[DOCID: f:er001.109]
From the Executive Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]

109 T4th Congress                                           Exec. Rept.
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     109-01

======================================================================
 
   THE NOMINATION OF JOHN R. BOLTON TO BE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 
 UNITED NATIONS WITH RANK OF AMBASSADOR AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO SESSIONS OF 
  THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS 
               U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

                                _______
                                

                T5May 18, 2005.-- Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

         Mr. T4Lugar, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                     [together with minority views]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred 
the nomination of John R. Bolton to be U.S. Representative to 
The United Nations with Rank Of Ambassador and U.S. 
Representative to the United Nations Security Council and to be 
U.S. Representative to Sessions of the United Nations General 
Assembly during his tenure of service as U.S. Representative to 
the United Nations, having considered the same, reports without 
recommendation his nomination to the Senate.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Committee Action.................................................1
 II. Committee Comments...............................................2
III. Report on the Investigation......................................2
 IV. Minority Views.................................................276

                          I. Committee Action

    The nomination of John R. Bolton, to be the U.S. Permanent 
Representative to the United Nations was submitted to the 
Senate by President Bush and referred to the committee on March 
17, 2005. A hearing was held on April 11, 2005. An additional 
hearing was held as part of the nomination process on April 12, 
2005, when the committee heard the views on the nominee from 
Mr. Carl W. Ford, Jr., a former Assistant Secretary of State 
for Intelligence and Research.
    The committee again considered Mr. Bolton's nomination at a 
business session held on April 19, 2005 where the committee by 
general agreement, postponed the vote on the nominee until May 
12, 2005 in order for committee staff to investigate various 
allegations raised at the meeting.
    At its business meeting on May 12, 2005, the committee 
voted by a vote of 10 to 8, with a quorum present and a 
majority of those members physically present and voting in the 
affirmative, to report the nomination without recommendation. 
The following Senators voted in the affirmative: Lugar, Hagel, 
Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, 
Murkowski, and Martinez. The following Senators voted in the 
negative: Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, 
Nelson, and Obama. Senator Biden requested that a report be 
prepared to which members of the committee could submit 
addition views on the nominee.

                         II. Committee Comments

    On May 12, 2005, the committee carefully considered the 
nomination of Mr. Bolton. It recognized his many years of 
public service and depth of knowledge on matters of foreign 
policy and the United Nations, as well as his responses to 
Questions for the Record (QFRs) submitted by various committee 
members. The full text of Mr. Bolton's own opening statement to 
the committee as presented at his nomination hearing (see Annex 
A), his response to those QFRs are included in Annex (D). A 
sampling of the numerous letters of support are included in 
Annex C including letters signed by five former Secretaries of 
State, Margaret Thatcher, and former USAID and Department of 
Justice officials including Ed Meese and Richard Thornburgh.
    During the committee's consideration of the nomination of 
Mr. Bolton, Senator Biden and other members of the minority 
raised concerns about the nominee related to his interactions 
with various staff of the State Department and Central 
Intelligence Agency as well as various speeches and testimony 
related to his capacity as Undersecretary of State for Arms 
Control and International Security.
    The committee determined that Secretary Bolton is a highly 
qualified nominee with deep experience in UN affairs. There was 
a consensus on the committee that the United Nations is in need 
of reform. The scandal afflicting the UN's Oil for Food Program 
has revealed serious dysfunction within the United Nations 
bureaucracy. President Bush nominated Secretary Bolton to help 
facilitate reform at the UN in addition to representing the 
American perspective. The President specifically chose 
Secretary Bolton for the position with this goal in mind.

                    III. Report on the Investigation

    The first business meeting on Secretary Bolton's 
nomination, where a vote had been scheduled, was adjourned 
without a vote after some Senators said the committee needed 
more time to look into allegations regarding Secretary Bolton's 
character and his ethical behavior while in office. An intense 
period of investigation by joint Majority and Minority staffs 
ensued. The committee sought and received some 800 pages of 
emails, memos and draft speeches from the Department of State, 
the Agency for International Development and the Central 
Intelligence Agency. Additionally, the committee staffs jointly 
conducted some 35 interviews which produced some 1,000 pages of 
transcripts. It is important to understand the context and the 
results of that investigation.
    In the days immediately following Secretary Rice's March 7 
announcement of Secretary Bolton's nomination, most Democratic 
members of this committee expressed their opposition to the 
nomination on policy grounds. A March 8 T3Associated Press  
report states, ``Almost immediately after Bolton's nomination 
was announced, Democrats objected.'' The March 8, edition of 
the T3Baltimore Sun  said, ``Reaction from Senate Democrats 
promised contentious confirmation hearings for Bolton when he 
goes before the Foreign Relations Committee.''
    In several cases the statements by Democrats were 
unequivocal in opposition. In several other cases, statements 
were very negative, leaving open only the smallest of 
possibilities that the Senator would ultimately support the 
nominee. In all of these cases, objections were based on 
Secretary Bolton's supposed attitudes toward the United 
Nations. By March 31, still almost two weeks before the Bolton 
hearing, a T3Los Angeles Times  report noted, ``Democrats are 
likely to vote unanimously against John R. Bolton when his 
nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations comes 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--according to 
Democratic and Republican lawmakers and aides.''
    Senators have the right to oppose a nominee because of his 
substantive views and his past statements. However, the ethical 
inquiry into Secretary Bolton's background was pressed by 
members who planned to vote against him even before the 
committee began interviewing witnesses. They had the right to 
ask questions, and the committee had a responsibility to follow 
up credible allegations. But it also important to understand 
that at times the inquiry followed a more prosecutorial path 
than most nominees have to endure.
    The committee staff worked long and hard to run down 
allegations that were raised at the first business meeting, and 
they checked others that arose during that process.
    The end result of all this is that Secretary Bolton emerged 
looking better than when it began. Some allegations turned out 
not to be as serious as they first appeared, new information 
has cast others in a different light, most have proven to be 
groundless or, at best, highly overstated, while some were 
apparently judged by the Democratic Members as not even worth 
looking into. The interviews and documents showed Secretary 
Bolton to be a hardworking public servant, a pro-active 
policymaker eager to implement President Bush's agenda, with 
strong views and a blunt style that, frankly, sometimes rubbed 
people the wrong way.
    But there was no evidence to support the most serious 
charge, that Secretary Bolton sought to manipulate 
intelligence. He may have disagreed with intelligence findings 
but in the end, he always accepted the final judgment of the 
intelligence community.
    One of the most sensationalized accusations against 
Secretary Bolton is that 11 years ago, he chased a woman around 
a Moscow hotel throwing things at her. This is problematic 
first because the behavior described seems so out of place. But 
secondly, because it was very difficult for committee staff, 
despite many hours of interviews on this matter, to ascertain 
just what happened.
    The woman, Melody Townsel, who lives in Dallas, admits that 
she is a liberal Democrat who worked for Mothers Opposing Bush 
in the last election. Ms. Townsel also stated that her original 
accusation, contained in a letter that was made public, may 
have been too strong in some places. She said: `` `Chasing' may 
not be the best word.'' What she meant was that Secretary 
Bolton would approach her whenever he saw her at the hotel 
where they were both staying because, as she describes it, she 
did not want to meet with him over a legal matter. It is 
important to remember that Secretary Bolton was a private 
lawyer at that time. He was not representing the U.S. 
government. He was working for a company against which Ms. 
Townsel had made some very serious charges--charges which 
proved unfounded--that could have cost his company an important 
USAID contract in the former Soviet Union.
    Ms. Townsel provided no eyewitnesses to the incidents, 
which are said to have occurred in public or open areas of the 
hotel. Moreover, although she claimed this was a highly 
traumatic encounter and that she told several people about it, 
staff had difficulty finding others who knew about it. Three 
people whom Ms. Townsel identified as having heard her 
complaints at the time of the events told staff that they had 
no recollection of Ms. Townsel mentioning Secretary Bolton. Her 
boss, Charles Black, of Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly, who 
hired her for the post, said she never mentioned it to him. 
Neither did her immediate supervisor back in Washington. An 
employee of a sister company who assisted Ms. Townsel in making 
her charges against the prime contractor on her project and 
with whom she said she was in close touch at the time, also 
knows nothing about it. Staffs talked to three representatives 
of the contractor, a small Virginia firm which has long 
experience working for USAID overseas. Those officials also 
heard nothing about this encounter. They said that Secretary 
Bolton was in Moscow at that time, but he was working as a 
consultant for a health project they were involved in, not 
doing legal work for them. Staff did find one of Ms. Townsel's 
friends and co-workers from that time, who was not in Moscow, 
who recalls talking with her by telephone about it, as well as 
a subordinate of hers in a later USAID-funded project who 
recalls her mentioning it.
    Ultimately, the results of the lengthy investigation into 
this isolated, long-ago incident were, at most, inconclusive. 
On this point, Sen. Biden, the ranking member, concurred with 
the judgment of the chairman. At the second business meeting, 
Sen. Biden, the ranking member, said the charges remained 
``unsubstantiated.'' Ms. Townsel went on to another USAID 
project in the former Soviet Union, and the company she accused 
of mismanagement was awarded more USAID contracts and continues 
to be well regarded. The original charge against Secretary 
Bolton appeared to be overstated. On the basis of what is 
known, there was nothing to offset Secretary Bolton's long 
record of public service in several different administrations.
    It has been charged that Secretary Bolton sought to 
retaliate in some way against analysts and others with whom he 
disagreed. Committee staff looked into these cases thoroughly, 
and in each one the allegations proved to be overstated. In the 
case of Christian Westermann, the INR analyst whom the 
committee heard about from Carl Ford, the dispute was over a 
procedural issue and Mr. Westermann continued in his job. The 
focus of Mr. Ford's complaint was that Secretary Bolton should 
not have raised his objections directly with Mr. Westermann, 
not that Mr. Bolton was wrong to raise the issue. Democratic 
members at the first business meeting made much of the fact 
that after this incident Secretary Powell had to go all the way 
down to INR to boost morale. But Secretary Powell's chief of 
staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, told staff that such visits were not 
uncommon. It was part of the Secretary's leadership style to 
visit with staff in the ``bowels of the building,'' including 
INR.
    In the case of the NIO for Latin America, e-mails the 
committee staff viewed make it clear that Secretary Bolton's 
primary objection was over disparaging and inaccurate comments 
the analyst made to members of Congress about a speech. 
Secretary Bolton took his complaint to the CIA. Although the 
NIO has said he feels his career was damaged by Secretary 
Bolton, his superiors fully backed him at the time, and other 
witnesses told the committee that if he did not get the 
promotions he felt he deserved, it was for other reasons. 
Again, as far as Secretary Bolton was concerned, the dispute 
was procedural. There was no attempt to fabricate intelligence.
    Other allegations related to managerial style show the same 
pattern upon examination--disagreement over procedure, not 
policy. In the case of Rexon Ryu, a mid-level civil servant in 
the non-proliferation bureau under Secretary Bolton, no policy 
issues were involved at all. Secretary Bolton believed--
incorrectly, according to Mr. Ryu's supervisor--that Mr. Ryu 
had deliberately neglected to share information with Bolton's 
office. Some months later, Mr. Ryu was up for a job that would 
have required him to work closely with Secretary Bolton. 
Secretary Bolton, perhaps regrettably, expressed his opposition 
to working with Mr. Ryu. Mr. Ryu was given another prized post 
instead, an assignment to the deputy secretary.
    The case of the State Department attorney, also raised by 
the minority, is even more off the mark. This attorney fully 
supported what Secretary Bolton wanted to do. It was only 
because of miscommunication that Secretary Bolton thought the 
attorney had given out wrong information on a case involving 
sanctions against a Chinese company. The State Department Legal 
Advisor, Will Taft, told committee staff that he quickly 
straightened things out. The attorney stayed on the case, and 
he even wrote the affidavit that Secretary Bolton later 
submitted to court.
    Staff also looked at a new case that came up. Secretary 
Bolton's chief of staff, it was learned during the 
investigation, went to an INR analyst to complain that he had 
inappropriately attached to a CIA document a cover memo that 
took exception to some of the CIA's findings regarding China. 
Further inquiry revealed that no action was sought against the 
analyst and none was taken. The issue was procedural, no 
intelligence was manipulated, and Secretary Bolton was not even 
directly involved, because he was out of the country at the 
time.
    Secretary Bolton's credibility has also been called into 
question regarding his testimony before the committee on April 
11. Members questioned whether Mr. Bolton really went to the 
CIA to learn about the National Intelligence Council. Stuart 
Cohen, the acting head of the NIC, said that while he could not 
recall exactly why Secretary Bolton wanted to come, it was 
``perfectly reasonable'' to believe that was the reason. In 
fact, he added, ``I was delighted at the prospect that somebody 
would come out wanting to know more about the NIC.'' He also 
said that Secretary Bolton only talked about reassigning, not 
firing, the NIO, just as Mr. Bolton testified. The 
investigation has found nothing contrary to Secretary Bolton's 
claim that his dispute with Mr. Westermann was over procedure, 
not policy. 
    Former Ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard called the 
committee after Secretary Bolton's testimony about a 
controversial speech he gave in South Korea. Secretary Bolton 
testified that Ambassador Hubbard had thanked him for the 
speech afterwards. The ambassador told committee staff he 
indeed had thanked Secretary Bolton afterwards, but only for 
making certain changes in the speech that he had requested. 
Ambassador Hubbard told staff that he wanted to correct the 
record on that point, but he was not accusing Secretary Bolton 
of being deliberately misleading.
    That speech was one of several by Secretary Bolton that 
opponents of the nomination have questioned. The investigation 
showed that many of these speeches and Congressional testimony 
were preceded by strong policy debates within the 
administration. As one witness told staff, ``That's how good 
policy is made.'' In each case it was found that, in the end, 
Secretary Bolton delivered a speech that was properly cleared 
and that expressed official U.S. policy.
    Finally, it is important to note while these are the major 
allegations that the committee has investigated against Mr. 
Bolton, they are not the only ones raised during the first 
business meeting by Democratic Members when they asked for a 
delay. For instance, one member said there were allegations 
``that he harassed a career Justice Department attorney while 
he was serving as the Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
Division--in that case Mr. Bolton allegedly went to the lengths 
to deny a career Justice Department attorney's request for 
additional unpaid maternity leave--ultimately, the Deputy 
Attorney General stepped in and overruled Mr. Bolton; that he 
may have blocked important information from going to senior 
members of the State Department, including Secretary Powell, 
Secretary Armitage, and even Secretary Rice--information that 
has been characterized, and I quote `As vital to the U.S. 
strategies on Iran,' and related to the lack of international 
support for Mr. Bolton's effort to have the head of the IAEA 
removed.'' Yet even though the Chairman granted every witness 
interview request, and did not oppose any document request, 
these other charges remain both unsubstantiated--Secretary 
Rice, for instance, has said she got all the information she 
needed from Mr. Bolton in a timely way--and uninvestigated 
because Democratic members apparently did not feel they were 
worth the trouble. The ranking member, when he said he would 
pursue the issue of getting full access to the NSA intercept 
information that Secretary Bolton had sought, stated that he 
believes that the results will be inconsequential for the 
nominee.
    Despite the fact that many charges were not proven or even 
investigated, it has been charged that collectively the 
allegations against Secretary Bolton form an unacceptable 
pattern of behavior. This is an unfortunate argument by 
opponents, because it depends on doubts arising from an intense 
investigation of accusations, many of which had no 
substantiation. By its nature, it also discounts the dozens of 
positive testimonials on Secretary Bolton's behalf from former 
co-workers who attest to his character and effectiveness.
    It is important to be clear about the context of the 
allegations leveled against Secretary Bolton. First, this has 
been an extremely public inquiry. By its nature, it has 
encouraged anyone with a grudge or disagreement with Secretary 
Bolton stretching back to 1983 to come forward and tell their 
story. There have been no thematic limits on the allegations 
that opponents of the nominee have asked to be investigated. No 
one working in Washington in high-ranking positions for that 
long would come out unscathed from such a process. Any 
assertive policy-maker will develop opponents based on 
stylistic differences, personal disputes, or partisan 
disagreements. Most members of this committee have been in 
public life for decades. If they were nominated for a similar 
position of responsibility after their terms in the Senate, how 
many would want the same standard to be applied to their 
confirmation process? How many of them would want any instance 
of conflict or anger directed at their staffs or colleagues to 
be fair game?
    Second, as mentioned, the oldest allegation dates back all 
the way to 1983. Thus, the committee subjected 22 years of 
Secretary Bolton's career to a microscope. This included 
service in many government jobs, as well as time spent in the 
private sector. Given the length of John Bolton's service in 
high-ranking positions, it is inevitable that he would have 
conflict with co-workers of various ranks and political 
persuasions. He would have had literally thousands of contacts, 
meetings, and issues to deal with during his career. In this 
context, the volume of alleged incidents is not that profound.
    Third, in John Bolton's case unsubstantiated charges may 
seem more material than they are because he has a reputation 
for being an aggressive and blunt negotiator. But this should 
not be a disqualifying factor, especially for a post that 
historically has included a number of blunt, plain-spoken 
individuals, including Jeane Kirkpatrick and our former 
colleague Pat Moynihan. In fact, President Bush has cited John 
Bolton's direct style as one of the reasons that he has picked 
him for this particular job.

