[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10268-S10274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Richard Holbrooke, of 
New York, to be the Representative of the United States of America to 
the United Nations with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of 
America in the Security Council of the United Nations.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Richard Holbrooke, of 
New York, to be a Representative of the United States of America to the 
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there now shall be 
30 minutes of debate equally divided to be followed with the vote en 
bloc on the nominations.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I thank the Senate leadership with 
respect to this nomination. It has been a unique one for various 
reasons. The elements of that uniqueness are well known to my 
colleagues. I shall not speak in detail about the tradition of 
``holds'' but I think much of the general public is somewhat perplexed 
about the procedures in the Senate.
  There has been discussion as to the procedure on this nomination and 
the use of what is referred to as a ``hold.'' There is a diversity of 
views within this body on the use of a ``hold,'' but, in my judgment, 
it is an important and proper procedure utilized by Senators in 
conjunction with what I view as the balance of power established by the 
Constitution in the coequal branches of the Government: the executive 
branch, the power of nomination by the President, and the Senate and 
its power of advice and consent.
  The use of the hold is an exercise of that balance of power between 
the two branches. In this instance, I thank the distinguished majority 
leader and, of course, the minority leader, and others who have worked 
to bring this nomination to this point where today the Senate will 
render its advice and consent on this very important nomination.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. I thank many other Senators who have worked with 
me--Senator Hagel, Senator Grassley, Senator Voinovich, and my 
distinguished colleague from Delaware, Mr. Biden who will be speaking 
momentarily. I yield for the comments of the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to put a question to the Senator 
on the hold because I have been reading newspaper reports that I think 
have completely misinterpreted how the hold process operates. These 
reports have alleged that the Senate rules contain a provision that 
enables any Member of the Senate, in effect, to hold up action either 
on a nominee or on legislation and sort of that is that. That is not 
the case.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct; it is tradition--
--
  Mr. SARBANES. It is a courtesy that is extended to a Member when he 
places a hold. The leadership can move ahead if the Member is being 
recalcitrant. Of course, it is up to Members to exercise a hold with 
some self-restraint. They may get the extra time they need, but, in my 
judgement, it ought not to be used as a weapon that completely 
submerges the nomination or the legislation.
  I interjected because I am very concerned. I have read a number of 
newspaper reports that seem to suggest that the rules of the Senate are 
such that any Member can simply place a hold on a nomination and 
preclude any action. That is not the case. It is a courtesy that has 
been extended to Members by the leadership, but the leadership can 
always move ahead if they determine it is an urgent matter. Of course, 
they try to work it out so Members are willing to have it come up. That 
is what has happened in this instance.
  I particularly express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia for his efforts to try to move this matter forward.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland. He is 
quite accurate in his recitation of the rules of the Senate. This is by 
tradition. I suggest we not deal too much with what took place in the 
past on this nomination, but I felt that this Record this morning 
should reflect, for those who are following the nomination, my judgment 
with regard to the tradition of a Senator seeking a hold.
  Again, it is part of that balance of power between the two branches. 
For example, Senator Grassley, in his case, feels very strongly about 
the need to protect those individuals who are commonly referred to as 
whistleblowers. They should be protected. Senator Grassley, after 
having talked with him many times, recognized the Holbrooke nomination 
is of importance, but he carefully evaluated his responsibility as one 
of those leaders in the Senate who have protected the rights of 
whistleblowers. That is behind us.
  Many Senators have worked on this nomination. I express my 
appreciation again to the leadership and those Senators, particularly 
the Senator from Delaware.
  The facts about this nominee are well known. I have known him 
personally for a number of years. I have watched his distinguished 
career, and in the course of the morning, I will add some facts. But I 
want to yield the floor momentarily to my colleague from Delaware.
  The point is that my concern about this nomination and its timeliness 
is because of the fact that we now have in Kosovo a force under the 
NATO Command of General Clark, Operation Joint Guardian. While we had 
hoped that this military operation would have had a smooth operational 
history, in fact it has encountered many unforeseen problems, problems 
where our troops and the troops of other nations had to perform all 
types of diverse duties. Many of these young men and women who are 
courageously participating in this operation have had no formal 
training in the military with respect to many of the responsibilities 
they are now undertaking.
  The United Nations, under a force known as United Nations Mission in 
Kosovo, referred to as UNMIK, has had a very slow start getting 
organized and into the field to perform duties that are currently being 
performed by the NATO military.
  One of the reasons for working to accelerate the consideration of 
this nomination is that in knowing Mr. Holbrooke and his forcefulness 
and his background, he, I believe, is better qualified than anyone else 
I know of today to take on this important post and to accelerate the 
functions of the United Nations in this region.
  The sooner they get in, the less risk to the men and women of the 
Armed Forces currently undertaking many missions which they are doing 
quite

[[Page S10269]]

well, despite the fact they have had little or no formalized training 
in operating civil, local governments in the village of Kosovo. 
Fortunately, this force is under the command of the NATO Commander, 
General Clark. General Clark and Ambassador Holbrooke have known each 
other for many years. They have worked together. They participated in 
the Dayton accords, for which Ambassador Holbrooke deserves great 
credit, and I will have further comment on that later.
  Also, Ambassadors, when they report for their duties, may be 
fortunate to have a spouse who is quite interested in those duties and 
perform as a team. This is going to be an extraordinary husband and 
wife team of Richard Holbrooke and Kati Marton, his wife. She is a 
noted authoress. She has roots in central Europe. She is a beautifully 
educated and cultured woman. I have had the privilege of knowing her 
for a number of years. They will be an extraordinary team in this 
important post.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
biography of Richard Holbrooke.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Richard C. Holbrooke

