[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11487-11524]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of John Bolton 
to be our next ambassador to the United Nations. I have known Mr. 
Bolton for a long time. He is a great individual, a great 
representative of the United States, and, most importantly, the person 
the President wants to represent the United States at the United 
Nations. It is the responsibility of the Senate to act on his 
nomination because the President has requested us to do so.
  Mr. Bolton has successfully championed a number of multilateral 
initiatives during the time he has been working for the Bush 
administration. He is committed to the success of the United Nations 
and sees it as an important component of our diplomacy and is a strong 
voice for U.N. reform.
  I am concerned that a lot of debate has shifted to matters that have 
nothing to do with his qualifications and some of which attempt to 
assassinate his character. There is no question he is qualified for the 
job. In fact, Mr. Bolton has been confirmed by this body on four 
separate occasions previously. Most of the Members objecting to him now 
have voted for him in the past. They did so based upon his substantive 
views, not any allegations about his conduct.
  A lot of it has to do with the fact that there is opposition to 
President Bush's policy in different regards, and Mr. Bolton's 
nomination is a surrogate, in effect, for a debate about that policy. 
We can have a debate about the President's foreign policy, but we 
should not hold up the nomination of a man with the qualifications of 
John Bolton for a position we need to fill in the process of having 
that debate.
  Moreover, I am concerned about some of the charges that have been 
made about him. One of the allegations--the Senator from Connecticut 
was speaking about this--has to do with some requests Mr. Bolton made 
which have been examined by the Intelligence Committee. Mr. Bolton's 
job at the State Department is to deal with this kind of information, 
and what the Intelligence Committee did in response to the request of 
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was to look into the 
matter. Here is the response, on May 25, just quoting two paragraphs 
from the letter of the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. 
He said:

       After completing an examination of these issues I found no 
     evidence that there was anything improper about any aspect of 
     Mr. Bolton's requests for minimized identities of U.S. 
     persons. I further found no violation of procedures, 
     directives, regulations or law by Mr. Bolton. Moreover, I am 
     not aware that anyone involved in handling these requests had 
     any concerns regarding these requests at any point in the 
     process.

  The chairman of the Intelligence Committee also said:

       Committee staff interviewed INR analysts and NSA officials 
     responsible for processing requests for the identities of 
     U.S. persons contained in signals intelligence products. None 
     of the individuals interviewed indicated there was anything 
     improper or inappropriate about Mr. Bolton's requests. We 
     also were briefed by General Michael Hayden, former Director 
     of the NSA and the current Principal Deputy Director of 
     National Intelligence. He also stated that Under Secretary 
     Bolton's requests were not only appropriate, but routine. In 
     fact, INR records indicate that since May 2001, INR submitted 
     489 other requests for minimized identities.

  Ten, by the way, had been requested by Mr. Bolton.
  So what Mr. Bolton did was routine and proper. There was nothing 
improper about it. As the chairman of the committee noted, they found 
absolutely nothing that would suggest anything improper in Mr. Bolton's 
activities. This is all a smokescreen. There is nothing there.
  The last point on this matter had to do with the fact that the 
Senate, it is alleged, should have access to all of these names. This 
has nothing to do with Mr. Bolton's qualifications to be the U.S. 
Representative at the United Nations. But there is some feeling that 
until Senators have access to these names, we should not act on the 
Bolton nomination.
  Talk about a non sequitur, the Senate routinely does not have access 
to these names. They are highly classified. They get into the sources 
and methods of our intelligence. It is appropriate for certain people 
in the administration to gain access to the names, which is why, as is 
noted, there were 489 requests for those names by people within the 
administration--10 of which came from Mr. Bolton. There was nothing 
wrong with that.
  As to whether Senators want access to these names, if that is 
something we need to take up with the intelligence community, the 
Intelligence Committee is entirely capable of doing that, but it has 
nothing to do with Mr. Bolton's qualifications to serve and our need to 
act on his nomination.
  I suggest we cut through all of this smokescreen and get to the 
question of whether John Bolton is qualified to serve in the position 
the President would like to have him serve. That is the real question.
  Let me note a couple of other things I am aware of that he has done 
in his position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security.
  Probably the most significant and, frankly, one of the most 
significant achievements of the State Department itself in the last 4 
years was John Bolton's initiative to develop the President's 
Proliferation Initiative. Over 60 countries are now participating in 
that initiative, and it is, frankly, one of the key reasons we disarmed 
Libya with its nuclear program.
  John Bolton has played a key role in the implementation--creation and 
implementation--of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation 
of

[[Page 11488]]

WMD and WMD Materials. Under that program, we have doubled the size of 
the nonproliferation effort in the former Soviet Union by committing 
our G-8 partners to match our dollars with programs under the so-called 
Nunn-Lugar CTR effort.
  He was instrumental in concluding U.N. Security Council Resolution 
1540, which for the first time identifies proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security--a 
resolution, by the way, that was adopted unanimously.
  He has been a big advocate of U.N. reform. For example, while serving 
as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, he 
detailed his concept of a ``Unitary U.N.'' that sought to ensure 
management and budget reforms across the U.N. system, and that is 
something that is sorely needed. Almost everybody acknowledges that the 
U.N. needs this kind of reform today.
  John Bolton is the guy who has worked tirelessly on this effort, 
including, by the way, the payment of arrearages in U.N. assessments 
that were created during the 1980s. In that same capacity, he led the 
effort to repeal perhaps the most heinous resolution in U.N. history, 
the resolution equating Zionism with racism. He also served as a member 
of the Commission on Religious Freedom.
  He has been there. He has fought on behalf of the United States. He 
has been an effective diplomat. Yes, he is a tough guy. People have 
noted that. Do we want a weak Representative at the United Nations? 
Especially today? I don't think so. President Bush is the person who 
has talked to all of these diplomats and Presidents and representatives 
of countries around the world. He has a good feel of what it takes at 
the United Nations now. None of us has the President's experience in 
knowing all these world leaders. The President has thought about this 
and said, knowing all these people, the way they act, how we use 
diplomacy at United Nations: I think the best guy to represent the 
United States at this point in time is my man John Bolton. He is the 
man I want to send there.
  We ought to acknowledge that the President knows a little bit about 
foreign policy and foreign affairs, having worked with all these 
people, and probably has a pretty good idea of what it takes to get our 
country's interests represented well at the United Nations. John Bolton 
is the man he wants us to confirm in that position.
  There are a variety of other things Mr. Bolton has worked on with 
respect to U.N. reform and efforts to reform the International Atomic 
Energy Agency and a variety of other items.
  I will conclude by noting that we all appreciate the fact that the 
United Nations needs reform, and John Bolton is a person who can 
accomplish that reform. He has accomplished a great deal in the matter 
that is primarily of importance to us these days--the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and the war on terror. I believe all the 
charges made against him have been answered, of course--they have been 
answered in spades--but we ought to move beyond all that smokescreen 
and get back to the central point, which is John Bolton is the man the 
President wants at the United Nations, he has been confirmed by this 
body four times before, there is no question about his qualifications 
and his desire, and the Senate needs to uphold the great tradition of 
this body by acting on--debating, certainly, but acting on the 
President's nominees and confirming John Bolton by 7 o'clock tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Chair remind me when I have 2 
minutes left, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is premature for this nomination even 
to be brought up before the Senate until we have the opportunity to see 
all the obviously relevant information on Mr. Bolton's record.
  I want to congratulate our friends and colleagues, Senator Biden, 
Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Sarbanes, and the other members of 
the committee, for the outstanding job they have done on this 
nomination.
  The obvious conclusion from the administration's stonewalling is that 
the documents being withheld from the Senate contain nothing to support 
the nomination and will only make it even clearer that Mr. Bolton is 
the wrong choice for this extremely important position.
  The United Nations is the world's preeminent diplomatic body. We need 
a representative there who is a strong and effective leader, who 
believes in diplomacy, and who has a proven record of using diplomacy 
to advance America's foreign policy and national security objectives.
  Now more than ever, America needs to put our best face forward to the 
international community. We can--and should--do far better than John 
Bolton.
  Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served as the U.S. ambassador to the United 
Nations under President Reagan, has spoken of the need to approach the 
job of U.N. ambassador in a ``low key, quiet, persuasive and consensus-
building way.'' As she says:

       John Bolton may do diplomatic jobs for the U.S. government, 
     but John is not a diplomat.

  In fact, John Bolton is more a bully than a diplomat. His 
confirmation hearings suggest that on many occasions he twisted the 
intelligence to fit his views and wrongly pressured analysts to produce 
intelligence conclusions at odds with the facts. He continually sought 
to exaggerate the intelligence about Cuba's possible biological weapons 
activities and support for terrorism. He continually sought to 
exaggerate Syria's nuclear activities beyond what the intelligence 
analysts regarded as accurate. Rather than accept the analysis produced 
by the intelligence community, Mr. Bolton insisted on advancing his own 
views and retaliated against those who disagreed with him. He should be 
held accountable for this behavior, not rewarded and promoted.
  The lessons of the Iraq war are abundantly clear. We need to make 
decisions based on facts and sound analysis of intelligence.
  We need to encourage intelligence analysts to ``speak truth to 
power'' when intelligence is in danger of being distorted, manipulated, 
or misrepresented. We can't demand the results we want and try to fire 
people who refuse to go along. But that's precisely what Mr. Bolton 
repeatedly tried to do.
  He tried to fire Christian Westermann a State Department intelligence 
analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, who disputed the 
misleading language that Bolton tried to use about Cuba and biological 
weapons.
  In another incident, the National Intelligence Officer for Latin 
America had said that a speech by Mr. Bolton on Cuba did not accurately 
reflect the assessment of the intelligence community. So what did John 
Bolton do? He personally went to the CIA to try to have him fired.
  Mr. Bolton's contempt for anyone with opposing views was not limited 
to intelligence officers who disagreed with him.
  When two State Department officers in the nonproliferation Bureau 
disagreed over policy, he sought their removal.
  He accused Rexon Ryu, a career civil servant, of intentionally 
withholding a cable on the U.N. inspection process in Iraq from his 
office. Nine months later, John Bolton denied Mr. Ryu a significant new 
assignment as the point person for the Nonproliferation Bureau for the 
upcoming G-8 summit.
  In the case of a State Department lawyer, Mr. Bolton tried to remove 
him from a legal case on China sanctions, based on a misunderstanding 
of a position the lawyer had taken.
  These are not isolated incidents of disgruntled employees. They 
represent a clear and troubling pattern of a bully who repeatedly tried 
to silence opposition by attempting to intimidate analysts and 
subordinates into conforming to his views.
  Sadly, his view is not one that envisions a great and important role 
for the United Nations. On the contrary, Mr. Bolton has shown nothing 
but disdain for the United Nations. He has

[[Page 11489]]

continued to articulate a vision of a go-it-alone foreign policy.
  Speaking to the World Federalist Association in February 2004, he 
said:

       There is no such thing as the United Nations. . . There is 
     an international community, that occasionally can be led by 
     the only real power left in the world and that is the United 
     States, when it suits our interest and when we can get others 
     to go along.

  He said:

       The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you 
     lost 10 stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

  These are not the views of a person who is supposed to represent 
America's diplomatic interests in the international community. These 
are not the views of an individual who, as the Administration argues, 
is well suited to reform the United Nations.
  These views are likely to make Mr. Bolton less effective, not more 
effective, pursuing our interests at the United Nations. We can't 
expect the support of other nations on issues that matter to the United 
States, if we show nothing but contempt for other nations.
  In fact, on one highly important issue where diplomacy is desperately 
needed--North Korea--Mr. Bolton has been consistently wrong.
  The nuclear threat from North Korea continues to grow. North Korea is 
already the greatest proliferator of ballistic missiles. Desperate, and 
strapped for cash, the threat is very real that North Korea could be a 
source of nuclear material for Al Qaeda terrorists.
  We agreed to the Six-Party Talks, but have not effectively engaged 
the North Koreans. At Mr. Bolton's urging, our policy's been AWOL so 
far.
  The results may be deadly. When President Bush came to office, North 
Korea's plutonium program was inactive. Its nuclear rods were under 
seal.
  Then the President called North Korea part of his Axis of Evil. As we 
prepared for war with Iraq over nuclar weapons that did not exist, we 
learned that North Korea had begun a secret uranium enrichment program. 
When we confronted North Korea, but then refused to negotiate with it, 
North Korea expelled the international inspectors and began producing 
plutonium for nuclear weapons. On the eve of war with Iraq, North Korea 
pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
  At the beginning of the Bush administration, North Korea was already 
thought to have two nuclear weapons. They are now believed to have up 
to eight such weapons--and possible more--and they may well be 
preparing for a nuclear test.
  One of our worst national nightmares is nuclear material or even 
nuclear weapons in the hands of al Qaeda, with North Korea as their 
supplier.
  The person guiding President Bush's policy on North Korea was John 
Bolton. His policy's been a failure, yet the administration now wants 
to promote him to be our Ambassador to the U.N.
  Mr. Bolton was not able to advance effective diplomacy as Under 
Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, and 
there is no reason to believe he can advance America's interests at the 
U.N.
  The challenges facing America are serious--terrorism, war, ethnic 
conflict, ancient and modern rivalries, disease and poverty, human 
rights--all these are still the pressing daily realities--for peoples 
throughout the world.
  The need for a strong United Nations as an effective international 
organization and a strong U.S. Ambassador to advance our interests is 
clear and compelling.
  As Franklin Roosevelt said about America in 1945:

       We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that 
     our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of nations 
     far away . . . . We have learned to be citizens of the world, 
     members of the human community. It is not a Republican or 
     Democratic or American community. It is a world community.

  In the age of instant global communication, trade zones that span 
hemispheres, transnational criminal gangs, international terrorism, and 
the prospect of nuclear devastation--the need of nations to work 
together is greater than ever. The challenges we face today are too 
complex, too immense, and too pervasive for the United States or any 
nation to face alone.
  The United Nations is the one and only organization through which the 
nations of the world can link their unique strengths in a realistic 
hope of building a peaceful future for all humanity.
  We need a representative at the United Nations who supports that 
vision and is committed to that future for us all. John Bolton is not 
the person for that job, and I urge my colleagues to vote against him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak again in support of John 
Bolton's confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. When I 
spoke in April in favor of Mr. Bolton, I highlighted a number of his 
qualities, including that he is smart, experienced, hard working, 
talented, and he knows the United Nations. In view of these and other 
impressive qualifications, the Senate has confirmed him four times in 
the past.
  It is worth repeating several times: The Senate has done its work and 
confirmed him four times in the past.
  In his current job as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security, he has compiled a record of accomplishment. For 
example, next week marks the second anniversary of the Proliferation 
Security Initiative, a multilateral effort to stop trafficking of 
weapons of mass destruction and their components. John Bolton 
spearheaded this program since its inception, and today more than 60 
countries support it. This success alone should disprove the argument 
that Mr. Bolton is somehow an arch unilateralist, bent on subverting 
collective international action.
  The PSI is not his only multilateral success. He has also helped to 
construct the G-8's global partnership to secure dangerous technologies 
and materials. He led the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Moscow 
which dramatically reduced the size of deployed nuclear arsenals in the 
United States and Russia, and in his previous post as Assistant 
Secretary for International Organizations he led the successful drive 
to repeal the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism.
  A lot has been made in recent weeks about Mr. Bolton's personal 
disposition in dealing with colleagues. Let's be frank: He is not a 
career diplomat either by profession or temperament, but then, the role 
of ambassador to the U.N. has always required something special. A look 
back at some of the personalities who have held this job--from Adlai 
Stevenson to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, from Jeane Kirkpatrick to Richard 
Holbrooke--shows that directness and forcefulness are assets, not 
hindrances, to effectiveness at the U.N.
  We all know Mr. Bolton is perhaps not the world's most beloved 
manager nor one to keep his temper entirely under wraps. Perhaps I have 
a certain bias in that direction and an extra special sympathy because 
I am well known to my colleagues as always calm and never engaged in 
any controversial issues nor activities.
  But seriously, I ask my colleagues, I ask seriously, is this unique 
to Mr. Bolton? If a temper and an unorthodox management style were 
disqualifiers from Government service, would that disqualify a lot of 
people, including maybe one or two in this body?
  But the fact is, it is worth wondering not whether Mr. Bolton is a 
mild, gentle diplomat--we know he is not--but, rather, whether he is a 
representative we need at the United Nations. We need an ambassador who 
knows the U.N. We need an ambassador who is willing to shake up an 
organization that requires serious reform. Is there anyone in this 
Senate who does not believe the United Nations needs serious reform, an 
organization that has countries such as Sudan on its Human Rights 
Commission or whose General Assembly equates Zionism with racism?
  We all know about the oil-for-food scandal that is unfolding now. We 
know there have been several calls for reform. One of my friends, Brent 
Scowcroft, served on a panel that was named by the Secretary General. 
And

[[Page 11490]]

Kofi Annan has presented his own serious plan to implement these 
recommendations because the United Nations needs reform.
  Why do I care so much? I care for a broad variety of reasons, 
including the fact that my taxpayer dollars support some 20 percent of 
the United Nations operations. The United Nations needs reform. The 
United Nations has failed in peacekeeping operations throughout the 
world. Some of the scandals concerning peacekeeping activities, of rape 
in the Congo, have got to be changed. The United Nations needs the 
presence of a tough, hard, dedicated individual who has been already 
confirmed in various posts four times by this Senate.
  Elections have consequences. One consequence of President Bush's 
reelection is he has a right to appoint officials of his choice. I 
stress this because the President nominates. It is not my choice, or 
any other Senator's, but the President's choice. When President Clinton 
was elected, I didn't share the policy views of some of the officials 
he nominated, but I voted to confirm them, thinking that the President 
has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best.
  The Foreign Relations Committee has spent weeks investigating Mr. 
Bolton's background. In his recent report on behalf of the committee 
majority, Senator Lugar, one of the most respected individuals in this 
Nation, determined ``the end result of all this is that Secretary 
Bolton emerged looking better than when it began.'' Chairman Lugar 
ultimately concluded that Mr. Bolton is a highly qualified nominee. I 
agree.
  In the last 48 hours or so I have noticed a change in the temperature 
around this body. I am very pleased about it. We realized it is time to 
move ahead with the people's business. It is time we started addressing 
seriously the energy crisis in this country. It is time we got 
together, along with the President, in coming together to save Social 
Security. It is time we move forward with the Defense authorization 
bill and help the men and women who are defending this Nation and 
sacrificing as we speak.
  I strongly urge my friends on the other side of the aisle, we are 
going to have a cloture vote this evening. After that, let's vote up or 
down. For my colleagues who disagree and do not want Mr. Bolton there, 
I respect their views. But let's go ahead and give him an up-or-down 
vote before we go into recess for a week. Let him go. If the Senate in 
its wisdom approves of his nomination, let's go ahead and let him get 
to work rather than wait a week or 10 days or more. We have been at 
this for weeks. Let's move on to other things.
  If we asked our constituents, What would you like us to do, take up 
the Defense authorization bill? Take up an energy bill? Try to work on 
this deficit problem that is mortgaging their futures? Sit down and 
negotiate a bipartisan agreement on Social Security? Those would be 
their priorities. Let's move ahead tonight, have the cloture vote, have 
a vote on Mr. Bolton, and move forward and plan for when we come back 
from the recess, addressing the issues that are important to the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, let me begin my statement today by 
outlining what I think this debate is not about.
  I do not believe this debate is about Mr. Bolton being rude on 
occasion. This debate is not about Mr. Bolton being blunt. The debate 
is not about Mr. Bolton occasionally losing his temper.
  As the distinguished Senator from Arizona just noted, if this is the 
criteria, many of us in the U.S. Senate would not be qualified to serve 
in a position that requires confirmation. Almost all of us lose our 
cool from time to time and say things we come to regret later. Let me 
add, I don't think this debate is about whether Mr. Bolton is an 
intelligent man.
  These are not the issues at the heart of the strong bipartisan 
objections that have been voiced on this nomination.
  The crux of the objections is very specific, very credible 
allegations that Mr. Bolton sought to shade intelligence and sideline 
career intelligence analysts who did not agree with his policy views. 
This is the core of the bipartisan objections to this nomination.
  Over and over again, we heard from a range of career officials and 
Bush administration appointees that Mr. Bolton sought to massage 
intelligence to fit an ideological bias. Let me emphasize, these are 
objections coming forward from Bush appointees.
  In addition, we have 102 former ambassadors and senior diplomats who 
oppose Bolton--from the Nixon administration, the Ford administration, 
and that bastion of fuzzy-headed liberalism, the Reagan administration.
  In an environment where reliable intelligence is one of the best 
tools we have to keep us safe, we must heed the lessons from the Iraq 
war: Intelligence must never be shaped to fit policy views. Dissent 
within the intelligence community should not be muzzled or suppressed; 
it should be respected and encouraged.
  The United States Senate should be sending a clear, unequivocal 
statement to our intelligence officers: We want you to play it straight 
and call it like you see it--even if it is something we do not want to 
hear.
  I am afraid that by voting to confirm Mr. Bolton, we will fail to 
send that critical message.
  Now, I believe the President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt 
when appointing senior members of his team. To that end, I have 
supported a number of the President's choices for top foreign policy 
positions, including Secretary Rice; Robert Zoellick, to be her deputy; 
and Nick Burns, to fill the third-ranking position at the State 
Department.
  I think we should provide some deference to the President. The 
executive branch is primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations 
of our foreign policy.
  At the same time, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to 
advise and to consent. This is a responsibility I take very seriously.
  And so, because of Mr. Bolton's consistent breach of the line between 
practicing politics and analyzing intelligence--that is pivotal to our 
national security--I intend to vote ``no'' on the nomination of John 
Bolton to be our representative to the United Nations.
  I agree with much of what my colleagues have said about the problems 
with Mr. Bolton's qualifications to serve in this position. But I would 
like to focus on one issue that I believe has not been covered in great 
detail--Mr. Bolton's performance in his current job.
  It has been suggested we should overlook the troubling aspects of Mr. 
Bolton's record--the fact that he appears to have attempted to 
manipulate intelligence data; the fact he does not appear to have been 
entirely forthcoming before the Foreign Relations Committee; and the 
fact we still cannot get basic information from the State Department on 
his nomination--for one reason: because Mr. Bolton is so competent for 
the job. I have heard this argument repeatedly from the other side of 
the aisle.
  I am baffled by this reasoning. I am stupefied by the suggestion that 
Mr. Bolton is such an excellent choice for the job, so uniquely 
qualified for this job, that we should just ignore all of these other 
problems.
  When I look at the record of Mr. Bolton during the last 4 years as 
the top arms control and nonproliferation official at the State 
Department, I am not impressed. Let's look at his track record.
  On North Korea, the approach that has been advocated by both Mr. 
Bolton and this administration has simply not worked. Under Mr. 
Bolton's watch, there are no longer international inspectors and 
cameras at any site in North Korea. The North Koreans have withdrawn 
from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We now believe North Korea has 
developed material for six to eight nuclear weapons.
  When North Korea has one or two nuclear weapons, the situation is 
critical. They can test one weapon, and hold one weapon. When it has 
six to eight, the situation is terminal. North Korea can now test a 
weapon, hold a couple,

[[Page 11491]]

and sell the rest. And we know that North Korea will do virtually 
anything for the money.
  Another area Mr. Bolton was responsible for is the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty, a critical tool for helping to prevent the spread of nuclear 
weapons to rogue states, which could ultimately fall into the hands of 
terrorist organizations.
  President Bush recognized the importance of the NPT and pledged to 
strengthen this treaty in a 2004 speech at the National Defense 
University. A week later, Mr. Bolton promised to do the same.
  What has happened since? Virtually nothing. The administration has 
made very little progress on this issue, and the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty review conference currently underway is not going well.
  An article from MSNBC reports:

       The United States has been losing control of the 
     conference's agenda this week to Iran and other countries, a 
     potentially serious setback to U.S. efforts to isolate 
     Tehran.

  Where has Mr. Bolton been throughout this process?
  According to the same article:

       [S]ince last fall Bolton, Mr. Bush's embattled nominee to 
     be America's ambassador to the United Nations, has 
     aggressively lobbied for a senior job in the second Bush 
     administration. During that time Mr. Bolton did almost no 
     diplomatic groundwork for the NPT conference . . . officials 
     say. Everyone knew the conference was coming, and that it 
     would be contentious, says a former senior Bush official, but 
     Bolton stopped all diplomacy on this six months ago.

  In other words, Mr. Bolton was more interested in lobbying for the 
U.N. job than doing the tough groundwork necessary for a successful 
review conference.
  Let's turn to Iran--another issue on which Mr. Bolton should have 
been working to formulate a coherent, workable administration strategy. 
Instead, the administration's policy has been all over the map. In a 
hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, a senior 
State Department official described the latest iteration of the 
Administration's policy as a ``patient policy.''
  I would say the policy has been less about patience and more about 
paralysis--a dangerous situation for a nation such as Iran that is 
developing nuclear weapons, is a state sponsor of terrorism, and is 
meddling in Iraq.
  Perhaps this paralysis and incoherence is best illustrated by the 
fact that since 2001, the administration has tried--to my knowledge, 
without success--to formulate a Presidential Directive on Iran. As the 
top non-proliferation official at the State Department, Mr. Bolton 
should have been doing more to shape a workable policy instead of 
letting it drift dangerously along for the last 4 years.
  Mr. President, I know my time is running short, so let me conclude 
with a couple of simple points.
  Two examples are frequently cited by Mr. Bolton and his supporters as 
evidence of his success and competence in his current position: Libya 
and the Proliferation Security Initiative. During his confirmation 
hearings, Mr. Bolton touted these successes over and over again.
  Now, I agree with Mr. Bolton that we have made important progress on 
these issues. But reports suggest that the Libya deal was struck in 
spite of Mr. Bolton, not because of him. In fact, Mr. Bolton was 
sidelined from the negotiations by the White House. And, the British 
Government specifically asked that Mr. Bolton not play a role in this 
process.
  I quote from an MSNBC article that specifically addresses this issue:

       Bolton, for instance, often takes and is given credit for 
     the administration's Proliferation Security Initiative, an 
     agreement to interdict suspected WMD shipments on the high 
     seas, and the deal to dismantle Libya's nuclear program, a 
     deal that Bolton, by the way, had sought to block. But [a] 
     former senior Bush official . . . says that, in fact, 
     Bolton's successor, Robert Joseph deserves most of the credit 
     for these achievements. This official adds that it was Joseph 
     who was in charge of counterproliferation at the NSC [and] 
     who had to pitch in when Bolton fumbled preparations for the 
     NPT conference as well.

