[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4859-S4862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              JOHN BOLTON

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there have been a lot of complaints 
lately over John Bolton, the President's nominee to be United States 
Ambassador to the United Nations.
  Mr. Bolton is an excellent choice for this position, as both his 
experience and leadership qualities prove. He graduated from Yale Law 
School, joined a prestigious firm, one of the country's great law 
firms, Covington & Burling. He worked there until 1981. He began his 
career in public service at the U.S. Agency for International 
Development, first as general counsel, then as assistant administrator 
for program and policy coordination. This was good training for him for 
his potential future role with the U.N.
  From 1985 to 1989, he was an assistant attorney general in the U.S. 
Department of Justice. I got to know him at that time because I was a 
U.S. attorney in Alabama when he served in the Department of Justice in 
the prestigious office of legal counsel. From 1989 to 1993, he was 
again involved in international organizational issues when he served as 
Assistant Secretary of State for international organizational affairs. 
Mr. Bolton was confirmed by the Senate for both of those positions.
  From 1993 to 1999, he was again in private practice, as a partner 
with the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton, and McManus. In 2001, he 
became Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International 
Security. I believe he was confirmed once again in that position by the 
Senate.
  This was excellent experience for him. He dealt with issues relating 
to world security. Some say Mr. Bolton does not believe in the United 
Nations, multilateralism, and diplomacy. That statement is false.
  The President of the United States recently stated in a television 
interview that he asked Bolton if he supported the U.N. before he, the 
President, agreed to nominate him. Mr. Bolton answered that he did. 
Despite what others have been alleging, the facts show--and Mr. Bolton 
has proven time and again--that he believes in the U.N. That is why he 
has been such an effective advocate for honest diplomacy and an 
effective U.N.
  For example, he was a pioneer in helping to construct the G-8 global 
partnership to help keep secure dangerous technologies and materials, 
and to help stop the spread of dangerous weapons throughout the world. 
This global initiative will provide $20 billion through 2012 to achieve 
these goals of making the world a safer place, by working with other 
nations.
  Mr. Bolton was the President's point man in designing the 
Proliferation Security Initiative, the PSI. Over 60 nations are now 
working together, coordinated by John Bolton, to share intelligence, 
and are taking action to stop the transfer of dangerous weapons 
throughout the world. He has even done pro bono work for the U.N. in 
Africa, giving of his time for free to help those in need.
  He also worked closely and effectively with the U.N. when he served 
as Assistant Secretary of State in the State Department for 
International Organizations, from 1989 to 1992.
  He has been instrumental in galvanizing U.N. agencies such as the 
IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to take concrete steps to 
actually make the world safer from weapons of mass destruction--not 
just to talk about it, but to do something about it. Isn't that 
effective multilateral leadership? I certainly think so.
  He was the driving force in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 
to get countries to take meaningful steps to stop the spread of 
dangerous weapons.
  He has clearly been instrumental in both diplomacy and 
multilateralism and has proven to be an advocate of a United Nations 
that fulfills its potential, its calling, to make the world safer, and 
to help people throughout the world develop to their fullest.
  He will not, however, be an enabler of a dysfunctional U.N. John 
Bolton has supported reform within the U.N. to help make it a better 
organization. This reform effort should not be misconstrued as 
opposition to the U.N. but, rather, as constructive and effective 
criticism. When parents discipline their children, it is not because 
they don't support them or believe in them. In fact, it is exactly the 
opposite. Good parents set guidelines and high standards for their 
children to guide them in life and to make them more responsible 
adults. If you love your children, you want them to reach their highest 
and best potential. That is exactly what John Bolton has done with the 
U.N.
  He has not come out against the U.N. He has not vehemently opposed 
the U.N., as some of my colleagues would have you believe. He has 
worked within the system to advocate reform in an effort to better the 
organization, to ensure that U.N. programs achieve their intended 
purpose.
  Under Bolton's leadership at the United Nations, when he served as 
Assistant Secretary of State in the administration of the elder George 
Bush, the U.N. General Assembly repealed, by a vote of 111 to 25, a 
resolution that described Zionism as a form of racism. Resolution 3379 
originally passed in 1975--72 votes for, 35 against--decreeing that 
Zionism was a form of racism. Sixty-seven percent of the nations at 
that time voted for it. It was widely recognized as a sad day for the 
U.N. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described Bolton as the 
``principal architect'' of the 1991 reversal of that resolution. Bolton 
recently referred to resolution 3379 as ``the greatest stain on the 
U.N.'s reputation'' and called its reversal ``one highlight of my 
professional career.''
  Thomas M. Boyd, a fine former official in the Department of Justice 
who

