[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 94 (Monday, July 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7327-S7329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT
WEAPONS IN ALL ITS ASPECTS
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today in New York the United Nations
convened the conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light
Weapons in All its Aspects, the first effort by the U.N. to address the
pressing issue of small arms trafficking.
The mass proliferation of small arms--shoulder-mounted missiles,
assault weapons, grenade launchers, high-powered sniper rifles and
other tools of death--is fueling civil wars, terrorism and the
international drug trade throughout the world.
The grimmest figures come from developing countries where light,
cheap and easy to use small arms and light weapons, such as AK-47s and
similar military assault rifles, have become the weapons of choice of
narco-traffickers, terrorists and insurgents.
The problem is staggering: An estimated 500 million illicit small
arms and light weapons are in circulation around the globe, and in the
past decade four million people have been killed by them in civil war
and bloody fighting.
Nine out of 10 of these deaths are attributed to small arms and light
weapons. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross,
more than 50 percent of those killed are believed to be civilians.
Starting today, the United Nations will host a conference on the
Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects. At
this conference, the U.N., for the first time, will seek to devise
international standards and procedures for curtailing small arms
trafficking. It is an issue of extreme importance to the United States.
Not only because of the violence and devastation itself, but because of
the threat these weapons pose to our political, economic and security
interests.
The volume of weaponry has fueled cycles of violence and been a major
factor in the devastation witnessed in recent conflicts in Africa, the
Balkans, and South Asia, among other places. These conflicts undermine
regional stability and endanger the spread of democracy and free-
markets around the world. Here are a few examples.
In Mexico a lethal flow of guns south from the United States has fed
that nation's drug war. Hundreds of thousands of weapons over the last
decade have flooded into Mexico from the United States. Authorities
recently traced a sale of 80 Chinese assault weapons from a San Diego
gunshop to a Tijuana weapons dealer for $27,000. Many of these ended up
in the hands of the Arellano Felix drug cartel and are believed
responsible for at least 21 deaths, including two infants, six children
and a pregnant 17- year-old girl shot and killed during a mass murder
at Rancho el Rodeo in September 1998.
In Albania more than 650,000 weapons and 20,000 tons of explosives
disappeared from government depots in the three years leading up to the
outbreak of violence in the Balkans, according to the U.N. The
continued presence of the weapons poses a very real threat to NATO and
U.S. peacekeepers in the region.
And in Colombia, the continued instability is in part due to the
torrential flow of rifles and pistols to rebel groups and drug gangs
who have used the imported weapons to murder judges, journalists,
police officers, as well as innocent passers-by.
The increased access by terrorists, guerrilla groups, criminals, and
others to small arms and light weapons puts in jeopardy U.S. law
enforcement efforts, business people based or traveling overseas, and
even U.S. tourists.
In approaching the United Nations Conference, it is critical that the
U.S. government negotiate and support making the trafficking of small
arms traceable and eliminate the secrecy that permits thousands of
weapons to fuel crime and war without anyone's knowledge of their
source.
It is my hope the United Nations will move to create international
procedures to control the proliferation of small arms and light
weapons. The United States has some of the strongest arms export
controls in the world, and it is in the U.S. interest to see that those
standards are equaled by the world community.
[[Page S7328]]
In addition, the United States has a moral responsibility to push for
the development of measures that stop weapons from winding up in the
hands of abusive government forces, terrorists and drug-traffickers.
Specifically, the U.S. Government should champion a conference
program of action that mandates countries' early negotiations on
legally binding procedures: a Framework Convention on International
Arms Transfers that sets out export criteria based on countries'
current obligations under international law; and an International
Agreement on Marking and Tracing that develops systems for adequate and
reliable marking of arms at manufacture and import and record-keeping
on arms production, possession and transfer.
The Program of Action must also include the establishment of regional
and international transparency mechanisms and concrete steps to achieve
improved implementation and enforcement of arms embargoes.
United States leadership should ensure that the conference is the
first step, not the last, in the international community's efforts to
control the spread of small arms and light weapons.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, several people who opposed the
nomination of Theodore B. Olson to be Solicitor General made charges
that contained serious factual errors. These are not, I believe,
debatable questions of interpretation when the facts are carefully
examined. We have had our bipartisan investigation and hearing, and we
have confirmed Mr. Olson, and we should move on; but we owe it to Mr.
Olson, to future nominees, and to the Senate as an institution to make
sure that the record is correct.
Before turning to some specific errors, I want to emphasize that Mr.
Olson responded to all of the committee's questions. Mr. Olson is one
of the Nation's most talented lawyers and most dedicated public
servants. He completed our questionnaire; he answered the questions
asked at the hearing; he responded to more than one hundred written
follow-up questions; and he repeatedly offered to meet with any Senator
who had any further questions. He was clear, he was candid, he was
responsive. Indeed, every thing that critics suggest Mr. Olson tried to
hide, Mr. Olson in fact volunteered to the Committee, either in his
response to the committee's questionnaire or in his responses to our
questions.