  Now, here is my point: If there was clear evidence that Mr. Bolton is 
a terrific diplomat, maybe I could understand how some in the Senate 
could overlook what I consider to be a mountain of evidence concerning 
his misuse of intelligence and say: You know what, this guy is such a 
capable administrator and diplomat, we need him to reform the United 
Nations.
  I would still believe that the misuse of intelligence, in and of 
itself, disqualifies Mr. Bolton from the job, but at least I could 
understand why some people would draw such a conclusion.
  But the record indicates that in his current job he has not had much 
success, which leads me to ask: Why is it we are so confident this is 
the person who is going to lead reform in the United Nations?
  The distinguished Senator from Arizona is exactly right, we need 
reform in the United Nations. It is inexcusable some of the things that 
go on up there.
  But as a consequence of Mr. Bolton's diminished credibility and 
stature, I think he is exactly the opposite of what we need at the 
United Nations. Countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma, and others that 
do not want to see reform take place at the UN, are going to be able to 
dismiss our efforts at reform by saying: Mr. Bolton is a U.N. basher, 
someone who is ideologically opposed to the existence of the U.N.--
thereby using Mr. Bolton's own words and lack of credibility as a 
shield to prevent the very reforms that need to take place.
  Moreover, I have yet to hear a comprehensive plan from Mr. Bolton or 
the administration for U.N. reform.
  So let me close by saying this: When the Foreign Relations Committee 
considered Mr. Bolton's nomination, I invoked the memory of Adlai 
Stevenson, a great citizen of the State of Illinois. Stevenson had the 
credibility, the temperament, and the diplomatic skill to guide the 
United States through some of the worst, most difficult times at the 
United Nations--especially the Cuban missile crisis.
  During this crisis, we were able to isolate the Soviets because of 
the stature and integrity of our permanent representative to the United 
Nations.
  Given the issues that have surfaced surrounding Mr. Bolton's 
nomination, I simply ask my colleagues this: If a crisis were to occur 
with North Korea or Iran, are we sure the integrity and credibility of 
Mr. Bolton would command the respect of the rest of the world? Would 
Mr. Bolton, like Adlai Stevenson, be able to convince the world that 
our intelligence and our policies are right and true? Would Mr. Bolton 
be able to isolate our enemies and build a coalition that would 
ultimately make our troops safer and our mission easier?
  I believe the answer is no. There are some wonderful, capable, tough, 
conservative, reform-minded Republican diplomats who are well qualified 
for this task and would easily be confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Bolton 
is not one of them.
  I would urge that the other side of the aisle seriously consider 
their position on this nomination. I hope we can muster the votes to 
send this nomination back to the President. Let's start afresh. I know 
we can do better.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the 
nomination of John Bolton to be the United States next permanent 
representative to the United Nations. I do so because I believe this is 
a man of great integrity who has dedicated himself to serve this Nation 
in various different posts over the course of his life.
  I want to try hard not to repeat a lot of what has been said already 
because it is, I know, at times repetitious. But I do believe it is 
important we recognize and know this gentleman has been previously 
confirmed by the Senate in four prior Presidential appointments, and 
three of those in the area of diplomacy.
  I am intrigued by the comments of the Senator from Illinois about Mr. 
Bolton's diminished stature. It appears that now we are going to find 
him unqualified by what has transpired over the last 60 days to this 
good man, as his record has been trashed repeatedly, oftentimes with 
scant or little evidence.
  So let me say I believe this is a good man who has earned the right 
and has

[[Page 11492]]

been chosen by the President of the United States to represent our 
Nation at this very important post.
  The Senator from Arizona spoke about elections having consequences. 
The fact is, President Bush not only has made this choice but has made 
a choice of someone who he believes is the right person to lead our 
efforts at this time at the United Nations.
  Mr. Bolton is someone who has sometimes been called blunt speaking. 
At the same time, our President at times has irked people because of 
the directness of his language, because of the fact that sometimes he 
calls a spade a spade. I do recall, as a member of his Cabinet, sitting 
in a joint session of the Congress when a great deal of talk was 
generated about him speaking about an ``axis of evil.'' The President 
has chosen this direct man to be at the United Nations, and at a time 
when we need direct talk. There is a great tradition at the United 
Nations of people who have been plain spoken.
  I have had the pleasure and honor of knowing Ambassador Jeane 
Kirkpatrick. No one has ever suggested that Ambassador Kirkpatrick was 
shy, retiring or unclear about her views. I also had the honor of 
knowing someone who was ambassador to the United Nations, Vernon 
Walters. I know Vernon Walters embarked on many diplomatic missions, 
usually to set the record straight with some foreign leader, usually to 
tell him bluntly what needed to be done or said. If there is any doubt 
about that, there is a wonderful book he wrote about his life called 
``Silent Missions'' that provides good evidence.
  We hold up Adlai Stevenson as someone who should be emulated. The 
fact is, Ambassador Stevenson, who was a wonderful public servant as 
well, at times used rather blunt language. I can remember as a child 
being glued to the TV set during the missile crisis with Cuba and the 
Soviet Union, and Adlai Stevenson demanding: Don't wait for the 
translation. He was prepared to use blunt language. It is in our 
national interest, at times, to have direct, blunt-speaking people, 
particularly at a place like the United Nations.
  We have heard, in the course of the debate, that Mr. Bolton should 
not be qualified for this job because he spoke of the fact that out of 
the 38 stories at the U.N. building, perhaps 10 could be done away 
with. Who here does not, in a serious way, believe that the United 
Nations bureaucracy could use some streamlining? More interesting than 
that, Mr. Bolton has been speaking about this for over a decade. He 
wrote some very interesting articles, which I took the time to read, 
about United Nations reform, about streamlining that bureaucracy, about 
better budgetary management. Sadly, although his writings are 8 or 10 
years old, even longer, little has been done to move the ball forward, 
to change that stymied bureaucracy that continues not to use taxpayer 
dollars appropriately and who has engaged in some condemnable practices 
in recent days.
  One of the charges I find most unfair--and its repetition does not 
add to its credibility--is the charge that Mr. Bolton has politicized 
intelligence, has massaged intelligence, has not used intelligence 
adequately. There is no evidence, for those of us who sat in the 
Foreign Relations Committee meetings and heard the evidence of those 
who spoke, that Mr. Bolton ever massaged intelligence. There is 
evidence that Mr. Bolton acted swiftly to try to explain to those who 
worked for him how they should approach the clearance of his speeches. 
And he did react strongly to those who tried to go around him and 
attempted to impact or influence that which would be clear for him to 
say.
  It is, in fact, at times difficult to study intelligence and analyze 
it in a way that gives it clear and complete clarity. So what do we do? 
We have intelligence analysts. We have human beings who are, similar to 
historians and journalists and all of us in life, given to the 
proclivities of their own bias, their own life experience, their own 
political views. Through that filter, comes the intelligence which 
comes not in a clear package but as a mosaic, something that comes in 
bits and pieces and dribs and drabs. Out of that, we have to make a 
whole cloth. We have to create a judgment. That is where judgment comes 
in.
  Those who are in politically appointed positions have the 
responsibility to challenge the professionals in the intelligence 
community as they seek to put together the ultimate judgments about 
what the pieces of information tell them concerning the truth of that 
intelligence.
  In that instance, at times, maybe Mr. Bolton has had differences, but 
in every single instance that could be overturned--and believe me, his 
record has been combed carefully--there was never a time when Mr. 
Bolton went outside that which was approved and that which was cleared.
  It is important to me that the record be clear about Mr. Bolton's 
statements on the issue of bioweapons capabilities by Cuba. In his 
speech at the Heritage Foundation, which has caused so much controversy 
and interest, he used the very same language that 3 months earlier one 
of his accusers, Carl Ford, had used before a Senatorial committee. 
That language, which stands to this day, reads:

       The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited 
     developmental offensive biological warfare research and 
     development effort. Cuba has provided dual use bio-technology 
     to rogue states. We're concerned that such technology could 
     support [bioweapons] programs in those states. We call on 
     Cuba to cease all [bioweapons] applicable cooperation with 
     rogue states and to fully comply with all its obligations 
     under the Biological Weapons Convention.

  I believe those are responsible remarks. I believe those are timely 
remarks. I believe those are remarks that are intended to make the 
world safer and to make America safer from terrorism by bioweapons. 
Sharing bioweapons technology with rogue states is not a good thing. 
The fact that Mr. Bolton would dare to call their hand on it is not a 
bad thing. We should be grateful to Mr. Bolton for his directness, for 
his bluntness, for his willingness to take on this issue and speak 
about it clearly.
  It has also been said that Mr. Bolton may not have done a good job at 
his last assignment. I repeat, again, that this is the fourth time the 
Senate, after a Presidential appointment, has sought to confirm Mr. 
Bolton, most recently as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security.
  A number of states around the world pose great danger and concern. We 
spoke about Cuba. It is one of those. But there is also Iran. As to 
Iran, on Under Secretary Bolton's watch, Iran's formerly covert nuclear 
program has been exposed and has been described in detail in seven 
public reports by the IAEA director general. The IAEA board of 
directors has adopted six resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its 
nuclear fuels cycle activities and fully cooperate with IAEA 
inspections.
  The EU--particularly UK, France, and Germany--the United States, and 
Russia are working closely to suspend and reverse Iran's nuclear 
program and to develop a complete absence of any further nuclear 
testing by them. Today we had some encouraging news. We hope we can 
build on that. That is a success that, in no small measure, is due to 
Mr. Bolton's work.
  In addition, we have talked about North Korea. I find it terribly 
interesting that the irrational behavior of the North Korean 
Government, which we all know to be irrational and unconventional, 
would be laid at the feet of this nominee. North Korea has had nuclear 
aspirations for decades. And it began an active effort to acquire 
nuclear weapons years before the Bush administration came into office, 
years before Mr. Bolton was in the position he holds. The 1994 agreed 
framework was doomed to fail and was only a short-term Band-Aid to the 
resolution of this problem. It was akin to looking down a soda straw 
and at a plutonium facility and ignoring the fact that North Korea 
began cheating, almost as the ink was drying, by embarking on a covert 
uranium enrichment program. The Bush administration changed tracks. The 
Bush administration took a different policy approach.
  I understand there may be some on the other side of the aisle who 
disagree with that policy approach, and much has been said about that. 
In fact, in the Presidential debate, there was discussion of this very 
issue. Again, elections

[[Page 11493]]

have consequences. President Bush's approach to proceeding with the 
six-party approach to negotiations with North Korea is what is 
continuing today.
  We cannot blame Mr. Bolton for those instances where foreign policy 
issues have not gone as we wished and then refuse to give him credit 
for those that have been successful. That is the height of unfairness 
and the height of hypocrisy.
  In Libya, our policies have met with success. Negotiations on Libya's 
weapons of mass destruction dismantling effort were conducted at a 
senior level by the CIA and White House negotiators. Mr. Bolton was not 
a part of that process, as often is the case for diplomats. I can 
recall a distinguished ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai 
Stevenson, when President Kennedy received information, with 
photographs by our reconnaissance airplanes, that there were offensive 
missiles hidden in Cuba, Adlai Stevenson did not have that information. 
We know now, from the books that have been written about that, he was 
highly offended that he was not included in or given that information 
until later when it had been made public. The fact is, sometimes 
diplomacy has to be conducted in serious and closed circles. Mr. Bolton 
successfully oversaw WMD dismantling and removal from Libya.
  In addition, I believe there have been a number of other unfair 
accusations about Mr. Bolton's conduct in terms of his relationship 
with subordinates.
  The fact is, some of these allegations have been found to be 
completely devoid of any merit. In fact, the majority report on the 
Melody Townsel case--one of those that was so sensational, that caused 
the Foreign Relations Committee to defer consideration of his 
nomination until 3 weeks later--the investigation on page 315 of the 
report says:

       The investigation was not able to establish conclusively 
     that the alleged events even occurred.

  The fact is that, along with many of these other allegations that 
have really nothing to do with the qualifications and competence of Mr. 
Bolton, has been found to be either without merit or with very little 
merit.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, it is time that we move forward with 
this good man's nomination. I find it, as a fairly new Member of the 
Senate, a little disturbing and disappointing how easily and with 
little hard evidence a person's reputation can be tarnished. The fact 
is, there have been bits and pieces that were either exaggerated or 
simply not found to have merit that have been now utilized to try to 
derail this good man's nomination.
  I look forward to Mr. Bolton's service at the U.N. I think he will be 
a good and effective reformer in an institution that is in desperate 
need of reform and an institution where he has taken the time, over the 
history of his work, to talk about those issues of reform--management 
reform and budgetary reform.
  Our Nation contributes a very sizable percentage of the U.N. budget. 
It is our taxpayer dollars that are being wasted at the U.N. and that 
are oftentimes not only not serving our national interests but are, in 
fact, harming our national interests.
  We have a person with Mr. Bolton's experience, and it has been 
suggested that he is someone who is simply not going to be effective at 
the U.N., and he is not going to be effective because it keeps being 
repeated that he will not be effective there.
  Mr. Bolton has a strong record of accomplishment. I point to the 
repeal of the Zionism as racism resolution, on which Mr. Bolton led the 
effort that was so important in establishing a dynamic paradigm so the 
Middle Eastern peace process could move forward, so that fundamental 
fairness toward Israel could also prevail at the U.N., a place that has 
been so incredibly harsh on Israel and its right to exist.
  I am delighted and it is with great pleasure that I support the 
nomination of John Bolton to be the next Permanent Representative at 
the U.N.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.
  There are two issues at stake. First is an issue of whether this 
Senate will receive critical information so that we can deliberate 
carefully and thoroughly about Mr. Bolton's nomination. So far, the 
State Department, as my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Biden, pointed 
out, failed to provide information under the theory that they get to 
decide what we should know when we are casting a vote as important as 
ambassador to the United Nations. It is a novel theory, but it holds no 
water. If we allow this to go on, it will make the Senate irrelevant 
when it comes to major decisions about nominations and major decisions 
about the future policy of the country.
  The second issue is the qualifications of Mr. Bolton to be ambassador 
to the United Nations. For me, this is not a particularly hard vote. I 
opposed Mr. Bolton's nomination to be Assistant Secretary for Arms 
Control. That was based upon my review of his record, his statements, 
and his commitment to arms control and counterproliferation. Frankly, I 
think over the last several years--the record is mixed, but in large 
part it suggests that his duties there certainly don't warrant a 
promotion to be ambassador to the U.N.
  He was instrumental in establishing the Proliferation Security 
Initiative, which is a potentially useful framework, but as CRS pointed 
out:

       Without greater resources, legal authority or technical 
     tools for interdiction, the success of PSI may rest on a 
     political commitment of like-minded states to follow through.

  In a sense, after all of the initial hype, there does not appear to 
be the followthrough necessary to make this work. That was on Mr. 
Bolton's watch.
  He also negotiated the 2002 Moscow Treaty, but this is an interesting 
arms control treaty. It has no verification regime. There is no 
requirement for either side to make adjustments in the status of 
nuclear weapons until the last day of the treaty, which is years from 
now. It has no provisions for continuing negotiations. Again, more 
style than substance, more press release than real progress.
  Secretary Rice has indicated that Mr. Bolton was involved in 
negotiations which led to a significant breakthrough--the renunciation 
of nuclear weapons by the Government of Libya. However, if you listen 
to British officials participating in the negotiations, they requested 
that the White House take Mr. Bolton off the negotiating team because 
he was undermining their potential for success.
  While Mr. Bolton was an Under Secretary for State for Arms Control, 
the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, becoming the first 
nation since World War II to withdraw from a major international 
security agreement.
  Mr. Bolton also blocked efforts to add a verification clause to the 
Bioweapons Convention, blocked negotiations in the Geneva Conference on 
Disarmament with respect to the weaponization of space, and worked to 
weaken a treaty on small arms trafficking.
  That is not the record of somebody who is an Arms Control Under 
Secretary committed to ending proliferation. If you look at North 
Korea, when he took over, they had, at most, two nuclear weapons. Now, 
North Korea may have as many as eight--four times the peril and danger. 
That is not a record that compels a promotion.
  I think this is a situation in which other factors have come into 
play--assertions and allegations that he has pushed the envelope with 
respect to intelligence, about threats from Syria and other countries. 
Again, this is not a record that deserves promotion, a record of 
someone who is in a challenging world and is able to make a major, 
positive difference with respect to arms control, and it reflects the 
administration's disdain for the process of arms control and 
counterproliferation.
  Now Mr. Bolton has been nominated to be ambassador to the U.N. And 
once again, Mr. Bolton is reflecting the administration--this time 
their disdain for the U.N. I believe that is wrong.

[[Page 11494]]

  We should have recognized, after our experience in Iraq, that we 
cannot go it alone. As unpleasant as international organizations can be 
sometimes, as inefficient and unworkable as they are at times, in the 
long run we are better when we ally with other nations than striking 
out alone. Mr. Bolton has a different view of the U.N.
  In 1994, he stated:

       There is no such thing as the United Nations. . . . If the 
     U.N. Secretariat Building in New York lost 10 stories, it 
     wouldn't make a bit of difference.

  That is a narrowed-minded view and not historical. The U.N. has made 
a difference.
  Repeatedly, Mr. Bolton talked about his disdain for the U.N. In 1998, 
he was responding to the ramifications of not paying U.N. dues. In his 
words:

       Not only do I not care about losing the General Assembly 
     vote, but actually see it as a ``make my day'' outcome.

  That is not the kind of cavalier attitude that will bode him well as 
ambassador to the United Nations, where he becomes one of the chief 
diplomats in our diplomatic arsenal, if you will.
  In an article in the New York Times, Elizabeth Jones stated:

       I don't know if he's incapable of negotiation, but he's 
     unwilling.

  Ms. Jones believed that:

       ``The fundamental problem,'' if Mr. Bolton were to become 
     U.N. ambassador, would be a reluctance on his part to make 
     the kinds of minor, symbolic concessions necessary to build 
     consensus among other governments and maintain the American 
     position.

  In another view by Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador to the 
U.N. and referred to by my colleague from Florida, she stated:

       John Bolton may do diplomatic jobs in the U.S. Government, 
     but John is not a diplomat.

  Frankly, the role of ambassador requires a diplomat, not someone who 
is an intellectual bully, not someone who is there to make a point and 
not to make progress, not someone there to send a message, to deride 
the work of his colleagues at the U.N.
  So I think we have a responsibility on two fronts: First, to assert 
rather strongly that we are relevant to this process, that we need 
information, and that executive agencies do not decide what information 
we need. And second, Mr. Bolton's record to date, his statements to 
date, his attitude to date suggest he will not be an effective 
ambassador to the United Nations. As a result, I urge that his 
nomination be opposed.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer to my colleagues my strong 
and unequivocal support for John Bolton and his nomination to be our 
United States representative to the United Nations.
  John Bolton was picked by the President. A President ought to be able 
to bring people into his administration, men and women, who share the 
values, the aspirations, the goals, of that administration. This 
President also represents the views of most Americans who believe the 
United Nations needs reforming. We need to bring someone into that 
position to get those reforms done.
  I believe very strongly John Bolton is exceptionally well-qualified 
for this task. This is a time of change, a time of improvement that is 
necessary for the United Nations.
  During the protracted committee process, we saw all sorts of 
sensationalized charges and outright fabrications against John Bolton. 
His nomination nonetheless, has finally reached the Senate where I am 
sure my colleagues will see the wisdom in confirming John Bolton. This 
debate provides an opportunity to have a full discussion on John Bolton 
and his qualifications to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations.
  What has been lost in this entire debate from the very beginning as 
they are off on tangents, detours, and all sorts of allegations. What 
is being missed--and what I hope my colleagues and the American people 
will focus on--is the dire need for change in the United Nations. The 
need for accountability, the need for scrutiny, the need for reform.
  In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee and in interviews 
conducted by the committee staff, there is almost no mention, or 
discussion, of what needs to be done to reform the United Nations. John 
Bolton is a man with the skill, wisdom, principles, and the right 
person to unflinchingly lead those changes as our representative.
  Much of the debate during the committee consideration and some of the 
things that have been said in the Senate has been focused on the 
sensibilities of some who are apparently easily offended. There is a 
fascination with speech crafting. For example, there is concern over 
what Mr. Bolton said at a speech to the Heritage Foundation concerning 
Cuba's biological weapons program and how that might be shared with 
rogue nations.
  The reality is, and I will quote this for the record so if anyone 
wants to see what was actually said that created this controversy. What 
was actually said is the following by John Bolton at the Heritage 
Foundation in the speech ``Beyond the Axis of Evil,'' May 6, 2002:

       Here is what we now know. The United States believes that 
     Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare 
     research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual-use 
     biotechnology to other rogue states. We are concerned that 
     such technology could support biological weapons programs in 
     those states. We call on Cuba to cease all biological weapons 
     applicable cooperation with rogue states and to fully comply 
     with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons 
     Convention.

  Well, one of the people, a very cheerful fellow, Carl Ford, 
complained about the sensibilities of some staff person. Here is what 
he said in testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee. He said:

       The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited 
     developmental offensive biological warfare research and 
     development effort. Cuba has provided dual use bio-technology 
     to rogue states. We are concerned that such technology could 
     support biological weapons programs in those states. We call 
     on Cuba to cease all biological weapons applicable 
     cooperation with rogue states and to fully comply with all 
     its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.

  Mr. President, I see you are squinting and trying to probably figure 
out: Well, what is the difference? There is no difference. It is the 
same in the speech as was the testimony from Mr. Ford in the Foreign 
Relations Committee. Then, we hear from folks talking about: Oh, people 
were upset because of all of this concern on how this speech was 
constructed. Well, here is the reality. The whole process was one in 
which the person who was clearing this language did some things that 
were inappropriate. An e-mail from Thomas Fingar to Thomas Bolton 
stated the following:

       I looked at what my guy sent to the IC and that won't 
     happen again . . . Choice of the phrase ``does not concur'' 
     was entirely inappropriate . . . we have no role whatsoever 
     in determining how you or any policymaker says what you want 
     to say beyond suggesting alternatives that we think might be 
     cleared more readily than what has been drafted if time was 
     of the essence and the drafter asked for such advice.

  The bottom line, he ends it:

       We screwed it up, but for base reasons. It won't happen 
     again.

  So John Bolton had a reason to be concerned about how some things 
went around through the loops and so forth. The reality is, as many 
individuals, our colleagues, fellow Senators, particularly on the 
Foreign Relations Committee--in recent months, once John Bolton had 
been nominated for this position--were talking about how he was rude 
maybe, or irascible with some staff, or concerned about this, that, or 
the other. Things that have supposedly come up in recent years, of 
course, each and every one of these allegations have been refuted and 
the truth has come forth.
  The reality is that when John Bolton was proposed and nominated to be 
Under Secretary of State, back in 2001,

[[Page 11495]]

Senators Biden, Boxer, Kerry, Dodd, and Sarbanes--all of them--voted 
against John Bolton. That was even before they knew about these 
tangential issues.
  Now, I would prefer, when looking at the United Nations, we would be, 
as a country, united in making sure we pursue the abuse and anti-
Americanism that pervades the United Nations. Rather than get off on 
these tangential and unfounded charges, I am much more concerned about 
the United Nations being used as a front for dictatorships and 
terrorists, as well as being a waste of the taxpayers' money.
  Over the last year, we have witnessed scandal after scandal in the 
United Nations. Unfortunately, these are not issues that can be 
addressed by a few marginal changes. These are issues that have shaken 
the credibility of the United Nations and caused many citizens in the 
United States, and people around the world, to really wonder whether 
the U.N. has any relevance in the future or has a redeeming role in 
world affairs.
  Now, the United Nations was founded on:

     faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth 
     of the human person.

  While the United Nations performs a number of admirable endeavors, it 
is also beholden to tyrants, dictators, and repressive regimes in 
certain circumstances. Not considering the scandals, this is an 
organization that has allowed some of the world's worst violators of 
human rights to chair its Commission on Human Rights. Just when the 
United States has made a commitment to the spread of freedom and 
justice throughout the world, it is difficult for Americans--I know in 
Virginia, in North Carolina, and elsewhere around this country--to see 
the United Nations as anything other than wasting their tax dollars. 
When a country such as Libya is chairing the Human Rights Commission. 
Sudan is on the Human Rights Commission, and within the last several 
weeks, Zimbabwe has been made a member of the Commission. This is 
certainly not an indication that the Secretary General's call for 
reform of the Commission on Human Rights is at all being heeded.
  Now, as public servants and stewards of the American taxpayers' 
dollars, we need to make sure the revenues we allocate are being put to 
good use. The United States and the people of this country, the 
taxpayers, every single year, are providing $2 billion to the United 
Nations. We will provide over 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular budget 
in 2005.
  I believe all Americans want reforms enacted that would prevent 
future abuses in programs like the Oil-for-Food Program, where Saddam 
Hussein and his thugs skimmed off $20 billion. I think we also, as 
Americans, want to hold accountable U.N. peacekeepers who commit crimes 
against children. We have an obligation to work with like-minded 
reformers in the U.N. to make sure policies are implemented to prevent 
similar abuses in the future.
  Now, reform is absolutely necessary in the United Nations. The United 
Nations is in a crisis, and the United States has a strong interest in 
seeing it emerge as a credible and relevant institution once again. The 
U.N. Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency, otherwise 
known as IAEA, are needed forums for discussing the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons and the actions that need to be taken, not just by the 
United States but with our European and other allies around the world, 
to make sure that rogue nations do not acquire those nuclear weapons.
  We have seen in recent years that the United Nations can provide an 
important role in helping the spread of democracy. They can be helpful 
in rebuilding societies that are emerging from decades of tyranny and 
repression.
  The United Nations has a role to play in the future of global affairs 
and security, but it can only do so if it takes serious steps to reform 
the extraordinary corruption and ineptitude that has plagued it in 
recent years.
  Now, John Bolton comes to this nomination with a broad and deep 
knowledge of international affairs. From his early days as General 
Counsel at the U.S. Agency for International Development during the 
Ronald Reagan administration, to his most recent post as Under 
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Affairs, Mr. 
Bolton has spent a great deal of time working on advancing the 
interests of the United States and our foreign policy.
  Some have wrongly criticized John Bolton as a rigid unilateralist who 
is incapable of building consensus with allies. However, his years of 
service prove otherwise.
  On counterproliferation, Mr. Bolton's efforts gave life and actual 
meaning to President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative. Under 
John Bolton's leadership, a dangerous gap in counter-proliferation 
enforcement on the seas has been filled by international cooperation 
and information sharing. Sixty countries were brought together. That is 
not working alone. He understands, if we are going to interdict weapons 
of mass destruction, biological weapons, nuclear or otherwise, we do 
need the support of other countries.
  In addition, Mr. Bolton helped create the Global Partnership at the 
G-8 summit in Alberta, Canada, in 2002. This partnership doubled the 
size of the nonproliferation effort in the former Soviet Union by 
committing our G-8 partners to match the United States' $1 billion per 
year Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar program.
  He also played a central role in negotiating the Treaty of Moscow, 
which will reduce operationally deployed nuclear weapons by two-thirds.
  Elimination of North Korea's nuclear threat still requires much hard 
work, but it is clear that the half century stalemate that has allowed 
the North Koreans to steal or develop nuclear arms technology is over. 
Growing pressure is on that dictatorship, and John Bolton's role at the 
State Department in creating it are being confirmed by the torrent of 
personal invective directed at him from the North Korean Government.
  While our Ambassador there might have had his sensibilities offended 
by John Bolton calling the North Korean regime a ``repressive 
dictatorship,'' which seems to be accurate, as well as saying it is a 
``hellish nightmare'' for people to have to live in. North Korea, which 
I might not have used the first word, but it is certainly a nightmare, 
it seems to me to be very accurate description.
  Of course, some have criticized John Bolton for doing that. And gosh, 
the North Koreans called him ``human scum.'' I am going to stand with 
John Bolton in his characterization of North Korea. In fact, they say 
of John Bolton: Oh, this was not helpful for him to be calling North 
Korea or characterizing it as it is.
  He helped break a long international silence, while there are some 
who think, when you are dealing with a repressive dictatorship, the 
best thing to do is just be quiet, calm them down, try to coordinate 
them into a corner, pet them, don't get them agitated, and maybe they 
will just change on their own. Maybe there are those who think you can 
have editorials in newspapers and that is going to matter to tyrants 
and dictatorships. They don't care about public opinion. They don't 
care about human rights. All they care about is power and staying in 
power.
  So John Bolton, in my view, performed a valuable service in breaking 
this long international silence about the suffering of the people in 
North Korea. For too long, savage conditions, condemned by food aid 
workers, and glimpsed by visitors to the North, received very little, 
very scant world attention. By magnifying the human dimension of the 
North Korean problem, his work may hasten the day when these abhorrent 
human rights violations in North Korea will end. The reality for North 
Korea is that we need the Chinese. The South Koreans, the Japanese, and 
the Russians are all very important but as a practical matter the ones 
who really prop up that regime is the Government of the People's 
Republic of China.
  When people are allowed to escape from North Korea, what happens? 
They get to some embassy in China and they get sent back to North 
Korea. Guess

[[Page 11496]]

what happens? They get tortured and in some cases they get killed. We 
need to make sure that if somebody can get out of that regime--just as 
if someone could have gotten out of East Germany or Czechoslovakia or 
Hungary or Poland; if they somehow could get out of those countries and 
escape to Austria, to West Germany, to the Netherlands, to Denmark, we 
certainly would not say: Go on back in there and let the East German 
police take care of you or let the Soviet puppets in the Eastern Bloc 
take care of you.
  So, I think John Bolton has done a great job in pointing out the 
human rights violations in North Korea. Some may also not agree with 
his forthright critique of the United Nations and its failings. I think 
Mr. Bolton has clearly placed a great deal of thought into his views, 
and he can work with the United Nations' bureaucracy. But he is not 
going to be a lapdog. He is not going to get seduced by niceties. He is 
going to say: This is what needs to be done.
  As Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations--and 
this is, indeed, working with the United Nations--John Bolton--and you 
can read what Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger wrote--led the 
effort to have the United Nations change its odious resolution that 
equated Zionism with racism. Now, to get the United Nations to say that 
they ever did something wrong and to repeal it--similar to anything 
that even happens here, to say we did something wrong and to repeal 
some law--takes some negotiation. John Bolton was able to get the 
United Nations to repeal that odious resolution.
  It is a clear, a very clear--example of his ability to stand by 
principle, stand for what is right, and also to work cooperatively with 
other countries in the United Nations.
  So in my view, John Bolton has the knowledge and experience to 
effectively represent the United States at the United Nations and to 
negotiate the changes that need to be made to ensure its relevancy and 
its credibility in the future. All of us want a United Nations that is 
with us, working to advance free and just societies and human rights 
around the world. We do not want them squandering, wasting money, 
propping up repressive regimes, being a front for terrorist regimes. We 
need the United Nations to remember what its charter is.
  Now, unfortunately, the committee was forced to spend a majority of 
its nomination hearing and subsequent meetings on tangents, exploring 
wild claims, and not addressing the issues that face the United States 
at the United Nations. Nor has the debate been much about John Bolton's 
qualifications to serve as our representative.
  Most of those who have complained and made charges against John 
Bolton never had any intention of considering the merits of his 
nomination in the first place. When considered, as I said earlier, for 
his current position, all of these--Senators Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, 
Boxer, and Kerry--voted against him. We have had many unsubstantiated 
claims and rumors and exaggerated innuendo. I do see the Senator from 
Wisconsin, who did vote for him the other time, so it does not apply to 
Senator Feingold. I hope the Senator recognizes I did not list his 
name. I think, as people look at these overly hyped charges, they have 
been refuted. They do not have any bearing on John Bolton's ability to 
serve as our ambassador to the United Nations.
  A President should have the prerogative to select the men and women--
unless there is some extraordinary, proven infirmity or criminal 
violation--he determines to advance and lead his initiatives and also 
to keep the promises he made to the American people. President Bush has 
nominated John Bolton to advance our foreign policy and goals at the 
United Nations.
  Let me conclude with these final thoughts. In 1945, when it reported 
the U.N. Charter to the Senate for ratification, the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee wrote that:

     . . . neither this Charter nor any other document or formula 
     that might be devised can prevent war. . . . The 
     establishment of the United Nations will at best be a 
     beginning toward the creation of those conditions of 
     stability throughout the world which will foster peace and 
     security.

