[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22707-22713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                COMMENDING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RUMSFELD

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a gentleman who 
has served our country with honor, integrity, and distinction for the 
past 6 years and who has sacrificed his energy, a comfortable private 
life, as well as his personal privacy in service to our men and women 
in uniform during the course of two wars that our country did not 
invite and did not welcome. That gentleman is Donald Rumsfeld.
  As I have worked with Secretary Rumsfeld over the last 6 years as a 
U.S. Senator and as a U.S. Representative, he and I have occasionally 
disagreed, and those disagreements have been very public, very open, 
and very heartfelt on both sides. But there is no question in my mind 
that Don Rumsfeld has given the President and the United States as much 
commitment, energy, and service as any previous Secretary of Defense in 
the history of our great country. For that, this entire country owes 
Don Rumsfeld a debt of gratitude.
  It sometimes surprises me that we can convince high-quality, 
intelligent, committed people like Donald Rumsfeld to leave private 
life, often near or at the end of their careers, to take jobs in 
government that require an enormous amount of commitment, sacrifice, 
and sometimes offer few rewards. These individuals could, without 
question, be better off financially and sleeping much better and might 
even be happier if they were doing something else. Donald Rumsfeld has 
served as Secretary of Defense during one of the more difficult times 
in our Nation's history. As a nation, we should be grateful that 
someone of his caliber has served as long and with as much distinction 
in the job as he has. I think we as a nation should be grateful, 
regardless of whether we agree or disagree with everything Secretary 
Rumsfeld has done or tried to do during his tenure. We should be 
grateful that one of our own has stepped up to the challenge and taken 
his job as seriously as anyone could have and done his absolute best on 
behalf of the American people.
  Individuals who step into these jobs in government, particularly at 
the Cabinet level, need to keep in mind a few basic principles 
regarding why they are there and what they are called to do. First and 
most importantly, they need to remember they are there to serve the 
President and the American people. It is not and never can be about 
them. Their reward is serving, not recognition or legacy or even 
success. Their reward is answering the call and executing the job they 
have been given to do to the best of their ability. Donald Rumsfeld has 
done that, and for that he deserves the gratitude of this Nation.
  Secretary Rumsfeld has unquestionably been a transformational 
Secretary of Defense. He took the helm at the Pentagon nearing a time 
when the Department of Defense was ripe for change, and within 9 months 
of being sworn in, we were a nation at war. However, even that did not 
stop the transformational vision Secretary Rumsfeld brought to the 
Pentagon.
  Some of the transformational actions the Department of Defense 
undertook under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership include the following: 
appointing the first marine as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
appointing the first Navy Admiral to command USSOUTHCOM; returning a 
retired Army general to active duty to become Chief of Staff of the 
Army; establishing the organization and position of Under Secretary of 
Defense for Intelligence; establishing the first Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Homeland Defense; establishing the first Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs; creating the U.S. Northern 
Command; establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative; creating a 
four-star level task force to counter improvised explosive devices; 
initiating a global basing posture review; converting Trident ballistic 
missile submarines to guided-missile submarines; fielding the first 
operational V-22 squadron; and fielding the first operational F-22 
squadron.
  Secretary Rumsfeld's accomplishments span the spectrum of DOD 
operations to include every service, procurement programs, research and 
development programs, personnel issues, DOD organization and 
management, and virtually every facet of the Department's operations. 
However, let me focus on the Department's accomplishments in the global 
war on terrorism during his tenure.
  Overall: A multinational coalition has liberated 50 million people in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, with formation of representative governments and 
security forces. We have liberated 31 million Afghans from Taliban 
control and destroyed an al-Qaida sanctuary, conquering elements that 
successfully fought off the Soviet Union for over 9 years, and stood up 
a Loya Jirga governing council 8 months after operations began. Under 
his leadership, 26.7 million Iraqis were liberated from a brutal 
dictatorship and turned over sovereignty of the country to a new Iraqi 
Government in 16 months. As of November 22, 2006, organized, trained, 
and equipped Iraqi and Afghan security forces into the following 
numbers: 134,000 for Iraqi Ministry of Defense, 188,000 for Iraqi 
Ministry of Interior, 30,500 for Afghan National Army, and 50,000 for 
Afghan National Police.
  Conducted safe and secure elections in Afghanistan and Iraq as 
follows:
  In Iraq: On January 30, 2005, there was an election to form a 
transitional national assembly with a 55-percent turnout. On October 
15, 2005, there was

