Federal News Service - Hearing of the House International Relations Committee - Transcript

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U.S. DIPLOMACY

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL)

WITNESSES: THOMAS KEAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION; LEE HAMILTON, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION

LOCATION: 2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

TIME: TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, EDT DATE: 10:09 A.M. 2004

BODY:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you for allowing us to give closing statements, which will give me an opportunity to once again say that we can-and I'll describe how-use our economic power to pressure North Korea and Iran into abandoning their nuclear programs. If we end this decade having destroyed Saddam, the Taliban, and even capturing bin Laden, but we also end this decade with a nuclear capacity in Iran and an ability to smuggle nuclear weapons in the United States, I think we will end this decade less safe than we began it.

Chairman Kean, I want to thank you for your opening statement in demonstrating that, contrary to what one might glean from looking at the press, the 9/11 commission is not a commission report on restructuring the intelligence community. It is instead a powerful call that we use all the elements of national power to combat terrorism, and that means a look at all the issues that confront us here on this committee. Vice Chairman Hamilton came to the Financial Services Committee. We need to change policies government-wide, not structure in one part of the government.

Vice Chair Hamilton, I want to thank you for mentioning textbooks, and I'll be urging this committee to do something phenomenally expensive-or moderately expensive at least-and that is that the United States perhaps ought to provide, at our cost, textbooks and teacher manuals to the elementary schools of every country that is susceptible to bin Laden's influence. And I think that that would go a long way to providing literacy for women in various countries, as well as helping education, as well as helping to mold minds. Our enemies have done it. They've gone further and actually created the schools; they call them Islamic fundamentalist madrassas.

I want to pick up on a line of questioning that began yesterday at Financial Services, where we were graced by Vice Chairman Hamilton, and that is that the mandate of this commission expired last weekend. And I have an ulterior motive, and that is to get everyone on this panel here today to join with Ms. Maloney, Mr. Shays and others in legislation to extend the mandate of this commission and extend its funding.

Chairman Kean, I'm under the impression that the commission lasted for what, about 22 months and received-it was an annual budget of $15 million? Is that correct? Or a total budget of $15 million?

MR. KEAN: Total budget.

REP. SHERMAN: So for $15 million, we got the most --

MR. KEAN: Fourteen. You're giving us a million we didn't have.

REP. SHERMAN: (Laughs.) For $14 million, we got the most influential report of the year, if not the decade, and we're now in a position-I mean, it's a great report, but you raise as many new questions as you answer. And for every recommendation there is-that is specific, there's another recommendation that says, gee, we'd like to flesh this out for you but don't have any time. I want volume two. I'm from L.A., and we believe if the first movie is a success, you make a sequel.

MR. KEAN: (Laughs.)

REP. SHERMAN: And it's my understanding that you're now seeking private funding at a much lower level, and I want you to explain how much lower level are we talking about in terms of funding, if you are able to raise private funding? Doesn't it take a lot of your time to go seek private funding? And if you-and we in politics all know, when you seek private funding, as some of us do for our campaigns, people raise questions about who and where and what.

So I know you're not here to advocate for the legislation that everyone here ought to join in introducing, but perhaps you could tell us a little bit about some of the perhaps benefits but more detriments of the hat-in-hand approach to continuing your commission's good work.

MR. KEAN: Well, first of all, we are trying to raise some private funds, not to-we cannot do the kind of exploration that you're talking about with the kind of funds we're trying to raise.

REP. SHERMAN: So if we don't act, we don't get volume two.

MR. KEAN: Yeah, that's right. What we're trying to raise funds for is simply to educate the American people-educate them on the report, educate them on the recommendations. And what we're-all 10 commissioners have agreed to do some speaking and testifying, obviously; appear before various forums in various cities around the country, just to let the American people know of the challenges that we found, the problems that we found and the solutions that we recommend.

To do that, we are trying to establish a very small office in town, maybe three or four people, at most, just to coordinate that travel and coordinate the commissioners, keep us together as a group as we try to further educate the American people and frankly hope to see our recommendations adopted.

REP. SHERMAN: So if we don't act, you have a staff of three or four. How many-during the commission's work, how many were on your staff?

MR. KEAN: We had a staff of about 70.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

MR./REP. : What?

MR. KEAN: We had a staff of about 70.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I yield to no one in gaucheness. (Laughter.)

REP. HYDE: That means you have an opening statement.

REP. SHERMAN: I do indeed.

REP. HYDE: All right. The gentleman from "Gauche."

REP. SHERMAN: (Chuckles.) That's Los Angeles.

First, we do need to continue this commission. We need volume two. And to see you lose 70 staff members while so many questions remain unanswered is a tragedy for this country. I think it may take more than just us here in Congress. It may take the American people making their views known.

We need a structure in the intelligence community where they share the information but don't always share the same viewpoint. And I think that there's a lot of discussion to get there.

I promised that I would mention the ways in which we can put economic pressure on Iran and North Korea to try to get them to stop their nuclear program.

The Iranian government's Achilles' heel is that it must have some support from its people, and it has to show its people that they can participate in the international economic arena and still develop nuclear weapons. They have to bring home the bacon, or at least the halal equivalent.

We have done a terrible job in signalling to the Iranian people that they must stop this nuclear program if they want the benefits of the international economic community. We ourselves voluntarily import $150 million a year of luxury goods like caviar from Iran, saying that we don't even bother to stop that. We have sat by and let the World Bank loan that government a half a billion dollars. And consortium of Japanese oil companies would not have contracted to invest $2 billion in Iran if we had signalled that we will waive the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. So we did, they will, and the Iranian people can be told by the mullahs, "Let us do the nuclear stuff; it doesn't hurt us."

The North Korean government's Achilles' heel is their dependence on aid from China. The Chinese don't support the North Korean nuclear program, but they've calculated that the best thing in their interest is to grudgingly give the aid.

The United States has got to change Chinese policy, and we have to be willing to inconvenience American importers, in order to tell the Chinese, "If you want that continued trade relationship with us, you have to do more than just show up at the meetings with the North Koreans."

Finally, I want to commend the commission for something that others have criticized you for. Others have said that you should suggest a change in America's foreign policy objectives in order that al Qaeda hate us less. Even if we abandon all our friends in the Middle East, we are-even if we changed all our positions, we're still going to be a target because we exemplify on a grand scale a culture that competes successfully with Taliban ideology. The U.S. cannot do a-make concessions or we simply whet bin Laden's appetite. If we gave him everything he says he wants, he would keep asking for more until Taliban policies prevailed worldwide. There is no way for us to hide. We need to lead, not retreat, in order to defeat terrorism.

I thank the chairman for indulging gaucheness.