  As we know, the United Nations has fallen short of these 
expectations. But a better, more accountable United Nations may better 
serve our interests much more reliably.
  Thus, the Bolton nomination offers the Senate an opportunity to again 
play a historic role in bringing sensible reform to the United Nations. 
It is worth the effort. John Bolton is the right person to advocate our 
principles, and he will not be easily seduced by empty, meaningless, 
courteous pontifications of international bureaucracies.
  John Bolton will bring much needed reform and accountability to the 
United Nations, that is in dire need of such to regain its credibility. 
He will be a watchdog, and that is what I think the taxpayers of this 
country want. He is going to be a strong diplomat, a man of vision, and 
an integral part of an administration team that has proven its 
readiness to foster positive change throughout the world.
  The Senate, at 6 o'clock this evening, I hope, will take action--take 
action, and very positive action. There will be some differences, but 
let's recognize that this is a historic time, a time for change in the 
United Nations, a time for reform. And these reforms will be positive. 
Our taxpayers will support these changes.
  I think freedom-loving countries and people who are not yet tasting 
that sweet nectar of liberty will also appreciate these changes. The 
billions of dollars going to the United Nations will be used for 
positive, constructive change in implementing and fostering the 
construction of those pillars that are so essential for a just and free 
society: The freedom of religion, freedom of expression, private 
ownership of property, and the rule of law. Those are the principles we 
need to address, and we are, as a country, in advancing the United 
Nations, consistent with its Charter, which ought to be a strong ally, 
not an impediment, in those efforts.
  I hope we will work with John Bolton and the United Nations to bring 
forth this reform, improve the credibility and, in fact, the 
effectiveness of the United States and the United Nations, to advance 
freedom and justice for people throughout the world.
  I thank you for your attention, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the confirmation of 
John Bolton to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. I do 
not take this decision lightly. As the Senator from Virginia just 
pointed out, when Mr. Bolton's nomination was first announced, my vote 
was by no means a foregone conclusion. In fact, in 2001, when the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee considered the nomination of Mr. 
Bolton to be the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security, I parted company from my Democratic colleagues 
on the committee to vote in favor of his nomination both in committee 
and on the floor.
  I did so because I generally believed, as the Senator from Virginia 
said, that the President has the right to choose executive branch 
nominees who share his overall world view, even when I do not share 
that world view. Barring serious ethical lapses or a clear lack of 
appropriate qualifications for a given job, I tend to give the 
President a great deal of latitude in making these appointments.
  But after examining the record, I have concluded that Mr. Bolton is 
fundamentally unsuited for the job to which he has been nominated. His 
blatant hostility toward the institution at which he would serve and 
his history of pursuing his personal policy agenda while holding public 
office lead me to question whether Mr. Bolton's appointment as our 
ambassador to the United Nations would serve the interests of the 
United States.
  I share the views of many who are insisting on reform at the U.N. The 
U.N. must become more effective and more accountable and, as stewards 
of the American taxpayers' dollars, we must insist on this point. But 
Mr. Bolton's record suggests that his personal animosity toward the 
United Nations is so

[[Page 11497]]

great that he cannot effectively lead the charge for reforms that can 
make this vital, but deeply flawed, institution stronger and more 
effective.
  He seems to view the U.N. as an instrument to be used when it suits 
only our immediate interests but one best ignored or even undermined 
the rest of the time. His failure to grasp the give and take required 
for effective multilateralism makes him a real obstacle to any hope of 
pursuing vital long-term U.S. interests and increasing burden sharing 
and marshaling a global force strong enough to defeat the terrorist 
networks that seek to do us harm.
  Mr. Bolton's record also reveals many instances of intemperance and 
rash decisionmaking. At least two senior intelligence officials told 
committee staff that Bolton's draft testimony prepared for a House 
hearing on Syria in 2003 went well beyond what the intelligence 
community would clear or could clear. This wasn't a case in which State 
Department intelligence analysts alone had concerns about Bolton's 
proposed language. The CIA, the Department of Energy, and the Defense 
Intelligence Agency all objected. According to interviews conducted by 
the committee staff, Bolton's office pushed back, resisting the 
intelligence community's efforts to alter problematic provisions. 
Bolton was determined to be such a loose cannon that the Deputy 
Secretary of State instituted an extraordinary policy to address the 
problem, requiring all of Mr. Bolton's public presentations to be 
cleared by Larry Wilkerson, Secretary Powell's Chief of Staff, or 
Deputy Secretary Armitage himself.
  Regrettably, I do not have confidence that his personal agenda would 
always, as it must be, subordinated to that of the Secretary of State 
who, in testimony before this committee in her first days in office, 
has placed such a premium on restoring frayed diplomatic ties.
  In addition, information that came to light during the Senate Foreign 
Relation Committee's consideration of this nomination indicates that 
John Bolton has sought to punish intelligence analysts whose 
assessments did not support what Mr. Bolton wanted to say or wished to 
say. After all that has happened to our country's reputation and 
credibility in recent years, we cannot afford to tolerate, let alone 
promote, a policymaker who seeks to silence dissent from the 
intelligence community. What the committee found was not that Mr. 
Bolton made careless remarks in the heat of a tough bureaucratic 
dispute; the evidence shows that over a period of many months, Mr. 
Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of a respected intelligence 
analyst at the State Department who had raised concerns about language 
Mr. Bolton wished to use publicly, in the course of the standard 
clearance process, a process that is there to protect against 
misleading or inaccurate public characterizations of important security 
issues. And Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of the National 
Intelligence Officer for Latin America, again pursuing this vendetta 
for months, not heated minutes, and going so far as to consider 
blocking country clearance for Mr. Smith to travel abroad. In both 
cases, the offense that so incensed Mr. Bolton appears to be that the 
analysts did their jobs--they presented the facts as they saw them, and 
declined to keep silent when the facts did not support what Mr. Bolton 
wished to say. And in both cases, senior officials with decades of 
experience in government who were involved in these episodes told 
committee staff that Bolton's actions--his attempts to retaliate 
against these analysts--were absolutely extraordinary.
  In addition to these disturbing incidents, other interviews conducted 
by committee staff revealed a broader pattern of attempting to simply 
cut those who disagreed with his policy views, or those who he believed 
disagreed with his policy views, out of the policy-making process 
entirely. John Wolf, the former Assistant Secretary of State for Non-
Proliferation, told committee staff that Bolton attempted to retaliate 
against at least two public servants in the non-proliferation bureau 
because of differences in their policy views. Mr. Bolton tried to 
remove a State Department attorney from a case relating to a sanctions 
issue because of perceived policy disagreements--the record suggests 
that Mr. Bolton actually misunderstood where the lawyer in question 
stood--and went so far as to suggest that he would not work with the 
State Department's entire legal bureau on the matter from that point 
on--a declaration quickly negated by Deputy Secretary Armitage, who 
felt compelled to remind Bolton that as a State Department official, he 
would indeed be working with the State Department's lawyers. This kind 
of tunnel-vision, everyone-else-out-of-the-room approach was summed up 
by Secretary of State Powell's Chief of Staff Larry Wilkerson, who told 
the committee staff, ``when people ignore diplomacy that is aimed at 
dealing with [North Korea's nuclear weapons development] in order to 
push their pet rocks in other areas, it bothers me, as a diplomat, and 
as a citizen of this country.'' When asked specifically if he thought 
that Mr. Bolton had done that, Wilkerson said, ``Absolutely.'' Mr. 
Wilkerson ended his interview with the committee with the following:

       I would like to make just one statement. I don't have a 
     large problem with Under Secretary Bolton serving our 
     country. My objections to what we've been talking about 
     here--that is, him being our ambassador at the United 
     Nations--stem from two basic things. One, I think he's a 
     lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there that 
     have to be led; they have to be led well, and they have to be 
     led properly. And I think, in that capacity, if he goes up 
     there, you'll see the proof of the pudding in a year. Second, 
     I differ from a lot of people in Washington, both friend and 
     foe of Under Secretary Bolton, as to his, ``brilliance''. I 
     didn't see it. I saw a man who counted beans, who said, ``98 
     today, 99 tomorrow, 100 the next day,'' and had no 
     willingness--and, in many cases, no capacity--to understand 
     the other things that were happening around those beans. And 
     that is just a recipe for problems at the United Nations. And 
     that's the only reason that I said anything.

  Some have suggested that, because Mr. Bolton did not succeed in his 
attempts to end the careers of analysts whose dissenting views angered 
him, and because he did not succeed in his attempts to manipulate the 
government's processes to shut out voices of disagreement, caution, or 
dissent, there is no problem here. I cannot believe that any of my 
colleagues actually believes that is true--not after all that we have 
learned about the vital importance of dissent in the intelligence 
community from the 9/11 Commission, the Silberman-Robb Commission, and 
numerous other investigations into the major intelligence failures that 
have gravely harmed our credibility and our security over the past 
years. Why would we choose to promote to a position of prominence and 
trust an individual who has repeatedly tried to suppress inconvenient 
analysis? As the former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council 
told the committee staff, politicization ``even when it's successfully 
resisted, it doesn't mean that there hasn't been an effect, because it 
creates a climate of intimidation and a culture of conformity that is 
damaging.'' Carl Ford told this committee about his concerns of a 
``chilling effect'' that Bolton's actions with regard to Mr. Westermann 
could have on all of the analysts in the department's intelligence 
analysis bureau. And Mr. Westermann told the committee staff that in 
the wake of his run in with Mr. Bolton, ``I was concerned that I had to 
spend time thinking about how I was approaching issues so that I didn't 
step on a landmine.'' Attempting to undermine important clearance 
processes, attempting to run roughshod over the safeguards in place to 
protect U.S. credibility, is an awfully big problem, whether or not the 
attempt was successful. It is, in my view, a disqualifying problem.
  Finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to examine the record of 
the Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of this nomination. It 
raises very serious concerns regarding Mr. Bolton's understanding of 
his obligations to be forthcoming with this committee. Several of Mr. 
Bolton's answers to Senators' questions were misleading at best, and 
several were quite blatantly non-responsive. A number of these 
instances relate to Mr. Bolton's

[[Page 11498]]

efforts to retaliate against intelligence analysts, and these are 
detailed in the minority report on this nominee. But others relate to 
more general foreign policy issues. The Bush administration's first 
Ambassador to South Korea, Tom Hubbard, was so troubled by Mr. Bolton's 
misleading characterization of Mr. Hubbard's role in approving a 
controversial speech that Mr. Bolton gave in Seoul that he felt 
obligated to contact the committee to correct the record.
  In light of the evidence this committee has seen in recent weeks, 
most of us can probably agree that if Mr. Bolton does end up being our 
next Ambassador to the UN, extremely careful oversight will be 
required. But our oversight responsibilities depend, in many instances, 
on the executive branch officials who come before us understanding that 
they have a constitutional obligation to be forthcoming with Congress. 
The record that he has amassed during this confirmation process gives 
me no confidence that Mr. Bolton intends to adhere to this obligation.
  Mr. Bolton's nomination raises fundamental questions regarding both 
credibility and accountability. The credibility of our representation 
at the UN, the credibility of intelligence, the credibility of the 
oversight process are at stake. And the question of whether or not this 
committee will hold officials who seek to suppress dissent accountable 
for their actions is before us today as well.
  I deeply appreciate the extraordinary courage of the many people who 
came forward to share with the Foreign Relations Committee their own 
concerns about Mr. Bolton's fitness for the UN post or to correct 
inaccuracies in the record--in some cases at real risk to their own 
careers. I am grateful for their efforts, and deeply appreciate their 
honesty. I hope that my colleagues will consider their words carefully. 
Their statements came at a price to them, and they should not be 
ignored.
  In contrast to these admirable public servants--many of whom, by the 
way, I would likely disagree with on any number of important policy 
issues--the administration has failed to be forthcoming in this 
process. Mr. President, I share the concerns that have been expressed 
by some of my colleagues on the Committee regarding the 
administration's failure to respond satisfactorily to requests for 
documents and information relating to this confirmation. The 
administration declined to produce requested documents and information, 
apparently because they do not believe the requested information is 
relevant. Quite frankly, that is not for the administration to 
determine. Not only does the administration's rationale fail to respect 
the Congress as a co-equal branch of Government, it also speaks of bad 
faith and contempt for the role of Congress in the confirmation 
process.
  Finally, Mr. President, during the committee's consideration of this 
nomination, Senator Sarbanes reminded all of us of the history of the 
position of the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. He 
listed the names of all 24 public servants who have held the office. 
Twenty-two of those twenty four were confirmed by unanimous consent, or 
with unanimous votes, or with voice votes. One was confirmed by a vote 
of 89 to 3. The most controversial Ambassador in our history was 
confirmed by a vote of 81-16. We have been represented by some very 
direct, opinionated, colorful characters at the United Nations. But we 
have never sent a figure so polarizing, or one with credibility so 
tattered, as the nominee before us today. John Bolton does not have the 
support of a single Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
He does not have the support of a majority of that committee. I do not 
understand why the administration is insisting upon thrusting such a 
troubled nominee into such a sensitive and important post. From 
achieving real reform of the UN to rebuilding US credibility to 
creating a solid global coalition to combat terrorism, the stakes at 
the UN are as high as they have ever been. If the President had chosen 
a public servant of impeccable judgment, the committee and the Senate 
would have rallied around that selection, eager to work in partnership 
with a nominee capable of, and committed to, mending frayed 
relationships, encouraging real burden-sharing, and nurturing a strong 
international coalition to fight terrorism and the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. John Bolton is not that nominee. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this nomination, and let us work together to 
quickly confirm a different nominee--one who represents the President's 
views but also has the skills, the record, and the confidence of the 
Senate required to be an effective ambassador. We can do, and we should 
do, much better than John Bolton.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about 
the nomination of John Bolton. The Presiding Officer is a member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, and we spent a good deal of time listening 
to testimony on the President's nomination of Mr. Bolton to be 
Permanent Representative at the United Nations.
  On the face of it, he is as well qualified for this position as any 
person who has ever been nominated for the position. He has a 
distinguished background, confirmed by this body, I believe, four 
times, 4 years ago as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security. He was Assistant Secretary for International 
Organizations under the first President Bush, for whom I served. He was 
assistant to Attorney General of the Department of Justice in the late 
1980s. That would be during the Reagan administration. That is a big 
job. I believe he was the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He was Assistant 
Administrator for Program Policy Coordination for USAID in 1982 and 
1983. He was general counsel for the U.S. Agency for International 
Development.
  He has the kind of academic record all of us would like to have: 
summa cum laude from Yale, a JDL from Yale Law School.
  He comes from an enormously distinguished background. As has often 
been pointed out on this floor and in committee hearings, he has some 
solid accomplishments, including leading the American efforts to repeal 
the resolution at the United Nations which equated Zionism with racism 
and his work with the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 through the U.N. 
Security Council. When former U.S. Secretary of State Jim Baker was 
asked to help the United Nations in its work in western Sahara, 
Secretary Baker, who is known for choosing exceptionally talented 
people to work with him, asked John Bolton to work with him in the 
western Sahara in the 1990s pro bono. He designed the current 
administration's proliferation security initiative under which more 
than 60 nations now share intelligence and take action to stop the 
transfer of dangerous weapons.
  So I was not one bit surprised when Mr. Bolton made an impressive 
appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee on the first day of 
our testimony. He demonstrated command of the issues facing the United 
Nations. He got a lot of intense questioning, as he should from 
Senators, for such an important position. The questioning lasted for 
more than 7 hours. He was calm and collected. He answered the questions 
with great skill and accuracy, I thought, and he focused on the need 
for reform of the United Nations.
  He brought with him for that testimony strong support of former 
Secretaries of State Jim Baker, Larry Eagleberger, Al Hague, Henry 
Kissinger, George Shultz, and endorsements from more than 50 former 
ambassadors. I was with one of those ambassadors a few weeks ago, a man 
very well known in this body, a former Senator and majority leader, 
Howard

[[Page 11499]]

Baker. Howard Baker has just returned from 4 years as Ambassador to 
Japan. He did a tremendous job there, as everyone expected him to, but 
he remarked to me privately and said I was free to say it publicly--in 
fact, he volunteered the information--about how he had dealt with 
Secretary Bolton during those 4 years in Tokyo, these last 4 years, 
from time to time, and how impressed he was with him and how much he 
enjoyed working with him. He liked him. He said he spoke frankly, and 
Senator Baker said he thought John Bolton would make a good ambassador 
to the United Nations.
  The second day of hearings that the Presiding Officer and I were 
privileged to be a part of was a little different. I was, frankly, 
disappointed by what I heard. One of the witnesses was called forward, 
the former Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research, and he 
presented evidence about how John Bolton had, in his words, chewed out 
intelligence analysts in the State Department.
  Mr. Ford was mad about that. He didn't like the fact that Mr. Bolton 
had chewed out people on down the line and he came to us and told us 
so. He was a convincing witness. He was believable because he didn't 
overstate his case and the information he gave us was information I 
would rather not have known about the next ambassador to the United 
Nations. I am sure Mr. Bolton was disappointed, perhaps even 
embarrassed to hear it.
  But Mr. Ford did not say, in the case that we were talking about, 
that Mr. Bolton was misusing or compromising intelligence. In fact, Mr. 
Ford himself said, ``In this particular case''--the one Mr. Ford was 
led to complain about, ``there wasn't politicization of the 
intelligence.'' Mr. Ford was very clear on that point in his testimony 
to the committee.
  In other interviews conducted by our Foreign Relations Committee 
staff since that time, another issue was raised about a disagreement 
about intelligence. One of Mr. Bolton's subordinates who was on detail 
from the CIA sent a report to the Deputy Secretary of State for review 
and was unhappy that another bureau had put a memo on top of that 
report that said the report was incorrect. That certainly sounds like a 
lot of inside baseball to people outside of Washington, and it sounds 
like a simple disagreement to me, a disagreement over intelligence that 
is quite common, from what even Mr. Ford said. In this case, there is 
no evidence Mr. Bolton was even aware of the dispute. So, again, no 
evidence of politicization of intelligence. Rather, it appeared that 
different staff members were arguing for their own point of view, which 
should not surprise anyone around here.
  There have been a variety of other charges and suggestions. Mr. 
Bolton has had the pleasure that many Presidential nominees had. I was 
once a Presidential nominee and went through a confirmation process 
when the Senate was in the hands of the Democrats. So they made sure 
that everything about me was pretty well known and explained. They took 
time to do it. I was as polite and happy as I could be. No one enjoys 
all of that, but it serves its purpose, and it served its purpose with 
Mr. Bolton as well.
  In the end, it is my judgment, after attending the hearings, reading 
the testimony, conferring with others who have known Mr. Bolton over 
time, that only one charge against John Bolton appears to have any 
substance. John Bolton has been rude to staff members who are below him 
in the bureaucracy. As I said, I imagine he is embarrassed by that. I 
didn't like to hear it. Perhaps he deserves to be embarrassed by those 
charges and perhaps he has even learned a lesson. But what I heard 
hasn't changed my vote, even though it might change Mr. Bolton's ways 
of dealing with people with whom he works.
  How significant is such a charge, that he was rude to people in the 
bureaucracy? As has been mentioned by many others in this body, if that 
were the standard for remaining in the Senate we would all have a hard 
time getting a quorum. There are regularly occasions when busy Senators 
eager to make their own point are brusque--with staff members, even 
shout at colleagues. In fact, the shouting was so loud in one business 
meeting of our Foreign Relations Committee by some of the Senators I 
could barely hear the charges against Mr. Bolton.
  That is not attractive. I do not endorse it. It has even caused me to 
think back about times that I may have become angry or brusque or 
impatient or startled in dealing with a staff member or another person, 
and I have always regretted it when I have and it has made me redouble 
my efforts to make sure I swallow my pride more quickly and think about 
what I say and not do that anymore. It is not good conduct. It is not 
good business. But just how significant is this?
  Here is what former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger had to say 
about it a couple of weeks ago in the Washington Post. This deserves 
special attention.
  Larry Eagleburger was Secretary of State for the first President 
Bush. But, in a way, he was more than that. Larry Eagleburger had 27 
years in the Foreign Service. We hear a lot of times that a football 
player is a football player's player, or a man is a man's man, or a 
woman is a woman's woman. Larry Eagleburger is a Foreign Service 
Officer's Secretary of State. He had and has enormous respect from 
those men and women who put their lives on the line daily around the 
world and in the United States in support of our diplomacy, our foreign 
policy, and our country.
  Here is what Larry Eagleburger had to say about John Bolton in an op-
ed in the Washington Post:

       ``As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on 
     superordinates,'' Secretary Eagleburger said, ``I can say 
     that only in more than a decade of association with him in 
     the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support 
     such a charge, nor do I see anything wrong with challenging 
     intelligence analysts on their findings. They can, as recent 
     history demonstrates, make mistakes. And they must be 
     prepared to defend their findings under intense questioning. 
     If John pushed too hard or dressed down subordinates, he 
     deserves criticism but it hardly merits a vote against 
     confirmation when balanced against his many 
     accomplishments.''

  That is Larry Eagleburger, the Foreign Service officer's Secretary of 
State.
  Where Larry Eagleburger comes down is where I come down. I believe 
the benefit of hearing Mr. Ford's testimony may prove to be a little 
bit of a lesson to Mr. Bolton, and a reminder to the rest of us, us 
Senators, of how unattractive it is to shout at an associate or 
unnecessarily dress down a staff member.
  I agree with Secretary Eagleburger. John Bolton has a distinguished 
background and record. He has dedicated himself to improving our 
country's foreign policy. His action toward subordinates might have 
been inappropriate. Perhaps he has learned a lesson. But it doesn't 
cause me to change my vote. I am glad to support him.
  This is a critical time for the United Nations. Even the Secretary 
General acknowledges it is in need of reform. Billions of dollars 
filtered from the U.N. coffers to Saddam Hussein's pockets in the oil-
for-food scandal. Top human rights abusers such as Sudan and Zimbabwe 
sit on the Human Rights Commission. United Nations peacekeepers in 
Africa have been found to rape and pillage.
  The United Nations has many important roles in the world. I am glad 
we have them. I want it to work. The President is right in his thinking 
that we need to take action to help the United Nations reform itself 
and that a frank-talking, experienced diplomat named John Bolton is an 
excellent candidate for that commission.
  I am pleased to support this nomination. I hope my colleagues will do 
the same.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Natural Gas Prices

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to speak about 
natural gas prices, the prices at the pump, blue-collar workers, 
farmers, and homeowners.

[[Page 11500]]

  The reason I do that is because the Senate Energy Committee earlier 
today did a good piece of work that I hope the American people 
understand.
  By a virtually unanimous vote, 21 to 1, the committee, after 5 months 
of work, reported to this body what I hope will be called the Clean 
Energy Act of 2005.
  I suppose people outside of the Senate get tired of hearing Senators 
compliment one another, but I do that today because this would not have 
happened had it not been for the leadership of Chairman Pete Domenici, 
the Republican chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, and the ranking Democrat, Jeff Bingaman.
  We tried to do this in the last session of Congress in the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee. We were not able to pass an energy bill to 
give this country a comprehensive energy policy. Senator Domenici 
deliberately set out to do things different in this session of 
Congress. He sat down with Senator Bingaman and the Democratic staff 
and pledged to work with them, to share everything with them. Senator 
Domenici visited every member of the committee, Republican and 
Democrat. We worked together on a variety of major hearings and 
roundtables. The coal roundtable lasted 3 or 4 hours; one on natural 
gas lasted 3 or 4 hours. He encouraged a variety of committee members 
to become involved.
  On the Subcommittee on Energy, which I chair, he encouraged me to go 
ahead and, working with Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota from across 
the aisle, we came up with a Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005 
into which we put ideas to bring down the $7 natural gas price we have 
today, which is the highest natural gas price in the world. Senator 
Domenici and Senator Bingaman did their best to come up with aggressive 
ideas.
  Sometimes when Members set out to compromise and work together, we 
end up with nothing because the easiest way to compromise is to do 
nothing. We can all agree on doing nothing and then we will not have a 
bold bill. But we are almost fortunate this did not pass last year 
because this is a more urgent time. The natural gas prices are $7, the 
highest in the industrial world. We have gone from the lowest in the 
industrial world to the highest in the industrial world. Prices at the 
pump are high. We have a million blue-collar manufacturing jobs in the 
chemical industry alone that will go overseas if we do not find some 
way to deal with this.
  September 11 was a big surprise to our country. Our next big surprise 
is going to be to our pocketbooks if we do not figure out how to deal 
with the price of energy. We must figure out how to have a low-cost, 
adequate, reliable supply of clean energy that is increasingly produced 
in the United States of America and not overseas. That is our goal.
  What is exceptional about this bill, in my view, is that it attacks 
the problem in a much more comprehensive way than other versions of the 
bill have. It begins with aggressive conservation. For example, the 
appliance efficiency standards, which are in this year's bill, are 
about double the effectiveness of those that were in last year's bill. 
What does that mean? It simply means that by some estimates these 
standards could save at peak demand the equivalent of 45 500-megawatt 
powerplants. If we save building 45 gas powerplants, we decrease the 
building of natural gas and we tend to lower the price.
  There are a good many other examples of aggressive conservation. The 
second thing the bill does is to begin to change the way we produce 
electricity. This country produces about 25 percent of all the energy 
in the world. We use it here. We have 5 to 6 percent of the American 
people and we produce 25 percent of the energy. Where does that 
electricity come from? It comes primarily from what we call 
nonrenewables. It comes from, first, coal; natural gas, second; and 
nuclear, third. That is 91 percent of it. Now, another 7 percent comes 
from dams from hydropower and about 2 percent comes from renewable 
power, which is windmills, solar, biomass, and geothermal.
  If we are in competition with China and India for jobs, and an 
important part of every farm, every manufacturing plant, every home, is 
the provision of reliable, low-cost, adequate supply of energy, as a 
practical matter for the next 20 years, most of that will have to come 
from nuclear power, from coal, and from gas and conservation. That is 
where it has to come.
  Of course, we want to do more with other kinds of energy. For 
example, I hope the tax committee, when it reports its part of this 
bill, does something about solar power. We have a renewable tax credit 
in the law today that does not do much for solar. It encourages 
powerplants that produce electricity from sun. We almost don't have any 
of those. What we use solar for is, we put shingles on roofs. We need 
to give incentives to individual owners to do more of that. That's why 
I proposed an investment tax credit so individual owners can take 
advantage of it.
  We can do more research and development in biomass and more research 
and development in geothermal. Even if we do all that we can do for the 
so-called renewable energies, in the next 20 years--and there is some 
disagreement about this--in my view, we will still be producing about 
95 percent of our power--certainly not less than 90 percent of our 
power--from nuclear power, from coal, from gas, and hydro.
  Now, how many more dams are going to be built in the United States? 
It is limited. In fact, this bill addresses relicensing of hydro dams. 
There are a good number of those in Oregon where the Presiding Officer 
comes from. By the year 2018, according to the National Hydropower 
Association, there will be 30,000 MW of hydropower plants that need to 
be relicensed. That's half of the hydropower in the United States. This 
landmark, bipartisan agreement on hydro relicensing is both urgent and 
meaningful.
  So if one puts all of that aside, if we want to compete for our jobs 
with people from around the world and if the price of energy is a big 
part of it, what do we have to do? Nuclear, coal and gas.
  Over the last 10 years, almost all of the new powerplants in America 
that make electricity have been built from natural gas. Now, how wise 
is that? Here we are with $7 a unit natural gas, the highest price in 
the industrialized world, our chemical companies, our blue-collar 
companies using this, some of them as a raw material--Dow Chemical 
estimates that 40 percent of the cost of its production is energy. Now, 
if in other parts of the world natural gas is significantly lower, we 
will have a problem. We will have jobs moving from here to there.
  We do not want to make all of our power from natural gas. We do it 
because we know how to do it and because it is clean. That leaves us 
with two sources of what we call base load energy, the two things that 
we must find a way to use and use in a clean way if we want to have a 
low-cost supply of American-produced energy. One of those is nuclear, 
and one of those is coal.
  Nuclear power is a technology that we invented in the United States, 
the peaceful uses of the atom. We figured out how to do that in the 
1950s. One of the remarkable technological stories in the United States 
is our Navy and its nuclear-powered vessels. I suppose it is a 
classified matter exactly how many we have, but we have dozens of them. 
Some of them have small reactors. Some of them have a couple of big 
reactors on them.
  Since the 1950s, there has never been one single nuclear reactor 
accident in the U.S. Navy, not one. They are underwater. When they are 
above water, they dock at ports all around the United States, and we 
use them. In our country today, 20 percent of all of our electricity 
and 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity is produced by nuclear 
energy. Yet we have not built a nuclear powerplant in the United States 
since the 1970s, not one new one. How wise is that?
  Other countries in the world are. Eighty percent of France's 
electricity is now produced by nuclear power. Japan, ravaged by nuclear 
weapons in World War II, relies on nuclear power. They build one or two 
new plants a year.