[[Page 22708]]

an election for constitutional ratification with a 63-percent turnout. 
On December 15, 2005, there was an election to form a permanent 
national assembly with a 78-percent turnout. And on March 16, 2006, 
there was an election to elect the permanent Iraqi Government, which 
was then subsequently seated.
  In Afghanistan, there were the following elections: On January 5, 
2004, adoption of an Afghan Constitution. On October 9, 2004, the first 
direct Presidential election, with roughly an 80-percent turnout. On 
December 7, 2004, an Afghan President was inaugurated. And on September 
18, 2005, the country of Afghanistan held an election to form the 
Afghan National Assembly and Provincial Council.
  Senior leadership of America's enemies have been captured, killed, or 
put on the run under the leadership of Don Rumsfeld as follows:
  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al-Qaida's director of operations, was 
captured March 1, 2003. Saddam Hussein's sons were killed on July 22, 
2003. Saddam Hussein was captured on December 13, 2003. Ali Hassan 
Mahmud al-Tikriti, AKA Chemical Ali, was captured on August 21, 2003. 
Al Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed on June 7, 2006. And 
45 of 55 of Saddam's top regime--the deck of cards--have been killed or 
captured under Donald Rumsfeld's leadership.
  Again, we have conducted hundreds of intelligence and tactical 
operations, many with partner nations, throughout the world against 
terrorist organizations directly or loosely affiliated with al-Qaida.
  President Bush appointed Secretary Rumsfeld to lead the men and women 
of our Armed Forces, and he has led by example. As a member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, I questioned Secretary Rumsfeld many 
times during hearings about our national security challenges and the 
needs of our troops and their families, and I have always been 
convinced that he had the very best interests of our Nation, as well as 
the best interests of our men and women in uniform, in mind. I commend 
him for his service and on behalf of our Nation thank him for his 
commitment and sacrifice over the last 6 years and, indeed, over the 
course of his life, as he has served his country and the American 
people well.
  As we say goodbye and commend the service of one Secretary of 
Defense, I would like to also commend the President's choice for his 
successor: Dr. Robert Gates. Dr. Gates and I had a very positive 
meeting on Monday of this week, and I believe he has the experience, 
qualifications, and candor to serve in this capacity as we move forward 
in helping the Iraqi people take control of their own destiny and 
continue transforming the Department of Defense to confront the 
challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. A fresh approach, new 
ideas, and Dr. Gates' understanding of defense and intelligence issues 
will be a tremendous asset in achieving victory and continuing on the 
legacy and accomplishments of Secretary Rumsfeld.
  I look forward to working with Dr. Gates as the new Secretary of 
Defense on the national security issues affecting our Nation, as well 
as the issues that affect Georgia's proud military community. Our men 
and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to have my highest 
admiration and praise for their good works. We will continue to do 
everything necessary to help them succeed in their mission and win this 
war on terrorism. I know Dr. Robert Gates shares that commitment, and I 
look forward to working with him and supporting him as he serves on 
behalf of our Nation's military.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about why I voted 
against Dr. Gates and lay out in detail the concerns I have about the 
security posture of the United States today and how I do not believe 
that Dr. Gates is the appropriate choice to confront them. While I 
think he certainly has a lot of positive qualities, and in normal times 
I would certainly defer to the President's judgment on this, we are not 
in normal times. I believe we need a Secretary--and I think we need 
leaders in this country, particularly the Secretary--who has insight 
into the nature of our enemy and is willing to provide the vision 
necessary, not just for our people in the military but the country, on 
how to defeat them. On one particular vital aspect of that vision I 
think he is in error, and that error causes me to object and to vote no 
to his nomination.
  What I would like to do is lay out what I see as the problem 
confronting America and the complexity of that problem, which I think 
has grown more complex since the last time that we have been in this 
Chamber, over 6 weeks ago. I would like to go back to two speeches I 
gave last summer, one at the National Press Club, and the other at the 
Pennsylvania Press Club--one obviously in Washington, the other in 
Harrisburg. I gave those speeches because I thought it was important 
that at a time when our country is at war and our country is struggling 
with this war that we have a better definition as to who the enemy is 
and what we need to do about it.
  I made that issue, the issue I discussed in these two speeches and 
subsequent speeches during my campaign, the centerpiece of the 
campaign. Many political advisers suggested to me that this was a wrong 
tactic in a State where the favorabilities for the war and the 
President were in the low thirties to make this the centerpiece and, in 
fact, draw divisions between myself and the President where I put 
myself in a position which some suggested was to the right of the 
President. But I thought it was important for the country and for me 
personally as a U.S. Senator to address the issues that I thought were 
critical to the time.
  So I went out and gave two speeches about the importance of defining 
our enemy. If there has been a failing--obviously, for the last several 
weeks and months we have been talking about the failings of the 
administration with respect to the policies within Iraq--I would make 
the argument that the larger failing, not just of the administration 
but of the Members of Congress and leaders in this country, is that we 
have not had the courage to stand up and define the enemy as to who 
they are and study and understand them and explain to the American 
people who they are.
  I defined the enemy back at the National Press Club speeches as 
Islamic fascism. I said that is the biggest issue of our time, this 
relentless and determined radical enemy that is not just a group of 
rag-tag people living in caves but, in fact, people with an ideology, a 
plan, and increasingly the resources to carry out that plan, as well 
as, increasingly, a bigger and larger presence throughout the Islamic 
world, these radical Islamic fascists.
  As I said, I understand this is an unpopular war. When I stepped 
forward to define the enemy as radical Islamic fascists, I was 
ridiculed by the media and others, saying that my words were too harsh, 
saying that at worst my defining the enemy was incorrect, at best it 
was inflammatory. But I did so because I believe words matter. If you 
are going to confront an enemy you have to understand who that enemy is 
and you have to communicate that to the people of America. And we must 
do that.
  Many people talk about this war as if it is an attempt simply to 
create fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this may be 
an appealing possible outcome, we all must recognize that Iraq and 
Afghanistan are battlefields in a much more complex and broader war. 
That includes every continent with the exception of Antarctica. The war 
is at our doorstep, and it is fueled, as I mentioned, literally and 
figuratively by the evil of Islamic fascism.
  Whether we know it or not, they have been at war with us, and the 
State of Iran specifically has been at war with us, since 1979 when 
they declared war against the United States. They have not rescinded 
that declaration. So when we talk about engaging Iran as the Secretary, 
the new, future Secretary of Defense has talked about, we are talking 
about engaging someone who is at war with us, who has declared war with 
us, and who has been at war

