Executive Session

EXECUTIVE SESSION

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Oklahoma and other colleagues who have risen today to support the nomination of John Bolton to be our U.N. ambassador.

The United Nations is a unique institution, obviously. It is an institution which has gone through its good times and some bad times. Many of us, on our side of the aisle especially, have been critical of the United Nations over the years for different activities, whether they have been policy driven or, in some cases, just the operations aspects of the United Nations. But I think, at least for my part, I agree that it is an extremely important institution, that it represents an attempt by the community of nations across the world to find a forum where they can interact and, hopefully, reach conclusions which are constructive to mankind generally and especially address issues which cannot and should not be addressed by nation states individually, such as issues involving large expansions of disease, issues involving the treatment of children around the world, issues involving the questions of war.

It is important we have a forum where nations can come together and try to work together and, if they disagree, at least have the disagreements be more transparent and, therefore, the ability, hopefully, to reach agreements, and at least have the capacity to temper those disagreements, which is more probable of occurring as a result of transparency.

It is an institution which, by its very nature, is going to have difficulty reaching consensus and moving forward on extremely complex issues and issues which are intensely felt because of the fact that it represents such a diverse collection of the world, almost the entire world, for all intents and purposes, nation states which all have different purposes and interests.

But it is a very important forum, and it is something that we, as a country, clearly were one of the originators of in San Francisco after the war. It actually is the outgrowth of Woodrow Wilson's concepts with the League of Nations. We have helped it evolve and grow, and we have basically underwritten it. The American taxpayers, for better or worse, pay approximately 25 percent of all the costs the U.N. incurs, whether they are operational costs or peacekeeping costs. That number varies between those two accounts, but the number is very significant.

I used to chair the appropriating committee which had jurisdiction over those funds, and it was frustrating at times to send the money because I felt their actions in a number of areas, to be kind, maybe involved a bit of mismanagement, to be kind, and in other areas were just misguided but were part of the whole.

As a participating member state, we have an obligation to support the institution and to try to correct it from within. How do you correct it from within? I think this administration has made a very aggressive effort to try to make the U.N. more accountable, first in the area of operations, in the area of just the basic management of the institution, reducing the amount of patronage, reducing the amount of misallocation of funds. This administration has focused aggressively on that. And secondly, this administration has made a very aggressive effort in the area of initiating policy, policy which may impact how we deal with AIDS in Africa, how we deal with the health care problems across the world, and the pandemics that are coming at us, regrettably, and how we deal, obviously, with peacekeeping initiatives in a variety of different pressure points around the world, especially in the Middle East and in Africa and, of course, in the Balkans to some degree.

So we have, as a Government--and this Government specifically, the Government under President George Bush--aggressively pursued policies to try to focus the U.N. on trying to be a better managed place and being an institution which better, more effectively reflects policies of democracy and liberty. That has been our basic theme in trying to work within the U.N. structure.

John Bolton brings to the table the expertise necessary to continue that initiative. He may be rough around the edges on occasion. There is no question about that. But there is also nothing wrong with that. If being rough around the edges on occasion is a detriment, a personality trait which people should not have, then I guess there are a lot of us here who should not be in the Senate.

The fact is, you have to be aggressive and you have to be willing to assert your view and the views that you are projecting as a representative of this country if you are going to be effective in making a case for this Nation. John Bolton will accomplish that in the U.N., in my opinion. In fact, it is his type of personality in the sense of his willingness to aggressively advocate a position which is consistent with our promotion, as a nation, of liberty, democracy, and honesty within the management of the U.N. ``Honesty'' may be too strong a word, but at least more

efficiency within the management of the U.N. That will be the greatest strength that he brings to the table there. People will understand clearly where America is coming from, and it is important they understand that. And the American taxpayer will know that we, within the hallways of the U.N., will have someone who is going to advocate for efficient and effective use of those tax dollars we are sending there. That is our right, I believe, as taxpayers, to ask for that type of leadership within the U.N.

So John Bolton, in my opinion, with his broad expertise in foreign policy and with his commitment to promoting this administration's commitment to the promotion of liberty and the promotion of democracy across the globe, and to fighting terrorism, is the right person for this job. I regret he has been held up. And it appears Members of the other side intend to try to filibuster his appointment.

A President should have, just as a matter of policy, a person in the position at the U.N. who is of his choosing. This is the right of a President, to send a person to the U.N. who the President feels most effectively will advocate the policies of the administration because it is, after all, the President who has the primary responsibility of promoting foreign policy within our Government structure. It is not the responsibility of the Congress, although there are a lot of folks in this body who appear to think they are Secretary of State. The fact is, the Constitution does not provide that portfolio to the Congress, it provides it to the President and the President's appointees to Cabinet-level positions, which the U.N. ambassador position represents.

So it seems highly inappropriate that we should be holding up his nomination unless someone can show definitively that he does not have the personal integrity or the personal honesty to serve in the position. If individuals disagree with his ability or his capacity to carry out the job, that is not really our call, unless that disagreement is a function of honesty, integrity relative to the individual's qualifications, because in this instance it is the President's right to pick the individual he thinks can carry out the job most effectively, and the President has picked John Bolton.

I have not heard anything from anybody that calls into question John Bolton's integrity or honesty. I heard a lot of people who expressed frustration about maybe how he manages individuals, but that clearly is not the criteria for rejecting a nominee to a Cabinet-level position. If it were, there would have been a lot of nominees rejected under every President who has ever nominated individuals because all of us have warts, and many of those people who have been nominated to Cabinet positions clearly had a number of warts.

So I do think it is inappropriate to pursue a filibuster in this instance. To have a policy disagreement with the President as to the way he approaches the U.N., that may be appropriate. That policy disagreement can be debated, but it should not ensue or lead logically to a filibuster of an individual who has a nomination to the position because it is, after all, the President's right to choose individuals to serve at his Cabinet-level positions. Those individuals should be confirmed in a timely manner so that the President has the capacity to pursue foreign policy initiatives and the leadership of this Nation on the issues of foreign policy with a full complement, a full team of individuals to support his initiatives.

I do hope we will move forward to a final vote on Mr. Bolton this afternoon. People who feel he is the wrong choice--and they may have policy differences with the President on how we are pursuing liberty and democracy across the globe--can vote against him on that basis, but at least give him a vote, and give him a vote promptly.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/