[[Page 11501]]

  We are in competition to keep jobs here. We want clean power. We 
increasingly want carbon-free power. If 70 percent of our carbon-free 
electricity is nuclear, then what is keeping us from going ahead? This 
bill will help us move ahead because it makes it easier for investors 
to build nuclear powerplants that are safe.
  Senator Domenici has come up with an imaginative loan guarantee 
program that would help launch an entire new generation of nuclear 
powerplants. Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman have 
come up with a program that will be based in Idaho for advanced 
research on how we build lower cost, more effective nuclear powerplants 
for our country. There is a growing consensus, especially as the Kyoto 
Treaty and the need to be concerned about global warming persuades more 
and more people of the importance of capturing carbon, that nuclear 
power for the next 15 or 20 years is the only logical first step to 
having a low-cost, adequate, reliable supply of American-produced clean 
energy. Britain recently has been coming to the same conclusion that 
nuclear is a necessity for a carbon-free emissions future.
  What is the other step? The other step is coal. We instinctively 
think coal is dirty and it is a source of a lot of problems because of 
the pollution it causes.
  I live 2 miles away from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. It 
is the most polluted national park in America. The Knoxville area where 
I live is one of the most polluted parts of our country. Why is that? 
There is too much sulphur, too much nitrogen, and too much mercury in 
the air. Much of that comes from coal-fired powerplants, not just from 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has a number of them in the area, 
but from all over America. The wind blows the air in, and it backs up 
against the Great Smoky Mountains, which are the highest mountains in 
the East, and we breathe the dirty air. So any energy bill has to be a 
clean energy bill so we can solve our air pollution problems.
  There is an even larger issue with coal-fired powerplants. India and 
China, with their huge economies, a couple of billion more people, are 
going to be building hundreds of powerplants in the next few years. The 
conventional coal plant is what many of those plants will be. If India, 
China, Malaysia, Brazil, and the rest of the world build only 
conventional coal plants, it will not matter very much what our clean 
air policies are in the United States because they will produce so many 
pollutants around the world that when the wind blows them around the 
world and over the air in the United States, we will suffer from that. 
So if we solve the problem of how to burn coal in a clean way, then the 
rest of the world is likely to pick up our innovation and solve their 
problem because they do not want to have polluted air, either.
  So how do we do that? Well, there seems to be a way to do it. We call 
it coal gasification. There are several technologies. I like to call it 
clean coal gas because that makes it a little easier to talk about.
  The New York Times business section had an excellent article on this 
on Sunday that Senator Domenici gave to all of us. It talked about this 
idea of taking coal, turning it into gas, and then burning the gas. 
That solves a great amount of the pollution. It solves the sulphur, the 
nitrogen, and the mercury part of the pollution, but it does not solve 
the carbon part.
  Then what we need to try to do is to advance the technology of 
capturing and sequestering the carbon--in other words, getting rid of 
the carbon. If we are ever able to do that, we could burn coal as 
cleanly as we can burn gas, capture the carbon and put it in the 
ground, and we would never have to worry about the Kyoto Treaty. We 
would never have to worry about the McCain-Lieberman bill or the 
Carper-Chafee-Gregg-Alexander bill or caps on carbon because we would 
not be producing carbon. We would be producing it and recapturing it. 
Nuclear power is free of it, and clean coal gasification with carbon 
sequestration captures it and gets rid of it.
  The other thing is that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have a 
500-year supply of it. So if we can move ahead with nuclear and clean 
coal gas, we can lower the price of natural gas, and we can have more 
American-produced energy.
  So this legislation begins with aggressive conservation. As I said, 
the appliance efficiency standards alone would save the building of 
forty-five 500-megawatt gas plants, but then it begins to change the 
way we make electricity by research and development in advanced nuclear 
technology, by the loan guarantee support which could be for nuclear 
plants of that kind. It also has loan guarantees that I hope would help 
launch a half dozen coal gasification powerplants and a half dozen coal 
gasification plants at industrial sites. It also has research and 
development support for carbon sequestration and for other technologies 
that hold promise.
  We still have some issues to work on. We began with what we could 
agree on, worked 5 months on it under the leadership of Senators 
Domenici and Bingaman, and reserved a few issues to the floor. Senator 
Domenici announced that we will be coming to the Senate floor shortly 
after the recess, in a completely different spirit than last year, with 
all of us hoping to get a result. We will then put that bill with the 
House bill and present to this country a clean energy act of 2005 that 
will lower natural gas prices, begin to produce more American energy at 
home, include more aggressive conservation, change the way we make 
electricity, and focus especially on advanced technologies for nuclear, 
coal gasification, and the supply of gas.
  In the short term, we are going to have to bring more gas in from 
around the world in liquefied natural gas. I'm pleased that the 
committee adopted the ideas I and Senator Johnson had on LNG siting in 
the energy bill.
  There is one other area I want to mention without dwelling on it too 
much. One of the things I hope happens as we debate this bill is that 
it doesn't change from a national energy policy into a national 
windmill policy. I say that because one of the issues we have pushed 
out to be debated on the floor is something called a renewable 
portfolio standard, renewable energy. That all sounds very good. The 
proposal was, let's make 10 percent of all of our electricity by the 
year 2025 from renewable energies. That sounds good, too.
  The problem is, I don't think it will work because all we are talking 
about is geothermal--that is hot water from the ground--solar, which 
our incentives today don't help much, and biomass, which is burning 
wood chips and other such technologies. According to a Department of 
Energy analysis, even if we had such a requirement of all our electric 
companies that they produce 10 percent of their energy from renewable 
fuels, they couldn't do it. They could only get to 5 percent due to the 
way the Bingaman price caps are structured. So what utilities would do 
realistically is buy credits in a complicated scheme which would then 
raise the price of our electricity. We should be in the business of 
lowering energy prices, not raising them for nothing.
  The other concern I have is that a renewable portfolio standard is 
really a wind standard because geothermal and solar and biomass will 
only increase it a tiny bit. This information I have is from an 
analysis that the Energy Information Agency did on Bingman's bill shows 
clearly that the impact of a Bingaman RPS is growing windpower. The 
only way to go forward is with windmills. So the effect of continuing 
the current policy is to take this country from about 6,700 windmills 
to 40, 60, 80,000, depending on estimates that you believe. My point is 
not to make a big discussion about the windmills themselves. I don't 
like to see them. I think most people don't. The Governor of Kansas has 
put a moratorium on some windmills, as has the Governor of New Jersey, 
and so have communities in many parts of America, such as Vermont and 
Wisconsin. I asked the Tennessee Valley Authority to put a 2-year 
moratorium on new wind power on Tennessee until we could assess the 
damage it might cause to our tourism industry and to our electric rates 
and to our view of the mountains.

[[Page 11502]]

  People think of windmills and think those are nice. Grandma had one 
on her farm. It was by the well. My grandparents did. But these aren't 
your grandmother's windmills.
  We have the second largest football stadium in the United States in 
Knoxville, TN. We call it Neyland Stadium. One hundred seven thousand 
people can sit there, and it has sky boxes that go up as high as you 
can see. Just one of these windmills would fit into Neyland Stadium. 
The rotor blades would extend from the 10-yard line to the 10-yard 
line. The top of the windmill would go twice as high as the sky boxes 
or more. And on a clear night you could see the red lights 25 miles 
away. There are significant problems with this power. It only works 25 
to 40 percent of the time. You don't get rid of any nuclear or coal 
plants when you have the windmills because you still need the power. 
You can't store the energy for your lights or your computer and all the 
things you use electricity for going all the time. So there are many 
problems.
  But here is the biggest problem, the one I want to mention today. I 
will just leave it for the members of the Finance Committee upon which 
the Presiding Officer serves and others. This Energy bill will have 
three parts to it. It will have some things from the Energy Committee 
which we have finished today. It will have a contribution from the 
Finance Committee, which will come in June, and it will have a 
contribution from the Environment and Public Works Committee, which 
will also come in June. We will put all those parts together.
  We are told that this whole bill, when it is put together, can't 
cost, our Budget Committee says, more than $11 billion. The President 
hopes we won't spend more than $8 billion. But the production tax 
credit in the current policy provides $3.9 billion over 5 years, almost 
all of which will go to windmills unless we change the policy.
  In other words, if we have $11 billion to spend and we spend $3 
billion on ethanol or renewable fuel, we will only have $8 billion left 
to spend on everything else, and nearly 3.5 to 4 of it will go for 
windmills. That is what I mean by a national windmill policy.
  My hope is that my colleagues will take a fresh look at our tax 
credit for renewable fuels and make sure that we use it wisely because 
that is a lot of money to create the largest amount of carbon-free 
clean energy.
  Here are some of the suggestions for better use: For example, $1.5 
billion for consumer incentives for 300,000 hybrid and advanced diesel 
vehicles. That would give 300,000 Americans a $2,000 deduction to 
purchase a hybrid car or an advanced diesel vehicle. Those operate 
about 40 percent more efficiently than conventional cars. That saves a 
lot of energy. For $750 million, we could give manufacturing incentives 
for building those hybrid cars and advanced vehicles in the United 
States. Unfortunately, as it stands now, we aren't doing that. They 
would all be built overseas because most of the good hybrid technology 
has been invented overseas and is being rented to the United States. 
That would be 39,000 jobs in the United States.
  I have with me a copy of the National Commission on Energy Policy 
which recommends both of these ideas, the $2,000 tax deduction and the 
incentive for manufacturing of hybrid cars. That would be a wise way to 
spend money for clean carbon-free energy.
  There are many more good ideas: $2 billion in tax incentives for 
energy-efficient appliances and buildings, suggested by Senators Snowe 
and Feinstein. Senator Johnson and I had suggested $2 billion for tax 
incentives to commercialize coal gasification for powerplants and $300 
million to make more effective support of another renewable energy, 
solar energy, which has basically no support the way our laws are 
written today.
  The National Commission on Energy Policy has several other 
recommendations: Build in tax incentives to commercialize carbon 
capture and geologic sequestration in a wide array of industries. As 
soon as we figure out how to capture carbon, we can use coal 
gasification in a big way to reduce dependence on foreign energy and to 
lower the cost of natural gas.
  They also recommend $2 billion in tax incentives for nuclear 
deployment, $1.5 billion for biodiesel and nonpetroleum low-carbon 
fuels. I have suggested those in the order in which I like them.
  I am not a member of the Finance Committee so I won't have a chance 
to be a part of that discussion in that committee. My point is simply 
that if we have $8 billion to spend or $11 billion to spend, we may 
have already spent a couple of billion in what we are doing with 
renewable fuel, then we have a lot more good ways to spend money in 
support of carbon-free energy than we have money for. I respectfully 
suggest that if we are spending most of $3.7 billion over the next 5 
years as a national windmill policy and not a national energy policy, 
that ought to be reasonably adjusted.
  Let me not emphasize the disputes that we have yet to come. I am here 
today to say, particularly, after a time in the Senate when people who 
watch us must wonder if we are speaking to each other, the answer is, 
yes, we are. We have been meeting for 5 months on this Energy bill. We 
have been working together, as Senator Bingaman said today. I don't 
remember a party-line vote in the 5 months. We had some close votes, 
but it wasn't Republican versus Democrat. It was just different ones of 
us with different opinions. And there must have been half the committee 
there today when Senators Domenici and Bingaman announced the results 
at a press conference.
  So I honor them for their leadership. I think the American people are 
proud of Domenici and Bingaman as Senators. New Mexico ought to be 
proud. It has both of them from the same State. Even though we have 
CAFE standards still to debate, MTBE still to debate, we have some 
final work to do on how do we site terminals for liquefied natural gas, 
further increasing the supply of natural gas, and we will be debating 
the so-called renewable portfolio standard for how many windmills we 
should have--all that will be sometime in June. That is what we are 
supposed to do as Senators.
  That is why we are here, to take both sides of this issue and see if 
we can come to a good result. So far, I think we have.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
following my speech the article on coal gasification from the New York 
Times business section on Sunday; a letter I wrote to the directors of 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, asking them to put a 2-year moratorium 
on wind power until we had an opportunity--we in Congress and local 
officials--to consider the effect of these large wind farms on our 
tourism industry, on our view of the mountains, on our gas prices; and 
finally, an article from the Guardian Unlimited, which is an 
interesting discussion of what is going on in Great Britain, as they 
consider how to meet the Kyoto standard for carbon-free electricity 
production, and how many of the people who formerly had favored large 
windmills are concluding they don't want them destroying the rural 
areas of Britain, and they are looking at nuclear power in a fresh way 
which, as I mentioned, is the way we in the United States today produce 
70 percent of our carbon-free electricity.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 22, 2005]

            Dirty Secret: Coal Plants Could Be Much Cleaner

                         (By Kenneth J. Stier)

       Almost a decade ago, Tampa Electric opened an innovative 
     power plant that turned coal, the most abundant but the 
     dirtiest fossil fuel, into a relatively clean gas, which it 
     burns to generate electricity. Not only did the plant emit 
     significantly less pollution than a conventional coal-fired 
     power plant, but it was also 10 percent more efficient.
       Hazel R. O'Leary, the secretary of energy at the time, went 
     to the plant, situated between Tampa and Orlando, and praised 
     it for ushering in a ``new era for clean energy from coal.'' 
     Federal officials still refer to the plant's ``integrated 
     gasification combined cycle'' process as a ``core 
     technology'' for the future, especially because of its 
     ability--eventually--to all but eliminate the greenhouse 
     gases linked to global warming.
       Since that plant opened, however, not a single similar 
     plant bas been built in the

[[Page 11503]]

      United States. Abundant supplies of natural gas--a bit 
     cleaner and, until recently, a lot cheaper--stood in the way.
       But even now, with gas prices following oil prices into the 
     stratosphere and power companies turning back to coal, most 
     new plants--about nine out of 10 on the drawing board--will 
     not use integrated gasification combined-cycle technology.
       The reason is fairly simple. A plant with the low-
     pollution, high-efficiency technology demonstrated at the 
     Tampa Electric plant is about 20 percent more expensive to 
     build than a conventional plant that burns pulverized coal. 
     This complicates financing, especially in deregulated 
     markets, while elsewhere utilities must persuade regulators 
     to set aside their customary standard of requiring utilities 
     to use their lowest-cost alternatives. (A federal grant of 
     $143 million covered about a fourth of the construction cost 
     of the Tampa Electric plant, which was originally a 
     demonstration project.)
       The technology's main long-term advantage--the ability to 
     control greenhouse gas emissions--is not winning over many 
     utilities because the country does not yet regulate those 
     gases.
       That could be a problem for future national policy, critics 
     say, because the plants being planned today will have a 
     lifetime of a half-century or more. ``It's a very frightening 
     specter that we are going to essentially lock down our carbon 
     emissions for the next 50 years before we have another chance 
     to think about it again,'' said Jason S. Grumet, the 
     executive director of the National Commission on Energy 
     Policy.
       The commission, an independent, bipartisan advisory body, 
     has recommended that the federal government spend an 
     additional $4 billion over 10 years to speed the power 
     industry's acceptance of the technology. In a recent report, 
     the commission concluded that ``the future of coal and the 
     success of greenhouse gas mitigation policies may well hinge 
     to a large extent on whether this technology can be 
     successfully commercialized and deployed over the next 20 
     years.''
       Mr. Grumet was more succinct. Integrated gasification 
     combined cycle technology, combined with the sequestration of 
     carbon stripped out in the process, ``is as close to a silver 
     bullet as you're ever going to see,'' he said.
       Until Congress regulates carbon emissions--a move that many 
     in the industry consider inevitable, but unlikely soon--
     gasification technology will catch on only as its costs 
     gradually come down. Edward Lowe, general manager of 
     gasification for GE Energy, a division of General Electric 
     that works with Bechtel to build integrated gasification 
     combined-cycle plants, said that would happen as more plants 
     were built. The premium should disappear entirely after the 
     first dozen or so are completed, he added.
       Even now, Mr. Lowe said, the technology offers operational 
     cost savings that offset some of the higher constructIon 
     costs. And if Congress eventually does limit carbon 
     emissions, as many utility executives say they expect it to 
     do, the technology's operational advantages could make it a 
     bargain.
       James E. Rogers, the chief executive of Cinergy, a heavily 
     coal-dependent Midwestern utility, is one of the technology's 
     biggest industry supporters. ``I'm making a bet on 
     gasification,'' he said, because he assumes a carbon-
     constrained world is inevitable. ``I don't see any other way 
     forward,'' he said.
       The operating savings of such plants start with more 
     efficient combustion: they make use of at least 15 percent 
     more of the energy released by burning coal than conventional 
     plants do, so less fuel is needed. The plants also need about 
     40 percent less water than conventional coal plants, a 
     significant consideration in arid Western states.
       But for some people, including Mr. Rogers and other utility 
     leaders who anticipate stricter pollution limits, the primary 
     virtue of integrated gasification combined-cycle plants is 
     their ability to chemically strip pollutants from gasified 
     coal more efficiently and cost-effectively, before it is 
     burned, rather than trying to filter it out of exhaust.
       Proponents say that half of coal's pollutants--including 
     sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to acid 
     rain and smog--can be chemically stripped out before 
     combustion. So can about 95 percent of the mercury in coal, 
     at about a tenth the cost of trying to scrub it from exhaust 
     gases racing up a smokestack.
       The biggest long-term draw for gasification technology is 
     its ability to capture carbon before combustion. If 
     greenhouse-gas limits are enacted, that job will be much 
     harder and more expensive to do with conventional coal-fired 
     plants. Mr. Lowe, the G.E. executive, estimated that 
     capturing carbon would add about 25 percent to the cost of 
     electricity from a combined-cycle plant burning gasified 
     coal, but that it would add 70 percent to the price of power 
     from conventional plants.
       Gasification technology, although new to the power sector, 
     has been widely used in the chemical industry for decades, 
     and the general manager of the gasification plant run by 
     Tampa Electric, Mark Hornick, said it was not difficult to 
     train his employees to run the plant. Tampa Electric is the 
     principal subsidiary of TECO Energy of Tampa.
       Disposing of the carbon dioxide gas stripped out in the 
     process, however, is another matter. Government laboratories 
     have experimented with dissolving the gas in saline aquifers 
     or pumping it into geologic formations under the sea. The 
     petroleum industry has long injected carbon dioxide into oil 
     fields to help push more crude to the surface.
       Refining and commercializing these techniques is a 
     significant part of a $35 billion package of clean energy 
     incentives that the National Commission on Energy Policy is 
     recommending. The Senate considered some of those ideas in a 
     big energy policy bill last week, but it is doubtful whether 
     Congress will approve the funds to enact them because they 
     are tied to regulating big carbon emissions for the first 
     time, something that many industry leaders and sympathetic 
     lawmakers oppose.
       Still, the energy bill may have some incentives for 
     industry to adopt gasification technology, and the Department 
     of Energy will continue related efforts. These include 
     FutureGen, a $950 million project to demonstrate 
     gasification's full potential--not just for power plants but 
     as a source of low-carbon liquid fuels for cars and trucks as 
     well, and, further out, as a source of hydrogen fuel.
       Regardless of the politics of carbon caps, the Energy 
     Department has made it clear that it intends to push the 
     development of integrated gasification combined-cycle 
     technology. Last month, for example, Mark Maddox, a deputy 
     assistant secretary, said at an industry gathering that the 
     technology ``is needed in the mix--needed now.''
       Some industry leaders are skeptical, to say the least. ``We 
     would not want to put all of our eggs in one basket as far as 
     a single technology is concerned,'' said William Fang, deputy 
     counsel for the Edison Electric Institute, a trade 
     association whose members, shareholder-owned utilities, 
     account for three-quarters of the country's generating 
     capacity.
       Besides, he added, many of his members think that mandatory 
     carbon controls, in place in much of the world since the 
     Kyoto Protocol came into force in February, can be kept at 
     bay in the United States--possibly indefinitely.
       It's a risky strategy--for industry and for the climate. 
     ``Coal-fired plants are big targets,'' said Judi Greenwald of 
     the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ``and if we do get 
     serious about climate change, they are going to be on the 
     list of things to do quite early.''
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2005.
     Hon. Skila Harris,
     Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN.
     Hon. Bill Baxter,
     Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN.
       Dear Skila and Bill: Recently Sen. John Warner of Virginia 
     and I introduced the ``Environmentally Responsible Windpower 
     Act'' which would:
       1. Stop federal subsidies for giant windmills near highly 
     scenic areas, such as the Great Smokies and Grand Canyon, and
       2. Give communities a l20-day opportunity to have some say 
     in whether and where these huge machines will be located in 
     their communities and neighborhoods.
       Today I am writing to ask that TVA place a two-year 
     moratorium on construction of new wind farms--either by TVA 
     or on TVA-controlled land--until the new TVA board, Congress 
     and local officials can evaluate the impact of these massive 
     structures on our electric rates, our view of the mountains 
     and our tourism industry. The governors of Kansas and New 
     Jersey have recently imposed similar moratoria. Local 
     moratoria have been adopted in parts of Vermont and 
     Wisconsin.
       The idea of windmills conjures up pleasant images--of 
     Holland and tulips, of rural America with windmill blades 
     slowly turning, pumping water at the farm well. My 
     grandparents had such a windmill at their well pump.
       But these are not your grandmother's windmills.
       Most new windmills are about 300 feet high--as tall as a 
     football field is long or as tall as the Statue of Liberty. 
     Their rotor blades are wider than the wingspan of a 747 jumbo 
     jet and turn at up to 100 miles per hour. Each tower costs 
     more than $1 million to erect, and, once constructed, the 
     towers will be around for a long time. For example, TVA's new 
     18-windmill farm on Buffalo Mountain is a 20-year contract.
       Only one of these giant windmills could fit into UT's 
     Neyland stadium. It would rise more than twice as high as the 
     highest skybox, its rotor blades would stretch almost from 
     10-yard line to 10-yard line, and on a clear night its 
     flashing red lights could be seen for 20 miles--the distance 
     from Knoxville to Maryville. Usually these windmills are 
     grouped in windfarms of 20 or more.
       Our country needs a national clean energy policy, not a 
     national windmill policy. TVA is a national leader in 
     producing clean energy through nuclear and hydroelectric 
     power. A moratorium on windmills would give Tennesseans two 
     years to stop and think about the wisdom and cost of building 
     hundreds of 100-yard tall structures across our most scenic 
     ridges.

[[Page 11504]]

       Here are some of the facts I have gathered so far:
       There are 6,700 windmills in the United States today; by 
     2025, that number could grow to somewhere between 40,000 and 
     100,000, according to varying estimates.
       Even if only a few hundred of those windmills are built in 
     Tennessee, most will be built on top of mountain ridges 
     according to Senate testimony by Kerry W. Bowers, Technology 
     Manager of Southern Company. That could damage our tourism 
     industry.
       These giant windmills are being built primarily because of 
     a huge federal taxpayer subsidy, about $3 billion over the 
     next five years if present policies continue. Without these 
     federal tax breaks, American Wind Energy Association 
     statistics suggest that three out of four windmills would not 
     be built across the country because they aren't cost-
     effective producers of power.
       Once those tax credits expire, TVA ratepayers would likely 
     have to pick up most of the tab for the higher cost of the 
     power.
       These windmills may be huge, but they don't produce much 
     power. It would take at least 1,300 windmills--covering the 
     land mass of almost one and one half times the city of 
     Knoxville--to produce as much power as TVA's new Brown's 
     Ferry nuclear plant.
       Because they only work when the wind blows the right speed 
     (20 to 40 percent of the time), and customers need their 
     electricity almost all the time, building more windmills does 
     not mean building fewer coal or nuclear power plants.
       Since windy ridgetops are not usually where the largest 
     number of people live, windmills are likely to be built away 
     from population centers and therefore require the building of 
     miles of new transmission lines through neighborhoods and 
     communities.
       So, these oversized windmills produce a puny amount of 
     unreliable power in a way that costs more than coal or 
     nuclear power, requires new transmission lines, must be 
     subsidized by massive federal tax breaks, and, in my view, 
     destroys the landscape.
       Chattanooga has just spent 20 years improving its 
     waterfront, saving the Tennessee River Gorge and renaming 
     itself the Scenic City. The Great Smoky Mountains attract 10 
     million visitors a year. Do we really now want to string 
     hundreds of towers with flashing red lights as tall as 
     football fields on Signal and Lookout Mountains, the 
     foothills of the Smokies and Roan Mountain? It's hard to 
     imagine that 10 million visitors would come to the foothills 
     of the Smokies each year to see windmills.
       As chairman of the Senate Energy Subcommittee, I intend to 
     examine whether it is wise to provide $3 billion in subsidies 
     over the next five years for the building of tens of 
     thousands of giant windmills across America, when the same 
     amount of money might, for example, give $1,000 incentives to 
     more than 300,000 purchasers of hybrid or advanced diesel 
     vehicles. As chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     Congressional Caucus, I intend to do my best to make local 
     officials aware of their options to decide for themselves 
     whether these structures belong in their communities.
       Our country needs lower prices for energy and an adequate 
     supply of low-cost, reliable American-produced clean energy. 
     Wind doesn't fit the bill: it is a high-cost, unreliable 
     supply of energy. While we are considering what the 
     appropriate policies should be, I hope that TVA will help by 
     placing a two-year moratorium on any new wind farms.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lamar Alexander,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____


                   [From The Observer, May 22, 2005]

        Tilting at Windmills: Nation Split Over Energy Eyesores

                           (By Mark Townsend)

       Hundreds of turbines will be switched on this year, and the 
     volume of protest is rising. Mark Townsend reports on the 
     issue that will overtake hunting as a cause of rural unrest.
       The clue lies in the grass, pummelled and then flattened by 
     a force the area is famous for. Whinash is all about wind, 
     and it is a resource which has put the Lakeland beauty spot 
     at the heart of Britain's debate about the country's 
     insatiable need for energy.
       The site--amid the classic Cumbrian vista of rolling fells 
     criss-crossed with dry stone walls and the shuffling specks 
     of sheep--is to be home to England's largest wind farm. If 
     the plans ever get the go-ahead.
       This week, the public inquiry to site 27 turbines, each 
     almost the height of St. Paul's Cathedral, on the ridge of 
     Whinash enters its most potentially explosive phase. Two of 
     Cumbria's favourite sons, the broadcaster Melvyn Bragg and 
     the mountaineer Sir Chris Bonington, are scheduled to give 
     evidence in the squat Garden Room of the remote Shap Wells 
     Hotel. There can be no place for 21st-century windmills in a 
     Wilderness largely-unaltered for centuries, they will argue.
       Almost 200 miles north in Aberdeen, Malcolm Wicks will mark 
     his entrance as the new energy minister by stressing the 
     crucial role of wind power in the crusade against climate 
     change. Only weeks into his new brief, Wicks appreciates that 
     wind farms are already eclipsing farming and foxhunting as 
     the most likely source of rural unrest during Labour's third 
     term.
       Ministers, aware that the government's target of cutting 
     carbon dioxide emissions is in jeopardy, have identified 
     Whinash as the acid test of whether they can expect that 
     renewable energy will provide 10 percent of power in five 
     years' time.
       But the significance of Whinash runs even deeper. Among the 
     windblown crags that lie between the national parks of the 
     Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, the schism that is 
     tearing Britain's environmental movement from top to bottom 
     is most pronounced.
       The self-appointed custodian for future generations, 
     Britain's green lobby has found itself caught between the 
     need to protect the landscape from global warming and 
     defending Britain's countryside from the creation of a 
     `pseudo-industrial' skyline. This month, one of the 
     movement's most influential figures James Lovelock, the man 
     who developed the Gaia theory of the forces governing nature, 
     will launch his most candid critique yet of Britain's energy 
     conundrum by accusing groups such as Greenpeace and Friends 
     of the Earth of betraying the planet through their unswerving 
     promotion of wind energy.
       Nuclear energy, Lovelock will claim, offers the only 
     solution to the twin challenges of providing Britain with a 
     reliable energy supply and global warming.
       Britain currently stands poised at the start of the `wind 
     rush'. Hundreds more turbines in 18 new wind farms will be 
     switched on by the end of the year. Already the UK is poised 
     to become the world's biggest producer of power from offshore 
     wind farms, a reminder of the 17th century, when Britain 
     boasted 90,000 windmills.
       Around one per cent of the UK's energy is currently 
     provided by wind although the Industry claims there are 
     enough applications moving through the planning process to 
     suggest seven per cent of the nation's electricity needs will 
     be met by wind by 2010.
       Next month the 300ft turbines at Cefn Croes, scene of the 
     bitterest wrangle before Whinash, will start turning in mid-
     Wales. Yet pressure is mounting on the fledgling industry. If 
     Britain's climate change targets are not met, experts warn 
     that the generous subsidies which have helped establish wind 
     farms could be withdrawn by an exasperated government.
       Already a new era for nuclear power appears to be dawning 
     and seems certain to feature prominently in the government's 
     forthcoming energy review. Vastly more expensive than 
     predicted and plagued by persistent safety concerns, 
     nuclear's strength remains its proven reliability. And even 
     those who have lived in the shadow of Sellafield, 30 miles 
     west across central Lakeland from Whinash, are beginning to 
     believe nuclear is the saviour.
       Sir Christopher Audland shook his head as he tramped along 
     the pummelled cotton grass tufts of the Whinash site last 
     Tuesday afternoon. A former director-general of energy for 
     the European Commission, Audland was in charge when reactor 
     number four exploded in the Ukraine almost 20 years ago, its 
     radioactive contents drifting from Chernobyl to the fells of 
     Cumbria where his family has lived for 500 years. For a man 
     who saw first-hand the inherent risk of nuclear power, 
     Audland is dismissive of the safer alternative proposed for 
     the hills north of Kendal. `It cannot be allowed to happen 
     here,' he said.
       Bragg, who has relatives who happily work at Sellafield, is 
     among the growing Lakeland fraternity who believes nuclear is 
     the sale viable option for tackling climate change.
       `We seem to be running away from the safest, most efficient 
     industry. Nuclear energy seems to be the only sensible option 
     and it is a safe option,' said the presenter of The South 
     Bank Show. It is a consensus corroborated by Lovelock, who in 
     1991 opened Britain's first windfarm at Delabole, Cornwall. 
     Since then, Lovelock has reviewed his initial enthusiasm.
       `To phase out nuclear energy just when we need it most to 
     combat global warming is madness,' he said. `The anti-nuclear 
     agenda is pushed by groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of 
     the Earth and by Green Party politicians. They are pursuing 
     goals in which neither environmental good sense nor science 
     plays a part--a strange way to defend the earth,' he writes 
     in Reader's Digest.
       Even the spectre of Chernobyl is dismissed by Lovelock, who 
     claims that the fallout from the radioactive cloud that swept 
     over the Cumbrian peaks `was really nothing. A few times 
     higher than the natural background levels or at worst a 
     couple of chest X-rays'.
       It is 13 years since the arrival of the anti-wind lobby 
     surfaced with the Country Guardian, a group that vehemently 
     denies links to the nuclear sector although its chairman, Sir 
     Bernard Ingham, has been a paid lobbyist for British Nuclear 
     Fuels. Since then, complaints advanced to discredit wind 
     energy have multiplied: falling property prices, the whirring 
     noise that makes people sick a mile away, horses that 
     suddenly bolt and the grisly deaths of kites and golden 
     eagles, even if their numbers are a fraction of those of 
     birds that are killed on the roads.
       The most persistent criticism, however, concerns the 
     efficiency of wind power. Critics claim windmills would 
     struggle to cope with the half-time power surge during 
     yesterday's FA Cup final because they only generate 
     electricity for a part of the time. Such

[[Page 11505]]

     issues would be irrelevant if electricity could be stored, 
     but there is no battery for the national grid.
       A recent study in Germany, which has the largest number of 
     wind farms in the world, found the energy was an expensive 
     and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy, costing 
     up to K53 to avoid emitting a ton of carbon dioxide. 
     Professor David Bellamy, a vociferous windfarm critic seen 
     recently at the Shap Wells Hotel, is among those worried 
     whether wind could guarantee his half-time cuppa: `How are 
     people going to be able to boil their kettles?'
       Sir Martin Holdgate, a former chief scientist to the 
     Department of Environment who has served on a number of 
     government committees on renewable energy, was also present 
     in the Garden Room last week. Holdgate, too, has run out of 
     patience with wind farms in sensitive areas. `We shouldn't 
     sacrifice our landscape on our crowded island. Wind doesn't 
     make sense.'
       Others, the so-called `blade lovers', welcome them as an 
     aesthetic asset, claiming that their beauty lies in the 
     environmental message they communicate to a throwaway 
     society. Designer Wayne Hemingway says: `I love them. They 
     are a massive visual sign that we are doing something that is 
     not damaging the Earth.'

