Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. SARBANES. It is not every single day hereafter for this administration; it becomes a precedent for every administration. And I suggest to all Members of the Senate that they may find themselves, down the road at some point, seeking information they think is relevant and having it denied to them by the executive branch, citing the refusal to provide the information in the Bolton case as a precedent for the action they are taking.

Mr. SARBANES. What are they going to do up there in New York if John Bolton repeats the kind of abusive behavior that led people in the State Department, under incredible pressure, to seek the support and counsel of their assistant secretaries? There will be no one in New York to shield them from the wrath and vindictiveness of John Bolton. Mr. President, unfortunately, it seems to have become, for some, a favorite pastime to assault the United Nations. They blame it for failing to resolve many of the problems that have occurred in the world. But I think we have to acknowledge that the U.N. has a role to play in preventing conflict and promoting cooperation. Skillful U.S. leadership at the United Nations can enhance our national interest in a very significant way, and part of that skilled leadership is to send an ambassador who has credibility and the wisdom necessary to carry out his responsibilities. This nominee falls far short of that standard. Mr. President, 102 retired diplomats have taken the extraordinary step of sending a letter urging the Senate to reject the nomination. Finally, let me say just this word about the witnesses who came forward to the committee to testify about Mr. Bolton's past conduct. These people, in effect, volunteered themselves to give what they thought would be an accurate view of Mr. Bolton's behavior. It took a lot of courage for people like Mr. Ford, Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Hutchings, Ambassador Hubbard, and others to come forward. I am very concerned they may pay a price for this brave action, and I very deeply regret if this should turn out to be the case. I think their motive in coming forward was to promote the national interests of our country. In that sense, I think they are true patriots. They have nothing to gain by opposing the nomination.

Mr. SARBANES. In fact, they have much to lose. Mr. President, this nomination ought to be defeated. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it. We can do better, and, for the sake of our country, we must do better.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute today to an outstanding public servant, educator, and communicator, Charlie Walker. Charlie is retiring after a distinguished 40-year career in teaching and government service at the local, State and Federal levels, most recently as director of government affairs for the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of dedicated service and contributions to the American people. Born in Charleston, WV, Charlie spent much of his youth and career in Baltimore, MD. He was a graduate of Clifton Park Junior High and Baltimore's City College, one of the oldest and finest public high schools in the country. He won scholarships to Towson State Teachers College, now Towson University, where he excelled academically and in his extracurricular activities, selected to serve not only as president of the Phi Alpha Theta Honorary Society in history but also as a manager of three sports teams--soccer, wrestling, and track. Upon graduation in 1963, Charlie taught for 3 years in Baltimore's secondary schools and then enrolled in West Virginia University to earn a master's degree in history. In 1966, Charlie enlisted in the U.S. Army and served for a 3-year period in Vietnam and at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He returned to West Virginia University to obtain a Ph.D. in history, and worked in various and progressively responsible positions in local, State and Federal Government, including service as an historian and public affairs officer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an aide to the mayor of Baltimore and a research analyst with the Library of Congress. In 1987, Charlie Walker was tapped to lead the public affairs office of the newly established Maryland Department of the Environment, and it was in this position that I first had the opportunity and privilege of working closely with Charlie. A highly skilled communicator and manager, Charlie assembled a terrific team to promote the initiatives of the new department and to protect and restore the quality of Maryland's air, water, and land resources. Charlie and his team set a standard for outreach and responsiveness that few, if any, agencies have been able to match. He served in this position until 1991 when he was recruited, as government affairs officer for the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to help the district restore relations and responsiveness with the Congress and other levels of government. Over the past 14 years, Charlie has been a trusted adviser to six district engineers, and the principal point of contact for Members of Congress and our staffs from the Five States and the District of Columbia, which encompass the Baltimore District's jurisdiction. With his in-depth knowledge, political astuteness, and a dedication to public service that is second to none, Charlie has remained a constant force in moving the Army Corps of Engineers' programs and services forward. He is well known, widely respected, and well liked, not only among the staff at the Baltimore District but throughout the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and beyond. He is the core of the Corps. His advice is constantly sought for improving communications and relations with the press, the public and with elected officials at all levels of government. Over the years, he has inspired great loyalty in the members of the Baltimore District staff and affection from the countless others with whom he has worked. He will be sorely missed by those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him. Throughout the course of his career, Charlie has received numerous honors including the Commander's Award for Civil Service, Governor's Salute to Excellence Award, and the Maryland Department of the Environment Award for Outstanding Public Service. In addition to his public service, Charlie has volunteered a great deal of time and energy serving on the numerous organizations, including the Phi Alpha Theta History Society, the Society of American Military Engineers, and the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs. It is my firm conviction that public service and teaching are among the most honorable callings. They demand the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens. Throughout his career Charlie Walker has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of hard work and dedication and wish him well in the years ahead.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that if a policymaker wants to make a statement reflecting an intelligence judgment, representing the position of the Government--not his own personal position, but the position of the Government--the standard practice is for the statement to be submitted to the intelligence community for clearance, to be certain that the statement accurately reflects the judgment of the intelligence community; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. So you don't have policymakers making assertions about intelligence matters that are not supported by the intelligence community. If you stop and think about that, it seems to me that is a very wise rule. Otherwise, policymakers can run around making all kinds of assertions about intelligence matters, portraying them as representing the considered judgment of the Government and, therefore, the considered judgment of the intelligence community. That is the kind of review that the intelligence community--in addition to the sources and methods review--was undertaking to do. As I understand it, it is standard operating procedure for any policymaker----

