[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12744-12745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         JOHN BOLTON NOMINATION

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in an attempt once again to 
resolve an intelligence-related issue with regard to the nomination of 
Under Secretary John Bolton to be the U.S. Representative to the United 
Nations. As my colleagues are probably aware, for some time I have been 
engaged in an effort to assist my colleagues on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee with some concerns they have with regard to Mr. 
Bolton and his request for U.S. person identities that are contained in 
certain intelligence reports.
  The last time I came to the floor of the Senate, I spoke at length 
about Mr. Bolton's requests. After reviewing the actual reports and 
examining the process whereby he was provided the information that he 
sought, it was apparent to me that Mr. Bolton's requests were not only 
appropriate but very routine. As far as I was concerned, that was the 
end of the matter, and I so indicated in my response to the chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in a letter.
  Based on statements by some of my colleagues, concerns about Mr. 
Bolton's requests for identities have apparently expanded to include 
whether the Under Secretary sought these identities to exert some form 
of retribution against certain Government officials. Although the 
Foreign Relations Committee's minority views and statements made by 
minority members seem to indicate that the universe of these officials, 
or their concerns about these officials, is very small, it is now very 
clear that this universe is indeed expanding, if not exploding. In 
fact, in a response I received from the distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Biden, and Senator Dodd, we have gone from the innermost 
planets in our solar system of their concern to include the entire 
Milky Way. I have informed my colleagues that I could not support such 
a request because it appears to be more of an effort to preserve this 
issue, this stalemate, this what some people call a filibuster, than an 
effort to resolve it.
  I also informed Senators Biden and Dodd, however, that I could 
recommend a more focused request that is consistent with their public 
statements in their minority views. I believe that such a request could 
be a basis for moving this process forward, a goal I hoped we all 
shared to get the process moving.
  In the interest of moving forward, I urged my colleagues to 
reconsider the scope of their request. The response quite frankly was, 
no, thank you. That is probably the nicest way I can put it. I believe 
their bottom line is now: Give us all of the names we have now put in 
play or no deal.
  As members of the legislative branch, we have all been in the 
position of requesting information from the executive branch and being 
told no. That is not pleasant. That is not what we would like to hear 
from the executive branch. But we do understand--I think, I hope--that 
there are limits to what we can demand and expect to receive. That is 
just a fact of life as we negotiate the separation of powers between 
the two branches of Government.
  My colleagues know full well that an absolutist will inevitably lead 
to a stalemate, and that is what has happened. That is why we tried to 
work in good faith to address our concerns while recognizing each 
branch's responsibility and their prerogatives.
  In my experience, a middle ground is usually achievable. It may take 
time, but usually we can achieve it. In this case, I believe the 
administration was willing to meet my colleagues halfway. In other 
words, if they would provide a reasonable list of names based on actual 
findings by the committee, perhaps they could be assured that those 
names were not contained in the reports and their concerns would be 
simply allayed, while at the same time it would permit the executive to 
preserve its prerogative to control the dissemination of very sensitive 
information.
  Let me just say that signals intelligence and intercepts is in the 
highest compartmented criteria in regards to intelligence information. 
So this is very sensitive.
  Once again, I think that the middle ground, unfortunately, proved 
very elusive. I am sympathetic to my colleagues' desire to see 
information they deem necessary to their consideration of Mr. Bolton's 
nomination. I do not believe, however, that they should be imposing 
their standard on the entire Senate. The last cloture vote clearly 
demonstrated that a clear majority believes that the Senate does 
possess the sufficient information to vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination, 
and vote we should.
  With that said, I am prepared to go one step further, in one last 
good-faith effort, to try to alleviate the concerns expressed by my 
colleagues across the aisle. Because my colleagues would not share 
their list of names with me, I have taken what may be viewed as the 
somewhat unorthodox step of compiling a list of names that I believe do 
actually reflect the universe of individuals who fall within the 
parameters set by my colleagues' public statements and their minority 
views.
  I am not doing this with temerity. I am trying to make a good-faith 
effort, and I hope people appreciate my intent in the doing of this. I 
want my colleagues to know that I have done this in a sincere effort to 
move this process forward. I do not in any way wish to substitute my 
judgment for my colleagues', but I do hope we can reach

[[Page 12745]]

some sort of an accommodation. So I have submitted my list of names to 
the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and he has 
assured me that none of them are among the names requested by Under 
Secretary Bolton.
  The names I submitted included Carl Ford, Assistant Secretary of 
State for Intelligence and Research, his name is not in the intercepts; 
Christian Westermann of the INR, State Department intelligence branch, 
not in the intercepts; the individual known as Mr. Smith, not in the 
intercepts; Rexon Ryu, State Department official, not in the 
intercepts; Charles L. Pritchard, special envoy for negotiations with 
North Korea, not in the intercepts.
  There were two other individuals referenced in the minority views 
whose names have not been made public, and I will not do so now. 
However, I did submit their names, and they were not in the intercepts. 
I am more than willing to share the two names with my colleagues on the 
Foreign Relations Committee, but I will not discuss them publicly.
  Finally, the Foreign Relations Committee's minority views also 
referenced two other unnamed individuals. I understand, however, that 
the committee itself is not aware of who these people are, and 
therefore it is highly unlikely that those names would be part of 
anybody's list. They were certainly not on mine.
  I strongly believe this compromise represents the best middle ground 
and should more than satisfy the concerns of my colleagues. These are 
the names that were mentioned in the minority views. These are the 
names that were mentioned in regard to the people who were interviewed. 
These are the names that have been referred to in the press and the 
media over and over again. That is what this universe is about.
  I am very hopeful that this should more than satisfy the concerns of 
my colleagues, unless, of course, they are not interested in being 
satisfied, and if that is the case, there is really nothing further 
anybody can do to move this process forward.
  I believe it is high time that we vote on this nomination, up or 
down, whichever way the chips fall. I urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to take the next step, whether they are in favor of Mr. 
Bolton's nomination or not, whether they are for him or they are 
opposed. We have made some strides recently, it seems to me, in moving 
nominations to a vote. It seems to me we should continue that trend 
with Mr. Bolton's nomination and get on with the business of the 
Senate.
  I hope I have been helpful. I hope people do not take my actions in 
the wrong way. I am acting in good faith in the very best way I know 
how to reach a compromise to alleviate the concerns of my friends 
across the aisle. I hope that has been the case in regards to my 
remarks this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________