[[Page 22709]]

and, and as I will talk about here, and I think it has been widely 
reported in the press, has been doing a lot to substantiate the claim 
that they have been at war with us.
  But this threat is not exclusively based in Iran. It is gaining 
strength and spreading throughout every region of the world. I have 
addressed the issue of Islamic fascism but have not yet spoken to the 
subject of Iraq. Iraq is the central front in the war on Islamic 
fascism. However, contrary to the Iraqi Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton 
commission, the answer to this problem can be found--the answer to Iraq 
can be found not in Iraq but in Iran. It is Iran and its client State 
of Syria that serve as the principal instigators and fomenters of the 
conflict in Iraq today.
  The President gets advice from the CIA that the opposition in Iran is 
weak and divided and therefore we should do nothing in Iran because we 
have no alternative. We have no one we can use in Iraq to confront the 
Iranian Government to cause any kind of changes. So the President gets 
advice from his intelligence team that we are without options in Iran.
  The Pentagon advises the President and says we don't know if we have 
the resources to open up a new battlefield or confront, militarily, 
Iran, and therefore we have limited options in Iran.
  The State Department--yes, State Department--they think that Iran is 
the solution to the problem; that negotiating with them and getting 
them to be our pals can in effect solve the problems; so confronting 
Iran would be the absolutely wrong thing to do in solving the problem 
in Iraq.
  So the President is being advised by all of his minions that Iran and 
confrontation with Iran is not an option, as we heard from the 
testimony of the new Secretary of Defense.
  Let's look at other interested parties as we look at how we solve the 
problem in Iraq and dealing with Iran. The American media seems to be 
very focused and spends a lot of time talking about how poorly things 
are going in Iraq. They report daily--not just recently but repeatedly 
for the past 3 years, daily--the body count in Iraq. It is the lead and 
has been virtually every single day for 3 years.
  Is their interest in shifting focus and covering the problems in 
Iran? Not if we can drive home a story like this in Iraq.
  Republicans and Democrats, leaders in the Congress, why don't they 
focus and talk more about Iran? Democrats, if you look through--as 
unfortunately many Republicans and Democrats do--look at it through the 
eyes of politics, why would we change focus and focus on Iran as the 
problem? We saw from the last election there is grand political 
advantage of keeping the focus on Iraq and the problems in Iraq. Why 
aren't the Republicans, then, stepping forward and pointing to the 
difficulty and problems that Iran is causing in Iraq and call for 
confrontation? If we saw anything from the last election, the American 
public has no appetite for a broadening of this war, increasing the 
complexity of this war. You might be seen as warmongering, digging us 
deeper and more dangerously into a region of the world that we would 
rather not be in in the first place.
  So what do we have? We have the Baker-Hamilton report which is a 
prescription for surrender. It is just a matter of time. It is 
certainly not a prescription for victory. Nowhere does it mention, 
other than of course that we would like victory, nor is there a 
prescription for victory in that report.
  So now we have the slow process of how we exit ourselves because we 
have no option to confront the real problem. We have no willingness on 
the part of any level of Government to confront it. So we are destined 
at this point to focus on something that is insolvable without 
confronting Iran, and that is the war in Iraq.
  Who are these Iranians? Who are these Islamic fascists? I do not mean 
to exclude Sunni Islamic fascists because they were the principal--or 
they were the first, let's put it that way--in launching the war 
against the United States. I should not say the first. They were the 
first in recent times--certainly 9/11--in launching the war.
  So this is not just a Shia problem, but it is increasingly becoming a 
Shia-dominated field as they continue to spread control in Iran with 
their influence and money. But let's not leave out Saudi Arabia and 
others that have used their resources to foment Islamic fascism all 
over the world with their resources--Sunni Islamic fascism.
  So where are we? What can we do to confront this problem?
  The interesting thing is that this problem is growing--I don't know 
about exponentially, but I don't know of a single country in the Middle 
East where the threat of radical Islam has not grown over the last 30 
years, since Iran took over control--since the radicals took over 
control in Iran, the last 27 years. Every capital, every regime is 
feeling the pressure. And not just since 2003, but systematically over 
the years we have seen, particularly in Arab Muslim countries and 
Middle Eastern Muslim countries, this rise. But, again, not exclusive: 
Indonesia, Malaysia--this is not exclusive to the Arab world. Obviously 
Iran, which is Persia.
  So what have we seen over the past 6 months? We saw a situation in 
the central synagogue in Prague where the Islamic fascists intended to 
carry out, on Rosh Hashanah, a mass kidnaping when large numbers of 
Jews would be celebrating the new year. When the world's attention now 
was focused on Prague, they designed to make impossible demands and 
then blow up the synagogue and everyone within it.
  Those people were not marked for death because they supported the war 
in Iraq. They were not marked for death because they oppressed these 
Islamic fascists. They were targeted because they were Jews. This is 
evil.
  Islamic terrorists organized an assault on civilian aircraft leaving 
London, planning to blow up 10 or more planes this summer as they flew 
over the North Atlantic. You may not know that two of those 
participants were a husband and a wife, a husband and a wife who were 
going to board that plane and explode that plane over the North 
Atlantic while holding in their arms their 6-month-old child.
  This is evil.
  Islamic terrorists slaughter innocent Iraqis every single day on both 
sides of the divide within Islam. As we know, in recent days they 
beheaded an orthodox priest and crucified a 14-year-old boy guilty of 
nothing but being Christian.
  This is evil.
  Almost everyone has now heard of Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad and the fact that he denies the existence of the Holocaust 
and called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth. But he has 
been remarkably clear about his mission, remarkably clear about his 
messianic vision of a Shiite religion, his vision to destroy the 
Western world and impose a caliphate on the world in which the world 
would submit to Islam or die in the process.
  He said:

