Floor Statements

Madam President, one of the things I remember that my father taught me--and it has stood me in good stead, though I have not always followed the advice--is to have strong convictions but always to deal in moderation and be reasonable in your approach, to listen to other people and try to be responsible in what you say. In all things, moderation would have applied to the advice he gave me frequently. Again, not to say one should not have strong views, but you can be more effective in communicating those views if you treat people decently, if you listen to what they have to say, and if you express your own views with a degree of humility and moderation. That is something that, sad to say, even in my relatively short time in the Congress, I have seen adhered to, sadly, less and less.

Certainly, the Senator from West Virginia sets a standard for all of us in the way that he treats this body, the revere he has for the institution and, therefore, the care he takes to deal in this body in an appropriate and responsible way, in the great tradition of the body.

I mention that because the coarsening of our language, I suppose, can be expected to be manifested first in the political environment. It certainly has occurred with increasing intensity over the years, though, not just in political campaigns but even on the floor of the Senate and engaged in by colleagues in the Congress as well as pundits and others.

Strong subjects sometimes evoke strong emotions, and perhaps that explains why some of the rhetoric surrounding the discussion of our detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay has reached such a high-pitched level, to such a high degree of hyperbole and exaggeration--I daresay, in some cases, irresponsible characterizations.

If this were simply a matter of political rhetoric and partisan politics, I suppose that in some senses it could be excused, though it is not helpful. But here the consequences of such language, this over- the-top kind of rhetoric, can actually be detrimental to the effort of the United States that all of us support--certainly to the people we put in harm's way, our men and women in the military, and the other services that are helping us to fight the war on terror.

This is why it distresses me to hear the characterizations of American activities and Americans as being equated with some of the worst actors in the history of mankind--phrases thrown around, apparently, somewhat thoughtlessly, without due regard for the consequences, when enemies of the United States seize on the flimsiest of things to take to the streets and riot and kill each other.

The unfortunate reporting of Newsweek Magazine--which turned out not to be true--regarding desecration of the Holy Koran caused Muslims in the world--thousands and thousands--to riot and cause harm to each other. I believe there were at least three deaths that resulted, if I am not mistaken. Words have consequences, and when Americans speak in irresponsible terms about the actions of Americans who are simply trying to do their best in trying circumstances, in ways that denigrate their motives, denigrate their actions, and that call into question the entire character of America, because of these actions, it is irresponsible. And it should not be engaged in, especially it should not be countenanced by Members of this body or the Congress, certainly not engaged in by leaders in this body. Yet, sad to say, we all have heard in the last few days this kind of language.

I will get back to that in a moment. Let me go back and try to provide some perspective about this entire debate about Guantanamo Bay.

Guantanamo Bay is a place where the United States Government has had a lease from the Cuban Government for a long time and spent about $150 million to build a prison facility to house many of the people who had been detained in the war on terrorism, primarily people who were on the battlefield in Afghanistan, there being no facilities adequate in Afghanistan.

It is a place that was designed to be able to accommodate people of different cultures. It is significantly managed by Americans who have a significant degree of medical background and training in the culture of Islam in order to ensure that the people there are treated as humanely as possible under the circumstances and with due regard for not only their human rights but their faith as well.

This country need apologize to no one in the way that over the years we have tried to adhere to human rights standards and treat people of faith appropriately. Certainly the stories--and I say ``stories'' because in most cases, they are mere allegations that are untrue--of treatment of people at Guantanamo Bay have raised the interest of Americans because we are a people who instinctively pull back from such kind of conduct. We do not want to be even against terrorists engaged in inhumane activity. That is why these stories have such resonance.

Yet this facility, which takes care of these people in some respects even better than the troops there--in terms of the sleeping quarters, meals, and so on--this facility is as good, I think, as any prisoner of war facility in recent memory and certainly with the attention of the media, the International Red Cross, visits by American officials--there have been thousands of visits. It is a very wide open facility in that sense.

With all of this attention, I think the very small number of specific complaints that have been investigated and found to have any merit at all--something like five in number--is a testament to the commitment of the United States to adhere to standards of decency and humanity when dealing with people.

Who are these people? These are the worst of the worst. We do not have the time or the ability to round up people and hold them for the sake of it. It is too costly. Over 10,000 people have been captured in this war against the terrorists. Something like 520 are at Guantanamo Bay. These are the people who are the bombmakers, the bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, the financiers, the plotters, the people who have been sent out to be assassins, to be suicide bombers. These are the worst of the worst, the killers who, if let go, will return to their killing.

Since the detentions at Guantanamo Bay, the United States Supreme Court has said there is one right that these detainees have, and that is a right to have their status determined, even through a habeas corpus petition, which in the United States means a right to have questioned the appropriateness of your being detained. The Supreme Court did not hold they have a right to a trial, that they have a right to be charged with anything, that they have a right to a particular kind of legal proceeding. Simply, they have a right to have their status reviewed by an appropriate tribunal.

And since then, their status has been reviewed, every one of them. There is a process by which it is reviewed annually to determine whether they not only are still appropriately held, but whether they need to be held, whether they pose a threat.