[[Page S4860]]

was Mr. Bolton's deputy when he was Assistant Attorney General in the 
U.S. Department of Justice, described the situation this way in a 
recent editorial in the Boston Globe:

       Starting in the summer of 1991 and continuing well into the 
     early fall, Bolton arrived at his office early each morning 
     and began calling ambassadors around the world, as well as 
     here in Washington, one by one, each time using his keen mind 
     and reputation for bluntness to their full effect. Citing 
     from memory Senator Moynihan's November 10, 1975, contention 
     that ``the United States declares that it does not 
     acknowledge, and will not abide by, it will never acquiesce 
     in this infamous act,'' Bolton refused to accept their 
     excuses and their schedule conflicts and called repeatedly 
     until he talked on multiple occasions to virtually every 
     ambassador whose country would be called upon to cast a vote. 
     In time, his perseverance began to winnow down the naysayers.

  As a direct result of this effort, the hate-ridden resolution was 
overwhelmingly repealed on December 16, 1991. Let me point out an 
important aspect of this story. As Mr. Boyd noted, many in the State 
Department told him he should not pursue the repeal, that it could not 
be done, and that it wasn't worth the effort. But because John Bolton 
is a man of integrity, conviction, courage, and determination, he 
didn't see it that way. He didn't follow the advice of the professional 
bureaucrats and the State Department officials who said it could not be 
done. Instead, he worked tirelessly to do something that some people 
thought could not be done. He did the right thing, and he should be 
saluted for that. There is, indeed, a strength of character that is to 
be noted here.
  A terrible wrong had been righted with this repeal, and Mr. Bolton 
had not only shown his skill in diplomacy, but his determination to do 
what is right. Isn't that what good diplomacy is? It is not just seeing 
if you can get along and agree with everybody's ideas, but holding 
forth good ideals, good values, fighting for them, and actually winning 
people over to vote for the right thing. That is what good diplomacy 
is, what leadership is--not blindly going along with people's ideas 
whether they are correct or not. He is a good man, a courageous man, 
who will make a tremendous ambassador to the U.N.

  John Bolton realizes the benefits possible to the world through an 
effective U.N., and for that reason he has worked hard to make sure it 
stays a credible organization. You cannot blame him for being concerned 
about the United Nations. I certainly am. With the numerous allegations 
of corruption at the U.N., we need a frank and aggressive ambassador 
leading the American efforts there.
  Last month, the Washington Times reported that two senior 
investigators with the U.N. committee probing corruption in the Oil for 
Food Program have resigned in protest. These investigators believe the 
report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation 
was too soft on the Secretary General.
  The investigators believed the so-called independent inquiry 
committee, which was appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan in April 
of 2004, played down findings critical of Mr. Annan when it released an 
interim report in late March relating to his son. This scandal has only 
gotten more complicated this week as it now seems that one of the 
investigators has turned over potentially incriminating evidence 
against Kofi Annan to a House congressional committee.
  This scandal has been described by some as the greatest scandal in 
the history of the world. Scandals such as these undermine the United 
Nations. They distract it from its intended purpose of promoting 
international peace and security. These scandals and mismanagement 
waste money that could be used for peacekeeping, medical care, economic 
development, and education in poor countries around the world. This 
money might help prevent hostilities, famine, and revolutions that 
disrupt these areas of the globe.
  We need a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. who has both diplomacy and 
tenacity as leadership qualities. Mr. Bolton has both of these 
qualities.
  One of my esteemed colleagues has alleged that Mr. Bolton blocked 
certain information from going to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice. 
There is no basis for this claim. Richard Boucher, the spokesman for 
the State Department, has expressly refuted the allegation, calling it 
``silly'' and stating that ``nothing of that type occurred.''
  Another colleague said Mr. Bolton tried to skew weapons of mass 
destruction intelligence on Iraq, Syria, and Cuba. Again, false.
  In every instance, whether talking about Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction program, Cuba's biological weapons, or Syria's weapons 
program, Mr. Bolton's speeches were cleared by the U.S. intelligence 
community; that is, he submitted his comments to the intelligence 
community for them to review to make sure nothing he said was 
incorrect. They cleared those speeches. There is no evidence whatsoever 
that Mr. Bolton skewed anything. The allocations are false.
  On the contrary, there are scores of highly credible individuals who 
testify to his honesty and excellent candidacy for the position. For 
instance, I have a letter from former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher 
to John Bolton expressing her strong support for Mr. Bolton. It is 
fitting that she should support John Bolton, particularly in light of 
the comments that he is too tough, too outspoken, too frank, too blunt. 
Those same criticisms were made about Lady Thatcher in 1975, earning 
her the nickname the Iron Lady. She embraced that nickname, famously 
asserting:

       If you lead a country like Britain, a strong country, a 
     country which has taken a lead in world affairs in good times 
     and in bad, a country that is always reliable, then you have 
     to have a touch of iron about you.

  She was absolutely right, and the same holds true in this case. If 
our ambassador is going to represent the world's great superpower in 
the United Nations, an organization, unfortunately, that has been 
riddled with corruption and strong opposition by certain members to the 
values we hold dear, he must have a touch of iron about him, and he 
does.
  Say what you will about John Bolton, weakness is not one of his 
weaknesses.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Lady Thatcher be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      May 4, 2005.
     Hon. John R. Bolton,
     Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International 
         Security.
       Dear John: I am writing this letter in order to let you 
     know how strongly I support your nomination as U.S. 
     ambassador to the United Nations. On the basis of our years 
     of friendship, I know from experience the great qualities you 
     will bring to that demanding post.
       To combine, as you do, clarity of thought, courtesy of 
     expression and an unshakable commitment to justice is rare in 
     any walk of life. But it is particularly so in international 
     affairs. A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling 
     half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in 
     diplomacy. Particularly in the case of a great power like 
     America, it is essential that people know where you stand and 
     assume that you mean what you say. With you at the UN, they 
     will do both. Those same qualities are also required for any 
     serious reform of the United Nations itself, without which 
     cooperation between nations to defend and extend liberty will 
     be far more difficult.
       I cannot imagine anyone better fitted to undertake these 
     tasks than you.
       All good wishes,
           Yours ever,
                                                         Margaret.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this letter of April 5, 2005, is signed 
by 13 giants of American diplomacy, including five Secretaries of State 
and two Secretaries of Defense in support of John Bolton. I ask 
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2005.
     Senator Richard G. Lugar, 
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to urge that the Senate act 
     expeditiously to confirm John Bolton as our ambassador to the 
     United Nations. This is a moment when unprecedented 
     turbulence at the United Nations is creating momentum for 
     much needed reform. It is a moment when we must have an 
     ambassador in place whose knowledge, experience, dedication 
     and drive will be vital to protecting the American interest 
     in an effective, forward-looking United Nations.
       In his position as Undersecretary of State, John Bolton has 
     taken the lead in strengthening international community 
     approaches to the daunting problem of the proliferation of 
     nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As a 
     result of his hard work, intellectual as well as operational, 
     the

[[Page S4861]]

     G-8 has supported U.S. proposals to strengthen safeguards and 
     verification at the International Atomic Energy Agency and 
     the Proliferation Security Initiative was launched and 
     established within three months--a world speed record in 
     these complex, multilateral matters. Moreover, Secretary 
     Bolton led the successful effort to complete the negotiation 
     of UN Security Council Resolution 1540, adopted unanimously 
     in April, 2004. UN 1540 called on member states to 
     criminalize the proliferation of WMD--which it declared to be 
     a threat to international peace and security--and to enact 
     strict export controls.
       Secretary Bolton, like the Administration, has his critics, 
     of course. Anyone as energetic and effective as John is bound 
     to encounter those who disagree with some or even all of the 
     Administration's policies. But the policies for which he is 
     sometimes criticized are those of the President and the 
     Department of State which he has served with loyalty, honor 
     and distinction.
       Strong supporters of the United Nations understand the 
     challenges it now faces. With his service as assistant 
     secretary of state for international organizations, where he 
     was instrumental in securing the repeal of the repugnant 
     resolution equating Zionism with racism, and as 
     undersecretary for arms control and international security, 
     we believe John Bolton will bring great skill and energy to 
     meeting those challenges.
           Sincerely yours,
         Hon. David Abshire, former Assistant Secretary of State, 
           Hon. Kenneth Adelman, former Director, Arms Control 
           Disarmament Agency, Hon. Richard Allen, former 
           Assistant to the President for National Security, Hon. 
           James Baker, former Secretary of State, Hon. Frank 
           Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense, Hon. Lawrence 
           Eagleburger, former Secretary of State, Hon. Al Haig, 
           former Secretary of State, Ambassador Max Kampelman, 
           former Ambassador and Head of the U.S. Delegation to 
           the Negotiations with the Soviet Union on Nuclear and 
           Space Arms, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former 
           Ambassador to the United Nations, Hon. Henry Kissinger, 
           former Secretary of State, Hon. James Schlesinger, 
           former Secretary of Defense, Hon. George Shultz, former 
           Secretary of State, Hon. Helmut Sonnenfeldt, former 
           Counselor, Department of State.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for over three decades, John Bolton has 
had an effective working relationship with foreign governments, 
international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the 
private sector. He is a man who gets results. As Secretary Rice said:

       The President has nominated John Bolton because he gets 
     things done.

  That is exactly what we need for the U.N. ambassador. John Bolton is 
the man for the job.
  Mr. President, I am proud to support him, and I do believe his 
nomination will be moving forward this week. I think this Senate should 
promptly move to confirm him in this important position.


                      60th Anniversary of V-E Day

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this past Sunday, the 8th of May, marked 
the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during World War 
II. I have come to the floor today to honor those who served in that 
war and to mention our colleagues who answered the call of duty then.
  When I first came to the Senate, I think more than half of the Senate 
had served in World War II. There are few of us left who served during 
that war, and in the Senate only five: Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, 
Senator Lautenberg, Senator Warner, and myself.
  That war was an enormous effort that involved our Nation's total 
manpower. Sixteen million Americans answered the call to serve, and 
more than 400,000 of them gave what Lincoln once called ``the last full 
measure of devotion.''
  Here at home, Americans of all walks of life supported the war 
effort. Children collected rubber, tin, and steel. Families rationed 
food and gasoline. And women, in unprecedented numbers, took their 
place in industry and produced the tools that enabled us to win the 
war. They joined fields which had once been closed to them, and they 
never looked back.
  When I went into the service, as most of my generation did, I was 
fortunate to do what I wanted to do, which was to fly. Sixty years ago, 
for those of us who served, every day was a milestone. Every day marked 
another step toward victory.
  Today, we only recognize a handful of those days: Pearl Harbor Day, 
D-day, V-J Day, and V-E Day--which is what I speak of today.
  There were so many who stepped forward when our country needed us, 
who sacrificed on the battlefield and here at home so we could win that 
war. It was a time defined by heroism, and it is hard to single out any 
one person who did heroic things. But I am here to remind the Senate 
that my friend, Senator Inouye, was a hero.
  In military history there is a select group of men who have suffered 
grave injuries on the battlefield, continued their military careers, 
and gone on to further greatness. Horatio Nelson, Joshua Chamberlain, 
and John Bell Hood are all men who were tested on and off the 
battlefield, and their legacies endure.
  Among these men, Senator Dan Inouye stands out because he overcame so 
much more just to become a soldier and waited so long to have his 
heroism officially recognized with the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  It is hard to sum up my respect and admiration for my great colleague 
and friend from Hawaii. Our friendship has spanned many decades now, 
and we call each other truly brothers. We are brothers. I can think of 
no man I respect more.
  Last month, Senator Reid came to the floor to honor Senator Inouye's 
service during World War II, also. Senator Reid said:

       Dan Inouye is a step above all of us.

