[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13115-13122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED 
            STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session for the consideration of 
Calendar No. 103, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John Robert 
Bolton, of Maryland, to be Representative of

[[Page 13116]]

the United States of America to the United Nations.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 6 p.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today the Senate again takes up the 
nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. 
This nomination has traveled a long road. I am hopeful that we can 
conclude the debate today.
  I appreciate that several of my colleagues continue to be 
dissatisfied that their requests for information have not been granted 
in their entirety. Under the rules, clearly they can continue to block 
this nomination as long as 60 Senators do not vote for cloture. 
Although I acknowledge their deeply held opposition to this nominee, we 
urgently need an ambassador at the United Nations. A clear majority of 
Senators is in favor of confirming Secretary Bolton.
  The President has stated repeatedly that this is not a casual 
appointment. He and Secretary Rice want a specific person to do a 
specific job. They have said that they want John Bolton, an avowed and 
knowledgeable reformer, to carry out their reform agenda at the United 
Nations.
  Regardless of how each Senator plans to vote today, we should not 
lose sight of the larger national security issues concerning U.N. 
reform and international diplomacy that are central to this nomination. 
We should recall that U.N. reform is an imperative mission of the next 
ambassador. In fact, on Friday, our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives passed an extensive U.N. reform bill. This body is also 
working on various approaches to reform.
  In 2005, we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations 
of the U.N. The revelations of the oil-for-food scandal and the urgency 
of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS 
crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems 
have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the U.N. 
Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan 
that will provide a platform for reform initiatives and discussions.
  Few people in Government have thought more about U.N. reform than 
John Bolton. He served 4 years as the Assistant Secretary of State 
overseeing international organizations under the first President Bush. 
He has written and commented extensively on the subject. During his 
confirmation hearing, Secretary Bolton demonstrated an impressive 
command of issues related to the United Nations. Senator Biden 
acknowledged to the nominee at his hearing that, ``There is no question 
you have extensive experience in U.N. affairs.'' Deputy Secretary Rich 
Armitage has told reporters: ``John Bolton is eminently qualified. He's 
one of the smartest guys in Washington.''
  This nomination has gone through many twists and turns. But now we 
are down to an issue of process. The premise expressed for holding up 
the nominee is that the Senate has the absolute right as a co-equal 
branch of Government to information that it requests pertaining to a 
nominee. Political scientists can debate whether this right actually is 
absolute, but there is a flaw in this premise as it applies to the 
Bolton nomination. This is that the Senate, as a body, has not asked 
for this information. The will of the Senate is expressed by the 
majority. A majority of Senators have voted to end debate. By that 
vote, a majority of Senators have said that they have the information 
they need to make a decision.
  If Members are intent upon exercising their right to filibuster this 
nominee, they may do so. But they cannot claim that the Senate as an 
institution is being disadvantaged or denied information it is 
requesting when at least 57 Senators have supported cloture knowing 
that invoking it would lead to a final vote. Senate rules give 41 
Senators the power to continue debate. But neither a filibuster nor a 
request from individual Senators counts as an expression of the will of 
the Senate.
  Minds are made up on this nomination, as they have been for weeks. In 
fact, with few exceptions, minds have been made up on this nominee 
since before his hearing occurred. Nevertheless, the Foreign Relations 
Committee conducted an exhaustive investigation. I would remind my 
colleagues that Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee assented 
to every single witness that the minority wanted to interview. The 
cases for and against Secretary Bolton have been made extensively and 
skillfully. In the context of an 11-week investigation involving 29 
witnesses and more than 1,000 pages of documents culminating in 14 
hours of floor debate, the remaining process dispute over a small 
amount of information seems out of proportion. This is particularly the 
case given that the ostensible purpose of obtaining documents and 
interviewing witnesses is to help Senators make up their minds on how 
to vote.
  If we accept the standard that any Senator should get whatever 
documents requested on any nominee despite the will of the Senate to 
move forward, then the nomination process has taken on nearly limitless 
parameters. Nomination investigations should not be without limits. It 
is easy to say that any inquiry into any suspicion is justified if we 
are pursuing the truth. But as Senators who are frequently called upon 
to pass judgment on nominees, we know reality is more complicated than 
that. We want to ensure that nominees are qualified, skilled, honest 
and open. Clearly, we should thoroughly examine each nominee's record. 
But in doing so, we should understand that there can be human and 
organizational costs if the inquiry is not focused and fair.
  I reiterate that the President has tapped Secretary Bolton to 
undertake an urgent mission. Secretary Bolton has affirmed his 
commitment to fostering a strong United Nations. He has expressed his 
intent to work hard to secure greater international support at the U.N. 
for the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United 
States. He has stated his belief in decisive American leadership at the 
U.N. and underscored that an effective United Nations is very much in 
the interest of U.S. national security. I believe that the President 
deserves to have his nominee represent him at the United Nations. I 
urge my colleagues to invoke cloture.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that 
quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I state at the outset that the vote we are 
about to take is not about John Bolton. The vote we are about to take 
is about taking a stand--about the Senate taking a stand. The vote is 
about whether the Senate will allow the President to dictate to a 
coequal branch of Government how we, the Senate, are to fulfill our 
constitutional responsibility under the advice and consent clause. It 
is that basic. I believe it is totally unacceptable for the President 
of the United States, Democrat or Republican--and both have tried--to 
dictate to the Senate how he, the President, thinks we should proceed.
  The fact that the President of the United States in this case says he 
does not believe the information we seek is relevant to our fulfilling 
our constitutional responsibility is somewhat presumptuous, to say the 
least. I am aware--as we all are on both sides of the aisle--of the 
sometimes admirable but most times excessive obsession with secrecy on 
the part of this administration. But notwithstanding that, we should 
not forfeit our responsibility in order to accommodate that obsession.
  I do not hold John Bolton accountable for this administration's 
arrogance. John Bolton was gentleman enough to come see me. At the 
request

