[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8443-S8446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TERRORISM

  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from California for her eloquent 
remarks. It is time for a memory indeed. Tomorrow I will be going to 
the Pentagon for a memorial service, as will many other Senators, to 
memorialize that terrible day on September 11, when we lost the people 
at the Pentagon. Five of those lost at the Pentagon happened to be from 
the State of Alabama, but the State has lost 10 or more personnel since 
this war on terrorism began. It has touched the entire country.
  Some of our finest people, innocent of any wrongdoing, innocent of 
any involvement in what might be considered to be oppression or 
disagreements with the terrorists who did these acts, paid the price. 
Historically, the civilized world has rejected these acts.
  But there is afoot today terrorist groups and terrorist cells 
throughout the country. A significant number of people would believe 
they have a right to use terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to 
kill and maim people who have done nothing in their lives to wrong 
them. I believe we have to confront that.
  The President has been talking about Iraq and the problem it 
presents. It is

[[Page S8444]]

a real problem. It is a problem that will not go away.
  We could wish it would go away, but it will not go away. The reason 
is they have been in such continual violation of the agreements they 
made with regard to not participating in weapons of mass destruction.
  We are in a critical time right now. I think the President has done 
the right thing, to say he wants Congress to participate in a debate 
and to give him a resolution of support of his action with regard to 
Iraq. I believe that is a good step. I think it is good, not because it 
is absolutely clear to me that it is required--I know Senator Dayton is 
a member of the Armed Services Committee and has been through a lot of 
these hearings--but we are at this point with regard to Iraq because we 
held back. We did not complete the job. We did not continue to move 
into Baghdad and capture or kill Saddam Hussein and completely take 
that country in 1991 during the gulf war--Desert Storm. We didn't do 
that.
  We said OK, and the U.N. sort of stepped in, and they wrote up this 
agreement, and Saddam Hussein agreed to many different things. He 
agreed to reject weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological 
weapons, and not only did he agree not to do those things, he agreed 
U.N. inspectors could be sent there to actually go into his country and 
examine anything that looked unusual, he would not attempt to stop 
that, and we could send inspectors to prove he was not participating in 
weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
  But what has happened? The history is very sad. It is a circumstance 
that is particularly frustrating. We wish we did not have to direct our 
attention to it, but we do. It is not going away. He has broken 
virtually every one of the promises he made, and I suspect, from what I 
read, the President is going to talk about that at the U.N.
  Let me say this about the United Nations. The United Nations is a 
noble organization, with noble goals, that deserves respect. Remember 
in the Declaration of Independence, they, the fathers of the American 
Revolution, used the phrase ``a decent respect for the opinions of 
mankind'' to require them to set forth the reasons for separation, the 
reasons for revolution.
  So I think the President should explain to the world--and the U.N. is 
a great forum to do that--precisely why he believes we should act now.
  I suspect what he is going to talk a lot about is resolutions that 
Saddam Hussein agreed to and that were put forth by the U.N. and were 
U.N. resolutions that have been violated. Resolution after resolution, 
for a decade or more, they have been in violation. He will raise that 
tomorrow--or Thursday, as he should.
  The gravity of the problem is clear. Saddam Hussein's violations are 
matters of life and death. I wish it were not so. I wish it were just 
some disagreement over tariffs, or maybe oil prices, or something like 
that. But what we are talking about is that Saddam Hussein has, with 
determination and consistency for many years before the gulf war--11, 
12 years ago, and since--persisted to develop weapons that he has used 
in this world. So it is a matter of life and death.
  They demonstrate not just technical infringements on their agreements 
but they constitute a deliberate and determined program to develop 
weapons of mass destruction that he himself can use if he desires, or 
he can in secret provide to stateless terrorists so they can use these 
weapons on law-abiding American citizens and people of the world. So 
there is a real danger here.