                                ANNEXES

                              ----------                              


                                ANNEX A


           Opening Statement of the Honorable John R. Bolton


   NOMINEE FOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE 
                             UNITED NATIONS

 T3Senate Foreign Relations Committee
 T3April 11, 2005

    Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, I am honored to appear 
before you today as President Bush's nominee to be the U.S. 
Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I am grateful 
for your consideration and I look forward to discussing the 
critical leadership role that the United States plays in the 
United Nations. I would like to extend my warm thanks to 
Senator Warner for his kind words and introduction. He is a 
true and valued friend, and his remarks are all the more 
appreciated given his long history of service to our nation.
    Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunities that I 
have had to work with this Committee over the years. This is 
the fourth time I have appeared before this Committee in a 
confirmation hearing. If confirmed, I pledge to fulfill the 
President's vision of working in close partnership with the 
United Nations.
    The United States is committed to the success of the United 
Nations and we view the UN as an important component of our 
diplomacy. As the President stated before the UN General 
Assembly last September, ``Let history show that in a decisive 
decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our 
duties, or waver in meeting them.''
    The Secretary has made this a top priority as well. She was 
unequivocal in her remarks about how, ``The American people 
respect the idealism that sparked the creation of the United 
Nations and we share the UN's unshakable support for human 
dignity. At this time of great opportunity and great promise, 
the charge to the international community is clear: we who are 
on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to 
help those who were unlucky enough to be born on the wrong side 
of that divide. The hard work of freedom is a task of 
generations; yet, it is also urgent work that cannot be 
deferred. . . . Now, more than ever, the UN must play a 
critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams and hopes and 
aspirations of its original promise to save succeeding 
generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith and 
fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and 
better standards of life in larger freedom.''
    If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this 
Committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United 
States and the United Nations, which depends critically on 
American leadership. Such leadership in turn must rest on broad 
bipartisan support in Congress that must be earned by putting 
to rest skepticism that too many feel about the UN system.
    Through the course of three decades of public service, both 
in and out of government, I have learned that this consensus is 
not only essential, but possible. Working together, in the 
spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I believe we can take 
important steps to restore confidence in the United Nations. 
Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical juncture, and I fully share 
the sentiments you expressed in 1997, when you remarked that, 
``It is time to decide if we want a strong and viable United 
Nations that can serve United States interests, or a United 
Nation that is crippled by insolvency and hobbled by 
controversy and uncertainty.''

A Stronger, More Effective United Nations

    The President and Secretary Rice believe that a stronger, 
better, more effective United Nations is one which requires 
sustained and decisive American leadership, broad bipartisan 
support, and the support of the American public. If confirmed, 
that would be my objective as well. Walking away from the 
United Nations is not an option. I undertake to do my utmost to 
uphold the confidence that the President, Secretary Rice, and 
the Senate will have placed in me if confirmed.
    Mr. Chairman, now more than ever, the United Nations needs 
American leadership. President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime 
Minister Winston Churchill promoted a post-war international 
organization to avert another world war when they envisioned a 
collective security organization that would resist aggressor 
states that threatened international peace and security. 
Accordingly, the UN Charter lists as its first objective, ``to 
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.''
    If the UN is to play a role in fulfilling that mission, 
however, it is not enough that it reform its internal 
structures. It must also clearly and forcefully address the new 
challenges we face. Rogue states, which do not necessarily 
subscribe to theories of deterrence, now threaten the global 
community as both possessors and proliferators of weapons of 
mass destruction. These weapons could also be transferred to 
terrorist organizations that would have no compunction about 
using them in cold blood against innocent civilian populations.
    I believe my past government experience and writings 
reflect my awareness of both the strengths and weaknesses of 
the United Nations. I learned much about the UN's potential 
when I served for four years as Assistant Secretary of State 
for International Organization Affairs in 1989-1993, and again 
later when I worked for the United Nations pro bono between 
1997 and 2000, assisting former Secretary of State James Baker 
in his capacity as the Secretary General's Personal Envoy for 
the Western Sahara. I saw firsthand the impact of armed 
conflict and repression, and the devastating consequences this 
can have on innocent civilian populations.
    I therefore wish to assure the Committee, the American 
people, and potential future colleagues at the United Nations 
that, if confirmed, I will strive to work with all interested 
parties to build a stronger and more effective United Nations. 
Doing so will promote not only American interests, but will 
inevitably improve and enhance the UN's ability to serve all of 
its members as well.
    Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I pledge to bring my strong 
record of experience of working cooperatively within the United 
Nations to fulfill the intentions and aspirations of its 
original promise. In particular, I will work closely with the 
Congress and this Committee to achieve that goal. In attempting 
to strengthen the UN's effort to promote international peace 
and security, I would like to identify several priorities.

Supporting Freedom and Democracy

    One priority is to strengthen and build institutions that 
serve as the cornerstone of freedom in nascent democracies. I 
am proud of my record in this regard. In 1981, as General 
Counsel of the Agency for International Development, I proposed 
that we fund international observers to witness upcoming 
elections in El Salvador so that there would be an independent 
assessment of whether those elections would be free and fair. 
Many experts at the time thought that the Government of El 
Salvador would not accept this idea, but, with the support of 
USAID Administrator Peter McPherson and Deane Hinton, then our 
Ambassador to El Salvador, I was encouraged to raise the 
possibility with President Jose Napoleon Duarte in late 1981. I 
did so and we were able to fund international election 
observers through Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act, 
very likely the first such assistance provided by USAID, thus 
leading to further success stories in legitimizing and 
instilling confidence in democracy in countries once torn apart 
by violence.
    During my service in IO in President George H.W. Bush's 
Administration, I personally observed the legislative elections 
in Namibia in 1989 as part of a presidential delegation led by 
former Senator Edward Muskie, the largest effort to organize 
elections by the United Nations in its history to that point. 
It constituted a major test of UN capabilities and resources, 
and served as a successful model for future elections in 
Nicaragua, Cambodia and elsewhere.
    Some of these earlier missions have no doubt helped pave 
the way for the recent and remarkable success stories we have 
observed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where UN assistance in both 
countries played a critical role. Many of us today, myself 
included, still marvel at the success of those elections--
elections which are having repercussions throughout the region 
and beyond, as they are already doing in Lebanon. We appreciate 
that the United Nations is committed over the long-term to 
respond positively to the elected Iraqi Government's request 
for help with its constitutional process and subsequent 
elections, as laid out in Resolution 1546.
    Mr. Chairman, we should never underestimate the impact of 
free and fair elections on a country. I look forward, if 
confirmed, to working with relevant UN agencies to enable them 
to contribute further to democratic institutions in countries 
freed from the bonds of oppression. I am sure that many of you 
are aware of our support for programs such as the Community of 
Democracies. If confirmed, I also look forward to working with 
you on President Bush's request for $10 million in the Fiscal 
Year 2006 budget to set up a Democracy Fund within the United 
Nations, and I am grateful to Secretary General Annan for 
endorsing the President's proposal in his new report on UN 
reform. This fund would have a lean staff of experts who 
identify carefully tailored projects for strengthening 
democratic institutions, political parties, administration of 
justice programs and respect for human rights advocacy. If 
successful, the Fund will be among the best diplomatic tools we 
have in the global war on terrorism.
    While the UN has had its successes in the human rights 
field, there have been problems as well, such as in the United 
Nations Commission on Human Rights (``UNHRC''). For too long, 
some of the most egregious violators of human rights have 
undercut the UNHRC's principles and its effectiveness. The 
consequence, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said, is that 
the Commission's important work has ``been increasingly 
undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism.'' 
We must work with our friends and allies to keep those who 
would usurp the moral authority of this Commission off of it, 
and we must send clear and strong signals that we will not shy 
away from naming human-rights violators.
    We must work to galvanize the General Assembly to focus its 
attention on issues of true importance. Sadly, there have been 
times when the General Assembly has gone off track. In my view, 
one of the greatest stains on the United Nations was the 
abominable Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism. This 
canard for many years distracted the General Assembly from 
focusing its attention on the very real problems confronting 
the international community. I am proud to have been an active 
player in getting this resolution repealed. I recall fondly the 
day of December 16, 1991, when the General Assembly voted 111-
25 to repeal this odious resolution, when our delegation was 
led by Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, 
accompanied in the General Assembly by Senator Moynihan. I was 
proud to have served also as one of the original members of the 
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom from 1999-
2001.

