also can confront the more difficult issues, strategic
issues, defense issues, multilateral relationships. So our overriding
purpose is to empower the parliament, make it more of a constructive
force in the democracy so it can in fact achieve the same kind of role
that our Congress plays in America, one that only makes the democracy
in Russia stronger.
The second purpose is to help Russia build a middle class. Because if
Russia is to survive over the long haul, we can do all that we want to
encourage relationships but we have to help Russia understand what it
is going to take to build a middle class. The strength of America is
our middle class. I am convinced that what has largely empowered that
middle class has been the ability of people to own and buy their own
homes, to own a piece of America, if you will, and what we have been
doing for the past 5 years is working with Russia to put into place a
mortgage financing system for average Russians. These discussions were
a major part of our efforts in Russia. We also had similar discussions
in the other countries. So focusing on empowering the parliament and
building a middle class, they were the overriding themes of our talks,
but we had a wide range of talks.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we took the right approach. In visiting Russia,
we did not go over there as if they were our enemy. Unfortunately, the
presidential visit that took place last May between President Clinton
and President Putin had the two of them come together and focus on
things that we totally disagree on; namely, how many missiles should we
point at each other. We took the exact opposite approach. The major
thrust of our meetings were positive. They were about health care
initiatives. They were about environmental initiatives, economic
initiatives, technology initiatives, a mortgage system, ways that we
could further cooperate and allow Russia to build a stable society and
one that is closely interconnected with an American society. That
reflects the kinds of meetings that we had.
I mentioned our first meeting was at 12:30 a.m. on Monday morning
when we arrived and our plane was late, we drove to the hotel and there
in our hotel in downtown Moscow was the Deputy Minister of Housing and
Construction Mr. Ponomorof waiting for us. And so the Members of
Congress, even though they had been flying for over 24 straight hours,
sat up for another hour until 1:30 in the morning and had our first
meeting.

[[Page H488]]

On Monday morning, we arose at 8 a.m. and we had meetings with the
deputy minister of the economy, the housing minister for all of Russia
and the finance minister. We met with our Ambassador, Jim Collins, to
get a briefing from the State Department there. For lunch we were
hosted by the American business leaders, the executives of American
companies who have set up operations throughout Russia, and we heard
from them about what we should be doing to better improve the
relationship economically between Russia and America. We then traveled
to a hospital on the outskirts of Moscow, Hospital No. 7. We were
joined by representatives of cancer institutes in America who had flown
over separately from the Fox Chase Cancer Center and from the National
Cancer Institutes, we took a delegation and traveled out to the largest
hospital in Moscow, a 1,500-bed hospital that focuses on cancer and
cancer research. Right adjacent to this hospital is the Blokhin Cancer
Center. Our purpose was to build on a memorandum of understanding that
had been signed 2 weeks earlier by the Russian and American Cancer
Research Centers. So our first serious meeting outside of the
government was with ties to establish closer relations between our
health care system.
After the meeting at Hospital No. 7, we went to the Nuclear Safety
Institute, where again we ceremoniously signed memorandums of
understanding that were agreed upon by our Department of Energy earlier
to establish joint projects between the Kurchatov Institute, an
institute in downtown Moscow, and the Nuclear Safety Institute, to
bring our two countries closer together to protect the people in both
countries from the threat of nuclear problems, the theft of nuclear
material, the disintegration of nuclear material, the illegal dumping
of nuclear waste and establishing a new framework of cooperation.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting discussions on the
trip was with our Russian counterparts who floated the idea that
perhaps we can create a new way of disposing or actually storing our
spent nuclear fuel.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, in America, Yucca Mountain is very
controversial, which is the site where we would ultimately store our
spent nuclear waste. What the Russians are beginning to talk about is
America and Russia joining together and having a common site, probably
in Siberia or in the Ural Mountains that would be managed by an
international organization where America and Russia together would
store their spent nuclear fuel so that we could work together on
research over the next several decades of how to eliminate that spent
nuclear fuel and how to develop new peaceful solutions and new peaceful
uses of spent nuclear fuel, an interesting concept that we invited the
Russians to come back to us with some specific ideas on.
With Kurchatov we continued our discussions about cooperation, in
particular some measures of providing a new form of energy that could
be floated on barges involving nuclear power plants, to assist where
there are energy shortfalls like that that we have just seen
experienced in California.
Our final major event on Monday was a dinner hosted by the executives
of UKOS Oil Company, the second largest oil company in Russia, and
there we talked about economic interaction, we talked about ways that
American companies can more aggressively engage with the energy giants
that are developing inside of Russia. As President Bush outlined to us
last night, that developing an national energy strategy is critically
important, our goal was to see whether or not Russia can become a key
strategic ally in terms of offering us other energy resources.
On Tuesday at 8 a.m. we started our meetings with the Ministry of
Atomic Energy. Minister Adamov hosted us for an hour. We discussed the
broad range of nuclear issues involving both Russia and America. There
are productive opportunities that are arising from that meeting. I will
outline them in more detail in a report that I will file.
The rest of Tuesday was spent in the Duma. We met with the Deputy
Speaker, all the factional leaders and the major committees in the
Duma, including international affairs, foreign affairs, housing and
mortgages, ecology, all the major interest areas in the Russian Duma
that we could work together on. In fact, a part of our meeting with the
Ecology Committee of the Duma, which is chaired by Chairman Grachev,
was to sign an agreement to assist the Russians in building a
cooperative effort to deal with their environmental issues and
concerns. Working with a London-based group, the Advisory Council on
Protecting the Seas, over the past 4 years, Russia has developed a
strategy to begin to address its environmental concerns. At our meeting
with Chairman Grachev, we affirmed our support to help Russia through
the U.N. acquire the money to implement that environmental plan of
action.
Also on Tuesday, we had a dinner with the Moscow Petroleum Club.
Former Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, former Ambassador to the
U.S. Yuli Vorontsov, our Ambassador and a host of other dignitaries
joined us for a solid evening of both social interaction and, more
importantly, constructive dialogue about U.S.-Russian relations.
On Wednesday we traveled to Moldova. In Moldova the delegation met
individually with all the senior leaders of the Moldovan government,
the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of
the Parliament and we met with the parliamentary members themselves,
including the Communist faction.