       Richard C. Holbrooke was the chief negotiator for the 1995 
     Dayton Peace Accord, which served to bring peace and an end 
     to human rights abuses in Bosnia, while serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs, from 
     September 1994 to February 1996. Beginning June 1997, 
     Holbrooke served as Special Presidential Envoy for Cyprus, 
     and in 1998 he was Special Presidential Envoy for Kosovo. 
     Prior to becoming Assistant Secretary of State, he was U.S. 
     Ambassador to Germany.
       President Carter appointed him in 1977 as Assistant 
     Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, a post 
     he held until 1981. During his tenure, among other major 
     events, the United States established full diplomatic 
     relations with China. He is the only person ever to hold two 
     regional Assistant Secretary of State posts.
       Holbrooke began his governmental career in 1962, joining 
     the Foreign Service immediately after graduating from Brown 
     University. After studying Vietnamese, he was sent to Vietnam 
     and, in the following six years, served in a variety of posts 
     related to Vietnam--first in the Mekong Delta as a provincial 
     representative working on rural development, for the Agency 
     for International Development (AID), and then as a staff 
     assistant to Ambassadors Maxwell Taylor and Henry Cabot 
     Lodge. In 1966 he was reassigned to the White House, working 
     on the Vietnam staff to President Johnson. During 1967-69, he 
     wrote one volume of the Pentagon Papers, served as a special 
     assistant to Undersecretaries of State Nicholas Katzenbach 
     and Elliot Richardson, and was a member of the American 
     Delegation to the Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam, headed 
     successively by Averall Harriman and Henry Cabot Lodge.
       Following these assignments Holbrooke spent a year as a 
     fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. 
     From 1970 to 1972 he was Peace Corps Director in Morocco. In 
     1972, he took leave from the Foreign Service to become 
     Managing Editor of the quarterly magazine Foreign Policy, a 
     position he held until 1976. During 1974-75 he also served as 
     a consultant to the President's Commission on the 
     Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign 
     Policy, and was a contributing editor of Newsweek magazine's 
     International Edition. In 1976 he coordinated National 
     Security Affairs for the Carter-Mondale presidential 
     campaign.
       In 1981 he move to the private sector, forming a consulting 
     firm, Public Strategies, with James A. Johnson. He became a 
     Managing Director at Lehman Brothers in 1985. As a banker and 
     diplomat, he has traveled to over 100 countries, including 
     over 65 trips to China alone. He covered both domestic and 
     foreign clients at Lehman Brothers, working on a wide variety 
     of transactions.
       In 1992 he chaired the Bipartisan Commission on 
     Reorganizing the Government for Foreign Policy.
       His most recent position in the private sector has been as 
     Vice Chairman of Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, 
     based in New York.
       Holbrooke has had long involvement in the non-governmental 
     organization community. He is current Chairman of Refugees 
     International; Chairman of the American Academy in Berlin; 
     Chairman of the National Advisory Council of the Harriman 
     Institute, and a member of numerous Boards of directors and 
     committees.
       Holbrooke adds the Eleanor Roosevelt Val-Kil Medal to a 
     long list of distinguished awards and honorary degrees 
     already received. He is the author of ``To End a War,'' on 
     his Balkan peacemaking experiences, and co-author of Counsel 
     to the President, the memoirs of Clark Clifford, as well as 
     numerous articles on foreign policy.
       Holbrooke was born on April 24, 1941 in New York. He 
     received a bachelor's degree from Brown University. He has 
     two sons, both television producers. He is married to author 
     Kati Marton and lives in New York.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that concludes my opening remarks. I may 
have further remarks about this nominee, but I want to share the time 
now with my distinguised colleague from Delaware. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is finally 
considering the nomination of Richard C. Holbrooke to be the United 
States Representative to the United Nations.
  Before stating my reasons why I strongly believe that Ambassador 
Holbrooke should be confirmed, let me briefly review the process which 
led us to this day.
  In June 1998, the President announced his intention to nominate 
Ambassador Holbrooke for the job of UN Ambassador. The formal 
nomination was delayed, however, until February of this year by an 
investigation into alleged ethical violations by Ambassador Holbrooke.
  That investigation culminated in a settlement with the Department of 
Justice in which Ambassador Holbrooke agreed to pay five thousand 
dollars in civil penalties.
  Once the Senate received the nomination in February, the Committee on 
Foreign Relations conducted its own inquiry, reviewing in great detail 
the investigation conducted by the State Department Inspector General 
and the Department of Justice.
  In June, the Committee conducted three separate hearings on 
Ambassador Holbrooke's nomination, reviewing first the ethical matters, 
then reviewing issues related to the United Nations and UN reform, and 
then reviewing Ambassador Holbrooke's involvement in United States 
policy toward the Balkans.
  On June 30 the Committee voted unanimously--on a voice vote--to 
report Ambassador Holbrooke's nomination to the full Senate.
  Since the Committee reported Mr. Holbrooke's nomination, it has been 
subjected to a variety of reported ``holds'' by several senators, only 
one of which, as I understand it, had anything to do with Mr. 
Holbrooke's qualifications to be ambassador.
  This delay is quite extraordinary for a position of this importance. 
The last two UN ambassadors were confirmed on the same day that the 
Committee voted, and in the last two decades, the Senate has, on 
average, voted within four days of the Committee's vote.
  But we have now worked through all those and we are here today, for 
which I am grateful to the Majority Leader and the Chairman.
  I believe the Senate should confirm Ambassador Holbrooke for a simple 
reason: he is highly qualified for the job.
  There are few people who have had the kind of diplomatic experience 
that Ambassador Holbrooke has had.
  Ambassador Holbrooke had been in public service since the early 
1960s, when he entered the Foreign Service. Since then, he has served 
in a wide variety of diplomatic positions--in each case with 
distinction.
  In the Carter Administration, he served as Assistant Secretary of 
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Appointed at the age of 37, 
at the time he was the youngest person ever appointed as assistant 
secretary.
  In 1993, Ambassador Holbrooke returned to government service as 
Ambassador to Germany.
  In September 1994, he became Assistant Secretary of State for 
European and Canadian Affairs. Again, Ambassador Holbrooke established 
a precedent: he became the first person to serve as assistant secretary 
of state for two different geographic regions.
  A key challenge facing him upon his return to the United States was 
the conflict in Bosnia, which by then had been raging since April 1992.
  As Assistant Secretary, Mr. Holbrooke helped design and implement a 
strategy that culminated in the signing of the Dayton Accords in 
November 1995, which brought an end to the Bosnian war.
  Of course, several people in the U.S. government deserve credit for 
the success at Dayton. But it cannot be denied that Ambassador 
Holbrooke--and the creativity and tenacity he brought to the task--was 
critical to bringing about this diplomatic achievement.
  In February 1996, for personal reasons, Ambassador Holbrooke resigned 
from full-time government service. At

