[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4449-S4461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON OF MARYLAND TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the clerk
will report the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of John Robert Bolton of
Maryland to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the time until 10:15
is reserved for proponents and opponents of this nomination; is that
true?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order three
Senators each control 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. Senators Dorgan, Biden, and Helms, is that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the time on the quorum call I will
suggest be divided equally among the three Senators.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time am I allowed?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twelve minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senate will vote this morning on the
nomination by President Bush of Mr. John Bolton to be Under Secretary
of State for Arms Control.
This is a terrible nomination. I indicated yesterday that I don't
know Mr. John Bolton. I have not met him. But I have read a great deal
about what he said about a number of issues. To nominate Mr. John
Bolton to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control defies logic.
Arms control is a very important subject. The question of whether
this country is going to assume the responsibility to lead
internationally in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is a very
important question.
Are we going to be a world leader in stopping the spread of nuclear
weapons or not? Are we going to be a leader in trying to make this a
safer world? Are we going to be a leader in trying to reduce the number
of nuclear weapons that exist in this world?
The answer from the President, it seems to me, in sending this
nomination to the Senate is no; we don't intend to lead on anything. We
intend to do our own thing notwithstanding what
[[Page S4450]]
anybody else thinks about it, and notwithstanding the consequences with
respect to the reduction of additional nuclear weapons and delivery
systems.
Mr. Bolton has virtually no experience in the field of arms control.
He has never served in an arms control position in any form. He is
qualified perhaps for the dismantling of the systems of arms control as
we know it. But he is not the person we would want consulting on arms
control with our allies, and he is not the person we want negotiating
treaties.
Mr. Bolton has expressed disdain for arms control and those who
promote it. Let me give you some examples.
We had a debate on the floor of the Senate a year and a half ago on
the subject of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. Our country has
already decided to stop testing nuclear weapons. We decided that in the
early 1990s. So the question wasn't for us. We had already decided to
stop testing nuclear weapons. The question was whether we would join in
a treaty with many other countries around the world--a treaty that has
something like 150 different signatories. Would we join in that treaty
to try to stop others from testing nuclear weapons? Regrettably, the
answer by this Senate was no; we don't want to do that.
I think it was a terrible mistake. What an awful day for the Senate
to say no. We stopped nuclear testing, but we don't want to join in a
treaty to try to promote others to stop nuclear testing. What an awful
thing for the Senate to do. The Senate has a right to do that. Of
course, I think it was an awful mistake.
What happened when we turned down the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty? Mr. John Bolton says the supporters of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty are timid and neopacifists. That is the way he
described those who support efforts to have an international treaty to
stop nuclear testing.
Then he states on the issue of treaties and arms control and so on
that international law is not really law at all.
Quoting him, ``While treaties may be politically or even morally
binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not law as we
apprehend the term.''
That is a statement by Mr. Bolton.
He says with respect to our allies who try to put pressure on us to
pass the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, that the Canadian
Premier is ``moral posturing.'' The Sun calls Mr. Bolton one of ``Tony
Blair's strongest critics.'' He says, ``The Europeans can be sure that
America's days as a well-bred doormat for EU political and military
protections are coming to an end.''
Then he gloated at the end of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty and its defeat, and said the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty is dead.
He has been highly critical of the agreed-upon framework under which
North Korea pledged to free its nuclear weapons program, and he says
the United States suffers no downside if we never normalize relations
with North Korea. Certainly South Korea and Japan, our friends, don't
agree with him.
He thinks the United States should not give Taiwan diplomatic
recognition as an independent country, in contradiction of several
decades of official American policy. He says we have no vital interest
in Kosovo or the rest of the Balkans. Tell that to the Europeans and
the U.S. troops whose presence there stopped the genocide and stopped
the killing of thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of people.
I think the world is going to see, if the Senate confirms this
nomination, that Mr. Bolton's appointment is another sign of the
President's hard line on these issues, as a unilateral policy to
abandon ABM, or to get rid of the ABM Treaty, or ignore it, build a
destabilizing national missile defense system, ignore the Kyoto treaty,
abandon talks with North Korea, and oppose the international criminal
court and the international landmine convention.
I think the signal is going to be quite clear if this Senate agrees
with this President and puts John Bolton in as Under Secretary for Arms
Control.
He comes to this position with very little experience, and with an
attitude about these issues that is antithetical to the progress that
we are making in these areas.
I mentioned that we have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in this
world. Russia has somewhere perhaps between 20,000 and 30,000 strategic
and theater nuclear weapons. We have tens of thousand of nuclear
weapons. There are a handful of other countries that have joined the
nuclear club and have access to nuclear weapons. Many other countries
want to possess nuclear weapons and are achieving and aspiring to try
to get nuclear weapons. Some terrorists want nuclear weapons.
The question is, Will our country for our security and the security
of the world provide a leadership role in trying to stop the spread of
nuclear weapons? Will we be aggressive and vigilant? Will we be world
leaders on this issue? Not if we decide to confirm the nomination of
John Bolton. He is not someone who believes in arms control. He is not
someone who believes in arms reduction.
The fact is, we have reduced the number of nuclear weapons not nearly
far enough, but we have reduced the number of nuclear weapons in this
world through the arms control agreements we have had with the old
Soviet Union and now Russia.
The fact is, we have sawed the wings off Soviet bombers and long-
range bombers. We have dismantled them. We have dismantled their
submarines. We have dismantled their nuclear warheads? Why? Because we
and the Russians have agreed upon a regimen of reducing nuclear
weapons. Are we going to stop all of that? Are we going to make more
and more determined efforts to continue it and do even more?
In my judgment, we should continue this approach. In my judgment,
this leads to a safer world.
But we have now this nomination that comes to us today that is very
distressful--having an administration put someone in a position whose
job it is to deal with the issue of arms control who doesn't believe in
arms control, who doesn't believe in treaties, who doesn't believe in a
regimen of trying to stop nuclear testing, and believes that treaties
and agreements have no legal impact at all and no effect.
He believes that we should just go it alone, apparently,
notwithstanding what others want or say.
We are going to move into a very delicate and very difficult
circumstance very soon. In addition to their being tens of thousands of
nuclear weapons that now exist in this world and precious little effort
to try to reduce them, and turning away from basic arms control
agreements, including the ABM Treaty which has been the centerfold in
attempts that have resulted in arms reduction--in addition to all of
that--apparently we are deciding to build a national missile defense
system to protect against a less likely threat: a rogue nation or a
terrorist acquiring an ICBM, loading it with a nuclear tip and sending
it to this country.
They are much more likely to load a pick-up truck with a nuclear bomb
and threaten this country.
If we build a national missile defense and say it doesn't matter what
others do, ignore nuclear arms treaties resulting in larger buildups
and more weapons and delivery vehicles by the Russians, the Chinese and
others, will we be safer, and will the world be safer with a national
missile defense system to protect us against a Russian threat, or
against a Chinese threat? The answer is clearly no.
My feeling is that we are at a moment in time in this country that is
very important. We have reached the moment in this world that is very
important. We have seen an explosion of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and
India--two countries that don't like each other. They are building
nuclear weapons.
We have seen circumstances with the Chinese and the Russians and the
Europeans, and the others, who are concerned about us going it alone.
As a columnist for the Washington Post said: Built to suit our
interests and damn the other interests. It doesn't matter what the
others think.
That, in my judgment, is very troubling, to try to find a way to have
world leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to provide
world leadership to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
[[Page S4451]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota has 1
minute 45 seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know others wish to speak today, and I
spoke at some length yesterday about this issue. But I want to end by
saying the following: All I know about this nominee is what he has
said, what he has established as a public record. It is, in my
judgment, antithetical to what we ought to aspire to be and what we
ought to aspire to see from someone in the position we expect to
provide leadership on arms control.
He, in fact, in my judgment, will not and cannot because he does not
believe in arms control. He does not believe in doing this on the basis
of reaching out with others to try to reduce the number of nuclear
weapons with treaties and arms control agreements. He does not believe
in trying to stop the testing through treaties of nuclear weapons, the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
In my judgment, if this Senate sees fit today to vote positively on
this nomination, we will have taken a significant step backwards. We
will have impeded the efforts of this country to be a world leader in
areas that really matter.
I hope the Senate will think long and hard about this and decide to
tell the President this nomination is not appropriate for the position
of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote on
the President's nomination of John Bolton for Undersecretary of State
for Arms Control and International Security. I am under no illusions
about the fact that Mr. Bolton will be confirmed for this position. But
I will vote against him, because I believe his views on the issues for
which he will have responsibility are inconsistent with the best
interests of the United States.