In this period of time, a dozen of these detainees--many were released, something like 200, as I recall--a dozen have already been recaptured on the battlefield. They went right back to killing Americans.

This is why prisoners of war are detained when captured, and it has thus been throughout modern history. In World War II, for example, we have all seen the movies and read about the internment camps of Germans and Japanese and, of course, the way Americans were held as POWs as well. With the rare exception of the people at the very top of the Nazi Government and a few of the Nazi generals, the German POWs were not charged with crimes or tried for those crimes. They were simply held in these camps until the end of the war.

A couple of these camps were in Arizona. I know an Arizona physician who went through one of these camps, I believe in Nebraska. When he got out, he decided he liked America a whole lot and became a renowned physician in Phoenix. These were places that people were held until the end of the war so they could not go back to fighting against Americans. That is precisely the primary purpose of Guantanamo Bay.

For the worst of the worst, the people we do not want to go back fighting against us or committing terror against anyone else, we have to have a place to detain them.

I must say, in a debate with the senior Senator from Vermont last night on television--and he and I disagreed generally about this issue--he acknowledged this is not about Guantanamo Bay. As he said, we have to have a place to hold these people, and I agree with that proposition. Some have even suggested we close this brand-new facility. If you close it, where are you going to put them? Would you like to take one of the military bases that is being closed in your State and make it available for these detainees? Maybe that is the place to detain them. I do not think so.

The issue is not closing Guantanamo Bay. I think it is, frankly, criticism of the American Government and leaders of the American Government. Some people do it for partisan political purposes. Others do it, to bring down certain people. Others, frankly, have a disregard for this country and are quick to criticize almost anything we do.

But look at some of the specific charges. One of them is these people are being held in limbo. They are not being held in limbo any more than any other prisoner of war or enemy combatant has been held in the past. They are being held until the conflict is over so they do not go back to fighting us again.

Then they demand to know of the general and admiral who were before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday when we held a hearing on this: Well, how long are they going to be detained? We demand to know. We do not know how long the war is going to last, Senator. I demand to know. Will it be forever? What if the war lasts for forever, will they be detained forever?

These are pretty silly questions, if you ask me. We do not want to detain these people. We would like not to have to do it. We would like to bring the war to a close, but until it is safe to release them, they are not going to be released, not unless we are going to jeopardize the service people and others who are subject to terrorism. So let's get back to reason and solid logic here.

Another question is, Why are we treating these people possibly a little bit differently than other prisoners of wars have been treated? The answer is they are not prisoners of war. That does not mean we do not treat them humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

That is another charge, that we violated the Geneva Conventions. No, we have not. No, we have not. The United States adheres to the Geneva Conventions, and we have not violated them, and we do not intend to. Enemy combatants are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva accords to which prisoners of war are entitled.

The reason for the Geneva accords for the POWs is we want to reward people who adhere to the laws of war. What does that mean? They fight for a country, they wear the uniform of that country, they adhere themselves to the rules of war. In the case of terrorists, that does not apply. They do not fight for a country, they fight for a cause. They do not wear a uniform. They do not fight by the rules of war. They kill innocent people indiscriminately. That is their modus operandi. That is their preferred action.

That is why they are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war. So we would not have to accord them any standards of treatment except that we are the United States of America and we say, and the President has said and Secretary Rumsfeld and everyone else in the Government has said, for the United States of America it is inappropriate to do anything less than treat people humanely, and we will not violate the Geneva accords.

So even though they are not entitled to all of the rights of prisoners of war, there are standards of treatment that have been established and have been adhered to. In the few situations in which there is an allegation that maybe those standards might have been violated in some small way, the people have been held responsible who have violated the standards. I think there have been five cases of dealing inappropriately with the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, not having both hands on it at once or not having a white glove when dealing with a prisoner. It is that kind of violation.

This kind of thing has been compared by some to Pol Pot and Nazi Germany and the Soviet gulag and the human rights abuses that the United Nations complains about each year. These comparisons are not apt. They are not responsible. They are not appropriate. They do not even begin to appropriately describe the kind of conduct that our people have engaged in and the crimes against humanity that were referred to. To even think of them in the same sense is unthinkable.

What about the question about charging them? There is a suggestion they should either be charged or released. Well, this is not a fishing contest. This is not catch and release. This is serious. This is war. When somebody is trying to kill you and you can detain them, you do it. The alternative is, obviously, you kill them. But hopefully you do not have to kill them; you can detain them, and you can put them in a place that, until the end of the war, is safe for them and safe for you.

For those who have committed war crimes, we have the option of charging them with such crimes, and there is a special tribunal set up to try them for those crimes, and they can be tried. Now, there are cases in the courts of appeal right now that are helping to define the parameters of those trials and until that is very clear those will not proceed, but that is the way we will deal with those cases.

So for those that can be tried, obviously we will do that, but that is a very small percentage. There is no point in charging prisoners of war or enemy combatants with anything because the whole point of their being held is to prevent them from going back to war against you.

The final purpose for this detention is intelligence gathering. We have found that human intelligence is the best intelligence and that the highest percentage of human intelligence is the interrogation that has occurred here and elsewhere that has led us to learn a lot about the techniques of the terrorists, their plans, the names of others, and other important information that has helped us save lives. So the point of this detention is to save lives, to keep people from killing us, and to get information that will help us to prevent future killing. That is an appropriate purpose of Guantanamo.