[[Page S10270]]

the request of Secretary of State Christopher, he remained available to 
undertake special missions and to advise senior officials in the State 
Department. In 1997, President Clinton also asked him to become special 
Presidential envoy for Cyprus.
  Throughout the three and one-half year period since leaving full-time 
government service, Ambassador Holbrooke has never been paid a dime for 
his efforts.
  Mr. President, I daresay that there are few people with the 
diplomatic experience that Mr. Holbrooke will bring to the job of UN 
ambassador. He has significant experience at high levels of government. 
He has deep experience in two regions. And he has recently supervised 
and managed a major diplomatic conference that culminated in the end of 
a tragic war.
  Let me state it as bluntly as I know how: we need Dick Holbrooke in 
New York and we need him there now. It has been nearly a year since we 
have had a UN ambassador.
  The agenda facing the next UN ambassador is a long one.
  The United Nations is taking the lead in establishing a civilian 
administration in Kosovo. We need someone with Dick Holbrooke's skill 
and knowledge to make sure it gets done right.
  The United Nations is greatly in need of reform. We have promised the 
UN that we will pay nearly one billion dollars in back dues if these 
reforms are made. Ambassador Holbrooke promised that UN reform will be 
his ``highest sustained priority.'' We need someone with Dick 
Holbrooke's negotiating skills to help bring them about.
  The UN Security Council remains seized with the issue of dismantling 
Iraq's arsenal of mass destruction. We need someone with Dick 
Holbrooke's toughness to carry that task forward.
  In sum, I believe Ambassador Holbrooke has all the qualities 
necessary to be an excellent UN ambassador, and I believe that the 
Senate should confirm him forthwith.
  Let me turn briefly to the issues that delayed Mr. Holbrooke's 
nomination.
  Last July, soon after the President announced his intention to 
nominate Mr. Holbrooke, an anonymous letter arrived in the Office of 
the Inspector General at the Department of State alleging that 
Ambassador Holbrooke may have violated ethics laws and regulations.
  Spurred by this letter, the Inspector General opened a wide-ranging 
investigation that took over five months, involved dozens of 
interviews, and the production of thousands of pages of records.
  Earlier this year, while the nomination was pending, the Inspector 
General opened a second investigation, this time based only on an oped 
article in the Washington Post.
  The first investigation culminated in a civil settlement between 
Ambassador Holbrooke and the Department of Justice in which Ambassador 
Holbrooke agreed to pay five thousand dollars to settle allegations 
that he violated Section 207(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code.
  To this day, Ambassador Holbrooke denies that he violated the law, 
but he settled the matter in order to avoid further delay of the 
nomination. The second investigation was closed almost as quickly as it 
was opened, with no punishment imposed against Ambassador Holbrooke.
  The Committee obtained the thousands of pages of documents that were 
produced in the investigations of Ambassador Holbrooke, and has 
reviewed them independently.
  I have reviewed all these matters closely, and I do not believe that 
they even begin to rise to the level where they should be considered 
disqualifying.
  I do not make this statement lightly. I am a strong supporter of the 
ethics laws, and believe they must be rigorously enforced. Government 
employees, as Ambassador Holbrooke stated in his first hearing before 
the Committee, must maintain the public trust.
  I have known Richard Holbrooke for two decades, and am presumptuous 
enough to call him a friend. I do not believe that he is an unethical 
person, and I find totally inconsistent with his character any 
suggestion that he is.
  On the contrary: Dick Holbrooke is a dedicated public servant who, as 
the record compiled by the Committee demonstrates, willingly devoted 
dozens--if not hundreds--of hours to assisting the government in the 
past several years, to the detriment of his commitment to his private 
employer.
  Every senator can be assured that the Committee has left no stone 
unturned.
  The Committee sought and received access to every document reviewed 
by the investigators, and received access to internal documents of the 
White House, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice, 
including the memorandum setting forth the reasons why a criminal 
prosecution of Mr. Holbrooke was not warranted.
  Mr. President, my friend from Virginia is very diplomatic. My friend 
from Virginia is a man of grace and elegance. My friend from Virginia 
is a man who is able to get things done not merely because of his 
intellect but because of his style.
  I am not as elegant as my friend from Virginia, so I will just say it 
out loud. This would not have happened without my friend from Virginia. 
The truth of the matter is, it took a Republican of stature, seniority, 
and influence in this area to break this loose. He is going to get mad 
at my saying this, but I think it is a shame that was required, but I 
thank him for it because he was relentless over the last 5 months in 
trying to get us to this point today.
  I will ruin his reputation here, but the President owes him a debt of 
gratitude, the Nation owes him a debt of gratitude, the Senate owes him 
a debt of gratitude, and Mr. Holbrooke, I know, is grateful for his 
effort. Because as the Senator from Virginia indicated, there is a 
significant agenda facing our next Ambassador to the United Nations.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I appreciate 
his thoughtful remarks, but, again, it was a team effort by a number of 
us, including the Senator from Delaware.
  I want to make the point here, the distinguished chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms, and Senator Biden's colleagues 
on that committee held a hearing. There was a unanimous vote, and Mr. 
Helms reported this nomination to the floor. It did pass through there 
with the approval of the committee on which the Senator serves.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I never had a doubt, nor did any of my 
colleagues, that if we ever got any forum in which we could discuss the 
qualifications of Richard Holbrooke, he would win unanimously. We never 
doubted that. But it took a lot to get it to the Foreign Relations 
Committee, to get a vote in the Foreign Relations Committee, and once 
it got to the floor, to move it forward.
  I want to say something about these holds. I have been here 27 years. 
I have been a sitting Senator longer than the Senator from Virginia. 
There are only seven people who have been in the entire Senate longer 
than I. We have lost our sense of proportion. Holds have nothing to do 
with--nothing to do with--the balance of power here when used in the 
fashion they were used.
  Let me explain what I mean by that. It is one thing to say, I am 
going to hold up that bill from passing because the bill left out two 
bridges in my State that are critical to the commerce of my State. 
There is a correlation between the spending of money and the impact on 
my State--a sense of proportion.
  If I say that I am going to hold up the next Director of NASA because 
I want answers on how the space program is going to work, that is 
reasonable. There is a sense of proportion. There is a relationship 
between NASA and the head of NASA.
  But when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for several years, 
or were I to become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I 
said: By the way--and, by the way, the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee did not do this--were I to say: You know, I realize 
the President's nominee for the Supreme Court may be a good guy, or 
good woman, but I'm going to hold her up because the Dover Air Force 
Base is being closed, that is no sense of proportion, that is an abuse 
of power--an abuse of power. That is totally unreasonable.
  Let's get straight what this was about. We held up one of the single 
most important foreign policy personnel decisions to be made by this 
administration. And not a person in this