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls 50 minutes of the time 
remaining.
  Mr. KERRY. Fifty?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am told 50.
  Mr. KERRY. How much does the majority have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 52 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I will use at this moment. 
Obviously, I will not use all of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 30 minutes of the time 
allocated.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am not sure how much of that time I will 
use.
  I have made a significant amount of argument, as others have, in the 
Foreign Relations Committee during the time leading up to this debate 
on the floor. I listened to Senator Biden's comments and I listened to 
Senator Biden's colloquy with Senator Sarbanes. They raised critical 
points, as have others, such as Senator Dodd and Senator Voinovich, and 
others on the floor. I am not sure it serves any great purpose to 
rehash all of those arguments, but I will say in summary that what 
brings a lot of us to this point of questioning the nomination of John 
Bolton is not personal and it is not political in the sense that it is 
sort of an automatic reflex reaction to a nomination of the President, 
or to divisions between the parties.
  I think people can sense from the bipartisan concerns that have been 
expressed, as well as the record that has been set forward, that these 
are really deeply felt and very legitimate concerns about a position 
that is one of the most important foreign policy positions for our 
country.
  Obviously, the President has the right to make a choice. We all 
understand that. Subsequent to the President making that choice, an 
enormous amount of information has come forward, not from traditional 
sources, not from people who might have been disposed to oppose this 
nomination, but from people who have worked with Mr. Bolton, from 
people who are ideologically in the same place as he is, who are 
members of the same administration.
  The picture they have painted is clearly one that ought to raise 
concern for any Member of the Senate about a position that requires 
special credibility, special stature, and special ability to be able to 
carry the message of our country in one of the most important fora in 
the world, in a very complicated world.
  On several occasions, a number of Senators have talked about this 
issue of credibility, and it cannot be overlooked. One cannot gloss by 
it. We are in the midst of delicate, critical negotiations with Iran. 
Nobody knows where that will go in these next months. The potential for 
critical intelligence analysis to be put before the United Nations in 
order to persuade the world of potentially dangerous steps requires a 
voice that has no questions attached to it, where people will not have 
to ask whether that person speaks for the administration or for 
themselves.
  The history of Secretary Colin Powell, whom we all admire but who was 
sent to the United Nations with information that was inaccurate and 
made a speech which he now personally wishes were otherwise, raises 
even further the question of credibility. In addition, we will have to 
deal with Syria itself where important issues have been raised with 
respect to Mr. Bolton's attitude toward Syria, his willingness to 
stretch information with respect to Syria. Obviously, North Korea looms 
huge on the diplomatic and security horizon.
  All of this fits within a context of information that the Foreign 
Relations Committee has requested a number of times. Two weeks ago, the 
Foreign Relations Committee, in a historical moment, voted to send John 
Bolton's nomination without recommendation. I voted no at that time for 
the reasons that I stated, and I believe we have yet to complete the 
task of building the complete record to be able to have the full Senate 
make a judgment on this nomination.
  Over the last 24 years, the Foreign Relations Committee has sent 
hundreds of nominations to the floor with favorable recommendations. 
Only twice did the committee report a nomination unfavorably, and only 
once did it report a nomination without recommendation. So obviously we 
come with serious reservations within the committee, and the Senate 
ought to want a full record to be put in front of it before it votes on 
this nomination.
  The power of advice and consent has been talked about a lot in the 
last weeks. Obviously, we have a constitutional responsibility not just 
to advise but also to consent, and nowhere is it suggested in the 
Constitution that we ought to consent automatically.
  So over the last week, both Democrats and Republicans on the 
committee have worked hard together to jointly interview more than 30 
individuals with information relevant to this nomination. We also 
requested numerous documents from the State Department, USAID, and the 
CIA. This indepth level of investigation was necessary because concerns 
were raised by individuals in Government and in the private sector 
about the nomination. Again, I repeat, we did not seek out these 
people. They came to us. Most of those who came to us have worked with 
Mr. Bolton and continue to work in Government. They came to us at great 
risk to themselves. That risk has to be measured by our colleagues in 
the Senate.
  Everybody knows how this place works. We know the difficulty of a 
person coming out of the same place of business in politics and saying 
something that is critical of somebody they worked with. The fact is 
that we owe those people who took those risks a serious and complete 
effort in the consideration of this nomination, not a perfunctory 
effort, not one that seeks to find a way around a legitimate request 
for information.
  The fact is that this administration's cooperation in the Foreign 
Relation Committee's effort to do due diligence on the Bolton 
nomination has been sporadic at best and far from complete. In the 22 
years I have served on the committee, I have seen efforts on both sides 
of the aisle that have been far more extensive and far lengthier for 
less important positions or for the similar position.
  Initially, the administration's response was to refuse access to 
documents or individuals to be interviewed until just a few days before 
the committee's first business meeting to consider the Bolton 
nomination on April 19. Chairman Lugar had to personally intervene in 
order to persuade the administration to comply with earlier requests 
that were made repeatedly by

[[Page 11506]]

Senator Biden on behalf of all of the Democrats on the committee.
  The State Department finally responded but, again, not fully. It did 
not provide all of the documents requested, and those that were 
provided were suddenly deemed to be classified, even though many were 
unclassified e-mails.
  After the committee decided on April 19 to further investigate 
allegations and concerns about this nomination, the administration 
continued to drag its feet on the Democratic request for information. 
On April 29, Senator Biden sent a letter specifying nine different 
categories of documents relating to the issues of concern that needed 
to be investigated thoroughly. Some of these requests involved 
additional information related to specific cases the committee had been 
reviewing. Four of them were requests for drafts of speeches or 
testimony. These four requests were designed to ascertain whether Mr. 
Bolton sought to stretch the intelligence to support his policy views. 
A lot has been spoken on the Senate floor about that effort to stretch, 
and I would associate myself with the concerns that have been expressed 
by other Senators about that effort. There is nothing more serious at 
this moment in time.
  The State Department refused to respond fully to Senator Biden's 
request. Instead, it responded to a letter by Chairman Lugar on May 4 
suggesting that it needed to provide documents in only five of the nine 
categories. Well, it is not up to the administration to decide which 
categories are appropriate for the proper advice and consent of a 
Senate committee or of the Senate itself.
  So in an effort to move the process along and get further cooperation 
from the administration, Senator Biden narrowed the Democratic request 
down to two areas: Information related to the clearance of Mr. Bolton's 
September 2003 testimony on Syria before the House International 
Relations Committee and information related to National Security Agency 
intercepts and the identity of U.S. persons on those intercepts.
  Over a period of 4 years, Mr. Bolton requested the identity of U.S. 
persons on intercepts 10 times.
  Senator Dodd originally asked for these intercepts in a question for 
the record on April 11. The Department responded by saying that the 
committee needed to get these from the National Security Agency. So 
Chairman Lugar supported the Democratic request for the NSA intercepts 
but asked the Intelligence Committee to request them and find a means 
of sharing them with the Foreign Relations Committee.
  The Intelligence Committee finally did get the intercepts, but the 
chairman and ranking member of that committee were not allowed to see 
the key information; that is, the names of the U.S. persons, which is 
an essential part of the evaluation of the committee. No one--no one on 
the Foreign Relations Committee, not Chairman Lugar or Senator Biden--
has been given access to these intercepts.
  In response to letters from Senator Biden regarding the intercepts, 
the Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador Negroponte, referred 
Senator Biden back to the Intelligence Committee.
  What the Senate has to decide is whether it is going to stand up for 
the rights of a committee, for the rights of an appropriate set of 
inquiries to be answered so we can fulfill our constitutional 
responsibilities. Senators can be for Mr. Bolton, Senators can have 
already made up their minds, Senators can have decided that they know 
how they are going to vote and they do not need more information, but 
they ought to respect the fact that both the chairman and the ranking 
member made a request and that request has not yet been fulfilled.
  The information we are seeking relating to the Syria testimony will 
shed further light on whether Mr. Bolton tried to press the envelope on 
intelligence and whether he told the committee the truth when he said 
he was not personally involved in the preparation of the Syria 
testimony. The question of whether Mr. Bolton told the committee the 
truth is important because there are already several other instances 
where it is in doubt, where in fact there is clear evidence that he 
didn't tell the truth, specifically with respect to the efforts to fire 
the two analysts of intelligence.
  Stretching intelligence and credibility are two of the key areas of 
concern with respect to the Bolton nomination, two of the key areas of 
inquiry that the committee is seeking. This is a proper and a critical 
request. Having access to the NSA intercepts will tell us whether Mr. 
Bolton did anything improper after receiving the identities of U.S. 
persons involved. The fact they do not want anybody to see it seems to 
suggest the exact opposite.
  Senator Roberts, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, 
indicated in his letter to Senators Lugar and Biden that on at least 
one occasion Mr. Bolton shared the identity information of a U.S. 
person with another individual in the State Department without 
authorization from NSA.
  Did he do this more than once? Why did he request these intercepts? 
What was he trying to find out? What was he going to do, or did he do 
with the information? We can only speculate without proper access to 
those intercepts and without knowing the identities of the persons on 
them.
  The State Department has told the committee that the request for 
information about the Syria testimony is not ``specifically tied to the 
issues being deliberated by the committee.'' But for the executive 
branch of Government, which has already been slow-walking this 
provision of information, to tell a Senate committee how to exercise 
the advice and consent power of the Senate is not only unacceptable, it 
is unconstitutional. The Foreign Relations Committee has the 
prerogative to determine, and has laid out for our colleagues to judge, 
the legitimacy of the basis of this request. I think it passes muster.
  For the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee to be denied access to NSA intercepts and information which 
Mr. Bolton was able to see is unacceptable on its face. An Assistant 
Secretary of State and staff are permitted to see this, but the 
chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee are not? 
Is the Senate prepared to ratify that as a standard by which we will 
have our inquiries pursued with respect to any nomination on either 
side at any time?
  The Foreign Relations Committee has spent an enormous amount of time 
and energy related to this nomination. Grudgingly, cherry-picking 
document requests, we have proceeded along with the administration 
actually denying other requests entirely.
  The information we continue to seek is relevant to this nomination 
and to the critical concerns that many of us have about the nominee and 
his use of intelligence. We should have access. Since the 
administration has refused to provide it, the only choice we have is to 
deny the vote on this nomination until there is full compliance. That 
is not a filibuster. That is not an effort to not have a vote. Give us 
the information. We are prepared to have a vote immediately and let the 
chips fall where they may. But it is vital that the rights of the 
committee and the rights of the Senate, the rights of the advice and 
consent process, be upheld.
  Let me just say again this should not be anything except a 
measurement on the merits. During her confirmation hearing in 1981, to 
be U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick described her vision 
of the job. She said:

       I do not think that one should ever seek confrontation. 
     What I have every intention and hope of doing is to operate 
     in a low key, quiet, persuasive, and consensus-building way. 
     I think a principal objective should be to try to communicate 
     effectively with the representatives of as many nations as 
     possible to broaden a bit the areas of mutual understanding. 
     We should try to extend a bit the frontiers of reason and 
     cooperation, and I think we should work to that end, and we 
     should work to establish the patterns of consultation and 
     trust.

  No one would ever accuse Jeane Kirkpatrick of being soft or shying 
away from her views. She is a staunch conservative who speaks her mind. 
But she understood and respected the value of diplomacy and 
negotiation; of listening to and respecting others' views; of

[[Page 11507]]

working the system; of seeing the big picture and, most importantly, of 
establishing credibility and trust. She herself has said of this 
nominee that he is ``no diplomat.''
  We should make the judgment in the end of whether this is the right 
person. I have heard colleagues argue how important it is to have a 
straight-talking, tough person at the U.N. This is not about the U.N. 
per se, obviously. It is about our interests and how we are going to 
best advance those interests. But those of us who spent a long time 
trying to reform the U.N. and working with it, and have had some 
success in some measure with respect to that effort, in a bipartisan 
effort going back to the time we worked with Nancy Kassebaum and Larry 
Pressler and Jesse Helms, all of us understood you need to establish 
those patterns of consultation and trust and speak with credibility.
  I regret that this process has proven that this nominee does not meet 
the Jeane Kirkpatrick standard or test, and therefore all of us ought 
to raise serious questions about the nomination.
  I think my time is about up, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the current time on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 28 minutes and the majority 
has exactly 1 hour.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the quorum be tallied to both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, that is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Voinovich allowing me 
to speak a moment or two on the John Bolton nomination.
  No. 1, when it comes to how and why Members vote, every Senator has 
to make a decision they feel comfortable with, that is good for the 
Nation, good for the Senate, good for the White House, good for the 
American people.
  One thing I am confident of: Senator Voinovich, of all the people I 
know in the Senate, is right at the top of the list of those who make 
decisions based on conscience and principle. Whatever problems he has 
with this nominee have come from soul searching, thinking, and looking. 
He will articulate why he feels the way he does and vote his 
conscience. That is exactly what he should do. I am all for that 
because that is what makes the Senate great. That is what makes America 
great.
  In terms of myself, I would like a moment or two to express why I 
have come to the conclusion that I think John Bolton will make an 
outstanding ambassador to the United Nations. We have heard a lot about 
his disposition, about his temper, about his working relations. 
Everyone will make a judgment about where they come down on that. I 
made a judgment that, obviously, some of the things about his working 
relationships can be troubling. The idea that he has been confirmed 
four times, has served his country for well over 20 years in a variety 
of posts and done an outstanding job, is what I will base my vote on--
not a conversation here or there but 20-plus years of serving the 
United States at the highest level of Government, with a great academic 
background.
  But why him and why now? Are there other people who can be United 
States ambassador to the United Nations? There are a lot of good people 
out there. What drove the President to pick him now? The honest truth 
is, I haven't talked to the President about why he picked John Bolton, 
but I have a pretty good idea what was on his mind. The President sees 
very clearly the need for the United Nations. This world is in 
tremendous conflict. We are splitting along religious lines. We are 
having all kinds of problems getting along with each other and trying 
to find out how to fight the war on terrorism. The United Nations 
provides a hope for the world, a place where we can come together and 
have good people stand up to bad people. Sometimes it is hard to 
determine who is good and who is bad, but many times it is not, and it 
should be a place where people of good will can deal with problems for 
bad people such as Saddam Hussein and others, the Osama bin Ladens of 
the world, a place where they can be controlled and checked.
  The President sees from the American conservative perspective that 
the United Nations has lost its way. From a conservative point of view, 
being a conservative Republican, I hear continuously of problems with 
the United Nations from people I represent and people I know. The worst 
thing we can do is to allow the good will of the American people to 
slip away from the United Nations and reject that body.
  What will it take to repair the damage done from the Oil-for-Food 
Program, the corruption at the United Nations, the, at the least, 
inconsistent approach to regulating dictators such as Saddam Hussein? 
How can we get the United States and the United Nations back together 
where we can work as one team? It will take a person Americans have 
faith in. And that is a big problem with the United Nations right now.
  American conservatives need to feel better. John Bolton will provide 
that assurance from a conservative point of view that the United 
Nations would be pushed to reform itself. From a moderate and liberal 
point of view, I can assure members that the policies John Bolton will 
fight for will be those policies directed by President Bush, who won 
the last election. And some may not agree with the policies, but that 
is where he will get his marching orders.
  He sees the United Nations as a value-added product to the world. He 
sees clearly where it has gone astray. He has the credibility with the 
American public, particularly among conservatives, to be a force for 
change.
  The worst thing that could happen is for the United Nations to slip 
away, in the eyes of Americans, as an effective body. It surely has 
gone that route.
  The best thing that can happen from this nomination is that John 
Bolton goes to the U.N. with an attitude of: I will work with you, but 
you have to be better--and to effectively articulate President Bush's 
policies. I think that can happen. I think it must happen. Not only am 
I enthusiastic about his nomination, he clearly--given the dynamic our 
country has with the United Nations--is the right person at the right 
time and can do things no other person could do; namely, repair the 
image of the U.N. with a large percentage of the American people, who 
believe it has lost its way. That is why I will support this nominee 
with enthusiasm.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from South 
Carolina for his kind remarks about this Senator early today and this 
afternoon.
  What we are doing here today is what the Senate should be doing; that 
is, to have a robust debate about a nominee by the President of the 
United States to the United Nations.
  I have deep concerns about the nomination of John Bolton. We face an 
important decision today. We are at a crossroads in foreign policy, at 
a time when there has been a drastic shift in the attitude of our 
friends and allies. If we do have a vote today, I urge my colleagues in 
the Senate to let their consciences and their commitment to our 
Nation's best interests guide them.
  I would plead with them to consider the decision and its consequences 
carefully, to read the pertinent information, and to ask themselves 
several important questions:

[[Page 11508]]

  Is John Bolton the best person to serve as the lead diplomat to the 
United Nations?
  Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N. despite his 
damaged credibility?
  Will he share information with the right individuals, and will he 
solicit information from the right individuals, including his 
subordinates, so he can make the most informed decisions?
  Is he capable of advancing the President's and the Secretary of 
State's efforts to advance our public diplomacy?
  Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self-
discipline, common decency, and understanding of the chain of command 
to lead a team to victory?
  Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen 
relationships, promote peace, and uphold democracy with our fellow 
nations?
  I also came to the floor today to respond to some of the statements 
that have been made regarding the nomination of Mr. Bolton.
  It has been argued by my colleagues that Mr. Bolton is the right man 
for the job because he has ``sharp elbows,'' can give a dose of needed 
``strong medicine,'' and because he will not be an ``appeaser'' to the 
horrors that have been committed by the U.N. peacekeepers.
  The question is not whether we want to achieve U.N. reforms. We will 
support U.N. reforms. And I particularly want U.N. reforms. We need to 
pursue its transformation aggressively, sending a strong message that 
corruption will not be tolerated. The corruption that occurred under 
the Oil-for-Food Program made it possible for Saddam's Iraq to 
discredit the U.N. and undermine the goal of all of its members. This 
must never happen again. This is an ideal time for reform of the United 
Nations. Those reforms are needed to strengthen the organization or 
there will not be an organization.
  And, yes, I believe it will be necessary to take a firm position so 
it can succeed. But it is going to take a special individual to succeed 
in this endeavor, and I have great concerns with the current nominee 
and his ability to get the job done. How successful will he be on 
reform if the message is lost because of baggage surrounding the 
messenger? I worry that Mr. Bolton will become the issue and the 
message will be lost.
  I understand the arguments just made by my colleague from South 
Carolina in regard to the conservative movement here in the United 
States that is very concerned about the U.N. and feels comfortable that 
if John Bolton goes to the U.N., with his ``sharp elbows,'' something 
is going to happen.
  I would like to point out that Mr. Bolton will be going to the U.N. 
to do more than just push forward U.N. reforms with his ``sharp 
elbows.'' He is there to be the U.S. representative to the world.
  Do we want the supreme quality for our next U.S. representative to 
the world to be ``sharp elbows''? Don't we need a man who has superior 
interpersonal skills, who can bring people together, form coalitions, 
and inspire other countries to agree with his point of view?
  To the conservatives who are concerned about reform of the United 
Nations, do we want the messenger to become the issue so we never get 
to the message? And the message is: reform.
  I agree the next Ambassador needs to be a strong presence, firm in 
his beliefs, persistent in his drive, and determined in the face of a 
monolithic bureaucracy and many obstructionist countries. It is not 
going to be easy. But even more than this, he will need the 
interpersonal and diplomatic skills required to inspire and lead.
  If you think about John Danforth, our last ambassador to the United 
Nations--or let's talk about John Negroponte. Let's put John Negroponte 
and John Bolton in the same room together, colleagues. Put them in the 
same room together. John Negroponte went to the U.N. and did an 
outstanding job. John Negroponte was taken from the U.N. The President 
needed somebody in Iraq, so he sent John Negroponte to Iraq. Then he 
needed to call on someone to be the Director of the National 
Intelligence area. Now, John Negroponte--that is the quality of the 
individual who we need to be sending to the United Nations today.
  One of my colleagues stated earlier today that we should not reject 
Mr. Bolton because of his management techniques because ``management is 
not a criterion for rejecting a nominee and if it were, a lot of 
nominees would have been rejected.''
  In the case of Mr. Bolton, his poor management techniques intimidated 
intelligence officers and have called U.S. credibility into question, 
at a time when we cannot afford any further damage to our credibility. 
That is one of the problems we have today--the WMD and Iraq, some of 
the recent stories about the WMD. There are a lot of people who are 
questioning this Nation's credibility.
  Further, his management and interpersonal failures reflect on his 
diplomatic skills, which are an undeniable requirement for the 
ambassador to the United Nations.
  Colin Powell's chief of staff, COL Lawrence Wilkerson, testified 
before the committee that Mr. Bolton would make ``an abysmal 
ambassador'' because of his management flaws.
  I would like to read from Mr. Wilkerson's testimony.
  Mr. Wilkerson:

       I would like to make just one statement. I don't have a 
     large problem with Under Secretary Bolton serving our 
     country. My objections to what we've been talking about 
     here--that is, him being our ambassador at the United 
     Nations--stem from two basic things. One, I think he's a 
     lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there that 
     have to be led; they have to be led well, and they have to be 
     led properly. And I think, in that capacity, if he goes up 
     there, you'll see the proof of the pudding in a year.

  It has been argued during our floor debate that many of the people 
who oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination originally supported Mr. Bolton and 
voted for him several times before they heard about these new 
allegations against him.
  The statement seems to argue that many allegations about John Bolton 
are not relevant to our decision on whether he is the right man for the 
job and should be confirmed as the next ambassador to the United 
Nations.
  The allegations about Mr. Bolton are very relevant to our decision. 
The allegations speak to Mr. Bolton's character, his temperament, his 
credibility, his management style, his skills, and his performance over 
the last 4 years.
  The testimony of our witnesses has certainly had an impact on my 
opinion.
  I expect that the allegations have had an incredible impact on the 
world's opinion of Mr. Bolton. I believe that the allegations have 
caused great damage to Mr. Bolton's credibility and that the 
allegations will impair our influence with the United Nations. If Mr. 
Bolton is confirmed for the position, he goes to the U.N. with a 
tremendous amount of baggage that he is going to have to overcome. 
Again, I want to repeat to the people who feel he is just the right 
ticket to get the job done, I am very concerned that he will become the 
issue and the reform of the United Nations that we all would like to 
see is not going to happen.
  It has also been stated today that none of the incidents involving 
intelligence resulted in misuse. This is all of the testimony about 
speeches that Mr. Bolton gave. I guess my colleagues believe that the 
misuse of intelligence would have only occurred if Mr. Bolton would 
have been successful in clearing the language that he originally 
insisted upon. In other words, he would have these ideas about the 
world and about intelligence and said: This is what I want to say. And 
the intelligence folks came back and said: No, you can't say that 
because that doesn't reflect the reality. And everyone says that is not 
a problem because ultimately he didn't say what he wanted to say 
because he got the better information from the intelligence officers.
  The misuse of intelligence occurs as a process. It begins with 
intimidation and pressure on analysts, and it ends with analysts 
producing reports that meet the political needs of top leadership. Mr. 
Bolton contributed to this process with his actions. He created an 
atmosphere of intimidation within the

[[Page 11509]]

ranks of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and at the CIA. The 
people in these agencies were made to understand that if they disagreed 
with him, there would be consequences. His actions sent the message 
that if you don't seek to meet his particular request for specific 
language, they may be sidelined from future opportunities to provide 
him intelligence, and they may even be pulled off of the account and 
moved to another bureau.
  The Presiding Officer was there for some of the hearings. There was 
no question that the message was, if you disagree with him, you might 
get moved to some other place. Some have argued that you would be 
fired. But it wasn't in this language; it was like ``moved to somewhere 
else.'' It is the same signal, same message: Don't fool with John 
because, if you do, he is going to put pressure on to move you to some 
other place.
  His behavior put pressure on the intelligence officers, and it begins 
the very dangerous path to misusing intelligence and damaging U.S. 
credibility. The point Senator Kerry made earlier this afternoon is 
well taken. We all know there is a real problem with Iran. We know that 
the International Atomic Energy Agency is very concerned about what is 
going on in Iran today. We are hopeful that the EU-3 will be able to 
work out the problem and deal with the proliferation problem in Iran. 
But they may not be successful. If they are not, you know where they 
are going. They are going to the U.N. Security Council. Can you imagine 
if the spokesman for the United States at the U.N. Security Council 
about intelligence and the impact of whether Iran has this or that, if 
the spokesman is going to be John Bolton? Can you imagine how much 
influence he is going to have with his past record? It is a serious 
issue, one we hope doesn't happen, but it could very well happen. And 
there will be other instances that come before the United Nations where 
the credibility of the individual representing us is going to make an 
enormous amount of difference if we are to be successful.
  I agree with Mr. Bolton's policies. I believe in U.N. reform. I 
believe in nonproliferation. I believe in working to secure Article 98 
agreements to protect U.S. forces against trial by the International 
Criminal Court, although I do not agree with his decision to hold up 
important military education in order to achieve that goal. I believe 
in removing the anti-Israel prejudices in the United Nations. I believe 
in reforming the anticorruption and enforcement mechanisms of the 
United Nations. I believe in preventing abuses and crimes by U.N. 
peacekeepers. I believe in making the United Nations a strong 
institution that fulfills its mission to preserve and protect human 
rights and democracy. I know that I agree with Mr. Bolton's policy 
because I sat down with him to discuss his policies. I still just 
believe we can do much better than Mr. Bolton at the United Nations.
  Many people have come today to defend Mr. Bolton. In some cases, they 
argue that the allegations are false. In some cases, they argue that 
even though Mr. Bolton behaved badly, his rough edges are what the 
United States needs to be successful at the U.N., so we should overlook 
his record of behavior. But nobody has disputed the argument that I 
made yesterday before the Senate that Mr. Bolton will contradict our 
efforts to improve public diplomacy at this critical time.
  Public diplomacy has been the No. 1 priority of Secretary Rice since 
becoming Secretary of State. She is running all over the world putting 
her best foot forward, saying: We are the team. We all have to work 
together. It is a clear priority of the President, who has done 
everything in his power to improve the image and understanding of the 
United States, including getting the First Lady to get out there and 
start doing public diplomacy and then naming Karen Hughes, his 
confidant for so many years, to lead public diplomacy at the Department 
of State.
  In the spirit of the President's objectives, we cannot ignore the 
damage that John Bolton could have on U.S. public diplomacy. We also 
cannot ignore the warning signs of so many loyal servants of our 
Government who testified before our committee. These witnesses who came 
before the Foreign Relations Committee came voluntarily. We didn't go 
out and solicit them to come. They came in voluntarily. Most of them 
are Republicans. Most of them are proud they are conservatives.
  I ask my colleagues to consider these questions: When was the last 
time so many individuals have come out in opposition to a nomination? 
Think about it. When was the last time that 102 diplomats have opposed 
the appointment of a new ambassador? I should check the Congressional 
Record. It hasn't happened since I have been here, and I am in my 
seventh year. When was the last time so many witnesses have emerged 
from an administration to send warning signals to the Congress about an 
individual? When was the last time a Secretary of State did not sign 
the letter of recommendation for a nominee? It would have been a lay-up 
shot for Secretary Powell to join that letter recommending Mr. Bolton 
to be our ambassador to the United Nations, but his name was absent 
from the letter. And who best to understand whether he is the kind of 
individual we should send to the U.N. to be our ambassador?
  It is rare, and it should serve as a warning to all of us. We owe it 
to the United States, our children and grandchildren, to heed this 
warning and to ask our President: Mr. President, please, find a better 
candidate to send to the United Nations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, I commend my friend and colleague. I 
don't want to do this too frequently. I am afraid I may hurt his 
reputation in certain quarters. I want to tell him how much I admire 
what he has done over the last number of weeks and did so so that the 
people of Ohio and America understand this. This was not a decision 
that my colleague from Ohio reached quickly. In fact, I recall vividly 
the day in room 116 where we made our case. It was one of those rare 
moments that we don't see often enough around here these days, where 
the Senator from Ohio said: I am troubled by this. I want to know more.
  I was tempted a couple of times during the period between that 
hearing on April 18 or 19 and when we reconvened again in early May as 
part of the Foreign Relations Committee to consider this nomination. I 
decided the best thing I could do was to leave the Senator from Ohio 
alone and let him go through the process himself of deciding on the 
concerns that had been raised. As he so appropriately pointed out--I 
tried to make the point this morning myself--these allegations are not 
coming from some outside groups who have a vested political interest in 
the outcome.
  Many of these people were people who were presently there or have 
just left the present administration or they have had the experience of 
working with the nominee. They were the ones who raised the concerns. 
In fact, at lunch today, we were talking about North Korea with several 
former career diplomats who have worked with the nominee, including in 
this administration. I asked them for any observations. They confirmed 
what the Senator has said.
  They had complimentary things to say about Mr. Bolton, as well. I am 
not saying there are not qualities about this nominee that are good. He 
is certainly a well-educated individual, and he has an incredibly 
attractive life story of where he has come from. But they all made the 
same point the Senator from Ohio made, and it deserves being made 
again. I raised the issue about the intelligence analyst. But the 
Senator is absolutely correct. In this day and age, what we have been 
through over the last several years, having people who can help us take 
unwilling nations that may be cautious about joining us in certain 
things, for all the reasons we are familiar with, and to be able to 
build those coalitions around issues critical to us and to peace and 
stability in the world, is going to be absolutely essential. The