So when people use irresponsible language, when they seem to leap to conclude that the United States must have done wrong simply because a lawyer or some group or a prisoner has alleged abuse--and by the way, remember that the al-Qaida training includes a manual instruction on how to allege that they are being abused as a prisoner, as a detainee. They are supposed to allege abuse, and they do. So let us not jump to the conclusion that any al-Qaida terrorist who alleges abuse at Guantanamo Bay must be right and all of the Americans, from the President on down, must be wrong. I like to put my chances on Americans trying to do the right thing. We will make mistakes, but we will try to correct those mistakes and punish those responsible. In the meantime, I think the benefit of the doubt goes to those people whom we have given a very hard job to do.

To get back to my original point, the use of irresponsible language, irresponsible charges, has consequences. It can hurt those people that we put in harm's way by turning international public opinion against the United States. When responsible American officials make irresponsible charges, all the world listens. When they listen, sometimes they react very badly. It does our cause no good when--as some of my colleagues have said, this is all about winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. There is a great deal of truth in that. It does no good in that battle to denigrate our own actions in a way that is calculated to or one must know will inflame the passions of terrorists and others around the world that support the terrorists. It does no good to this ultimate goal of winning hearts and minds to unduly criticize America, Americans and American leaders for actions that are nothing more than what any Nation has the right to do when it captures people who have been engaged in combat or terrorism against it.

I urge my colleagues to keep this issue in perspective, to understand the reason we detain people, to understand the impact of irresponsible language, to tone down the rhetoric, understand that the President and all acting on his behalf are trying their very best to do what we want them to do, and at the end of the day, this is all about winning the war on terror, saving American lives and moving on to a more peaceful world.

Madam. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the following account of the history of the Hawaiian monarchy be printed in the Record following my present remarks.

This history is in the appendix to ``Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand,'' an analysis of the 1993 apology resolution and S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, that was prepared by constitutional scholar Bruce Fein. I previously have introduced earlier parts of that analysis into the Record--this is the third and final instalment.

The appendix to Mr. Fein's analysis carefully explains the nature of the Hawaiian monarchy, its evolution toward constitutional democracy, the attempt by the last monarch to undercut those reforms and compromise the judiciary, and the actors involved in stopping that monarch and establishing a democratic republic. This account is a useful antidote to the tendentious blame-America narrative provided in the 1993 apology resolution. The truth is much more nuanced than the resolution's ``Whites vs. Natives'' account. The real story is about a multiracial constitutional monarchy slowly evolving toward democratic norms and equal rights--a process whose final step was the admission of Hawaii as a State in the Union. That step was approved in 1959 by 94 percent of Hawaii's voters--large majorities of non-Natives and Natives alike.

The Native Hawaiian Government Act would undo that step--Hawaii's admission to the Union as a unified people and State. Indeed, it would even undo the progress made under the Kamehameha monarchy. That constitutional monarchy was not a monoracial institution. It included Hawaiians of all races. This bill would create, for the first time in Hawaii since the early 19th century, a government of one race only. This is not progress.

I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Fein's history, and to ask themselves why we would want to undo the achievements of past generations of Hawaiians by enacting S. 147 and creating a race-based government in Hawaii.

Exhibit 1

[From the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Jun. 1, 2005]

Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

(By Bruce Fein)

Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the following analysis of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, prepared by constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, be entered into the Record following my present remarks.

Mr. Fein's analysis of the act builds on his analysis of the 1993 apology resolution, which was printed in the Record yesterday. Mr. Fein's present analysis ably demonstrates why the Native Hawaiian Government Act is at war with the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of rights and its limits on governmental power. The bill is particularly offensive to the fundamental principle of equal protection of the laws. I commend Mr. Fein's analysis of the act to my colleagues.

Mr. President, I congratulate Miriam Strauss of Apache Middle School in Sierra Vista, AZ for her National History Day Project entitled, ``Franklin D. Roosevelt's Fireside Chats.'' Miriam's project, along with seven others from around the Nation, was chosen from among more than 2,000 finalists for presentation and display at the White House Visitor's Center on June 15, 2005. Her project was part of this year's National History Day theme, ``Communication: The Key to Understanding.'' The National History Day program includes half a million students in grades six through twelve in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, so the selection of Miriam's project for presentation is a

tremendous honor. I wish this budding historian the best of luck in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the following analysis of the 1993 Hawaii apology resolution, prepared by constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, be entered into the Record following my present remarks.

To be sure, I do not think that the nature of the events that led to the end of the Kamehameha monarchy is relevant to the question whether we should establish a race-based government in Hawaii today. I believe that America is a good and great Nation, and that all Americans should be proud to be a part of it. The United States does not deserve to have its government carved up along racial lines.

Nevertheless, proponents of racially separate government in Hawaii have advanced their arguments for S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, in terms of history. It is thus instructive to take a close look at that history.