[[Page S10271]]

Senate would disagree with that assertion. Why? Because one Senator 
wanted someone on the Federal Election Commission whom he did not get, 
and another Senator thought that some second-tier person who worked at 
the U.S. mission to the U.N., who in fact was disciplined, should not 
have been disciplined.
  The process in the law that calls for review of that person's case is 
underway. The person who helped write that process into the law decides 
that the process isn't working quickly enough or getting the result he 
wants, so they hold up the Ambassador to the United Nations at this 
moment in our history.
  I respect both the gentlemen who did those things personally, but I 
respectfully suggest--as we Catholics say, when you are a little kid 
and you go to confession, they say you learn to examine your 
conscience. Go examine your conscience and tell me whether there is any 
sense of proportion.
  As I stated earlier, since 1981, in the case of nominations for UN 
ambassador, the average amount of time--the number of days between the 
time that nominee was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee and 
the time that that nominee was voted on in the Senate was 4 days--4 
days.
  The reason I mention this is, you know what I am afraid of? I say to 
my friend from Virginia and my Republican colleagues. When the 
Democratic Party takes control, we are going to learn wrong lessons 
from you all, we are going to learn the wrong lessons.
  I remember when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we had the 
Clarence Thomas nomination. Before Anita Hill came along we had a vote, 
and it was 7-7. Guess what. Technically, that means he did not get 
enough votes to be voted out. I had some very liberal Democrats, hard-
edged Democrats, like your hard-right Republicans, say: Mr. Chairman, 
it's within your power not to report him to the floor.
  How responsible would it have been for me, as the chairman of the 
committee--which I could have done--to prevent the Senate from voting 
on a Supreme Court nominee? The Republicans would have done that, based 
on their conduct on this nomination. And guess what. If it happens 
again, mark my words, Democrats are going to join this place who are 
going to learn all the wrong lessons from this abuse of power, this 
lack of proportionality.
  I am not going to say any more about it. The reason I am not is that 
it is done. But I really, truly hope and plead with my colleagues, on 
both sides of the aisle, have a sense of proportion here. We dodged a 
bullet here because of the incredible work of Senator Helms and Senator 
Warner on the Republican side and the eventual yielding on the part of 
others. Reason ultimately prevailed. But this is a bad, bad, bad 
practice; and this is a good, good, good nominee.