{time} 1530

Now when we arrived in Moldova, they were controlled by a western
faction. Unfortunately, two days later, Moldova's parliamentary
elections turned the control over to the communists who now control 71
percent of the Moldovan parliament.
One of our prime purposes in going to Moldova was to establish a new
interparliamentary linkage between the Moldovan parliament and the U.S.
Congress. Chairing the American side of that interparliamentary linkage
is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to my
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is the co-chair
of the Moldovan American Interparliamentary Assembly, who was on the
trip, for his comments both about Moldova and more broadly about the
trip in general. So I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon) for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman for his
outstanding leadership in reaching out to people in Russia and the
Ukraine, Moldova and throughout Europe. I think that I can speak for
everyone on the trip in saying that we believe that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has brought a level of stature to his
position as a Member of Congress where one can see the respect with
which he is held by leaders of all the nations who have met with him
many times concerning their movement towards democratization. So I can
say what an honor it was for me to be on the trip and to share in the
dedication of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and his
knowledge and his passion for bringing people together, particularly at
a parliamentary level.
Since the gentleman left off mentioning with Moldova, we went to
Moldova in the hope of encouraging the rule of law, democratic order,
market economy and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) may
have recounted or has been recounted early, Moldova made a choice a few
days ago for the Communist Party to be involved in the organization of
its government and actually direct the organization of its government.
The notes that I have from the meeting indicate that the leader of
the party in Moldova stated that they appreciated the contacts with the
U.S. Congress and they look for those contacts to become stronger and
that they respect the United States as a world power and they hope that
our government will work with them and respect the choices that have
been made by the people and that they hoped that the relations will
develop between the U.S. Congress and the Moldovan government. This was
done, of course, prospectively because as it turns out Moldova did vote
for the Communist Party.

[[Page H489]]

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and members of our
delegation actually laid the groundwork for a dialogue with a
government which now may have a totally different perspective than we
do about how things should be done, but at least we are in a position
where we can be talking.
Furthermore, the opening that made with Russia, we had, I thought,
very important discussions with parliamentarians about issues of
financial aid and the International Monetary Fund, the need for further
economic reforms, discussions about privatization, discussions about
the role of NATO, which a number of parliamentarians were concerned
about, the bombing of Serbia, which, by the way, it was almost 2 years
ago that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) led a delegation
to Vienna, which I was privileged to participate in, that created a
framework for ending the bombing in Serbia. Actually, as we met with
the members of the Russian parliament there, we created more of a
structure for increased exchange and confidence building, and I thought
that was very important.
In our discussions with Lubov Sliska, who was the first deputy of the
Duma, she pointed out how important it was to have productive
discussions with NATO; that she wanted to see trade and economic growth
emphasized in our relations, agriculture, energy, foreign affairs,
internal security, defense and disarmament, cooperation on crime
investigations, culture and health.
Our meeting with Sergey Kiriyenko, who was at one time the prime
minister of Russia and is now one of the super governors appointed by
President Putin, I thought was very productive. He pointed out among
other things how grave is the threat of chemical weapons. They have
40,000 tons of chemical weapons they want to dispose of, and how he had
hoped we could bring a level of cooperation through parliamentary
contact to help raise the issue of these chemical weapons, increase the
awareness of the need for U.S. and Russian cooperation, sponsor
colloquia in the U.S. Congress on this; that we as Members of Congress
could write letters to our fellows urging them to get involved; sign a
letter to the President talking about the need to do something
about these chemical weapons and to generally pursue a course that
would enable Russia to get some assistance on trying to dispense with
this.