Stopping the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Mr. Chairman, a second priority should I be confirmed will 
be stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to 
ensure that terrorist organizations and the world's most 
dangerous regimes are unable to threaten the United States, our 
friends, and our allies.
    As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security, I have worked with our friends and 
allies to press states that have violated important treaties to 
stop WMD proliferation such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical 
Weapons Convention, to live up to their obligations or face a 
referral to the UN Security Council. I have worked hard to 
promote effective multilateral action to curb the flow of these 
dangerous weapons. I served as the lead U.S. negotiator in the 
creation of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the 
Proliferation of WMD, through which we aim to add an additional 
$10 billion in Nunn/Lugar type programs through contributions 
by other nations. In the case of Libya, I had the opportunity 
to work in close consultation with our British colleagues in 
diplomatic efforts to secure the verifiable elimination of 
their weapons of mass destruction programs.
    I helped build a coalition of more than 60 countries to 
help combat the spread of dangerous weapons through President 
Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (``PSI''). The 
Administration welcomes the endorsement of this initiative in 
the recently published Secretary Generals' Report, 
``Strengthening the United Nations: an agenda for further 
change.'' And despite fears that the U.S. withdrawal from the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would result in a new arms race, 
exactly the opposite occurred. I was proud to serve as the 
Administration's chief negotiator for the Treaty of Moscow, 
signed by Presidents Putin and Bush in 2002, which reduced 
operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by two-
thirds.
    Effective multilateral solutions reflect a commitment on 
the part of this Administration to use the best tools in our 
arsenal. Activities such as these are helping to create a new 
international consensus that recognizes the danger posed by 
these weapons of terror. I have no doubt these efforts played a 
crucial role in enabling the United States to lead the Security 
Council to pass Resolution 1540, first suggested by President 
Bush in his speech to the General Assembly in September, 2003. 
This resolution calls upon ``all Member States to fulfill their 
obligations in relation to arms control and disarmament and to 
prevent proliferation in all its aspects of all weapons of mass 
destruction.'' Resolution 1540 was the first of its kind 
focusing on WMD proliferation, and I am proud that our strong 
leadership contributed to its unanimous adoption. I am happy to 
report that as of March 15, over 80 countries have submitted 
reports required by the resolution outlining their plans to 
enact and implement measures to stop WMD proliferation. I look 
forward to working with Security Council members to achieve 
100% compliance with the Resolution.
    We also cannot ignore the real possibility that countries 
may be brought before the Security Council if they do not cease 
the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Failure of the 
Security Council to act on such fundamental threats to 
international peace and security will only weaken the Council's 
role in security issues more generally. If confirmed, I would 
make it a top priority to work with the Security Council to 
take meaningful action in the face of these grave threats.

Winning the Global War on Terror

    A third priority that I would pursue if confirmed is 
supporting the global war on terror. As we all learned on 
September 11, 2001, no one is safe from the devastating effects 
of terrorists' intent on harming innocent people. Confronting 
and triumphing in the global war on terror remains a central 
priority of the Bush Administration, and to win this war 
requires long-term cooperation with all like-minded nations.
    The President is firmly committed to working with the 
United Nations to make this shared goal of the civilized world 
a reality. As he noted in his speech to the UN General Assembly 
in September 2003, ``All governments that support terror are 
complicit in a war against civilization. No government should 
ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way 
gives terrorists the chance to regroup, recruit and prepare. 
And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own 
people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of 
history.''
    The United Nations has taken positive steps to support the 
war on terror, but more of course remains to be done. In the 
wake of September 11th, we have been actively encouraging 
Member States to become parties to the UN Conventions on 
Terrorism. I have been personally involved in the past four 
years as well in working to complete the negotiations on a 
Nuclear Terrorism Convention. We must build upon Security 
Council Resolution 1368, passed one day after the tragic events 
of September 11th, which for the first time classified every 
act of international terrorism as a threat to international 
peace and security. We must also work together to help Member 
States build capacities to combat terrorism as outlined in 
Resolution 1373, passed on September 28, 2001. This resolution 
obligates all UN member states to use their domestic laws and 
courts to keep terrorists from sheltering resources or finding 
safe haven anywhere in the world and to cooperate in 
investigating, prosecuting, and preventing terrorism wherever 
it may spring up. The UN Security Council is monitoring 
compliance with the requirements of this resolution, with 
impressive results: to date 142 countries have issued orders 
freezing the assets of suspected terrorists and terrorist 
organizations; accounts totaling almost $105 million have been 
blocked--$34 million in the U.S. and over twice that amount in 
other countries. Overall, Resolution 1373 has been the 
framework for unprecedented international consultation and 
coordination against terrorism, including the provision of 
technical assistance to governments that want to do the right 
thing, but may not have the specialized expertise necessary.

International Humanitarian Efforts

    Mr. Chairman, a fourth priority of mine should I be 
confirmed is addressing humanitarian crises. Following the 
successful prosecution of the first Gulf War, we worked through 
the Security Council to address the humanitarian disaster 
caused by Saddam Hussein's repression of Shiites in southern 
Iraq and the Kurdish population in the north and east of that 
country. As we are all aware, this was a thorny and delicate 
issue--one that required carefully calibrated coordination 
within the Security Council.
    During 1990, we were successful in having the United 
Nations impose its most comprehensive economic sanctions 
package ever, in Resolution 661, against Iraq. We were also 
successful in passing the first Security Council authorization 
for the use of force since Korea in Resolution 678. It was not 
lost upon us, however, that a humanitarian crisis was beginning 
to erupt. Hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Iraq into 
other countries would certainly have had a dramatic and 
destabilizing effect, in addition to the humanitarian costs of 
lives lost and displaced.
    As a result of our leadership and collaborative efforts, we 
secured the adoption of Resolution 688, which decided that 
internal repression causing substantial refugee flows could be 
a threat to international peace and security. This gave the 
Security Council jurisdiction to approve intervention into 
Iraqi territory to aid displaced persons. The United States 
took the lead in implementing this Resolution, under the name 
``Operation Provide Comfort.'' Success stories such as these 
are a direct result of decisive American leadership and our 
effective multilateral diplomacy.
    Of pressing urgency now is stopping the genocide and 
violence devastating the Darfur region in the Sudan. The United 
Nations has already played a critical role in bringing 
attention to this crisis. But we all know there is much more to 
be done. If confirmed, I pledge to work with our partners in 
the Security Council to pressure parties to stop the violence 
in Darfur, deploy the new peacekeeping mission to secure 
implementation of the comprehensive North-South peace 
agreement, and to assist the African Union mission in Darfur to 
punish those responsible for the genocide. My hope is that we 
can build upon the United Nation's considerable success record 
in helping to ensure free and fair elections in the Sudan 
despite its tortured past of violence and strife.
    Careful oversight of such operations is critical, 
particularly in light of recent reports concerning abuse by UN 
peacekeepers themselves. If confirmed, I will make every effort 
to see that the Secretary General's new zero-tolerance policy 
of such behavior by UN personnel is enforced. There is a 
pressing need to do so. In light of the current global 
situation, we anticipate that 70,000 peacekeepers will be 
deployed by the end of 2005, compared with 39,000 by the end of 
2002. Since October 2003, the UN has created four new missions 
including Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Burundi, and Haiti and has 
expanded the Congo mission. In addition to the proper oversight 
of such troops, there are additional concerns about capacity 
and stressing the UN system too far. This is not lost upon UN 
officials either. Jean-Marie Guehenno, Under Secretary-General 
for Peacekeeping Operations, acknowledges the system is getting 
stretched to its limits, and that, in his own words, ``It is 
difficult to run and tie your shoelaces properly. I sincerely 
hope that the organization will not be required to deploy any 
new complex peacekeeping operations in 2005, beyond what is 
already on our plate or in the pipeline.'' Currently, we pay 
roughly 27% of the costs of these operations.
    Other humanitarian crises demand our attention as well. It 
is not just the scourge of war we must confront. We must 
confront the scourge of disease and afflictions such as HIV/
AIDS through strong U.S. leadership in the United Nations 
system. We strongly support the UN Declaration of Commitment on 
HIV/AIDS and are working to ensure resources from the Global 
Fund for AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis are available to 
countries most severely affected. We are actively pursuing the 
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a five-year $15 
billion investment, the largest commitment ever by a nation 
toward an international health initiative for a single disease 
or affliction.
    I will make it a key priority as well to improve programs 
that have been involved in the tsunami relief effort, so that 
we can enhance and build upon structures and institutions 
already in place. Doing so will not only help current victims 
and communities, who will surely need help for years to come, 
but will help prepare for the next time a natural disaster of 
this magnitude strikes. More broadly, we must confront the 
scourge of poverty, which leaves hundreds of millions on the 
margins of societies scrambling for food or shelter with little 
opportunity to improve their lives or those of their children.
    We also must make sure that the UN acts effectively in 
promoting the economic and social advancement of all people. 
For far too long, the UN promoted statist solutions to the 
problems of poverty and underdevelopment. Today, we know the 
private sector can do the best job in generating flows of 
investment capital and encourage small entrepreneurship, as set 
out in the remarkable report of the Commission on the Private 
Sector and Development, chaired by President Zedillo and 
Martin, and in the consensus results of the Monterey Conference 
on Financing for Development. Policy reform, institution 
building, appropriate technology transfer and private sector 
involvement are all necessary for underpinning sustained 
economic growth. We will continue to support the contribution 
of women to economic growth and development as well as their 
critical role in the growth of democratic institutions 
worldwide.
    The UN, in conjunction with U.S. leadership, is hopefully 
now recognizing that the traditional models of development are 
insufficient to achieve development objectives and better the 
lives of people around the world. The Partnership for Maternal, 
New Born and Child Health, The Global Alliance for Vaccinations 
& Immunizations, and Roll Back Malaria, are all examples of how 
UN agencies, such as UNICEF, are working along side the private 
sector, charitable organizations, and foundations, such as the 
Gates Foundation, to leverage resources, generate new 
activities and impact the lives of millions in developing 
countries.
    To enhance these efforts, if I am confirmed, I hope I would 
have your support in increasing the level of American 
representation in UN agencies and affiliated organizations. 
This is not a question of simply getting our fair share of 
positions. Americans have the skills and training to contribute 
significantly to making the UN more efficient, effective, and 
accountable.

A More Efficient UN Will Make a Stronger UN

    Accountability and reform of the United Nations is 
something I know this Committee has encouraged, including by 
holding a hearing on this important question just last month. 
This will be a top priority of mine if confirmed. During the 
first President Bush's Administration, I worked hard to secure 
appropriations to repay U.S. arrearages. Working with the 
Congress, we also made sure that the United Nations would 
target these arrearages to effective programs rather than 
treating them as a ``windfall.'' If confirmed, I would look 
forward to working with the Congress again to make certain that 
the money you allocate is spent wisely and accountably.
    I look forward if confirmed to reviving the concept of the 
``Unitary UN,'' which served as a guiding analytical construct 
during our work under Secretaries Baker and Eagleburger. As the 
system has grown, there has been too little attention paid by 
member governments to coordinating their efforts in key 
programs. The consequence is a tremendous waste of resources 
due to duplication, overlap and inefficiencies, all of which 
can be corrected if member governments have the political will.
    The Administration welcomes the Secretary-General's new 
report on UN Reform, and we are examining carefully its many 
recommendations. I hope to work closely with the Secretary-
General and my colleagues if confirmed to bring greater 
accountability and transparency to the United Nations. The key 
is to implement changes to the UN structure and management, 
including budget, personnel, and oversight reforms. Scandals, 
such as those we have witnessed with the Oil-for-Food program, 
undermine not only America's confidence in the United Nations, 
but the confidence of the international community as well. They 
must not recur. To make this outcome a reality, we must 
recognize the proper roles and capabilities of UN agencies, 
funds and programs. Some have all but concluded that the Oil-
for-Food scandal was bound to happen because it was beyond the 
UN's capabilities. Even the Deputy Secretary-General Louise 
Frechette, has lamented, ``Personally, I hope to God we never 
get another oil-for-food program or anything approaching that 
kind of responsibility, which was tantamount to trying to 
oversee the entire import-export regime of a country of 24 
million people.'' Whether or not this is so, we must never lose 
sight of the reality that ultimately it is member governments 
that must take responsibility for the UN's actions, whether 
they be successes or failures.
    The successful implementation of any reform will require 
broad consensus among member states. If confirmed, I will work 
actively with my colleagues at the United Nations and with 
Congress to help restore confidence in the organization.
    Mr. Chairman, let me close by reiterating what I said at 
the beginning. If confirmed, I will work closely and 
effectively with this Committee and both Houses of Congress. 
The President and Secretary Rice are committed to building a 
strong, effective United Nations. The United Nations affords us 
the opportunity to move our policies forward together with 
unity of purpose. Now, more than ever, the UN must play a 
critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams and hopes and 
aspirations of its original promise to save succeeding 
generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith and 
fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and 
better standards of life in larger freedom. This effort demands 
decisive American leadership, broad bipartisan support, and the 
backing of the American public. I will undertake to do my 
utmost to uphold the confidence that the President, Secretary 
Rice, and the Senate will have placed in me.
    Thank you, and I would welcome the opportunity to answer 
your questions.

