[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12844-12845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           BOLTON NOMINATION

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, last evening, something rather 
extraordinary happened here in the waning minutes of the session. My 
very good friend from Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, took the floor to discuss the Bolton 
nomination--an issue, I say to my colleagues, no one wants to be 
resolved more quickly than the Senator from Connecticut. I have been 
involved in this for two straight months. The Presiding Officer and I 
are both on the Committee on Foreign Relations. This goes back to April 
11, the day we had hearings. My hope is that we can resolve this matter 
sooner rather than later.
  Last night, my friend from Kansas took the floor and announced that 
he knew what names the members of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee were concerned about when dealing with the Bolton nomination. 
This is the matter of the intercepts Mr. Bolton requested--some 10 of 
them--involving 19 names of U.S. citizens, Americans, on those 10 
intercepts. We made the request earlier on to allow the chairman and 
ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, as well as the chairman 
and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, to review the 
raw data on those 10 intercepts to determine whether there were any 
problems associated with Mr. Bolton's desire to see those intercepts, 
since there has been a basis of information concerning efforts by Mr. 
Bolton to intimidate a number of people within the intelligence 
community--of both the intelligence and research division of the State 
Department, as well as the CIA--concerning certain intelligence 
conclusions. Therefore, it is a matter of concern to many of us on the 
committee that we have an opportunity to review whether there has been 
any further intimidation.
  I offered initially that we have the four Senators I mentioned review 
the matter. That was rejected by the administration. I then suggested 
why not just submit the names we are interested in and have the 
Intelligence Director inform us as to whether those names were part of 
the intercepts. If they were not, end of matter. If they were, we might 
want to proceed further

[[Page 12845]]

to determine why those names were sought out. That was also rejected 
because the number of names requested to be reviewed was some 36 names. 
The reason I made the request for 36 names is because we had no idea 
specifically what these 10 intercepts involved. We were even denied a 
synopsis of what may be involved. We were flying in the dark about this 
information.
  At any rate, my colleague and friend from Kansas proceeded to say he 
was familiar with what the six or seven names would be that we should 
be interested in. As a result, he proceeded to publicly name five of 
the seven individuals he identified. Not surprisingly, he also 
announced he consulted with Director Negroponte, who informed my friend 
that none of the names Senator Roberts provided to the administration 
were among the names Mr. Bolton and his staff were given by the 
National Security Agency.
  What is remarkable about what happened last evening is that the 
Senator from Kansas is not a member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee--the committee of jurisdiction with respect to the Bolton 
nomination. The Senator did not participate in more than 10 hours of 
hearings on the nomination. I sincerely doubt whether our colleague 
reviewed the more than 1,000 pages of transcripts from more than 30 
interviews conducted by the bipartisan staff who jointly conducted 
those interviews. I know of no one on the committee who was consulted 
by our friend from Kansas to provide any input to the list that was 
settled upon.
  I do believe we owe our colleague from Kansas a debt of gratitude, 
because the administration has at least now accepted the principle of 
cross-checking names against the list of names reviewed by Mr. Bolton. 
If the administration, in a matter of hours can cross-check seven names 
offered up by Senator Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, 
why is it a problem to cross-check the 36 names we have drawn up based 
on our own participation in the 10 hours of committee hearings and 
review of over 1,000 pages of interview?
  We are not on some fishing expedition here at all to derail the 
Bolton nomination. We have not opened the State Department phonebook 
and selected names at random. There is a very specific rationale for 
each of the names on the list of 36 developed as a result of 10 hours 
of hearings, 1,000 pages of transcripts, and some 30 interviews.
  The report of Mr. Bolton's hearing quite clearly and starkly paints a 
picture of an individual who is an ideologue determined to have his own 
way. We know what he tried to do with the underlings at the State 
Department and CIA--that is not in debate--who dared resist his efforts 
to endorse as fact what was not supported by available intelligence. 
Mr. Bolton tried to crush them. We know what he tried to do with other 
career State Department employees who ran afoul of him for inexplicable 
reasons. He sought to have them excluded in legal deliberations in 
areas of their responsibility or blackballed them from being assigned 
positions within the Department.
  Mr. Bolton was a very driven individual when he sought to get his way 
with underlings. He even went so far as to propose a CIA analyst be 
denied country clearance so that he could not undertake official 
foreign travel.
  He even sought to have the same individual's State Department 
building pass revoked. I do not need to go over these matters in 
detail, but the fact is, there is more than ample justification for 
seeking these 36 names, as well as the information that Senator Biden 
has raised regarding the raw data, the draft speeches dealing with 
testimony before the House committees on Syria.
  These are not difficult requests to satisfy. As I said a minute ago, 
my friend from Kansas submitted seven names to the Department, and he 
was told within a matter of hours or less that they were not on the 10 
intercepts. So whether or not the 36 names sought by the Foreign 
Relations Committee are included on those intercepts should also be a 
question that can be answered in a reasonable amount of time.
  I have not told anyone, despite a number of requests, the names of 
the 36 people we would like to have checked out. I think acknowledging 
certain names is dangerously close to bordering on revealing the 
importance of the intercept traffic. When certain names are mentioned 
and then excluded, there is an implication that maybe they should be on 
those lists. So I would caution Members from publicly talking about the 
names. We have made no effort to do so. We, of course, want to limit 
the number of Senators who would actually be able to review this matter 
to four Senators out of the 100 in this body.
  In all my years here, I have never faced such a situation where a 
coequal Member of this body has presumed to speak on behalf of 
another--in this case, suggesting that he knew which names we should 
request. Having submitted those names, he then discovered, of course, 
that those names were not on the intercept list that we saw.
  So I am still hopeful this matter can be resolved. I do not think it 
should take that long. Certainly, if the administration would just 
respond to the two requests regarding the draft statements--
congressional testimony by Mr. Bolton--and check out the names that we 
have requested regarding these intercepts, if that information is 
provided and clears up those two matters, then I think this body is 
ready to vote up or down on Mr. Bolton.
  Perhaps he behaved more judiciously in dealing with his peers and 
superiors than he did with those below him in rank. Perhaps the 
information he requested from the NSA was routine and solely to carry 
out his responsibilities as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control 
and International Security.
  But given Mr. Bolton's zealotry on proliferation, on North Korea, on 
Libya, on Syria and other policy areas, it is not unreasonable to worry 
that he used all tools at his disposal to advance his causes. That is 
what we seek to find out through a cross checking of our names of 
concern against the names provided to Mr. Bolton.
  As a matter of institutional right, we have, I think, an absolute 
right, as a coequal branch of Government, to solicit information that 
directly pertains to the qualifications of this individual to be 
confirmed by the Senate for the position to which he has been 
nominated. So I would hope that the information would be forthcoming 
and that we would be able to get the answers and move on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________