[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22762-22765]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SUPPORTING PRESIDENT BUSH AND OUR TROOPS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of President 
Bush and our troops as this Nation continues to fight and win the war 
on terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the globe.
  We all know there are many great attributes in our United States of 
America. The people of America will rise to any occasion and will do 
what is necessary to protect freedom and opportunities for themselves 
and future generations. But there are some attributes on which 
sometimes we fail a little bit. One of those is we are a bit short 
sometimes in our memory, remembering back to what happened a few years 
ago. Sometimes our patience is a little short and we want immediate 
action. We will rise to any occasion, fight off any chaos, but then we 
want to deal with that situation and move on to something else.
  I think that is a little of what we are seeing now as we listen to 
what I consider to be sometimes overheated rhetoric in questioning 
motives and resisting doing what is necessary to complete the job: a 
little patience, a little commitment to support freedom and democracy 
which we are trying to assist in Iraq and in the war on terrorism.
  I said we seem to have forgotten. What happened to that era of the 
great Senator Vandenberg who stood up and said, when it comes to 
foreign policy and war, partisanship ends at the shoreline, or 
something to that effect; that when we are dealing with an 
international problem, a conflict, a war, we are all together. Or even 
more recently, Lyndon Johnson aggressively supported the policies of 
President Eisenhower even though the leader of the Republicans at the 
time, Senator Taft, did not necessarily go along with it. But there was 
a bipartisan policy.
  We have had that in our efforts to deal with these very difficult 
issues in Iraq and Afghanistan and homeland security, but it seems to 
be a little frayed right now. I think that is dangerous. I don't think 
it is good for America. I don't think it is good for what we are trying 
to achieve in fighting terrorism around the world. I don't think it is 
good for our troops.
  Also, how short is our memory that we don't even remember the debate 
that was going on 1 year ago? We were discussing what to do about Iraq. 
The President was then going to the United Nations, and Secretary 
Powell had been to the United Nations. We were demanding more 
information. We were saying the President needed to go to the United 
Nations. And in each incident, he actually did what people were asking 
him to do. He did it. He went to the United Nations. He made the plea. 
Unfortunately, the United Nations didn't support what they said for 10 
years in a dozen resolutions. They said: We can continue to negotiate; 
more inspections, more inspections. They would not step up and take 
action against this brutal tyrant, Saddam Hussein. But we did. America 
did. The President did. The Congress did. That is the point I am trying 
to make.
  We had this debate. We knew what we were going into. We had looked at 
the intelligence. Was the intelligence perfect? No. Is it ever? It is 
always subjective. But we voted in this body 77 to 23 for the Iraq 
resolution. The House of Representatives voted almost 300--296--to 133. 
So we should not forget that vote. We should not forget the tremendous 
successes that have been enjoyed in terms of getting Saddam Hussein out 
of his position where he was spending money on palaces and allowing the 
people to suffer. He was murdering his own people and his neighbors. 
The infrastructure was just decaying beyond repair. We stepped up, and 
we did the same in Afghanistan. Our troops did a great job. Now are we 
going to say, It's your problem? Do we really expect the French to do 
the job? I don't think so. We are going to have to stay the course. We 
are going to have to do this job, and there is nobody else going to do 
it for us.
  Oh, when the problem is in their immediate neighborhood, such as 
Bosnia or Kosovo, the Europeans say: You must lead; you have to come 
in. We supported that operation. Almost every action that was requested 
by President Clinton we supported, sometimes very reluctantly. I 
remember thinking: OK, I support the bombing of the site in Afghanistan 
and the Sudan, because we thought they had chemical precursors. They 
didn't have them. But generally we came together and we provided 
leadership.
  I saw a lady from England on TV this morning. Somebody asked her: Why 
do the Europeans and other people in the

[[Page 22763]]

world not feel good about Americans right now? She said: It is because 
you are leaders; the world expects you to do the job. You do the job, 
and they are jealous of you. They want it, but they don't like it. It 
is human nature. We should not be too hard on them. I called on cooling 
the overheated rhetoric, and I want to remember that myself. We all 
overspeak and overstate our positions sometimes, but this is serious 
stuff with which we are dealing.