[The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Jun. 1, 2005]

Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand--An Analysis of the Apology

Resolution

(By Bruce Fein)

Mr. President, it is every citizen's duty to know American history. One fact we must reckon with is that our experiment in self- government began in a compromise with the existence of slavery. As the American experiment went forward, protections granted to slavery in the Constitution--a document that never explicitly mentioned slavery--were dismantled. The cost was great: Brother fought against brother in the Civil War, largely over whether ``the peculiar institution'' would be allowed to thrive in the United States. When, at the end of that terrible conflict, the 13th amendment was put in the Constitution, slavery was abolished.

Yet while a pernicious institution was now, thankfully, illegal, its aftereffects were still felt in the former slave States. Postwar reconstruction was supposed to restore the natural and the civil rights of the former slaves and their descendents; but State and local authorities did not enforce those rights. The lynching of African Americans, and other forms of persecution, would persist into the 20th century, to the shame of every decent citizen.

Candidly facing this history is important. We must not forget the wrongs of the past--nor that we have had leaders willing to come forward and stand against those wrongs. From the Continental Congress passing the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which banned slavery in the region northwest of the Ohio River, to the words and deeds of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, brave men and women reaffirmed for all of us the principles of human equality and consent of the governed on which our Nation was founded.

Lincoln declared: ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God, cannot long retain it.''

I support Senate Resolution 39 in the name of honesty and national unity. As Senators representing Americans of all colors and creeds, we ought to give due recognition to past injustices. Even more importantly, we ought to live today by Lincoln's dictum. We must make sure our laws and our practices always reflect our belief in individual worth and equality under the law. This belief held in common is what has helped Americans--whatever their race, religion, or background--to succeed.

Mr. President, a column published recently by Lino A. Graglia in the Wall Street Journal, and another by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post, frame particularly well the debate we are having in the Senate on judicial nominations. I ask unanimous consent that these columns be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the George C. Marshall Institute will honor Dr. James Schlesinger on June 16 with its Founders Award, which is given annually in recognition of distinguished contributions to science and public policy. This year's award acknowledges Dr. Schlesinger's stellar career in public service.

James Schlesinger served three presidents as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Energy. His career has been a model of dedication to public service, and has been marked by his intelligence, integrity, and commitment to our Nation's well being. We continue to benefit from his wisdom, strength of character, and willingness to contribute when called.

Dr. Schlesinger's insight and expertise--both during and after his time in government--have been instrumental in winning key policy battles. For example, his active role in the national debate over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty aided those Senators, myself included, who argued strongly that ratifying the treaty would lead to the decline of our nuclear weapons infrastructure and would damage U.S. national security interests. There is no doubt that Dr. Schlesinger's stature and contribution were instrumental in bringing about the treaty's defeat. Since that time, I have continued to regularly consult with him on the future of our nuclear capability and other issues. Indeed, Dr. Schlesinger's advice on a broad range of key national security issues has been invaluable; I am grateful for his counsel.

The Marshall Institute should be commended for recognizing a true national treasure, Dr. James Schlesinger.

Mr. President, I understand that the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, spoke yesterday regarding the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. I look forward to the Senate acting later this year on PATRIOT Act reauthorization, but today I just want to address one aspect of the Senator's speech, his opposition to administrative subpoena power.

In his speech, the Senator argued that any reauthorization should not extend those subpoena powers to FBI terrorism investigators. He correctly noted that Intelligence Committee Chairman Roberts has held hearings about extending this authority, which is common within the Government, to FBI agents investigating terrorism. I was happy to see Chairman Roberts do this because last year I cosponsored S. 2555, the Judicially Enforceable Terrorism Subpoenas Act. On June 22, 2004, I chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security that examined this subpoena power and heard testimony regarding how the subpoenas work and how the government protects civil liberties when using them.

One of the things that struck me as I learned about administrative subpoena power was how widespread it is in our Government and how unremarkable a law enforcement tool it really is. It was for that reason that I asked the Senate Republican Policy Committee, which I chair, to examine this issue in greater detail, to study the constitutional and civil liberties questions that critics have raised, and to identify the other contexts where the Federal Government has this power. The resulting report was consistent with my previous research and the testimony that I had heard during my subcommittee hearings. We give this subpoena power to postal investigators and Small Business Administration bank loan auditors and IRS agents, and we do not have a problem with Government abuse or deprivation of civil liberties. Shouldn't we also give it to those who are charged with rooting out terrorism before it strikes our neighborhoods?

I look forward to the upcoming debate on PATRIOT Act reauthorization, and I certainly intend to support it. At the same time, I commend Chairman Roberts for his efforts and hope that we will have the opportunity to ensure that our FBI terrorism investigators are not hamstrung as they continue to work to protect our Nation.

I ask unanimous consent that this policy paper, dated September 9, 2004, be printed in the Record.

I would like to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of John Bolton to be our next ambassador to the United Nations. I have known Mr. Bolton for a long time. He is a great individual, a great representative of the United States, and, most importantly, the person the President wants to represent the United States at the United Nations. It is the responsibility of the Senate to act on his nomination because the President has requested us to do so.

Mr. Bolton has successfully championed a number of multilateral initiatives during the time he has been working for the Bush administration. He is committed to the success of the United Nations and sees it as an important component of our diplomacy and is a strong voice for U.N. reform.