       Is it possible for us to witness a world without America 
     and Zionism?

  Then he answered himself:

       But you had best know this slogan and this goal is 
     attainable and surely can be achieved.

  So do we have any questions about the nature of our enemy? Do we have 
any questions about the capability of this oil-rich country? Yet just 
this past week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent an open letter, a 
conciliatory letter, to the American people, addressed to the ``noble'' 
American people. He called on America to withdraw from Iraq and end 
support for Israel, and, of course, to convert to Islam. This man may 
be a fanatic, but let me assure you he is not a stupid fanatic. This 
man understands and studies America. The Islamic fascists respect us 
enough to get to know us. They respect us enough so they know what 
buttons to push and how hard to push them. They respect us enough to 
figure out what it will take to defeat us.
  I wish that were the case for the American people.
  He couched his warning in the words that are familiar and comfortable 
with Americans--``freedom,'' trying to appeal that he would be free of 
this illegitimate regime in his mind, which is the current 
administration, and we would free them of this burden of fighting. It 
is a great appeal and many

[[Page 22710]]

would like to see the end of this war, but we should not be fooled.
  Our troops in Iraq are being killed by Iranian weapons today paid for 
with Iranian money smuggled into Iraq by Iranian logistics and utilized 
by Iranian-trained terrorists.
  A couple of years ago you needed a security clearance to know this. 
Now, if you care to know, if you want to know this uncomfortable truth 
about Iran, you can know it. Iran is the centerpiece in the assault 
against us and other countries in the civilized world, which is why I 
fought so hard for passage of the Iran Freedom and Support Act.
  I stood on the Senate floor at this very desk and argued in May or 
June of this year for passage of the Iran Freedom and Support Act. I 
said we should not be negotiating with Iran, that we should be 
confronting Iran.
  Bernard Lewis tells a familiar opinion that he has. He tells a lot of 
them. He said that the oddity in particular of the Arab and Middle 
Eastern Islamic world is that the more we have strong relations with 
the government in an Arab Muslim country the more the people of that 
country hate us; and the more that we stand up and confront leadership 
of those countries the more the people like us. Is it no wonder he 
recounts on the day of 9/11 when there was but one Middle Eastern 
Muslim capital there was a candlelight vigil in support of those who 
died on 9/11, and that was in Tehran, Iran.
  It is not hard to understand when you have regimes throughout the 
Middle East who oppress their people that when you stand up and 
confront those regimes and call them the evil they are the people 
understand and respect your honesty, agree with you, and support you.
  This summer when we attempted to negotiate with Iran, we told the 
people of Iran that we are not on their side, that we want to make 
deals with people who oppress them, who torture them, who enslave them, 
who abuse them, and who kill them. That is why we should not have 
entered into any negotiations in spite of the entreaties of Europe with 
this evil regime in Iran. We should confront them, and only confront 
them. If we want the support of the people of Iran, we have to earn it 
with the integrity of our mission, and we are not doing that.
  So I stood up on the floor of the Senate and said we needed to 
confront Iran, that we needed to fund full democracy groups, that we 
needed to use the public airwaves and the Internet to disseminate 
information to cause a change in the Government of Iran, and that we 
needed to sanction them. And this administration opposed me. The Senate 
opposed me by, I think, a 54-to-46 vote. That is why I continue to work 
on the Iran Freedom and Support Act.
  Over the intervening months, what happened? Iran did as I predicted 
on this floor back in the spring--they played us along. They said: 
Well, you know we will negotiate with you as long as we can continue to 
produce nuclear materials and continue our nuclear program. So we 
negotiated and we negotiated and they developed and they developed. So 
finally in September of this year, enough people on both sides of the 