  We called on the President a month ago: Mr. President, you have to 
step up and remind us what the vision is. He did. He went on TV. He 
rocked us back on our heels. He didn't ask for $55 billion or $65 
billion to do the job as we thought he would. It was $87 billion. Oh, 
yes, I was a little stunned. I don't like the deficits we are beginning 
to have. They were caused by the economy, 9/11, by the stock market 
problems--all kinds of situations. Still, that kind of money deserves 
some close examination.
  I have been saying for several days now I want some answers. As 
representatives of the people, we should ask for answers. We deserve 
that. Exactly how is this money going to be broken out? Fifty-one 
billion dollars will go for the Iraqi campaign; $11 billion for the 
Afghanistan campaign. It is not over. Are we are going to follow the 
example of generations of failure in Afghanistan or are we going to 
finish the job there? Of course, Noble Eagle, $4 billion for homeland 
defense. The job goes on.
  We have the list of where the money would go for reconstruction, and 
I have asked questions. Mr. President, there is $5 billion for border 
enhancement. We need that because terrorists are coming into that 
country from all over the region to attack our coalition troops--the 
Americans, the British, the Poles, and the United Nations. We need to 
do more--basic electricity services, water and sanitation services, 
transportation, oil infrastructure.
  Some people have said and I have said: Why don't the Iraqis do more 
on their own? They are going to have this oil coming in; they are going 
to have oil. They don't have it. They are broke. The infrastructure is 
more decimated than we ever dreamed. So I have questioned this money, 
but I have looked at it. I have thought about it. I listened very 
carefully to Ambassador Bremer yesterday, and I am convinced we have to 
do this. We have to have the money for our troops to do the job, for 
homeland security, for the reconstruction, and we have to do it now. It 
is a critical part of restoring security right now.
  Leaders who are working with us are being intimidated, assaulted, and 
murdered. People from whom we had been getting information, who were 
helping us get people into the police and developing a force for the 
future, have withdrawn because they are a little concerned whether we 
will stay the course.
  A lot of it is affected by the people's attitude. Right here, in the 
DC area, we have people without power. It weakens defenses. So we need 
to move in there quickly without going through an international 
organization, without trying to hassle through a loan arrangement, and 
provide the money so we can get the power back on, so we can get the 
water flowing.
  There should be a process that others join in. Surely, countries of 
the United Nations, if it is worth anything, will help the Iraqis with 
their humanitarian needs as they continue to rebuild the 
infrastructure, as they try to develop their own government. Can the 
United Nations help with that? I hope so. I would like to give them a 
chance. I have not seen a lot yet, but they could.
  After we get over this initial phase, I think the reconstruction 
money right now is every bit as important as the security money. It is 
a part of the security. We want to stop the assault on our troops. We 
want to begin to get the border under control. We have to do it and we 
have to do it now. A year from now it will be worse, maybe impossible.
  So I came this morning to say I did not just leap to accept this 
amount of money. I did question how it could be done, but I am 
convinced if we do not do this, others will not follow suit. We are 
going to be going to other countries around the world that should be of 
assistance, Japan and countries such as Turkey that can hopefully 
provide some troops. We are going to ask them to ante up and kick in. 
But we are going to have to set an example. If we haggle over the 
details of this arrangement, they will not do their job. Then we are 
going to have to go to countries such as Russia, France, and Germany 
and say they have to forgive the debt that they have accumulated over a 
period of years because they were working with Saddam Hussein. We have 
to lead. We have to set an example, but it is tough.
