Hearing of the Middle East and Central Asia Subcom. of the House International Relations Com. on Iranian Proliferation - Transcript
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: IRANIAN PROLIFERATION
WITNESSES: JOHN BOLTON, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS; PETER FLORY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
CHAIRED BY: REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-F)
LOCATION: 2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: The subcommittee will please come to order. Iran's unconventional weapons program and its fondness for using terrorism as statecraft have made this pariah state a litmus test for President George Bush's war against terror. A nuclear Iran, combined with its deep-rooted terrorist infrastructure, is an Iran that must be stopped.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. SHELLEY BERKLEY (D-NV): I think Mr. Sherman was here first.
REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Oh, but I'm not a member of the --
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you, Shelley. Thank you, Brad.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Madam Chair. As you know, I'm the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Proliferation. I take a great interest in these issues, and I thank you very much for inviting me to participate in these hearings.
Some of the questions that emerge we don't even need to deal with because-well, the first case, Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? That's obvious. When will they have nuclear weapons? That's classified, although the answer is within a few years. And how dangerous will it be for Americans if they do have nuclear weapons? Well, let's review the situation.
The Iran government is today sheltering al Qaeda operatives at the highest level, including the son of bin Laden. And it cooperated with al Qaeda in killing Americans at the Khobar Towers. It has been identified as the number one state sponsor of terrorism year after year. It's hostility is not at issue.
What about its capacity? Well, when it has those nuclear weapons, keep in mind a nuclear weapons is about the size of a person, and is quieter than most. It can be smuggled inside the United States as easily as a person is smuggled into the United States-and that's happened. But we lived through a hostile-through a whole Cold War where there was hostility and capacity. But with the Soviet Union we had one issue, and that was the Soviet Union was deterrable. Compare that to the regime or regimes likely to hold sway in Teheran over the next dozen years. We could see instability at any time. It's an undemocratic government with many factions. We could see fanaticism in which the faction that holds power doesn't care whether we retaliate or believes that they will be met in heaven as great heroes if they are the victims of such retaliation. We will not have a deterrable nuclear power adversary.
So we can-with the Soviet Union, the sons of Lenin once commented that capitalists would sell them the rope to hang the capitalists-probably do so on credit. But fortunately the sons of Lenin were careful and were deterrable, and those terms do not necessarily apply to those who will hold sway in Teheran.
So then the final issue, the real question of these hearings, is: What are we doing about it? What, Madam Chairman, are we doing with regard to the Iranian nuclear program? Well, let's review. Congress mandated the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Yet time and time again the administration winks, nods, refuses to acknowledge that our allies' oil companies are investing in the-millions of dollars in the Iranian oil sector, and just recently Japan, a Japanese company announced over a $2 billion investment, somehow now triggering the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. You don't have to use the law if you can ignore the facts.
Then, over the last two years, the World Bank has approved loans of over a half a billion dollars. We voted no, as we are required to do by statute, so-but we did not make it an issue. And we will be called upon in the next few weeks to send hundreds of millions or billions of American tax dollars to the same World Bank that is sending half a billion dollars, one quarter of them ours, to the government that's building those nuclear weapons. Oh, and every year for several years in a row we import $150 million worth of carpets and caviar that the Iranians couldn't sell anywhere else at the same price.
So when we are asked what are we doing with that Iranian nuclear weapons development program, what are we doing about it? -- the answer is clear: We are financing it on favorable terms. We are allowing, encouraging and ignoring our allies as they send money. We are financing and sending more money and more money to the World Bank as they send money to that government. And we are sending money directly from Americans to Iran for what are obviously unnecessary imports into this country. They are not deterrable. they are not careful. We are risking the lives of Americans on whether we can prevent that government from using nuclear weapons against it, smuggling them into the United States-smuggling them-and telling them that they've got them and they might blow them up, or just blowing them up? Be afraid. Be very afraid. And be angry that your government isn't doing anything to stop it. I yield back.