  I will conclude, because others want to speak, by stressing two 
points about Mr. Holbrooke. One, in all my years in the Senate, no one 
in the Senate who has come before our committee is more qualified to do 
the job for which he has been nominated than this man--none; not one.
  Secondly, this is an ethical man. This man's ethics have been 
questioned under what I believe to be an aberration. We put in the 
law--and I voted for inspectors general, but guess what. The law can be 
triggered by an article in a newspaper. That can hold up a nomination 
for months and months, requiring intensive investigation. This is the 
most investigated man we have had for the United Nations, and there is 
not an unethical drop of blood in this guy's veins.
  So I think there are three things we have to do.
  Let's put this man in place. Let this incredible energy and 
intellectual horsepower that this fellow has go to work on behalf of 
America. Two, let's reexamine whether or not we exercised any 
proportionality here in holding this up. And three, I would ask my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider joining with me and 
going back and relooking at the way in which the inspector general's 
office is triggered and worked so we avoid this kind of thing in the 
future.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. If I might just advise my colleagues, the previous order 
is that the Senate will vote at 10. I ask unanimous consent that that 
be extended to, say, 10 minutes after 10, to afford other colleagues an 
opportunity to contribute their remarks. I am sorry, but the leader is 
very anxious, given the heavy calendar of work today, and I think it is 
important we proceed to this nomination. So if each of the remaining 
Senators can take 1 or 2 minutes, that would be helpful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes. I object. Mr. President, I am sorry, but I would 
like to have up to 5 minutes, and I did not realize I would be shut 
off.
  Mr. WARNER. We will just accommodate the 5 minutes, then. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas have 5 minutes. What are 
the requests of the other Senators? Two or three minutes? So I ask 
unanimous consent that we go to the hour of 10:15, at which time we 
then, hopefully--have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they have.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
nomination of Richard Holbrooke to be the United States representative 
to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador. Ambassador Holbrooke 
has rendered superb service to our Nation during the course of his 
career. His diplomatic experience makes him an ideal choice for this 
very important position.
  We need good, strong leadership at the United Nations. We have been 
without a permanent representative now for an extended period of time. 
An able, competent, skillful diplomat can make a big difference in 
terms of serving the national interests of our country.
  Dick Holbrooke has had an illustrious career. He joined the Foreign 
Service in 1962. He had assignments in Vietnam, where he worked closely 
with Ambassador William Porter, Ambassador Maxwell Taylor, and 
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge. From the very beginning he was right in 
the middle of the decisionmaking arena and was recognized for his 
extraordinary talents. He was the Director of the Peace Corps in 
Morocco. He then left the Government for a while and was a managing 
editor of Foreign Policy magazine, one of our leading foreign policy 
think magazines, where he did an outstanding job. In the mid-1970s, he 
was senior consultant to the President's Commission on the Organization 
of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy.

  This is a man who has committed his entire career to analyzing and 
enhancing the foreign policy of the United States in the name of 
serving our national security interests. He held two assistant 
secretaryships within the Department of State: Assistant Secretary for 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Assistant Secretary for European and 
Canadian Affairs. He has also served in a very distinguished way as our 
Ambassador to Germany.
  I have worked closely with him in his capacity as Presidential 
Special Envoy to Cyprus, where he has striven mightily to try to move 
that issue forward.
  He will do a terrific job at the United Nations. He has done an 
excellent job in every government position he has held. His commitment 
and dedication are obvious for all to see. I think the Senator from 
Delaware was right in saying that there were attacks on Dick 
Holbrooke's character which were extremely unfortunate and without 
basis or justification. To his credit, he withstood all of that. A 
lesser person might have walked away and said: Who needs to put up with 
this? But he has a driving sense of serving the country and serving the 
national interest.
  Dick Holbrooke has addressed difficult, complex foreign policy issues 
in an extremely incisive and competent way. We need that skill at the 
United Nations. That is the skill he will bring. I am relieved that the 
nomination is finally before us for judgment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Dick Holbrooke to 
be our Ambassador to the United Nations. He will serve our Nation and, 
indeed, the world well in this position.