One inaccurate claim was that Mr. Olson engaged in word games in his
answers about the American Spectator's ``Arkansas Project.'' In fact,
at the committee hearing, it was clear that the committee and Mr. Olson
had a shared understanding of that phrase, and Mr. Olson's answers
expressly responded within that framework. The questions specifically
characterized the ``Arkansas Project'' as involving only the project
pursuant to which ``Richard Mellon Scaife funneled money through the
American Spectator'' to investigate the Clintons. Those were the words
used in the question, and Mr. Olson adopted those words in his answers.
There is no indication that any Senator, or Mr. Olson, intended the
term ``Arkansas Project'' to refer to anything other than the Scaife-
funded journalistic efforts to investigate the Clintons' history in
Arkansas.
Thus, there were no word games by Mr. Olson. It is Mr. Olson's
critics who played word games, by retroactively changing the meaning of
the ``Arkansas Project'' to embrace essentially every Clinton-related
article published or even considered by the American Spectator magazine
in the 1990s. That was not the way the committee or Mr. Olson used that
term at the hearing, and it is wrong and unfair to suggest otherwise.
At the very least, if any Senator was somehow personally uncertain
what Mr. Olson intended when he was answering questions concerning the
``Arkansas Project,'' that Senator could have followed up at the
hearing. No Senator did.
Second, some have argued that Mr. Olson improperly attempted to
minimize his role in the so-called ``Arkansas Project'' during his
confirmation hearing. The charges include allegations that only
belatedly did Mr. Olson ``admit'' that he and his firm provided legal
services to the American Spectator, that he had discussions in social
settings with those working on Arkansas Project matters, and that he
himself authored articles for the magazine paid for out of the special
Richard Mellon Scaife fund.
Each of these allegations, however, is contradicted by the factual
record. Mr. Olson consistently stated that he and others at his law
firm performed legal services for the American Spectator beginning in
1994, that they billed the magazine for those services at their normal
market rates, and that the magazine paid them only for the legal
services actually performed. Indeed, that Mr. Olson's firm provided
legal services to the American Spectator has been widely known and a
matter of public record for several years. It is not something that he
``admitted'' under close questioning. Those legal services--involving
such things as book contracts and employee disputes--were not ``in
connection with'' the ``Arkansas Project,'' and any suggestion to the
contrary, based on the record as I know it, is wrong as a matter of
fact.
As for Mr. Olson's presence in social settings with individuals
associated with the ``Arkansas Project,'' the questions were asked and
Mr. Olson never made any attempt to conceal or minimize his attendance
at those social events. He stated that he was unaware of any
discussions at those events concerning the Scaife-funded efforts to
investigate Clinton scandals, and no one has contradicted that
testimony. Indeed, every knowledgeable individual--including one of Mr.
Olson's chief critics--has confirmed that testimony. I also understand
that journalists employed by other magazines and newspapers--
competitors of the American Spectator--and a wide range of other
persons also attended those social events. Thus, they also had
discussions ``in social settings'' with those working on Arkansas
Project matters, but no responsible person would assert that their
attendance at those events made them participants in the American
Spectator's ``Arkansas Project.''
Mr. Olson also testified during his hearing about his authorship and
co-authorship of several articles critical of the Clintons and other
public officials. Indeed, he voluntarily provided copies of those
American Spectator articles to the Judiciary Committee in his response
to the committee's standard questionnaire, well in advance of his
confirmation hearing. It is simply not correct, as a matter of fact, to
suggest that he only ``admitted'' his authorship of the articles after
the committee hearing.
As to the American Spectator's internal bookkeeping for its payments
to Mr. Olson or his law firm, it seems plain that Mr. Olson had no way
of knowing how the Spectator categorized those payments for its own
purposes, any more than taxpayers will know from the face of the check
to what internal account the Government will charge the rebate checks
flowing from President Bush's tax cut. Mr. Olson said that he never
even saw the checks which were sent to his law firm's headquarters in
Los Angeles in payment of routine client billings. All of this is in
the record.
There was no ``expansion'' or change in Mr. Olson's testimony on the
foregoing points over the last several weeks. It is similarly
inaccurate to say, as some critics do, that Mr. Olson ``modified'' his
answers, ``changed'' his recollections, or ``conceded'' additional
knowledge. To a remarkable degree, Mr. Olson has clearly and
consistently answered the questions we asked him. His testimony,
moreover, has been fully confirmed by the individuals most closely
associated with the ``Arkansas Project,'' including the editor-in-
chief, editor, and publisher of the American Spectator magazine during
the relevant time period, as well as the three individuals who
primarily performed the investigative journalism funded by the
``Arkansas Project.'' Each of these individuals stepped forward
voluntarily to confirm the accuracy of Mr. Olson's testimony. Indeed,
there is no one with percipient knowledge of these events who has
contradicted Mr. Olson.
Third, some mistakenly attempt to create a conflict in Mr. Olson's
testimony by confusing the amounts he was paid for writing articles for
the American Spectator with the very different amounts that Mr. Olson's
law firm received for providing legal services to the American
Spectator over a span of
[[Page S7329]]
many years. Mr. Olson told the Senate that he was paid from $500 to
$1,000 for his articles that appeared in the American Spectator
magazine, whereas his firm received $94,405 for legal services.