Mr. SARBANES. And that was the very thing that Bolton not only complained about, but for which he sought to have certain intelligence analysts punished; is that right?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I understand that the analyst with whom Bolton had this confrontation said that what Bolton was seeking to say didn't represent the judgment of the intelligence community. In other words, the analyst was stating correctly the position of the intelligence community which Mr. Bolton was, in effect, seeking to ignore or go against. So it is not as though the analyst was seeking to impose his own personal opinion. His judgment corresponded with the vetted judgment of the broader intelligence community; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. And he got the name, presumably.

Mr. SARBANES. I understand in trying to do due diligence on the Bolton nomination on the part of the committee, the very able Senator from Delaware, who has had extensive experience on investigatory matters, requested that we be provided with the names of the Americans that Bolton had received from the intelligence agency; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, this is an Under Secretary of State. This is like the No. 4 person in the Department.

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, that represented a sharp departure from previous practice.

Mr. SARBANES. I take it, if the Senator will yield--I take it this is of such importance now because we are dealing with this problem as to whether intelligence is being misused.

Mr. SARBANES. Decisions are being made by policymakers that reflect their policy attitude--

Mr. SARBANES. Not substantiated or backed up by the findings of the intelligence community. We have been through this issue. It seems to me a critically important issue.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on one other point I would like to make?

Mr. SARBANES. First of all, I want to pay tribute to the intelligence analysts and their superiors who stood up to this pressure to which the Senator has referred. They were put in an extremely difficult situation, and they performed admirably. It is asserted by some that no harm resulted from the pressure Mr. Bolton and his staff were placing on these people because they did not do what Mr. Bolton wanted them to do. That seems to me to be an upside down argument. The fact that they had the strength to resist this is a tribute to them, but it is certainly no excuse for Mr. Bolton and his staff engaging in this behavior. And the fact they resisted--which is a credit to them--is still a detriment to Mr. Bolton and his staff for engaging in this practice. So the argument that Mr. Bolton and his staff did not succeed in their efforts does not absolve them of responsibility for having tried.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. SARBANES. I apologize if I am anticipating his statement. As I understand it, when a policymaker requests the transcripts of intelligence intercepts, let's say the intercept of a conversation, the documents that are provided identify the foreign source but they do not usually identify the American; is that how it usually works?

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that what Mr. Bolton had requested to know, although it was not revealed when they initially provided him the intercepts, was who were the Americans in each of these instances; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me a further question is that if Mr. Bolton went back to get those names for some reason--he must have had a reason for doing so--why the committee, in deciding whether to confirm him, should not have access to that same information so that we are in a position to ascertain what, if anything, may have been in play by these requests.

Mr. SARBANES. And Senators who are charged with making this very important decision about whether this nominee should be confirmed for this very important position. It seems to me clearly relevant in reaching some judgment about the nominee to have this information provided to those who have to render the judgment.