[[Page S10272]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Richard 
Holbrooke to the position of United States Permanent Representative to 
the United Nations. I would say that this debate is long overdue.
  The United Nations is a very important tool in America's foreign 
policy arsenal and our ambassador to the U.N. is the key to unlocking 
that power. For the past ten months, however, that post has stood 
vacant, thereby degrading our influence at the U.N. Today we have an 
opportunity to correct that omission and restore some of the United 
States' leadership in that world body.
  There are few things the United States as a nation holds more dear 
than the ideals our country was founded on nearly 223 years ago. We 
continue to lead the global fight for freedom, for democracy, for 
peace, and for respect for human rights. For the past five decades, it 
has been the United States' strong, clear and persistent voice in both 
the Security Council and the General Assembly which has convinced other 
nations to support those same ideals.
  Looking back on those fifty years, it is clear that our work at the 
United Nations has, by and large, been a success. Today, the United 
Nations is one of the most powerful champions of human rights, freedom 
and peace around the world. The U.S. has used the United Nations to 
support our foreign policy in places as far flung as Korea, Libya, 
Iraq, and Bosnia.
  Without the United Nations, the two suspects in the bombing of Pan Am 
Flight 103 would probably never have faced a judge to account for their 
actions. Similarly, Saddam Hussein would still be free to terrorize 
both his neighbors and his own citizens. If it were not for the United 
Nations sponsored Implementation Force in Bosnia, war, bloodshed and 
genocide would still rule that nation. Today, the United Nations is 
engaged in helping to implement certain aspects of the peace settlement 
in Kosovo--which we all hope and pray will put an end to the bloodshed 
there as well.
  While we are all familiar with United Nations peace keeping efforts 
in Bosnia and Iraq, we must not forget that men and women wearing the 
U.N.'s signature blue helmets are keeping the peace in places as 
disparate as Angola and Tajikistan. In all, there are currently 16 
different on-going peace keeping operations on four continents.
  As we embark on the next stage of involvement in Kosovo--one in which 
the United Nations will have an important role--it is tremendously 
important that we are represented in that world body. We must not allow 
any additional delay to further erode our leadership.
  Last fall, President Clinton tapped an exceedingly qualified diplomat 
to head our delegation to the United Nations. Richard Holbrooke has 
served our nation well in a wide variety of posts--from Assistant 
Secretary of State for two different regions to Ambassador to Germany.
  Today, many of our thoughts are focused on the Balkans and this first 
real chance to bring peace to Kosovo. It is particularly fitting, 
therefore, that among Ambassador Holbrooke's greatest achievements are 
the Dayton Peace Accords which ended the civil war and genocide in 
Bosnia.
  Five years ago, it was the war and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, not 
Kosovo, that captured the world's attention. Innocent civilians were 
murdered and raped simply on the basis of their ethnicity. Venturing 
into the market to buy food entailed the risk of instant death at the 
hands of snipers or soldiers with a mortar on a nearby hilltop. Each 
day was a fight for survival.
  Today, however, Bosnia is rebuilding. In 1995, talks held thousands 
of miles away from the battlefields--in Dayton, Ohio--silenced the 
sounds of gunfire and ended the massive human rights abuses. The man 
who brought the Serbs, Bosnians and Croatians together for those talks 
and fought hard to reach a settlement is sitting before us today.
  As Ambassador Holbrooke well knows, it is often easier to wage war 
than to make peace. In spite of the daunting odds, however, Ambassador 
Holbrooke did make peace and for that he deserves our praise.
  Following his return to the private sector in 1996, Ambassador 
Holbrooke continued to serve his country. Without any compensation from 
the government, Ambassador Holbrooke focused his efforts on trying to 
end the dispute on the island of Cyprus and the bloodshed in Kosovo.
  The success or failure of the Kosovo agreement it will be determined 
by whether the United States, our NATO allies and Russia stay the 
course together. The job of bringing this broad coalition together and 
keeping it together will not be an easy one, but it is one with which 
Ambassador Holbrooke has experience--experience we need at the United 
Nations at this critical juncture.
  It is important to mention the other critical issue which is damaging 
our reputation and effectiveness at the U.N.: our failure to pay our 
dues. The funds we owe the U.N. are formal treaty obligations, not 
optional contributions. Today, we are in grave danger of losing our 
vote in the General Assembly. Imagine the irony if the United States, 
one of the founders of the United Nations, loses its vote in that 
organization's primary decision making body. The compromise Chairman 
Helms and Senator Biden worked out with respect to our dues will go a 
long way to repairing the damage if we are able to convince our 
colleagues in the House to refrain from attaching poison pills to this 
bill. We already missed one opportunity to pass that compromise, namely 
the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I remain hopeful, 
however, that the compromise, which is a part of the Senate passed 
State Department Authorization bill and now in conference with the 
House will become law before the end of this session of Congress.
  Now is the right time to confirm a new ambassador to the U.N. He has 
the requisite experience for the job and, even more importantly, is a 
proven peacemaker.
  Mr. President, in conclusion I add my voice to those who have already 
spoken expressing their gratitude to Senator Helms and Senator Biden, 
who are the chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, for the leadership that my friend and colleague from 
Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has shown on 
this nomination, and for many others who have spoken on behalf of 
Richard Holbrooke, in many cases, not because they agree with the 
politics of Richard Holbrooke or necessarily agree with every position 
he has taken on various public matters, but because there is an 
understanding that in our country, regardless of administration and 
politics, we need good, talented people, who analyze issues well and 
bring an energy and a passion and a commitment to public policy.
  For those reasons, I am particularly grateful to our friends on the 
other side who may not agree with Richard Holbrooke but understand he 
is a talented human being.
  I underscore the point that Senator Sarbanes made. Too often we 
discourage good people in this country from serving their Nation 
because we have created a gauntlet that one has to go through prior to 
confirmation that will discourage other people from even thinking about 
going through this process. What you expose yourself and your family to 
to take on positions to serve your country is becoming far too much. I 
think as a body we ought to take a closer look at what we ask people to 
go through whom we ask to serve their Nation.
  Richard Holbrooke has a distinguished career, as Senator Sarbanes and 
Senator Warner and others have pointed out, going back more than 30 
years. He has been through an awful lot over the last year and a half, 
almost 2 years now.
  I particularly am concerned about the inspector general at the State 
Department, as my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee know. I 
have written an amendment, which was adopted, that requires that those 
people in the State Department who are accused of wrongdoing have a 
right--I know this sounds like a radical thought--to know what they are 
accused of and have an opportunity to respond to the accusation before 
the reports are written. That is not the case today.