  Some say: What new evidence do you have to go forward? What new 
evidence do we have? Apparently, from some of the things you read in 
the papers--and I will not make reference to anything that is 
confidential--there have been indications that there is new evidence to 
indicate continued progress toward achieving dangerous weapons. We 
know, for example--we were shocked to find, at the time of the gulf war 
when we were victorious and did the inspection of the nuclear 
facilities, that Saddam Hussein had--that they were within 6 months of 
being able to produce a nuclear bomb when the United States 
successfully defeated Iraq in that war--6 months. The experts did not 
think that at the time, but the inspection of the country afterwards 
found that.
  So I would say first of all, as Secretary Rumsfeld said: Oftentimes 
we know what we don't know. We know some things that indicate that he 
has continued steadfastly to improve chemical, biological, and nuclear 
weapons. We know that. But precisely how far he has gone we cannot say. 
But we know what his goal is. It has not changed. So I would say that 
is important for us to remember.
  These things should not come as a surprise to any serious observer of 
the scene. We have been dealing with this man and his deliberate plans 
to obtain weapons of mass destruction for quite a number of years, and 
virtually daily since the gulf war. The fact is, he had no intention of 
complying with the world's demands to stop. He will not stop. Will a 
single person in this Congress, will a single person, come forth and 
say that they believe he will even unequivocally promise to stop? Which 
I doubt he will--but he might. But more important, will he actually 
stop production of these weapons? I challenge this body and the House 
of Representatives, and I will ask that question. Is there anyone here 
who thinks he sincerely will stop his activities to build weapons of 
mass destruction? I do not think anyone would.
  Why? Is it just anger we are involved in here? Are we just angry over 
his bellicose statements about the United States? Are we just angry 
over his attempt to assassinate the President of the United States? Is 
it just anger over the fact that he gave $25,000 rewards to families of 
suicide bombers in Israel or other places, people who would murder 
innocent civilians, that cause us to say we don't trust him? No. It is 
not anger--although we have a right to be indignant over what he does. 
But we must not act solely out of anger.
  I used to try criminal cases as a Federal prosecutor. Many times, the 
evidence from credible, honest witnesses would be contradicted solely 
by the words of the defendant. He would say: I didn't do it.
  I used to do a little deal sometimes and talk to the jury. I said: 
Just because somebody says they won't do it doesn't mean they will not. 
I can say: I don't have a pencil in my hand, and if I do, I am not 
going to drop it. And I didn't drop it. I didn't drop the pencil.
  Does that change the fact that I had a pencil and I dropped it? I 
think not.
  This man is not credible. What we have to do when we deal with a man 
of this kind is look at his acts. Can they be just short-term acts? 
That is important, but long-term acts are even more important.
  I think a decision that is to be made by a great nation, a nation 
that desires to protect its citizens and has the protection and 
security of its citizens in this country and around the world as its 
highest priority, that nation has to be serious. We cannot deal in 
wishful thinking. We cannot do so.
  People say to me, basically: Can't we get along? Why do you want to 
talk about war?
  Why do we have to wrestle with these issues? Isn't it possible that 
Saddam Hussein has seen the light and will change? I think people are 
not saying that. I don't think people are saying it. But in their 
hearts they are hoping that. Sometimes I think the same way. Isn't it 
just possible that this will change?
  But let us consider the matter rationally and reasonably. What are 
the facts? What is the evidence? Is there a case here?
  When solely evaluated, I submit there is overwhelming evidence that 
the facts present a demonstration that Saddam Hussein is manipulating 
the world, acting to keep them at bay while he steadfastly pursues his 
plan for weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of the 
agreement that saved his monstrous regime 11 years ago.
  There are many ways to detail the charges against this most vicious 
dictator with the possible exception of North Korea, the most brutal 
dictator in the world today, and one who has been more active to export 
his violence than any other nation in the world today.
  At this time, I think we should talk about the Iraq Liberation Act of 
1998. This Congress voted on it. It passed the House of Representatives 
almost unanimously. There were maybe 30 ``no'' votes. It passed in this 
body unanimously by consent.

[[Page S8445]]

  This is what we found in 1998 at a time when Saddam Hussein ejected 
the inspectors that he agreed to have come into his country. We did 
nothing about it. This is what the findings say:

       The Congress makes the following findings.
       On September 22nd, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8-
     year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against 
     Iranian troops, and ballistic missiles against Iranian 
     cities.

  This country is not Iraq. It is not a backward country. It has a 
government of laws, longstanding. It has for that region of the world 
an educated population. They are capable of doing so much better than 
they are today.
  Unfortunately, the people of Iraq are suffering more than anyone else 
as a result of Saddam Hussein's bad leadership.
  It goes on in paragraph 2:

       In February of 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish 
     civilians----

  These are citizens of Iraq----

       from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an 
     estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds----

  Fifty-thousand to 100,000 of his own civilians in 1988 after he lost 
the war, after he signed an agreement not to use weapons of mass 
destruction, and after he agreed to inspections----

       On March 16th, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against the 
     Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja 
     killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds----

  Causing numerous birth defects that affect the town to this day.
  How long has it been since a nation in the world used chemical 
weapons against anyone, much less their own citizens, killing 5,000 
Kurds? It is a despicable act by a despicable man who is not worthy to 
be a part of civilized nations, I submit.
  On August 2nd, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7-month occupation of 
Kuwait.
  This is a sovereign, independent nation on its border that happened 
to have substantial oil reserves that Saddam Hussein wanted. So on 
August 2, 1990, he invaded and began a 7-month occupation killing and 
committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti citizens and setting Kuwaiti 
oilfields ablaze in his retreat.