                                ------                                


                                ANNEX B


                           Biographic Summary


                              (HIGHLIGHTS)

NAME:

  <bullet> John Robert Bolton

POSITION FOR WHICH CONSIDERED:

  <bullet> Representative of the United States of America to 
        the United Nations

PRESENT POSITION:

  <bullet> Under Secretary of State (Arms Control and 
        International Security Affairs)

LEGAL RESIDENCE:

  <bullet> Maryland

OFFICE ADDRESS:

  <bullet> Washington, DC

DATE/PLACE OF BIRTH:

  <bullet> November 20, 1948--Baltimore, Maryland

MARITAL STATUS:

  <bullet> Married

NAME OF SPOUSE:

  <bullet> Gretchen Louise Bolton

NAMES OF CHILDREN:

  <bullet> Jennifer Sarah Bolton

EDUCATION:

  <bullet> J.D., Yale Law School, 1971-1974;

  <bullet> B.A., Yale College, 1966-1970

MILITARY SERVICE:

  <bullet> U.S. Army Reserves, 1974-1976;

  <bullet> U.S. Army National Guard, 1970-1974 (Honorable 
        Discharge)

FOREIGN LANGUAGES:

  <bullet> French

EXPERIENCE:

  <bullet> 2001-present--Under Secretary of State (Arms Control 
        and International Security Affairs)

  <bullet> 1997-2001--Senior Vice President, American 
        Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC

  <bullet> Dec 1999-2001--Of Counsel Kutak Rock LLP, 
        Washington, D.C.

  <bullet> May 1999-2001--Commissioner, U.S. Commission on 
        International Religion Freedom

  <bullet> 1995-1996--President, National Policy Forum, 
        Washington, D.C.

  <bullet> 1994-1996--Adjunct Professor, George Mason 
        University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia

  <bullet> 1993-1999--Partner, Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus 
        (and predecessor firms) Washington, D.C.

  <bullet> Jan 1993-July 1993--Senior Fellow, Manhattan 
        Institute, Washington, D.C.

  <bullet> 1989-1993--Assistant Secretary of State for 
        International Organization Affairs

  <bullet> 1988-1989--Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
        Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

  <bullet> 1985-1988--Assistant Attorney General for 
        Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, Washington, 
        D.C.

  <bullet> 1983-1985--Partner, Covington & Burling, Washington, 
        D.C.

  <bullet> Aug 1993-Sept 1993--Consultant, Republican National 
        Committee, Washington, D.C.

  <bullet> 1983-1983--Assistant Administrator for program and 
        Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International 
        Development, Washington, D.C.

  <bullet> 1981-1982--General Counsel, U.S. Agency for 
        International Development, Washington, D.C.

  <bullet> 1974-1981--Associate, Covington & Burling, 
        Washington, DC

  <bullet> June 1973-Aug 1973--Summer, associate Lord, Day & 
        Lord, New York, N.Y.

  <bullet> June 1972-Aug 1972--White House summer Intern, 
        Office of the Vice President

  <bullet> 1970-1971--Executive Director, Lux et Veritas, Inc. 
        New Haven, Connecticut

HONORS/AWARDS:

  <bullet> U.S. Department of Justice Edmund J. Randolph Award, 
        1998

  <bullet> U.S. Department of State Distinguished Service 
        Award, 1993

  <bullet> Tree of Life Award, Northern and Southern New 
        England Regions of Hadassah, 1990

  <bullet> Editor, Yale Law Journal

  <bullet> Phi Sigma Alpha

  <bullet> Phi Beta Kappa

  <bullet> Scholarships to McDonogh School, Yale College and 
        Yale Law School

ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

  <bullet> Member, Subcommittee on International Law, 
        Federalist Society, 1999-2001

  <bullet> Member of Board of Directors, Project for a New 
        American Century, 1989-2001

  <bullet> Advisory Board Member, Jewish Institute for National 
        Security Affairs, 1994-2001

                                ------                                


                                ANNEX C




  BUSINESS MEETING TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN R. 
         BOLTON TO BE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, 
Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski, Martinez, Biden, 
Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Nelson, and Obama.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                            INDIANA