[[Page 13117]]

of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who contacted me, I said I 
would be willing to sit with John Bolton last week and speak with him 
about what we were seeking and why we were seeking it. I did that. As a 
matter of fact, one of my colleagues, the Senator from Connecticut--
although it wasn't his idea, and I caught him on the way to have dinner 
with his brother--was kind enough to come and sit with me and listen to 
John Bolton.
  I believe Mr. Bolton would be prepared to give us this information. 
Whether that is true is, quite frankly, irrelevant, because the fact is 
we both told Mr. Bolton this dispute about the documents is not about 
him. I say to my colleague from Indiana, this is above his pay grade. 
He indicated under oath in our committee hearing that he was willing to 
let all of this information come forward. So I actually went to the 
extent of sitting with Mr. Bolton and suggesting how, as it related to 
a matter on which I have been the lead horse--on Syria--we could 
accommodate an even further narrowing and detailing of the information 
we are seeking and why.
  Last month, after the Senate stood up for itself and rejected cloture 
on the Bolton nomination, the Democratic leader and I both promised 
publicly--and today I pledge again--that once the administration 
provides the information we have requested and information that no one 
thus far has suggested we are not entitled to--we will agree to vote up 
or down on the Bolton nomination.
  At the outset, it should be emphasized that these are not--and I 
emphasize ``not''--new requests made at the 11th hour to attempt to 
derail a vote. Nobody is moving goalposts anywhere except closer, not 
further away.
  The committee made these requests, the same two requests, back in 
April. First, we requested materials relating to testimony on Syria and 
weapons of mass destruction prepared by Mr. Bolton and/or his staff in 
the summer and fall of 2003.
  We already know from senior CIA officials that Mr. Bolton sought to 
stretch the intelligence that was available on Syria's WMD program well 
beyond what the intelligence would support.
  We think the documents we are seeking will bolster the case that he 
repeatedly sought to exaggerate intelligence data. Some who are 
listening might say: Why is that important? Remember the context in the 
summer of 2003. In the summer of 2003, there were assertions being made 
in various press accounts and by some ``outside'' experts and some 
positing the possibility that those weapons of mass destruction that 
turned out not to exist in Iraq had been smuggled into Syria and that 
Syria had its own robust weapons of mass destruction program.
  Remember, people were speculating about ``who is next?'' Newspaper 
headlines and sub-headlines: Is Syria next? Syria was at the top of the 
list--not the only one on the list. There was speculation, as I said, 
that the weapons of mass destruction we could not find in Iraq had been 
smuggled into Syria.
  We know, at that same time, the CIA says Mr. Bolton was trying to 
stretch--stretch--the intelligence case against Syria on weapons of 
mass destruction.
  The Syrian documents may also raise questions as to whether Mr. 
Bolton, when he raised his hand and swore to tell the truth and nothing 
but the truth, in fact may not have done that because he told the 
Foreign Relations Committee that he was not in any way personally 
involved in preparing that testimony. The documents we seek would 
determine whether that was true or not. It may be true, but the 
documents will tell us.
  Second, we have requested access to 10 National Security Agency 
intercepts. That means conversations picked up between a foreigner and 
an American, where they may have relevance to an intelligence inquiry 
and where the name of the foreigner is always listed, but it says 
speaking to ``an American,'' or an American representing an American 
entity.
  Mr. Bolton acknowledged, under oath, that he had sought--which is not 
