[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24972-24973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL AND IRAQ

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I believe we have a very fine Armed 
Services Committee. I have now been honored to serve on that committee 
for a number of years. With regard to this year's authorization bill, 
we have had 35 hearings in the committee or subcommittee. We have 
undertaken to deal with complex issues facing our military. The 
chairman and our committee have responded repeatedly to the requests of 
Democratic Senators to conduct a plethora of hearings dealing with any 
problems they can find, such as prisoner issues and that kind of thing. 
We have also conducted those in the Judiciary Committee, in the 
Intelligence Committee, in the House committees also. We have done 
quite a lot, frankly, as we have gone forward.
  I think it is time for us to give the highest priority, however, to 
assisting our men and women in uniform, men and women we have sent in 
harm's way to execute the policy of the United States of America--a 
policy that was adopted by the House of Representatives, a policy that 
was adopted by more than a three-fourths vote of this body. A majority 
of both parties voted to adopt these policies to execute force, to 
remove Saddam Hussein unless he complied with the U.N. resolutions, and 
to otherwise carry out our roles and responsibilities.
  We have done that, but we need to focus on how to help those soldiers 
we have sent be successful in creating a good and stable and democratic 
government in Iraq. It is important for us, it is important for the 
world, and, most of all, it is important for the people there who have 
suffered the greatest oppression for so many years.
  I think our committees have served well. I think we have worked at 
these issues well. We have now prepared a bill, a legislation piece, 
that will empower our military to be able to do their job better. I 
could not be more pleased than to serve under Chairman Warner and his 
leadership in the committee. He works collegially with all members of 
the Senate in our committee to move legislation along effectively. He 
has worked hard to get this bill where it is today. Without strong 
leadership, frankly, I am not sure we would be here today.
  We have passed the Defense appropriations bill, but we have not 
passed the Defense authorization bill. It would be unfortunate if we 
were not able to do so this year. Hopefully, if our colleagues will 
cooperate, if they have an amendment and bring it down and present it, 
they will be able to have all the amendments that have been promised, 
and we can get something done. We certainly do not need to delay or 
drag these matters out.
  I think this issue of our involvement in Iraq needs to be recalled a 
bit--how we came to vote. They say--some do--there were lies that led 
us into this war. But all of us talked about this possible conflict for 
months--months. We knew it was coming. The President talked about it. 
We talked about it openly on the floor.
  In fact, in the 1990s, when President Clinton was President, we voted 
and established a policy for the United States of America. That policy 
was that we would effect a regime change in Iraq. And up until these 
hostilities occurred--for years--American and British planes, enforcing 
the no-fly zones to keep Saddam Hussein from oppressing the Kurds and 
the Shiites, flew missions over Iraq, and were fired upon, sometimes on 
a daily if not weekly basis.
  We dropped bombs and missiles on them in retaliation, regularly, for 
years. In fact, we were in a state of hostility because Saddam Hussein 
had failed to comply with the agreements he made with the United 
Nations in 1991 when he was kicked out of Kuwait after he had invaded 
his neighbor--a peaceful, decent member of the world community.
  He attacked them to seize their oil and to increase his power. We had 
to create a world coalition to give him a demand to remove himself from 
Kuwait. He refused to do so, and GEN Norman Schwarzkopf led the 
coalition forces that defeated his army and removed him from Kuwait. He 
made agreements so we would not continue marching on to Baghdad to get 
our hands around his neck. He made these commitments to the U.N. and 
agreements were reached. He did not comply with them. He was in 
violation of 16 different resolutions of the United Nations.
  So all that was there. Also, 9/11 had occurred. And we knew he was 
violating the Oil-for-Food Program--a program that was set up to allow 
him to sell oil, which was being embargoed because of his violation of 
the rules and regulations of the U.N., and it allowed him to do that if 
the money would be utilized to take care of food and medicines for the 
people of Iraq because we wanted to help them.
  I have been to Iraq three times. I know the chairman has been there 
numerous times. You can see the palaces he built with that money that 
was supposed to feed his people. We know he was reconstituting his 
military. He declared he had been the victor in that war, not the 
loser. It was clear he was reconstituting his military power because he 
desired and had not given up his fantasy ambition to dominate the 
Middle East.
  These were the forces that were at work. These were strategic 
realities that occurred at that time. The Economist magazine wrote an 
editorial not long before we voted, and it talked about how the embargo 
was failing, how, in fact, the embargo was really hurting the people of 
Iraq more than it was hurting Saddam Hussein, but that it was falling 
apart; that Saddam Hussein had a systematic plan to break the embargo, 
and nations, such as France and others, were working behind the scenes 
to undermine the effect of that embargo, and that if we did not do 
something pretty soon, he would be unleashed again. They said the 
question simply is, Do we turn him loose or do we go to war? Our vote 
is to go to war, said the London-based Economist magazine.
  So those are the decisions we were dealing with. Every intelligence 
agency in the world concluded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass 
destruction. I am not aware of any that did not believe he had some. 
Certainly, that is what the President of the United States was told. 
Certainly, that is what the Members of the Senate were told.
  But the more troubling, deeper, strategic imperative, to deal with 
Saddam Hussein, was what galvanized the attention of the President and, 
I think, of the Senate. When I looked at my remarks from the time I had 
discussed my decision to support a war in Iraq, I hardly mentioned 
weapons of mass destruction.
  It was this idea--that Saddam Hussein had not been faithful to his 
agreements, that he was determined to get

[[Page 24973]]

out of those agreements, that he was determined to reconstitute his 
military, that he could be a threat to the region and that he could 
easily, and we thought he did, have weapons of mass destruction that he 
would use. We know he used a weapon of mass destruction, poison gas, 
against his own people, the Kurds. We know he used it. So it would have 
been unthinkable to think he had none at the time. Whatever happened to 
it, I don't know.
  We made a commitment in this Nation to remove Saddam Hussein, and 
that has been done. We have had two elections in Iraq toward 
establishing a democratic government. For that, I am most proud and 
hopeful that this new election in December, which will create a new 
permanent government, will help further to demonstrate the confidence 
the Iraqi people have in that government and make attacks upon it even 
more difficult to sustain and defend.
  I ask my colleagues to remember this one thing--it is still a 
dangerous place there. Our soldiers are there because we sent them. We 
asked them to go there to execute the policy we in the Senate voted 
for. We ought not do things and say things out of political anger or 
partisanship that are exaggerated, unfair to the President or our 
troops and how they conduct themselves, that puts their lives more at 
risk and makes their job more difficult.
  I am pleased that this authorization bill came out of Chairman 
Warner's committee unanimously with a bipartisan vote. As we go forward 
with it, we will improve the quality of our military, their 
effectiveness, and help execute more effectively the policies we have 
established.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague. He 
has taken an active role in a number of issues and that, together with 
his work on the Judiciary Committee, gives him a special insight into 
the issue of detainee matters.
  The distinguished ranking member has arrived. I had hoped that 
Senator Cornyn could speak for 15 to 20 minutes, if that is agreeable, 
and then following that, perhaps the Senator from Michigan and I will 
have some matters to address the Senate on. For the benefit of all 
Members, the bill is open for amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, that certainly is fine with me. I always 
welcome the opportunity to hear from our colleagues. I understand there 
are a number of amendments on the side of the Senator from Virginia 
that may be ready to go this afternoon. We believe we have one that 
will be ready at 4:30.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I say, with a sense 
of modesty, that we are making good progress on the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________