  I agree with Senator Reid. As a World War II veteran, I am here to 
salute Dan Inouye. His courage and bravery and sense of duty are an 
inspiration to not only his Senate colleagues, but I feel to all 
Americans. In a time when men made the extraordinary seem ordinary, Dan 
Inouye stood out as a hero among men.
  I would like to read part of the citation for action that resulted in 
Senator Inouye's Congressional Medal of Honor. Senator Inouye was 
recognized for valor in combat in the Italian campaign in a battle just 
17 days before V-E Day. The citation says:

       With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second 
     Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within 
     five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two 
     grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could 
     retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun 
     nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to 
     engage other hostile positions at close range until an 
     exploding grenade shattered his right arm.
  Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to 
direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were 
again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers 
were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive 
tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye 
enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was 
instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's 
extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the 
highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, 
his unit, and the United States Army.
  On the battlefield and in Congress, Dan Inouye has faithfully served 
our country, his state of Hawaii, and the men and women of the 
military.
  It is men such as Dan Inouye who inspired the phrase the ``Greatest 
Generation.'' I hope we remember all of them today.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday we introduced a bill that would 
bring relief to some of the folks in my State of Montana. As you know, 
in the 1950s, nuclear testing was held in Nevada. Of course, from this 
testing, there was some radiation drift. The major source of this 
radiation comes from nuclear explosions from a Nevada test site, which 
is located about 65 miles north of Las Vegas.
  In studies by the National Cancer Institute, and a report that was 
recently released by the National Academy of Sciences, we find that the 
State of Montana was left out of any compensation that was given to 
victims of downwind exposure to radiation. In fact, according to the 
National Cancer Institute, certain areas of Montana have been exposed 
to the highest dose, ranging from 12 rads to 16 rads. The National 
Cancer Institute's charts give you some idea of the effects of the 
nuclear test site in Nevada. Of course, up in our part of the country, 
we fall victim to southwesterly winds. If you notice, my State of 
Montana shows up with more darker red areas on the chart than any other 
region of the

[[Page S4862]]

United States, which means that we received some of the highest doses 
of radiation.
  Montana is home to 15 of the 25 counties with the highest radiation 
dosage nationwide and the county receiving the highest dose in the 
country is Meagher County, MT.
  Individuals who were affected from this nuclear testing are often 
called downwinders--because the wind carried the poisonous Iodine-131 
north, when the gravity finally kicked in and it settled to the ground. 
People can be exposed to radiation from nuclear testing fallout through 
external radiation like a plume or a cloud passing over a region. They 
can also be exposed by radioactivity deposited on the ground and 
remaining there for long periods of time, or by the internal exposure 
to radioactivity that accumulates in the body from inhalation or 
ingestion of plants, meat or milk. Milk is the primary source of 
Iodine-131 and disproportionately affects milk drinkers. Who drinks 
milk? Children and babies who are the most vulnerable of our society.
  This discussion leads us to the topic of thyroid cancer. The thyroid 
gland will absorb about 30 percent of radioactive Iodine-131 in the 
human body. Thyroid cancer is slow in development as it takes 10 to 40 
years to manifest itself. This means that radiation exposure in the 
late 1950s might not manifest as cancer until the 1990s.
  This chart compares the rates of thyroid cancer nationwide and in my 
state of Montana. Between years 1989 and 2003, the rate of thyroid 
cancer diagnosis nationwide increased by 38 percent. At the same time, 
the thyroid cancer rate in my State of Montana increased by a whopping 
127 percent.
  The 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and RECA Amendments of 
2000 offer lump-sum payments of $50,000 to civilians who were living in 
States deemed as downwind from the nuclear testing in Nevada and who 
contracted a specific type of cancer. States where downwinders can 
currently receive compensation include Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. It is 
important to note that Montana was not included under this law. Yet a 
report just released by the National Academy of Sciences shows that 
Montana received the highest radiation dosage.
  Accordingly, a most recent study on this issue shows the absorbed 
radiation dose to the thyroid of a person born in 1948 who resided for 
the entire period in Montana is 250 milligrays. This dosage is higher 
than most, if not all, regions presently eligible for compensation 
under RECA.
  My bill, S. 977, would allow Montanans who were adversely affected by 
this nuclear testing to be counted among those folks currently eligible 
to receive $50,000 in compensation. Those eligible for $50,000 would 
also receive compensation in the form of free medical treatments for 
the diseases they have contracted from the exposure.
  The fact is, Montanans were involuntarily subjected to increased risk 
of injury and disease in order to serve the national security interests 
of the United States, and they deserve our compassion and our support.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support S. 977, to expand RECA 
to victims in the State of Montana.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana for 
doing something about this problem. It is a huge problem. He has 
identified it. He has some solutions, he has some ideas, and we will 
work with him, as I am sure other Senators will in States also affected 
by this problem. I compliment him for raising the issue and finding a 
solution.

                          ____________________