I am concerned that a lot of debate has shifted to matters that have nothing to do with his qualifications and some of which attempt to assassinate his character. There is no question he

is qualified for the job. In fact, Mr. Bolton has been confirmed by this body on four separate occasions previously. Most of the Members objecting to him now have voted for him in the past. They did so based upon his substantive views, not any allegations about his conduct.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that there is opposition to President Bush's policy in different regards, and Mr. Bolton's nomination is a surrogate, in effect, for a debate about that policy. We can have a debate about the President's foreign policy, but we should not hold up the nomination of a man with the qualifications of John Bolton for a position we need to fill in the process of having that debate.

Moreover, I am concerned about some of the charges that have been made about him. One of the allegations--the Senator from Connecticut was speaking about this--has to do with some requests Mr. Bolton made which have been examined by the Intelligence Committee. Mr. Bolton's job at the State Department is to deal with this kind of information, and what the Intelligence Committee did in response to the request of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was to look into the matter. Here is the response, on May 25, just quoting two paragraphs from the letter of the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said:

After completing an examination of these issues I found no

evidence that there was anything improper about any aspect of

Mr. Bolton's requests for minimized identities of U.S.

persons. I further found no violation of procedures,

directives, regulations or law by Mr. Bolton. Moreover, I am

not aware that anyone involved in handling these requests had

any concerns regarding these requests at any point in the

process.

The chairman of the Intelligence Committee also said:

Committee staff interviewed INR analysts and NSA officials

responsible for processing requests for the identities of

U.S. persons contained in signals intelligence products. None

of the individuals interviewed indicated there was anything

improper or inappropriate about Mr. Bolton's requests. We

also were briefed by General Michael Hayden, former Director

of the NSA and the current Principal Deputy Director of

National Intelligence. He also stated that Under Secretary

Bolton's requests were not only appropriate, but routine. In

fact, INR records indicate that since May 2001, INR submitted

489 other requests for minimized identities.

Ten, by the way, had been requested by Mr. Bolton.

So what Mr. Bolton did was routine and proper. There was nothing improper about it. As the chairman of the committee noted, they found absolutely nothing that would suggest anything improper in Mr. Bolton's activities. This is all a smokescreen. There is nothing there.

The last point on this matter had to do with the fact that the Senate, it is alleged, should have access to all of these names. This has nothing to do with Mr. Bolton's qualifications to be the U.S. Representative at the United Nations. But there is some feeling that until Senators have access to these names, we should not act on the Bolton nomination.

Talk about a non sequitur, the Senate routinely does not have access to these names. They are highly classified. They get into the sources and methods of our intelligence. It is appropriate for certain people in the administration to gain access to the names, which is why, as is noted, there were 489 requests for those names by people within the administration--10 of which came from Mr. Bolton. There was nothing wrong with that.

As to whether Senators want access to these names, if that is something we need to take up with the intelligence community, the Intelligence Committee is entirely capable of doing that, but it has nothing to do with Mr. Bolton's qualifications to serve and our need to act on his nomination.

I suggest we cut through all of this smokescreen and get to the question of whether John Bolton is qualified to serve in the position the President would like to have him serve. That is the real question.

Let me note a couple of other things I am aware of that he has done in his position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

Probably the most significant and, frankly, one of the most significant achievements of the State Department itself in the last 4 years was John Bolton's initiative to develop the President's Proliferation Initiative. Over 60 countries are now participating in that initiative, and it is, frankly, one of the key reasons we disarmed Libya with its nuclear program.

John Bolton has played a key role in the implementation--creation and implementation--of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation of WMD and WMD Materials. Under that program, we have doubled the size of the nonproliferation effort in the former Soviet Union by committing our G-8 partners to match our dollars with programs under the so-called Nunn-Lugar CTR effort.

He was instrumental in concluding U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, which for the first time identifies proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security--a resolution, by the way, that was adopted unanimously.

He has been a big advocate of U.N. reform. For example, while serving as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, he detailed his concept of a ``Unitary U.N.'' that sought to ensure management and budget reforms across the U.N. system, and that is something that is sorely needed. Almost everybody acknowledges that the U.N. needs this kind of reform today.

John Bolton is the guy who has worked tirelessly on this effort, including, by the way, the payment of arrearages in U.N. assessments that were created during the 1980s. In that same capacity, he led the effort to repeal perhaps the most heinous resolution in U.N. history, the resolution equating Zionism with racism. He also served as a member of the Commission on Religious Freedom.

He has been there. He has fought on behalf of the United States. He has been an effective diplomat. Yes, he is a tough guy. People have noted that. Do we want a weak Representative at the United Nations? Especially today? I don't think so. President Bush is the person who has talked to all of these diplomats and Presidents and representatives of countries around the world. He has a good feel of what it takes at the United Nations now. None of us has the President's experience in knowing all these world leaders. The President has thought about this and said, knowing all these people, the way they act, how we use diplomacy at United Nations: I think the best guy to represent the United States at this point in time is my man John Bolton. He is the man I want to send there.