unusual in the sense that it has never happened, but it is noteworthy--
he sought the identities of the Americans listed in 10 different 
intercepts.
  When I asked him why he did that, he said intellectual curiosity and 
for context. It is not a surprise to say--and I am not revealing 
anything confidential; I have not seen those intercepts--that there 
have been assertions made by some to Members of the Senate and the 
staff members of the Senate that Mr. Bolton was seeking the names of 
these individuals for purposes of his intramural fights that were going 
on within the administration about the direction of American foreign 
policy. These requests resulted in Mr. Bolton being given the names of 
19 different individuals. Nineteen identities of Americans or American 
companies were on those intercepts.
  Mr. Bolton has seen these intercepts. Mr. Bolton's staff has seen 
some of these intercepts, but not a single Senator has seen the 
identities of any of these Americans listed on the intercepts.
  I might note, parenthetically, we suggested--I was reluctant to do 
it, but I agreed with the leader of my committee--that we would yield 
that responsibility to the chairman and vice chair of the Intelligence 
Committee. Later, the majority leader, in a genuine effort to try to 
resolve this issue, asked me what was needed. I said he should ask for 
the names--not the chairman--he should ask for the names. He said he 
did, and he said they would not give him the names either.
  It has been alleged, as I said, that Mr. Bolton has been spying on 
rivals within the bureaucracy, both inferior and superior to him. While 
I doubt this, as I said publicly before, we have a duty to be sure that 
he did not misuse this data.
  The administration has argued that the Syrian testimony material is 
not relevant to our inquiry. I simply leave it by saying that is an 
outrageous assertion. The administration may not decide what the Senate 
needs in reviewing a nomination unless it claims Executive privilege or 
a constitutional prohibition of a violation of separation of power. As 
my grandfather and later my mother would say: Who died and left them 
boss? No rationale has been given for the testimony.
  Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time have I consumed?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has just under 18 
minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have two colleagues who wish to speak. I 
will be brief. We have narrowed the request of the documents. We 
narrowed them on several different occasions. I am grateful to Chairman 
Roberts and Director Negroponte for accepting the principle that they 
can cross-check names on the list we have with the list of names on the 
intercepts. But I hope everyone understands, as my friend from 
Connecticut will probably speak to, that in offering to provide a list 
of names, we were trying to make it easier. We were not trying to move 
the goalposts; we were trying to make it closer for them.
  The bottom line is, it is very easy to get this resolved. It is not 
inappropriate for me to say that I had a very good conversation not 
only with Mr. Bolton but with Mr. Card, who indicated he was sure we 
could resolve the Syrian piece of this. I indicated from the beginning 
that was not sufficient. We had two requests for good reason: One 
relating to intercepts and one relating to the Syrian matter. The 
Syrian matter is within striking distance of being resolved. I said in 
good faith to him: Do not resolve that if you think that resolves the 
matter, unless you are ready to resolve the matter of the issue 
relating to Mr. Bolton and the intercepts.
  Absent that material being made available, I urge my colleagues to 
reject cloture in the hope that the administration will finally step up 
to its constitutional responsibility of providing this information to 
us.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of actually voting 
on John Bolton's nomination. I listened to my colleague's arguments, 
and I listened to the studious and accurate

