Secretary Albright: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members ofthe Committee. I can't thank you enough for your gracious remarks. Thereis no greater honor than to represent the United States, and I thank youvery much for your kind remarks at the beginning, and I hope we can endup that way, too.

This may, in fact, be my final time, and I have to say I will miss theseopportunities. We don't always agree, but the American people can alwayscount on this Committee to be forward-looking and to approach importantforeign policy issues in a bipartisan spirit.

And I am sure those qualities will be in evidence this morning, as wetalk about what I think is a very crucial issue: the United States policytowards Russia.

Since the Cold War's end, America has pursued two fundamental goalswith Russia. The first is to make the world safer, through cooperationon weapons of mass destruction and security in Europe. And the second isto encourage Russia's full transition to a free-market democracy.

On both, we have moved far in the right direction. But it is not surprising,given Russia's past, that neither goal has been fully accomplished withinthe space of a single decade. Our focus now is on how to achieve furthergains.

And through our mutual efforts on arms control, the United States andRussia have set the stage for further reductions in our strategic nucleararsenals, to as much as eighty percent below Cold War peaks.

Since 1992, our assistance has helped to deactivate more than 5,000former Soviet nuclear warheads. We have also helped to strengthen the securityof nuclear weapons and materials at more than a hundred sites; and purchasedmore than sixty tons of highly enriched uranium that could have been usedby terrorists or outlaw states to build nuclear weapons.

Throughout this period, fighting proliferation has been the top priorityin US-Russia relations, and we have made considerable progress. But Russia'soverall record on nuclear and missile exports remains mixed. We will continueto be frank with Russian leaders in stating our expectations, and we willtake appropriate actions based on their response.

More broadly, our security cooperation in Europe and elsewhere has provensteady, despite periods of stress. Many predicted that our differenceswith Russia would lead to disaster--first on NATO enlargement, then onBosnia, and later on Kosovo. But today, the NATO-Russia partnership isactive, and the US
and Russian troops serve side by side in Bosnia and Kosovo.

These and other examples of cooperation contrast sharply with the ColdWar years. But here again, problems remain.

We believe that the new and democratic Russia should support democraticprinciples, at home and abroad. And so, we have objected strongly to Russia'ssupport for the regimes in Baghdad and Belgrade.

Russia has an obligation to observe UN Security Council sanctions againstIraq. And we look to Moscow to show its friendship for the people of Yugoslavia,by supporting the desire they have just so clearly expressed for new leadershipand a place in Europe's democratic mainstream.

The United States is also engaged with Russia on economic matters, wherewe have encouraged openness, reform, and an all-out fight against corruption.

Compared to the financial crisis of two years ago, the Russian economyis doing well. President Putin's policies have been aided by high oil pricesand improved levels of domestic investment.

But the current recovery is fragile and built on a very narrow base.Russia has not yet made a deep enough commitment to reform, approved anti-money
laundering legislation or initiated a truly serious battle againstcorruption. As a result, foreign investors remain wary, and Russia's economicprospects are still in doubt.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many Members of this Committee have visitedboth the old Soviet Union and the new Russia, but I can assure you, thereis
a startling contrast.

In the old days, Russians had no meaningful right to vote, worship,speak, travel or advocate change.

Now, they vote regularly and speak freely. And with our help, they arebeginning to develop the legal structures required for the rule of law.And over the past eleven years, more than 65,000 NGOs have come into being.

But in recent months, the future of independent media has emerged asa revealing test of President Putin's attitude toward democracy. Severalincidents of media harassment have prompted many to believe that a broadcampaign is underway to intimidate or co-opt the media.

President Putin has said, "a free press is the key to the health ofa society." And we obviously agree. But it will be hard to take this statementseriously if Russia's state-run national gas monopoly, Gazprom, succeedsin its current effort to gain control of the nation's largest independentTV network.

Experts agree that, after the disruptions of the last decade, thereis a widespread desire among the Russian people for leaders who will createa stronger sense of order and direction within society.

As a result, "order" has become the big buzzword in Moscow: "poryadok."And Russia's new leaders are trying to instill a greater sense of it inRussian society.

The big question, however, is whether they have in mind "order" witha small "o," which is needed to make Russia function; or "Order" with abig "O," which translates into autocracy.

This is a fundamental choice that only the Russians can make. Theirleadership is perhaps more instinctively pragmatic than democratic, butit appears to understand that Russia cannot succeed, economically, unlessit establishes and maintains close ties with the democratic West.

Our job is to make clear that economic integration and democratic developmentare not separable. If the Kremlin wants one, it must proceed with the other.This makes sense from our point of view, and also from Russia's. Becausemost Russians want to see order established in their society through thefull realization -- not the repression -- of democratic practices and rights.

To support this aspiration, the Clinton-Gore Administration has workedhard to develop relationships with Russians that extend far beyond theleaders in Moscow. We have done this through our meetings with local officialsand entrepreneurs in places such as Novgorod and Sakhalin, through internationalexchanges, and our support for independent media, trade unions and theNGOs.

We have also shown support for Russian democracy by speaking out againstviolations of human rights in, among other places, Chechnya.

Since the fighting began in Chechnya more than a year ago, the UnitedStates has been consistent in calling for a political solution to the conflict,and in pressing Russia to allow a credible international presence to investigateabuses.

Tragically, Russia still has no apparent strategy for bringing thiswar to an end, or for reassuring the Chechen population about its futureunder Moscow's rule. Clearly, a new approach is warranted.

Mr. Chairman, I think both Democrats and Republicans, from the ExecutiveBranch and on Capitol Hill, can take pride in the steps we have taken tohelp Russians build a democratic future.

It should not be surprising that neither our efforts, nor those of Russia'sstrongest reformers, have succeeded overnight. After all, Communism wasa seven-decade forced march to a dead end, and no nation went further downthat road than Russia.

It is beyond our prerogative and power to determine Russia's future.But we can work together, on a bipartisan basis, to explore every avenuefor cooperation with Russia on the fundamental questions of arms control,nonproliferation and regional security.

We can reach out to the people of Russia and help them strengthen theirdemocratic institutions from the ground up. And we can back our words andour interests with resources, so that the next President and Secretaryof State will have the funds they need to lead -- not only toward Russia,but around the world.

Mr. Chairman, whether one serves as a Cabinet Secretary or as a Memberof Congress, we are all acutely aware that we only occupy temporarily thechairs of responsibility in American government. But we know, as well,that America's responsibilities are permanent. And we all do our best,in the time allotted, to serve well our nation and its people.

As I have said, it has been my privilege during the past seven and threequarter years to combine my service to our great country with that of theMembers of this Committee.

I listened to your statement very carefully, Mr. Chairman, and to yours,Congressman Gejdenson, and I would like to say that I am very glad to havean opportunity to talk about US-Russia relations. I didn't come to thinkingabout US-Russia relations when I began to sit behind this sign. I havespent my entire adult life studying Russia, the Soviet Union, and thenRussia again. I have taught about it, I have thought about it, and I welcomethe opportunity to discuss it.

And I would hope that you would see from my statement that the Clinton-GoreAdministration has not seen Russia through rose-colored glasses. We havebeen
very realistic and we have dealt with something that has never beendealt with before: of how you deal with a former adversary that had anempire, and help to manage the devolution of that empire -- to turn that-- to not recreate an adversary.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions onthis subject.