[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 61 (Monday, May 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4446-S4447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 
           ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY--Continued

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for their 
graciousness. I did want a chance to speak about the nomination of John 
R. Bolton to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security Affairs. I thank colleagues for providing me 
this opportunity. My understanding is that we are going to adjourn 
soon. I hope I have not inconvenienced everyone.
  Mr. President, filling this position is a critical responsibility of 
the new administration. Crafting the Nation's arms control agenda is a 
formidable, serious task that directly affects our national security. 
Moreover, the administration needs to have its arms control team in 
place as soon as possible. For these reasons, I do not oppose John 
Bolton's nomination lightly.
  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am convinced 
that the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security Affairs must be filled with an individual who is 
committed to advancing the entire Nation's agenda. He or she must carry 
out arms control responsibilities in the spirit of idealism that 
characterizes the best tradition of America's public servants.
  The individual who is confirmed by the Senate must provide deliberate 
and thoughtful advice to the Secretary of State, independent of 
political party allegiance or affiliation. He or she must be objective 
in his analysis of exceedingly complex issues. He or she must be 
committed to protecting our national security, to reducing the world's 
immense stockpile of nuclear weapons, and to making the world a safer 
place for all mankind.
  After careful consideration, I have concluded that John Bolton is not 
the right man for Under Secretary for Arms Control and Non-
proliferation. I believe John Bolton is too conservative and too 
partisan; his views are too extreme for a position of this importance 
and he does not represent the kind of bipartisan cooperation needed to 
advance the Nation's arms control agenda. Finally, I do not believe 
that John Bolton possesses the requisite arms control experience to 
carry out the responsibilities of this job effectively.
  I want to make clear that I do not question John Bolton's integrity 
or his commitment to public service. I had a chance to meet with him, 
and I do not question this at all. He has a long career in senior 
appointed positions in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and 
George Herbert Walker Bush. I respect his willingness to serve our 
Nation again. I recognize the prerogative and responsibility of 
Presidents to nominate their foreign policy teams. I have supported a 
majority of the President's nominations. But, I also insist on 
exercising my constitutional right as a Senator to provide advice and 
consent to the President's nominations.
  I have fundamental disagreements with this nominee on a number of 
substantive issues. I believe that in this case the gap between the 
views of the voters I represent in Minnesota and John Bolton's are too 
wide to ignore. There is ample room in a democracy for a wide spectrum 
of political philosophy and belief. I believe in the free exchange of 
ideas. Divergent views make our public debate healthier and our Nation 
stronger. My opposition to John Bolton is not merely ideological. I 
believe our primary public official responsible for arms control, 
nonproliferation, and security policy must make a convincing case that 
he or she will advance the Nation's agenda in a constructive and 
positive fashion. To date, John Bolton has come up short in this 
regard.
  First and most important, I am disturbed by John Bolton's views on 
strategic nuclear policy.
  He opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty which I 
supported, voted for, and believe in. Our failure to approve this 
treaty effectively scuttles it and leaves the United States as the 
spoiler in this international effort to curb nuclear testing. The CTBT 
was the first modern arms control agreement ever rejected. It was 
defeated in a period of intense partisan bickering and ideological 
polarization.

  Yet, at the time of CTBT defeat, two of my distinguished colleagues, 
Senator Hagel and Senator Lieberman, a Republican and a Democrat, wrote 
in a New York Times op-ed that:

       Our constituents and our allies have expressed grave 
     concerns about our hasty rejection of the (CBTB) treaty and 
     the impact of that rejection on the treaty's survival. They 
     need to know that we, along with a clear majority in the 
     Senate, have not given up hope of finding common ground in 
     our quest for a sound and secure ban on nuclear testing.

  I share this belief and I am convinced that is important for the 
nation's chief

[[Page S4447]]

arms control administrator to be on record as favoring strict curbs to 
nuclear testing.
  In the days following its defeat, John Bolton announced that the 
``CTBT is dead.'' He characterized proponents of the treaty as 
``misguided'' and ``neo-pacifists.'' These remarks ill serve the 
efforts of many of my Senate colleagues and of thousands of dedicated 
activists world-wide who are committed to ending the reckless 
development of nuclear weapons. They are not the kind of remarks that 
speak well for a member of a new administration.
  On another key international agreement on which the Under Secretary 
of State for Arms Control must advise the President and Secretary of 
State, John Bolton has not made up his mind. You will recall that on 
March 29, John Bolton told members of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee that his views on whether the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 
is in force or not were not fully formed. He asked for time for the 
``intellectual heavy lifting'' required to understand this issue. I am 
the first to admit that the issues raised in the ABM treaty are 
extremely complex. But is it right to give the consent of the United 
States Senate to a nominee who has not fully thought out issues that 
are fundamental to our national security?
  On the role of international institutions, John Bolton has been both 
outspoken and negative. Again, I do not share his views.
  He has not supported the critically important role of the United 
Nations. I agree with him that the U.N. is not a perfect institution. 
But, it remains the sole forum in which all nations of the world 
discuss international issues. John Bolton has suggested that we would 
be better off if the U.N. were decapitated and the top 10 stories of 
the U.N. building in New York removed. This blanket condemnation of an 
international body created to promote peacemaking and mutual 
understanding is discouraging coming from a former Assistant Secretary 
of State of International Organizations. As a nation, we have a 50-year 
commitment to the U.N. As a United States Senator, I will continue to 
insist that we fulfill this commitment.
  The nominee to this position should be fully dedicated to pursuing 
multilateral diplomacy. CTBT is, after all, a multilateral treaty. 
Increasingly, we live in a multipolar world that requires our senior 
diplomatic officials to be fully aware and sensitive to the concerns of 
all nations, including the non-aligned and developing countries as well 
as first world countries. If our officials do not appreciate this world 
view, they will not be intellectually equipped to provide sound advice 
on the conduct of American foreign policy.
  John Bolton has asserted (in the 1994 Global Structures Convocation) 
that ``there is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an 
international community that occasionally can be led by the only real 
power left in the world and that is the United States when its suits 
our interest and we can get others to go along.'' In today's world, 
these remarks are inevitably seen by the rest of the world as 
arrogant, confrontational, and condescending. They make it more 
difficult for the U.S. to provide world leadership. I would suggest 
that President Bush find a more inspiring leader to serve in the new 
Administration.