[[Page 11510]]

U.N. is a forum particularly for smaller nations.
  Large nations have big delegations here in Washington, and we go back 
and forth to major European allies and the major countries in the 
Pacific rim. For an awful lot of countries, the best forum for them is 
the U.N. The person who interfaces with those people on a daily basis 
can do a tremendous amount of good for our country with that notion--
the face of public diplomacy that the Senator from Ohio talked about.
  I wanted to, once again, thank my colleague for his willingness to 
share his feelings with his colleagues about this, and we are going to 
have a vote this afternoon, only because I felt it was important for us 
to be able to have information that should be forthcoming. It is a 
matter of right here on a cloture motion and, if that succeeds, we will 
go right to a vote on Mr. Bolton. If not, it will lay over and when we 
get back, if we don't invoke cloture, we will deal with it fairly 
quickly when we return and we will move on.
  I hope Members will have listened, particularly on the majority side. 
I suspect that when you hear some of us, you may say that is a bunch of 
Democrats talking. I regret that that is the feeling, but if you are 
not impressed with what some of us who have worked on the issues for 
many years feel about it, listen to George Voinovich from Ohio. This is 
a good person who cares about the status of the United States and about 
this matter before us. I thank the Senator.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that, after much too long a 
delay, the Senate will meet its constitutional responsibility to vote 
on an important nomination for the President's national security team.
  I am referring to the nomination of Mr. John Bolton to be our next 
ambassador to the United Nations.
  This position must be filled if the administration is to advance its 
foreign policy, which includes both the use of the United Nations to 
support our country's goals, as well as our goals to advance reform in 
a very difficult international organization that, to be frank, has 
earned the skepticism of a good many Americans, including many in my 
home State of Utah.
  It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that this administration 
is anti-U.N. After all, during his first term, President Bush addressed 
the United Nations more times than any of his predecessors ever had in 
the same period, throughout the entire history of the United Nations.
  That the President has regularly consulted with, and sought the 
support of, the United Nations gives lie to accusations that he is a 
unilateralist.
  That he has never hinged our foreign policy needs and goals on the 
support of the United Nations demonstrates that our President has a 
proper understanding of our sovereign rights, as well as a realistic 
understanding of what the U.N. can contribute. The vast majority of the 
citizens of my State agree with President Bush that the U.N. can be 
sought as a useful tool to advance our national security, but that the 
pursuit of our foreign policy goals should never, never be conditioned 
on U.N. approval.
  John Bolton, whose career in foreign policy has included numerous 
positions where he was worked with international organizations, 
including much experience with the U.N., understands this. Certainly it 
is not for lack of experience that Mr. Bolton's nomination has become 
so controversial. Nobody can credibly make that argument.
  It is because of his philosophical convictions about the limits of 
international organizations--convictions shared by the President who 
nominated him--that Mr. Bolton's nomination has been delayed. I have 
found this entire spectacle to be dismaying.
  Early objections were quite plain in this approach: John Bolton was 
charged with an unnecessarily skeptical view of multilateralism.
  In my opinion, the reason George Bush won a decisive victory in a 
close re-election campaign is because the American public recognizes 
that national security issues are of dire importance, and that the 
President has a better grasp of how the real world works.
  The vast majority of the Utahns I represent object to any suggestion 
of checking American power with multilateral institutions.
  They do not believe in ``aggressive multilateralism'' an expression 
used during past administrations.
  They do not believe that the reluctance of European powers to join us 
in all our causes is a failure of our diplomacy, because nations will 
pursue their national interest no matter what the rhetoric may be. To 
measure diplomacy by the decisions of nations is to misunderstand both 
diplomacy and the dynamics of how nations pursue their national 
interest. President Bush understands this, as does John Bolton.
  The nomination process grew quite tawdry, in my opinion, when it 
turned to innuendo and, in some cases, attacks on the nominee's 
character.
  I know John Bolton. He is a decent, honorable man of inestimable 
intelligence who has done a tremendous job in every public position he 
has held.
  Opponents of Mr. Bolton declared, insinuated, and denounced the 
nominee based on a handful of alleged reports of his cantankerousness. 
Imagine that. A cantankerous personality in a high-powered job. In 
Washington, no less. Give me a break.
  Mr. President, the list of those who have stood up for Mr. Bolton is 
one of the most impressive I have ever seen in my years in the Senate, 
And I will leave it to my colleagues to attempt to include it all in 
the Record. I must note, however, the following statement included in a 
letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

       We, the undersigned, have been appalled at the charges that 
     have been leveled at John Bolton during the course of his 
     nomination hearing to be this country's ambassador to the 
     United Nations. Each of us has worked with Mr. Bolton. We 
     know him to be a man of personal and intellectual integrity, 
     deeply devoted to the service of this country and the 
     promotion of our foreign policy interests as established by 
     this President and the Congress. Not one of us has ever 
     witnessed conduct on his part that resembles that which has 
     been alleged. We feel our collective knowledge of him and 
     what he stands for, combined with our own experiences in 
     government and in the private sector, more than 
     counterbalances the credibility of those who have tried to 
     destroy the distinguished achievements of a lifetime.

  This is a letter signed by former Attorney General Ed Meese, former 
Attorney General and Governor of Pennsylvania Dick Thornburgh, former 
Associate Attorney General and Governor of Oklahoma, Frank Keating, 
former Assistant Attorney General and Governor of Massachusetts, 
William Weld, and more than 30 of Mr. Bolton's former colleagues in the 
Department of Justice.
  Following the ideological criticisms, following the attacks on his 
character, the opponents of Mr. Bolton tried the intelligence angle. 
Apparently, Mr. Bolton has disagreed with a few intelligence reports 
and analysts. His opponents appear to believe that by waving a specious 
charge of ``misrepresenting intelligence,'' they can hit the theme of 
imperfect intelligence that serious policymakers have been wrestling 
with during the last few years of this administration. And we all know, 
and certainly we members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
know, that intelligence has been seriously flawed in recent years. We 
all know that.
  But to take a serious problem, which our committee has now spent 
years exposing and correcting, with the support of the administration--
and to turn it into an opportunistic attack on a nomination for the 
U.N. ambassador is specious at best. At no point in our investigations 
of intelligence regarding Iraq, have we found convincing evidence that 
intelligence analysts were pressured to change their views based as a 
result of political pressure. And none of our conclusions have 
indicated

[[Page 11511]]

that the intelligence process would be made better if dissenting views 
would be suppressed. If anything, we need more dissent to qualify and 
verify our intelligence products.
  If there is anything we have learned in our review of faulty 
intelligence, it is that there is not enough scrutiny, not enough 
skepticism and, frankly, not enough expressing contrasting views. 
Apparently, our friends on the other side, the Democrats, do not seem 
to understand this. I am relieved now that after all the delay, the 
President will get his vote on his nomination of this very fine man for 
this very important position.
  I commend the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 
his commitment and patience in bringing this nomination to the floor. I 
know how tough it is to sit through meeting after meeting where the 
nominee is being attacked with what really amount to almost flippant 
attacks. Both of Senator Lugar's virtues--his commitment and patience--
have been, I suspect, severely tested.
  John Bolton served as a senior diplomat for this country in various 
capacities for over 20 years. He has served with great distinction and 
has many accomplishments to his credit. He has my personal admiration 
for these accomplishments. Whether they have been standing up to the 
United Nations and our country's rejection of that organization's 
intellectual disease, known as declaring Zionism as racism, or in his 
post-9/11 efforts to advance multilateral cooperation in his 
proliferation security initiative, Mr. Bolton's efforts have advanced 
U.S. interests and U.S. values. I am grateful for his work on behalf of 
our Nation, and I am grateful that he chooses to continue to serve.
  In closing, I note a section of a letter sent to the Foreign 
Relations Committee by former Secretaries of State Baker, Eagleburger, 
Haig, Kissinger, and Shultz, and former Secretaries of Defense Carlucci 
and Schlesinger, former U.N. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, and other 
distinguished former national security officials:

       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.

  President Bush has the right to his nominee for the United Nations. 
All Senators have the right to refuse consent if they so choose. If our 
friends on the other side, or even friends on this side, disagree with 
Mr. Bolton and want to vote ``no,'' they have every right to do so. But 
he certainly deserves a vote up or down for this very important 
position, and he does not deserve to have his nomination filibustered.
  All Senators, as I say, have a right to refuse consent. In a time of 
war--and we remain in a complicated global war--a President's right to 
assemble his national security team should not be hindered, and it 
certainly should not be hindered by people on the floor of the Senate. 
It is time, well past due, to have this vote.
  Mr. Bolton is a good man. I have known him for most of those 20 
years. I know him personally. I know he is a man of integrity. I know 
he is a man of great intelligence. I know he is a tough person, exactly 
what we Americans would like to have at the U.N., sometimes called a 
dysfunctional U.N. This is a man who can bring some credibility. This 
is a man who can straighten some of the mess out. This is a man who can 
make a difference. He has been confirmed so many times in the Senate, 
one would think we would be ashamed to make some of the arguments that 
have been made against this very fine man.
  I will vote for Mr. Bolton, and if he is confirmed, I will offer him 
my continuing support as he undertakes yet another demanding mission, 
and it is demanding. I urge all my colleagues to be fair. That is what 
is involved here. It is a question of fairness. I hope they will be 
fair and vote for this very fine man and give our side a chance to have 
somebody there who is strong, tough, knowledgeable, loyal, and capable. 
He is all of those things. I can personally testify to that extent, 
knowing this man as I do. I hope everybody will vote for cloture today 
and then hopefully afterwards vote Mr. Bolton up so he can start 
serving and the President can have his foreign policy team in place.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Republican side for yielding me 
10 minutes. So I yield myself 10 minutes.
  (The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the vote we will be 
casting at 6 o'clock today, the cloture vote. I had some opportunity to 
speak on the merits and demerits of the Bolton nomination yesterday and 
had an opportunity to discuss this issue with my colleague, Senator 
Lugar, and others who were on the Senate floor at the time.
  Today, I rise to focus on what the vote that may take place at 6 
o'clock today is about. We are about to vote on a genuine 
constitutional option. The vote we are about to cast on cloture, if it 
takes place, is about whether we are going to stand up for this coequal 
branch of Government's rights to review relevant information in the 
exercise of our constitutional responsibility and our constitutional 
power to advise and consent to nominations put forward by the President 
or whether we are going to let the executive branch define for us what 
information is necessary in the exercise of our constitutional 
responsibility.
  The President has his constitutional responsibilities, defined in 
article II. We have our constitutional responsibilities, defined in 
article I. Our responsibility is to advise and consent as it relates to 
any nomination for an appointive office, above a certain level, that 
the President of the United States makes. It is the President's 
obligation to propose; it is our obligation to dispose of the nominee.
  The State Department has denied the request completely, stating that 
to fulfill it would chill the deliberative process and that it ``does 
not believe the requests to be specifically tied to issues being 
deliberated by the Committee.''
  The department's assertion about deliberative process is not trivial. 
That concern did not stop the Department and the CIA, however, from 
already turning over numerous materials to the committee that involve 
the very same type of deliberative process--preparation of speeches and 
testimony. And the department has made no effort to justify why it is 
drawing the line here.
  The Department's second assertion--that the Syria material is not 
relevant to the committee's inquiry--is nothing less than an outrageous 
attempt by the executive branch to tell the Senate how it may exercise 
its constitutional power.
  For several weeks, the Committee on Foreign Relations has been 
requesting two types of information which have been denied to it.
  The first relates to preparation for testimony on Syria and weapons 
of mass destruction that Mr. Bolton was to give in 2003. The State 
Department has denied the request completely, stating that to fulfill 
it would chill the deliberative process and that it ``does not believe 
the requests to be specifically tied to issues being deliberated by the 
Committee.''
  The Constitution says that the Senate shall advise and consent to 
nominations. The appointments clause does not limit the Senate's power 
to review nominations to those matters the executive branch deems 
relevant.
  Our Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances, not a 
system of blank checks.
  We must defend the Senate's constitutional powers, however, or we 
shall surely lose them.

[[Page 11512]]

  The second type of information the committee has not received relates 
to Mr. Bolton's requests to obtain the identity of U.S. persons cited 
in NSA intercept reports. We are told that Mr. Bolton did this on 10 
occasions, involving 19 U.S. person identities.
  The chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee have 
been shown these intercepts, but Senator Lugar and I have not.
  Even Senators Roberts and Rockefeller were not told the identities of 
the U.S. persons, moreover, information that was readily shared with 
Mr. Bolton and even with his staff.
  No one in the executive branch has explained why an Under Secretary 
of State--and a staff member not holding any Senate-confirmed 
position--may see this information, but the chairman and ranking 
members of the relevant Senate oversight committees may not.
  Senator Roberts tells us that after reviewing the contents of each 
report, it is apparent that it is:

     not necessary to know the actual names [of the U.S. persons] 
     to determine whether the requests were proper.

  With all respect, I believe my friend has it wrong. Learning the 
actual names is the key to the inquiry--and it is impossible to make 
any judgment about the propriety of Mr. Bolton's requests without 
knowing the names.
  I am inclined to think there is nothing improper in Mr. Bolton's 
requests for this NSA information.
  But the longer the executive branch withholds this material, the more 
I start to wonder. If Mr. Bolton did nothing wrong, then why won't the 
administration let us confirm that?
  Senator Rockefeller reported to our committee yesterday that Mr. 
Bolton, upon learning from NSA the identity of a U.S. official who had 
delivered a message just the way that Bolton wanted it to be delivered, 
sought out that U.S. official and congratulated him. That action may 
have violated the restrictions that NSA imposes on further 
dissemination of its information.
  More importantly, if Mr. Bolton used U.S. person identities in an NSA 
intercept to congratulate officials who did what he wanted, might he 
also have used such U.S. person identities to attack officials with 
whom he did not agree? That has been suggested in the press, and while 
I doubt that Mr. Bolton would do that, Senator Rockefeller's report 
urges the Foreign Relations Committee to seek:

       . . . a more complete understanding of the extent to which 
     he may have shared with others the nineteen U.S. person 
     identities he requested and received from the NSA.

  All Members of the Senate should understand: both the integrity of 
the nomination process, and the Senate's constitutional role, are being 
challenged today.
  The failure of the administration to cooperate with the committee, 
and one of the rationales offered for this failure--that the:

       Department does not believe these requests to be 
     specifically tied to the issues being deliberated by the 
     Committee

--has no constitutional justification.
  The administration has asserted neither executive privilege nor any 
other constitutionally-based rationale for not cooperating with this 
committee.
  It has no right under past practice or under constitutional theory to 
deny us information on a nomination based on its own belief that the 
request is not specifically tied to the issues being deliberated by the 
Committee.
  Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Senate is a co-equal 
branch of Government. It is within our power--and ours alone--to decide 
what we think is relevant to our deliberations in the exercise of the 
advice and consent power.
  To acquiesce in the administration's remarkable assertion would 
undermine the Senate's power. If we vote on this nomination without 
getting all the facts first, that it is a step that we will all come to 
regret.
  The request for this cloture vote is not a filibuster. If there were 
a filibuster, we would have demanded the use of 30 hours of debate time 
post-cloture.
  This vote is a vote about the Senate's constitutional power. It is a 
vote to tell the executive branch it must turn over information the 
Senate has requested.
  I urge my colleagues to reject cloture.
  The Constitution, to paraphrase Hamilton in Federalist 76, is 
designed to make sure that nobody becomes an appointed official at the 
executive level, the Cabinet level, whom the President does not want. 
That is a guarantee. But it does not guarantee the President gets the 
first person he asks for, or the second person. It guarantees that the 
Senate will use due diligence in determining whether the person the 
President of the United States nominates to fill a position--in this 
case, ambassador to the United Nations--whether that appointment is in 
the interest of the United States of America.
  That is our job. We are not filibustering. This is not about whether 
we will vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination. The Senator from Connecticut 
and I and others have said, we are ready to vote on Mr. Bolton's 
nomination, if you give us information that we have requested and are 
entitled to in assessing whether Mr. Bolton should go to the U.N. 
representing the United States of America.
  The President has an option under the Constitution. He can say, 
Senate, what you are asking for is a violation of the separation of 
powers doctrine; you are not entitled to the information you seek 
because it falls into the purview of what we call executive privilege. 
In order for me as President--or for any President--to be able to 
conduct my job I must be able to have conversations with my key people 
that are wide ranging and open with the sure knowledge they will never 
get beyond this Oval Office; otherwise, the President couldn't do his 
job. That is what executive privilege is all about. As the Executive, I 
have the privilege to have confidential discussions with my 
subordinates. Or, the information you are seeking infringes upon the 
power of the executive in such a way that you are usurping article II 
powers, or attempting to yield them, like Estrada, to the third branch 
of Government in article III.
  They do not assert any of that. They just say the information we have 
asked for, in their opinion, is not relevant to our legitimate inquiry. 
That is a new one for all the years I have been here.
  I thank the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Frist, for trying 
what I believe has been his level best to get the information. He and I 
had a call today. He has talked about this. I am sure I am not 
revealing anything I shouldn't. He contacted the National Security 
Agency. He said, Why can't we see the so-called intercepts we are 
talking about? Give me, the majority leader, the same information you 
gave to Mr. Bolton and his staff.
  The majority leader was surprised when he was told by a general 
running the National Security Agency, No, I won't give you that. I will 
give you the same thing I gave to the Intelligence Committee which is a 
redacted document. That is a fancy phrase for saying, the document 
without the names.
  I said, Mr. Leader, I think that is not good enough. I think he knows 
it is not good enough. This is strong-arming. They are making no 
argument as to why we are not entitled to it.
  I remind Members, the information we are seeking is information Mr. 
Bolton's staff got. Mr. Bolton, as important as an under secretary is, 
is not the majority leader of the Senate; he is not the Senator from 
Connecticut. Mr. Bolton's staff got this information.
  I asked the leader why they wouldn't release the information, and he 
said because it is highly secret. Translate that. Got that? They are 
not going to give information to the leader of the Senate because it is 
secret. In the neighborhood I come from, that means, you don't trust 
me. The nerve of this outfit to say they are not going to give the 
information.
  With regard to Syria--and my time is about up--we have asked for 
information relating to whether Mr. Bolton was lying to us and whether 
Mr. Bolton was trying to get us into war with Syria in the summer of 
2003 when a lot of people wanted to go to war.
  Remember the argument? The argument was that all the weapons of mass

[[Page 11513]]

destruction--that turned out never to have existed--were smuggled to 
Syria. Syria has them, plus a nuclear program, and we better do 
something about it. And what the intelligence community said to Mr. 
Bolton was, you cannot say that--or whatever it was that he proposed to 
say. The facts do not sustain it. He pushed and pushed and pushed. But 
he told the Foreign Relations Committee he had nothing to do with that 
draft testimony, he was not pushing.
  All we want to see is the draft texts of the speech and the material 
on the clearance process. I hope the Senate will stand up for itself 
today at 6 o'clock.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, before I make the remarks, let me 
reaffirm my commitment and my support for John Bolton as ambassador to 
the United Nations.
  Like every Member of this Senate, I recognize the importance of that 
appointment. I recognize the concerns many of my constituents in 
Georgia have had with the United Nations. John Bolton is the right man 
at the right time for this country to be our ambassador to the United 
Nations.
  (The remarks of Mr. Isakson are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, once again, I come to the floor to voice my 
concerns regarding the appointment of John Bolton to an important 
office in this administration. This time he is being promoted to a 
Government position with high international profile, the U.S. 
ambassador to the United Nations. I believe his appointment to this 
post will harm our interests at the UN and hamstring our international 
cooperation efforts.
  Mr. Bolton, whom I opposed when he was nominated to be the Under 
Secretary for Arms Control, did not distinguish himself in his last 
job. His comments about the North Korean regime during sensitive 
negotiations almost derailed our efforts there. This is not just my 
opinion. After his remarks, Mr. Bolton's superiors recalled him to the 
United States and sent a replacement. This blunder is not the only 
black mark on Mr. Bolton's record. He also failed in another highly 
critical negotiation--our unsuccessful attempts to convince Iran to 
curtail its nuclear activities.
  Mr. Bolton also has publicly and often expressed his disdain for the 
United Nations--the very institution the President has chosen to send 
him presumably to represent us and pursue our interests. How can he do 
that when his public criticism of the U.N. has been, not constructive 
or thoughtful, but heavy handed and destructive? He has advocated not 
paying our U.N. dues and, in a moment of high arrogance, said he 
thought there should only be one permanent member of the Security 
Council--the United States--to reflect today's international power 
structure. Statements like these make our allies believe that we do not 
value their cooperation and effort--and perhaps Mr. Bolton does not. 
His remarks create ill will and make it harder for us to lead in the 
international community--and perhaps Mr. Bolton believes the United 
States needs to play no role in that community. He has a right to those 
views. But we in the Senate have a right not to consent to the 
appointment to the ambassador to the U.N. of a man whose views would, 
in my opinion, keep him from being able to do his job.
  There is an old saying that ``you gather more flies with honey, than 
with vinegar''. I am afraid that we are sending a big bottle of vinegar 
to the U.N., and it will attract us no friends. Diplomacy requires 
tact. It requires being able to use both the carrot and the stick, 
rewards and sanctions. Mr. Bolton seems to be focused entirely on the 
stick, believing that by wielding our power and the threat of force 
like a cudgel, we can bring the international community into line. I do 
not agree.
  Senator Voinovich was right when he said the United States can do 
better than John Bolton. There are so many bright, gifted people in the 
administration that would do a better job and be a better fit. I regret 
the President did not send one of those people to us for this high 
profile job. Mr. Bolton's presence at the U.N. will do little to build 
our prestige around the world, and may well hamstring our efforts in 
the war on terror. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination 
of John Bolton to be the United States Representative to the United 
Nations.
  I have three criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch 
nominees: competence, integrity, and commitment to the core mission of 
the department.
  Mr. Bolton has had wide-ranging experience and is competent.
  I do not agree with many of Mr. Bolton's past statements about the 
U.N. However, his statements during the confirmation process indicate 
he is now committed to the mission of the U.N. I will give him the 
benefit of the doubt on this one.
  But I cannot be so flexible when it comes to the very serious 
questions about Mr. Bolton's integrity.
  I rise today as the Senator from Maryland and as a long-time member 
of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have been working on reforming 
our intelligence community since I first became a member of the 
Intelligence Committee before the tragedy of September 11. I served on 
the 2002 joint inquiry about what happened on that terrible day. I 
served on the Intelligence Committee's 2003 review of Iraq 
intelligence.
  I worked on the 2004 reform legislation that built on the work of the 
9/11 Commission and that we passed last year. We looked for ways to 
prevent what happened on September 11 from ever happening again. We 
looked for ways to make sure that what happened with Iraq--where we 
thought there were weapons that weren't there--will never happen again. 
We looked for ways to get the right information to policy makers.
  Throughout all that work over the years, I have kept the many 
talented, hard working, dedicated, and patriotic Americans working 
throughout the world for our intelligence agencies foremost in my mind. 
One of my central concerns has been to try to ensure that they have the 
right and ability to do their jobs: to get the facts and speak truth to 
power.
  Speaking truth to power means telling the boss what he or she should 
hear rather than just what they want to hear. This is absolutely 
critical to the security of our Nation. That is why I am opposing John 
Bolton's nomination to be America's Representative to the United 
Nations. It is clear to me that he does not respect the truth or the 
hard working experts that labor day in and day out to provide policy 
makers with the best information and their best judgments.
  I have carefully reviewed the report prepared by the Foreign 
Relations Committee. It is evident to me, from reading the minority 
views of the committee's report, that Mr. Bolton is a bully, but not 
just any bully. He is a bully with a purpose: to browbeat intelligence 
professionals to disregard the facts, and to send a message to all the 
other intelligence professionals that they speak the truth at their 
peril. His purpose seems clear: to intimidate. His actions seem clear: 
to retaliate.
  Mr. Bolton retaliated against those who disagreed with him. He claims 
not to have sought to have anyone fired. He said he merely ``lost 
confidence'' in them. But, that's just a polite way to say a person is 
unqualified and should be fired. It's a distinction without a 
difference. When a senior policy maker has lost confidence in you, I 
think we can all agree that your career is effectively over.
  Playing with words cannot obscure the fact that Mr. Bolton went after 
intelligence professionals for doing their jobs, for telling the truth, 
for speaking truth to power. He was the power, the boss, the senior 
official and he had no use for truth.
  According to the investigation by the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Mr.

[[Page 11514]]

Bolton tried to fire an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of 
Intelligence and Research. The intelligence professional disagreed 
about language regarding biological weapons that Mr. Bolton wanted to 
include in a speech. Mr. Bolton also asked that the National 
Intelligence Officer for Latin America be reassigned, because he told 
Mr. Bolton that the language on biological weapons did not reflect the 
intelligence community's assessment.
  Mr. Bolton also appears to have abused his access to intelligence. 
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently investigated charges that 
Mr. Bolton shared classified information that he received from the NSA. 
The minority view of that investigation concluded that Mr. Bolton did 
share classified information, after being specifically instructed by 
NSA not to do so. Even more troubling, it appears that the reason Mr. 
Bolton gave the NSA to justify his ``need to know'' was not the real 
reason he sought out the information.
  This is yet another example of John Bolton using and misusing 
intelligence to suit his own purposes. It is also clear that Mr. Bolton 
bullied a number of others who dared to disagree with him, including 
others in the intelligence community. My colleagues--Senator Biden, 
Senator Voinovich and others--have detailed these charges well, and I 
will not repeat that here.
  Mr. Bolton's intolerant attitude and conduct must not be rewarded. It 
inevitably results in chilling truth and facts. It is an attitude 
hostile to the very concept of speaking truth to power.
  We need the world to understand that the United States getting Iraq 
wrong was an aberration, a one-time, never-to-be-repeated mistake. The 
world must believe, and it must be true, that facts and truth are what 
inform our policies and actions at home and abroad.
  They must also believe our leaders and policy makers when they speak. 
When we speak about intelligence, people cannot be wondering, is that 
American lying to me, misleading me, telling me half the truth.
  The stakes are too high: war and peace; life and death; weapons of 
mass destruction; Iran; North Korea; terrorism. These are the stakes we 
are talking about.
  America cannot afford to send someone to the U.N. that many people 
already believe does not respect the truth. We already have a huge 
credibility gap at the U.N. and in the world.
  The U.N. was where our respected Secretary of State laid out our case 
for going to war with Iraq. We disclosed extensive intelligence 
information to demonstrate that Iraq had WMD, that it was a threat to 
the region, our country and the world. We now know, through no fault of 
our Secretary of State, that much of that information was wrong.
  Many of us have worked tirelessly to make sure that something like 
that never happens again. Building on the work of the 9/11 Commission, 
we worked for much of last year to pass dramatic and broad based reform 
of our intelligence community. We fought hard to make sure that a 
single person would be in charge of the entire intelligence community, 
to mandate alternative or red team analysis to always make sure that we 
policymakers have the best information available.
  We are now working to make that reform a reality. Just last month, I 
voted with 97 of my colleagues to confirm the country's first Director 
of National Intelligence and his deputy. We have done much, but there 
is much to do.
  We are building a new foundation for our entire intelligence 
community. It is a work in progress. Every step is important.
  But one of the most important steps is ensuring that our intelligence 
professionals understand and believe that their work is valued. That 
truth and facts are important. That they can and must speak truth to 
power. That we are on their side. That the Senate of the United States 
takes these matters seriously.
  That is why at the confirmation hearing of our nation's first nominee 
for Director of National Intelligence, I asked Mr. Negroponte if he 
agreed that the professionals in the intelligence community must be 
free to ``speak truth to power.'' He said, ``Truth to power is crucial. 
And we've got to assure the objectivity and integrity of our 
intelligence analysts.''
  I also asked him if he will create a tone where there will be no 
retaliation for people who attempt to speak the truth. Mr. Negroponte 
said, ``Yes. I think the short answer to you is a categorical yes.''
  I asked those questions of the nominee, who was under oath and at an 
open hearing, for two very important reasons.
  First, I wanted the world to hear what he had to say.
  Second, I wanted all of our intelligence professionals throughout the 
World to hear what he had to say.
  I wanted our intelligence professionals to know that they were 
authorized, indeed, obligated to seek the truth and speak the truth. 
And, I wanted them to know that our most senior intelligence 
professional, the Director of National Intelligence, would not tolerate 
retaliation for speaking truth to power. Mr. Negroponte's statements 
stand on their own.
  I believe it would be wrong to confirm Mr. Bolton as the United 
States representative to the United Nations. He has disregarded the 
truth. He has sought to punish intelligence professionals for speaking 
the truth. He has tried to intimidate intelligence professionals into 
agreeing with him regardless of the facts.
  To confirm Mr. Bolton would send a terrible message to our 
intelligence professionals. It would be a terrible signal for our 
intelligence reform efforts. It would undermine our efforts to restore 
our credibility in the world and to do the hard work of reforming the 
United Nations.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been privileged to have served under 
both President Clinton and President George W. Bush as one of the two 
Senate delegates to the United Nations, and there is no doubt that the 
United States Permanent Representative to the U.N. is one of the most 
important diplomatic posts in the U.S. government.
  The Permanent Representative is the public face, voice, and vote of 
the United States at the world's only body charged with maintaining 
international peace and security. Therefore, it is essential that this 
individual be someone with indisputable integrity and extraordinary 
diplomatic abilities. After listening to John Bolton's confirmation 
hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I feel 
confident in saying that John Bolton is not that person.
  Most troubling to me are allegations from senior U.S. intelligence 
officials--including a senior Bush administration appointee--of Mr. 
Bolton trying to intimidate and even remove intelligence analysts 
simply because they did not share his political views. Mr. Bolton even 
went so far as to get in his car and go out to the CIA to seek the 
removal of one intelligence officer. At any time, but especially in the 
wake of the massive intelligence failures associated with the decision 
to invade Iraq, efforts by administration officials to shape 
intelligence to conform to a particular preconceived view is 
unacceptable. It is essential that dissent be tolerated and even 
encouraged in the intelligence community and not distorted to fit a 
particular ideology or political agenda.
  Second, I have strong concerns that Mr. Bolton's pattern of 
inflammatory statements about the U.N. will make it difficult for him 
to effectively advance U.S. security interests in New York and to build 
support for much-needed reforms at the U.N. The last thing we want is 
for countries to make Mr. Bolton an excuse for resisting reform. Taking 
a tougher approach to the U.N. through constructive criticism is one 
thing; disregarding its value and belittling its very existence is 
another. We need someone in New York who is unafraid to shake things up 
and challenge the status quo, but that person must also have the 
credibility, temperament, and diplomatic skills to work with other 
nations, form coalitions, and advance U.S. interests. The only tool in 
Mr. Bolton's toolbox appears to be a hammer.