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you. Ms. Davis. Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Rohrabacher.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Well, just a few thoughts before we get into the testimony. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very animated on this issue, but let us remember that this administration, our administration, inherited this problem from the last administration, which did absolutely nothing but caused the problem to get worse and worse. So I would just admonish the witnesses today, and I hope that you do better-and we are all rooting for you to do better-than the last administration did.
Then let us note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this silly political season that it is are always stressing that this administration needs to act multilaterally. And of course you would think by the statements we've heard today that we are calling for a unilateral action. But let us note that-I am pleased that my colleague has noted the failure of the World Bank and other international institutions and there are many of us on this side of the aisle that favor a strong United States policy that we are not afraid to enact on our own if necessary, but lead the way for the free countries of the world, rather than relying on the United Nations and the other institutions that our colleagues would have us rely on for our security --
REP. SHERMAN: If the gentleman will yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. SHERMAN: Thank you. It's wise that we're having these hearings close to the fifth anniversary of the student uprising and freedom efforts in Iran-in effect the Iranian Tiananmen Square. I do need to respond to the comments of my friend from Southern California, Mr. Rohrabacher, who does point out that that trade I complained about, the $150 million that we import from Iran-that did begin at the last year of the Clinton administration. But I went down to the floor and said there's blood in the caviar, and not even my outspoken friend from Southern California has used such colorful language to describe his own administration. But looking at the '90s and the '80s, yes, Ronald Reagan sent weapons to the government of Iran; yes, the first Bush administration allowed economic contacts; yes, Clinton was asleep and finally allowed trade. But it's one thing to sleep before September 11th. It's another thing to keep hitting the snooze bar after September 11th. If September 11th can't wake up a country, what can? The president correctly identified the axis of evil and the two truly dangerous countries in the axis of evil are now several years more advanced in developing and building their nuclear weapons programs. But we've gone beyond any business as usual that the Clinton administration followed. We decided to kowtow to Teheran by closing down the offices of those who even voice support for the MEK, one of Teheran's more dangerous adversaries, and an entity with a checkered past to be sure. But it was the one concession we hadn't made to Teheran already, so we decided to make it.
As to the $150 million of imports from Iran, Mr. Secretary Colin Powell sat in the very seat you're sitting in now in February, promised me that he would explore whether we should cut off those $150 million. My God, they skilled our people at the Khobar Towers! Apparently that isn't enough to stop business as usual. I won't ask you about the 150 (million dollars) -- because I asked Secretary Powell. He said he'd get back to me. The goods are coming in every day-I'm sure they're at the ports today.
As to the World Bank, we have since the Clinton administration allowed a doubling and then a redoubling in the amount of money going. Now we're talking well over half a billion dollars in just a couple of years-way beyond anything Clinton ever slept through.
And then as to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. You can't sit there and say there have been no waivers, because if you blind your eyes and cover your ears, and ignore even the reports widely circulated in all of the world economic press, about 1.8 to 1.9 billion dollars, from a whole consortium of Japanese oil companies, are arranged and supported and coordinated by the Japanese government. Then you don't have to make a waiver. A blind man doesn't have to make a waiver. And if you scourge out your own eyes, you don't have to make a waiver.
But some of this fault goes to the American people and the American press, because they seek to judge this administration exclusively on what's happening in Iraq. And so if you're able to get at virtually the same time as we ignore this 1.8 to 1.9 billion dollars of investment by Japan in the Iranian oil fields, if at the same time-oh, not directly linked as far as I can prove, a few hundred soldiers from Japan into Iraq, then the American people say, Hey, the administration is doing its job-it's getting a few hundred Japanese soldiers into Iraq, while watching the money flow to those who are building the nuclear weapons that will be smuggled into our cities.
So, Mr. Secretary, is it a waiver or is it just self-imposed blindness that we can ignore what's reported in the economic press of this enormous Japanese investment by several Japanese oil companies? And does it make any sense for the Congress to pass any laws providing for waivers, if you're not even going to bother to exercise the waiver but just ignore the facts on the ground, the facts widely reported in the economic and financial press? Mr. Secretary?
