[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7446-7448]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

                                 ______
                                 

                         THE BOLTON NOMINATION

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in behalf of John 
Bolton to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I 
know this nomination is gaining controversy. Yet the more I listen to 
it, I realize there may be an attempt to kill his nomination from a 
thousand cuts.
  It is not unusual in this town to see someone with a strong 
personality being subject to all kinds of innuendo and charges and 
hearsay. Certainly all of these things warrant investigation so that 
the Senate can perform its advise and consent duty. However, I think it 
is also very important we remember the President's right to nominate 
the individuals he believes are important in order to pursue his 
policies after his election, an election he earned at the ballot box, 
and the right conferred upon him by the Constitution.
  I rise here not as an opponent of the United Nations, but as one 
deeply disappointed in the United Nations in the 9 years in which I 
have served as a Senator. The U.N. is going through a challenging 
period, one that is raising questions about its effectiveness and 
ability to fulfill its mission on a global scale. New and unprecedented 
challenges face the United States and our allies. We cannot solve all 
the world's problems

[[Page 7447]]

on our own. We need to continue to work with our allies to combat 
threats around the world, especially the threat of terrorism and the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction, for those two factors in 
combination probably pose the greatest security threat to our Nation 
and the civilized world.
  An efficient and effective United Nations can still play a valuable 
role in world affairs. The U.N. demonstrated this by its response to 
the tsunami disasters that befell Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand 
and the other nations in the Indian Ocean. The United Nations can still 
serve an integral humanitarian function. Its success in coordinating 
relief efforts is helping the region to recover from its tragedy. I am 
also pleased with the U.N.'s establishment of new levels of oversight 
to monitor how enormous levels of humanitarian assistance are 
distributed to needy people.
  Unfortunately, the U.N. can, and should, and must be more and do 
more. We have a United Nations that is tragically rife with corruption 
and mismanagement. It is an organization that is starting now to admit 
its problems. That is a positive. But it seems incapable of addressing 
these issues in any meaningful way.
  The international community has been rocked by scandals involving the 
United Nations. The most obvious example of its malfeasance, of course, 
is the Oil-for-Food Program. As you know, the U.N. was responsible for 
overseeing the Oil-for-Food Program, which was established to provide 
relief to the Iraqi people suffering under Saddam Hussein's brutal 
regime. Instead, it allowed--and possibly even directed--the incredible 
scheme of kickbacks, bribes, and other financial crimes that may have 
even enriched some members of the U.N. bureaucracy.
  The United Nations peacekeepers, sent to provide some semblance of 
security to war-torn countries, have been accused of such crimes as 
rape, child molestation, and sexual abuse in the Democratic Republic of 
Congo, the Balkans, and in Haiti.
  High-ranking United Nations officials have been accused of sexual 
harassment. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, was 
recently removed from his post because of sexual harassment.
  To tackle this challenge, on March 7, 2005, President Bush nominated 
John Bolton to be the Permanent United Nations Representative for the 
United States. I believe Mr. Bolton can help produce a more effective 
and efficient U.N., a stronger U.S.-U.N. relationship, and a U.N. that 
lives up to its founding principles and ideals.
  I do not know Mr. Bolton. I have shaken has hand, I believe, on one 
occasion. But as I have reviewed his record of accomplishment and his 
answers to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I once was 
privileged to serve, it is clear to me he is intelligent. I believe he 
is honest. He is certainly candid. These are qualities I think that can 
help him help the United Nations.
  When we think back on U.N. ambassadors from our Nation, those willing 
to shake things up have been most meaningful in helping the U.N. to 
live up to its high purposes. The name of our former colleague, Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan, comes to mind. Jeanne Kirkpatrick also comes to mind. 
These are two who were not afraid to step on toes or to do what was 