One final comment, if I may, I think our visit to Ukraine was
momentous because we were able to get the Kuchma administration to
recognize how serious our commitment is to freedom of press, freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly in this country. We take it quite
seriously.
In an unprecedented 2 hour and 15 minute meeting with the President
of Ukraine, we got him to agree to an F.B.I. independent investigation
and assistance on the forensics of a case that involves the murder of a
journalist, H.E. Khandogiy, whose death has unfortunately been linked
to people in power in Ukraine.
So what we did on our trip was to affirm support for democratization;
was to show people all over the world that they can benefit by taking a
course of market economics that are tempered by respecting the systems
of power that exist in a country. One of the things that I thought was
quite telling that was said by Mr. Kiriyenko, and I would like to close
with this thought, is the importance of paying attention to people and
developing people. He said that in the future we will compete not just
with price or quality but with respect to who will be first to
introduce innovation.
He spoke of the significance of human capital, people, investing in
people. He said this is not just a financial issue, it is not a
technical issue, it is a problem of culture, and it is not incidental
that we talk of culture. He talked of the importance of us learning
other cultures, the importance of us understanding the results of
culture and transitional economies, and I think that message that we
bring back here is one that shows that we as Members of Congress can
help to improve exchanges with other parliamentarians around the world,
can be vessels for freedom and justice and can continue the work of
this country as being the light of the world.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his
indulgence here, and I thank him for giving me the privilege of
assisting him and other Members, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
and others of the delegation, in this very important mission.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I want to thank my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his remarks. He played an
absolutely unbelievable role in this trip. He has kicked off, along
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a new initiative with
the Moldovan parliament. Nothing could be more important right now
because of Moldova's strategic location, because of Moldova's issues.
Part of our visit to Moldova, besides the formal meeting, including a
trip to Trans-Dniester, which is an independent enclave where the 14th
Army Division of the Russian military is still located. In fact, there
are so many units there that we were told it would take days and days
and over a year, if you had four train loads a day hauling armaments
out of Moldova it would be over a year and you still would not have
removed all of the 14th Army Division. So we traveled up there, and we
met with someone who calls himself President, the leader of this
breakaway public, Mr. Smirnov, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) joined us in a dialogue with this breakaway group saying it
is important that you reunify with Moldova and the West and the U.S.
wants to help you.
We also visited a collective farm or a former collective farm on
perhaps one of our most emotional visits on the trip to see young
children and adults who have been given the opportunity to take over
the land that used to be owned by the state and now own it privately;
to see the pride in their faces as they stood up before us and they
told their personal stories of having taken back land that their
grandfathers and grandmothers had had decades ago that now is
controlled by them; and the products they are producing with no
pesticides, no fertilizers, organic farming at its best. This is a part
of the Moldovan experience, and the groundwork we laid will allow our
Congress to play an integral role with this new communist-controlled
parliament which won the elections in Moldova this past Monday.
So I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), he was a
very important addition to the trip and we thank him. It was really
good because all of them got to see that in America there are two sides
on missile defense. Every time I would give one position, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) would give the other. We said that is healthy,
that is America. It was a good dialogue, and I thank the gentleman for
being with us on the trip.
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The other important part of our trip, Mr.
Speaker, was Ukraine. Arriving in Ukraine 3 days ahead of us, after
having left us in Moscow, were our two Members of Congress who know the
most about Ukraine. In fact, they are both of Ukrainian ancestry. They
are the new cochairs of the Ukrainian Rada American Congress initiative
coming together on behalf of our two countries. The gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has traveled to Ukraine a number of times. She has
been out on the farms, outside of the big cities, looking for
strategies to help the Ukrainian people.