aisle and enough people in the administration finally were convinced 
that this was not a viable strategy anymore. What did we gain? We 
passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which probably surprised most 
people in this Chamber. We passed it unanimously--one of the last 
things we did before we broke. Most Americans don't know it. 
Unfortunately, most in the Middle East don't know it. I suspect if we 
went into the bowels of the State Department they may know it, but they 
are not going to do a damned thing about it because that is not their 
intent. They do not want to do anything about it. My guess is they will 
take that money and spend it on a lot of conferences and studies on 
what we should do instead of giving it to the bus drivers who went on 
strike as a strike fund so they can stand up to the government. Instead 
of giving it to dissent groups so they can disseminate information, 
instead of actively engaging we will appease. We will study, we will 
delay, and they will have time to further build.
  But we did pass the bill. That would be on one of my to-do lists in 
the next Congress.
  Is this bill going to be enforced? Are we going to confront Iran? Are 
we going to try to do something or are we going to sit by and allow 
them to develop these weapons? They are not developing them alone. No, 
there are a lot of reports that they are working with others around the 
world. Who are those others? I talk about Islamic fascism, and I keep 
focusing on that. But, unfortunately, over the past several months it 
is increasingly clear to me that the situation is becoming even more 
complex. We are not just facing a group of people who are in the Middle 
East desiring to overthrow the world and oppose a caliphate on us, but 
they have allies--unlikely allies in some respects, unlikely allies as 
the German Nazis and Japanese imperialists who had very conflicting 
ideologies but had a common purpose, and that was destroy the West, 
destroy the English-speaking world and the Western world, and put it 
under the domination of those countries.
  So it is today. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. What Iran has 
found and the Islamic fascists have found is there are plenty of 
enemies of the United States. In fact, they had a meeting just this 
year a couple of months ago in Havana, Cuba. The nonaligned states met. 
There were 100 nations. On their agenda was to redefine the word 
``terror'' to include ``the U.S. occupation of Iraq'' and the ``Israeli 
invasion'' of Lebanon. Of course, there was no mention about the 
incursion of Hezbollah. They found solace with these countries.
  We saw it played out at the United Nations just a couple of weeks 
later where President Ahmadinejad, President Hugo Chavez, to thunderous 
applause of many in the United Nations community, demonized America. 
But another member of that crew of nonaligned nations was North Korea.
  I mentioned before that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program. They are 
indeed pursuing a nuclear program, and there have been many 
intelligence reports published that have suggested there were Iranian 
scientists there the day North Korea exploded their nuclear weapon. In 
fact, the scientist who had been working with North Korea, AQ Kahn, is 
the same scientist who has been working with Iran in the development of 
their nuclear program. Some have suggested that they are working 
collaboratively and jointly in their development of nuclear weapons 
which, of course, would have put Iran's nuclear program well ahead of 
where everyone believes it to be.
  So we have not only the Islamic fascists led by Iran, but we now have 
an alliance between Iran and North Korea; North Korea, which is a 
threat in their own right, now with nuclear weapons and their 
increasing ability to deliver them with long-range missiles, including 
the development of, as they hope to do, ICBMs which could reach the 
United States of America.
  We confronted North Korea as soon as they detonated their explosives. 
We had a U.N. resolution confronting them. North Korea condemned that 
nuclear U.N. resolution and called it ``a declaration of war'' and 
threatened the United States by declaring:

       We will deliver merciless blows without hesitation to 
     whoever tries to breach our sovereignty and right to survive 
     under the excuse of carrying out a United Nations Security 
     Council resolution.