President Bush has promised to work with our friends and allies to
build a new framework for U.S. policies on arms control and
international security. But his nomination of John Bolton to be the
principal advisor to the Secretary of State on these issues is just one
of many steps that have sent a decidedly mixed message about his
commitment to pursuing a thoughtful, cooperative approach.
In the last several weeks, President Bush has withdrawn the United
States from the Kyoto Protocol, sent the South Korean President home
with no commitment that we will continue to work on reducing the
dangers from North Korea's ballistic missile program, reversed a more
than 20-year-old United States policy that has kept the peace in the
Taiwan Strait, and announced that the United States will no longer
concern itself with negotiations to control and reduce the strategic
nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. Last week, in what will
assuredly not be the last evidence of growing concern and impatience
with U.S. unilateralism, we were voted off the U.N. Human Rights
Commission, to the delight of human rights abusers everywhere. This
growing unilateralism is very troubling to those of us who understand
that the interests of the American people are best protected when we
work in concert with others on common interests and problems.
Senate confirmation of John Bolton to be Undersecretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security will be another serious blow to
U.S. leadership on these important issues. Over the last 8 years, John
Bolton has expressed extreme views on a wide range of U.S. foreign
policy issues. He has belittled the United Nations, referred to
supporters of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as neo-pacifists,
labeled our closest allies ``appeasers'' for opposing sanctions policy
also opposed by Vice President Cheney, and questioned whether the
United States is ever legally bound by its treaty obligations.
I find John Bolton's views most troubling on the arms control issues
over which he will exercise a great deal of influence in this position.
He is a staunch opponent of important treaties--including the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the ABM Treaty, and the Ottawa
Convention banning antipersonnel land mines which he has criticized as
unenforceable, while at the same time opposing the development of
international enforcement mechanisms. His antagonism to arms control
threatens the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), a cooperative,
verifiable agreement that has effectively kept the nuclear weapons club
to very low numbers for more than three decades span. But future
international participation in the NPT is inextricably tied to the
stability of treaties that Mr. Bolton has condemned. So too is the
success of our cooperative nuclear threat-reduction measures with
Russia.
Mr. Bolton has also consistently advocated that the United States
give diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, a position at odds with decades
of U.S. policy and with President Bush's declared One China stance.
From 1994-1996, the Taiwanese government paid $30,000 to Mr. Bolton for
several papers on Taiwan and the U.N. It is troubling that during this
time Mr. Bolton testified about this same issue before two House
subcommittees. Should he be confirmed, Mr. Bolton will play a major
role in overseeing United States arms sales to Taiwan, one of the most
important--and most potentially volatile--issues in United States
policy toward Asia. While the State Department has signed off on
ethical questions surrounding this possible conflict of interest, I
believe United States arms sales policy toward Taiwan can not help but
be affected--least in perception, if not in fact--by Mr. Bolton's past
relationship with the Government of Taiwan.
On another issue of great importance to stability in Asia, Mr. Bolton
has criticized the Clinton administration's efforts to freeze North
Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs as ``egregiously
wrong.'' This despite the undisputed facts that the 1994 Agreed
Framework has successfully stopped Pyongyang's nuclear program and more
recent talks have convined North Korea to unilaterally suspend its
missile tests until 2003.
President Bush is now reviewing United States policy toward North
Korea, which I hope will conclude with a decision to continue talks
with Pyongyang about the future of its missile program. While I am
sympathetic to the President's desire to review past policy, I believe
it would be mistake to walk away from a dialogue that holds out the
possibility of a verifiable agreement to freeze North Korea's missile
program and halt their missile sales. John Bolton has taken a
dismissive view of the value of dialogue with Pyongyang, and I am
deeply concerned that adding his voice to the administration's debate
on this issue will further undermine the United States interest in
advancing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
Finally, while Mr. Bolton's testimony before the Foreign Relations
Committee seemed to suggest that his current views are more moderate
than his writings indicate, I remain perplexed by the question of what
views he will take with him into this administration. This is not an
academic or inappropriate issue to raise. While, ultimately, Mr.
Bolton's personal opinions will be subsumed by the decisions of the
Secretary of State and the President, he will have an enormous amount
of influence in the policy debates that shape those decisions. I find
it difficult to imagine that a man who has dedicated his life to public
service on behalf of a set of values that he has taken the time to
articulate in public writings will suddenly cease to advocate on behalf
of those values at exactly the moment when his ability to influence
public debate is at its zenith.
Mr. President, the United States has a strong interest in maintaining
and advancing transparent, verifiable arms control regimes and stopping
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These issues are far
too important to be left in the hands of a man who has denied their
very legitimacy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Constitution gives the Senate the power
to advise and consent on the President's nominations. This is a
responsibility that I take very seriously. While I believe the
President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when selecting the
senior members of his team, the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and there
are times where a careful review leads one to the conclusion that a
nomination must be opposed.
President Bush has made some excellent choices for several of the top
foreign policy positions in his administration--from Colin Powell for
Secretary
[[Page S4452]]
of State to Howard Baker for Ambassador to Japan. But the nomination of
Mr. Bolton is not one of those choices. I will oppose the nomination of
John Bolton for the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security, because I have serious concerns
about Mr. Bolton's experience, his diplomatic temperament, and his
record.
Before proceeding further, it should be stated that it is becoming
increasingly clear that there is a double standard in the Senate's
treatment of President Bush's nominees and those of President Clinton.
During the Clinton administration, nominations often languished for
months--and in some cases years--before the Senate, without ever coming
to the floor for a vote. However, when Democrats object to a Bush
administration nomination, Republicans cry foul and accuse Democrats of
not playing by the rules.
This double standard is evident with this nomination. President
Clinton's choice for Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security was John Holum. After being confirmed by the Senate by voice
vote, Mr. Holum served as Director for the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, ACDA, for 6 years. When ACDA was going to be folded into the
State Department, President Clinton made a sound decision to nominate
Mr. Holum to be the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security. Despite his qualifications, a few Republicans
blocked John Holum's nomination for nearly 2 years, successfully
preventing a vote. This stands in stark contrast to President Bush's
selection for the very same position. The nomination of Mr. Bolton--who
unlike Mr. Holum is not well qualified for this position--is being
voted on by the full Senate after just 2 months.
The first reason that I oppose this nomination is because Mr. Bolton
does not have the requisite experience for the job. I am aware that he
has some solid foreign policy credentials, previously serving on the
Commission on International Religious Freedom, as Assistant Secretary
of State for International Organization Affairs, and as Assistant
Administrator of USAID for Program and Policy Coordination. But John
Bolton has been nominated for the senior position at the State
Department responsible for supervising and managing complicated
negotiations for arms control and nonproliferation issues. In these
areas, his experience is seriously deficient.
This is no time to learn on the job. We are confronted by a complex
and rapidly changing security environment, which will require sensitive
diplomatic negotiations and consultations on a wide range of
international security matters with our friends, allies, and
adversaries. We need someone in this position with long experience and
a proven track record on these issues--which Mr. Bolton does not have.
Second, as Senator Biden appropriately pointed out at Mr. Bolton's
confirmation hearing, Mr. Bolton lacks the diplomatic temperament for
this job.
He is prone to making confusing statements and using inflammatory
rhetoric against those with whom he does not agree. He once stated that
``Republicans are adults on foreign policy questions, and we define
what we're willing to do militarily and politically by what is in the
best interests of the United States.'' What does this mean? Do
Democrats not act in the best interests of the United States? Are
Democrats like Lee Hamilton, Sam Nunn, and James Sasser not adults on
foreign policy? It is a ludicrous and offensive statement.
On another occasion, Mr. Bolton attacked those who were concerned
about the defeat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT.
Some were worried that the Senate's decision to vote down a major
international security pact for the first time since the Treaty of
Versailles could signal a turn toward isolationism. Mr. Bolton's
response was that these reactions were ``indications of a profoundly
misguided and potentially dangerous philosophy in American foreign
policy'' and that people who held this view were ``timid and neo-
pacifist.'' Again, is being vigilant about the possibility of American
isolationism, something that contributed to the Second World War, timid
or neo-pacifist? What is a neo-pacifist, anyway?
And with respect to the International Criminal Court, ICC, Mr. Bolton
said that ``[s]upport for the International Criminal Court concept is
based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an
international judicial system unsupported by any meaningful evidence
and running contrary to sound principles of international crisis
resolution.'' Why was the decision to sign the Treaty, and join 139
other nations including 17 of our NATO allies, emotional? Is it not
rational to conclude that signing the Treaty enables us to maintain the
maximum influence over the ongoing negotiations and obtain additional
concessions in the process?