She is our Democrat co-chair. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Schaffer) is our Republican co-chair. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) is just the person to talk to when it comes to that part of the
world, and if anyone wants to know anything about Ukraine, they cannot
know anything without talking to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur). So our good friend and colleague on the trip and leader in the
Congress, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and most able
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for arranging
for this special order. I wanted to publicly acknowledge the incredibly
important role he is playing in helping to build bridges to nations
that were our former enemies. I think as history is

[[Page H490]]

written, as surely it will be, and we look back at the challenge to
building the peace as opposed to only fighting either hot or cold wars,
the role of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will be
absolutely essential and recognized, and I hope the American people as
they listen to this special order today will understand that it is in
America's interest to build functioning democracies in that part of the
world; that we cannot afford to ignore the millions and millions of
people that live there and still need to learn about the institutions
of freedom, certainly in the management of their own instruments of
governance. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has been the
leader in establishing the Congressional Duma exchange in Russia.
For the last 8 years, sometimes I am sure it was a lonely task trying
to make friendships with people who had just recently been some of our
most harsh critics and bitter enemies, and yet the gentleman has
pursued this year after year after year. To me, that is the test of
true leadership, and I wanted to say that.
I hope the gentleman's constituents are listening to this. I hope the
American people are listening because truly we have to figure out how
to build a peace that will last, and it can only come through
communication with the leaders of those countries and with the people
institution of those countries.
In the brief time I have to say something tonight, I also wanted to
acknowledge, in terms of Ukraine, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Schaffer), who is our partner in this effort, Republican and Democrat
working together on behalf of the interests of freedom, in signing the
agreement that we would like to submit to the Record this evening for
the new Congressional Rada exchange for Ukraine.
It is modeled on the impressive work that the gentleman has done,
along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in Russia for these
past several years. We have a lot of work to do in Ukraine and we
arrived at a most delicate moment, and I will say a word about that in
a second. But I wanted to say to my colleagues here this evening, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), what a great thrill it was for
me to be able to travel with him, with his wife; the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who
was with us a little earlier this evening; and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts), who has a major responsibility on the Moldovan
Parliamentary Exchange.
To be there particularly at this time and to experience the
ambassadors' wisdom really, the ambassador of the United States to
Russia, Mr. James Collins, the ambassador from the United States to
Ukraine, Ambassador Carlos Pascual. Honestly, they are among the most
able citizens that we could send into that most complex part of the
world.

{time} 1545

As an American, I was just very proud to be there and to be able to
listen to them and to learn from them, and to have their help in
meeting the people that we needed to in those countries.
At the urging of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon),
several of us attempted to put the beginnings of an agreement on
housing, helping Russia to begin, begin the first mortgage system. It
will not be easy. It is a vast country with 13 time zones, no sense of
free enterprise, no institutions in place, either financial or in terms
of the substantive work that needs to be done to create a mortgage
system based on collateral, including land. There is no system of
collateralizing land to borrow against.
But America must help in this endeavor. We cannot be like ostriches
with our heads in the ground. We have to use the instruments of
freedom, all the institutions we have available to us, to try at this
moment in history to make a difference.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for leading us down
that path, recognizing that community development is an equal partner,
along with a strong defense, in order to help nations remain at peace.
In terms of Ukraine, I just wanted to say that we arrived at a time
when the President of the country obviously is under extreme duress.
There are charges and countercharges, and the institutions of that
country are not strong enough to conduct a full and thorough
investigation of the actual criminal acts that were involved in the
beheading of a very well known journalist in that country who had been
a critic of many aspects of the current government.
I wish to submit to the Record also this evening the press statement
that all of us created in Ukraine and released to the international
press encouraging that there be a full investigation, and in fact, even
engaging other partners from the West, from Europe, from the United
States, in trying to get at the true facts in this case.
The press statement referred to is as follows:

U.S. Delegation Conducts Whirlwind Fact-Finding Visit of Russia,
Moldova and Ukraine

delegation urges peaceful, democratic resolution to current crisis;
delegation establishes historic u.s. congress-verkhovena rada
parliamentary exchange