[[Page 13118]]

statement of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee regarding 
this long-debated, long-considered nomination.
  The Senate has had this nomination for 5 months. Ambassador to the 
United Nations is a very important post. In fact, it is a very 
important position at this particular time, as democracy is on the 
march, as freedom is on the march throughout the world, whether in 
Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere.
  It is important also to note that even the United Nations recognizes 
that it is time for reform. It is vitally important that the taxpayers 
of this country, who put in $2 billion every year into the United 
Nations, ought to have a man such as John Bolton leading our efforts. 
John Bolton is a reformer, and that is why the President nominated him.
  The President was elected by the people of this country. A President 
needs to have the men and women he desires to effectuate his goals, his 
policies, and to keep the promises he made to the people of this 
country.
  This nomination has been held up through obstructionist tactics. I am 
hopeful that my colleagues will review the thorough and extensive 
vetting process. I am hoping that they will actually take off their 
political blinders and look at this nomination, look at the record of 
performance, and look at all the evidence, all the charges, all the 
refutations, and look at the facts regarding Mr. Bolton.
  I think it is highly irresponsible for the Senate to keep obstructing 
reform of the United Nations. And, Mr. President, that is what is 
happening. This obstruction of John Bolton's nomination, while a 
political effort, I suppose, in some people's point of view, clearly 
could be characterized as obstructing reform of the United Nations. 
Until we have our ambassador there with the strength and the support of 
the Senate and the people of this country, we do not have someone 
arguing for the American taxpayers, arguing for accountability, trying 
to stop the waste, the fraud, and the corruption in the United Nations.
  We have gone through every germane argument and stretched allegation 
against John Bolton. Instead of talking about reforming the United 
Nations, we have been on a fishing expedition. Every time on this 
fishing expedition we end up seeing a dry hole.
  First, there was concern about his general views in saying the United 
Nations needed to be reformed. Then the opposition recognized: Gosh, 
the American people also think the United Nations needs reforming.
  Then there was a great fixation and focus on the drafting of 
speeches. And wasn't that very interesting, how speeches are crafted?
  Then there was a worry about the sensibilities of some people being 
offended by John Bolton.
  Then there was a worry about a woman--I forgot where it was, 
Kazakhstan or Moscow--that was refuted as not being a fact.
  Then there was a concern about a speech that John Bolton gave where 
he said that North Korea was a repressive dictatorship and that it was 
a hellish nightmare to live in North Korea. That was supposedly 
terrible for him to say, when in fact that is a pretty good description 
of North Korea.
  Then there were worries about Great Britain and what John Bolton 
might have done with Great Britain. Within hours our British friends 
said: No, we had no problems whatsoever.
  Then the other side said: We want a list of names; we want to see a 
cross-check, that request got to Senator Roberts and Senator 
Rockefeller, the chair and cochair on the Intelligence Committee.
  Then there were a few names cross-checked. There was nothing new 
there. What comes up? Now we want 3 dozen names cross-checked as the 
fishing expedition continues.
  Now there is a fixation, an interest in the crafting of testimony or 
a speech dealing with Syria.
  It is just going to continue and continue. It does not matter what 
the answers are. It does not matter what the truth is. It does not 
matter about the facts. What they want to do, unfortunately, is ignore 
the dire need for reform in the United Nations. The opposition seems to 
want to completely ignore John Bolton's qualifications and outstanding 
record of performance for the people of this country.
  John Bolton has played a significant role in negotiating a number of 
treaties that will result in reducing nuclear weapons, or keeping them 
from falling into the hands of rogue nations and terrorist 
organizations. His work on the Moscow Treaty will reduce by two-thirds 
operationally deployed nuclear weapons in both the United States and 
Russia.
  John Bolton also led the U.S. negotiations to develop President 
Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, which garnered the support of 
60 countries. This Proliferation Security Initiative is an important 
security measure to stop the shipment of weapons of mass destruction, 
their delivery systems, and related materials worldwide.
  John Bolton also helped create the global partnership at the G8 
summit, which doubled the size of the nonproliferation effort in the 
former Soviet Union. By committing our G8 partners to match the $1 
billion-per-year cooperative threat reduction of the United States, or 
as we call it here, the Nunn-Lugar program. John Bolton also has proven 
that he can work well within the United Nations. He has previously 
served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, 
where he worked intensively on U.N. issues, including the repealing of 
the offensive United Nations resolution which equated Zionism to 
racism. That is one of the reasons B'nai Brith supports his nomination.
  John Bolton has the knowledge, the skills, the principles, and the 
experience to be an exceptional ambassador to the United Nations. He 
has the right, steady, and strong principles to lead the U.S. mission 
at a time when the United Nations is in desperate need of reform.
  I believe the people of America do not want a lapdog as our 
ambassador to the United Nations, they want a watchdog. They want to 
make sure the billions of dollars we are sending to the United Nations 
is actually helping advance freedom; helping to build representative, 
fair, just, and free systems in countries that have long been 
repressed. It is absolutely absurd and farcical that countries such as 
Syria, Zimbabwe, or other repressive regimes are on the Human Rights 
Commission. Even the United Nations recognizes they need reform. So 
that is why the President has sent forth an individual, John Bolton, to 
bring this organization into account and reform it.
  Whether it is fraud or corruption, this country does not think the 
United Nations ought to be placating or rewarding dictators and 
oppressive tyrants. We have heard many absurd arguments since the 
President has sent John Bolton's nomination to the Senate 5 months ago. 
What my colleagues will see as they look at each and every one of these 
charges as the process has dragged on, is that they are wild, they are 
unsubstantiated, or they have been proven false. Some claims against 
Mr. Bolton have even been retracted.
  This nomination has been considered for a long time. Throughout, new 
charges have been made, and each time they do not stand up when placed 
in the accurate context or studied fully. They have been shown to be 
misleading, exaggerated, false, or irrelevant.
  This is the definition of a fishing expedition, and its sole goal is 
to bring down a nominee because of differing policy views. Many of 
those are leading very articulately, even if I disagree with them, on 
the Bolton nomination. The five leading most senior members of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, who talked about speeches and offending 
sensibilities of people, they all were against Mr. Bolton in 2001 
before any of these accusations arose. So this is just a continuation 
of that opposition.
  I hope Senators the other side of the aisle who are refusing to bring 
this issue to a close would note what Chairman Roberts noted, that they 
seem to be intent on preserving John Bolton's

[[Page 13119]]

