As requested, my Delegation of 5 Members of Congress and two staffers (one from the Office of Naval Research) were flown from Moscow to Zalezhnogorsk to meet with city leaders and were guided into the mountain where we received full briefings on the reactors (two of which had been shut down as part of negotiations with the US) as well as the massive underground storage site for weapons grade plutonium. Our Russian hosts pleaded for the US to assist in securing the storage complex. The second challenge had been met.

The third challenge was the result of discussions that I had with Ballistic Missile Defense CEO General Ron Kadish. General Kadish explained to me that he was moving to kill US/Russia cooperation on Missile Defense – partly because he could not secure a meeting with his counterpart in Russia. I requested that Kadish send a BMDO Representative to Moscow with my Congressional Delegation where we would request a meeting through Kotenkov – which he did. Sure enough, in Kotenkov’s Office in the Russian White House, Chief of the General Staff Balyuevsky committed to provide all cooperation with our Missile Defense Agency and ultimately signed a document with our BMDO – ultimately negated by the US side. I maintain a copy of that document.

Having been convinced that Russia was serious as evidenced by the three challenges, I approached two US trusted leaders who could bring bipartisan leadership to this new Initiative based on our “New Time/New Beginning” Document. As Founder/Chair of the National Fire Caucus leading 1 million American First Responders I had known and worked with FEMA Directors Joe Albaugh (Bush) and James Lee Witt (Clinton). In calls with both men they expressed interest in jointly leading the new bilateral Initiative.

Many, including myself, witnessed each of these actions and maintain additional documentation to support the incidents. For reasons unbeknownst to me, our efforts were ignored and opportunity lost.

Putin had taken the lead and did what few expected. Unfortunately, US Administration Policy did not. As a political novice who had defied the Moscow “hardliners” Putin needed some ‘wins’, some evidence to show his success in creating a new US/Russia relationship – but that didn’t happen.

I remember well my conversation with President George W. Bush while on an Air Force One trip. Having summoned me to the Air Force One “Oval Office’ the President asked me about US-Russia relations. I candidly told the President that, in my opinion, we were losing Putin, and losing Russia, as our partner.  When the President asked me to be specific and to provide an example, I quickly brought up Jackson-Vanik, which was a trade restriction imposed by Congress in support of Soviet Jews during the Soviet era.

As a strong supporter of the National Conference of Soviet Jewry, I told the President that I had secured support from DC based Jewish groups in support of elevating Russia (and Ukraine) out of this status – which at this time was more symbolic - but extremely sensitive and important in Russia. The President interrupted me and proclaimed his equal support for ending Jackson-Vanik and reminded me that such a change required Congressional action. How embarrassed the President was when I explained to him that Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas had not acted on this matter because the President’s own staff had verbally opposed the measure. Thomas acknowledged this fact at a meeting of the House Committee (of which I was a Member) selecting new Chairmen of Committees for our Republican Conference.

History (and my Archives) shows that Putin made historic overtures to the US Administration in the 2000’s - all of which were rejected. When Rosonboronexport CEO Sergei Chemesev came to DC offering to establish a new US/Russia bilateral that would mandate consultation anytime one of our enemies attempted to purchase weapons from Russia – we turned away. I attended the meetings with Chemesev at the State Department and Pentagon and I was reminded after I left the Congress by a former White House Russia NSC expert who had been denied approval (at the last-minute) to attend the meeting with Chemesev that in his mind had been a mistake.

When the most well know Academician and Kurchatov Institute Chairman Dr. Yevgeny Velikhov was sent to DC to offer a new US-Russia bilateral to oversee all nuclear fuel destined for Iran – we turned away. Velikhov knew that I was outraged with Russia’s approval and support of the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor and was advocating for this new bi-lateral directly with Putin. Velikhov restated his efforts in an interview for my Archives Oral History last summer.

And, as it was under the Clinton Administration, when we wanted something – the situation changed. When the CEO of Rosoboronexport was ‘blacklisted’ the first time for legitimate reasons, it was interesting that his ‘backlist’ was removed when a US Aerospace Company needed to purchase titanium – which was under his control. A former State Department Official was hired by the Company, the ‘blacklist’ was removed and our Aerospace Company acquired its needed Titanium. And, once again, the Russians saw the duplicity of US policy and decision making.

Our legitimate calls for human rights saw similar contradictions. Russian 20-year-old student Alexander Kashin was made a quadriplegic when a car driven by US Embassy official Douglas Kent broadsided Kashin’s vehicle. Because Kashin had relatives living in Philadelphia, local attorney John Gallagher took the case pro bono asking only for re-training and rehabilitation of Kashin – not one dime for pain or suffering! The White House response was to deny any responsibility and ignore the violation of Kashin’s most basic human right to life.

When Putin realized that the new bilateral relationship that he sought with the US was not going to occur, he developed a strategy to re-create the power of the Motherland. Only this time, it would not initially be through military means – but would rather occur through energy dominance. We, in the Congress, warned the White House that this was occurring in 2003/04/05 but our leaders blinked and allowed this dominance to crystallize. One by one former Soviet States and EU nations were forced to rely on Russian Energy – and one by one the current energy domination of Putin and Russia emerged and solidified.

Understand, I do not support many of the decisions that have been made by Putin in many areas – just as I did not support inept and dangerous decisions that were made by Russian leaders in the 90’s and 00’s. As a strong supporter of Ukraine throughout my entire public career, I was offended and outraged by Russia’s actions against Kiev and the people of Ukraine. But I clearly remember our lack of aggressive White House support for Orange Revolution Leader Viktor Yuschenko when he and Yulia Timoschenko brought a new day to Ukraine.

Having co-chaired the Rada-Congress relationship, many of us in the Congress were saddened by the lack of public support for Yuschenko and Ukraine. Even Ukraine was not immediately removed from Jackson-Vanik unlike the other 13 former FSU nations when the USSR dissolved. Ukraine and its leaders have been so dismayed by our lack of support and inactions that current President Petro Poroshenko called Ukraine’s 1994 decision to give up all nukes a “mistake” that would send negative signals to nations around the world.

How embarrassing it is that the current leader of one of our strong allies under siege would feel the necessity to publicly express his nation’s “regrets” for having given up nuclear weapons in 1994 at the request of the US! As a twenty year Member of Congress, I am obviously prejudiced in support of the institution of the Congress. I saw first-hand the bipartisan work of the Congress in holding the USSR and Russia fully accountable for their stupidity and for violations in our relationship as well as international obligations.

Repeatedly, I witnessed the House and the Senate implement the Reagan doctrine of strength, consistency and candor in our dealings with the USSR and Russia. I cannot say the same for American administrations over the past 30 years.

But, as the youngest of nine, I am an eternal optimist. I welcome the leadership of President-elect Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that energy production and distribution has had (and will continue to have) a profound impact on international security worldwide – Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Libya and every other hot spot is impacted by energy concerns. I am absolutely convinced that we will finally achieve the goal that Putin (and the US Congress) originally tried to obtain 17 years ago in achieving a new cooperative working relationship with Russia.

It won’t be easy, because this is a different Russia – and a different Putin – and the world is much more complicated and much more dangerous, but this new relationship is achievable.

Reagan’s words were never more applicable – Strength, Consistency and Candor – whether in dealing with Moscow, Beijing, Tehran or Pyongyang.  And, once again the Congress must play (and drive) a leadership role in support of this new agenda – as well as our new President.