A Congressional delegation of seven members of the U.S.
Congress led by the Honorable Curt Weldon (R-PA) is
completing a three-nation visit including Russia, Moldova,
and Ukraine. The purpose of this visit was to continue the
relationships established seven years ago between the United
States House of Representatives and the Russian Duma, and to
establish similar relationships with the parliaments of
Moldova and Ukraine. The other members of the delegation
include: Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Representative
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Representative Bob Schaffer, (R-CO),
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Representative Joe
Hoeffel, (D-PA), and Representative Ander Crenshaw, (R-FL).
The Congressional delegation participated in over 40
scheduled meetings in the three countries that included
meeting with the Presidents of Moldova and Ukraine, as well
as the leadership of the parliaments, senior civilian cabinet
level officials and military leaders in all three countries.
In Russia and Ukraine, the delegation met with prominent
media figures concerned with press freedoms in their
respective countries.
While meeting with President Leonid Kuchma and other
officials in Kyiv, the delegation expressed its serious
concerns with the Heorhiy Gongadze incident, and believes the
subsequent investigation must be pursued irrespective of
where it may lead. That pursuit must be compatible with the
following principals: The freedom of speech, press, and
assembly; the rule of law; and nonviolence.
The delegation believes that any settlement of the Gongadze
crisis not taking the above points into account would
adversely affect future Ukrainian/American relations.
The delegation also: Extends its sincere sympathy to the
families and associates of Mr. Gongadze; reiterates the offer
of technical support from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; expresses its strong belief and insistence
that a credible and independent investigation is essential in
order to earn the confidence of Ukraine and the rest of the
world community; affirms the principle that those accused
must be considered innocent until proven guilty; and intends
to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives to
express the sense of Congress that this incident should be
resolved peacefully.
During the over two hour meeting with President Kuchma, the
delegation was gratified to receive the commitment of the
President to follow the rule of law, maintain the freedom of
the press and assembly, and to use restraint in the use of
force.

U.S. Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange

We, the undersigned members of the United States House of
Representatives and members of the Parliament of Ukraine, do
hereby establish the U.S. Congress-Rada Parliamentary
Exchange (further referred to as CRPE), for the purpose of
facilitating expanded strategic relations between the United
States and Ukraine.
The purpose of CRPE is to foster closer relations between
our two legislatures to address key bilateral issues. It is
the goal of the CRPE Parliament to examine issues of mutual
understanding and continue a constructive dialogue toward
permanent peace and prosperity.
Having reviewed the work of the initial congressional
delegation to Ukraine in November 1999, which participated in
discussions of mutual interest in trade, economic well-being,
energy reformation, agriculture, and military relations, CRPE
will promote closer relationships between the lawmakers of
both countries.
Building upon the strategic partnership between the Untied
States and Ukraine first established in 1996, the CRPE shall
serve as a conduit in further developing and continuing
economic and political cooperation between the two countries.
Now, be it resolved by affirmation of the undersigned
Members of the House of Representatives, with the support of
the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, and the Parliamentarians
of the Ukrainian Verkhovna

[[Page H491]]

Rada there is hereby established, the U.S. Congress-Rada
Parliamentary Exchange. Be it further resolved, the Exchange
shall:
(1) Constitute a working group to help resolve any issues
hampering an expansion of economic and political cooperation
between the United States and Ukraine; and,
(2) Establish items of discussion by the CRPE which
encompass economic relations, trade, space exploration,
health-care, the environment, agriculture, natural sources,
and any other matter important to the promotion of close ties
between the United States and Ukraine; and,
(3) Convene bi-annually in the United States and Ukraine to
formally exchange viewpoints brought about by current events.
The CRPE will from time to time issue recommendations to be
pursued in each legislature.
The founders of the CRPE hereby acknowledge the leaders of
the Congress of the United States, in coordination with the
Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, and the Parliament of
Ukraine, for their dedication to establishing the Exchange.
Signed at Washington, D.C. November 18, 1999 by: Hon.
Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives,
Signed at Kyiv, on November 30, 1999 by: Hon. Oleksander
Tkachenko, Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament.

Ms. KAPTUR. Also to that country, we would urge Ukraine to follow the
principles of freedom of speech, press, assembly, the rule of law, and
nonviolence. We want to walk alongside them. As they get through this
particular crisis, we know their country will be stronger, just as ours
will be stronger as a result of the crises that we have been through.
We expressed our deep regrets to the families who are so troubled by
the disappearance of Mr. Gongadze, and we also reiterated and believe
that in the meeting with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)
and President Kuchma, we got the first commitment of an agreement from
the Ukrainian government to use resources in the West to help get at
the bottom of what actually created the crime.
We urge the government of Ukraine to use us. We believe that the
confidence of the people of Ukraine and the West depends on a fair and
thorough investigation of the facts. We are going to be introducing a
resolution here in the House to express the sense that this Congress
wants this incident resolved peacefully.
So I wanted to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)
for the Record this evening, I just again want to thank the gentleman
so very much for the gentleman's international leadership in bringing
this all together and doing what is historically correct and imperative
for peace in this new millennium.
Mr. Speaker, I also include for the Record an article that relates to
Russia and some of the difficulties that church-related organizations
are having in accessing properties.
The article referred to is as follows:

Ice Curtain in the East

(By Geraldine Fagan)

On 7 January, Russia's Orthodox Church celebrated the two-
thousandth anniversary of the birth of Christ. Thousands
attended the Christmas liturgy in Moscow's Cathedral of
Christ the Saviour, triumphantly, and, many have averred,
tastelessly, restored to the city's skyline more than 60
years after Stalin ordered its obliteration from it. Live
coverage of the event was marred, however, when Patriarch
Alexis II arrived more than an hour late, delayed by his
participation in the day's informal meetings between
President Putin and the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder.
As the television cameras panned in on the massed faithful
awaiting their Patriarch, they picked out the emerald robes
of seemingly the most senior cleric in attendance--Mufti
Talgat Tadzhuddin, head of Russia's Central Spiritual
Directorate of Muslims. For the third year running, the chief
representative of Russia's Roman Catholics, Tadeusz
Kondrusiewicz, had not been invited.
Catholic-Orthodox relations in Russia remain poor. The
Moscow Patriarchate's frequent complaints that the Catholic
Church is engaging in rampant proselytism translate into a
state policy of containment. In Moscow, there are 27 Masses
in more than 10 languages every Sunday--almost all of which
take place under two roofs. Attempts to reclaim the third
historically Catholic building of the church of SS Peter and
Paul in order to relieve the strain have been fruitless. When
Cardinal Angelo Sodano acting as papal legate made a request
to Mayor Luzhkov's office for three plots of land to build
chapels in lieu of the return of the church of SS Peter and
Paul, he reportedly received a strong and swift rejection.
According to one Catholic source in Moscow, the Catholic
Church has agreed not to create any new institutions or
structures in the city, so that the number of legally
registered parishes totals five. The remainder--including
those which group Filipinos, Latin Americans, Koreans and
Iraqis--are either termed ``pastoral points'' in an official
directory of the Catholic Church in Russia for the year 2000,
or else are not listed at all. In addition, the two apostolic
administrations (``diocese'' would be too provocative a term)
of southern European Russia and eastern Siberia have been
denied registration because they are headed by foreigners.
Bishop Jerzy Mazur, a Pole, and Bishop Clemens Pickel, a
German, have been told that they will be granted Russian
citizenship only if they marry a Russian, and currently have
to pass any noninternal documentation--such as invitations
for visiting foreign clergy--to their counterparts with legal
status in Moscow or Novosibirsk. By contrast, the American-
born Berl Lazar, the Kremlin's preferred choice as chief
rabbi over Adolf Shayevich, who is backed by the
industrialist and oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky, faced no
obstruction in obtaining Russian citizenship.
The chancellor of the Moscow-based European Apostolic
Administration, the Catholic priest Fr Igor Kovalevsky,
insists that the Catholic Church in Russia ``is just trying
to function normally and provide for its minority here. We
are not posing any competition at all.'' With 60 per cent of
the Russian population claiming to be Orthodox, and the
Catholic Church bending over backwards to keep to its own
while simultaneously supporting the Orthodox through
foundations such as Aid to the Church in Need, it is intended
difficult to see why the Catholic minority of approximately
500,000 is subject to so much hostility.
Orthodox fears of competition appear more realistic,
however, when one takes into account the fact that so few
Russians are truly touched by Orthodoxy. Where they have a
presence, Catholics might constitute 1 per cent of the