[[Page S10273]]

  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator mean that at the moment you are not 
permitted to find out what the charges are and the nature of the 
accusations?
  Mr. DODD. That is absolutely correct. In the case of Richard 
Holbrooke, he was not allowed to find out what the charges were against 
him for well over a year. A common criminal accused of a felony in this 
country has that right. It seems to me if we have a system inside our 
government where a mere accusation of someone can result in months and 
months of delay or public retribution, not to mention legal costs to 
defend yourself, something is terribly wrong with that process. We are 
trying to correct it.
  Again, I don't want to spend the time talking about the problems we 
have but to commend one individual for persistence, who wants to serve 
his country, who is going to do, in my view, a remarkably fine job for 
all of us. I am sorry it took so long for him to arrive at this point, 
but I am grateful he has. Again, for those who made it possible, I 
thank them and am confident that Richard Holbrooke will serve our 
Nation well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will speak about why I am going to 
vote against the Holbrooke nomination. I start by saying, I have never 
put a hold on this nomination. I thought the process should go forward 
in due course. I think Richard Holbrooke is a principled man. I think 
he is a committed public servant. I admire his tenacity, his 
dedication. I have nothing personal against Richard Holbrooke.
  I am voting against him because I disagree with the policy that he 
has put forward in the Balkans. I just can't, in good conscience, vote 
for someone who I think is taking our country in the wrong direction.
  This is his policy: that the United States should spend billions of 
dollars, wear and tear on our equipment and our troops, stretching our 
military for a goal that I believe is not achievable.
  I would commit our military immediately if I thought the goal and the 
mission were the correct one, but I believe our policy in the Balkans 
is to force factions to live together in an American model, when the 
circumstances are different from any we have ever had in our country. I 
don't think we can put American requirements into the Balkans with any 
chance to succeed.
  We have had a policy that the United States could use force of vast 
proportions without strategically assessing what would be more 
proportional responses in line with our own security threat and our 
other responsibilities in the world. Richard Holbrooke did not allow 
the United States, through his policies, to lift the arms embargo on 
one faction in Bosnia, so one group was unarmed against two groups that 
were armed. I think if we had lifted the arms embargo 3 years before 
the Dayton accords, those people would have had a fair chance. I don't 
think we would have seen the mass slaughter of the Moslems that we did. 
I disagree with that policy.
  We never looked at the opportunity for self-determination in the 
Balkans. We never looked at the opportunity to let these people form 
governments within their ethnic groups. They are 98 percent in ethnic 
groups now in Bosnia, but we are still trying to force them to have a 
coalition government. If we walked out today, I think every expert 
would agree the fighting would continue.
  The Washington Post yesterday had a headline, ``NATO Losing Kosovo 
Battle.'' This was not a headline 2 months ago. It was yesterday.
  The reason is, we have a policy in the Balkans that I think is going 
to hurt our own national security by overdeploying our military troops, 
by wear and tear on our equipment, by not having a sense of proportion 
in looking for other options, not looking at all of our commitments in 
the world, but instead trying to force an American model that I think 
is unrealistic today.
  I think there are other options to try to help the people in the 
Balkans create stability with self-determination and then, eventually 
maybe, they would be able to live closer together in harmony.
  Mr. President, I want to say I am only voting against Mr. Holbrooke 
on his foreign policy principles, not on him as a person. I will say 
again that I think he is a committed public servant. I think he is 
tenacious in his beliefs, and I admire that in a person. I just believe 
that our foreign policy is going in the wrong direction in this 
country. I think we are going to pay a high price for it, and I think 
Richard Holbrooke is one of the architects of this policy that I 
believe is quite erroneous. So, for that reason, I will vote against 
Richard Holbrooke.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have had a chance to discuss the role of 
the U.S. at the United Nations with the nominee on a number of 
occasions and I am confident that the President has nominated the right 
man for the job. Mr. Holbrooke has a reputation for being a tough 
negotiator and a practiced arm-twister and those are exactly the 
attributes we need in our next Ambassador to the United Nations.
  It's not going to be easy to get the UN to implement the Helms-Biden 
package even though there is widespread agreement on the need for 
reform. I believe Ambassador Holbrooke has the skills necessary to 
leverage our position as the most powerful nation in the world--and as 
the largest contributor to the UN--to ensure greater transparency and 
accountability in that organization. That is why I have 
enthusiastically backed the nomination of Mr. Holbrooke and look 
forward to working with him in the future.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of 
Richard Holbrooke to be America's Ambassador to the United Nations, and 
I am pleased that the Congressional delay in reaching this vote has 
finally ended.
  Richard Holbrooke has a long and distinguished record of public 
service and is an outstanding diplomat. He clearly has the necessary 
experience, background, and skills to ably represent America's 
interests at the United Nations.
  Richard Holbrooke has served with great distinction in many previous 
capacities, and all of us who know him have great respect for his 
ability and judgement. He has served as the President's Special Envoy 
to Cyprus, as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian 
Affairs, as U.S. Ambassador to Germany, as Assistant Secretary of State 
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and as a Peace Corps Director in 
Morocco.
  Of his many extraordinary accomplishments, he is best known for his 
skillful work in presiding over the long and difficult negotiations to 
achieve the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, which ended the war in 
Bosnia.
  The United Nations is a complex institution involving many 
international interests, and I'm confident that Richard Holbrooke will 
represent our country well. Our representative must be an exceptional 
negotiator. Richard Holbrooke is a skilled negotiator with the ability 
to articulate clearly our country's ideals and persuade other members 
of the international community to support these ideals as well. He's an 
outstanding choice for this very important foreign policy position, and 
I'm proud to express my strong support.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am pleased to vote for the confirmation of Ambassador 
Richard Holbrooke to be United States Ambassador to the United Nations 
and even more pleased to see the Senate vote on this important 
nomination in advance of the August recess so that Ambassador Holbrooke 
can start on his important assignment.
  Ambassador Holbrooke brings unique qualifications to this position. 
He began his government career in 1962 joining the Foreign Service 
after graduating from Brown University. Among the many posts he has 
held are Special Presidential Envoy for Cyprus in 1997, Assistant 
Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs, Assistant 
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Peace Corps 
Director in Morocco and U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Ambassador 
Holbrooke was the chief negotiator for the Dayton Peace Accord in 
Bosnia.
  I had occasion to evaluate Ambassador Holbrooke's work in some detail 
when I served as Chairman of the Intelligence committee which undertook 
a