necessary to get the job done and help the U.N. to change.
  I believe John Bolton's personality, while not perfect for everyone, 
will work in a manner that will create change leading to needed 
reforms. Frankly what you need in this capacity is probably a strong 
backbone more than a winning personality. He understands the strengths 
and especially the weaknesses of the U.N. At no time in the history of 
the United Nations has reform been as needed as right now. The United 
States, as the leading contributor to the United Nations' budget, must 
take the lead in setting forth the necessary reforms.
  The United Nations is losing respect, not only in the United States 
but throughout the world. The United Nations has a serious legitimacy 
problem. I remember hearing the Secretary General saying legitimacy 
comes uniquely from the United Nations. I wish it did. But it does not. 
Legitimacy comes from democracy and processes that are open and 
transparent and free from corruption and, when corruption is found, 
rooted out through the process of law.
  The Security Council--and I think the American people understand 
this--is not a place where Americans can find security. In some of the 
worst cases of genocide in our planet, it has been idle, unable, 
unwilling, and too gridlocked to stand up to some of the worst human 
crime in our time.
  It sets high standards for itself and then sits on its hands while 
genocide occurs in places such as Rwanda and in the Sudan. Countries 
that harass their people, that imprison those who clamor for democratic 
rights, that thwart all efforts at civilized behavior, have the same 
voting power as those with free, democratic societies.
  I wish it was the United Democratic Nations but, it tragically is 
not. Legitimacy is given to the United Nations from countries such as 
the United States. We do not need a stamp of approval from the U.N. to 
act, but the U.N. does need the stamp of approval from its member 
states before it can act.
  How can one not doubt the legitimacy of the United Nations when a 
human rights stalwart such as Libya, or Cuba, is appointed to chair the 
Human Rights Commission and the United States is removed? Or Iran is 
chairing the Disarmament Commission? The question answers itself.
  With the 60th anniversary of the United Nations approaching this 
summer, though, we have a real opportunity to encourage the U.N. to 
change its ways, to live up to its founding ideals. The United States 
must take the lead in helping to reform the United Nations. This is the 
only way the U.N. can fulfill its original promise of promoting 
international peace and security.
  John Bolton may or may not be the perfect nominee. That is not my 
point. But I think he can be effective simply because he can be 
confrontational. Under Secretary Bolton has, with all the slings and 
arrows directed his way, served his country with honor and distinction 
at many different times. He has been an effective diplomat, enjoying a 
strong record of success, and has demonstrated his enthusiasm for 
working with other countries to meet common challenges.
  When one reviews John Bolton's credentials, it is clear he is 
extremely qualified to be United States Ambassador to the United 
Nations. I say that without any commentary at all on his personality. 
As an Assistant Secretary for International Organizations from 1989 to 
1993 in the first Bush administration, Under Secretary Bolton worked 
for Secretary James Baker on U.N. reform matters and on the repayment 
of arrearages and assessments.
  While serving as the Assistant Secretary for International 
Organizations, he detailed his concept of a unitary U.N. that sought to 
ensure management and budget reforms that impacted the entire U.N. 
system, not only the U.N. Secretariat. This is truly a forward thinking 
initiative. This is the type of creativity and resourcefulness we need 
in order to address the enormous problems within the United Nations.
  In 1991, Under Secretary Bolton was the principal architect behind 
the initiatives that finally led the United Nations General Assembly to 
repeal the resolution that equated Zionism and racism, one of the more 
notorious and heinous resolutions ever passed by the United Nations. 
Imagine this: The United Nations, created out of the ashes of World War 
II, passing a resolution in 1975 equating Zionism with racism and 
refusing for nearly 20 years to repeal that appalling notion.
  During his time out of Government, Mr. Bolton served the United 
Nations on a pro bono basis between 1997 and 2000, as an assistant to 
former Secretary of State Baker in his capacity as the Secretary 
General's personal envoy for Western Sahara, working to resolve the 
dispute over that territory--quite an effort from someone

[[Page 7448]]