  On the issue of trade in conventional arms, I am not convinced that 
John Bolton possesses the objectivity to provide advice that is always 
in the best interests of the United States.
  The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control is a key player 
formulating the Administration's policy on arm sales to politically 
sensitive countries. Foremost of these is Taiwan.
  John Bolton would undoubtedly be an aggressive supporter of future 
sales to Taiwan. In his past writings, he has explicitly supported 
independence for Taiwan. At the hearings last month, he appeared to 
back off from this position somewhat. We are left uncertain about what 
his real views are. For a senior State Department official, this 
posture is unsettling. When John Bolton sits down to advise the 
Secretary of State on relations with Taiwan, which view will Colin 
Powell be getting?
  It may be instructive to look at this position in the context of John 
Bolton's work in behalf of Taiwan. In accordance with disclosure 
requirements for consideration for this post, John Bolton reported 
receiving $30,000 from the Taiwanese government for a series of 3 
articles he wrote from 1994 to 1996. The articles argued in favor of a 
U.N. seat for Taiwan. Twice during this period, Bolton testified before 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the same subject.
  I am not critical of Mr. Bolton for offering his legal and literary 
services to the Taiwanese government. That is his private affair. 
However, I am concerned that his unorthodox pro-independence views on 
Taiwan plus his acceptance of fees may color his judgment on key issues 
relating to Taiwan. If not handled in a balanced and deliberate way, 
arms sales issues have the potential to be destabilizing for the entire 
East Asian region.
  On other issues of international significance, I do not believe John 
Bolton's views are in the best interest of the United States.
  Bolton opposes creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC), 
which I have supported. Our failure to support the ICC was one of the 
reasons that the United States was voted off the United Nations Human 
Rights Commission on May 3, for the first time since the commission was 
founded under U.S. leadership in 1947.
  Bolton supports covert actions to arm and train Iraqi opposition to 
overthrow Saddam Hussein. I have profound reservations about this 
approach to eliminating Saddam. Before we back Iraqi opposition groups 
financially and logistically, we need practical assurances that these 
groups have the support of the Iraqi people, are capable of using our 
resources effectively, and are committed to following through with a 
realistic campaign.
  Bolton has written that our approach to the North Korea Agreed 
Framework is ``egregiously wrong.'' This is an initiative that the 
Clinton Administration spent years patiently crafting with the North 
Koreans. It has the support of the Japan and the European Union in 
addition to the government of South Korea, which is taking courageous 
steps to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula. In my judgment, U.S. 
interests are best served by providing continuity to this approach and 
not by undercutting the South Korean leadership.
  Regarding Kosovo, John Bolton has demonstrated little appreciation of 
our national interests in resolving the most violent threat to the 
stability of Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Indeed, Bolton 
wrote that President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair's 
justification for military action is ``singularly, and indeed, proudly 
devoid of any concrete U.S. or UK interests as we traditionally 
understand the term. Indeed, they justified the instigation of 
hostilities as a humanitarian intervention.'' In my opinion, our 
humanitarian interests are always in our national interests. Senior 
State Department officials should understand this point unequivocally.

  John Bolton's work for the Reagan administration has also drawn fire. 
At the Department of Justice under Attorney General Meese, Bolton 
earned a reputation for his abrasive and controversial tactics in 
dealing with Congressional requests for information. I understand from 
some of my colleagues that he was repeatedly unhelpful, slow to 
respond, and argumentative. He was reportedly involved in the delay and 
cover-up of missing documents on several occasions.
  As I reviewed my prepared remarks on the nomination of John Bolton, I 
could not avoid the conclusion that the Administration has proposed a 
controversial, highly partisan man to perform a job of utmost 
sensitivity and importance to our national interests. John Bolton's 
presence in the inner circle of the State Department may actually 
undercut the promising start of Secretary Colin Powell, who has 
demonstrated a deft touch and sound judgement in dealing with the our 
allies and friends around the world. I believe we do the nation no 
service by confirming the wrong man for this position.




                          ____________________