[[Page S10274]]

detailed investigation of the sale of Iranian arms to Bosnia. 
Ambassador Holbrooke was involved in a complex, highly sensitive matter 
and he discharged his duties with professionalism.
  In undertaking the complex negotiations on Bosnia, Ambassador 
Holbrooke again performed a great service for the United States. His 
last minute negotiations with Yugoslavia's President Milosevic, while 
unsuccessful, showed his unique talents which will be put to good use 
for our national interest in his new capacity as U.S. Ambassador to the 
United Nations.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I believe the Senator from Virginia 
yielded a couple minutes to me earlier.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut, and also to Senator Hagel, who has been very helpful in 
this nomination. At the conclusion of his remarks, the vote will occur.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I first thank those who have finally 
brought the nomination of Richard Holbrooke to the floor of the Senate, 
particularly the senior Senator from North Carolina and the senior 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, who have done yeoman's work here in 
the national interest.
  Secondly, I wanted to say this about the nominee himself, who I have 
been privileged to come to know. In my opinion, Richard Holbrooke is 
one of America's great natural resources. Certainly, he is one of our 
great diplomatic resources. He has had a career that has been described 
in detail here that puts him at the top ranks of those who have served 
America in the international arena. He is a person of principle, 
purpose, intellect, and enormous energy and talent. He combines the 
sense of American purpose, which, incidentally, is reflected in his 
work on behalf of the policy of the United States, representing the 
Commander in Chief of the United States in regard to the Balkans, about 
which my friend from Texas has just spoken. He combines that sense of 
American principle and the continuing vitality of America's morality in 
the world with extraordinary, tough-minded, practical, and 
interpersonal diplomatic skills.
  We are fortunate to have a person of this talent willing to serve our 
Nation. I am confident that he will advance our national security and 
principled interests in the United Nations. I am proud to support the 
nomination.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the nomination 
of Richard Holbrooke to be this country's Ambassador to the U.N. I was 
thinking the other day when we were engaged in the Foreign Relation 
Committee's fourth hearing on Mr. Holbrooke --four hearings on Mr. 
Holbrooke. We looked rather closely and thoroughly at his policies, his 
background, his professional and personal life. He did not come up 
short in all of those areas. But I was thinking, I don't know if there 
has been an individual who has been more probed and investigated for 
this very important position than Mr. Holbrooke.
  I have believed for a long time that the President of the United 
States deserves his team. As he nominates his team for the Senate to 
pass judgment on, give advice and consent, as constitutionally is our 
responsibility, if that individual possesses the high moral quality and 
qualifications, and the high professional standings, qualifications, 
and experience, then the President needs his team.
  I echo much of what has been said this morning about how important it 
is that we get our Representative of the United Nations. Now, we have 
differences of opinion in philosophy and policy, and I appreciate that. 
Every Senator has his or her own position, as it should be. But I will 
say this as my last comment about Mr. Holbrooke. I hope and I believe 
he will make every effort to bring some bipartisanship to foreign 
policy. It seems to me that we have allowed bipartisanship in foreign 
policy and national security affairs to erode and come undone to the 
point where it is dangerous.
  I believe both sides are responsible. I think the President hasn't 
reached out enough, and I think we in the Congress have made foreign 
policy and national security affairs a more brittle, raw political 
dynamic. If we don't come back together, as bipartisanship needs to be 
sewn back together in these very important issues for the future of our 
country and stability of the world, we will pay a high price. I hope 
that Mr. Holbrooke will lead that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator. He has been very 
helpful throughout the nominating process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is, Will 
the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Richard Holbrooke, 
of New York, to be the Representative of the United States of America 
to the United Nations with the rank and status of Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United 
States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations, and 
the nomination of Richard Holbrooke, of New York, to be a 
Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the 
General Assembly of the United Nations during his tenure of service as 
Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 
en bloc.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 259 Ex.]

                                YEAS--81

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Allard
     Bunning
     Craig
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Crapo
     Helms
     Landrieu
  The nominations, en bloc, were confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the 
table. The President will be immediately notified.

                          ____________________