We ought to acknowledge that the President knows a little bit about foreign policy and foreign affairs, having worked with all these people, and probably has a pretty good idea of what it takes to get our country's interests represented well at the United Nations. John Bolton is the man he wants us to confirm in that position.

There are a variety of other things Mr. Bolton has worked on with respect to U.N. reform and efforts to reform the International Atomic Energy Agency and a variety of other items.

I will conclude by noting that we all appreciate the fact that the United Nations needs reform, and John Bolton is a person who can accomplish that reform. He has accomplished a great deal in the matter that is primarily of importance to us these days--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the war on terror. I believe all the charges made against him have been answered, of course--they have been answered in spades--but we ought to move beyond all that smokescreen and get back to the central point, which is John Bolton is the man the President wants at the United Nations, he has been confirmed by this body four times before, there is no question about his qualifications and his desire, and the Senate needs to uphold the great tradition of this body by acting on--debating, certainly, but acting on the President's nominees and confirming John Bolton by 7 o'clock tonight.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005. This bill, which facilitates an important land exchange in Arizona, is the product of months of discussion between the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State and local officials, community groups, recreational and conservation groups, and other stakeholders. It will allow for the protection of some of the most environmentally sensitive lands in Arizona while providing a much needed economic engine for the people of Superior, AZ and the surrounding communities. An identical companion bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representative Renzi.

The exchange conveys approximately 3,025 acres of land controlled by the Forest Service to Resolution Copper Company. The acreage to be traded to Resolution Copper will facilitate future exploration, and possible development, of what may be one of the largest deposits of copper ore ever discovered in North America. The 3,025 acres are intermingled with, or lie next to, private lands already owned by Resolution Copper, and are located south and

east of Resolution's existing underground Magma copper mine. Approximately 75 percent of the 3,025 acre Federal parcel is already blanketed by federally authorized mining claims owned by Resolution Copper that give Resolution the right to explore and develop mineral deposits on it. Given the intermingled ownership, the public safety issues that may be associated with mining activities, and the significant financial investment Resolution Copper must make to even determine whether development of a mine is feasible, it makes sense, for Resolution Copper to own the entire mining area.

However, we also recognize that there is public resource value associated with the Federal land that would come into private ownership and, to the extent we can, we should protect and or replace these resources. The Apache Leap Escarpment, a spectacular cliff area comprising approximately 562 acres on the western side of the federal parcel, is an area deserving of protection. To protect the surface of this area from mining and development, the bill requires that a permanent conservation easement be placed on this area. In addition, the bill sets up a process to determine whether additional or enhanced public access should be provided to Apache Leap and, if so, provides that Resolution Copper will pay up to $250,000 to provide such access.

The bill also requires replacement sites for the Oak Flat Campground and the climbing area that are located on the Federal parcel that will be traded to Resolution Copper. The process to locate replacement sites is already under way, and I am told it is going well. Access to these public areas will not immediately terminate on enactment of this legislation: The bill allows continued public use of the Oak Flat Campground for two years after the enactment and it allows for continued rock climbing use for two years after, and use of the land for the annual ``Boulder Blast'' rock climbing competition for five years after enactment. Replacement sites will be designed and developed largely with funding provided by Resolution Copper.

I am also working with Resolution Copper and community groups to determine whether there may be additional climbing areas within the Federal parcel that could continue to be accessible to the public without compromising public safety or the mining operation. I have included a placeholder in the bill for such additional climbing provisions if agreed to.

In return for conveying the Federal land parcel to Resolution Copper, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will receive six parcels of private land, totaling 4,814 acres. These parcels have been identified, and are strongly endorsed for public acquisition, by the Forest Service, BLM, Arizona Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Sonoran Institute, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and numerous others.

The largest of the six parcels is the Seven B Ranch located near Mammoth. It runs for 6.8 miles along both sides of the lower San Pedro River--one of the few remaining undammed rivers in the southwestern United States. The parcel also has: one of the largest, and possibly oldest, mesquite bosques in Arizona; a high volume spring that flows year round; and potential recovery habitat for several endangered species, including the southwestern willow flycatcher. It lies on an internationally recognized migratory bird flyway, with roughly half the number of known breeding bird species in North America passing through the corridor. Public acquisition of this parcel will greatly enhance efforts by Federal and State agencies to preserve for future generations the San Pedro River and its wildlife and bird habitat.

A second major parcel is the Appleton Ranch, consisting of 10 private inholdings intermingled with the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, adjacent to the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area southeast of Tucson. This acquisition will facilitate and protect the study of southwestern grassland ecology and unique aquatic wildlife and habitat.

Finally, the Forest Service will acquire four inholdings in the Tonto National Forest that possess valuable riparian and wetland habitat, water resources, historic and cultural resources, and habitat for numerous plant, wildlife and bird species, including the endangered Arizona hedgehog cactus.

Although the focus of this bill is the land exchange between Resolution Copper and the United States, it also includes provisions allowing for the conveyance of Federal lands to the Town of Superior, if it so requests. These lands include the town cemetery, lands around the town airport, and a Federal reversionary interest that exists at its airport site. These lands are included in the proposed exchange to assist the town in providing for its municipal needs and expanding its economic development.