  Not only do we have a threat of North Korea now launching a nuclear 
weapon, but we have the clear threat of North Korea and Iran 
proliferating nuclear technology. In addition, as Iran, working with 
North Korea, develops their nuclear program, and as the world sits 
fecklessly by and lets them do it, others in the region legitimately 
have their tensions increased and have talked about the need for those 
nations to develop nuclear weapons, Thus starting an arms race in a 
region of the world where it is the last place we want a nuclear arms 
race.
  Finally, we have the issue of whether this nuclear material that is 
being developed in both North Korea and Iran will end up in the hands 
of terrorists, to be delivered in a nonconventional way. North Korea is 
a new threat on

[[Page 22711]]

the horizon, but it is not alone. In fact, North Korea has expressed 
direct support for Iran's nuclear development program and stressed that 
the United States and the West have no right to defy such a program.
  The Iranians have also commented officially on friendly ties between 
Tehran and Pyongyang after the Islamic revolution, saying Iran ``highly 
praises North Korea for its steadfastness against the domineering 
policies of the United States.''
  But the threat goes even further. Ahmadinejad, with Kim Jong Il, like 
Mussolini and Hitler, intends to conquer Western civilization. Again, 
that is not Hitler. But they also, like the Soviets under Nikita 
Khrushchev, see the advantage of placing weapons of mass destruction 
within short ranges of the United States.
  Obviously, one likely candidate would be Venezuela. I don't know of 
any regime currently that is more vehement and more anti-American than 
Hugo Chavez and the regime in Venezuela, so it probably comes as no 
surprise that Ahmadinejad and Chavez have had meetings, and they are 
now aligned and allies and working together and have, in fact, formed a 
defense pact between the two countries.
  Venezuela is a serious threat not just because of their relationship 
within Iran but because of what it has attempted to do throughout the 
region, as well as its own potential threat.
  Just a few weeks ago there was an election in Nicaragua, right before 
our election, where Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega won the election, took a 
congratulatory call from Hugo Chavez, who said:

       We're happy here. We're very proud of you.
       Now, like never before, the Sandinista revolution and the 
     Bolivarian revolution unite, to construct the future, 
     socialism of the 21st century.

  Chavez made no secret about his support for Ortega or his support for 
the new rulers in Bolivia. Chavez is doing all he can to build military 
power and might and influence in the region of the world that is 
uncomfortably close to the United States.
  As we know, Chavez has been clear about his disdain for America. What 
we don't know is what Venezuela has been up to. I suspect that most 
Members of this Senate do not know that Venezuela is the leading buyer 
of foreign arms and military equipment in the world today, that Chavez 
is building an army of more than 1 million soldiers. I suspect most in 
this Senate do not know that over the next year he plans to spend $30 
billion to build 20 military bases in neighboring Bolivia which will 
dominate the borders of Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, assembling 
those military bases on the borders of the countries I just mentioned. 
These military bases, while they will be manned by Bolivian soldiers, 
will be commanded by Venezuelan and Cuban officers.
  How does he do this? How is he able to accomplish what Fidel Castro 
has been seeking to accomplish now for 4\1/2\ decades? The answer to 
that, of course, is very simple. It is a three-letter word: oil. Oil 
and its huge profits are financing this, just like oil and its huge 
profits are advancing Islamic fascism in the Middle East. It is no 
wonder again that Venezuela and Iran have formed an oil pact. Why? As 
they have clearly said before, oil is a ``geopolitical weapon,'' 
according to Chavez. He also said:

       I could easily order the closing of the refineries we have 
     in the United States. I could easily sell that oil that we 
     sell to the United States to other countries of the world . . 
     . to real friends and allies like China.