The attempt to create a conflict on this issue requires mixing apples
with oranges. There were two different types of payments, for different
types of services. In his April 19 answers, Mr. Olson explained that in
addition to the $500 to $1,000 fees he received for the articles, his
law firm ``has received payments for legal services rendered to the
[American Spectator] Foundation from time to time, by me and by others
at the firm, at our normal market rates.'' Given that those legal fees
were for legal services provided to the magazine over a period of more
than 5 years, involving the work of several attorneys, the $94,405
figure is in no way surprising. More significantly, Mr. Olson at all
times distinguished between the firm's legal fees, and the separate,
comparatively modest amounts he received personally for writing
articles for the magazine. It is, again, a factual mistake to suggest
that he ever sought to confuse those two amounts.
Fourth, some have criticized Mr. Olson for allegedly refusing to
respond to an allegation about American Spectator dinner parties. I
question whether the Senate should even get into this issue of who
attended what dinner parties, given the absence of any serious issue
here, and the freedom of speech and press values inherent in a
magazine's activities. But this particular allegation was dubious and
made by a source who publicly contradicted himself on this very
allegation. The allegation appeared only in the pages of the Washington
Post. No Senator asked Mr. Olson about that particular allegation, and
we have never imposed on nominees of either party an obligation to
track down and respond to every far-fetched or baseless charge that
might find its way into print. Moreover, one member of the committee
did make an inquiry about Mr. Olson's social contacts with employees of
the American Spectator and Mr. Olson fully answered that question in
writing. So it is factually incorrect to state that he refused to
respond to that question.
Fifth, Mr. Olson's statement that his legal services for the American
Spectator magazine were not for the purpose of conducting
investigations of the Clintons is allegedly contradicted by the fact
that Mr. Olson's firm was compensated for legal research to prepare a
chart outlining the Clintons' criminal exposure, as research for a
February 1994 article Mr. Olson co-authored entitled, `Criminal Laws
Implicated by the Clinton Scandals: A Partial List.' This charge again
is contradicted by record facts. The 1994 engagement letter for Mr.
Olson's professional services expressly provided that Mr. Olson and his
firm were not engaged ``to do any independent factual research.'' In
fact, there is nothing in the public record to suggest that Mr. Olson's
work in connection with that article, or for the magazine at any time,
involved factual investigation of the Clintons. Comparing the publicly-
available applicable Federal criminal code provisions, to publicly-
available newspaper stories concerning allegations regarding the
Clintons, cannot be described as an ``investigation'' of the Clintons.
While there were other factual inaccuracies in the attacks on Mr.
Olson, this list demonstrates that the concerns raised regarding Mr.
Olson's candor before the Judiciary Committee were unjustified.
It is particularly noteworthy that Robert Bennett, one of the most
notable lawyers in this country and counsel to then-President Clinton,
rejected the claim that Mr. Olson was less than candid in his responses
to the Senate Judiciary Committee. More than almost any other person,
he knows that facts of the Clinton matters. During an interview with
Wolf Blitzer on CNN on May 22, Mr. Bennett stated: ``I have recently
read [Mr. Olson's] responses to the Senate, and I have looked at a lot
of the material, and if I were voting, I would say that Ted Olson was
more than candid with the Senate.'' Mr. Bennett is independent; he had
no partisan axe to grind in favor of Mr. Olson in connection with this
nomination; he, in fact, was a lead counsel for President Clinton for
several years; he was not maneuvering for advantage in future
nomination battles; he is a lawyer experienced in weighing evidence and
cross-examining witnesses; he looked at the evidence; and his
conclusion that these allegations are ill-founded is worthy of our
respect.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Bennett. I too have reviewed Mr.
Olson's statements before the committee regarding his role in the
``Arkansas Project,'' and I find Mr. Olson's statements to be clear and
accurate.
The Washington Post editorial board also shares this view. On May 18,
after all of the questions regarding the ``Arkansas Project'' had been
raised, the Washington Post endorsed Mr. Olson's nomination to be
Solicitor General, noting ``Mr. Olson is one of Washington's most
talented and successful appellate lawyers, a man who served with
distinction in the Justice Department during the 1980s and whose work
is widely admired across party lines.'' According to the Washington
Post, ``Mr. Olson's prior service at the Justice Department indicates
that he understands the difference between the roles of private citizen
and public servant.'' As for Mr. Olson's testimony regarding his role
in the ``Arkansas Project,'' the Washington Post concluded that
``there's no evidence that his testimony was inaccurate in any
significant way,'' and that ``the Democrats would be wrong to block Mr.
Olson.'' [Emphasis added.]
The Senate thus far has not done a good job of reviewing President
Bush's nominees, and in many cases has made upstanding individuals the
victims of partisan attacks. The deeply partisan vote over the
Solicitor Generalship was a low point. I strongly believe that every
nominee deserves fairness in this process and a full chance to get his
or her position into the record and considered. It is not right to
leave the record incomplete. I hope that, by setting the record
straight, the Senate can move on and treat future nominees more fairly.
____________________