These are representative of statements from Mr. Bolton that are
confusing, inaccurate and inflammatory. While those of us in politics
are used to this sort of thing, effective international diplomacy is
not conducted in this manner. It is not the kind of temperament that we
need from our most senior arms control official at the State
Department.
I am also deeply concerned about Mr. Bolton's record on arms control
and nonproliferation agreements and his views on international law.
Although he has supported some security treaties in the past, he is
philosophically opposed to most of the treaties that comprise the
foundation of the international nonproliferation regime. He once said
that the CTBT and other treaties are ``unenforceable'' and provide
``illusionary protections.'' Moreover, he argued that
``[w]hile treaties may well be politically or even morally binding,
they are not legally obligatory. They are just not `law' as we
apprehend them.'' In fact, the principle that treaties and other forms
of international law are binding is widely accepted. Whether trading
with other nations or insisting on the right to traverse international
water or airspace, we rely on treaties and international agreements to
protect our interests.
It is true that treaties and other agreements are just one part of
international security. Nevertheless, they are an extremely important
part. Mr. Bolton's statements make me seriously question his commitment
to this aspect of our security, and I do not want to confirm an
individual with this record to a position that is responsible, in part,
for advancing U.S. interests by upholding and promoting international
nonproliferation agreements.
Finally, I would note that the timing of the vote on Mr. Bolton's
nomination could not be worse. From Kyoto to missile defense, the Bush
administration has made a number of unilateral decisions that have
caused great concern among our allies in Europe and Asia. And, there
are reports that more could be on the way--such as ``unsigning'' the
ICC Treaty. I firmly believe that confirming someone to this important
position who has limited experience on these issues, lacks the
diplomatic temperament for the job, and has, at best, a mixed record of
supporting international arms control agreements, sends yet another
negative signal to our friends and allies.
We need a person in this important position who will help craft a
bipartisan foreign policy and work with our friends and allies to make
America more secure. Mr. Bolton is not that person, and I will vote
``no'' on his nomination.
Mr. President, I recognize that Mr. Bolton will receive sufficient
votes to become our next Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security. I hope that the fact that he was only reported
out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a margin of one vote, and
that several senior Senators with expertise and many years of
experience in arms control opposed his nomination, will cause him to
reflect on the way he has approached these issues in the past. This is
a position of great responsibility. He should use it to demonstrate
that he can work constructively and respectfully with people, whether
they agree or disagree with him, to help advance the interests of this
nation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination
of John R. Bolton as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security. In many ways, Mr. Bolton's record, writing, and
views lead me to believe that he is the wrong man at the wrong time for
this position.
In considering this nomination I am most troubled by the fact that
Mr.
[[Page S4453]]
Bolton's views appear to be antithetical to both arms control and
international law.
Although he has supported some security treaties, on the whole he has
been highly critical of most of the treaties that comprise the
foundations for nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.
When the Senate voted down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT,
for example, it is my understanding that Mr. Bolton applauded the
defeat of ``the illusionary protection of unenforceable treaties''.
Arms control treaties and international efforts to control the spread
of weapons of mass destruction are not the only way to address these
threats, the United States must have other means and capabilities as
well, but they have a place in U.S. foreign policy, and can play a
useful role in safeguarding American interests.
The CTBT, START, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Missile
Technology Control Regime, alongside many other treaties negotiated by
Presidents of both parties, can and do play an important role in
reducing the risk to the United States posed by the proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Likewise, Mr. Bolton has made comments that suggest that
international treaties do not have the force of law, and raising
questions about the commitment that states should have to their treaty
obligations.
He has written that ``while treaties may well be politically or even
morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not
`law' as we apprehend the term.''
In arguing that the U.S. has no obligation to pay our share of the
United Nations dues Mr. Bolton argued that ``Treaties are `law' only
for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties
are simply `political' obligations.''
This approach suggests that international treaties are unenforceable;
that signatories may pick and choose the sections they will adhere to;
and that the United States, by virtue of our superpower status, may
insist on other countries fulfilling their treaty obligations while
reserving the right to ignore our own.
But how can the United States hope to compel other countries,
especially states like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to respect
international law and norms on non-proliferation if the top State
Department official for arms control does not?
Mr. Bolton has also suggested that ``There is no such thing as the
United Nations . . .''.
How effective can United States leadership be in the international
community if these views guide U.S. policy? In some ways, Mr.
President, I think the recent loss of the U.S. seat on the Human Rights
Commission provides us an early indication of what answer we can expect
from the rest of the international community to that question.
There are also questions about Mr. Bolton's approach to a range of
other issues on the international agenda which, as Under Secretary and
a senior member of the State Department decision-making apparatus, he
will play a role.
Mr. Bolton's views on Taiwan appear to be out of step with thirty
years of bipartisan U.S. policy as well as the views of the Bush
Administration.
He has stated that he believes Taiwan to be a state, and argued for
full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and an end to the ``One China''
policy.
Over the past thirty years the Taiwan Relations Act, the ``One
China'' policy, the three Joint Communiques, and a policy of purposeful
ambiguity with regards to U.S. defense commitments to Taiwan have
served U.S. interests, and those of Taiwan, extremely well. It is an
approach that has provided the United States with both leverage and
maneuvering room in our relations with both China and Taiwan, and has
had the support of six Presidents from both parties as well as broad
bipartisan backing in Congress.
These are but a few examples of the sort of worrisome issues which
lead me to believe that Mr. Bolton is not the right person to serve as
Under Secretary.
The questions that have been raised about Mr. Bolton's views on a
range of arms control, international law, and other national security
issues strongly suggests that Mr. Bolton does not meet the necessary
threshold for confirmation by the Senate as Under Secretary of State. I
do not make this statement lightly, but I do so with the recognition
that the Senate has the right, the obligation, to provide advice and
consent to the President's appointments.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the confirmation of Mr.
Bolton.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose
the nomination of Mr. John Bolton to become the Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control and International Security. Many in the Senate
disagree with the substantive views of Mr. Bolton on particular policy
issues and will oppose his nomination on the basis of those
disagreements. I too disagree with Mr. Bolton on a range of important
foreign policy issues, but my opposition to his nomination comes from
broader and deeper concerns. First among them, I believe that whoever
serves in this position should be experienced, knowledgeable, and
philosophically compatible with the use of arms control as a legitimate
tool of the national security objectives of the United States. Arms
control treaties have served our national security interests well
during past decades, including important major treaties signed and
ratified by Republican administrations. Notable among the many
important and effective arms control contributions by Republican
administrations are the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the ABM Treaty and
Protocol, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, and the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty. I would hope that Mr. Bolton would uphold this tradition
within his party, but I am skeptical that will be the case. If so, our
nation stands to become more insecure rather than less in the volatile
world of today's international system.
Recent testimony by Mr. Bolton suggests that he may not be as
knowledgeable about the significant contributions of prior arms control
treaties as he should be, and, more importantly, may not be inclined to
support arms control as a useful mechanism to achieving national
security goals. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, for example, when asked about his views regarding
whether the ABM Treaty is in force, he withheld his own views on this
very important matter which now lies at the center of the most
significant national security debate in our country as well as within
the international community. It seems to me that if the Senate is to
confirm a nominee for this important position as Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control, it would not be unreasonable to expect that
nominee, even if we are in disagreement, to have a well-developed,
articulate view of this critical question. I believe that the Senate
and the American people have a right to expect that someone who would
assume this key advisory position would be able to answer that question
in an informed, straightforward way. I'm concerned that we still don't
know if Mr. Bolton is well-educated on the validity and utility of the
ABM Treaty. I for one am reticent to hand over the keys to a car when I
don't know where the driver is going to take me. The ABM Treaty is so
vitally important, I believe the American people have a right to know
where Mr. Bolton wants to go.
In his writings and testimony, Mr. Bolton referred generically to
treaties that are unenforceable and that provide only illusory
protections. He would include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in that
category, a belief that suggests to me a lack of understanding about
our verification capabilities with respect to countries which might
seek to initiate a nuclear weapons program as well as nuclear weapons
states which might seek to advance their own capabilities in any
militarily significant way. Though the Senate has not thoroughly
debated this question, the experts I have spoken with assure me that
the CTBT is verifiable consistent with our highest priority
nonproliferation national security concerns. Before voting to confirm
Mr. Bolton, the Senate should know more about the specifics of his
views on this and similar matters in order to determine whether his
views are well-grounded or simply an expression of a visceral distrust
of arms control as a national security tool.