  They have even closer relationships with the Islamic fascists in 
Iran. A recent congressional report found that Hezbollah may right now 
have established bases in Venezuela which have issued thousands of 
visas to people from places such as Cuba and the Middle East, possibly 
giving them passports to a vague United States border security.
  To make matters worse, we see, with the help of Venezuela, Cuba and 
China are now exploring for oil within 50 miles of the coast of the 
United States, while the Senate blocks a measure to allow us to explore 
for oil within 100 miles of our own shore. So while China, Cuba, and 
Venezuela draw oil from our shores, we stand idly by and let them do it 
to arm against us.
  Let's not overlook the role of Russia in working with all of these 
governments--Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Last summer, Russia 
signed an arms deal with Venezuela to the tune of $1 billion. Last 
month, Russia began deliveries to Iran of highly sophisticated SA-15 
anti-aircraft missiles valued at $700 million. The purpose of these 
missiles? To defend Iran's nuclear program. That shouldn't come as a 
surprise. Russia has consistently opposed the efforts of the United 
States to sanction the other enemy, North Korea, for their nuclear 
programs, and has insisted on diluting the effects of every resolution 
that was passed condemning North Korea. The Russians claim sanctions 
don't work. Yet, oddly enough, they just imposed sanctions on their 
neighbor, Georgia.
  Yes, we live in a very complex time and we have enemies who are very 
dangerous, in which their relationships are growing, and so with it 
their commensurate power to confront terrorists of the world, and the 
rest of the world sits and hopes and hopes that we can negotiate our 
way out of this problem; that since we are people of reason and 
rational folks, we can deal with them on that level. Have we forgotten 
our history? We have been in this situation before.
  I have titled this address ``The Gathering Storm of the 21st 
Century.'' It is not a coincidence that I do so in harkening to the 
book written by Winston Churchill, ``The Gathering Storm,'' talking 
about the lead-up to World War II. Just like Britain in 1940, after the 
fall of France, we are engaged with a struggle now with the enemy--
alone. Just like Britain in 1940, we entreated the rest of the world to 
join us against this evil, and the world fell silent. For a year and a 
half until Pearl Harbor, and actually long after that, since the United 
States was certainly not prepared for war, Britain fought this battle 
alone. And with the exception of the State of Israel, we are fighting 
this battle alone, and I suspect we will for quite some time.
  So what lesson can we learn? What lesson can we learn from history? 
What we know is America is very reticent to get involved in wars, and 
rightfully so. In the First World War, we only entered after a German 
U-boat sank American civilian and commercial ships in the North 
Atlantic. World War I was the war to end all wars. After the defeat of 
the German armies, it seemed as if peace was going to be with us for a 
long time. But it did not last a generation. As I said, we ended up 
with the situation in World War II. But even after the fall of Europe 
to the Nazis and the Italian fascists, America stood by, hoping this 
problem would go away. It was not until Pearl Harbor that things 
changed.
  The Cold War was only after Stalin's aggression in the Middle East in 
Greece that we decided to engage and recognize that the Soviet Union 
was not our friend as many thought after World War II but, in fact, our 
new foe. And now, after the fall of the Soviet Union we thought we 
would have a peace dividend, peace for a long time, and we find that 
other forces of evil have cropped up to confront us.
  If it were not for the fact of September 11, we would be allowing 
that to continue today. But we engaged the enemy because they attacked 
us directly here at home. But now we are growing tired. We are wearying 
of the battle. I said earlier that these Islamic fascists understand us 
better than we understand them. They understand our history better than 
we understand their history. They need not look long to see how quickly 
America tires of confrontation and conflict and death.
  And so they plan and, more importantly, they kill, every day. It is 
recorded here every day, and support for this war goes down every day. 
And they check another box in Tehran.
  Winston Churchill wrote in ``The Gathering Storm'' a short 
description of the gathering storm:

       How the English-speaking peoples, through their unwisdom, 
     carelessness and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm.

  We are at such a moment. Are we going to allow the wicked to rearm? 
We paid a terrible price for waiting. We

[[Page 22712]]