    The Chairman.  This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee is called to order.
    Before beginning our testimony and our debate today, I 
would like to lay out for members how we will proceed. 
Democratic members have requested a 5-hour debate on the 
nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United 
Nations, and we have agreed to that request. I have agreed to 
hold this debate to give all members of the committee an 
opportunity, once again, to explain their views, and we look 
forward to an enlightening and thoughtful debate.
    Now, in the interest of decorum and order, it's my 
intention to manage this debate much like a debate on the 
Senate floor. I will control 2\1/2\ hours of time--that is, of 
the 5 hours allotted to the debate--yielding time to Republican 
members. Senator Biden, the distinguished ranking member, will 
control the other two and a half hours, yielding time to 
Democratic members.
    Republicans will lead off the debate with approximately 1 
hour of time, to be controlled by myself and my designees, to 
be followed by an equal amount of time, another hour, under the 
control of Senator Biden or designees. At that stage, we will 
alternate between Democrats and Republican members until all 
time on both sides is consumed or given back.
    Now, as chairman and manager of the nomination, I'll 
reserve the final 10 minutes of our time, on the Republican 
side--that is, about 150 minutes--for myself. Throughout this 
process, members should request time through the chairman or 
through the ranking member. Senator Biden and I will be 
responsible for apportioning the time on our respective sides.
    Since 5 hours of debate time has been requested, and we 
have an abundance of speakers on both sides, I will not 
entertain motions or other business during the 5-hour debate. 
If floor votes intervene, I believe we can continue the debate 
without interruption by voting in shifts, as we frequently do. 
I would, likewise, say, as members have need to have a bite to 
eat or to drink a sip of water, they can proceed to do that. 
Hopefully, our debate will continue on in some responsible way 
throughout that period of time.
    My hope is to complete the meeting by close to 3 p.m., as 
members will have invested 5 hours of valuable time during this 
experience. And I would just say, at that point that I begin my 
statement, I will ask the Clerk to be, again, counting the time 
so that our 150 minutes will begin to diminish as I make an 
opening statement to open the debate this morning.
    The Foreign Relations Committee meets today----
    Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, could I just----
    The Chairman.  Yes. Senator Dodd.
    Senator Dodd. Senator Biden's not here yet, so I'm 
reluctant--was this something we agreed to, between the Chair 
and the Ranking Member? I'm just unclear as to the--how the 
procedures will work.
    The Chairman.  No, I have not asked for agreement. I'm just 
indicating the structure of our morning. I'm trying, at least, 
in fairness, to allocate 2\1/2\ hours to both sides, indicate 
that Senator Biden and I will manage the 2\1/2\ hours. During 
that time, I hope we can continue the time running while we go 
to vote. We will have a closure vote at 11:30, more or less. In 
other words, I think these are reasonable statements, but, 
nevertheless, the prerogative of the Chair, I think, is to 
structure a debate in a fair manner, which I'm attempting to 
do.
    Senator Dodd. Fine. By the way, I'd ask consent that the--
this discussion here not be time taken away from the 
chairman's----
    The Chairman.  I thank----
    Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Senator Boxer.
    Senator Boxer. With the same caveat. Just because you 
went--I was confused--it went on awhile. Now Senator Biden is 
here. Would you please go over--I hate to do this, but could 
you go over this one more time, what your plan is for how we're 
going to take this five hours, so that Senator Biden may hear 
it?
    The Chairman.  Very well.
    Senator Biden. The staff has informed me, but, please----
    The Chairman.  I'll proceed, once again, through the 
statement, so there can be no ambiguity.
    Before beginning, I would like to lay out for all members 
how we will proceed today. Democratic members have requested a 
5-hour debate on the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador 
to the United Nations, and I have agreed to that plan. I have 
agreed to hold this debate to give all members of the committee 
a chance to explain their views, and I look forward to an 
enlightening and thoughtful debate.
    In the interest of decorum and order, it's my intention to 
manage the debate much like a debate on the Senate floor. I 
will control 2\1/2\ hours of time, yielding time to Republican 
members. Senator Biden will control the other two and a half 
hours, yielding time to Democratic members.
    Republicans will lead off the debate with approximately 1 
hour of time, to be controlled by myself and by my designees, 
to be followed by an equal amount of time--that is, an hour, 
more or less--under the control of Senator Biden or his 
designees. At that stage, we would alternate between Democrat 
and Republican members until all time is consumed or yielded 
back.
    As chairman and manager of the nomination, I would reserve 
the last 10 minutes of our Republican time--that is, of our 150 
minutes--for myself. Throughout this process, members should 
request time through the chairman or through the ranking 
member. Senator Biden and I will be responsible for 
apportioning the time on our respective sides.
    Since five hours of debate time has been requested, and we 
have an abundance of speakers on both sides, I will not 
entertain motions or other business during the five-hour 
debate. If floor votes intervene, I believe that we can 
continue the debate without interruption by voting in shifts, 
as we frequently do. My intention is to complete the meeting as 
close as possible to 3 p.m.
    But, with that, I would instruct the Clerk to begin keeping 
time now as I begin the opening segment, which I will do 
shortly.
    Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, I think it's good to proceed 
like we do on the floor, but the way usually do it on the floor 
is, the manager of the bill and the opponent of the bill--the 
manager speaks and then the opponent gets to speak--and then 
they control the remaining time. So, I would prefer, if you're 
willing, after you speak, for me to be able to--allowed to make 
my opening statement, and then you control the time. 
Otherwise--I mean, it's not usual, on the floor debate, that we 
would have an hour of Republican or Democratic testimony--or, 
not testimony--debate, other than if it's--if you wish to take 
an hour, that's fine by me, but I would like to be able to open 
at the time when you finish, and then you control the debate, 
in terms of the remaining time, if that's appropriate.
    The Chairman.  Well, I appreciate the Senator's suggestion. 
I would like to follow the path I set forth, because the--in 
the first hour, I will try to make a case for the nominee, but 
then I will yield the remainder of that hour to Senator 
Voinovich, who will approach the case of the nominee in his own 
way, so that members and, I think, the public will have 
perspective of our debate from that hour. And so, I would ask 
the cooperation of the ranking member in allowing us to proceed 
in that way.
    Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, I don't want this committee to 
look like we're just tied up in parliamentary problems. I will 
not object, but that is not how we do it on the floor. And I 
understand your wishing to set the terms of the debate. I got 
that part. And that's okay by me. But let's just not kid 
ourselves; this is not how we do it in the Senate floor. But 
it's okay if you want to do it that way. I understand the deal. 
And I hope you'll be as accommodating to me if I decide to do 
this if I ever become chairman again, and you'll allow me to do 
things that we don't do on the floor.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Well, the Senator knows that I will be 
accommodating and as reasonable as possible, and I thank the 
Senator for his accommodation and his good humor.
    Now, I will----
    Senator Biden. I might have objected if it weren't going to 
be Voinovich second, but that's all right.
    The Chairman.  Very well.
    We will begin now, and I will ask, as I've mentioned 
before, for the countdown. And we'll make available to the 
ranking member and the chairman at various times, at our 
request, how many minutes remain on both sides, so that the 
management may continue as smoothly as possible.
    The Foreign Relations Committee meets today to vote on the 
nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations. In this capacity, he would play an important role in 
securing greater international support for the national-
security and the foreign-policy objectives of the United 
States.
    The Foreign Relations Committee has reviewed Secretary 
Bolton's actions with respect to several allegations. In the 
process, we have interviewed 29 witnesses, producing 
approximately 1,000 pages of transcripts. We have received and 
reviewed more than 830 pages of documents from the State 
Department, USAID, and the CIA regarding the Bolton nomination. 
We have questioned Secretary Bolton in person for seven hours. 
We have received responses to nearly 100 questions for the 
record, many containing numerous subparts.
    This effort represents one of the most intense and far-
reaching examinations of a nominee in my experience. The depth 
and breadth of the inquiry is particularly notable given that 
Secretary Bolton has been confirmed four times by the Senate 
already and that most of us have had personal experiences with 
him.
    After reviewing this material, it's my judgment that 
Secretary Bolton should be confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the 
United Nations. I do not believe that the evidence supports a 
disqualification of the President's nominee.
    I was struck by the portrait of Secretary Bolton that 
emerged from interviews of witnesses that shows him serving in 
a job where some of his ideas and strategies were at odds with 
those above and below him at the State Department. It is clear 
from the transcripts that he was combative in defense of his 
perspectives. In some cases, this led to split memos fed up the 
policy chain, communicating multiple points of view. Secretary 
Bolton's actions were not always exemplary. On several 
occasions, he made incorrect assumptions about the behavior and 
motivations of subordinates. At other times, he failed to use 
proper managerial channels or unnecessarily personalized 
internal disputes.
    The picture is one of an aggressive policymaker who pressed 
his missions at every opportunity and argued vociferously for 
his point of view. In the process, his blunt style alienated 
some colleagues, but there is no evidence that he has broken 
laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct.
    At the core of any nomination process is the question of 
whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for 
which he or she is nominated. I have no doubts that Secretary 
Bolton is extremely well qualified. He has just served four 
years in a key Under Secretary position that technically 
outranks the post for which he is now nominated. He has 
succeeded in several high-profile negotiation settings. He was 
the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful 
Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow 
Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on 
the surrender of that nation's WMD programs and the ``10 Plus 
10 Over 10'' agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges 
from the other G8 countries to secure the Soviet weapons-of-
mass-destruction arsenal. These are among the Bush 
administration's most important and indisputable foreign-policy 
successes.
    Opponents have argued that Secretary Bolton's personality 
will prevent him from being effective at the U.N., but his 
diplomatic successes over the last four years belie that 
expectation.
    Few people in government have thought more about U.N. 
reform than John Bolton. He served 4 years as the Assistant 
Secretary of State overseeing international organizations under 
the first President Bush. He has written and commented 
extensively on the subject.
    Senator Biden acknowledged to the nominee at the hearing, 
and I quote, ``There is no question that you have extensive 
experience in U.N. affairs,'' end of quote.
    Deputy Secretary Rich Armitage recently told reporters, and 
I quote, ``John Bolton is eminently qualified. He is one of the 
smartest guys in Washington,'' end of quote.
    Secretary Bolton also demonstrated his ability to get 
things done prior to becoming Under Secretary of State. Perhaps 
the best example is his initiative to repeal U.N. Resolution 
3379, which equated Zionism with racism. In May 1991, as 
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, 
John Bolton refused to accept the common wisdom that repealing 
this infamous resolution was impossible. He and his staff 
initiated a campaign to change votes in the General Assembly, 
even though they were advised that they would not be 
successful. Within a few months, they had made substantial 
progress. And, by the fall, the State Department put its full 
weight behind the effort. On December 16, 1991, the U.N. 
General Assembly voted to repeal the resolution, by a vote of 
111 to 25.
    In the private sector, Secretary Bolton made some blunt 
statements about the United Nations, and many of these 
statements were made in academic or think-tank settings where 
debate on these subjects was encouraged. Many of the quotes 
that have been repeated by opponents came in the context of 
much larger speeches that were more nuanced. In fact--or the 
fact that he has strong views and a long record of commentary 
on the job that he is about to undertake should not be 
disqualifying.
    During our hearing, Secretary Bolton spoke of the United 
Nations' important role in international security. He has 
emphasized that he wants the institution to work well on behalf 
of international security and the interests of the United 
States.
    Beyond qualifications, we should recognize that Secretary 
Bolton has the confidence of the President and the Secretary of 
State. The President has made it clear that this is not a 
casual appointment. He wants a specific person to do a specific 
job. President Bush has a reform agenda in mind at the United 
Nations. This reform agenda is generally supported by the U.N. 
Secretary General, who has put forward a reform plan of his 
own. The President wants John Bolton, an avowed and 
knowledgeable reformer, to carry out that reform agenda. Kofi 
Annan has welcomed John Bolton's appointment.
    I would emphasize that Secretary Bolton is being appointed 
to a position that is within the chain of command of the 
President and the Secretary of State. The Ambassador to the 
U.N. reports directly to the President and to the Secretary of 
State. In fact, historically, this ambassadorship has reflected 
directly on the President. The Ambassador is seen as the 
President's voice at the U.N. Consequently, there are few 
positions in government where the President should have more 
latitude in choosing the nominee.
    In my judgment, it would be absolutely extraordinary 
circumstances for the Senate to say, quote, ``Mr. President, 
you can't have your choice to carry out your directive at the 
U.N., even though the Senate has approved him for four other 
high-ranking positions and he is extremely knowledgeable about 
the task that you are giving him,'' end of quote.
    At times during this process, opponents have suggested that 
Secretary Bolton sits outside the mainstream in the Bush 
administration. Senator Biden devoted several minutes of his 
opening statement at Secretary Bolton's hearing to this point, 
saying that, quote, ``Your views, based on what you've said in 
the past, seems to be contrary to the direction the President 
the Secretary now want to take this administration,'' end of 
quote.
    The problem with this assertion is that President Bush is 
telling us that this is not so. President Bush is telling us 
that Secretary Bolton accurately represents his views about the 
U.N. and how that institution should be reformed. President 
Bush is saying that Secretary Bolton is his considered choice 
to implement his policies and diplomatic initiatives at the 
U.N.
    Some observers, who want a different program than the 
President's, may not agree with the President's choice, but the 
results of the 2004 election give the President the 
responsibility and the right to nominate like-minded 
representatives, and to define who a like-minded representative 
is.
    We have ample evidence that the United Nations is in need 
of reform. The Foreign Relations Committee held the first 
congressional hearing on the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food scandal more 
than a year ago. Since that time, through the work of Paul 
Volcker and our colleague, Senator Coleman, and many others, we 
have learned much more about the extent of that corruption and 
mismanagement, and this knowledge has supported the case for 
reform. We know that billions of dollars that should have been 
spend on humanitarian needs in Iraq were siphoned off by Saddam 
Hussein's regime through a system of surcharges, bribes, and 
kickbacks. This corruption depended upon members of the U.N. 
Security Council who were willing to be complicit in these 
activities. It also depended on U.N. officials and contractors 
who were dishonest, inattentive, or willing to make damaging 
compromises in pursuit of the compassionate mission.
    United Nations reform is not a new issue. The structure and 
role of the United Nations have been debated in our country 
almost continuously since the U.N. was established, in 1945. 
But, in 2005, we may have a unique opportunity to improve the 
operations of the U.N. The revelations of the Oil-for-Food 
scandal and the urgency of strengthening global cooperation to 
address terrorism, the AIDS crisis, nuclear proliferation, many 
other international problems, have created momentum in favor of 
constructive reforms at the U.N.
    Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial 
reform plan that will provide a platform for further reform 
initiatives and discussions. The United States must be a leader 
in the effort to improve the United Nations, particularly its 
accountability. At a time when the United Nations is appealing 
for greater international help in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in 
trouble-spots around the world, the diminishment of U.N. 
credibility because of scandal reduces U.S. options and 
increases our own burdens.
    Secretary Bolton has become closely associated with the 
United States efforts to reform the U.N. If he goes to the U.N. 
and helps achieve reform, the U.N. will gain in credibility, 
especially with the American people. If reform moves forward, 
Secretary Bolton will be in an excellent position to help 
convince skeptics that reform has occurred and that the United 
Nations can be an effective partner in achieving global 
security. If we reject Secretary Bolton without even granting 
him a vote on the Senate floor, President Bush's hand will be 
weakened at the U.N. We will recover, but we will have wasted 
time, and we will have strengthened the position of reform 
opponents.
    In the days immediately following Secretary Rice's March 7 
announcement of Secretary Bolton's nomination, most Democrat 
members of this committee expressed their opposition to the 
nomination, on policy grounds.
    A March 8th Associated Press report states, quote, ``Almost 
immediately after Bolton's nomination was announced, Democrats 
objected,'' end of quote.
    The March 8 addition of the Baltimore Sun said, quote, 
``Reaction from Senate Democrats promised contentious 
confirmation hearings for Bolton when he goes before the 
Foreign Relations Committee,'' end of quote.
    In several cases, the statements by Democrats were 
unequivocal in opposition. In several other cases, statements 
were very negative, leaving open only the smallest of 
possibilities that the Senate would ultimately support the 
nominee. In all of these cases, objections were based on 
Secretary Bolton's supposed attitudes toward the United 
Nations.
    Senator Dodd said that Secretary Bolton's, quote, 
``antipathy to the U.N. will prevent him from effectively 
discharging his duties as our ambassador,'' end of quote.
    Senator Kerry says the Bolton nomination, quote, ``was the 
most inexplicable appointment the President could make to 
represent the United States in the world community,'' end of 
quote.
    Senator Boxer said of Secretary Bolton, quote, ``He's 
contemptuous of the U.N.''
    By March 31, still almost two weeks before the Bolton 
hearing, a Los Angeles Times report noted, quote, ``Democrats 
are likely to vote unanimously against John R. Bolton when the 
nomination to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations comes 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to 
Democratic and Republican lawmakers and aids,'' end of quote.
    Now, Senators have the right to oppose a nominee because of 
his substantive views and his past statements. However, it's 
important to acknowledge that the ethical inquiry into 
Secretary Bolton's background has been pressed by members who 
had planned to vote against him even before we began 
interviewing the witnesses. They have the right to ask 
questions, and the committee has a responsibility to follow up 
credible allegations. But we should also understand that, at 
times, the inquiry has followed a more prosecutorial role than 
many nominees have had to endure.
    The committee staff has worked long and hard to run down 
the salvo of unsubstantiated allegations that were leveled at 
Secretary Bolton at the last business meeting. The end result 
is that many of the accusations have proven to be groundless 
or, at worse, overstated. New information has cast others in a 
different light.
    With regard to the most serious charge, that Secretary 
Bolton sought to improperly manipulate intelligence, the 
insights we have gained do not support that conclusion. He may 
have disagreed with intelligence findings, but, in the end, he 
always accepted the final judgment of the intelligence 
community, and always delivered speeches in their cleared form.
    During this inquiry, there has been the implication that if 
nominee challenged or opposed the conclusions of intelligence 
analysts, he somehow committed an ethical violation. I think we 
need to be very precise that arguing in favor of one's own 
reading of intelligence within the context of an internal 
policy debate is not wrongdoing. Intelligence reports are not 
sacrosanct. They involve interpretations, and they are intended 
to stimulate debate.