population, with practising Orthodox making up another 3 per
cent. In addition, the concentration of Orthodox parishes is
such that 8,450, or almost half, are situated not in Russia,
but in the west in Ukraine. The vast area of Siberia east of
the Yenisei River, by contrast, contains approximately 500
parishes. The Orthodox Church's current total of 19,000
parishes is still only a fraction of the 78,000 it had before
the Revolution, and the euphoria of the early 1990s when many
new believers were received is a thing of the past.
Does this mean that the much-vaunted revival of Orthodoxy
in Russia is a fiction? Many Western commentators have looked
for it in vain, expecting a healthy revival to exhibit
certain characteristics, such as social work, a desire for
ecumenical dialogue or a move towards modernising liturgical
language. By contrast, they have seen a rise in nationalism
within the Church coupled with virulent anti-Catholicism.
If one can speak of a revival, it does not exhibit those
characteristics sought for by Western Christians. There is a
core of sincere, sober-minded practising Orthodox in Russia
devoted to their Church, but they tend to concentrate upon
the vertical aspects of church life. Asked whether there had
been an Orthodox revival in Russia, one young parishioner
told me that it was difficult to know hat such a revival
would be like from the point of view of the New Testament,
since ``God's kingdom is not of this world''. In the light of
such sentiments, it is perhaps easier to understand why one
of the strongest elements of revival is not in the social
sphere, but monasticism. Compared with their Christian
counterparts in western Europe, however, practising Orthodox
are stronger within sections of society such as academia and
youth, where they tend to enjoy the respect of their non-
believing peers rather than experiencing their scepticism.
Nationalist feeling among these practising Orthodox,
however, remains passive. Nationalists prefer to parade on
the streets with banners rather than attend church, and, as
before the Revolution, only a tiny minority of Orthodox
monarchists belong to the virulently nationalist Black
Hundreds movement. There are in any case two forms of
nationalism in Russia--Stalinist and pre-revolutionary. Most
nationalists belong in the first category and are indifferent
to religion. This does not stop them from being opposed to
the institution of the Catholic Church, however, since there
is a general perception that it belongs to an organised anti-
Russian force, and all Russians were taught in school that
Catholics were crusaders from the Baltics repelled by the
national hero Alexander Nevsky.
Although punching above their weight, practising Orthodox
in favour of ecumenical dialogue are indeed very few. In the
Soviet era, the pro-ecumenical element within the Church
gained an artificial influence because of its usefulness to
the foreign policy aims of the regime, and precisely for that
reason is now frequently viewed with derision by post-revival
practising believers. For most Orthodox, ecumenical dialogue
with Catholics (and others) is impossible for a simple
reason--they are heretics. To Russian Orthodox, however, this
does not necessarily conjure up emotive images of burnings at
the stake: one parishioner matter-of-factly explained to me
that the word ``heresy'' merely derives from the Greek for
``opinion''; that is, anything deviating from Orthodox
tradition is the product of the mistaken human notion that
this tradition could be improved upon.
In one Moscow parish I recently heard a sermon in which the
priest likened Orthodoxy to the calculation 22=4. At some
stage, he said, Catholics (and others) decided that in fact
it would be more accurate to say 22=4.000025. ``You can build
a chair with