MR. BOLTON: Well, let me just say with respect to the sanctions statute that you didn't refer to, I want to underline again that we have invoked the provisions of --
REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Secretary, if I can just interrupt you, because I did want to get to that --
MR. BOLTON: -- 37 times-Hill.
REP. SHERMAN: And I point out those are sanctions against little tiny companies that don't have much economic relationship with the United States. I can't find even $100 million worth of business from those companies. But also it is very easy for those companies, in the countries in which they do business, to simply stick another company's label on those very few products that they are sending in-or you're going to say not sending in-sending in under another label. So imposing sanctions on companies that don't have a huge economic relationship with the United States, and which can easily just get another company in the same country to put-slap a label on the product, or claim to own a subsidiary, or claim to be a co-venturer in the subsidiary that produces them. That is not much of a sanction, and certainly pales into insignificant compared to 1.8 to 1.9 billion of Japanese investment in the Iranian oil fields. So perhaps you can respond to that.
MR. BOLTON: I would be delighted to. I think that the sanctions under the Iran Non-Proliferation Act have had a more telling effect. I think when we sanctioned serial proliferators including some major Chinese conglomerates, I could tell you that it has gotten attention at the very highest levels in Beijing. It has had a substantial effect.
Now, in terms of the contentions you're making about the administration of ILSA, the impression I have is that you're disagreeing with the implementation of the provisions, and I --
REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Secretary, I'm disagreeing with the deliberate non-implementation of the provisions.
MR. BOLTON: Okay, now I'll finish my sentence. My impression is that you are disagreeing with the implementation of ILSA, but I have not heard in this hearing or in other hearings that people have contended that the policy that was originated in the last administration, which is being followed in this one, is contrary to the provisions of ILSA. So what that suggests to me is that for you and for others who feel that additional sanctions pressure on Iran through ILSA-like statutes are required is that you need to seek amendments to make more in conformity with what you want, and if you're not able to keep them --
REP. SHERMAN: No, no, Mr. Secretary, I'm saying that we have passed a very clear law that your administration is deliberately ignoring. You know, we can pass a law against theft, and the bank robber can just say, "Hey, I didn't see the law. I didn't see the money."
MR. BOLTON: I can assure you that brigades of lawyers at the State Department --
REP. SHERMAN: -- have they even --
MR. BOLTON: -- have been parsing --
REP. SHERMAN: -- have they ignored the $1.9 billion or have they issued an opinion that somehow it's not a violation of ILSA?
MR. BOLTON: And these brigades of lawyers are convinced that we are implementing the ILSA provisions accurately.
REP. SHERMAN: Well, if they don't bother --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Has the gentleman's time expired?
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Why don't you just ask that one last question. We'll let Mr. Bolton just finish the sentence before --
REP. SHERMAN: Okay, let me point out --
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: I think your point is very clear.
REP. SHERMAN: -- that it's not lawyers who say that ILSA doesn't apply to the transaction. The administration has issued no such legal opinion but rather you simply have canceled your subscription to the "Wall Street Journal" and choose to ignore the fact that the transaction is taking place, and then you can say, "Well, we're not failing to violate the law," just as a law requiring a bank security officer to stop a robbery is not violated if the guy doesn't show up for work or when he does show up for work he wears a blindfold.
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you, Mr. Sherman, and you're four minutes over your five minutes. I'm going to let Mr. Bolton answer without interruption.
MR. BOLTON: I understand Mr. Sherman's passion on this subject, and I think it's directed at the same objective we're trying to achieve, particularly in the field of stopping Iran's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction. I will simply say, in an effort to be brief, that we are following precisely the same policy as the previous administration.
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: I think both of you have made that point very clear.
REP. SHERMAN: Before.
REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to have Mr. Rohrabacher, whose equally non-controversial make the round of questions.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I just don't know where all this energy that Brad is exhibiting today was all these years prior to this administration. Hmm.
REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Rohrabacher, you weren't there to hear my speech in the year 2000.
END