Though I have described the many benefits of this exchange, you may be asking why we are legislating this land exchange. Why not use the existing administrative land exchange process? The answer is that this exchange can only be accomplished legislatively because the Forest Service does not have the authority to convey away federal lands in order to acquire other lands outside the boundaries of the National Forest System, no matter how ecologically valuable.

Of primary importance to me is that the exchange have procedural safeguards and conditions that ensure it is an equal value exchange that is in the public interest.

I will highlight some of the safeguards in this legislation: First, it requires that all appraisals of the lands must follow standard Federal practice and be performed in accordance with appraisal standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice. All appraisals must also be formally reviewed, and approved, by the Secretary of Agriculture. Second, to ensure the Federal Government gets full value for the Federal parcel it is giving up, the Federal parcel will be appraised to include the minerals and appraised as if unencumbered by the private mining claims that detract from the fair market value of the land. These are important provisions not required by Federal law. They are especially significant given that over 75 percent of the Federal parcel is covered by mining claims owned by Resolution Copper and the bulk of the value of the Federal parcel is expected to be the minerals. Third, it requires that the Apache Leap conservation easement not be considered in determining the fair market value of the Federal land parcel. I believe by following standard appraisal practices and including these additional safeguards in the valuation process, the United States, and ultimately the taxpayer, will receive full fair market value for both the land and the minerals it contains.

In summary, with this land exchange we can preserve lands that advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural resources, the watershed, and aesthetic values, while generating economic and employment opportunities for State and local residents. I hope we approve the legislation at the earliest possible date. It is a winning scenario for our environment, our economy, and our posterity.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005. This bill, which facilitates an important land exchange in Arizona, is the product of months of discussion between the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State and local officials, community groups, recreational and conservation groups, and other stakeholders. It will allow for the protection of some of the most environmentally sensitive lands in Arizona while providing a much needed economic engine for the people of Superior, AZ and the surrounding communities. An identical companion bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representative Renzi.

The exchange conveys approximately 3,025 acres of land controlled by the Forest Service to Resolution Copper Company. The acreage to be traded to Resolution Copper will facilitate future exploration, and possible development, of what may be one of the largest deposits of copper ore ever discovered in North America. The 3,025 acres are intermingled with, or lie next to, private lands already owned by Resolution Copper, and are located south and

east of Resolution's existing underground Magma copper mine. Approximately 75 percent of the 3,025 acre Federal parcel is already blanketed by federally authorized mining claims owned by Resolution Copper that give Resolution the right to explore and develop mineral deposits on it. Given the intermingled ownership, the public safety issues that may be associated with mining activities, and the significant financial investment Resolution Copper must make to even determine whether development of a mine is feasible, it makes sense, for Resolution Copper to own the entire mining area.

However, we also recognize that there is public resource value associated with the Federal land that would come into private ownership and, to the extent we can, we should protect and or replace these resources. The Apache Leap Escarpment, a spectacular cliff area comprising approximately 562 acres on the western side of the federal parcel, is an area deserving of protection. To protect the surface of this area from mining and development, the bill requires that a permanent conservation easement be placed on this area. In addition, the bill sets up a process to determine whether additional or enhanced public access should be provided to Apache Leap and, if so, provides that Resolution Copper will pay up to $250,000 to provide such access.

The bill also requires replacement sites for the Oak Flat Campground and the climbing area that are located on the Federal parcel that will be traded to Resolution Copper. The process to locate replacement sites is already under way, and I am told it is going well. Access to these public areas will not immediately terminate on enactment of this legislation: The bill allows continued public use of the Oak Flat Campground for two years after the enactment and it allows for continued rock climbing use for two years after, and use of the land for the annual ``Boulder Blast'' rock climbing competition for five years after enactment. Replacement sites will be designed and developed largely with funding provided by Resolution Copper.

I am also working with Resolution Copper and community groups to determine whether there may be additional climbing areas within the Federal parcel that could continue to be accessible to the public without compromising public safety or the mining operation. I have included a placeholder in the bill for such additional climbing provisions if agreed to.

In return for conveying the Federal land parcel to Resolution Copper, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will receive six parcels of private land, totaling 4,814 acres. These parcels have been identified, and are strongly endorsed for public acquisition, by the Forest Service, BLM, Arizona Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Sonoran Institute, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and numerous others.

The largest of the six parcels is the Seven B Ranch located near Mammoth. It runs for 6.8 miles along both sides of the lower San Pedro River--one of the few remaining undammed rivers in the southwestern United States. The parcel also has: one of the largest, and possibly oldest, mesquite bosques in Arizona; a high volume spring that flows year round; and potential recovery habitat for several endangered species, including the southwestern willow flycatcher. It lies on an internationally recognized migratory bird flyway, with roughly half the number of known breeding bird species in North America passing through the corridor. Public acquisition of this parcel will greatly enhance efforts by Federal and State agencies to preserve for future generations the San Pedro River and its wildlife and bird habitat.

A second major parcel is the Appleton Ranch, consisting of 10 private inholdings intermingled with the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, adjacent to the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area southeast of Tucson. This acquisition will facilitate and protect the study of southwestern grassland ecology and unique aquatic wildlife and habitat.

