Mr. REID.
Mr. President, from the outset of the debate on John Bolton's nomination, Senate Democrats have had a clear and consistent position. If the administration works in good faith to give the Senate the information it deserves, the Senate Democrats are ready to immediately give this nomination an up-or-down vote. We said this as far back as April, and it remains our position today. Despite the administration's refusal to turn over any of the requested information during this time period, Senator Frist told me yesterday he was inclined to seek another vote on the Bolton nomination. While the majority leader is certainly within his rights to do this, unless the administration changes course before this vote is held, the outcome will be exactly the same as it was last month and may even have less support than it did before.
Here is why: The history and precedent in the Senate makes it clear the Senate has a right to information that bears directly on the fitness of a political nominee to serve. Virtually every other administration has recognized the Senate's rights and provided the needed information--every administration, that is, except this one. Many colleagues on the majority have stood for the Senate's right to get information from the executive branch in the past. We have many statements on record to that effect. These colleagues have made it clear, with their words and deeds, that it was perfectly legitimate for the Senate to withhold action on an executive nominee until the executive branch provided certain information, even if the information requested had nothing to do with the nominee in question.
In this instance, we are seeking information that bears directly on the fitness of John Bolton to serve as our representative to the United Nations. We are not engaging in any fishing expedition. We are seeking clearly defined documents and information about two very important issues:
No. 1, did Bolton attempt to exaggerate what Congress would be told about Syria's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities? Remember, we have some experience in weapons of mass destruction information being altered and manipulated.
No. 2, did Bolton use and perhaps misuse highly classified intelligence intercepts to spy on bureaucratic rivals who disagreed with his views or for other inappropriate purposes?
These are two very direct, simple issues that bear on this man's capability and fitness to serve in the United Nations.
The administration's position on these requests has been that political appointees are qualified to see this information but that Senators elected by the American people are not. I believe this is unacceptable.
During this impasse, Senate Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated our good faith to break the current impasse and give Mr. Bolton a vote. Yesterday, I heard some of my Republican colleagues assert that Democrats have been shifting the goalpost on resolving this issue, and they are absolutely right, we have. Instead of having a 100-yard football field, now we have made it only 60 yards. We have moved in their direction. Just last week, Senators Biden, ranking member of Foreign Relations and, of course, Senator Dodd, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, made another effort to resolve the impasse over the Bolton nomination. Everyone in the Senate and outside this body should understand that this offer moves significantly away from our initial request in a sincere effort to resolve the situation. Everyone should also understand that, unfortunately, this latest effort to reach an accommodation with the White House has apparently met the same fate as previous efforts to work things out--silence from the administration.
Even yesterday, the ranking member of the Finance Committee--I should say the vice chair Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, which is the proper title--offered his assistance, to break the impasse. He sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to that effect.
We have said publicly, if this administration, similar to every other administration, respects the requests of the Senate, we will immediately move to grant Bolton an up-or-down vote. I stand by that pledge today. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize we are following their precedent with our actions today. I hope this administration brings an end to its pattern of abusing its powers and treats this coequal branch of Government with the respect it deserves.
Mr. ROBERTS.
Mr. President, I rise today in an attempt once again to resolve an intelligence-related issue with regard to the nomination of Under Secretary John Bolton to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations. As my colleagues are probably aware, for some time I have been engaged in an effort to assist my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with some concerns they have with regard to Mr. Bolton and his request for U.S. person identities that are contained in certain intelligence reports.
The last time I came to the floor of the Senate, I spoke at length about Mr. Bolton's requests. After reviewing the actual reports and examining the process whereby he was provided the information that he sought, it was apparent to me that Mr. Bolton's requests were not only appropriate but very routine. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of the matter, and I so indicated in my response to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in a letter.
Based on statements by some of my colleagues, concerns about Mr. Bolton's requests for identities have apparently expanded to include whether the Under Secretary sought these identities to exert some form of retribution against certain Government officials. Although the Foreign Relations Committee's minority views and statements made by minority members seem to indicate that the universe of these officials, or their concerns about
GPO's PDF
these officials, is very small, it is now very clear that this universe is indeed expanding, if not exploding. In fact, in a response I received from the distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden, and Senator Dodd, we have gone from the innermost planets in our solar system of their concern to include the entire Milky Way. I have informed my colleagues that I could not support such a request because it appears to be more of an effort to preserve this issue, this stalemate, this what some people call a filibuster, than an effort to resolve it.