nomination as a way to embarrass our President.
  The President was elected by the people of America. It is logical and 
it is important that our CEO, our President, be accorded the ability to 
bring in and to lead our efforts consistent with his principles, with 
people who are loyal to those views, and who will effectuate those 
goals.
  There is little question that one of the most fair chairmen in this 
entire Senate is the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar. He has negotiated 
in good faith on this issue. Unfortunately, time after time some on the 
other side keep moving the goalpost. I know they do not like that term, 
but every time there is something answered, every time this gets ready 
for a vote, there is always a new allegation, a new request, something 
else to delay a vote on this nomination. Obstruction in this case, as 
in many others, has gone on for too long. It is time to vote on John 
Bolton's nomination. The continued delaying tactics can only be viewed 
as obstructionism for petty partisan reasons.
  This nomination has received inordinate scrutiny and review. Yet 
opponents of voting up or down continue to demand even more 
information. This position has been vacant for 5 months, we need to 
have a conclusion. Mr. Bolton has an exemplary career in public 
service. The extensive oversight that the Senate has undertaken in 
considering this nomination means that Senators ought to have the guts 
to get out of these cushy seats and vote yes or vote no. Anyone who 
votes to continue to obstruct this nomination can be fairly 
characterized as delaying and obstructing the much needed, reforms in 
the United Nations. And it is also contrary to the will of the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will cast my vote today in opposition 
to ending the debate on the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. 
Ambassador to the United Nations.
  I am distressed the administration has not provided the Congress with 
the documents it has requested that are essential for judging the 
quality of Mr. Bolton's performance in his past positions. When the 
President sends the Congress a request for approval of a nominee for a 
top position, the President must be prepared to assist Congress in a 
thorough inspection of that individual's prior Government service. 
Withholding information needed by Congress, even classified information 
that can be handled in a secure fashion, is detrimental to the 
successful functioning of our Government. The administration's full 
cooperation with Congress is not optional, but essential.
  If Mr. Bolton's nomination comes to the full Senate for a vote, I 
plan to vote no. I do not oppose him because of his skeptical view of 
the UN. I do not oppose him because he believes the UN should be 
reformed. If the President wants to change U.S. policy toward the UN, 
he has the right to choose an ambassador who will attempt to do so. The 
Congress should evaluate that nominee on his or her ability to do the 
job for which the individual has been selected.
  I am opposing Mr. Bolton because his past record leads me to believe 
he does not have the skills to do the job of Ambassador to the UN. As 
the second-ranking foreign policy job in any administration, it is very 
important that this job be done right. My review of his prior 
experience leads me to conclude that Mr. Bolton is not a man who builds 
consensus, who appreciates consensus, or who abides by consensus. No 
matter what one thinks of the UN's performance, or how its 
functionality and mission ought to be reformed, one must be able to 
build support among our allies in order to effect change. As we have 
seen, nothing is accomplished at the UN by banging one's shoe on the 
podium. The work of the UN requires respect for national differences, 
searching for common ground, and development of consensus on what 
actions must be taken. It would be irresponsible to approve a UN 
ambassador who is not capable of performing these tasks.
  The record shows that on occasion when his personal beliefs clashed 
with administration policy, Mr. Bolton has not hesitated to take 
matters into his own hands, to misuse secret materials, to threaten 
Federal employees with personal retribution and to endanger national 
security in order to advance his own view of a situation. This is not 
who we should be sending to the UN as our chief representative. We can, 
and we must, do better by an institution that should be an important 
part of a successful American foreign policy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield 6 minutes on my time, and I am told the 
distinguished Senator from California has 5 minutes of leader time. I 
yield to the Senator from California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware has 16 
minutes in total remaining.
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
is equally divided until 6. Extending the time past 6 would take a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Reid gave me 5 minutes of his leader time, and I 
ask unanimous consent that I might add that to my 6 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield 6 minutes on my time to the distinguished Senator 
from California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think we need to take a deep breath and 
a reality check. All this talk from Senator Allen about how 
obstructionist the Democrats are being--now, here is the truth: The 
Republicans run the Foreign Relations Committee. They did not even have 
the votes to vote John Bolton out of that committee and bring it to the 
floor with a positive recommendation.
  This is a very divisive and controversial nomination. Since 1945, the 
Senate has confirmed 24 men and women to serve as U.N. ambassador. 
Never before has any President of either party made such a divisive and 
controversial nomination. In 60 years, only two nominees have had a 
single Senator cast a ``no'' vote against them. Andrew Young was one. 
He was confirmed 89 to 3 in 1977, and Richard Holbrooke was confirmed 
81 to 16 in 1999. Every other time the nominee has been approved 
unanimously. I long for those days.
  This is a President who said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider. 
Yet in light of all the controversy, he sticks with this nominee. The 
fact is, 102 former diplomats, both Republican and Democrat, signed a 
letter opposing John Bolton. They wrote that his past activities and 
statements indicate conclusively that he is the wrong man for this 
position at a time when the U.N. is entering a critically important 
phase of democratic reforms.
  Senator Voinovich said it well, and he is a Republican. He is a 
member of the committee. He said: Frankly, I am concerned that Mr. 
Bolton would make it more difficult for us to achieve the badly needed 
reforms we need.
  John Bolton has said that there is no United Nations. He has said if 
the U.N. Secretariat Building in New York lost 10 floors, it would not 
make a bit of difference. How does someone with that attitude get the 
respect required to bring the reforms?
  As we know, today is not about whether Senators should vote for or 
against John Bolton. Today is a different vote. It is a vote as to 
whether the Senate deserves, on behalf of the American people, to get 
the information that Senators Biden and Dodd have taken the lead in 
asking for. By the way, Senator Lugar, at one point in time, had signed 
some of those letters requesting the information.
  Why is this important? It is important because every Senator is going 
to decide whether to vote up or down on Mr. Bolton. We need to know 
what this information will show. Yes, as Senator Biden has said, we get 
the information, we schedule a vote. But we will look at the 
information. What if the information shows that, in fact, John Bolton