  I am going to support the whole package. We should do it quickly 
because if we do not, this moment could get away from us, and we could 
just walk away, leave that country and those people, that region, in 
chaos. In the end, if we do not stop it here, over there it will be 
here. So I urge my colleagues to stand up; let us do what we did last 
year. Let us do the right thing; let us finish the job.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from the great State of Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the 
comments of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. He 
has been in this body a long time. He has wrestled with a lot of 
difficult issues. He knows that a lot of times, one just has to lead. 
They have to stand up and be counted and do the right thing. Once a 
nation commits itself, a Congress commits itself, there is no way we 
can turn around and waffle around next week based on some polling data 
or some comment from France or the U.N. That is not the way great 
nations behave.
  I am proud of the United States of America. We have stood up. We have 
been counted. We have been on the side of right in the world. When 
should look at the wars and decimation that has occurred in 
Afghanistan. I was there a few weeks ago and they are rebuilding 
houses, using the same procedure of straw, mud, and brick covered with 
a mud stucco, that they have used for 2,000 years. They are building 
everywhere in Afghanistan after 20 years of oppression, war, and 
destruction, to a degree that few nations in the world have ever seen.
  These are good and decent people, but Afghanistan was used as a base 
from which to attack the people of the United States of America. The 
Government of Afghanistan would not renounce that, would not say they 
were going to stop it, so the United States of America led. We have 
changed that Government. Anybody who has seen President Karzai, as I 
had the opportunity to do--and we have seen him on television--knows 
that he is a man of vision, talent, and decency. He loves the people of 
Afghanistan. He wants to see them succeed and do better.
  The same is true of Iraq. I was there also, and I saw the oppression, 
the total devastation of a country that had every opportunity to be so 
much better. The people should have had a better life than they did, 
but Saddam Hussein took his people into war after war. He developed 
weapons of mass destruction. His megalomania led him to believe that he 
could be the next Nebuchadnezzar and take over the Middle East, then 
rule the world. Do not think his goals did not include developing the 
most dangerous weapons the world has ever known. He was prepared to do 
that, and he did that.
  When he would not renounce these weapons or demonstrate that he did 
not have those weapons, so we moved against him and his sinister aims. 
We have liberated that country.
  There have been a lot of complaints, and we debated this on the 
Senate floor many times. Those who complain have expressed concerns of 
all kinds. They said there were going to be problems in the Arab 
streets, the Arab nations would all turn against us, there would be 
street-to-street fighting in Iraq, we would lose thousands of soldiers, 
it would take months and months to succeed, the weapons of mass 
destruction would be used against our troops, we would bog down, there 
would be a humanitarian disaster, there would be

[[Page 22764]]

 starvation and refugees everywhere by the millions, and we did not 
have enough troops to win the battle.
  All of those things and more were raised. We talked about them. We 
debated them, and everybody had their say. We had open hearings and 
closed hearings. We read, we talked, we debated for months on end. 
There was not any secret about it. It was not any plan hatched in 
Texas. It was a plan voted on and debated in this body. We voted 77 to 
23 to commit the United States of America to this action. Our military 
performed better than anybody could ever have imagined. Decisively and 
swiftly they defeated the Iraqi army, ousted them from power 
completely, put Saddam Hussein on the run, put an end to his evil sons, 
and have set about to establish a good government there.
  I was in Mosul and was introduced to the city council. They have an 
Arab, a Turk, a Christian, and others on that council. They were men of 
ability and wisdom. We talked. They love the city of Mosul and the 
country of Iraq, and they want an open, free society where people with 
whatever beliefs can be able to function. They want to renounce and 
turn away from the past of Saddam Hussein. That is true all over this 
country, but it is difficult. It has proven to be a challenge for us, 
no doubt about it, to completely have peace and order in that large 
country.
  I am pleased when I go and see soldiers from my State of Alabama, 
many of them National Guardsmen--I had dinner with them and talked with 
them. They believe they are making a difference in this area of the 
Middle East, where there has been so much disorder, so much oppression, 
so much killing, particularly in Iraq. Millions have died as a result 
of Saddam Hussein's wars and oppression at home. One can go there and 
see the graves. With the energy and dedication of these fine soldiers, 
I think we are going to be successful.