  Do you remember that? Just out of perversion and pure meanness, he 
set the oilwells on fire, polluting the atmosphere, putting at risk 
thousands of lives, and causing tremendous expense to bring those fires 
under control. In fact, they were brought under control better than we 
had any right to expect. At first, people expected it would take much 
longer than the long period it ultimately took.
  No. 5--this is our findings, the Congress:

       Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 
     28th, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the cease-fire 
     conditions in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     687 on April 3, 1991, requiring Iraq, among other things, to 
     disclose and fully permit the dismantlement of his weapons of 
     mass destruction program, and submit to long-term monitoring 
     and verification of such a dismantlement.

  That was the basic condition of it. We said: OK. Mr. Saddam Hussein, 
we will not continue this war. We have ousted you from Kuwait where you 
had no right to be, but you have to agree to dismantle your weapons of 
mass destruction. OK. He agreed to that. That was the U.N.-brokered 
deal.
  Paragraph 6:

       In April of 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to 
     assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14 
     through 16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

  What a despicable act. I submit to you as a Member of the Senate of 
any party that when a head of a foreign nation deliberately sets about 
to assassinate the leader or former leader of any great nation, that is 
something that should not be lightly dealt with. Frankly, I think we 
dealt with it too lightly at the time. We did take some action but not 
enough.
  This man attempted to kill, assassinate the President, former 
President of the United States of America while he was visiting Kuwait, 
a country that former President Bush had led the liberation of and 
freed from this oppressive regime.
  So it continues. That was in April of 1993:

       In October of 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near 
     the border of Kuwait posing an imminent threat of renewed 
     invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

  This is a man who wants us to get along with him and says, If you 
want complete destruction of my Government, I will behave and end 
weapons, and I will get along with my neighbors. And here he is moving 
80,000 troops down on the border towards Kuwait where he does not 
station them normally. It just shows the aggressive hostilities of 
which he is capable.
  On August 31 of 1996, paragraph 8:

       In the findings of the U.S. Congress, Iraq oppressed many 
     of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture the 
     seat of a Kurdish regional government.
       Since March of 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny 
     weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission 
     on Iraq--UNSCOM--access to key facilities and documents, has 
     on several occasions endangered the safe operation of 
     UNSCOM's helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, 
     and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment 
     regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction 
     program----
       And persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment 
     regarding the history of his weapons of mass destruction 
     programs----

  The U.S. Congress, U.S. Senate unanimously found:

       On August 5 of 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with 
     UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term 
     monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency and UNSCOM.

  The International Atomic Energy Agency is monitoring Iraq's nuclear 
bomb capability.
  Paragraph 11:

       On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 
     105-235 which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in 
     material and unacceptable breach of its international 
     obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate 
     action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant 
     laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance 
     with its international obligations.''
  No. 12:

       On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-
     174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the 
     Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as 
     organization, training, communication and dissemination of 
     information, developing and implementing agreements among 
     opposition groups, compiling information to support the 
     indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related 
     purposes.

  It goes on to say:

       Sense Of The Congress Regarding United States Policy Toward 
     Iraq.

  In Section 3, this is what we found as a Congress:

       It should be the policy of the United States to support 
     efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from 
     power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic 
     government to replace that regime.

  I repeat that. That is so important. We voted unanimously in this 
Senate that:

       It should be the policy of the United States to support 
     efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from 
     power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic 
     government to replace that regime.

  I suppose we have tried to do so in many different ways. The problem 
is, we have not been very successful. Iraq continues to make a mockery 
of its agreements and continues to build and develop weapons of mass 
destruction.
  So the President is, I am sure, from newspaper reports, going to talk 
about that to the United Nations. I am so glad that he is because we 
have to think about an important subject.
  Mr. President, you are aware that the Economist magazine, a London 
publication, in England, which is seriously reviewed around the world--
and people give its opinions great weight--has expressed a view that 
there is no alternative but to war in this circumstance.
  A couple months ago, they had an insert on the role of American 
foreign policy in the world, and they talked about this tension between 
multilateralism and unilateral action by the President, or can the 
United States act alone or with a few allies? They raised this 
question.
  Multilateralists say we ought to reach agreements, and those 
agreements ought to be for the purpose of making our world safer. And 
they can work in that regard. The question the Economist posed is: What 
if the people who sign them do not abide by them? What if the people 
who have signed them deliberately, deceitfully operate in violation of 
those agreements, thereby threatening the safety and security of the 
rest of the world? Does the world just sit by and do nothing? Is that a 
credible response?
  Do you think that is what was on President Bush's mind when he said, 
in recent words--and I think I can quote

[[Page S8446]]

him directly--``the credibility of the world is at stake''?
  Yes, it is one thing to have resolutions. It is one thing to say we 
are going to have agreements so we can go away and wash our hands and 
say the matter is solved and the danger is over. That may be OK if it 
is a trade issue or some such event as that. But if it is a matter of 
life and death, dealing with a country that is capable of and has 
proven in the past it will use weapons of mass destruction against 
enemies in its own country and outside their country, if that is so, 
then we have a big problem.