[[Page 13120]]

was trying to spy on other Americans with whom he had an ax to grind? 
What if the information shows that John Bolton did not tell the truth 
to the committee and that he had written a speech about Syria which was 
misleading and which could have, in many ways, made that drumbeat for 
war against Syria much louder than it was?
  There is a third piece of information that Senators Dodd and Biden 
did not think was that important, but I still think is important and we 
have asked for, which is the fact that Mr. Bolton has an assistant, 
someone he has hired, who has outside clients so that while he, Mr. 
Matthew Friedman, is getting paid with taxpayer dollars, he has outside 
clients.
  Who are these outside clients? We cannot find out. We called Mr. 
Friedman's office. The secretary answered. This is a private office, 
his private business, and she said: Oh, yes, he is here. He will be 
right with you.
  Then, upon finding out it was my office, suddenly Mr. Friedman was 
nowhere to be found and has not returned the call.
  I represent the largest State in the Union. Believe me, it is a 
diverse State. We have conservatives and liberals and everything in 
between. We have every political party represented there, and many 
independent voters. But they all want me to be able to make an informed 
decision. This information is very important. Therefore, I think 
today's vote is crucial.
  There is one more point I would like to make.
  Mr. President, I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. This is the point. When we had the whole debate over a 
judge a long time ago, a judge named Richard Paez, at that time Dr. 
Frist, Senator Frist supported the filibuster against Judge Paez. What 
he said in explaining his vote was it is totally appropriate to have a 
cloture vote--as we are going to do today--when you are seeking 
information. That is totally appropriate.
  I have the exact quote here, and I would like to read it. He said:

       Cloture, to get more information, is legitimate.

  I agree with Senator Frist. It is legitimate to hold out on an up-or-
down vote, to stand up for the rights of the American people and the 
information they deserve to have through us.
  I thank Senator Dodd and Senator Biden for their leadership, and I 
yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time under my 
control to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware, as well 
as my colleague from California for her comments. Let me say to the 
distinguished chairman of our committee, I know this has been a long 
ordeal, now going up to 2 months that this nomination has been before 
us. No one, except possibly the chairman of the committee, would like 
this matter to be terminated sooner rather than later more than I 
would. I am sure the Senator from Delaware feels similarly, as I know 
my colleague from California does as well.
  But there is an important issue before this body that transcends the 
nomination of the individual before us. That is whether as an 
institution we have a right to certain information pertaining to the 
matter before us. Certainly the matter that we have requested--Senator 
Biden has and I have--regarding this nomination is directly on point 
when it comes to the qualities of this nominee.
  For nearly a month since our May 26th cloture vote on this 
nomination, the administration has stonewalled our efforts to get the 
additional information we believe the Senate should have to make an 
informed judgment on this nomination.
  Senator Biden and I have attempted to reach an accommodation with the 
administration on the two areas of our inquiry--draft testimony and 
related documents concerning Syria's weapons of mass destruction 
capabilities and the nineteen names contained in ten National Security 
Agency intercepts which Mr. Bolton requested and was provided during 
his tenure as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security. Senator Biden has narrowed the scope of his 
request related to Syria. I have offered to submit a list of names of 
concern related to the NSA intercepts to be cross checked by director 
Negroponte against the list of names provided to Mr. Bolton.
  I am very puzzled, Mr. President, by the intransigent position that 
the administration has taken, particularly with respect to the 
intercept matter.
  If the intercepts are ``pure vanilla'' as our colleague, Senator 
Roberts, has described them, then why does the administration continue 
to withhold the information from the Senate?
  The answer is we don't know.
  Was Mr. Bolton using the information from the intercepts to track 
what other officials were doing in policy areas he disagreed with?
  Or was he simply utilizing the information in the normal course of 
carrying out his responsibilities?
  Again, we don't know.
  Under ordinary circumstances, I would not be inquiring whether a 
State Department official had sought access to sensitive intelligence 
for anything other than official purposes.
  But we know from the Foreign Relations Committee investigation of 
this nominee--from interviews of individuals who served with Mr. Bolton 
in the Bush administration--that Mr. Bolton's conduct while at the 
State Department was anything but ordinary.
  We learned how Mr. Bolton harnessed an abusive management style to 
attempt to alter intelligence judgments and to stifle the consideration 
of alternative policy options--all in furtherance of his own personal 
ideological agenda.
  According to a story that appeared in today's Washington Post, we now 
know that Mr. Bolton's machinations weren't limited to Cuba or Syria 
weapons of mass destruction. It would seem he was the ``Mr. No'' of the 
Department on a wide variety of policy initiatives, acting as a major 
roadblock to progress on such important initiatives as U.S.-Russian 
cooperative nuclear threat reduction.
  Mr. Bolton has done a disservice to the Bush administration and to 
the American people by putting his agenda ahead of the interests of the 
administration and the American people.
  It is not only that he had his own agenda that is problematic. It is 
the manner in which he sought to advance that agenda by imposing his 
judgments on members of the intelligence community and threatening to 
destroy the careers of those with the temerity to resist his demands to 
alter their intelligence judgments.
  In so doing, he breached the firewall between intelligence and policy 
which must be sacrosanct to protect U.S. foreign policy and national 
security interests.
  That is not to say there should not be a vibrant and healthy 
disagreement where one exists. There ought to be, in fact, more 
disagreements where these matters have caused friction. But the idea 
that you would allow that friction, those disagreements to transcend 
the firewall where you would then seek to have people dismissed from 
their jobs because you disagreed with their conclusions, that goes too 
far. Mr. Bolton went to far and for those reasons, in my view, does not 
deserve to be the confirmed nominee as ambassador to the United 
Nations. That fact is painfully clear to all Americans following the 
serious and dangerous intelligence failures related to Iraqi weapons of 
mass destruction.
  We know that Mr. Bolton's efforts to manipulate intelligence wasn't 
some anomaly because he was having a bad day. The entire intelligence 
community knew of his reputation.
  We were fortunate to have individuals, like Dean Hutchings, Chairman 
of the National Intelligence Council from 2003-2005, who disapproved of 
and resisted Bolton's efforts to cherry pick intelligence.
  We also know that Mr. Bolton needed adult supervision to ensure that 
his