I also informed Senators BIDEN and DODD, however, that I could recommend a more focused request that is consistent with their public statements in their minority views. I believe that such a request could be a basis for moving this process forward, a goal I hoped we all shared to get the process moving.
In the interest of moving forward, I urged my colleagues to reconsider the scope of their request. The response quite frankly was, no, thank you. That is probably the nicest way I can put it. I believe their bottom line is now: Give us all of the names we have now put in play or no deal.
As members of the legislative branch, we have all been in the position of requesting information from the executive branch and being told no. That is not pleasant. That is not what we would like to hear from the executive branch. But we do understand--I think, I hope--that there are limits to what we can demand and expect to receive. That is just a fact of life as we negotiate the separation of powers between the two branches of Government.
My colleagues know full well that an absolutist will inevitably lead to a stalemate, and that is what has happened. That is why we tried to work in good faith to address our concerns while recognizing each branch's responsibility and their prerogatives.
In my experience, a middle ground is usually achievable. It may take time, but usually we can achieve it. In this case, I believe the administration was willing to meet my colleagues halfway. In other words, if they would provide a reasonable list of names based on actual findings by the committee, perhaps they could be assured that those names were not contained in the reports and their concerns would be simply allayed, while at the same time it would permit the executive to preserve its prerogative to control the dissemination of very sensitive information.
Let me just say that signals intelligence and intercepts is in the highest compartmented criteria in regards to intelligence information. So this is very sensitive.
Once again, I think that the middle ground, unfortunately, proved very elusive. I am sympathetic to my colleagues' desire to see information they deem necessary to their consideration of Mr. Bolton's nomination. I do not believe, however, that they should be imposing their standard on the entire Senate. The last cloture vote clearly demonstrated that a clear majority believes that the Senate does possess the sufficient information to vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination, and vote we should.
With that said, I am prepared to go one step further, in one last good-faith effort, to try to alleviate the concerns expressed by my colleagues across the aisle. Because my colleagues would not share their list of names with me, I have taken what may be viewed as the somewhat unorthodox step of compiling a list of names that I believe do actually reflect the universe of individuals who fall within the parameters set by my colleagues' public statements and their minority views.
I am not doing this with temerity. I am trying to make a good-faith effort, and I hope people appreciate my intent in the doing of this. I want my colleagues to know that I have done this in a sincere effort to move this process forward. I do not in any way wish to substitute my judgment for my colleagues', but I do hope we can reach some sort of an accommodation. So I have submitted my list of names to the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and he has assured me that none of them are among the names requested by Under Secretary Bolton .
The names I submitted included Carl Ford, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, his name is not in the intercepts; Christian Westermann of the INR, State Department intelligence branch, not in the intercepts; the individual known as Mr. Smith, not in the intercepts; Rexon Ryu, State Department official, not in the intercepts; Charles L. Pritchard, special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, not in the intercepts.
There were two other individuals referenced in the minority views whose names have not been made public, and I will not do so now. However, I did submit their names, and they were not in the intercepts. I am more than willing to share the two names with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, but I will not discuss them publicly.
Finally, the Foreign Relations Committee's minority views also referenced two other unnamed individuals. I understand, however, that the committee itself is not aware of who these people are, and therefore it is highly unlikely that those names would be part of anybody's list. They were certainly not on mine.
I strongly believe this compromise represents the best middle ground and should more than satisfy the concerns of my colleagues. These are the names that were mentioned in the minority views. These are the names that were mentioned in regard to the people who were interviewed. These are the names that have been referred to in the press and the media over and over again. That is what this universe is about.
I am very hopeful that this should more than satisfy the concerns of my colleagues, unless, of course, they are not interested in being satisfied, and if that is the case, there is really nothing further anybody can do to move this process forward.
I believe it is high time that we vote on this nomination, up or down, whichever way the chips fall. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take the next step, whether they are in favor of Mr. Bolton's nomination or not, whether they are for him or they are opposed. We have made some strides recently, it seems to me, in moving nominations to a vote. It seems to me we should continue that trend with Mr. Bolton's nomination and get on with the business of the Senate.
I hope I have been helpful. I hope people do not take my actions in the wrong way. I am acting in good faith in the very best way I know how to reach a compromise to alleviate the concerns of my friends across the aisle. I hope that has been the case in regards to my remarks this evening.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