Finally, the Forest Service will acquire four inholdings in the Tonto National Forest that possess valuable riparian and wetland habitat, water resources, historic and cultural resources, and habitat for numerous plant, wildlife and bird species, including the endangered Arizona hedgehog cactus.

Although the focus of this bill is the land exchange between Resolution Copper and the United States, it also includes provisions allowing for the conveyance of Federal lands to the Town of Superior, if it so requests. These lands include the town cemetery, lands around the town airport, and a Federal reversionary interest that exists at its airport site. These lands are included in the proposed exchange to assist the town in providing for its municipal needs and expanding its economic development.

Though I have described the many benefits of this exchange, you may be asking why we are legislating this land exchange. Why not use the existing administrative land exchange process? The answer is that this exchange can only be accomplished legislatively because the Forest Service does not have the authority to convey away federal lands in order to acquire other lands outside the boundaries of the National Forest System, no matter how ecologically valuable.

Of primary importance to me is that the exchange have procedural safeguards and conditions that ensure it is an equal value exchange that is in the public interest.

I will highlight some of the safeguards in this legislation: First, it requires that all appraisals of the lands must follow standard Federal practice and be performed in accordance with appraisal standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice. All appraisals must also be formally reviewed, and approved, by the Secretary of Agriculture. Second, to ensure the Federal Government gets full value for the Federal parcel it is giving up, the Federal parcel will be appraised to include the minerals and appraised as if unencumbered by the private mining claims that detract from the fair market value of the land. These are important provisions not required by Federal law. They are especially significant given that over 75 percent of the Federal parcel is covered by mining claims owned by Resolution Copper and the bulk of the value of the Federal parcel is expected to be the minerals. Third, it requires that the Apache Leap conservation easement not be considered in determining the fair market value of the Federal land parcel. I believe by following standard appraisal practices and including these additional safeguards in the valuation process, the United States, and ultimately the taxpayer, will receive full fair market value for both the land and the minerals it contains.

In summary, with this land exchange we can preserve lands that advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural resources, the watershed, and aesthetic values, while generating economic and employment opportunities for State and local residents. I hope we approve the legislation at the earliest possible date. It is a winning scenario for our environment, our economy, and our posterity.

Mr. President, I want to respond to a statement that the Senior Senator from West Virginia made yesterday. In his remarks, the Senator conceded the legitimacy of the constitutional option, what he called the ``nuclear option,'' as a way for the Senate to determine its practices and procedures. The option is, of course, the leader's right to obtain a ruling from the presiding officer that certain actions of Senators are dilatory and cannot preclude the Senate from voting on a judicial nomination.

Here is what he said: ``The so-called nuclear option has been around for a long time. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.'' He went on to explain that this constitutional option had been available since at least 1917, and he repeatedly emphasized that this tool has been around ``for a long time.''

I appreciate this acknowledgment from the Senator from West Virginia, because I know he has studied the history of the Senate, and I know he has intimate familiarity with the workings of the Constitutional Option. There is nothing new about the constitutional option, as I discussed in my May 19 floor speech outlining the legal and constitutional rationale for its exercise. The constitutional option is simply the Senate's exercise of its power to define its own procedures--a power that comes directly from the Constitution and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. (U.S. v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892)) I appreciate that the Senator has acknowledged its legitimacy.

The Senator from West Virginia also argued, however, that past majority leaders have never used the constitutional option to ``tamper'' with extended debate. As my May 19 statement established, as did yesterday's statements by Senators McConnell, Hatch, and Bennett, that is not actually the case.

The fact is that the Senator himself used the constitutional option four times when serving as majority leader--in one case to outright eliminate the filibuster for motions to proceed to Executive Calendar nominations. Moreover, in February 1979, he forced the minority to agree to a formal rules change after credibly threatening that he would exercise the constitutional option. At that time, the Senator said on this floor, ``if I have to be forced into a corner to try for a majority vote, I will do it because I am going to do my duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose.''

The Senate was nearly forced into a similar ``corner'' this week. Had Democrats not supported cloture on Priscilla Owen today, then all Senators would have had to make a conclusive decision as to whether it should take 60 or 51 votes to confirm a judge. Instead, we are putting off that decision until another day.

That may still come. And if it does come, I hope that we hear no more talk of the ``illegitimacy'' of the constitutional option. There is plenty to discuss as to whether exercising the option is prudential in a particular case. Some of the debate these past few days has addressed that prudential question, including some of the discussion from the Senator from West Virginia. But there has also been talk about the constitutional option being a case of ``lawlessness'' or ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' The constitutional option is a part of Senate history. In Senator Byrd's words, it ``has been around for a long time.''

And it will always be with us. The constitutional option is not, as the minority leader has repeatedly insisted, ``off the table.'' It is simply unnecessary at present. If it becomes necessary again, we may be called on to live up to our responsibilities to the Constitution and to the Senate to ensure that we restore our traditions and guarantee up- or-down votes to all judicial nominees who reach the Senate floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, since I was to speak at 9:30, I want to intervene. I will withhold depending upon what my colleagues say in the spirit of the latest agreement to see whether it is necessary to comment, and if not then I won't, but otherwise I will not object to the request that has been made.