[[Page 13121]]

speeches and testimony were consistent with administration policy. 
Deputy Secretary Armitage took it upon himself to personally oversee 
all of Mr. Bolton's public pronouncements to ensure that he stayed on 
the reservation.
  Is this really the kind of performance we want to reward by 
confirming this individual to the position of United States 
Representative to the United Nations?
  Is Mr. Bolton the kind of individual who we can trust to carry out 
the United States agenda at the United Nations at this critical 
juncture?
  I think not.
  We all know that these are difficult times. Our responsibilities in 
Iraq and Afghanistan are significant and costly. Other challenges to 
international peace and stability loom large on the horizon: Iran, 
North Korea, Middle East Peace. Humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia 
cry out for attention.
  The United States can not solve all these problems unilaterally. We 
need international assistance and cooperation to address them. And the 
logical focal point for developing that international support is the 
United Nations.
  But international support will not automatically be forthcoming.
  It will take real leadership at the United Nations to build the case 
for such cooperation. That United States leadership must necessarily be 
embodied in the individual that serves as the United States Ambassador 
to the United Nations. Based on what I know today about Mr. Bolton, I 
believe he is incapable of demonstrating that kind of leadership.
  The United States Ambassador to the United Nations is an important 
position. The individual who assumes this position is necessarily the 
face of our country before the United Nations.
  For all of the reasons I have cited--Mr. Bolton's management style, 
his attack on the intelligence community, his tunnel vision, his lack 
of diplomatic temperament--I do not believe that he is the man to be 
that face at the United Nations.
  I hope that when it comes time for an up or down vote on Mr. Bolton 
that my colleagues will join me in opposing this nominee.
  But this afternoon's vote is about who determines how the Senate will 
discharge its constitutional duties related to nominations. Will the 
executive branch tell this body what is relevant or not relevant with 
respect to its deliberations on nominations? Or will the Senate make 
that determination?
  If you believe as I do that the Senate is entitled to access to 
information that is so clearly relevant in the case of the Bolton 
nomination, then I would respectfully ask you to join Senator Biden and 
me in voting against cloture.
  But this vote isn't just about the nomination of Mr. Bolton, it is 
also about setting a precedent for future requests by the Senate of the 
executive on a whole host of other issues that may come before us--in 
this administration and in future administrations.
  For that reason I strongly urge all of our colleagues to support us 
in sending the right signal to the administration by voting no on 
cloture when it occurs at 6 p.m.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, having listened to my Democrat colleagues 
discuss the Bolton nomination last week, I very briefly come to the 
floor to set the record straight.
  The plain, simple truth is that some on the other side of the aisle 
are obstructing a highly qualified nominee and, I believe, by not 
allowing him to assume this position yet, are doing harm to our 
country. I say that because John Bolton has a long record of 
successfully serving his country. He has been confirmed by this body no 
fewer than four times.
  We have had 12 hours of committee hearings, 23 meetings with 
Senators, 31 interviews conducted by the staff of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, and 157 questions for the record submitted by 
members of the committee. The committee has had nearly 500 pages of 
documents from State and USAID. After reviewing thousands of pages of 
material, the intelligence community has provided over 125 pages of 
documents to the Foreign Relations Committee. The nominee has had 2 
days of floor debate. The list goes on and on.
  The chair and vice chair of the Intelligence Committee have both 
reviewed the NSA intercepts. Both have concluded that there is nothing 
there of concern.
  I am satisfied with their conclusions, and I am satisfied that the 
prerogatives of the Senate have been respected.
  I have been more than willing to try and reach a fair accommodation 
with Senators Dodd and Biden, but the goal posts keep moving from a 
handful of names to now, three dozen. What is going on here looks and 
smells like a fishing expedition.
  I supported Senator Roberts' initiative last week to strike a 
compromise. 1t made sense. It fairly and appropriately allowed the 
Director of National Intelligence to review names.
  The names Senator Roberts vetted with the DNI were taken straight 
from the minority report of the Foreign Relations Committee. They are 
also names of persons that were raised by Senator Dodd and Senator 
Biden during committee hearings and deliberations.
  The fact that none of these names was in any of the 10 intercepts 
confirms what Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller have said 
previously. John Bolton did nothing improper in requesting these 
intercepts, and there is no reason for concern.
  Last week, Senator Dodd and Senator Biden stated again that they 
wanted to see earlier drafts of Secretary Bolton's 2003 Syria testimony 
before the House.
  I don't believe those documents are necessary, because what really 
matters is the final draft.
  That said, I have been working with the White House to make this 
happen, and to give Senator Dodd and Senator Biden a chance to review 
these documents.
  What is important is to get this process moving, to give John Bolton 
a fair up-or-down vote, and to get our Ambassador to the U.N.
  We will find out today if that will happen and if Members will do 
what is right for our country or if pointless obstruction will continue 
to stymie the process and damage America's foreign affairs.
  The United States has not had an ambassador at the U.N. for over 5 
months now. It is time to stop the grandstanding and give this nominee 
a vote.
  John Bolton is a smart, principled, and straightforward man who will 
effectively articulate the President's policies on the world stage.
  We need a person with Under Secretary Bolton's proven track record of 
determination and success to cut through the thick and tangled 
bureaucracy that has mired the United Nations in scandal and 
inefficiency.
  It is no accident that polling shows that most Americans have a dim 
view of the United Nations. In recent months, we have seen multiple 
negative reports about the world body.
  We now know that Saddam Hussein stole an estimated $10 billion 
through the Oil-for-Food Program. The U.N. official who ran the 
operation stands accused of taking kickbacks, along with other 
officials.
  Last month, the head of the Iraq Survey Group told the Council on 
Foreign Relations that as a result of the Oil-for-Food corruption, 
Saddam came to believe he could divide the U.N. Security Council and 
bring an end to sanctions.
  He did divide us, but he didn't stop us.