[[Page H492]]

those people using their calculations and it will turn out
all right'', he explained to the congregation, ``but if you
both build spaceships and set your course on a far-off
planet, their spaceship will end up somewhere else''. The
Catholic concept promoted by Pope John Paul II of a Europe
breathing with two lungs, East and West, is not theologically
possible for Orthodox in Russia. No amount of sensitive
diplomacy and donations of floating churches from Catholics
will change that.
There are signs, however, that the Vatican might be
becoming wise to all this. The passivity towards Orthodox
criticism throughout the past decade in Russia, culminating
in intense diplomatic efforts to bring the Pope here in the
symbolic year of 2000, has brought few returns. In the light
of this, it is of some significance that the recently-
returned and restored Church of the Immaculate Conception in
Moscow is now openly referred to as a cathedral. Of much
greater import is the planned papal visit to predominantly
Orthodox Ukraine, set up without the agreement of the leader
of the only officially-recognised Orthodox Church in that
country--the one that gives allegiance to the Moscow
Patriarchate. It looks as if Catholic-Russian Orthodox
relations might be about to become stormier, if also more
open.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Ohio. We all have a very valued possession in this Congress with the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is an outstanding leader,
commands respect wherever she goes, and always presents a nonpartisan
view in terms of improving relations.
The gentlewoman's leadership as a senior member of the Committee on
Appropriations, a specialist on agriculture issues, on economic
development and empowerment issues, is known throughout the world,
especially in Ukraine and now in Russia. We appreciate that.
I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and our good friend,
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), in helping Ukraine become a
key ally of the U.S. over the next several years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw),
our freshman member of the delegation, an outstanding Member. He was
involved, engaged, and he played a very vital role. We look to him to
provide that freshman leadership in showing other colleagues of ours
that are new to Congress that they can play a very constructive role in
helping to make the world a safer place.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for the privilege to travel with him. As a freshman, as the gentleman
points out, it was remarkable to me to know and understand first-hand
some of the problems in that region, and as a new member of the
Committee on Armed Services, I think it is going to be even more
valuable.
I would just like to make a couple of observations that really hit
home to me, particularly in Russia. It was a grueling trip, with 40
meetings in six cities and 23 meetings in Moscow, but I came away with
such a unique understanding of that region of the world. I think there
is no better way, if we are going to develop a lasting peace, than for
people to talk to people and get to know and understand each other.
But as I observed from just a political standpoint, it was so
encouraging to me to see that Russia is moving in the right direction.
They have opened their society. There is freedom of religion, freedom
of assembly, freedom of the press. They are establishing a rule of law.
But I think it was particularly important for us to be there at that
time, because as crises occur, there is always that chance that we can
move forward and become more open, or move backwards and become
oppressive and regressive.
I was encouraged to see things moving in the right direction from a
political standpoint. The rule of law seems to be taking place.
Property rights are being established. We were instrumental in trying
to encourage the use of mortgages as people borrow money to try to own
their own property.
From an economic standpoint, I was particularly pleased to see that
last year their economy grew about 7 percent, investment was up 15 to
17 percent, so that is all encouraging. I think that has a lot to do
with the political stability that is coming into play.
But as the gentleman and I know, how important that economic engine
becomes. I was astounded to learn that while the economy is growing, it
is relatively small by world standards, in the neighborhood of $30
billion, when that is half of what the State of Florida is. So they
have a long way to go, but they are moving in the right direction.
Finally, as we visited, it was encouraging to me to see from a
security standpoint that they are taking steps in the right direction:
reducing their military, dealing with us in ways to solve their
biological and chemical weapons problem. I guess the jury is still out
on that.
But the message we took is when we talk about national missile
defense, we want to work together; they are no longer our enemy, that
the Cold War is over. Yet, it is still not a safe place to live. There
are rogue nations, there is nuclear proliferation. I hope they will
continue the dialogue with us that we began so we can work together for
a long and lasting peace.
Again, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), I want
to thank him as a freshman here for that incredible opportunity to
begin to understand and now to work as a member of the Committee on
Armed Services to try to make this a safer place for everyone.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague. The
people of Florida have sent us a great one. He is going to be a star in
this body. We can already see it in the way he handled himself and the
way he conducted himself in meeting with these foreign leaders. I thank
the gentleman for his great leadership, and for what I know is going to
be a very effective role in this Congress during his long tenure here.
Mr. Speaker, there it is, a summary of our trip. We are proud of what
we did. We have no apologies to make: 41 meetings in five days in three
different States, a number of cities, visits with the people on
collective farms, in hospitals, going out and having dinner with
ordinary people and future and emerging leaders, all of it designed to
build better relations between America and the emerging former Soviet
states.

I want to close, Mr. Speaker, with a brief outline of a meeting that
I had with General Kavshnin. General Kavshnin is the equivalent to our
General Shelton. The meeting was supposed to last for 30 minutes. He
had all of his generals lined up there together across the table. We
sat there for over 2 hours, a very animated discussion about where
Russia is, the strength of the Russian military, the recent military
exercise they were involved in, and what his vision of an American-
Russian relationship will be in the future.
I will be candid, it was not the most warm discussion of our trip,
but it was a candid discussion of Russia's concerns. We reassured him
that America is not trying to drive Russia into the corner. To the
contrary, we do not want Russia aligned more closely with China against
us. We challenged General Kavshnin, based on discussions I had before
going on the trip with Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, who I have
the highest respect for, and the general in charge of our missile
defense organization, General Kadish, who I have equal praise for.
Their challenge from me to the Russians was: We are waiting for your
response, Russia, to work together. That was the message we carried
throughout our trip: We are waiting for you, Russia, to come back and
tell us how we can work together on defending our people, the European
people, and the Russian people from the threat of rogue states, states
that do not abide by the norms.
In that meeting with General Kavshnin, we opened the door for further
dialogue.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we were disappointed with one aspect of the
trip: We did not get to meet President Putin. We had had a commitment
before we left that we would meet with him. We were told when we
arrived that, because of the bombing of Iraq, he would not meet with
us. It was disappointing, because I had been on Air Force One the
previous Tuesday, I had told President Bush of our trip to Russia, and
he said to me, Congressman, make sure you tell President Putin and the
Russians that we want to be their friends. We have no quarrel with the
Russians. We want to work together.
That was the message, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to deliver to Mr.
Putin

[[Page H493]]

personally with our delegation. We were not able to do that. Otherwise,
the trip was a resounding success. I thank my colleagues for
participating.

____________________