who does not believe in the power of multilateralism and international 
organizations, which is alleged against him but is not true.
  For the past 4 years he has served as the Under Secretary of State 
for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. Under Secretary 
Bolton led the efforts to implement the President's agenda to counter 
nonproliferation, including the reform of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency.
  He also shaped the administration's approaches to countering the 
threat of WMD proliferation and, most importantly, the proliferation 
security initiative, a program that led directly to the discovery of 
Libya's nuclear program and its subsequent disarmament.
  John Bolton is the best candidate to help usher in this needed reform 
because he is the one the President nominated and he has a long record 
of achievement. He knows the United Nations. He knows the changes that 
need to be made, and with his prior experience he can work with fellow 
members of the U.N. and to implement the necessary reforms.
  My mother used to tell me when I was a little boy, got in trouble and 
punished: Son, it is better to be trusted than loved. Frankly, if Mr. 
Bolton is feared, while not loved, he may do more good than if he is 
loved and getting along with all. With all the problems illustrated 
with the United Nations, why would we want to send someone to New York 
who is more interested in the status quo than with engaging this 
institution with real reform for its organizations.
  Again, I don't know Mr. Bolton personally. His personality is 
probably much different than my own. But I do know the President has a 
right to appoint whom he will appoint. Unless something is unearthed 
that disqualifies him because of his conduct, then all the innuendo, 
the hearsay, and the charges made against him that are ``he said, she 
said'' need to be understood in the long tradition in this town of 
killing one by 1,000 cuts, simply for political gain.
  We owe this country and especially the United Nations, something 
better than an effort of blood sport in the Senate. Unless something is 
quickly unearthed about Mr. Bolton, I ask my colleagues to advise and 
consent on this nomination and to confirm him as quickly as possible 
because the work of reform at the United Nations is long overdue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent--I will not speak that long--to 
proceed for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent my comments be separated. I will 
make a few comments about Secretary Bolton and ask that they are 
separated and appear separately in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will say a few words about Secretary 
Bolton.
  The Senator from Oregon and I are good friends and we have known each 
other a long time in the Senate and have worked together on a number of 
issues. As he well knows, the issue that defines the Bolton nomination 
is not politics. It is not ``death by 1,000 cuts.'' It is an 
examination of the record of an individual who has been nominated for 
one of the largest embassies in the world, one of the most important 
spokesperson jobs in the world, one of the most important diplomatic 
jobs in the world.
  It is vital, in the aftermath of Secretary Powell's testimony to the 
United Nations--which he now has publicly acknowledged was in error, on 
the basis of intelligence that was erroneous--that we send a message to 
the world about the credibility of that spokesperson and the United 
States itself. If that spokesperson comes to the job with a background 
of having interfered with the work of analysts in the State Department 
in the research and the intelligence research department, or if that 
person comes to the job with proof that there is, in fact, a 
retribution system for not providing the intelligence according to what 
that person wanted--not according to what the intelligence was--that is 
a problem. It is a serious problem.
  If the nominee was not candid with the committee under oath before 
which he appeared, that is a serious problem. It is not politics. There 
will be a lot more time to discuss this over the course of the next 
days. The committee, to its credit, is going to do what is appropriate, 
which is examine these issues. Every member of the committee is duty-
bound and will review that evidence with diligence, an open mind, and 
honesty. That is all we can ask.
  We should not be reducing every question, particularly legitimate 
questions, to the sense of politics. It is a mistake. It is a mistake 
for the quality of the government we are trying to provide the American 
people. It is a mistake with respect to our constitutional obligations 
when we go up to this desk and raise our hand and swear to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States.
  It is not the first time in American history a nominee has been 
questioned--Democrat or Republican. It is appropriate to perform that 
function.
  I heard colleagues on the committee say in the beginning, this is 
only one offense. If there were a pattern, I would be disturbed by 
this. Lo and behold, in the next day, a pattern appeared, and all of a 
sudden the ``pattern'' people disappeared. It was not a question of if 
there is a pattern, it was now, well, the President has a right to make 
his choice. Another reason and rationale was found.
  I don't even know why we get into such a partisan tizzy about it. The 
other side of the aisle ought to care as much as we do who is there or 
who is not there. We have had nominees in the course of time that I 
have been here who have not been confirmed or who were not confirmable, 
some of whom were delayed endlessly. I remember what a good friend of 
mine, Richard Holbrooke, went through in the process of his nomination. 
Senator Helms had him jumping through hoops for months looking at his 
financial records and his transactions, none of which occurred in the 
course of his public business, but, nevertheless, that is what 
happened. And he patiently went through it. And we patiently worked 
through it. Ultimately he was confirmed and I think he did an 
outstanding job for the country as a consequence of that.
  So I think it is time to find a different path here.

                          ____________________