[[Page 11515]]

  Third, I am disturbed by some of the contradictions in Mr. Bolton's 
recent testimony. For example, Mr. Bolton pledged to the Foreign 
Relations Committee that he has not and will not make statements that 
are not approved by the administration. Yet his own testimony about 
Iran appeared to do just that--using language rejected by the 
administration more than a year ago. There are other instances of this 
behavior during the hearings, where our Ambassador to South Korea has 
disputed what Mr. Bolton said
  Finally, there is a tone and temperament issue with Mr. Bolton's 
nomination. According to respected officials who have worked with him, 
Mr. Bolton bullies, belittles and undermines those who do not agree 
with him. We all lose our cool from time to time. Disagreements are 
part of human discourse. But, there is a pattern with Mr. Bolton that 
goes beyond appropriate behavior--a disturbing trait for someone 
seeking to become our chief diplomat at a place where people come 
together to resolve disagreements.
  When Mr. Bolton was nominated to be Under Secretary of State in 2001, 
I strongly opposed and voted against his nomination. At that time, I 
had serious reservations about his experience, diplomatic temperament, 
and his poor track record on non-proliferation and arms control. Over 
the last four years, Mr. Bolton has proved me right. As the top 
proliferation official at the State Department, Mr. Bolton has been 
ineffective in his current responsibilities and the world has become 
more dangerous under his watch. The Bush administration's record on 
proliferation, from Pakistan to Iran to North Korea, has been poor, at 
best.
  After much debate, the Foreign Relations Committee was not able to 
support Mr. Bolton's nomination and, rather, reported it out without 
recommendation. Secretary Powell's Chief of Staff has said that Mr. 
Bolton would be an ``abysmal'' ambassador to the U.N. I might not put 
it as strongly as that, but I will be opposing the nomination of Mr. 
Bolton.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will be voting against the nomination 
of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations.
  When the President first nominated Mr. Bolton for this position, I 
expressed deep disappointment and concern. First, because of his 
repeated expression of disdain for the organization. But, more 
importantly, because Mr. Bolton is as responsible as any member of the 
administration for the needless confrontations with the rest of the 
world and for the international isolation that plagued President Bush's 
first term and for the shaky credibility we carry today. At a time when 
we need to be strengthening our alliances and making full use of 
international institutions to achieve our foreign policy goals, sending 
Mr. Bolton to the United Nations sends the exact wrong message. I do 
not accept his view that the U.N. is a vehicle to be used by the U.S. 
``when it suits our interests and we can get others to go along.'' 
Diplomacy in most people's minds requires attention to more than just 
coalitions of the willing.
  Over the past month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has 
uncovered a pattern of behavior on the part of Mr. Bolton that has only 
confirmed my concerns. Most disturbing to me is the evidence of Mr. 
Bolton's troubled and confrontational relationship with our 
intelligence community.
  In speeches and testimony, he has appeared to stretch the available 
intelligence to fit his preconceived views. On three separate 
occasions, he tried to inflate language characterizing our intelligence 
assessments regarding Syria's nuclear activities. He sought to 
exaggerate the intelligence community's views about Cuba's possible 
biological weapons activities. His track record, on these and other 
matters, was so bad that the Deputy Secretary of State made an 
extraordinary order--that Mr. Bolton could not give any testimony or 
speech that was not personally cleared by the Deputy Secretary or the 
Secretary's chief of staff.
  He also dampened critical debates among professionals on important 
policy issues by retaliating against analysts who presented a different 
point of view than his own. For example, on three occasions over a 6 
month period, he sought to remove a midlevel analyst who disputed the 
language he tried to use about Cuba. The proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction is a serious matter. I would not criticize Mr. Bolton 
for asking intelligence analysts hard questions about proliferation 
issues, nor should policy makers refrain from challenging the 
assumptions of those analysts. But Mr. Bolton was doing something far 
different. He made it clear that he expected intelligence analyses that 
conformed with his preconceived policy views. Rather than welcome 
contrary intelligence analyses as essential to an informed debate, he 
retaliated against those who offered contrary views.
  Mr. Bolton's approach to those around him has been harshly criticized 
by those who have worked with him. Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff 
for Secretary Powell, called him a ``lousy leader.'' Carl Ford, former 
head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 
referred to Mr. Bolton as a ``quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of 
guy.''
  This is not the person we need at the United Nations. Good diplomacy, 
like good business, relies on a great team and a good leader. Good 
leaders listen. They listen to their troops, they make reasoned 
decisions, they take responsibility, and they build the respect and 
loyalty of their staff. Management by fear is a recipe, in both public 
service and the private sector, for getting only the information that 
you want to hear. Shoot the messenger and other messengers will not 
volunteer to deliver the bad news. And I submit that Mr. Bolton has 
developed a reputation for shooting the messenger.
  We must begin to learn the lessons of Iraq. It should be more than 
clear by now that our national interests are damaged when policy makers 
bend intelligence. And we should all understand by now that accurate, 
objective intelligence requires analysts who are free to offer 
differing views. We face serious threats, from international terrorism 
to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have serious 
foreign policy concerns to address, from genocide to global climate 
change. Protecting our national security interests demands policymakers 
who seek objective intelligence on these and other challenges. Given 
his track record, John Bolton is clearly not that policymaker.
  Another lesson of Iraq is the critical importance of American 
credibility. The inaccurate presentations made by our Government to the 
international community have done serious damage to our interests. If 
we are to gain the active support of other nations in confronting 
common threats such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we 
will need to convince those nations of our views. To do so, we will 
need their trust. This challenge is especially complicated at the 
United Nations, where Secretary of State Colin Powell gave what turned 
out to be an almost entirely inaccurate presentation on Iraq, and where 
the administration dismissed all alternative views, including those of 
UN inspectors. Mr. Bolton is not the person to repair this damage. His 
record makes it extremely unlikely that he could rebuild our 
credibility in the international community in its most visible forum--
the U.N.
  The nomination of John Bolton is a lost opportunity for this 
administration to regain American leadership at the United Nations. It 
is also dangerous. Failure to gain support in the UN for our policies 
puts us at unnecessary risk. Simply put, we cannot afford an 
ineffective Ambassador at the United Nations.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition 
to the nomination of John Bolton to be the next United States 
Ambassador to the United Nations.
  Simply put, he is the wrong man at the wrong time for what is an 
important and critical position.
  At a time when the reputation of the United States is at an all time 
low in many parts of the world and our military is stretched thin, we 
need a representative at the United Nations who

[[Page 11516]]

can engage and work with our friends and allies to forge multilateral 
solutions on: the war on terror, the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, global poverty, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and global warming, 
just to name a few.
  Yet throughout his career, John Bolton has demonstrated an 
unrestrained contempt for diplomacy and international treaties.
  In a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, 102 former American diplomats representing both 
Democratic and Republican administrations urged the committee to reject 
Mr. Bolton's nomination because of his ``exceptional record of 
opposition to efforts to enhance U.S. security through arms control. 
The letter notes that Mr. Bolton led the effort against ratification of 
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; blocked a more robust international 
agreement to curb the proliferation of small arms; led the effort to 
block the Ottawa Landmine Treaty; led the effort to have the United 
States withdraw from negotiations to formulate a verification system 
for the Biological Weapons Convention; and led the campaign to have the 
U.S. withdraw from the ABM Treaty.
  What sort of message do we send to our friends and allies by 
nominating an ideologue and not a consensus builder for this leading 
post at the United Nations?
  I, for one, am unaware of another nominee to an international body 
who has garnered so much opposition from individuals who have served on 
the front lines of American diplomacy.
  The fact is, these 102 U.S. diplomats who have written in strenuous 
opposition to Mr. Bolton recognize that dialogue, cooperation, and, 
yes, compromise are essential if we are to build alliances and enlist 
the support of other states in tackling the common problems we all 
face.
  By opposing virtually every meaningful arms control treaty over the 
past few years, John Bolton has placed his faith in a unilateral, go-
it-alone foreign policy that has stretched our military thin and 
dramatically weakened respect for America in the world.
  I had hoped that President Bush would make the rebuilding of our 
friendships and alliances a priority for the next four years. The 
nomination of Mr. Bolton sends precisely a different signal that the 
U.N. will continue to be our rhetorical whipping boy.
  We all know that we cannot afford to go it alone in taking on the 
great challenges in front of us. It is faulty to assume that once he 
arrives at the United Nations headquarters in New York, John Bolton 
will suddenly discover a new faith in diplomacy and international 
agreements.
  It is also a stretch to assume that John Bolton will likewise 
discover a newfound faith in the United Nations and its mission. Many 
of Mr. Bolton's comments about the United Nations have been raised 
before but they are worth repeating. Such as:

       There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an 
     international community that occasionally can be led by the 
     only real power left in the world and that is the United 
     States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go 
     along.
       The secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you 
     lost ten stories today it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
       If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one 
     permanent member because that's the real reflection of the 
     distribution of power in the world . . . the United States.

  As my friend and colleague Senator Biden has stated, when you listen 
to quotes such as these, you wonder why Mr. Bolton would even want the 
job of Ambassador to the United Nations.
  Indeed, given his disdain for the institution and the other members 
of the Security Council, Mr. Bolton is unlikely to find a receptive 
audience for his ideas and initiatives, much less be able to forge 
alliances to protect American interests and increase global security.
  How successful is Mr. Bolton likely to be in enlisting United Nations 
support for promoting political stability and economic development in 
Iraq and Afghanistan; stopping the genocide in Darfur; convincing North 
Korea and Iran to forgo their respective nuclear weapons programs; 
combating the global HIV/AIDS pandemic; stopping the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction; and fighting the war on terror?
  To say the least, I have little confidence in Mr. Bolton's chances 
for success if he is confirmed and his inability to be an effective and 
constructive ambassador will produce disastrous consequences for 
American foreign policy.
  In response to the mounting criticism of the President's nomination, 
the administration has attempted to shift the debate from Mr. Bolton's 
qualifications to the need for reform of the United Nations.
  A vote for Mr. Bolton is a vote for reform at the U.N., they argue. A 
vote against Mr. Bolton is a vote for the status quo. A blunt, no-
nonsense approach is needed to get the job done.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Bolton has made it clear 
that he does not have faith in multilateral diplomacy or the mission of 
the United Nations. Why should we expect him to be committed to a more 
effective United Nations? How effective is a blunt manner if the 
individual is unprepared to listen or compromise?
  United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has produced a report on 
recommendations for reforming the U.N. so that it can better tackle the 
challenges of the new century. The United States should play a 
meaningful and constructive role in that debate.
  But his inflexible views and harsh temperament suggest to me that Mr. 
Bolton will himself be the issue at the U.N.--not the steps that need 
to be taken to improve the workings of the institution.
  Let me turn now to several allegations have been made about Mr. 
Bolton's past conduct as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security that raise serious questions about his fitness 
to serve as United States ambassador to the United Nations.
  As detailed in the minority report of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee on his nomination, Mr. Bolton sought to replace two 
intelligence analysts, Christian Westermann, a State Department analyst 
in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the National 
Intelligence Officer, NIO, for Latin America at the Central 
Intelligence Agency, who refused to back his assertion that Cuba was 
developing a biological weapons program; exaggerated intelligence on 
Cuba's biological weapons program and Syria's nuclear activities to fit 
his own personal views; and pushed for the dismissal of a State 
Department official he wrongly accused of purposefully withholding a 
document.
  Supporters of Mr. Bolton's nomination argue that these charges should 
fall by the waistside because no one lost their job and his statements 
largely reflected the views of the intelligence community.
  Even if you assume that this is true, Mr. Bolton's efforts to trash 
intelligence analysts and pattern intelligence to fit his views, had a 
chilling effect on the intelligence community and its ability to 
provide sound, credible intelligence.
  Robert Hutchings, the former Chairman of the National Intelligence 
Council, told the Foreign Relations Committee:

       [W]hen policy officials come back repeatedly to push the 
     same kinds of judgments, and push the Intelligence Community 
     to confirm a particular set of judgments, it does have the 
     effect of politicizing intelligence, because the so called 
     `correct answer' becomes all too clear . . . it creates a 
     climate of intimidation and a culture of conformity that is 
     damaging.

  Given the failure of pre-war intelligence on Iraq and the profound 
negative impact that failure had on the credibility of the United 
States in the international community, we should not send a 
representative to the United Nations who has sought to conform 
intelligence to his stated views and punish those who disagreed with 
him.
  Indeed, the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations may 
very well be charged with gathering international support to convince 
Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear weapons programs. A 
person of Mr. Bolton's credibility on intelligence matters is unlikely 
to garner much

[[Page 11517]]

support and, indeed will likely face stiffer opposition.
  Surely the President can find another nominee who is committed to 
multilateral diplomacy and appreciates, rather than denigrates, the 
goals and mission of the United Nations.
  Despite what the administration may assert about Mr. Bolton's 
``blunt'' manner, such an individual will be far more effective at 
representing United States interests, shaping alliances to confront 
problems that transcend borders, and encouraging U.N. reform.
  Mr. Bolton has made a career out of shunning diplomacy, blasting the 
United Nations, ignoring the advice of others, and moving ahead with a 
foreign policy that emphasizes arrogance over leadership.
  In these difficult times, he is a risk, not an asset, in advancing 
our national security interests abroad and on that basis does not 
deserve the Senate's support in confirming his nomination.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I will be voting against the 
nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations.
  When the President first nominated Mr. Bolton for this position, I 
expressed deep disappointment and concern. First, because of his 
repeated expression of disdain for the organization. But, more 
importantly, because Mr. Bolton is as responsible as any member of the 
administration for the needless confrontations with the rest of the 
world and for the international isolation that plagued President Bush's 
first term and for the shaky credibility we carry today. At a time when 
we need to be strengthening our alliances and making full use of 
international institutions to achieve our foreign policy goals, sending 
Mr. Bolton to the United Nations sends the exact wrong message. I don't 
accept his view that the U.N. is a vehicle to be used by the U.S. 
``when it suits our interests and we can get others to go along.'' 
Diplomacy in most people's minds requires attention to more than just 
coalitions of the willing.
  Over the past month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has 
uncovered a pattern of behavior on the part of Mr. Bolton that has only 
confirmed my concerns. Most disturbing to me is the evidence of Mr. 
Bolton's troubled and confrontational relationship with our 
intelligence community.
  In speeches and testimony, he has appeared to stretch the available 
intelligence to fit his preconceived views. On three separate 
occasions, he tried to inflate language characterizing our intelligence 
assessments regarding Syria's nuclear activities. He sought to 
exaggerate the intelligence community's views about Cuba's possible 
biological weapons activities. His track record, on these and other 
matters, was so bad that the Deputy Secretary of State made an 
extraordinary order--that Mr. Bolton could not give any testimony or 
speech that was not personally cleared by the Deputy Secretary or the 
Secretary's Chief of Staff.
  He also dampened critical debates among professionals on important 
policy issues by retaliating against analysts who presented a different 
point of view than his own. For example, on three occasions over a six 
month period, he sought to remove a mid-level analyst who disputed the 
language he tried to use about Cuba.
  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a serious matter. 
I would not criticize Mr. Bolton for asking intelligence analysts hard 
questions about proliferation issues, nor should policy makers refrain 
from challenging the assumptions of those analysts. But Mr. Bolton was 
doing something far different. He made it clear that he expected 
intelligence analyses that conformed with his preconceived policy 
views. Rather than welcome contrary intelligence analyses as essential 
to an informed debate, he retaliated against those who offered contrary 
views.
  Mr. Bolton's approach to those around him has been harshly criticized 
by those who have worked with him. Larry Wilkerson, the Chief of Staff 
for Secretary Powell, called him a ``lousy leader.'' Carl Ford, former 
head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 
referred to Mr. Bolton as a ``quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of 
guy.''
  This is not the person we need at the United Nations. Good diplomacy, 
like good business, relies on a great team and a good leader. Good 
leaders listen. They listen to their troops, they make reasoned 
decisions, they take responsibility, and they build the respect and 
loyalty of their staff. Management by fear is a recipe, in both public 
service and the private sector, for getting only the information that 
you want to hear. Shoot the messenger and other messengers will not 
volunteer to deliver the bad news. And I submit to you that Mr. Bolton 
has developed a reputation for shooting the messenger.
  We must begin to learn the lessons of Iraq. It should be more than 
clear by now that our national interests are damaged when policy makers 
bend intelligence. And we should all understand by now that accurate, 
objective intelligence requires analysts who are free to offer 
differing views. We face serious threats, from international terrorism 
to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have serious 
foreign policy concerns to address, from genocide to global climate 
change. Protecting our national security interests demands policy 
makers who seek objective intelligence on these and other challenges. 
Given his track record, John Bolton is clearly not that policy maker.
  Another lesson of Iraq is the critical importance of American 
credibility. The inaccurate presentations made by our Government to the 
international community have done serious damage to our interests. If 
we are to gain the active support of other nations in confronting 
common threats such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we 
will need to convince those nations of our views. To do so, we will 
need their trust. This challenge is especially complicated at the 
United Nations, where Secretary of State Colin Powell gave what turned 
out to be an almost entirely inaccurate presentation on Iraq, and where 
the administration dismissed all alternative views, including those of 
U.N. inspectors. Mr. Bolton is not the person to repair this damage. 
And his record makes it extremely unlikely that he could rebuild our 
credibility in the international community in its most visible forum--
the U.N.
  The nomination of John Bolton is a lost opportunity for this 
administration to regain American leadership at the United Nations. It 
is also dangerous. Failure to gain support in the U.N. for our policies 
puts us at unnecessary risk. Simply put, we cannot afford an 
ineffective Ambassador at the United Nations.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the people of New Jersey 
elected me to the Senate 23 years ago, I worked in the corporate world.
  I helped start a company from scratch, and when I left, we had about 
20 thousand employees.
  I learned a few things about hiring people.
  I learned that a person might be an intelligent human being. They 
might be proficient at many things. They might have a lot of 
interesting ideas.
  But if they don't fit the description for the position you need to 
fill, they are not the right person for the job.
  If you need a carpenter, you don't hire someone who can't use a 
hammer, even if they know a lot about houses.
  If you need help with your taxes, you hire an accountant, not a music 
teacher.
  And if you need someone to represent the United States to the other 
countries of the world, you hire a diplomat, not an ideologue.
  We are talking about the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
  This is not an entry level position. This job calls for an 
experienced diplomat.
  What does that entail? Webster's Dictionary defines ``diplomacy'' as: 
the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations for the 
attainment of mutually satisfactory terms; the procedures, methods and 
forms employed in conducting such negotiations; the skillful or 
successful settlement of differences between peoples; and, adroitness 
or artfulness in securing advantages without arousing hostility.

[[Page 11518]]

  That definition does not sound like the Mr. Bolton we have heard 
about.
  If we send Mr. Bolton to the United Nations, we would be sending a 
go-it-alone ideologue with open disdain for the U.N., exactly what our 
country does not need.
  Around the world today, polls show that even citizens of our 
strongest allies have a generally unfavorable view of the United 
States.
  I realize that many Americans say, ``why should we care what other 
nations think?''
  And the answer is, the attitudes of other nations affect our national 
security.
  We recently celebrated VE Day. It was a day I will never forget, 
because I was serving in the Army in Europe. I celebrated the end of 
the war with my Army buddies, as well as British soldiers who were our 
allies.
  As much as we might like to think that we don't need anything from 
any other country, it certainly was good to have allies in World War 
II.
  And wouldn't it be good today if more nations would send troops to 
Iraq, so some of our soldiers could come home, and so American 
taxpayers wouldn't have to bear most of the cost of that war?
  Whether we like it or not, world opinion matters.
  The fact is, none of the major challenges our Nation faces today can 
be conquered by us alone.
  In order to win the war on terror, curb global warming or succeed in 
the international economy, we need our allies and international 
institutions.
  Failing to engage these indispensable partners will make U.S. efforts 
less effective, and jeopardize the stability, security, prosperity, and 
health of Americans.
  John Bolton is the wrong man to forge the alliances we need to 
address these vital challenges.
  Instead of reaching out to the rest of the world, his nomination 
would push other nations away and isolate America.
  Yesterday my friend from Indiana complained that we were putting Mr. 
Bolton's career ``under a microscope.''
  Well, when I was in the private sector and my company was evaluating 
a potential new hire for a key position, that's exactly what we did--
and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
  Mr. Bolton's track record at the State Department does not withstand 
close scrutiny.
  As Undersecretary at State, he did nothing to resolve the potentially 
explosive situations in North Korea and Iran. Instead, he inflamed 
them.
  He has blocked international arrangements including treaties limiting 
nuclear weapons testing, landmines, child soldiers, missile defense, 
and small arms trade.
  He dismantled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and blocked a 
verification clause to the bio-weapons treaty.
  And he was a leading opponent against the ratification of the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  Mr. Bolton does not have the credibility or the diplomatic skill to 
represent U.S. interests globally.
  A smart businessman not only considers the work experience of a 
potential employee--you also look at his character and ability to get 
along with other people.
  In this regard, Mr. Bolton also falls short.
  For example, in 2002, he sought to exaggerate assessments of Syria's 
nuclear weapons capability and Cuba's biological weapons activities and 
support for terrorism beyond what U.S. intelligence believed to be 
true.
  Dr. Robert Hutchings, former chair of the National Intelligence 
Council, described Mr. Bolton's efforts as ``cherry-picking of little 
factoids and little isolated bits that were drawn out to present the 
starkest possible case.''
  Mr. Bolton bullied and tried to remove analysts whose work did not 
reflect his own biases.
  As if all this were not enough, it appears now that Mr. Bolton was 
not truthful in his testimony before our Foreign Relations Committee on 
April 11.
  Among John Bolton's misstatements:
  He said he did not try to get a State Department employee fired. He 
said he did not threaten any employees because of their views. He said 
he did not act against those officials because of differing views. He 
said the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea approved of his July 2003 
speech, when we now in fact know that Ambassador Hubbard got in touch 
with the Foreign Relations Committee to ``correct the record.''
  Just this month, 102 retired diplomats signed a letter to Senators 
Lugar and Biden urging the Senate to reject the nomination of John 
Bolton to be our Nation's Ambassador to the United Nations.
  These former diplomats have served in both Democratic and Republican 
administrations. They all agree that John Bolton is the wrong man for 
the job.
  I have heard Mr. Bolton compared to one of our former colleagues, my 
good friend and neighbor, Senator Pat Moynihan.
  That is nonsense. Mr. Moynihan was not afraid to criticize the status 
quo, but as his daughter pointed out in a recent newspaper column, he 
appreciated the importance of the United Nations.
  Pat Moynihan would never say, as John Bolton said, that, ``if the 
United Nations lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference.''
  This is an important position. We owe it to our country to fill it 
with the best person available. As my friend the Senator from Ohio said 
yesterday, ``The United States can do better than John Bolton.''
  Mr. President, not only can we do better, for the good of the 
country, we must.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I speak today on the nomination of John 
Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I want to 
express my full support for his confirmation.
  Despite the criticisms of some of my colleagues across the aisle, 
John Bolton is without a doubt one the most qualified people to fill 
this position. I believe his no-nonsense diplomacy will be a welcome 
change at the U.N., and one that will prove to be effective in the 
future.
  Now more than ever, the United Nations is in need of drastic reform. 
As the world's only super power and one of the original founders of the 
organization, it is the United States' responsibility to play leading 
role in this reform. Mr. Bolton's nomination is a reflection of this 
commitment. His pursuit for the truth will serve him well in holding 
the United Nations accountable for its past mistakes.
  Although he is not a career diplomat, Mr. Bolton has a strong record 
of success within the international community. He has played pivotal 
roles in the signing of the treaty of Moscow, the repeal of the U.N. 
General Assembly's 1975 resolution that equated Zionism with racism, 
and the negotiations in the G-8 Partnership Against the Proliferation 
of WMD to name a few.
  Mr. Bolton not only possesses the tenacity to deal with the U.N. but 
also has experience dealing with the organization on a first-hand 
basis. He voluntarily, I repeat voluntarily, worked for the U.N. 
between 1997 and 2000 with former Secretary of State James Baker on 
resolving the conflict in the Western Sahara. Not only did he play an 
integral role in creating a viable ``peace plan'' for the area, but did 
so on his own time.
  Mr. President, this flies directly in the face of my colleagues 
across the isle, who repeatedly accuse Mr. Bolton of hating the U.N. 
and wanting to dismantle the organization permanently. Rather than 
being committed to the organization's demise, I believe he is more 
committed to making it stronger and more effective.
  I find myself deeply saddened by the efforts of a minority of 
Senators to delay Mr. Bolton's confirmation. He is an extremely 
qualified candidate, who has been confirmed by the Senate four times in 
the past. Why the change of heart now?
  Rather than questioning Mr. Bolton's qualifications for the position 
and the need for U.N. reform, a minority of Senators are engaging 
themselves in what boils down to character assassination. I challenge 
my colleagues to look at Mr. Bolton's real character. He is a man of 
integrity and honesty, whose candid personality will serve him well at 
the United Nations.