[[Page 13122]]

  The U.N. failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. The U.N. 
now seems to be repeating that mistake in Darfur.
  In the Congo, there are numerous allegations that U.N. peacekeepers 
have committed sexual abuse against the innocent, female war victims 
they were sent to protect.
  Meanwhile, the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission, which is charged with 
protecting our human rights, includes such human rights abusers as 
Libya, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
  These failures are very real and very discouraging. They can be 
measured in lives lost and billions of dollars stolen. And they can be 
measured in the sinking regard for an organization that should be held 
in some esteem.
  America sends the United Nations $2 billion per year. Our 
contribution makes up 22 percent of its budget. We provide an even 
larger percentage for peacekeeping and other U.N. activities. It is no 
surprise that Americans are calling out for reform.
  John Bolton is the President's choice to lead that effort. He 
possesses deep and extensive knowledge of the United Nations and has, 
for many years, been committed to its reform
  Under Secretary Bolton has the confidence of the President and the 
Secretary of State, and it is to them he will directly report.
  As Senator Lugar has pointed out, Under Secretary Bolton has served 4 
years in a key position that technically outranks the post for which he 
is now being considered.
  This is a critical time for the United States and for the world. 
Because of the President's vision and commitment, democracy is on the 
march around the globe. The United Nations can and should play a 
central role in advancing these developments.
  I believe in the U.N.'s potential if it is reformed and more rightly 
focused. It has been an important forum for peace and dialogue. And, 
like the President, I believe that an effective United Nations is in 
America's interest.
  As we all know, there has been one cloture vote. Tonight, in a few 
minutes, we will have that second cloture vote.
  Mr. President, John Bolton is the right man to represent us in the 
United Nations. He is a straight shooter, a man of integrity. He is 
exactly what we need at this time in the United Nations. He is exactly 
what the United Nations needs from us. A vote for John Bolton is a vote 
for change there. A vote for John Bolton is a vote for reform there. We 
have had dilatory tactics and obstructionism that has been thinly 
veiled in words of ``Senate prerogative.'' John Bolton deserves a vote, 
and the American people deserve a strong, principled voice in the 
United Nations.
  Mr. President, I encourage our colleagues to vote for cloture tonight 
because John Bolton deserves an up-or-down vote as the nominee to the 
United Nations ambassadorship.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the motion to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider the failed cloture vote on this nomination is agreed to, the 
motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote is agreed to, and the 
Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the 
nomination.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive 
     Calendar No. 103:
         William Frist, Richard Lugar, Richard Burr, Pat Roberts, 
           Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Wayne Allard, Jon Kyl, 
           Jim DeMint, David Vitter, Richard Shelby, Lindsey 
           Graham, John Ensign, Pete Domenici, Robert Bennett, Mel 
           Martinez, George Allen.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
Executive Calendar No. 103, the nomination of John Robert Bolton, to be 
the Representative of the United States of America to the United 
Nations, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory 
under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Feingold), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), 
and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Burns
     Coleman
     Feingold
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Levin
     Thune
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________