  I am glad President Bush went to the United Nations. It is an 
organization that deserves our respect. It is entitled to courtesy, and 
President Bush has given it that. The Christian Science Monitor today 
said President Bush went to the U.N. yesterday with a message of both 
reconciliation and resolve, and that is exactly what he ought to do. 
Reconciliation, we want to talk to them and deal with their concerns, 
but we are resolved.
  What then is our difficulty with the U.N.? I will share a couple of 
thoughts. The first is, the U.N. is incapable of taking decisive 
action. It has not done so in Iraq. It has never done so in its 
history. Why? Well, the Security Council requires unanimity in order to 
act. Russia is on the Security Council, as well as France, Germany, and 
others. Some rotate on each year or two, and they serve a period of 
time. The idea that they can get a unanimous vote is almost impossible. 
So decisive action is not possible. It has never happened, and it is 
not going to happen with the U.N. But President Bush did get a 
resolution that Secretary Colin Powell worked so hard on, which in my 
view--authorized us to take military action.
  Then they said they wanted another resolution, and we sought that. 
Then France flipped on us, and Germany said no. France even lobbied 
other countries around the world and blocked a further vote.
  What were our options then? Do we just stop and not defend our 
legitimate national interests? Do we not carry out the foreign policy 
we believe is in our interests? Should we make it our policy to cede 
the decisionmaking authority the American people have vested in us, our 
elected President, our elected Congress, to some world body that has 
proven incapable of decisive action? I don't think so.
  I believe we are on the right track in with the U.N. The President is 
showing respect to this group, but we are not going to allow the 
decision making power of our country to be shifted to the U.N. We are 
not going to turn over our military that the American people have 
supported, funded, and created, the finest military the world has ever 
known--we are not going to turn it over to them. In Kosovo, that is 
basically what we did. The NATO nations met to deploy our Air Force. We 
did that, and they kind of liked that. Maybe they think that is what 
the world is going to be like from now on, but it is not. We have a 
responsibility to lead.
  As Tony Blair asked the question: Why America? Why now?
  He said: My answer to you is that it is your destiny, it is your 
time. Who else can do it?
  I believe in the values of this country. I trust our wisdom. I trust 
our good judgment. I believe in what we are doing, and I believe it is 
good for not only America but the world. I don't apologize for that, 
and I don't believe some socialist leftover Marxist veto in the U.N. 
should stop us from doing what is necessary for the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we all watched with great interest the 
President's remarks at the U.N. yesterday. When one looks at the U.N., 
it is impossible not to have kind of a mixed view. Certainly the U.N. 
has, on many occasions over the years, done worthwhile work. But 
rarely, if ever, has it taken the lead on anything of significance.
  The reason for that, obviously, is that the membership is so diverse. 
Many of the governments that are represented there of course are not 
democracies; they are not particularly interested in what America 
stands for, so it is not entirely surprising that the President's 
decision--and the support of Congress for that decision was 77 out of 
100 votes to change the regime in Iraq--was viewed with mixed reactions 
at the U.N.
  Had the United States waited on the U.N., Saddam Hussein would still 
be in power. But that is not what the President decided to do. The 
President led a coalition of 19 willing governments to liberate the 
people of Iraq. Although many in the U.N. actively opposed and many 
others were just completely ambivalent about that effort, there is no 
question that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein gone.
  Make no mistake about it, that regime is no more. The only Iraqis who 
are not immensely better off are those who perpetrated crimes against 
humanity on a massive scale and abetted in the murder of 300,000 
innocent Iraqi civilians. Not since Saddam Hussein was in power have 
innocent Iraqis been hauled off in the middle of the night to rape 
rooms and torture chambers. Not since Saddam Hussein was in power have 
innocent Iraqis been summarily executed. Not since Saddam Hussein was 
in power have ethnic and religious minorities been gassed or murdered 
at will by a tyrannical regime. And, yes, Saddam Hussein no longer 
provides succor and support to international terrorists who plot the 
murder of Israelis, Americans, and everyone who opposes their radical 
interpretation of Islam.