[[Page 11519]]

  I am confident the Senate will confirm Mr. Bolton. I wish him well in 
his new position and with the daunting task of reforming the United 
Nations. It is not an easy one. Despite this challenge, I believe he 
will be a welcome addition to the organization and an agent of change 
in the international community.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have time reserved at 5:30, but I will 
make a comment before that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure to work with my 
good friend, John Bolton, on several issues. Each time I have worked 
with him, he has proven to be helpful and driven to obtain the results 
that will best serve the interests of the United States. He is a 
straight shooter, a no-nonsense type of guy who knows how to get 
results.
  As most of my colleagues know, I take a special interest in issues 
regarding Asia. Alaska's past, present, and future have always looked 
westward to Russia, China, Japan, and the Korean Peninsula. It is for 
that reason that I have decided to support John Bolton.
  North Korea has had nuclear aspirations many years and has taken 
aggressive steps to acquire nuclear weapons years before the Bush 
administration came into office.
  John Bolton's straight-forward talk on North Korea should be 
applauded. He was telling the truth.
  The United States made the good-faith effort with the 1994 Agreed 
Framework by providing food and support for building of the reactor. 
But this agreement was destined to fail because of North Korea's 
treacherous actions in the region. This is not a country we can trust. 
We now know that North Korea began cheating on it almost as the ink was 
drying by embarking on a covert uranium enrichment program.
  The Bush administration has accomplished the core prerequisite for a 
lasting solution. It has galvanized the international community to work 
together on a lasting, multinational solution to the problem. The White 
House has stated that the next venue for this discussion will be the 
United Nations.
  John Bolton will be that voice, a compelling one, to ensure we are 
able to have an agreement that will stick. John Bolton is the strong 
voice that is required to ensure that America's vision on a nuclear 
weapon free North Korea is heard at the United Nations.
  John Bolton believes in frank and honest diplomacy. John Bolton has 
not shied away from naming rogue states that violate international 
commitments such as the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical 
Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  He has had an effective working relationship with foreign 
governments, international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, 
and the private sector for over three decades.
  There is no question that John Bolton is qualified for the position 
of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and here are just a few reasons why:
  As the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, 
John Bolton led the efforts to implement the President's strong 
nonproliferation agenda, including reform of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency.
  He has actively promoted effective multilateral solutions to real-
world problems such as the proposal to create a Special Committee of 
the International Atomic Energy Agency Board to focus on safeguards and 
verification of nuclear programs.
  John Bolton helped to bring about new leadership to improve the 
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
  He was the President's point person in designing the Proliferation 
Security Initiative. Over 60 nations are now working together to share 
intelligence and are taking action to stop the transfer of dangerous 
weapons. The Proliferation Security Initiative was instrumental in 
getting Libya to make the strategic decision to abandon its WMD 
programs.
  The U.N. is in need of reform. John Bolton supports reform at the 
United Nations so it is accountable, transparent, and effective. 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 across the U.N. system. John Bolton will 
work with member states and the Congress to reform the U.N.
  Allegations that Bolton manipulated intelligence are unfounded. As a 
policymaker, he asserted his view on intelligence. That was his job. 
Policymakers should question information extensively before accepting 
it as fact. These were internal policy debates, which occur in all 
Departments and agencies.
  He may have disagreed with intelligence findings at times, but John 
Bolton always accepted the final judgments of the intelligence 
community.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton as United States 
Ambassador to the United Nations, an institution which he has openly 
and repeatedly disdained.
  A number of factors have led me to this decision, but they fall into 
several broad categories: Mr. Bolton's apparent abuse of the 
intelligence process and of his subordinates; his opposition to 
peacekeeping and other fundamental functions of the United Nations; his 
disdain for the institution itself; his opposition to important 
nonproliferation efforts; and the poor judgment he has displayed on key 
foreign policy questions.
  Furthermore, there is the nomination process itself as it has been 
carried out in this case. Despite repeated requests from the Foreign 
Relations Committee, the executive branch did not provide key documents 
concerning Mr. Bolton's requests to learn the identities of 10 U.S. 
officials who were cited in intelligence intercepts.
  The administration's failure to provide requested and relevant 
documents distorts the nomination process.
  Although handicapped by a lack of information and candor, the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee examined the charges that Undersecretary of 
State Bolton abused the intelligence process by seeking to have those 
who dared to dissent removed.
  The evidence demonstrated a clear pattern of conduct that led 9 out 
of 18 members of that committee to vote against confirmation.
  The minority views of the committee report on the Bolton nomination 
reached four firm conclusions on this matter:
  One, Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence 
analysts who disagreed with him.
  Two, in preparing speeches and testimony, Mr. Bolton repeatedly tried 
to stretch intelligence to fit his views.
  Three, in his relations with colleagues and subordinates, Mr. Bolton 
repeatedly exhibited abusive behavior and intolerance for different 
views.
  Four, Mr. Bolton repeatedly made misleading, disingenuous, or 
nonresponsive statements to the committee.
  We have to examine these conclusions in terms of the position for 
which Mr. Bolton is now being considered as the United States voice at 
the United Nations.
  In his approach to intelligence, Mr. Bolton clearly sought to stretch 
the analysis to meet his world view rather than stretching his world 
view to accommodate other possibilities.
  This is an extremely dangerous way to look at the world, as the 9/11 
Commission and others have shown us.
  Even more damaging, Mr. Bolton apparently used his position to 
attempt to intimidate subordinates and even to have analysts fired who 
dared to disagree, on such critical issues as the alleged development 
of weapons of mass destruction in Cuba and elsewhere.
  Crying wolf about weapons of mass destruction is an extremely 
dangerous habit. The United States will be living with the consequences 
of poor intelligence and unfounded allegations regarding Iraqi weapons 
of mass destruction for years to come.
  The United Nations was at the center of the WMD debate over Iraq and 
it will

[[Page 11520]]

be at the center as we seek to address North Korea and Iran as well.
  We cannot afford to be wrong about weapons of mass destruction again, 
and we cannot afford to have at the helm a man who has deliberately 
exaggerated intelligence regarding these devastating weapons.
  There is also the question of pressuring colleagues and subordinates, 
even attempting to get people fired.
  In response to Mr. Bolton's tactics as Undersecretary for Arms 
Control and International Security, Secretary of State Colin Powell 
reportedly came down to ask the analysts to continue to ``speak truth 
to power.'' I applaud Secretary Powell for this step, but he should 
have never had to take it.
  The Senate Intelligence Committee briefly addressed this issue of 
pressuring and seeking to remove analysts last year. However, we 
addressed this question only superficially, as I pointed out then in 
the committee's additional views on ``The U.S. Intelligence Community's 
Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.''
  Even worse, our committee fell into the same trap of discouraging 
dissent. As I wrote then, ``the conclusion section in the [committee] 
report rebukes the analyst for the temerity of raising a policy 
question with a State Department Undersecretary.''
  That analyst did the right thing. Policy questions should be raised. 
In fact, they should be welcomed.
  If more questions had been asked, we might not have had a 
distinguished Secretary of State testifying at the U.N. with apparent 
certainty about weapons in Iraq that did not, in fact, exist.
  The recent Silberman-Robb report from ``The Commission on the 
Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of 
Mass Destruction'' concluded that ``the Intelligence Community was dead 
wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction.''
  One of the key recommendations of the commission was to ``preserve 
diversity of analysis'' and to encourage debate among analysts.
  These are the very impulses that Mr. Bolton apparently tried to 
stifle. These are the very impulses that we need most.
  Mr. Bolton has been nominated to be our representative to the United 
Nations. In that seat, he will effectively become our representative to 
the world.
  It is not a position that he has highly valued in the past. He 
famously remarked that ``The secretariat building in New York has 38 
stories. If you lost ten stories today it wouldn't make a bit of 
difference.''
  Mr. Bolton has since explained that he was merely using a metaphor. I 
think most of us realized that. The point is that the metaphor that he 
chose indicates his low regard for the institution.
  Mr. Bolton has stated that ``there is no such thing as the United 
Nations,'' he has flatly rejected the idea at least once that the U.S. 
should pay its U.N. dues, and he has expressed his desire to see the 
Security Council reduced to one member, namely the United States.
  Mr. Bolton is correct when he argues that the United Nations cannot 
be effective unless the United States plays a leading role. The League 
of Nations showed us that. Where he is mistaken is his fundamental 
confusion of leadership with domination.
  A security council of one would leave us with no allies, no friends, 
and no supporters.
  As we have seen with tragic clarity in Iraq, we are stronger when we 
have allies, and we are more effective multilaterally than 
unilaterally.
  In its domestic policies, the Bush Administration has posited an 
ownership philosophy that implicitly tells us, ``We are all alone in 
this.'' Mr. Bolton represents the international wing of that school of 
thought.
  We see this very clearly with the issue of peacekeeping. This nominee 
has stated that he opposes the use of peacekeepers in civil conflicts 
because he does not regard civil conflicts as ``threats to 
international security.''
  Mr. Bolton testified against United Nations involvement in the Congo, 
where at least 3 million people have died, and he opposed the U.N. 
civil administration missions in East Timor and Kosovo.
  Humanitarian issues aside, civil conflicts have a tendency to spill 
over borders, just as the conflicts in Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, and the 
Democratic Republic of Congo have all become intertwined.
  Moreover, civil conflicts can lead to failed states and failed states 
are very much a threat to national security.
  We cannot have a representative to the U.N. who opposes one of its 
most basic and important functions.
  Mr. Bolton has also dismissed the role of international law. In the 
late 1990s, he stated:

       It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to 
     international law even when it may seem in our short-term 
     interest to do so--because, over the long term, the goal of 
     those who think that international law really means anything 
     are those who want to constrict the United States.

  I believe that international law means something.
  I believe that international law is very much in our national 
interest, and I believe that this perspective from our potential 
ambassador to the United Nations is as damaging as a White House legal 
counsel or Attorney General who dismisses the Geneva Convention as 
quaint and obsolete.
  Most disturbing of all, Mr. Bolton has criticized any ```right of 
humanitarian intervention' to justify military operations to prevent 
ethnic cleansing or potential genocide.''
  That tells us Mr. Bolton has learned nothing from the bloodstained 
lessons of history, including the unforgivable failures of both the 
United States and the U.N. in Rwanda in 1994.
  President Bush has rightly called the crimes in Sudan genocide. 
Secretary Rice recently echoed that judgment. The Administration has 
said that it has been blocked by other members of the Security Council 
in its attempts to do more to stop the killing in Darfur.
  Is the United States going to appoint as our ambassador a man who not 
only belittles the U.N. but denies that it can or should intervene to 
prevent genocide? What possible message does that send on Darfur?
  Another absolutely central United Nations function is the fight 
against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass 
destruction. Mr. Bolton has undermined nonproliferation efforts, not 
strengthened them.
  Recently, 102 former ambassadors and high ranking diplomats wrote 
Senator Lugar to express their deep concern over the Bolton nomination. 
They declared ``John Bolton has an exceptional record of opposition to 
efforts to enhance U.S. security through arms control.''
  We are witnessing the results of the Bolton approach right now at the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York. By all reports this 
conference is making little progress toward creating a stronger, safer 
non-proliferation regime.
  A former senior Bush administration official told reporters, 
``Everyone knew the conference was coming and that it would be 
contentious. But Bolton stopped all diplomacy on it six months ago.''
  We cannot have our representative at the U.N. stopping diplomacy. He 
should be shaping it.
  Finally, there is the question of judgment, a key quality in a 
diplomat.
  Mr. Bolton was effectively banished from negotiations with North 
Korea after he launched into public attacks on their government and its 
leader on the eve of discussions. The State Department was forced to 
call Mr. Bolton back and send a replacement to the talks.
  I cite this example not because North Korea does not merit criticism: 
By virtually any measure, it is one of the worst governments in the 
world.
  But during Mr. Bolton's tenure, North Korea's nuclear weapons program 
has expanded, negotiations have deteriorated, and the situation has 
grown substantially more dangerous.
  Ultimately, we return to Mr. Bolton's vision of the world and of the 
role of the U.N.
  Let me conclude by turning to Samantha Power, one of our nation's

[[Page 11521]]

foremost scholars of genocide and an astute observer of international 
relations.
  Dr. Power has written:

       It is unclear what the Bush Administration has in mind by 
     shipping Bolton to New York. The appointment has been spun as 
     ``Nixon goes to China.'' Nixon, however, actually went to 
     China: the visit was compatible with his world view. Bolton, 
     by contrast, seems averse to compromise, and is apparently 
     committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law 
     undermine U.S. interests.

  The United Nations is in need of reform. The same could be said of 
many of our own government institutions, as we are attempting to do 
with the intelligence community, for example.
  The United States should be a positive influence in transforming the 
U.N. to meet the needs of the 21st century. But John Bolton is not the 
person for the job.
  I cannot help but contrast John Bolton to John Danforth, a true 
statesman, a true soldier in the campaign to end the killing in Sudan, 
and a gracious and skilled United States representative to the United 
Nations.
  John Danforth was unanimously approved for that position. Mr. Bolton 
is mired in a controversy of his own making over his suspect 
qualifications.
  I cannot vote for a representative to the United Nations who demeans 
the institution, who works against non-proliferation, who abuses the 
intelligence process and its analysts, who dangerously inflates 
assessments of weapons of mass destruction, who rejects the value of 
peacekeepers and their role in civil conflicts, and who undervalues the 
principle of international law itself.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say at the outset, that I do not 
intend to vote for cloture on John Bolton, nor do I intend to support 
him for the position of United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
  As I have said repeatedly since he was nominated, this is the wrong 
man for the job not because of his abrasive personality, although I am 
deeply troubled by his serial mistreatment of co-workers and 
subordinates.
  My objections to this nominee go much deeper than his inability to 
work well with others. I am opposed to this nominee because of his poor 
performance, his flawed views, and his repeated misstatements and 
mischaracterizations of his record.
  Let me commend Senator Biden and the Democratic staff on the Foreign 
Relations Committee and Senator Rockefeller and his Intelligence 
Committee staff. As a result of their leadership and diligence, the 
Senate and the American people have a much more complete understanding 
of John Bolton and his entire troubling record.
  And there is no doubt that we have learned a lot about Mr. Bolton. We 
have learned about his failures in the proliferation area, his repeated 
efforts to manipulate intelligence, his numerous misstatements of fact, 
and his serial mistreatment of career civil servants.
  But, in spite of the best efforts of Senator Biden and the other 
Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee, the record on 
this nominee is still incomplete.
  Despite numerous requests, the administration has failed to turn over 
important information about this nominee. This is astounding to me. The 
administration's stonewalling has not only had the effect of slowing 
down the confirmation process, it has also put a further cloud over 
this individual and has--perhaps unnecessarily--raised the impression 
that the nominee and the White House have something to hide. The end 
result is further questions about this nominee, further disruption to 
the Senate's consideration of this nominee, and further demonstration 
of the administration's willingness to keep information from the 
Congress and the American people.
  This is information that the Senate is entitled to under the advise 
and consent clause of the Constitution, information that is central to 
this man's qualifications, information that, had it been provided, 
could have possibly spared this man further questions about his already 
damaged reputation.
  But as has so often been the case with this administration, they have 
sought to ignore the public's right to know and prevent Congress from 
making a fully informed decision. They want to be the judge and the 
jury. They have decided the information is not relevant to our 
consideration of Mr. Bolton.
  Let me see if I understand their argument. The administration asserts 
that information that bears directly on Mr. Bolton's role in assessing 
the threat posed by Syria and in his seeking intercepted conversations 
of foreigners and U.S. citizens is not relevant to his qualifications 
to represent this Nation at the United Nations, and therefore should 
not be provided to the Senate.
  After all the damage caused when this administration stretched the 
truth at the United Nations as it made the case for war in Iraq, does 
the White House really believe it is not relevant for us to be 
absolutely certain their nominee was not trying to stretch the 
intelligence yet again?
  So we are in this largely avoidable position of having to vote 
against cloture and extending debate until the information is turned 
over to the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. I hope the 
administration will do the right thing and provide the information to 
the Senate.
  In the meantime, the information the Foreign Relations Committee has 
managed to obtain is deeply troubling. This is a record which caused 
one of the most respected and storied committees in the entire Congress 
to not recommend him favorably to the full Senate. Based on that fact 
alone, the President should have withdrawn the nomination. 
Unfortunately, since he didn't, I think the Senate should follow the 
committee's lead and not recommend him for this job either.
  I know Mr. Bolton has tried to distance himself from certain parts of 
his record, like his past statements about the United Nations and its 
role in international affairs. However, there can be no denying that 
the man harbors a deep animosity towards the institution. At a time 
when we need diplomacy more than ever, and we need help in Iraq and in 
the global war on terrorism, this is exactly the wrong man to send to 
the U.N., and it sends exactly the wrong message to our friends and 
allies.
  Mr. Bolton's supporters have advanced only one reason to ignore the 
weight of all the evidence that he is unqualified: Mr. Bolton believes 
the United Nations needs to be reformed. The U.N. does need to be 
reformed. The U.N. can improve its performance. It can reduce 
inefficiency in its bloated bureaucracy. It can become more effective 
and more relevant. And we ought to have a U.N. ambassador who is 
willing to take on that mission of reform. But the President should be 
able to find someone capable of reforming the U.N. without Mr. Bolton's 
baggage.
  So let's be clear, I do not oppose sending someone to the United 
Nations who is willing to engage in some tough-minded reform. I do 
oppose sending someone who has misused intelligence and bullied 
intelligence analysts in a way that undermined our diplomatic corps and 
produced wrong-headed national security policies.
  The facts show that Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of 
intelligence analysts who disagreed with him. In speeches and 
testimony, Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought to stretch intelligence to fit 
his views. In dealing with other professionals, Mr. Bolton repeatedly 
exhibited abusive behavior and intolerance that had a chilling effect 
on analysts' ability to provide different views.
  The second highest ranking official at the State Department, 
Secretary Powell's Deputy Rich Armitage, was so concerned about Bolton 
speeches that he decreed that he must personally review and clear all 
of Mr. Bolton's public statements. And Robert Hutchings, chairman of 
the National Intelligence Council, said that Bolton took ``isolated 
facts and made much more of them to build a case than I thought the 
intelligence warranted.'' He said the impact of Bolton's actions on the 
intelligence community, ``creates a climate of intimidation and a 
culture of conformity that is damaging.''
  But this is not merely a concern for historians. At the same time 
that Mr.

[[Page 11522]]

Bolton was agitating and undermining intelligence professionals on 
issues such as Cuba and Syria's WMD programs, the administration was 
putting together a dramatically hyped case for war in Iraq to deal with 
a threat from weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist. 
Mr. Bolton's modus operandi of hyping intelligence and berating 
analysts has been so discredited by the results of the Iraq WMD fiasco 
that it will be difficult for him to operate in the future. Imagine Mr. 
Bolton arguing to the United Nations Security Council about the threat 
posed by Iran or North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. Why would 
anyone take him or the administration that sent him seriously?
  I support the President's message of reform of the U.N. I am open to 
someone who can speak bluntly on these issues, who can deliver tough 
messages.
  But we need a different messenger than Mr. Bolton.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I voice my support for John Bolton to 
be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Undersecretary Bolton will 
bring to the table exactly what the U.N. needs now more than ever: a 
sure hand to guide much-needed reform.
  The United Nations holds much promise today. But too often, it falls 
far short in its attempts to defend freedom, security, and human 
dignity. Undersecretary Bolton wants the U.N. to succeed, and believes 
it can be a great force for good.
  Over the past 3 months we have all heard many scurrilous, slanderous 
personal attacks made against Undersecretary Bolton. However, as is 
often the case in Washington, the outrage is largely much ado over very 
little.
  I believe that the opposition to him really stems from concern that 
he has so effectively implemented the President's foreign policy. 
Opponents do not want to take on the President, so they try to bully 
John Bolton.
  The problem is, the U.N. is rife with corruption, scandal, and 
incompetence. Take the Oil-for-Food Program. What started as a 
humanitarian attempt to help Saddam Hussein's suffering victims 
degenerated into a jackpot for the tyrant's friends.
  Evidence now shows that Saddam Hussein illegally profited from the 
program, and used the funds to build weapons for use against American 
troops. Millions of dollars in oil-soaked bribes may have gone to high-
ranking officials in France, Russia, and within the U.N. itself. And 
most sickening of all, there is now evidence that Oil-for-Food money 
may be funding the insurgents that attack our soldiers in Iraq.
  I commend my good friend Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota for 
leading the committee that has uncovered these abuses. He is proving 
how much work lies ahead for Undersecretary Bolton when he arrives at 
the U.N.
  As Undersecretary of State, John Bolton took the lead to realize the 
President's Proliferation Security Initiative, which strives to halt 
the spread of dangerous weapons. Thanks to his leadership, the once-
dangerous regime in Libya has begun to be tamed, as Libya has consented 
to the Initiative and begun the verifiable elimination of its weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Undersecretary Bolton also led negotiations for the creation of the 
G-8 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation of WMD. Thanks to his 
diplomatic work, other nations contributed $10 billion towards those 
efforts. And he led negotiations for the Treaty of Moscow, which 
reduced by two-thirds the number of operationally deployed strategic 
nuclear warheads.
  As Undersecretary, Mr. Bolton secured 100 bilateral agreements 
ensuring that other countries will never drag American troops before 
the International Criminal Court on trumped-up, political charges and 
deprive them of American justice. It is remarkable that he has 
negotiated so many of these pacts--known as Article 98 agreements, for 
a section of the ICC treaty--in just 4 short years.
  Undersecretary Bolton was a leader of American efforts to persuade 
the Security Council to pass Resolution 1540, which imposes standards 
for arms control, disarmament, and WMD proliferation prevention on 
every Member State.
  So far, over 80 countries have outlined their plans to stop WMD 
proliferation. This is a tremendous step forward in the War on Terror, 
and much of the credit goes to Mr. Bolton. Thanks to his careful, 
patient work of diplomacy, Resolution 1540 not only passed the U.N. 
Security Council, it passed unanimously.
  Let me close, Mr. President, with a reminder for my colleagues of how 
committed Undersecretary Bolton is to working with and reforming the 
U.N. to make it the sentinel of liberty that it can, and should, be. I 
will read two statements. One was made by Undersecretary Bolton, the 
other by the revered Democrat and New Dealer Dean Acheson, Secretary of 
State to President Harry S Truman. Let's see if you can guess who said 
what.
  Here's the first one:

       The United States is committed to the success of the United 
     Nations, and we view the U.N. as an important component of 
     our diplomacy . . . Walking away from the United Nations is 
     not an option.

  Now here's the second statement:

       I never thought the U.N. as worth a damn. To a lot of 
     people it was a Holy Grail, and those who set store by it had 
     the misfortune to believe their own bunk.

  One of these statements was made by the nominee, a man caricatured by 
his detractors as dead-set against the U.N. and the need for America to 
work with multilateral institutions. The other was made by the 
multilateralist who helped create the World Bank and the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization.
  Well, surprise, surprise. The first statement was made by 
Undersecretary Bolton, and the second by Secretary Acheson. This just 
goes to show, Mr. President, that much of the criticism about Mr. 
Bolton is useless when it comes to determining his commitment to the 
U.N., and his fitness to be the Ambassador.
  I urge my fellow Senators to focus on the dire need for U.N. reform, 
and Undersecretary Bolton's record as a diplomat who can get results. 
In times like these the U.N. needs a little straight talk. And 
Undersecretary Bolton can give it to them.
  He has a remarkable record of bringing about change through 
multinational institutions. I say, let him work his magic at the U.N. 
The U.N. can do better than what it is giving us, it must do better. 
John Bolton is the right man at the right time for this critical 
assignment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in 15 minutes or so, we will vote on the 
nomination of Under Secretary of State John Bolton to be ambassador to 
the United Nations.
  I applaud President Bush for his selection. The President describes 
the Under Secretary as ``a blunt guy'' who ``can get the job done'' and 
``isn't afraid to speak his mind''--not even to the President himself.
  We need a smart, principled, and straightforward representative to 
articulate the President's policies on the world's 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 U.N. in scandal and inefficiency.
  A vote for John Bolton is a vote for U.N. reform. A vote for John 
Bolton is a vote for progress on the international challenges of our 
day. A vote for John Bolton is a vote for the United States.
  It is no accident that polling shows most Americans have a poor view 
of the United Nations. In recent months, we have seen a deluge of 
negative reports. 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 many other 
officials.
  Just this week, the head of the Iraq Survey Group told the Council on 
Foreign Relations that as a result of the

[[Page 11523]]

oil-for-food corruption, Saddam came to believe he could divide the 
U.N. Security Council and bring an end to sanctions. I commend Senator 
Coleman for his determined efforts to get to the bottom of this global 
scandal.
  We know the U.N. failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. 
The U.N. is on the brink of repeating that mistake in Darfur.
  In the Congo, it is alleged that U.N. peacekeepers have committed 
sexual abuse against the innocent female civil 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 high esteem.
  America sends the U.N. $2 billion per year. Our contribution makes up 
22 percent of that 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 U.N. and has, for many years, been 
committed to its reform.
  Back in 1991, Under Secretary Bolton successfully lobbied to repeal 
the U.N.'s shameful resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. 
Many in the diplomatic community told him it could not be done. But 
after waging an aggressive campaign, he moved the U.N. General Assembly 
to repeal the resolution by a vote of 111 to 25.
  As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International 
Security, John Bolton helped build a coalition of 60 countries to 
combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction through the 
President's Proliferation Security Initiative.
  He was pivotal in our successful efforts to persuade Libya to give up 
its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
  He was also the chief negotiator of the Treaty of Moscow, which calls 
upon the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear warheads by nearly 
two-thirds.
  Under Secretary Bolton has the confidence of the President and the 
Secretary of State, and it is to them he will report directly.
  He has been confirmed by this body four times, and I believe if we 
are given the chance, he will be confirmed for a fifth time today.
  The vetting of his current nomination has been exhaustive. The 
Foreign Relations Committee interviewed 29 witnesses and reviewed more 
than 830 pages of documents from the State Department, from USAID, and 
the CIA. Under Secretary Bolton fielded nearly 100 questions for the 
record and underwent multiple hearings.
  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.
  In January, Iraq held its first truly free elections. Revolution has 
swept the Ukraine, Georgia, and Lebanon. We are seeing political 
reforms in Egypt. Kuwait now allows a woman the right to vote. Saudi 
Arabia is slowly opening the door to democracy. The Middle East peace 
process is at its most hopeful moment ever.
  The U.N. can and should be vital in advancing these developments. The 
U.N. charter states that the purpose of that organization is ``to 
promote social progress and better standards of life in larger 
freedom.''
  I believe in the U.N.'s potential, if it is reformed and more rightly 
focused. It has been an important instrument of peace and dialog. I 
believe, as does the President, that an effective U.N. is in America's 
interest.
  Ambassador Rudy Boschwitz, who has just returned from the 61st 
session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, puts it well when he 
says that:

       Not only the United States, but the United Nations itself, 
     needs and will profit from a no-nonsense representative like 
     Mr. Bolton.

  U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan, too, supports the Under Secretary's 
selection.
  I thank my colleague Senator Lugar for his strong leadership. And I 
also thank my colleagues Senators Allen, Coleman, Sununu, and Alexander 
for their clear-eyed and unwavering support for this capable and fine 
nominee.
  I will close with a story about John Bolton. When he was an intern in 
the Nixon White House, John Ehrlichman had gathered the interns 
together to tell them they had to work for Nixon's reelection. A young 
John Bolton piped up, ``Work for him? I don't even know if I'm going to 
vote for him.''
  He has always been a straight-shooter and a man of integrity--exactly 
what we need at the United Nations, and exactly what the United Nations 
needs from us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The assistant legislative 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 129 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     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
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Specter
      
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 56, the nays are 42. Three-fifths 
of

[[Page 11524]]

the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, 
the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I entered a motion to reconsider this 
vote to allow us to revisit this issue when we return. We will be doing 
that. We will be closing shortly this evening, but before we close, I 
will file cloture motions on the Brown nomination and the Pryor 
nomination. Our next vote will be Tuesday, June 7, and that vote will 
occur prior to the policy luncheons, probably at noon on June 7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, while we have Senators in the Chamber, I 
wish to express, through the Chair, the appreciation of especially 
Senator Biden and Senator Dodd for the ends to which the majority 
leader went to try to resolve this issue. He spent an inordinate amount 
of time trying to get the information requested and was unable to do 
so. He did get information but not all that was necessary. I am 
disappointed that tonight we were unable to have a vote on Mr. Bolton, 
but it is not the fault of the Democratic caucus. We are not here to 
filibuster Mr. Bolton's nomination. We are here to get information 
regarding Mr. Bolton, information to which we are entitled. The people 
who voted against cloture--there were many--many of them will vote 
against Mr. Bolton if, in fact, he gets before the Senate. But most of 
the people here tonight are concerned about this being an issue dealing 
with the administration not giving us the information we want. That is 
all. It hurts their nominees. The administration has to be more 
forthcoming.
  I hope that during the next 8 or 9 days the administration will take 
a fresh look at this and give the information to Senator Dodd and 
Senator Biden--most of what they want. They are the only ones who will 
see it. It will not be given to the entire Senate. They are not asking 
for information that may affect our country's national interest.
  I hope we can go forward with the people's business. The 
distinguished majority leader told me yesterday that he was going to 
file cloture on these two judges. This is fine. We will work out a 
timely manner to complete the work on these judges and other judges. 
The Energy bill was reported out of committee today. The asbestos bill 
was reported out of committee today. There is a lot we have to do here, 
and we do not want this to be a divergence--the work we have to do is a 
divergence, but it is not the fault of the Democratic Senators that it 
is a diversion.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to the ranking member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wish to make it clear to all my 
colleagues, speaking for myself, that I have absolutely no intention to 
prevent an up-or-down vote on Mr. Bolton. The issue here is about 
whether the executive branch will provide information which the 
majority leader tried yesterday and today to get, and which I think 
almost every Senator here would acknowledge the institution is entitled 
to get. We are prepared to not even ask that the ranking member and the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee see the information we have 
sought. I implore the administration to provide the information, and--
speaking for myself, and I can speak for no one else, but I believe my 
colleagues on my side would agree with me--we are willing to vote 10 
minutes after we come back into session if, in fact, they provide the 
information--information to which Mr. Bolton's staff had access but 
which they will not give to the majority leader of the Senate. There is 
no reason offered.
  I want to make it clear, we are ready to vote the day we get back, 
the moment we get back. We are ready to vote immediately if they would 
come forward, meeting us halfway on providing the information. That is 
all.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, needless to say, I am very disappointed 
with where we sit today. We have had an interesting week, a very 
challenging week, starting the week on one clear direction and then 
sidetracked a little bit to what I thought was not an unreasonable 
feeling in this body that we were going to be working together and that 
we were going to address the important issues to America.
  John Bolton, the very first issue to which we turned, we got what to 
me looks like a filibuster. It certainly sounds like a filibuster, 
looking at the vote today, it quacks like a filibuster, and I am 
afraid, shortly after we thought we had things working together in this 
body again, we have another filibuster, this time on another 
nomination--not a judicial nomination but another nomination--the 
nomination of John Bolton.
  It does disappoint me. We had an opportunity to finish and complete 
this week with a very good spirit. We are going to come back to this 
issue. As has been said by Senator Biden, as I have said, we are going 
to revisit it, but I think what America has just seen is an engagement 
of another period of obstruction by the other side of the aisle, and it 
looks like we have, once again, another filibuster.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, everyone here should understand that it is 
now the 26th day of May. This is the first filibuster that has been 
conducted in this Congress, if, in fact, we want to call this a 
filibuster--No. 1, first one. We have not been doing filibusters. We 
worked through some very difficult issues we talked about here before--
bankruptcy, class action, and a number of other issues.
  So it is not as if we are looking for things to have extended debate 
on. We need to work together, and I think this week has established 
that. We are going to work together. But how can we work together when 
information is not supplied?
  So I hope we will all slow down the rhetoric during the break. This 
is something that happened. This is part of the Senate. I repeat, keep 
in mind, this is the first filibuster of the year and maybe the last. I 
hope so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes and that Senator Sununu speak 
after me for up to 10 minutes as well to discuss bipartisan legislation 
the two of us have introduced today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wyden and Mr. Sununu pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1128 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after 
Senator Sununu's remarks, Senator Reed be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That order has already been entered.
  Mr. REED. I also ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of my 
remarks, Senator Salazar of Colorado and then after that Senator Pryor 
of Arkansas be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________