[[Page S4454]]
I am equally concerned that his views rejecting the binding nature of
international treaties is incompatible with the internationally
accepted position on this fundamental legal question. In his writings,
Mr. Bolton has indicated that although treaties may be politically or
morally binding, they are not legally binding. I suspect that while he
would demand compliance of other nations to an international treaty as
a matter of law, he would defend instances of U.S. non-compliance as
our legal right. At a time when the President of the United States has
spoken repeatedly of the need for our nation to approach other
countries with humility, Mr. Bolton's view on this matter strikes me as
completely unacceptable.
Perhaps, it comes down to this. Every time the Senate debates an arms
control agreement the question is asked, ``Will our nation be more
secure with or without this Treaty?'' For those who answer ``without'',
they conclude that the nation is more secure without making
international commitments. Their crystal ball suggests that without
international agreements, national self interest will be sufficient to
ensure national security. Given Mr. Bolton's position in opposition to
key arms control agreements of our time, I'm very concerned that he
believes that U.S. unilateralism is the only reliable means to assure
our national security. I strongly reject that view. Unilateralism is
reversible and unpredictable, and in my view, portends greater
instability among nations. Before I'd vote to confirm Mr. Bolton, Mr.
President, I'd like very much to know what Mr. Bolton's view of what a
unilateralist world looks like to him without the ABM Treaty, the CTBT
Treaty, or any other arms control treaty to which he is opposed. Until
he can convince me that it would be a safer world, I'll withhold my
vote. I urge my colleagues of the Senate to do the same.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as you know, I generally believe that any
President, Democratic or Republican, has the right to appoint the
members of his administration. That is why, over the years, I have
generally voted in support of the vast majority of presidential
nominees that have come before the Senate. However, I am also mindful
of the fact that the Founding Fathers gave the U.S. Senate a role in
the nomination process, namely that of advice and consent. This
responsibility was given to the Senate in order to ensure that the
President did not misuse his authority in selecting individuals to
serve in positions of public trust or ones with significant
implications for the national security of this country. I have always
ought to balance these two principles, that the President has been
elected by the American people to do a job and he should be able to
decide how best to do it, and that the Constitution of the United
States charges the United States Senate with reviewing the Presidential
appointments to ensure that our national interests are being served.
And, in juggling these two sometimes conflicting concepts, I have
generally given the benefit of the doubt to the individual selected by
the President.
Very rarely over the years have I voted against nominees. On those
occasions in which I have chosen to do so, it has been because I have
had serious doubts about the ability of the individual to carry out the
responsibilities of the office to which he or she has been nominated.
Regrettably, I hold such doubts about the nomination before us today--
John Bolton to the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control. Based upon Mr. Bolton's own statements and writings over the
years, as well as his testimony during his confirmation hearing, I have
serious reservations about his ability to discharge his duties in the
area of arms control. My reservations are of such a magnitude that they
rise to a level so as to outweigh my general practice of deferring to
the President on nominations.
There is no question that Mr. Bolton is an individual of integrity
and intelligence. He has demonstrated those qualities throughout his
career--most recently at the American Enterprise Institute, and the
Commission on International Religious Freedom. However, there is
glaringly absent from his otherwise distinguished record, any
substantial background in the area of arms control--the principle area
of responsibility for the position to which he has been nominated. It
is not only that Mr. Bolton has limited experience in the arms control
arena, but also that in his few dealings with this subject matter he
has expressed doubts as to the relevancy of arms control itself. I find
it troubling that the individual that the President and the Secretary
of State will look to in the areas of non- proliferation, arms control
and security assistance holds that view. Arms control issues loom large
on the President's agenda as he demonstrated last week when he spoke at
the National Defense University on the topic of National Missile
Defense, NMD --an extremely controversial subject with huge
implications for United States arms control policy. NMD, The
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, and the future of the 1972 ABM
treaty are all subjects in which the President and the Congress will
have to come to some meeting of the minds on during the coming months.
The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control will have to play a
pivotal role in facilitating that process. Mr. Bolton's having a
dismissive attitude toward arms reduction and arms control right from
the start gives him very little credibility with those of us who care
deeply about arms controls issues and are concerned about the direction
the Administration appears to be heading in this area.
With respect to CTBT and other international treaties, Mr. Bolton has
stated that he does not believe that these agreements are legally
binding on the United States, but rather are ``political obligations.''
This stance is contrary to United States interests of promoting respect
for international law and upholding the good faith agreements entered
into among our allies to honor these treaties. In addition, such
statements in the area of arms control, by the person who will occupy
the very post charged with upholding our treaty obligations, not only
diminishes our credibility in the eyes of our allies, but also
compromises the best interests of our national security. Arms control
is a global issue, not an American one, and while we must forge
policies consistent with America's interests, we cannot create policy
in a vacuum, and to act unilaterally on an issue of such import would
be foolish.
In terms of the ABM treaty, I believe that President Bush is correct
when he says that the world is quite different today than it was in
1972 when the treaty was first entered into with the then Soviet Union.
Clearly every word of that treaty should not be cast in stone. There
may be changes to the treaty that would benefit United States interests
without undermining the principle purpose of the treaty--to prevent a
costly and dangerous international arms race. It is certainly
appropriate that the President undertake a review of this treaty. But
this can be accomplished while still honoring our current treaty
obligations and without a rush to judgement. The ABM treaty may need
updating, but unilaterally abrogating this treaty or any other treaty
that the United States has entered into is a major step not to be taken
lightly or without consultations. While Mr. Bolton has stopped short of
calling for the unilateral abrogation of the treaty, his cavalier
attitude toward our participation in the ABM treaty and to the
responsibilities that we bind ourselves to when we enter into these
international agreements is disturbing.
I am further troubled by Mr. Bolton's views on such sensitive foreign
policy issues as the so called ``One China Policy,'' and on the nature
and extent of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. I am particularly concerned at
a time when Chinese-American relations have taken a turn toward the
adversarial. When the characterization of the U.S.-China relationship
as ``strategic competition'' provokes indignation in Beijing, one can
only imagine the ramifications of Mr. Bolton's public support for the
official recognition of Taiwan as an independent state, a position
which contradicts over three decades of U.S. diplomacy that has
successfully balanced our interests in Asia. Although Mr. Bolton has
stressed that the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control does not
have responsibility for directly shaping diplomatic relations between
the U.S. and China, separating arms control issues from U.S./China
policy is neither feasible nor advisable at a time when China sees
itself, rightly or wrongly, as a target of the Bush
[[Page S4455]]
administration's decisions to move forward with National Missile
Defense and to sell arms to Taiwan.
Mr. Bolton has also expressed worrisome views on U.S. involvement in
the Balkan wars, stating that he saw `` no tangible national interest''
in those conflicts. And while it is true that American territory or
interests were not directly threatened by the bloodshed in the Balkans,
certainly instability in Europe must always be a matter of concern to
the United States as should human rights abuses that rise to the level
of near genocide. I am concerned at Mr. Bolton's seemingly insular view
of American interests and responsibilities.
Finally, Mr. Bolton has at times been outspoken and provocative in
his public remarks about international affairs. He has been known to
stray from a simple statement of opinion to more controversial
pronouncements about subjects which are approached with tremendous
sensitivity by most foreign policy experts. As Undersecretary of State
for Arms Control Mr. Bolton will be responsible for high level
negotiations with allies and other governments concerning the gravest
matters of national and international security. Regrettably, I am
uncomfortable with the idea of Mr. Bolton in such delicate situations.
The world we live in today is dangerous. For better or worse, the
United States must play a major role in ensuring that there are
safeguards to protect our national security and foreign policy
interests. Without doubt these dangers include the possibility of the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It may be true that no
longer is our main concern a purposeful attack by another superpower,
but rather the accidental or capricious bombing by a rogue nation. It
may also be true, as Mr. Bolton asserts, that it is time to re-examine
our international arms framework, but it is not a time for isolation or
bravado. Given the the critical negotiations and challenges that await
the new administration, there is no room for inexperience. We need a
skilled and steady hand shaping a disarmament policy that is right for
the 21st Century. In my view Mr. Bolton does not possess such
qualities, and that is why I have reluctantly decided to vote against
his nomination for this critical position.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of John Bolton for
the position of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security Affairs. Mr. Bolton is the President's choice,
and I have generally supported the tradition of respect by the Senate
for confirming the President's nominees except in rare instances. I
disagree with some of the positions Mr. Bolton holds, particularly his
opposition to some of the arms control treaties that were negotiated
over many years by his predecessors at the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency. But I also agree with other positions Mr. Bolton has taken
regarding America's foreign policy. He explained his positions during
his confirmation hearing and gave assurances that he accepts and will
respect America's obligations under international law. He is especially
intent on working to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction
to rogue states. I therefore conclude that Mr. Bolton falls within the
criteria of acceptability for confirmation to the job for which he has
been nominated by the President.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about confirming
John Bolton to be the next Under Secretary of State for Arms Control.