  So I think the President is determined to confront this issue and 
that the status quo in Iraq is not sufficient. We need to go back and 
remember what has already occurred. And that is where we are.
  They say: Well, you have to have a unanimous vote. The United Nations 
has to support this action. I think a decent respect for the United 
Nations calls on the President to go there and state his case. I think 
it is important for the President to explain it to good and decent 
leaders all over the world, and seek their support wherever he can get 
it. But as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I can tell you, we 
do not have to have the support of any one nation to defeat Iraq. I 
hope we can do it promptly.
  One thing I do believe is, he does not have popular support in his 
country and many of the people will be delighted to see him go. And I 
think it is not as if we are attacking a country that has loyal and 
decent people willing to die for their country. There may be some, but 
it is not nearly that many because this man is a brutal dictator.
  But the President is required to state his case around the world. 
That is important. I hope he does not feel compelled to describe, in 
any detailed way, precisely how he might conduct a war, if a war 
becomes necessary. Maybe it will not be. I hope it will not be. But 
from my reading of this history, both before Desert Storm and after, of 
Saddam Hussein's absolutely steadfast determination to frustrate the 
world and do what he wants to do, I do not believe he is going to 
change. So I think we are going to be confronted with that situation 
sooner or later.
  The question is, shouldn't we have the support of the United Nations? 
The problem there is this: A United Nations resolution requires a 
Security Council vote, a unanimous vote of the Security Council.
  The American people have spent a lot of money building up the 
greatest military force in the history of the world. We will spend, 
next year, $370 or so billion on a national defense system for this 
country. And on the United Nations Security Council there are countries 
such as France and Germany and England, and also China and Russia. So 
what are we going to do? Are we going to say that the Chinese or the 
Russians, or any other member of the Security Council, for any reason 
they choose, has the right to say: No, Mr. President, we don't agree. 
You can't use force against Iraq. You can't use force to liberate 
Kuwait. You can't use force against Panama, as President Bush did. You 
can't act against Kosovo because we say no?
  That is not something that a great nation, the preeminent world 
power--let's say it frankly--can allow. The preeminent world power--a 
good and decent nation, whose actions are not for self gain but to 
vindicate legitimate rights and interests--cannot allow its power to be 
curtailed by the vote of one nation in the U.N. Security Council.
  So the President cannot say: I am going to defer this matter to the 
U.N. That would be absolutely wrong. It would be unwise. And the 
American people would not support that. It is our military. We did it 
to protect our just national interests--not our unjust national 
interests, but our just, legitimate national interests. I believe the 
President understands that distinction. I hope that we, as Americans, 
think that through because some tend to believe we have to have a vote 
of the U.N. before we can act to defend our national security interests 
around the world, and that is not correct. Very few would agree with 
that.
  We are in a time of remembrance as we move toward September 11. We 
will be at the Pentagon tomorrow. Others will be in New York. Others 
will be in Pennsylvania. Others will have memorials in their 
communities and towns, as I will be visiting one in Birmingham, hosted 
by the religious community, to commemorate this sad occasion of 
September 11.
  The President told us we were going to have to return to our 
fundamental beliefs, we were going to have to be courageous, and if we 
stepped out and took on these people, and we chased them to their lairs 
and went after them, we could make the world safer.
  I believe the world is safer today. I believe it is an unacceptable 
policy to allow any nation to harbor terrorists, to allow any nation to 
allow their territory to be used as a training base or where they can 
build their weapons and plot their diabolical actions. We cannot allow 
that to happen. It is against the policy of the United States and this 
Congress, I believe.
  We are in a time that all of us need to study how we got to where we 
are, being quite serious about this entire circumstance. I am coming to 
the conclusion that it is very unlikely, based on the consistent, long-
term history of Saddam Hussein, that we can reach any kind of agreement 
with him.
  As the Economist magazine said, for 11 years we have been trying to 
contain him in a box. The box is leaking. Who has suffered most? The 
people and children of Iraq. They are the ones who have been suffering 
for these 12 years. It is difficult for us to defend to the Arab world 
this kind of oppression that falls mainly on the innocent. They said, 
concluding their very serious editorial: Painful as it is, our vote is 
for war.
  I hope we don't come to that, but I am afraid that is where we are 
heading. It is a subject we have to talk about. I believe that debate 
will now commence.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________