  There are no more terrorist training camps in Iraq, and Saddam 
Hussein no longer cuts checks to support suicide bombings in Israel. 
The Iraqi regime is no longer pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and 
it will never be able to use them against its own people, not ever.
  Are there problems in finishing the job in Iraq? You bet. But free 
Iraq remains hostile to terrorists and to tyranny. President Bush noted 
yesterday that there are still challenges in Iraq and they are 
challenges that confront all free nations. The terrorists are making a 
desperate last stand in Iraq and, frankly, I would rather be fighting 
them there than fighting them here.
  The world's challenge now is to secure Iraq. We know nobody else is 
going to do that job for us. That is an American responsibility. We 
would like to have help from others, and we are going to get help from 
others, whether the U.N. officially endorses some kind of American 
effort here or not. But we are going to lead this effort and we are 
going to finish the job.
  We are going to have a great debate here next week about providing 
the funds to finish the job. There will be a lot of amendments offered, 
a lot of amendments voted on, a lot of speeches made. But at the end of 
the day, with a bipartisan, overwhelming majority, the Senate is going 
to give the President the money to finish the job. We

[[Page 22765]]

are helping the Iraqis round up terrorists and the Baathist thugs who 
oppose liberty for the Iraqi people. We are helping the Iraqis to 
rebuild roads and schools and hospitals. We are helping the Iraqis to 
build for themselves a multiethnic moderate democracy in the very heart 
of the Middle East.
  This is a great cause. We ought to be rallying behind it. This is 
everything for which America has stood for several hundred years. 
Everything we believe in, we are promoting in Iraq. The Iraqis will be 
better off. The world will be better off when we finish this job.
  Failure is not an option. Waffling around here just because the going 
is a little tougher than some had expected--and others had 
anticipated--is not what is called for at this particular time. Going 
home early is surely the way to reinvigorate al-Qaida and to make it 
possible for some other kind of thuggish regime to come to power there 
in Iraq.
  Given the magnitude of the threat the proliferation of Islamic 
radicals and terrorism pose, not only to us but to the entire world, I 
am a little mystified that this seems to have become so controversial. 
As Senator Lott was pointing out just a few moments ago, we have very 
short memories. Just 2 years ago, 3,000 of our people were killed in 
New York and in Washington. That is what this is all about: Taking the 
war to the terrorists where they are rather than here on the streets of 
the United States.
  So, yes, we will have our debate. It will be vigorous. But at the end 
of the day, I am confident that the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, is 
going to do what is right for the Iraqis, for the United States, and 
for the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I heard and appreciate Senators Lott, 
Sessions, and McConnell speaking this morning about the importance of 
what we are doing in Iraq. We are preparing in the Senate to take up a 
supplemental appropriations bill at the request of the President to try 
to make sure we do two things:
  First and foremost, to give support to our troops in the field. I 
visited them in the middle of August. I have seen how they live, and I 
have seen what they are doing. They deserve to have the troop support 
which allows them to do the job--the equipment, the living conditions, 
and troop protection. Everything we can do to allow them to do their 
jobs more effectively we are going to do. That is what the major part 
of this supplemental appropriations will do. We are going to support 
our troops in the field.
  The second thing the President is asking for is money to rebuild 
Iraq. We will not be able to rebuild Iraq if we continue to have the 
ongoing terrorist attacks that tear down everything we have built. So 
we want to go in there with a full plan to get the electricity grid 
going, to get the water supply going, and to try to start building the 
economy by rebuilding the oil infrastructure.
  We are going to support the President in his request. I have no doubt 
about it. We must win this war, and we must win the peace. We must 
stabilize Iraq if we are going to keep the terrorists out of our 
country and stop them where they are.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

                          ____________________