Nomination of John Robert Bolton to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations--Continued

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/