The person who serves in this position is expected to supervise and
manage international arms control negotiations and non-proliferation
agreements and to uphold key arms control treaty obligations. Yet, John
Bolton has said he believes that the very agreements he would be
required to uphold and negotiate are not even legally binding.
International arms control agreements are the linchpin of our
national security. They have played a vital role in keeping the peace,
increasing our security and halting the spread of weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles that deliver them. They made a significant
contribution towards reducing nuclear threats during the Cold War, they
helped us reduce the presence of conventional forces in Europe in the
post-Cold War era, and they have been an important tool in the response
to the growing non-proliferation threat.
Not only does John Bolton have limited experience in the arms control
arena, but he has dismissed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and some
other treaties as ``illusionary protections.'' He has been disdainful
of supporters of the CTBT and, he has been intentionally evasive about
his views on the ABM Treaty. I question whether Mr. Bolton could serve
effectively in this position given his views and the inflammatory
manner in which he has communicated these views in his years out of
public service.
I am not questioning the integrity of this nominee or his fitness for
government service in general. I also believe we must be careful not to
reject nominees just because we object to their views. However, when a
person like John Bolton is put forward, a person whose views seem to
undermine the very purpose for which he is being nominated, I believe
we have a responsibility to speak out. John Bolton is not an
appropriate choice for Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and I
will be voting against this nomination.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of John Bolton to
be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and
International Security.
The Under Secretary must be able to develop and shape arms control
and disarmament policies in a way that helps the Nation to achieve
these all-important goals for our country and our planet. It is this
special responsibility of the Under Secretary to protect the United
States by working to control the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
As Senior Adviser to the President, the Under Secretary works with
the Secretary of State and members of the National Security Council,
leads the interagency policy process on nonproliferation, and manages
global U.S. security policy. He is involved in defense cooperation,
arms transfers and security assistance to our allies. He provides
policy direction for the nonproliferation of nuclear missiles and
fissile material. He has a primary role in the negotiation,
ratification, verification, compliance, and implementation of
agreements on strategic, non-conventional and conventional forces,
regional security and military cooperation.
His role is also to oversee implementation of the Foreign Assistance
Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and related legislation. The Bureaus
of Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Political-Military Affairs and
Verification and Compliance are under the policy oversight of the Under
Secretary.
The position carries enormous responsibilities, and I am not
persuaded that Mr. Bolton has the vision and commitment to advance
America's best interests, especially in arms control.
Mr. Bolton has said that ``international treaties are `laws' purely
for domestic purposes'' and in their ``international operation, they
are simply political obligations.'' He has described treaties as
useless, because they don't stop rogue states from doing what they seek
and only restrain the U.S. from pursuing its own defense initiatives.
Mr. Bolton has also been an outspoken critic of the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, referring to the
latter as an ``unenforceable treaty with illusory protections.''
Mr. Bolton praised the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in
the Senate. He called Americans who worried that nuclear proliferation
would threaten international peace and security ``hysterical.'' He
described the philosophy behind supporting a treaty that bans dangerous
nuclear testing as ``profoundly misguided and potentially dangerous.''
The CTBT is an important part of our global non-proliferation
efforts, and it has been endorsed by General John Shalikashvili.
Earlier this year, General Shalikashvili, Special Advisor to the
President on this treaty, stated in a letter to the President that
``there is no good reason to delay ratification of the CTBT'' and that
`` the longer the U.S. delays, the more likely it is that other
countries will move irrevocably to acquire nuclear weapons or
significantly improve their current nuclear arsenal and the less likely
it is that we
[[Page S4456]]
could mobilize a strong international coalition against such
activities.''
Yet Mr. Bolton has criticized the treaty for not providing ``adequate
protections'' and ``hobbling the United States' ability to maintain the
most important international guarantee of peace''--which is, in Mr.
Bolton's view, ``a credible U.S. nuclear capability.''
I also have serious reservations about Mr. Bolton's views on the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In the years since the United States and
the Soviet Union signed the ABM Treaty in 1972, it has been a major
part of U.S. nuclear arms control policy. By ensuring that our nuclear
arsenal remains an effective deterrent, the ABM Treaty prevented an
escalating arms race with the Soviet Union and more recently with
Russia. The treaty continues to bring significant stability to the
U.S.-Russia nuclear partnership in the post-Cold War world.
Mr. Bolton has contended that National Missile Defense should be one
of the our primary considerations in dealing with proliferation and
international security. But this view is in conflict with the Under
Secretary's responsibility to protect our Nation against threats in a
way that is consistent with our treaty obligations. Mr. Bolton's view
that Russia will take advantage of any U.S. vulnerability could hinder
essential and continued cooperation with that nation.
I am concerned as well by Mr. Bolton's views on our relations with
North Korea and China. Since 1996, the United States has embarked on a
delicate negotiation with North Korea. The agreed framework has
achieved renewed dialogue between North and South Korea, and could be
the beginning of a serious effort to achieving an arms control
agreement with North Korea. It has created an unprecedented opportunity
for the U.S. and North Korea to work together. But Mr. Bolton has been
outspoken in his opposition to the agreement, calling it an ``egregious
mistake.''
Mr. Bolton has stated that normalizing relations with North Korea and
the goals it would achieve are ``entirely in North Korea's interests,
not ours.'' Clearly, efforts to stop the development of nuclear weapons
in the Korean Peninsula are in the United States' interest. Yet Mr.
Bolton has also called the agreed framework an ``unjustifiable propping
up of the North Korean regime.''
I am concerned that Mr. Bolton presents himself as a nominee who will
fundamentally change the objectives of his office from promoting
treaties and arms control to urging a national agenda on missile
defense. The policies he promotes could unnecessarily alienate our
allies and undermine arms control and nonproliferation.
Mr. Bolton has stated that ``the most important international
guarantee of peace is a credible U.S. nuclear capability.'' It would be
a mistake to entrust the responsibility of achieving more effective
arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament policies to someone who
believes that international security is best maintained by continuing
the nuclear arms race.
I am also deeply concerned about Mr. Bolton's views on the United
Nations. As Under Secretary, he would advise the President and the
Secretary of State on policy decisions on U.S. security commitments
worldwide and on arms transfers and security assistance policy and
programs. He would need to work with the international community and
the United Nations to meet these goals. Yet, in 1994, Mr. Bolton wrote
starkly that ``there is no such thing as the United Nations.'' He has
said that the majority of Congress and most Americans do not care about
losing the U.S. vote in the General Assembly. Virtually every other
nation in the world supports the United Nations and the United States
should be dedicated to strengthening, not weakening, it.
The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and
International Security should work to strengthen our international
treaties and our relations with other countries, not dismantle or
destroy them. I am not convinced that Mr. Bolton is committed to these
critical goals.
His views do not represent a positive approach to key arms control
issues, and I urge the Senate to oppose his nomination.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to state my opposition to the
nomination of John Bolton to be Undersecretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security. I want to clarify that I respect
the right of the President to choose those who will serve him in his
Administration. I also recognize that many of the appointees in this
Administration will have views which differ from my own--and those
differences are not reason enough to vote against a nomination.
However, in this case, I believe there is ample evidence that Mr.
Bolton has deeply held views which run so contrary to stated U.S.
policy that he will not be able to effectively perform his duties.
If confirmed, statute dictates that John Bolton would be the senior
assistant to the Secretary of State in matters ``related to
international security policy, arms control and non-proliferation.'' He
would oversee a number of issues including the fate of the ABM Treaty,
negotiation with North Korea on the Agreed Framework and aid to
dismantle Russian nuclear stockpiles. At a time when the danger from
nuclear weapons is at least as great as during the Cold War, it is
essential that this Undersecretary be committed to using every possible
diplomatic option for reducing the weapons stockpile and diffusing
tensions. Unfortunately, because of his previous statements, I cannot
be confident of Mr. Bolton's commitment to this goal. As Joseph
Cirincione, the director of the Carnegie Non Proliferation Project,
stated: ``John Bolton is philosophically opposed to most of the
international treaties that comprise the nonproliferation regime.''