    This committee has held numerous classified briefings. The 
word ``briefing'' is perhaps a misnomer, because, as Senators, 
we spent much of the time during those briefings questioning 
the panel. We probe to determine not just what analysts think, 
but why they think it, and often we challenge their 
conclusions.
    Earlier this year, for example, our committee held a highly 
classified briefing on North Korea, in which one of our members 
pointedly disputed the conclusions of the briefer. There was a 
blunt exchange of views, and no resolution to this disagreement 
was achieved. And I am doubtful that any of us who have 
attended a good number of intelligence briefings have not done 
the same thing. My point is that the act of challenging or 
disputing intelligence conclusion is not, in and of itself, 
wrong.
    Some have appeared shocked that Secretary Bolton might have 
challenge intelligence conclusions or advanced alternative 
interpretations, even though the same thing happens every day 
in multiple departments and agencies.
    Congress has the benefit of something called the, quote, 
``speech and debate clause,'' end of quote. Article 1, Section 
6 of the Constitution states that Members of Congress, quote, 
``shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of 
the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at 
the session of their respective houses. And, in going to and 
returning from the same, and for any speech or debate in either 
house, they shall not be questioned in any other place,'' end 
of quote.
    The Founders put this extraordinary provision in the 
Constitution because they saw the value in debate. The context 
surrounding arguments within an administration over 
intelligence is different, but the principle is the same. 
Policymakers should be free to exert opinions and 
interpretations during the policymaking process.
    Clearly, there are lines that should not be crossed. Some 
may argue that Secretary Bolton crossed these lines, but the 
proof is in the result. After fighting for his interpretation, 
Secretary Bolton conformed to the clearance process and gave 
the speeches as they had been approved.
    It has been charged Secretary Bolton sought to retaliate in 
some way against analysts and others with whom he disagreed. 
Our staffs have looked into these cases thoroughly; and, in 
each one, I believe the allegations are overstated. In the case 
of Christian Westermann, the INR analyst whom the committee 
heard about from Carl Ford, the dispute was over a procedural 
issue, and Mr. Westermann continued in his job. We should 
recall that the focus of Mr. Ford's complaint was that Mr. 
Bolton should not have raised his objections directly with Mr. 
Westermann, not that Mr. Bolton was wrong to raise the issue.
    Our Democratic colleagues, last month, made much of the 
fact that, after this incident, Secretary Powell had to go all 
the way down to INR to boost morale. But we heard, last week, 
from Secretary Powell's chief of staff, that such visits were 
not uncommon, that it was part of the Secretary's leadership 
style to visit with staff in the bowels of the building, 
including INR.
    In the case of the NIO for Latin America, e-mails the 
committee staff has viewed make it clear that Secretary 
Bolton's primary objection was over disparaging and inaccurate 
comments the analysts made to Members of Congress about a 
speech. Secretary Bolton took his complaint to the CIA. 
Although the NIO has said he feels his career was damaged by 
Secretary Bolton, his superiors fully backed him at the time, 
and other witnesses have told the committee that if he did not 
get the promotions he felt he deserved, it was for other 
reasons. Again, as far as Secretary Bolton was concerned, the 
dispute was procedural; there was no attempt to fabricate 
intelligence.
    Other allegations related to managerial style show the same 
pattern, upon examination: disagreement over procedure, not 
policy. In the case of Rexon Ryu, a mid-level civil servant in 
the Nonproliferation Bureau under Secretary Bolton, no policy 
issues were involved at all. Secretary Bolton believed, 
incorrectly, according to Mr. Ryu's supervisor, that Mr. Ryu 
had deliberately neglected to share information with Bolton's 
office. Some months later, Mr. Ryu was up for a job that would 
have required him to work closely with Secretary Bolton. 
Secretary Bolton, perhaps regrettably, expressed his opposition 
to working with Mr. Ryu. Mr. Ryu was given another prized post 
instead, an assignment to be Deputy Secretary.
    The case of the State Department attorney, also raised by 
the other side, is even more off the mark. This attorney fully 
supported what Secretary Bolton wanted to do. It was only 
because of miscommunication that Secretary Bolton thought the 
attorney had given out wrong information on a case involving 
sanctions against a Chinese company. The State Department legal 
advisor, Will Taft, told our staff that he quickly straightened 
things out. The attorney stayed on the case, even wrote the 
affidavit that Secretary Bolton later submitted to the court.
    Staff also looked at a new case that came up. Secretary 
Bolton's chief of staff, we learned, went to an INR analyst to 
complaint that he had inappropriately attached to a CIA 
document a cover memo that took exception to some of the CIA's 
findings regarding China. No action was sought against the 
analyst, none was taken. The issue was procedural. No 
intelligence was manipulated. And Secretary Bolton wasn't even 
directly involved, because he was out of the country at the 
time.
    Secretary Bolton's credibility has also been called into 
question regarding his testimony before our committee on April 
11. Senator Biden questioned whether Mr. Bolton really went to 
the CIA to learn about the National Intelligence Council. 
Stuart Cohen, the acting head of the NIC, said that, while he 
could not recall why Secretary Bolton wanted to come, it was, 
quote, ``perfectly reasonable,'' end of quote, to believe that 
was the reason. In fact, he added, quote, ``I was delighted at 
the prospect that somebody would come out wanting to know more 
about the NIC,'' end of quote. He also said that Secretary 
Bolton only talked about reassigning, not firing, the NIO, just 
as Mr. Bolton testified.
    Our investigation has found nothing contrary to Secretary 
Bolton's claim that his dispute with Mr. Westermann was over 
procedure, and not policy.
    Former Ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard called the 
committee, after Secretary Bolton's testimony, about a 
controversial speech he gave in South Korea. Secretary Bolton 
testified that Ambassador Hubbard had thanked him for the 
speech afterwards. The Ambassador told us he, indeed, had 
thanked Secretary Bolton afterwards, but only for making 
certain changes in the speech that he had requested. Ambassador 
Hubbard told our staff that he wanted to correct the record on 
that point, but he was not accusing Secretary Bolton of being 
deliberately misleading.
    That speech was one of several by Secretary Bolton that 
opponents to the nomination have questioned. Our investigation 
has shown that many of these speeches and congressional 
testimony were preceded by strong policy debates within the 
administration. As one witness told our staff, quote, ``That's 
how good policy is made,'' end of quote. In each case, we've 
found that, in the end, Secretary Bolton delivered a speech 
that was perfectly cleared and that expressed official U.S. 
policy.
    One of the most sensationalized accusations against 
Secretary Bolton is that, 11 years ago, he chased a woman 
around a Moscow hotel, throwing things at her. This is 
problematic, first, because the behavior described seems so out 
of place, but, secondly, because it has been very difficult for 
our staffs, despite many hours of interviews on this matter, to 
ascertain just what happened. The woman, Melody Townsel, who 
lives in Dallas, admits that she is a liberal Democrat who 
worked for Mothers Opposing Bush in the last election. Ms. 
Townsel also told our staffs that her original accusation 
contained a letter, that was made public--may have been too 
strong in some pieces. She said, quote, ``chasing,'' end of 
quote, may not be the best word. What she meant was that 
Secretary Bolton would approach her whenever he saw her at the 
hotel where they were both staying, because, as she describes 
it, she didn't want to meet with him over a legal matter. It's 
important to remember that Secretary Bolton was a private 
lawyer at the time. He was not representing the U.S. 
Government; he was working for company against which Ms. 
Townsel had made some very serious charges, charges which 
proved unfounded, that could have cost this company an 
important USAID contract in the former Soviet Union.
    Ms. Townsel provided no eyewitnesses to the incidents, 
which are said to have occurred in public or open areas of the 
hotel. Moreover, although she claimed that this was a highly 
traumatic encounter and that she told several people about it, 
staff had difficulty finding others who knew about it. Three 
people whom Ms. Townsel identified as having heard her 
complaints at the time of the events told us they had no 
recollection of Ms. Townsel's mentioning Mr. Bolton. Her boss, 
Charles Black, of Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, who hired her 
for the post, said she never mentioned it to him. Neither did 
her intermediate supervisor back in Washington.
    An employee of a sister company who assisted Ms. Townsel in 
making her charges against the prime contractor on her project, 
and with whom she said she was in close touch at the time, also 
knows nothing about it.
    Staffs talked to three representatives of the contractor, a 
small Virginia firm, which has long experience working for 
USAID overseas. These officials also heard nothing about this 
encounter. They said that Secretary Bolton was in Moscow at the 
time, but that he was working for a consultant for a health 
project that they were involved in, not doing legal work for 
them.
    We did find one of her friends and coworkers from that 
time, who was not in Moscow, who recalls talking with her by 
telephone about it, as well as a subordinate of hers in a later 
USAID-funded project who recalls her mentioning it.
    Now, ultimately, the results of a lengthy investigation 
into this isolated, long-ago incident are, at most, 
inconclusive. Ms. Townsel went on to another USAID project in 
former Soviet Union, and the company she accused of 
mismanagement was awarded more USAID contracts and continues to 
be well regarded. The original charge against Secretary Bolton 
appears to be overstated.
    On the basis of what we do know, there is nothing to offset 
Secretary Bolton's long record of public service in several 
different administrations.
    It's been charged that, collectively, the allegations 
against Secretary Bolton form an unacceptable pattern of 
behavior. This is an unfortunate argument by opponents, because 
it depends on doubts arising from an intense investigation of 
accusations, many of which had no substantiation. By its 
nature, it also discounts the dozens of positive testimonials 
on Secretary Bolton's behalf from former coworkers, who attest 
to his character and his effectiveness.
    We need to think clearly about the context of the 
allegations leveled against Secretary Bolton.
    First, this has been an extremely public inquiry. By it's 
nature, it has encountered anyone with a grudge or a 
disagreement with Secretary Bolton, stretching back to 1983, to 
come forward and tell their story. There have been no thematic 
limits on the allegations that opponents of the nominee have 
asked to be investigated.
    I would simply submit that no one working in Washington in 
high-ranking positions for that long would come out unscathed 
from such a process. Any assertive policymaker will develop 
opponents based on stylistic differences, personal disputes, or 
partisan disagreements. Most members of this committee have 
been in public life for decades. If we were nominated for a 
similar position of responsibility after our terms in the 
Senate, how many of us would want the same standard to be 
applied to our confirmation process? How many of us would want 
any instance of conflict or anger directed at our staffs or our 
colleagues to be fair game?
    Second, as mentioned, the oldest allegation dates back all 
the way to 1983; thus, we are subjecting 22 years of Secretary 
Bolton's career to a microscope. This included service in many 
government jobs, as well as time spent in the private sector. 
And given the length of John Bolton's service in high-ranking 
positions, it's inevitable that he would have conflict with 
coworkers of various ranks and political persuasions. He would 
have had literally thousands of contacts, meetings, and issues 
to deal with during his career. In this context, the volume of 
alleged incidents is not that profound.
    Third, in John Bolton's case, unsubstantiated charges may 
seem more material than they are, because he has a reputation 
for being an aggressive and blunt negotiator. But this should 
not be a disqualifying factor, especially for a post that, 
historically, has included a number of blunt, plainspoken 
individuals, including Jeane Kirkpatrick and our former 
colleague, Senator Pat Moynihan. In fact, President Bush has 
cited John Bolton's direct style as one of the reasons that 
he's picked him for this particular job.
    It is easy to say that any inquiry into any allegation is 
justified if we are pursuing the truth. But, as Senators who 
are frequently called upon to pass judgment on nominees, we 
know reality is more complicated than that. We want to ensure 
that nominees are qualified, skilled, honest, and open. 
Clearly, we should pursue credible reports of wrongdoing; but, 
in doing so, we should understand that there can be human and 
organizational costs if the inquiry is not focused and fair. We 
have all witnessed quality nominees who have had to endure a 
contentious nomination process that opened them up to any 
charge leveled from any directions.
    Both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of 
employing prosecuting tactics to oppose nominees with whom they 
did not agree. Some would say that nominees are fair game. If 
they accept an appointment, they enter the public arena, where 
no quarter will be given. But we need capable people who are 
willing to serve our government and the American people. And 
among all the other qualifications, it seems that we require 
nominees to subject themselves and their families to partisan 
scrutiny. This has implications well beyond the current 
nomination.
    Our Democrat colleagues have recognized this fact when they 
have defended Democrat nominees in the past. With respect to 
one nominee, in October 1993, Senator Biden said, quote, ``The 
Senate does nothing to fulfill its responsibility to advise and 
consent on presidential nominations, and does nothing to 
enhance its reputation as the world's greatest liberty body, by 
entertaining a long and disagreeable litany of past policy 
disagreements, not by entertaining anonymous and probably false 
allegations,'' end of quote.
    With regard to a troubled 1999 nomination, Senator Dodd, 
quite insightfully, stated, quote, ``I am one, Mr. Chairman, 
who worries deeply about our ability to attract the best our 
society can produce to serve our country. It is not easy to 
submit yourself and your family to the kind of public scrutiny 
that a nomination of this magnitude involves. We have got to 
sort out some ways in which we can go through this process 
without making it so discouraging to people that--those watch 
the process, think one day they might like to serve their 
country--will be discouraged from doing so, in any 
administration. And I am deeply worried that if we do not get a 
better handle on this, that that will be the net result of what 
we accomplish,'' end of quote.
    Senator Dodd also provided comments for a March 1, 1997, 
Washington Post article about the travails of a different 
nominee. He said, and I quote, ``It's getting harder and harder 
to get good people to serve in government. Advice and consent 
does not have to be abuse,'' end of quote.
    In an investigation of this type, we constantly have to ask 
where we draw the line. Where does legitimate due diligence 
turn into partisanship? Where does the desire for the truth 
turn into a competition over who wins and who loses? Not every 
line of inquiry is justified by our curiosity, or even our 
suspicions.
    The committee has focused a great deal of energy examining 
several accusations against the nominee. And this may leave 
some observers with the false impression that John Bolton's 
service has been dominated by discord and conflict. We need to 
acknowledge that a great many officials with whom he has worked 
have endorsed him, and that many subordinates have attested to 
his managerial character.
    In the interest of fairness, I would like to cite just a 
few of the comments received by the committee in support of 
Secretary Bolton. Former Secretaries of State James Baker, 
Larry Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, and George 
Shultz; former Secretaries of Defense Frank Carlucci, and James 
Schlesinger; former Ambassadors Jeane Kirkpatrick and Max 
Kampelman; former National Security Advisor Richard Allen; 
former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director Kenneth 
Adelman; former Assistant Secretary of State David Abshire; and 
former Department of State Counselor Helmut Sonnenfeldt 
strongly endorsed Secretary Bolton in a letter to the 
committee, saying, and I quote, ``It is a moment when we must 
have an ambassador in place whose knowledge, experience, 
dedication, and drive will be vital to protecting the American 
interests in an effective, forward-looking United Nations. 
Secretary Bolton, like the administration, has his critics. 
Anyone as energetic and effective as John Bolton is bound to 
encounter those who disagree with some, or even all, of his 
administration 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.''
    Andrew Natsios, the current USAID administrator, and Mr. 
Peter McPherson, a former USAID administrator, along with 37 
officials who worked with John Bolton during his years at 
USAID, wrote, quote, ``We know John to be a forceful policy 
advocate who both encourages and learns from rigorous debate. 
We know him to be a man of balanced judgment. And we know him 
to have a sense of humor, even about himself. John leads from 
in front, with courage and conviction, especially positive 
qualities, we believe, for the assignment he is being asked to 
take on. He is tough, but fair. He does not abuse power or 
people. John is direct, yet thoughtful, in his communications. 
He is highly dedicated, working long hours in a never-ending 
quest to maximize performance, yet he does not place undue time 
demands on his staff, recognizing their family obligations. 
What he does demand from his staff is personal honesty and 
intellectual clarity,'' end of quote from that letter.
    Another letter, from Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and 
Dick Thornburgh, former Governors William Weld and Frank 
Keating, former Counselors to the President C. Boyden Gray and 
Arthur Culvahouse, Jr., and 39 other distinguished officials 
stated, quote, ``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 to this country and the promotion of our 
foreign-policy interests, as established by this President and 
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 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,'' end of quote from that letter.
    Another letter came from 21 former officials who worked 
with John Bolton in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of 
State for International Organizational Affairs, and states, 
quote, ``Despite what has been said and written in the last few 
weeks, John has never sought to damage the United Nations or 
its mission. Quite the contrary, under John's leadership the 
organization was properly challenged to fulfill its original 
charter. John's energy and innovation transformed IO from a 
State Department backwater into a highly appealing workplace in 
which individuals could effectively articulate and advance U.S. 
policy and their own careers, as well,'' end of quote.
    A letter also arrived from 43 of John Bolton's former 
colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute. It stated, and 
I quote, ``As we have followed the strange allegations suddenly 
leveled at Mr. Bolton in recent days, and reflected among 
ourselves on our own experiences with him, we have come to 
realize how much we have learned from him, and how deep and 
lasting were his contributions. Contrary to portrayals of his 
accusers, he combines a temperate disposition, good spirit, 
utter honesty with his well-known attributes of exceptional 
intelligence and intensity of purpose. This is a rare 
combination and, we would think, highly desirable for an 
American Ambassador to the United Nations,'' end of quote.
    Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote, in a 
recent letter to Secretary Bolton, quote, ``To combine, as you 
do, clarity of thought, courtesy of expression, and an 
unshakeable commitment to justice is rare in any walk of life, 
but it's particularly so in international affairs. A capacity 
for straight-talking, rather than peddling half-truths, is a 
strength, and not a disadvantage, in diplomacy. Particularly in 
the case of a great power like America, it is essential that 
people know where you stand and assume that you mean what you 
say. With you at the U.N., they will do both. These same 
qualities are also required for any serious reform at the 
United Nations, itself, without which cooperation between 
nations to defend and extend liberty will be far more 
difficult,'' end of quote from Mrs. Thatcher.
    Now, during this inquiry, we have spent a great deal of 
time scrutinizing individual conversations and incidents that 
happened several years ago. Regardless of how each Senator 
plans to vote today, we should not lose sight of the larger 
national-security issues--U.N. reform and international 
diplomacy--that are central to this nomination.
    The President has tasked Secretary Bolton to undertake this 
urgent mission. Secretary Bolton has affirmed his commitment to 
fostering a strong United Nations. He has expressed his intent 
to work hard to secure greater international support at the 
U.N. for the national-security and foreign-policy objectives of 
the United States. He has stated his belief in decisive 
American leadership at the U.N., and underscored that an 
effective United Nations is very much in the interest of U.S. 
national security.
    I believe that the President deserves to have his nominee 
represent him at the United Nations. I am hopeful that we will 
vote to report this nomination to the whole Senate.
    At this time, I would like to yield to--the first 
Republican segment--to Senator Voinovich for his comments.
    Senator Voinovich.

 STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

    Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, let me take this opportunity to thank you and your 
staff for your graciousness and hard work on this nomination. 
You have made strong arguments in favor of the nominee 
throughout this process. Additionally, thank you for providing 
all of the members of this committee with timely information 
related to Mr. Bolton. I believe that the inquiry has been fair 
and exhaustive. I'm confident that I have enough information to 
cast my vote today. Again, I appreciate your staff's hard work, 
as well as the administration's efforts.
    Since our last meeting on this subject, I have pored over 
hundreds of pages of testimony, have spoken to dozens, or so, 
of individuals regarding their experiences, interactions, and 
thoughts about John Bolton. Most importantly, in addition to 
the meeting that I had with Mr. Bolton prior to the official 
business meeting that we had on his nomination, I, once again, 
met with Mr. Bolton this week, personally, to share my concerns 
and to listen carefully to his thoughts.
    After great thought and consideration, I have based my 
decision on what I think is the bigger picture. Frankly, there 
is a particular concern that I have about this nomination, and 
it involves the big picture of U.S. public diplomacy.
    It was not long ago when America's love of freedom was a 
force of inspiration to the world, and America was admired for 
its democracy, generosity, and its willingness to help others 
in need of protection. Today, the United States is criticized 
for what the world calls arrogance, unilateralism, and for 
failing to listen and to seek the support of its friends and 
allies. There has been a drastic change in the attitude of our 
friends and allies in such organizations as the United Nations 
and NATO and in the countries of leaders that we need to rely 
upon for help. I discovered this last November, when I met--
when I was in London with people in the Parliament there--I 
found that to be the case when we visited the NATO meeting in 
Italy--that things have really changed in the last several 
years.
    It troubled me deeply that the United States is perceived 
this way in a world community, because the United States will 
face a steeper challenge in achieving its objectives without 
their support. We will face more difficulties in conducting the 
war on terrorism, promoting peace and stability worldwide, and 
building democracies without the help from our friends to share 
the responsibilities, leadership, and costs.
    To achieve these objectives, public diplomacy must once 
again be of high importance. If we cannot win over the hearts 
and minds of the world community, and work together as a team, 
our goals will be more difficult to achieve. Additionally, we 
will be unable to reduce the burden on our own resources. The 
most important of these resources are the human resources, the 
lives of the men and women of our Armed Forces who are leaving 
their families every day to serve their country overseas.
    Just this last Tuesday, we passed an $82 billion 
supplemental bill for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
It is clear that the costs of this war are rising all the time, 
and they are not expected to go down anytime soon. There are 
not many allies standing up to join us in bearing the costs of 
these wars, particularly Iraq. We need the help of other 
countries to share the financial burden that is adding to our 
national debt, and the human-resource burden that our Armed 
Forces, national guardsman, and contractors are bearing so 
heavily now, including the deaths of over 1500 American service 
men and women.
    And the key to this, I believe, is public diplomacy. Mr. 
Chairman, I applaud the President and Secretary of State for 
understanding that public diplomacy is an important objective 
and beginning this new term with an emphasis on repairing 
relationships. I applaud the President and Secretary Rice for 
reaching out to our friends in the world community and 
articulating that the United States does respect international 
law and protocol. And I also applaud the President's decision 
to appoint Karen Hughes to help take the lead in this effort.
    Though the United States may have differences with our 
friends at times, and though we may need to be firm with our 
positions, it is important to send the message that we're 
willing to sit down, talk about them, discuss our reasoning, 
and to work for solutions.
    The work of the President and Secretary of State Rice is a 
move in the right direction, but what message are we sending to 
the world community when, in the same breath, we have sought to 
appoint an Ambassador to the United Nations who, himself, has 
been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his 
friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not 
have the ability to properly defend themselves? These are the 
very characteristics that we're trying to dispel in the world 
community.
    We must understand that, next to the President, the Vice 
President, Secretary of State, the next most important 
prominent public diplomat is our Ambassador to the United 
Nations. It is my concern that the confirmation of John Bolton 
would send a contradictory and negative message to the world 
community about U.S. intentions. I'm afraid that his 
confirmation will tell the world that we're not dedicated to 
repairing our relationship or working as a team, but that we 
believe only someone with sharp elbows can deal properly with 
the international community.
    I want to make it clear that I do believe that the U.N. 
needs to be reformed if it's to be relevant in the 21st 
century. I do believe we need to pursue its transformation 
aggressively, sending the strong message that corruption's not 
going to 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 goals of its members. This 
must never happen again, and severe reforms are needed to 
strengthen the organization. And, yes, I believe that it will 
be necessary to take a firm position so we can succeed. But it 
will take a special individual to succeed at this endeavor, and 
I have great concerns with the current nominee and his ability 
to get the job done.
    And to those who say a vote against John Bolton is against 
reform of the U.N., I say, nonsense. There are many other 
people who are qualified to go to the United Nations that can 
get the job done for our country.
    Frankly, I'm concerned that Mr. Bolton would make it more 
difficult for us to achieve the badly needed reforms to this 
outdated institution. I believe that there could even be more 
obstacles to reform if Mr. Bolton is sent to the United Nations 
than if he were another candidate.
    Those in the international community who do not want to see 
the U.N. reformed will act as a roadblock, and I fear that Mr. 
Bolton's reputation will make it easier for them to succeed. I 
believe that some member nations in the U.N. will use Mr. 
Bolton as part of their agenda to further question the 
integrity and credibility of the United States, and to 
reinforce their negative U.S. propaganda--and there's a lot of 
it out there today.
    Another reason I believe Mr. Bolton is not the best 
candidate for the job is his tendency to act without regard for 
the views of others, and without respect for the chain of 
command. We have heard that Mr. Bolton has a reputation for 
straying off message on occasion. Ambassador Hubbard testified 
that the tone of Mr. Bolton's speech on North Korea hurt, 
rather than helped, efforts to achieve the President's 
objectives. According to several respectable sources, Mr. 
Bolton strayed off message too often, and had to be called on 
the carpet quite often to be reprimanded. In fairness, those 
sources said that, once reprimanded, Mr. Bolton got back on 
track, but that he needs to be kept on a short leash.
    However, this leaves me a very uneasy feeling. Who is to 
say that Mr. Bolton will not continue to stray off message as 
Ambassador to the U.N.? Who is to say he will not hurt, rather 
than help, U.S. relations with the international community and 
our desire to reform the U.N.?
    When discussing all these concerns with Secretary Rice--
John Bolton's propensity to get off message, his lack of 
interpersonal skills, his tendency to abuse others who disagree 
with him--I was informed by the Secretary of State that she 
understood all these things, and, in spite of them, still feels 
that John Bolton is the best choice, and that she would be in 
frequent communication with him, and he would be closely 
supervised. My private thought at the time, and I should have 
expressed it to her, is, Why in the world would you want to 
send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?
    I'm also concerned about Mr. Bolton's interpersonal skills. 
Mr. Chairman, I understand there will be several vacant senior 
posts on the staff when Mr. Bolton arrives in his new position. 
As a matter of fact, I understand all the senior people, five 
of them, they're leaving right now. For example, Ann Patterson, 
who is highly regarded, is moving to another position. And I've 
been told by several people that, if he gets there, to be 
successful he's going to need somebody like Ann Patterson to 
get the job done for him.
    As such, Mr. Bolton's going to face a challenge. These 
people are gone right now. He's going to have to find some new 
ones. But his challenge right now is to inspire, lead, and 
manage a new team, a staff of 150 individuals that he will need 
to rely on to get the job done.
    We have all witnessed the testimony and observations 
related to Mr. Bolton's interpersonal and management skills. I 
have concerns about Mr. Bolton's ability to inspire and lead 
the team so that it can be as effective as possible in 
completing the important task before him. And I'm not the only 
one. I understand that 59 U.S. diplomats, who served under 
administrations from both sides of the aisle, sent a letter to 
the committee, saying that Mr. Bolton is the wrong man for the 
job.
    I want to note that the interview given by Colin Powell's 
chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, has said that Mr. 
Bolton would be--would make an abysmal ambassador, that he is, 
quote, ``incapable of listening to people and taking into 
account their views.''
    I would also like to highlight the words of another person 
that I highly respect, who worked with Mr. Bolton, who told me 
that if Mr. Bolton were confirmed, he'd be okay for a short 
time, but, within 6 months his poor interpersonal skills and 
lack of self-discipline would cause major problems.
    Additionally, I wanted to note my concern that Colin 
Powell, the person to whom Mr. Bolton answered to over the last 
four years, was conspicuously absent from a letter signed by 
former Secretaries of State recommending Mr. Bolton's 
confirmation. He's the one that had to deal with him on a day-
to-day basis. He's the one that's more capable of commenting 
about whether or not he's got the ability to get the job done. 
And he--his name was not on that letter.
    We are facing an era of foreign relations in which the 
choice for our Ambassador to the United Nations should be one 
of the most thoughtful decisions we make. The candidate needs 
to be both a diplomat and a manager. A manager is important. 
Interpersonal skills are important. The way you treat other 
people--Do you treat them with dignity and respect?--very 
important. You must have the ability to persuade and to inspire 
our friends, to communicate and convince, to listen, to absorb 
the ideas of others. Without such virtues, we will face more 
challenges in our efforts to win the war on terrorism, to 
spread democracy, and to foster stability globally.
    The question is, Is John Bolton the best person for the 
job? The administration has said they believe he's the right 
man. They say that, despite his interpersonal shortcomings, he 
knows the U.N., and he can reform the organization and make it 
more powerful and relevant to the world.
    Now, let me say, there's no doubt that John Bolton should 
be commended and thanked for his service and his particular 
achievements. He has accomplished an important objective, 
against great odds. As a sponsor of legislation that 
established an Office on Global Anti-Semitism in the State 
Department, legislation that I worked very hard to get passed, 
I am particularly impressed by his work to combat global anti-
Semitism. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Bolton that we must 
get the U.N. to change its anti-Israeli bias. Further, I am 
impressed by Mr. Bolton's achievements in the areas of arms 
control; specifically, the Moscow Treaty, the G8 Global 
Partnership Fund, and the President's Proliferation Security 
Initiative.
    Despite these successes, there is no doubt that Mr. Bolton 
has serious deficiencies in the areas that are critical to be a 
good ambassador. As Carl Ford said, ``He is a kiss-up and kick-
down leader, who will not tolerate those who disagree with him, 
and who goes out of his way to retaliate for their 
disagreement.'' As Ambassador Hubbard said, ``He does not 
listen when an esteemed colleague offers or suggests changes to 
temper language in a speech.'' And, as I've already mentioned, 
former Secretary of State Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence 
Wilkerson, said, ``He would be an abysmal ambassador.''
    As some others who have worked closely with Mr. Bolton 
stated, ``He's an ideologue, and fosters an atmosphere of 
intimidation. He does not tolerate disagreement. He does not 
tolerate dissent.'' Another esteemed individual who has worked 
with Mr. Bolton told me that, ``Even when he had success, he 
had the tendency to lord if over and say, `Hey, boy, look what 
I did.' '' Carl Ford testified that he had never seen anyone 
behave as badly in all his days at the State Department, and 
that he would not even have testified before this committee if 
John Bolton had simply followed protocol and simple rules of 
management. You know, just followed the procedure.
    Mr. Chairman, I have to say that, after poring over the 
hundreds of pages of testimony--and, you know, I wasn't here 
for those hearings, but I did my penance; I read all of it----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Voinovich  [continuing]. I believe that John Bolton 
would have been fired--fired--if he had worked for a major 
corporation. This is not the behavior of a true leader, who 
upholds the kind of democracy that President Bush is seeking to 
promote, globally. This is not the behavior that should be 
endorsed as the face of the United States to the world 
community in the United Nations. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is my 
opinion that John Bolton is the poster-child of what someone in 
the diplomatic corps should not be. I worry about the signal 
that we're sending to thousands of individuals, under the State 
Department, who are serving their country in Foreign Service 
and Civil Service, living at posts across the world, and, in 
some cases, risking their lives, all so they can represent our 
country, promote diplomacy, and contribute to the safety of 
Americans everywhere.
    I just returned from a trip to the Balkans. I had a chance 
to spend four days with people from the State Department. He's 
not what they consider to be the ideal person, Mr. Chairman, to 
be our Ambassador to the United States--or to the United 
Nations. And I think it's important that we think about the 
signal that we send out there to those people that are all over 
this world, that are doing the very best job that they can to 
represent the United States of America. This is an important 
nomination by the President. What we're saying to these people, 
when we confirm such an individual to one of the highest 
positions--what are we saying?
    I want to emphasize that I've weighed Mr. Bolton's 
strengths carefully. I have weighed the fact that this is the 
President's nominee. All things being equal, it is my 
proclivity to support the President's nominee. However, in this 
case, all things are not equal. It's a different world today 
than it was four years ago. Our enemies are Muslim extremists 
and religious fanatics who have hijacked the Koran and have 
convinced people that the way to get to heaven is through jihad 
against the world, particularly the United States. We must 
recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most 
important tools is public diplomacy.
    After hours of deliberations, telephone calls, personal 
conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts, and 
asking for guidance from above, I have come to the 
determination that the United States can do better than John 
Bolton. The world needs an ambassador who's interested in 
encouraging other people's points of view and discouraging any 
atmosphere of intimidation. The world needs an American 
Ambassador to the U.N. who will show that the United States has 
respect for other countries and intermediary organizations, 
that we are team players and consensus builders, and promoters 
of symbiotic relationships.
    In moving forward with the international community, we 
should remember the words of the great Scot poet, who said, 
``Oh, that some great power would give me the wisdom to see 
myself as other people see me.''
    That being said, Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to 
think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the 
U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my 
colleagues. We owe it to the President to give Mr. Bolton and 
up or down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. My hope is 
that, on a bipartisan basis, we can sent Mr. Bolton's 
nomination to the floor without recommendation, and let the 
Senate work its will.
    If that goes to the floor, I would plead to my colleagues 
in the Senate to consider the decision and its consequences 
carefully, to read all the pertinent material--so often we get 
nominees, and we don't spend the time to look into the 
background of the individuals--and to ask themselves several 
questions:
    Will John Bolton do the best job possible representing a 
transatlantic face of America at the U.N.?
    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 
decision?
    Is he capable of advancing the President and 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 his team to victory?
    Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and 
strengthen relationships, promote peace, uphold democracy as a 
team with our fellow nations?
    Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this. I have met 
with Mr. Bolton on two occasions, spent almost two hours with 
him. I like Mr. Bolton. I think he's a decent man. Our 
conversations have been candid and cordial. But, Mr. Chairman, 
I really don't believe he's the best man that we can send to 
the United Nations.
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
    I now turn to the distinguished ranking member for his 
statement and disposition of an opening hour of debate.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

    Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I don't know why I thought for a moment that maybe 
Senator Voinovich shouldn't go second. I should have 
reconsidered that position. [Laughter.]
    So much for partisanship.
    Look, I don't--quite frankly, much of what I was going to 
say would be redundant and not as eloquent as what we just 
heard.
    And I have great respect for every one of my colleagues on 
this committee, on both sides of the aisle. And I do respect 
the fact that many of you may reach a conclusion different than 
I have reached and, based on what I just heard, Senator 
Voinovich has reached. I happened to reach the same 
conclusion--and I'm not being solicitous--for the same reason, 
the same basic, fundamental reason.
    I cannot think of a time in my career here where I've heard 
someone so succinctly state in one sentence what really should 
have been the question: Why would you send someone to the 
United Nations that needed to be supervised? I did ask a 
similar question, that question, to the Secretary of State, 
when she had the courtesy, which I appreciate, of calling me 
before--before--the nominee was announced. At that time, she 
asked me--and this is not violating any confidence, that--would 
I withhold stating anything publicly until I had a chance--she 
had a chance to talk with me more? And if you go back, you 
notice what you've read about what Senators said, my name does 
not appear there. I did withhold, until the day of the hearing, 
any comment--to the chagrin, I suspect, of some of my 
Democratic colleagues--my attitude and views and concerns about 
Mr. Bolton.
    I realize there is a very strong--we all are elected 
officials in the most significant legislative body, I would 
say, in the history of the world. And we all know, though, that 
each of our parties have overwhelming requirements, sometimes, 
to meet the concerns of portions of our party. That was implied 
to me as one of the reasons why Mr. Bolton was being nominated.
    The question I asked was, ``Do you know, Madam Secretary, 
how much difficulty Mr. Bolton caused for Secretary Powell, 
your predecessor?'' And the answer was, ``Yes.'' But there had 
been a discussion, and there was a need to find an important 
post for Mr. Bolton, who's been an admirable and bright and 
patriotic servant of this country for a long time. And I asked 
a rhetorical question, ``If you couldn't say no now to that 
nomination, how are you going to say no if, in fact, he 
breaches the control that you indicate to me that will be 
imposed upon him?'' I don't know the answer to that, but I 
would suggest that if there is a need to appoint him for 
reasons, including and beyond his capacity, then it may be 
difficult if, in fact, he strays. But that is not for me to 
decide.
    Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked together for a long 
time. I think it's fair to say we've never had a cross, harsh 
word. And we will not, as far as I'm concerned, have one over 
this. But your opening statement makes it sort of sound that 
it's self-evident that Mr. Bolton was going to be the guy to be 
nominated to the United Nations. I would ask a rhetorical 
question. Was anyone here in the Senate when Bolton's name was 
mentioned, unless you had been briefed ahead of time? Did 
anyone of you say, ``Ah, that fits. That's just what I was 
thinking. That's just what I was thinking--U.N.--Bolton, 
U.N.''? [Laughter.]
    I'm not being facetious. I being deadly earnest. I think it 
goes to this whole question of whether or not everybody's out 
just on a witch hunt to go after Mr. Bolton. You must admit 
that this was an unusual, if not surprising, nomination. If 
someone had said Mr. Bolton was going to head up--he was going 
to be brought in--I would have been less surprised, myself, if 
he had been--if he was going to be--have the spot Mr. Hadley 
has, a more--in some senses, a much more critical spot. I would 
have been less surprised about that. But it's a little bit like 
if one of us announced we're going go back and run for the 
state legislature. It would kind of surprise me. It wouldn't 
fit.
    I want to make a second point. We did not seek out any 
witnesses. I don't know whether you meant to imply, Mr. 
Chairman, but it sounded--it might sound to some like the 
Democrats are out there trying to dig up all they can on 
Bolton. I had nothing to do, nor did any of you, with what now 
is 102 former career ambassadors--Republican, Democratic; 
Republican appointees, Democratic appointees. To the best of my 
knowledge, my word as a--I know of no Democrat that had 
anything to do with getting those folks to write us a letter.
    Tom Hubbard, the Ambassador to South Korea, he contacted us 
after hearing Mr. Bolton's testimony. We did not contact Mr. 
Hubbard.
    Mr. Westermann--nobody contacted Mr. Westermann first. That 
came from Mr. Westermann in an inquiry by the Intelligence 
Committee as to whether or not anyone had been--felt 
intimidated. Mr. Westermann came forward to the Intelligence 
Committee. We found out from the Intelligence Committee. We did 
not go to Mr. Westermann.
    Ms. Townsel--and, I agree, the evidence is not absolutely 
conclusive. I agree with you. I think you honestly stated it, 
as you always do. But we didn't go to Mrs. Townsel. She wrote 
an open letter to us. I never met the woman, had never even 
heard of her before.
    So, I want to make the point that not only did we not seek 
out these witnesses, it would have been irresponsible, in terms 
of out constitutional responsibility, not to talk to them as 
they came forward, or seek our corroboration and/or 
contradictory statements relative to what they had to say.
    And I might point out, the primary witnesses that we 
interviewed, who had the most incredibly damaging things to--
let me rephrase that--who had some very damaging things to say 
about Mr. Bolton's actions, are all in a Republican 
administration. We did not go to a former administration. We 
did not go to the Clinton administration to find former 
assistant secretaries or heads of NIR--or INR. These are all 
Republicans; if not Republicans, appointees and/or serving 
under a Republican administration.
    And, further, the argument that we need John Bolton for 
reform at the U.N., and comparing him to Pat Moynihan--I'm 
reminded of that famous phrase of our friend from Texas, 
Senator Bentsen, ``I knew Pat Moynihan, and he's--and I know 
John Bolton--and he's no Pat Moynihan.'' I mean, I find that 
the biggest stretch--you know that old phrase we Irish say, 
``Pat's probably rolling over in his grave hearing that 
comparison.''
    And so, we're not saying--one last point before I get into 
the detail--we're not saying Mr. Bolton is not a patriotic 
American, has not done very good things in his career, has been 
a failure. We're not saying that. What we're saying is, he's 
done some very good things. One that comes to mind, referenced 
by our colleague from Ohio, the anti-Zionist resolution, 
getting it repealed. That's a big deal. That's a big deal, a 
notable accomplishment. But that does not a U.N. Ambassador 
make. A lot of people have done very good things who turn out 
not to be qualified or the right person for other assignments.
    Mr. Chairman, my intention, obviously, is not to keep our 
committee vote beyond the 3 p.m. agreement we have decided on, 
but I feel obliged to lay out for the record one of my 
institutional concerns here.
    I recognize that the State Department, the CIA, and AID 
have provided hundreds of pages of documents, and declassified 
many of them. I don't minimize that. State and CIA have made 
government officials available for int