lock at each war, each major conflict, we paid a terrible price for 
waiting. In many cases, it was a price paid in America. In many other 
cases it was a price paid in countries around the world. Are we going 
to pay that price at some day in the future or are we going to confront 
this enemy?
  If we learned anything from the 20th century, it should be this 
lesson: When leaders say they are prepared to kill millions of people 
to achieve their goal, we must take them at their word. The enemy 
before us that I have described has said it clearly, repeatedly, and 
pointedly, and even more threateningly, because this is an enemy who 
doesn't see death as a tragic consequence of the war; they see it as 
their objective of war.
  The ayatollah and the mullahs of Iran have repeatedly said that the 
object of jihad is not success, it is death. It is reaching the next 
level. It is ending this miserable life which we have on Earth and in 
pursuit of jihad, guaranteeing yourself eternal life with Allah.
  Here in America, we refuse to recognize, many, that we are at war 
with this great evil.
  We shrink from the recognition of identifying the enemy and 
confronting them, whether they be the Islamic fascists led by Iran or 
the socialist rulers of North Korea and Venezuela. We are sleep-walking 
through the storm, as we have done in the past. We pretend it is not 
happening or that it is simply because of the incompetency of the 
current administration or of a member of that administration.
  But how do those who deny this evil propose to save us from these 
people? By negotiating through the U.N. or directly with Iran? By 
firing Don Rumsfeld, now getting rid of John Bolton? That is going to 
solve the problem? These people are now going to be nice to us because 
we removed these people who were agitating them or causing problems? 
Maybe relocating our troops to Okinawa or Kuwait or some other place 
will get these people to simply leave us alone? Maybe if we just 
abandon Iraq and Afghanistan to the chaos and slaughter of Islamic 
fascists, their thirst for blood will be met? Or maybe it is just 
engaging in one-on-one discussions with Iran and North Korea and other 
reasonable dictators?
  No, I do not think any of those things will work. And history has 
proved they have not worked. We need to begin to confront our enemies. 
And that does not mean we have to launch a military mission into the 
countries I spoke of. But we have to do more than just adjust tactics 
in Iraq. If the focus of the next year and a half is simply adjusting 
tactics within Iraq, it will fail. It will fail. We must go after the 
regimes that recruit, pay, train, and arm their surrogate militias in 
Iraq. Again, I am not talking about military confrontation; I am 
talking about political and economic warfare to bring down the terror 
regimes in Tehran and their satellite puppet state in Syria. The best 
way to do that is to work with their own people who want freedom.
  I talked about the Iran Freedom and Support Act, but there is much 
more we need to do. We need to implement it. And we need to use the 
public diplomacy apparatus we have to motivate and change the hearts 
and minds. A free Iran will change the world because it will deprive 
the terrorists of the single greatest source of support and isolate the 
likes of Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il.
  Why is a free Iran and a free Iraq so essential? Because neither the 
United States of America nor any of our Western allies can defeat 
radical Islamic fascism on our own. We cannot defeat radical Islamic 
fascism. The only thing we can do is, through democracy-building and 
through support of moderate Islam, give those who truly seek the true 
meaning, the true moderate meaning of Islam the opportunity to be 
successful in suppressing its radical elements. We have to create that 
environment, and we have not in Iraq because Iran and Syria have not 
let us.
  I remember reading commentaries from so many people talking about 
that things went well originally in Iraq. It seems like things were 
going OK, and then, after a year or so, it really started to turn 
south. Well, immediately after we were there, the Iranians were scared 
to death of us and dared not play in that sandbox. But they quickly 
surmised that we were not serious, that we were not going to confront 
this evil, so they began what we now see.
  We need to counter Hugo Chavez. We need to do more to develop closer 
relationships with the countries in Central and South America, through 
trade and through diplomatic negotiations. We must fight for the hearts 
and minds of Central and South America, and we must do so much more 
deliberately and aggressively than we have. We have to do more to 
confront North Korea and its threat. That includes options, 
particularly missile defense. Finally, we have to confront the root 
cause of all of this, the root cause being oil.
  There is one regret I have of not coming back here. It is--and my 
colleagues know I can be somewhat single-minded--to focus the attention 
of this body and this country on energy security. It is lunacy, it is 
suicidal to continue to allow the energy markets at the levels they are 
right now given the fact that a vast majority of those energy dollars 
are going to people who want to kill us and destroy everything we 
believe in. We can no longer play games with our energy security.
  I spent a lot of time talking about this war, and I have fought very 
hard to pass legislation, both the Syrian Accountability Act and the 
Iran Freedom and Support Act, that will try to hurt our enemies and 
strengthen our country. I will do my best, after I leave this place, to 
continue to confront these enemies and to give the United States the 
opportunity to succeed in this war.
  Osama bin Laden said:

       In the final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of 
     the infidels was divided between two superpowers: the United 
     States and the Soviet Union. Now we--

  Understand this.

       Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and 
     the more dangerous of the two.

  Understand what bin Laden is saying. ``We,'' these Islamic fascists--
they claim they defeated the Soviet Union, not Ronald Reagan and 
Margaret Thatcher, not Pope John Paul II, but Islamic fascism, the 
mujahedin in Afghanistan. History will make a plausible case for this 
assertion that, in fact, they had a lot to do with defeating the Soviet 
Union. But he continues with one final sentence:

       Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be 
     easy.

  You see, they think they understand us. They think they know how to 
get to America. Open a paper every day and see what their tactic is. 
Open a paper every day, turn on a television every day, turn on your 
radio every day, sign on to the Internet every day and see what their 
tactic is and see how they believe they will defeat us.
  I believe we need strong leadership to confront this greatest enemy 
that we have. The stakes are high, too high not to join together--
Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, American, European--to 
confront this dangerous enemy. We must stop them.
  Winston Churchill, in June of 1940--I will close with this, for my 
colleagues who have been patiently waiting--Winston Churchill, in 1940, 
addressed the British people as Britain stood alone:

       What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I 
     expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon 
     this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. 
     Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity 
     of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might 
     of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows 
     that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. 
     If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the 
     life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit 
     uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the 
     United States, including all that we have known and cared 
     for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more 
     sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of 
     perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to do our 
     duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and 
     its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still 
     say, ``This was their finest hour.''

  This is the call of this generation. This is America's hour. This is 
the hour that we need leadership, Churchillian leadership, who had a

[[Page 22713]]

keen eye for the enemy and a resolve in spite of the political climate 
to confront it. I ask my colleagues to stand and make this America's 
finest hour. I regret that the new Secretary of Defense is not up to 
the task, in my opinion. I hope others are.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________