Mr. Bolton was a vocal opponent of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
He said that supporters of the CTBT were ``misguided individuals
following a timed and neo-pacifist line of thought.'' He also stated
that ``Mere promises by adversaries and rogue regimes, unverifiable in
critical respects, simply do not provide adequate protections and may
actually hobble our ability to maintain the most important
international guarantee of peace--a credible U.S. nuclear capability.''
I would like to note that history would indicate Mr. Bolton is
incorrect, since the United States has been able to maintain an awesome
nuclear stockpile while complying with arms control treaties that have
been the cornerstone of the prevention of nuclear war for the past
fifty years. Furthermore, while Mr. Bolton is certainly entitled to his
opinions on arms control treaties, his opinions indicate that he may
not be best suited for a position which requires upholding and
negotiating treaties on a daily basis.
Mr. Bolton also does not seem to have a very high opinion of the
United Nations, the organization with which he would have to work
closely in developing and maintaining U.S. international security
policy. At different points in the past few years, Mr. Bolton has
stated that ``If the UN secretary building in NY lost 10 stories, it
wouldn't make a bit of difference.'' He also stated that the U.S. has
no obligation to pay its UN dues because ``The UN Charter is
fundamentally a political, not a legal document. On finances it amounts
to little more than an `agreement to agree.' '' Despite the fact that
the UN may seem bureaucratic and slow to act at times, it is the
primary instrument for international cooperation, and I believe U.S.
participation is vital to ensure U.S. national security.
In addition, Mr. Bolton does not appear to believe that the tenets of
international law are binding. In 1999, Mr. Bolton asserted that, ``In
reality, international law, especially customary international law,
meets none of the tests we normally impose on `law', while treaties may
be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally
obligatory. They are just not `law' as we apprehend the term.'' Since
the founding of this nation, Administrations have put faith in
international law and treaties created under international law and
entered into by the United States have been regarded, as the
Constitution dictates, ``as the supreme law of the land.''
Mr. Bolton is clearly an intelligent and capable individual. However,
his publicly stated views and past actions indicate that he believes
that it is in the best interests of United States security to act
unilaterally, with little regard for the views and agreements of the
international community. We live
[[Page S4457]]
in an increasingly interdependent world. Today, it is more important
than ever before to use such tools as the United Nations, international
law and treaties to promote and ensure international security and arms
control. I believe the Undersecretary of State for International and
Arms Control should be willing to pursue these avenues, and I think the
evidence indicates that Mr. Bolton would not be the best person for
this job. Therefore, I will oppose his nomination.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, has there been time allotted for me to
speak on this nomination?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 12 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of John
Bolton to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security. I do so for several reasons. I say at the
outset--and I have said to my friend and colleague, Senator Helms, the
chairman of the committee--that my opposition to John Bolton is not
based on a personal concern about John Bolton's overall qualifications.
He is an intelligent, bright, decent, and honest man. Notwithstanding
an editorial in one of the major newspapers in this country, there is
nothing inconsistent about that in my opposing the nomination of him
relating to this specific position.
I want my colleague from North Carolina to know that my opposition is
based--and which he will soon hear, and he knows because we have talked
about it--on Mr. Bolton's views on arms control primarily. This is a
decent and an honorable man, but I think he is the wrong man for this
job.
I add at the outset, I think his views on some of the major issues in
the area of foreign policy are at odds with the stated views of the
Secretary of State, although I am certain the Secretary of State
supports Mr. Bolton. I am not implying that there is opposition within
the State Department to Mr. Bolton.
Let me give you the reasons, as briefly as I can, that I am concerned
about Mr. Bolton's views on arms control.
He comes to the Senate with an extensive record of Government service
but a very limited record in arms control and nonproliferation matters,
which, as the Presiding Officer knows, is an extremely complicated
area--extremely complicated area.
What we do know about Mr. Bolton's views on arms control and
nonproliferation matters suggests an individual who questions the
relevance of arms control agreements.
My friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee,
questions the relevance of the arms control agreements, and I find him
to be an extremely qualified Senator. We just disagree on the issue. I
would vote for him for just about anything. I would probably vote for
him even for this position, but maybe I would not. This is the one
position I could consider I would not want him to have in the
administration.
In praising the defeat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty,
Mr. Bolton referred to the CTBT, and other unnamed treaties, as
``unenforceable treaties'' which provide ``illusionary protections.'' I
realize some hold that view. They are not, however, people I think
should be in charge of promoting arms control, disarmament, and
nonproliferation matters.
The death of the CTBT, he wrote, is a ``useful opportunity to re-
examine in a hard-headed and realistic way how international peace and
security are really guaranteed.''
Treaties are not the only means of ensuring arms control reductions,
but in the last 50 years treaties and agreements have provided the
foundation for advancing U.S. arms control and nonproliferation
objectives. From the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the START
treaties, from the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Biological
Weapons Convention, such agreements have been essential in
containing the threat of dangerous weapons.
Mr. Bolton has supported some arms control treaties, I might add,
including the Chemical Weapons Convention, where he and I were on one
side, and the chairman was on the other side. But his sweeping
statements deriding the importance of arms control leave me uneasy
about his commitment to the task.
My discomfort level is increased by Mr. Bolton's questioning of
whether treaties are even binding. He wrote:
[W]hile treaties may well be politically or even morally
binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not
``law'' as we apprehend the term.
Similarly, Mr. Bolton once testified to Congress--recently; as a
matter of fact, in the last several years--that treaties are
``political'' and ``not legally binding, to the extent that they
purport to affect relations among national governments.''
In response to a written question, he stated the matter a bit
differently, saying, ``I believe that treaties bind the United
States,'' which I have difficulty, quite frankly, squaring with his
previous writings.
If confirmed, Mr. Bolton would supervise some of the most important
treaty obligations. I find Mr. Bolton's views on those issues relating
to treaty obligations very troubling--very troubling.
I am also concerned about Mr. Bolton's limited experience in arms
control. By law, the Under Secretary is the senior assistant to the
Secretary of State in matters ``related to international security
policy, arms control, and non-proliferation.''
As a matter of fact, in the reorganization effort spurred and led by
my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, we moved
this position into the State Department. It used to sit outside the
State Department. This was supposed to be--and is supposed to be--the
primary person promoting arms control.
I note, parenthetically, I have always had difficulty voting for
nominees who hold views that are antithetical to or at odds with the
responsibilities they have. I voted against, for example, fine men who
were nominated to be Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan
administration when they were insufficiently committed to the
environment. So I didn't want to be a party to putting someone in a
position whose avowed purpose was the President's, which was
antithetical to the purpose of the organization.
I am also concerned about his limited experience, as I said. Mr.
Bolton does have foreign policy experience, though--I do not think we
should underestimate that--at the Agency for International Development
and as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. He
has held those posts.
In the State Department, he did gain some experience in arms control,
working on issues related to the International Atomic Energy Agency and
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, but these
activities were hardly a major part of his duties.
In the last 8 years, Mr. Bolton has written extensively on foreign
policy, but he wrote very little about arms control. That is not a bad
thing, but it still leaves us with a person with little experience in
the arms control field, to which many of our senior people devote their
entire careers.
Chairman Helms has cited a letter from former Directors of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency in support of Mr. Bolton. The signatory
of that letter most recently in the arms control job is a man named Ron
Lehman. I wish we had someone of Mr. Lehman's experience before us.
I might add, Mr. Bolton is just as bright. This is a fellow who is a
Yale undergraduate, went to Yale Law School, and is an extremely bright
fellow. But he does not have Mr. Lehman's experience.
When Mr. Lehman was nominated in 1989, he had already held three jobs
with firsthand arms control experience before he was nominated. He was
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, where
he dealt with U.S. nuclear policy, arms control, space policy, and
technology transfer controls. He was the chief U.S. negotiator on
strategic nuclear arms; that is, the START talks. And he was the Senior
Director at the National Security Council for Defense Programs and Arms
Control. This man came with an incredible amount of experience. In
short, Mr. Lehman was literally steeped in arms control.
On other foreign policy issues, Mr. Bolton has been outside the
mainstream. He has called for diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, a
position at odds with three decades of American diplomacy--and contrary
to the position of this administration.
[[Page S4458]]
Mr. Bolton once wrote that the wars in Kosovo and Chechnya involved
``no tangible national interest.'' In the committee hearing, he changed
his tune a bit, saying that there was no vital national interest in the
Balkans.
Nonetheless, I am concerned that Mr. Bolton's consistent criticism of
the NATO action in Kosovo indicates a lack of commitment to the
stability of Southeastern Europe--a position I find unacceptable for
the person who would supervise security assistance programs to the
region.
