[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1706-S1707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TERRORISM

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to continue the discussion which was 
obviously laid forth last night in definitively strong terms by the 
President of the United States on the issue of our national defense and 
how we address the terrorism and the linkage between terrorism and the 
Iraqi situation. The

[[Page S1707]]

response to the President has been interesting. From some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and others, it has been said 
that the President is too bellicose. In fact, I understand today that 
Senator Kennedy will bring forth a resolution which will essentially 
say that. Certainly we have heard from Members of the self-proclaimed 
peace movement, that is the case.
  However, the President made a strong statement of facts that we as a 
nation are at risk. It is ironic that the Members who may subscribe to 
this self-proclaimed peace movement which might better be defined as an 
appeasement movement, that they appear to ignore the fact we are 
already at war. Approximately 3,000 people died in New York; hundreds 
died here in Washington; over 100 died on a plane in Pennsylvania; men 
were killed on a ship, the USS Cole, a U.S. military ship, in Yemen; 
Americans were killed at two embassies in Africa. We are at war.
  The representation that we should not fight that war with all our 
resources and all our capabilities is, I believe, inappropriate.
  How do you link Iraq into this war? If this were a period of the 19th 
century or even large portions of the 20th century, you would not worry 
about Iraq. You probably would not even worry about al-Qaida. They 
would be, in the case of Iraq, a government of a petty despot; in the 
case of al-Qaida, a group of Iraqi murderers. The difference today is 
that this petty despot and these petty murderers have in their 
possession or may gain the possession of weapons which can kill not 
hundreds but can kill tens of thousands of people, weapons which would 
be used, undoubtedly, against Americans. They intend America harm.
  They have shown that in their attacks to date where Americans have 
died. The President, as our Commander in Chief and the leader of our 
Nation and the leader of the free world, is unquestionably correct in 
pursuing the individuals who possess those weapons and who might use 
them or the individuals who might seek those weapons and use them 
across the globe.
  There is absolutely no question but that Iraq possesses weapons of 
mass destruction, biological and chemical, and that it has an intention 
to obtain nuclear weapons. There is also virtually no question, at 
least among anyone willing to look at the facts, that Iraq is in 
communication with our enemies in al-Qaida.
  The idea we should subjugate our national security to others is also 
one that I find inherently difficult to defend. Paris was not attacked. 
Berlin was not attacked. New York City was attacked. It is our national 
security, America's national security, that is at risk.

  The President has made it abundantly clear that his purpose is to 
defend the homeland. He has every right--in fact, he has every 
obligation--to do that and to accomplish it. I believe he has laid out 
a case that, year in and year out, the Iraqi Government, led by a 
despot of inordinate inhumanity, who has killed thousands, who has used 
weapons of mass destruction, who has used gas on his own people, who 
has tortured, raped, and murdered his opposition--that that Government 
represents an imminent threat to us as a nation and to our allies. 
Until that Government disarms, it remains such a threat.
  We have sought to disarm Iraq for 12 years through a process of 
inspections guided by the United Nations resolutions. At every turn, 
Iraq has essentially gamed the process and has retained its capacity to 
kill while denying that it has such capacity.
  At every turn, it has obfuscated and attempted to subvert the efforts 
of the inspectors, denying them access, just in the most recent weeks, 
to legitimate needs that they have as inspectors, of overflights, of 
access to the scientists who produce the weapons of mass destruction, 
of accurate accounting of where the weapons are that we know are in 
existence, where the anthrax is, where the VX gas is, where the 
delivery systems are for those weapons.
  There was another period in history when we confronted a time such as 
this, and that was in the late 1930s to the run-up to World War II. 
During that period, once again people of good intention said: Give 
Adolf Hitler a chance. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Appease him. 
Try to work with him. Neville Chamberlain, in his famous flight to 
Munich, attempted to accomplish that.
  But with people such as Adolf Hitler, with people such as Saddam 
Hussein, you do not reason in a Western, rational way; you do not reach 
accommodations, because their purpose is not to accommodate; their 
purpose is to use their power aggressively and in a manner which will 
harm the people we consider our allies, and which may harm ourselves, 
our Nation.
  So it is naive of us to presume we are going to succeed here if we 
follow such a course. We should look to history to confirm that 
naivete. The President has outlined a definitive purpose for our Nation 
and for the world. It is that we protect the rights of free nations to 
defend themselves from despots who have weapons of mass destruction and 
terrorists who would use such weapons to kill thousands of innocent 
people. We have that right. His words that ``the liberty we prize is 
not America's gift to the world but is God's gift to humanity'' ring 
with incredible accuracy and truth. We, as a nation have an obligation 
to protect that liberty.
  Hopefully, working with the United Nations, we will be able to 
develop the coalitions necessary to accomplish that. It would still be 
appropriate to do it in a peaceful way. But that is not our call. We do 
not have the offense on that issue. Saddam Hussein's government has the 
offense on that issue. If they wish to proceed in a peaceful way to 
disarm, that course is sitting there for them. But they have shown no 
inclination to do that. In fact, just the opposite has been the course 
they have decided to pursue--one of obfuscation, one of deceit, one of 
continued commitment to possess and potentially use these weapons which 
kill thousands of people, innocent people, weapons which they have used 
in the past.
  When the President calls our Nation together and asks us as a society 
to join to protect ourselves and to protect the liberty which God has 
gifted to humanity, I believe we have an obligation to follow and to 
respect that call. This Congress has voted twice, once under President 
Clinton and once under President Bush, to empower the President to use 
the necessary force, to take the necessary action to protect our Nation 
and to protect the liberty of the world. This President has stepped up 
to that charge. If he had failed to step up to that charge, he would 
not be doing his job as Commander in Chief and as President. I believe 
this Congress has an equal obligation to step up to that charge.
  I hope as we move down this road, we will move united and recognize 
that this is a time when it falls on all of us to support the defense 
of freedom and liberty as defined by the President in his extraordinary 
speech last night.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of our time, yield the 
floor, and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________