[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.
____________________