I am concerned, finally, about Mr. Bolton's diplomatic temperament
for this position, which involves the management of complex
negotiations in a wide range of arms control and non-proliferation
issues. Stated another way: It takes the patience of Job. I am not sure
how good I would be in the position. These are sensitive and difficult
negotiations. Mr. Bolton's penchant for inflammatory rhetoric gives me
pause about his ability to handle this task.
Following defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Mr. Bolton
heaped scorn on proponents of the Treaty--I don't take that
personally--who expressed concerns that its defeat marked an
isolationist turn for the United States and might lead to accelerated
nuclear proliferation.
He wrote that such fears are ``indications of a profoundly misguided
and potentially dangerous philosophy in American foreign policy,'' and
said that such analysis is ``timid and neo-pacifist.'' He has a right
to say that, but it is not the language of or temperament of people who
have been in that position. Well, this senator expressed those fears,
as did some of my colleagues.
Mr. Bolton once said that ``Republicans are adults on foreign policy
questions, and we define what we're willing to do militarily and
politically by what is in the best interests of the United States.'' Is
he seriously implying that Democrats are not adults on foreign policy
questions and do not worry about the best interests of the United
States?
What does that suggest about his ability to work with Democratic
Senators?
This kind of inflamed rhetoric is what we might expect on talk radio,
but we do not expect to hear it in diplomatic rooms of the Department
of State.
I believe Mr. Bolton is a capable person. I respect his intellect and
his willingness to serve. But I think he is the wrong person for this
job.
The job of Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security is a critical one--its incumbent has the lead responsibility
in the State Department on arms control and non-proliferation. I do not
believe Mr. Bolton has the vision or the experience necessary for this
position.
One final thing that concerns me about Mr. Bolton is his lack of
enthusiasm for the proposal put forward by former Senator Baker, the
majority leader, Mr. Cutler, a top lawyer in Democratic
administrations, a bipartisan group, saying the most dangerous threat
we face is loose nukes in the Soviet Union. They predicted that there
is an incredibly greater likelihood there would be a nuclear, chemical,
or biological weapon used in the United States as a consequence of the
inadequacy of the Russian system protecting those systems than there
was from anything else that could happen and suggested a robust
investment in our policy to deal with nonproliferation issues,
particularly as they stem from the disorganization combined with the
incredible array of weaponry lying around Russia.
In the questioning, particularly by our colleague from Florida, it
became pretty clear that Mr. Bolton does not share that sense of
urgency at all. He is in charge of the nonproliferation side, the man
who will be advising the Secretary of State.
For all those reasons, I reluctantly cast my vote against Mr. Bolton.
As I said, we have been on opposite sides of issues, he and I, for a
long time. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he was the
main man pushing nominations for the Administration. We were butting
heads all the time. I learned to respect his intelligence, I learned to
respect his drive, and I learned to respect how tough he was. It is not
that I don't know Mr. Bolton. I know him in that capacity. This is a
different capacity. It requires a different temperament and a different
attitude in order to promote what I believe to be the single most
important job for someone carrying this portfolio within the State
Department.
I urge my colleagues to vote no, although I must tell the Senate, I
have done no whipping. I have not checked in terms of who is where on
any of these votes. I want to make it clear why I am voting no on this
nomination.
I thank the Chair. I see my friend and chairman is prepared to speak.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to deliver my remarks seated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank my distinguished friend, Joe Biden, for the depth
of his explanation.
Mr. President, I feel obliged to say at the outset that of all the
talented and well-qualified nominees whom President Bush has selected
for senior foreign policy positions in his administration, John Bolton,
in my judgment, emerges as one of the best and the wisest. He is a
patriot, a brilliant thinker, and a talented writer. But most
important, John Bolton has the courage of his convictions. He says what
he means he means what he says, and he says it well, which is precisely
what is needed at the State Department.
Mr. Bolton comes to this position at a crucial time because he will
confront many security issues, not the least of which is President
Bush's pledge to build and deploy a missile defense system. Proceeding
with that plan will require close consultation with our allies and much
hand holding with Russia. John Bolton's extensive experience in
building international support for U.S. positions--remember his service
as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations--will
serve him and the country well.
John Bolton comes with high recommendations and endorsements of some
of the Nation's most distinguished foreign policy experts. Four former
Directors of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have written to
endorse John Bolton. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. HELMS. I also have at hand a letter written and signed by former
Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, and Larry Eagleburger,
among others, urging John Bolton's confirmation by the Senate. I ask
unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
April 24, 2001.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: We support the nomination of John Bolton
to serve as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security, and hope that the Senate will move
rapidly to confirm him for that position. John is
knowledgeable, intelligent, experienced, and is clearly well
qualified. In prior government positions as Assistant
Secretary of State and Assistant Attorney General, he has
acquitted himself well and served our country admirably. He
will do no less as Under Secretary for Arms Control.
We are strong supporters of the proposition that a
President should have the right to choose his senior advisors
and is entitled to surround himself with those who share his
beliefs. We well understand that some may not agree with the
President's position on various matters or with certain views
that John has expressed over the years. But we must observe
that all Administration appointees are expected to advocate
the policies of the President, regardless of their own
personal views.
John has been a thoughtful scholar and also a prolific
writer, and contributed significantly to our national-
security policy debate. We, ourselves, are periodic
contributors to newspapers and journals. Such writing affords
authors a precious opportunity to take strong positions on
issues, and to promote an open and free discussion with other
scholars and practitioners. If anything we need more such
debate, and more original analysts in government, not fewer.
Neither this President nor future Presidents should be
deprived of the services of men and
[[Page S4459]]
women of conviction, who are prepared to test their views in
the marketplace of ideas.
We believe it essential for the Senate to conform rapidly
the President's national security team. There is much
important work to be done, and we believe that the nation is
best served by an Administration that is fully staffed as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
David Abshire, James A. Baker III, Richard Allen, Frank
Carlucci, Lawrence Eagleburger, Henry A. Kissinger,
Caspar Weinberger, Max M. Kampelman, Helmut
Sonnenfeldt, James Woolsey.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, isn't it significant that so many of our
Nation's leading and senior foreign policy experts declare in writing
and otherwise that John Bolton is eminently qualified for the
responsibilities for which the President has nominated him? Of course,
the issue is not Mr. Bolton's arms control expertise. The issue here is
that some Senators oppose President Bush's policy on various matters
and particularly the one involving missile defense. I also suspect that
there are some Senators who just don't like the fact that the
administration has put forward the nomination of a fine American who
will very capably implement President George Bush's policy.
The distinguished ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Biden, who is my friend and with whom I work closely
and pleasantly, put it honestly and forthrightly when he said to John
Bolton during John's nomination hearing:
This is not about your competence. My problem with you over
the years has been that you are too competent. I would rather
that you be stupid and not very effective.
Neither of which, I say to my distinguished colleague, John Bolton
will ever, ever be.
I respectfully suggest that Senators should not be in the business of
rejecting nominees because they are too competent for the job, but I
commend Senator Biden for his clarity and honesty, as always.
I understand the opposition of some Senators to various
administration policies, but I do hope my colleagues will give careful
consideration to the views of the Anti-Defamation League and other
nonprofit organizations which have written their support for John
Bolton's nomination.
Again, I ask unanimous consent that letters, such as the letter from
the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, which can
hardly be regarded as conservative organizations, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai B'rith,
New York, NY, April 16, 2001.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: We are writing in support of the
nomination of John Bolton as Undersecretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security.
During his tenure as Assistant Secretary of state for
International Organizations, Mr. Bolton played a leading role
in the successful 1991 US effort to repeal the infamous
``Zionism-is-racism'' resolution.
While there may be some policy areas where we will differ,
John Bolton has demonstrated both the commitment and
integrity to advance United States interests.
Sincerely,
Abraham H. Foxman,
National Director.
____
The Cuban American
National Foundation,
Washington, DC, April 25, 2001.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 450 Dirksen
SOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: I would like to offer my strongest
possible endorsement on behalf of John Bolton for
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs.
Over the years, Mr. Bolton has been a champion of freedom
worldwide and a passionate defender of U.S. interests around
the globe. His past experience in senior-level positions at
the State and Justice Departments, AID, and the International
Religious Freedom Commission make him uniquely qualified for
such an important position.
In the case of Cuba, Mr. Bolton has consistently revealed a
keen understanding of the true nature of the Castro regime
and has forcefully rejected the current siren song that U.S.
trade will magically moderate the Cuban dictator's behavior.
