[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12672-12674]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 12673]]

  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 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

[[Page 12674]]

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.

                          ____________________