[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S11530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, 
despite the recess, to be able to speak 3 minutes in opposition to 
Senator Feinstein's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to 
Senator Feinstein's amendment, certainly not in opposition to her. She 
is one of my closest friends in the Senate, and I admire her greatly. 
We just simply disagree on this particular amendment.
  Of all the debates we are going to have in the coming months, I think 
this is one of the most important. The amendment would prohibit the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy from pursuing an 
advanced concept and research design to transform some current 
inventories of nuclear weapons, to be able to do something they cannot 
do today; that is, to penetrate hardened sites to counter the war on 
terrorism.
  The war on terrorism is like every other war in many ways. The people 
we are fighting have the same hopes and aspirations as the people who 
fought in World War II. In Hitler's world, if you were not of a certain 
ethnic makeup, you could lose your life. And in Hitler's world, there 
was total obedience to the state. And the Japanese empire had a very 
intolerant view of the people who were different and disagreed.
  The idea that one particular group wants to shape the world in a very 
harsh fashion has been with us as long as time itself. And in the 
terrorist world, young girls don't go to school. In their world, there 
is one way to worship God. It is their way. If you choose to do it some 
other way, you could lose your life.
  So the basic concepts of the war on terrorism are very old. But the 
way we fight this war is going to take some adapting. The group that 
wins the war on terrorism will be the group that was able to adapt the 
best.
  Here is what I see coming down the road for the American military, 
for American policymakers. The terrorist organizations that perpetrated 
9/11 and that we are pursuing all over the world today do not have 
navies and armies, and they do not have a nuclear force as we faced in 
the former Soviet Union. But they have a desire, unequaled by anybody, 
to build a nuclear weapon, to acquire chemical and biological weapons. 
Their desire is great. Their commitment to use it is unquestioned.
  Let it be said, without any doubt, if they could get a nuclear 
weapon, they would use it. If they could get chemical or biological 
weapons that would hurt millions of Americans or people who believe in 
freedom, they would use it.
  The only way they are not going to use it is to make sure they don't 
get it. And the best way to make sure they don't get it is to bring 
them to justice, and to end their ability to finance terrorist 
activities, to organize, and to project force.

  I can foresee in the near future, not the distant future, that 
terrorist cells will reorganize. They will use some remote part of the 
world to form their plans, to plot and scheme, and maybe to actually 
manufacture--some remote part of the world that is very well guarded 
and not subject to conventional attacks, in a part of the world where 
it would be hard to get conventional forces to neutralize the terrorist 
threat. I see that as a very real possibility in the coming decades, in 
the coming years, maybe even the coming months.
  The legislation we have before us would take off the table our 
ability to adapt our nuclear deterrent force to meet that threat. Look 
how much money we spent during the cold war to neutralize the Soviet 
threat--the Star Wars programs and other ideas that made it very 
difficult for our enemy at the time to keep pace. It is one of the 
reasons the world is safer today, because we were able to adapt.
  We took our nuclear programs, not to use the weapons, but to prevent 
those weapons from being used against us. We adapted our nuclear force 
in a way that eventually won the cold war.
  I think that same scenario exists today. We should have on the table 
the ability of the great minds in this country to adapt, if necessary. 
And there is nothing in this proposal by the administration to build a 
weapon. It is to look at our current inventory and see if it can be 
adapted to a real threat.
  I admire Senator Feinstein, but I think her amendment would do a 
great injustice to the future policymakers and the military men and 
women of the future when it comes to fighting the war on terrorism 
because this war has just started. It is not anywhere near over. The 
major players are still alive, but they are trying to get people to 
follow in their footsteps. So we are going to be in this war for a long 
time.
  The question before the Senate and before the country is, If we knew 
that bin Laden, or someone like him, was in some mountain fortress in 
Afghanistan or some other country, on the verge, within that fortress, 
of developing a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon, what would we 
do to stop it?
  I think we should do everything we can to stop it. And the idea of 
being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from 
hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something that we have to come to 
grips with because it is part of the war on terrorism.
  So I hope the Senate will reject Senator Feinstein's efforts to stop 
this inquiry because this is an inquiry that needs to be made sooner 
rather than later. I think the Bush administration is on the right 
course and the right path in taking the great minds of our time and 
letting them adapt our nuclear force to the coming threats because the 
coming threats are not from the Soviet bloc countries; they are going 
to be our allies. The coming threats are from people who hide in 
faraway places, deep in the bowels of the earth, with great hatred in 
their hearts.
  We need to meet that threat. So I ask each Member of the Senate to 
dig within their heart and to make sure their vote does not take an 
option off the table that may well save this country from something we 
never experienced: a major nuclear, chemical, or biological attack.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________