Federal News Service - Transcript: Panel I of a Hearing of the House Government Reform Committee

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAIRED BY: REP. TOM DAVIS (R-VA)

WITNESSES: JOHN LEHMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER ®; BOB KERREY, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER (D)

LOCATION: 2154 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. DANNY K. DAVIS (D-IL): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the ranking member for convening this hearing. I also want to thank the witnesses for the tremendous work that you've done as part of the Commission. And I want to commend the family members for the role that they played in bringing the Commission about.

On Saturday, the Washington Post ran a front-page story that described a significant policy shift by the Bush Administration. It announced that it will now oppose inspections and verifications, as part of an international treaty, that would ban the production of nuclear weapons.

Senator Kerrey, could you give us your views on this? I mean, is the administration going in the right direction, the wrong direction, appropriate direction? What do you think about --

MR. KERREY: I wasn't -- (inaudible) -- so I didn't get it-I wasn't in Washington Saturday. I missed that story. I'm not sure, Congressman. Honestly, I'm not sure what it is the administration is proposing.

I do think that that chem-bio-nuclear threat is very real, especially nuclear. I think it's a-it's almost a question of when, not if, one of these gets used.

At the same time, I must tell you, I think the likelihood of the United States being attacked by terrorists using just straight conventional weapons is a more likely thing. I mean, if you all were terrified by a couple of snipers here for a number of months, and that wasn't weapons of mass destruction. So, it's still-still be pretty easy for me to go out and get a couple hundred pounds of C-4 (ph) and a time stick and put it some place where it'd do a lot of damage. I mean, I just think there are a lot of conventional vulnerabilities. So, I don't think that's the question that you asked me, but it's about as far as I can go to answer your question. Because I-like I say, I don't know what the administration proposed.

REP. DANNY DAVIS: Let me just proceed, then. The article went on to say that the administration's position will dramatically weaken any treaty, and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. Mr. Lehman, do you have a view on this?

MR. LEHMAN: Well, first of all, I do believe that proliferation efforts have to be redoubled and intensified. That this really is the most serious long-term threat. I agree with Bob that the more immediate is conventional, but the catastrophic is in nuclear.

So, I am a true believer in nonproliferation, and why we're recommending one of the national centers be a nonproliferation center. However, I also believe in President Reagan's dictum, "Trust but verify." When you're dealing with nuclear materials, we have found-I mean I sat-I was sent by President Reagan to try to threaten President Zia of Pakistan not to proceed with nuclear weapons, and I sat right across from him at dinner, and he looked me straight in the eye and he said, I give you my word we are not developing nuclear weapons. And about two years later, they had their first test. So, I used to be in one incarnation the deputy director of the Arms Control Agency. I believe in arms control. I believe in treaties. But they must be verifiable. We cannot take the word, we cannot trust a toothless international organization to verify. We have to have an international organization or national means, such as we developed with the Soviets that are intrusive, but reliable.

REP. DANNY DAVIS: Let me just ask this, finally, the Article said that the administration came to its conclusion because such a system would cost too much. The Commission reports says that preventing proliferation of these weapons warrants maximum efforts by strengthening counter-proliferation. I assume that the Commission felt that the cost would be warranted if we could prevent further proliferation of these weapons. Is that your understanding?

MR. LEHMAN: The principle, as opposed to a specific, because I don't think any of us on the Commission addressed this specific move by the administration, but money spent on reducing proliferation, regardless of the cost, in my judgment, if it's effective means, is money well spent.

MR. KERREY: I mean, it just looks from the article that this weakens verification. Frankly, Congressman, I would want to ask Senator Nunn what he thought of this, or somebody else that's steeped themselves in trying to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation. And, indeed, in our discussions, we've pointed to the Nunn-Lugar act as something that, with the corrections that Congress has made through good oversight, is something that needs additional funding and additional supports. I would seek to deflect your question to somebody that's more knowledgeable than I, because oftentimes I see something on the surface, and my surface reaction would be, this is going to weaken our capability to stop proliferation, but I would check it with somebody more knowledgeable.

REP. DANNY DAVIS: Thank you very much.