His nomination is of particular interest to us in several
other ways as well. Sober analysts talk of the continuing
international security threat Castro's Cuba poses to U.S.
interests, specifically in the non-conventional
``asymmetrical'' sphere. For many years, we have been
concerned with Castro's involvement in the development of
chemical and biological weapons. This is of particular
interest to us as residents of South Florida, where we are
within easy reach of Castro's capabilities to cause great
harm.
We are also increasingly troubled by the growing presence
of Communist China in Cuba. It is quite obvious that China is
developing that presence to use as leverage against the U.S.
in its support for democratic Taiwan, as well as to serve as
a strategic base to make diplomatic and intelligence inroads
all over this hemisphere.
These troubling developments demand a man like John Bolton,
a man who sees the world as it really is rather than the way
he wishes it to be. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate
our strongest support for John Bolton, not only for the
benefit of the freedom-seeking people of Cuba and their
supporters but also for the benefit for the United States of
America as a whole.
Sincerely yours,
Jorge Mas,
Chairman.
____
Washington, DC,
April 13, 2001.
Senator Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, S-230, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: I'm writing in support of the nomination
of John Bolton as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
and International Security.
As Executive Vice President of B'nai B'rith, my
organization and I remain grateful to Mr. Bolton, for his
tireless efforts to seek repeal of the infamous Zionism-
Racism resolution at the United Nations, during his tenure as
Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs.
Supporters of Israel often look at the U.N. with a
jaundiced eye, given the harsh, discriminatory treatment that
country has been subject to over a period of more than five
decades. Nevertheless, many of us understand the important
role that organization can play, once reformed and freed from
the hypocrisy that the Zionism-Racism resolution represented.
We speak as an organization that was invited to San
Francisco to participate in the founding of the U.N. in 1945,
and which, since the late fifties, has maintained a full time
U.N./NGO office in New York, and which is represented at U.N.
bodies in Paris, Geneva, Vienna and Santiago.
I urge the Senate's expeditious support for Mr. Bolton's
nomination.
Sincerely,
Daniel S. Mariaschin.
____
Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 17, 2001.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: It is my pleasure to write you in
support of the confirmation of John Bolton as Under Secretary
of Arms Control and International Security. Mr. Bolton is
greatly admired and respected for his outspoken advocacy of
American interests in foreign affairs. As Assistant Secretary
for International Organizations, John was respected and well
regarded. His resume, as I know you are aware, is highly
impressive, but not as impressive as the man it represents.
We believe that Mr. Bolton will be a tremendous asset to
the Bush administration. He is dedicated and talented, and
his confirmation will enhance American diplomacy.
JINSA is a non-profit non-partisan organization with over
20,000 members throughout the United States who are committed
to a strong National U.S. Security. We have representatives
from all sectors of the community including over 200 American
Admirals and Generals.
Sincerely,
Tom Neumann.
____
The American Jewish Committee,
New York, NY, April 19, 2001.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: I am writing to express my support for the
Honorable John R. Bolton, who has been nominated to serve our
country as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security Affairs.
It was my privilege to have worked closely with Mr. Bolton
from 1989 to 1993, when he served in the Bush Administration
as Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs.
We shared a strong interest in the United Nations and a
profound concern that, as a result of the actions of some
member states, the world body was being diverted from its
central mission.
In the same spirit, Mr. Bolton believed that the adoption,
in 1975, by the United Nations General Assembly of Resolution
3379, the odious resolution equating Zionism with racism, was
a stain on the institution itself that could not be left
standing, even though the repeal of resolutions was
essentially unheard of in the annals of the U.N.
To the everlasting credit of Mr. Bolton, he spearheaded a
successful American-led effort to repeal Resolution 3379. It
took years of patient planning, extraordinary persistence,
and remarkable diplomatic savoir-faire, and it was finally
accomplished in 1991. The lion's share of the credit for this
political
[[Page S4460]]
and moral triumph goes to Mr. Bolton. As a result of his
efforts, to many of us who care deeply about the integrity of
the United Nations he has achieved legendary status.
I have stayed in touch with Mr. Bolton since he left
government service. Indeed, we have worked collaboratively
under the auspices of United Nations Watch, a non-profit
watchdog agency established by the late Ambassador Morris B.
Abram, who served the United States with distinction under
five American presidents. At UN Watch, Mr. Bolton, who has
been an active board member, has once again demonstrated his
passionate commitment to a fair and just United Nations and
to a strong and effective American leadership role in
international affairs.
From my experience, I can say without hesitation that Mr.
Bolton is an individual of keen intellect with a profound
understanding of foreign policy, strong principles, and deep
commitment to advancement of democracy and human rights.
I wish to thank you for your consideration of these views.
Should you require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to be in touch.
Respectfully,
David A. Harris.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, these groups support John Bolton because of
his political views, because of his political expertise, and because
of, yes, his personal moral principles.
John Bolton is precisely the kind of citizen the United States
desperately needs in this difficult time to have an important role in
the protection of the American people from the threat of missile
attack. This man is a thoughtful scholar and an accomplished diplomat
and an honest and decent man. I urge that the Senate confirm his
nomination without further delay.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
March 14, 2001.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, SD-450, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are pleased that you have scheduled a
hearing date on President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to
serve as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security. We strongly support the President's selection of
John Bolton for this important position.
As former Directors of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, we believe John Bolton is eminently qualified to
serve as Under Secretary. He brings a wealth of knowledge to
the position as an expert in international law and a great
deal of relevant practical experience as a former Assistant
Secretary of State for International Organizations.
He has acquired a great deal of experience with
multinational organizations which have gained in importance
for arms control and disarmament, relative to the bilateral
forums that dominated the evolution of arms control during
the Cold War. Also, he is well suited to work with regional
organizations that are pursuing arms control agendas, such as
the Organization of American States (which deals with the
convention on illicit weapons trafficking). His prior
services as Assistant Secretary of State also acquainted him
with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the then
emerging structure of the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons.
As an experienced international lawyer, John Bolton is
superbly qualified to guide the US participation in the
negotiations of complex international treaties and in making
best use of these treaties for the intended arms control
purposes. This is of key importance for the continuing
struggle to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and to deal with the current proliferation
problems regarding Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and other
nations.
Iraq may well be the most difficult case at this time. It
is a fortunate coincidence that John Bolton was deeply
involved in the formation of UNSCOM and the adoption of UN
Security Council Resolutions designed to reveres Saddam's
weapons programs. This expertise is greatly needed now as the
Bush Administration seeks to restore the badly eroded
international support for maintaining sanctions.
Mr. Chairman, we can recommend John Bolton to the Committee
without reservation. He has a thorough knowledge of the most
pressing arms control and nonproliferation issues of the day,
and we hope that the Foreign Relations Committee will
unanimously support his nomination.
Sincerely,
Kennth L. Adelman,
Fred C. Ikle,
Distinguished Scholar, Center for Strategic & International
Studies.
Ronald F. Lehman,
Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory.
____
John D. Holum,
Annapolis, MD, April 11, 2001.
Hon. Jesse Helms, Chairman,
Hon. Joe Biden, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Helms and Biden: I know that the Committee is
considering President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton to
be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security, the position I held during the latter
days of the Clinton Administration. I congratulate you for
having conducted timely hearings on his nomination. I hope
the Committee will also move expeditiously to a vote, and not
allow the confirmation to be delayed over matters unrelated
to Mr. Bolton's fitness for office and qualifications for
this assignment.
No doubt Mr. Bolton and I will find many areas of
substantive disagreement. However, the most relevant point
bearing on his confirmation is that he has the confidence of
the President of the United States and the Secretary of
State. Moreover, he has been nominated for a position with
vital responsibilities bearing on our national security,
including advancing our efforts against the spread of weapons
of mass destruction, leadership in formulating and
articulating U.S. arms control policy, assessing compliance
with arms control agreements, and overseeing security
assistance and munitions exports controls. He also faces the
task of fulfilling the potential of our reorganization of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency into the Department of
State, and keeping arms control and nonproliferation central
to the Department's mission.
So long as the Under Secretary position is not filled, the
Department's capacity in these areas will be diminished, and
the Administration's ability to advance U.S. interests in the
world, including in the vast majority of matters on which we
can all agree, will be lessened. Therefore, I strongly
encourage the Committee and the full Senate to act without
delay on John Bolton's nomination.
With thanks for your consideration, I am,
Sincerely,
John Holum.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Bolton nomination.
Mr. HELMS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
All time has expired. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security?
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Ex.]
YEAS--57
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The nomination was confirmed.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to point out to the
leadership and to the Members, this vote
[[Page S4461]]
took 35 minutes. Many of us have hearings on the budget. We have
nominees for various Secretary positions waiting. I think it is
unreasonable to have a 35-minute vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________