[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______


    NOMINATION OF M. LARRY LAWRENCE, OF CALIFORNIA TO BE AMBASSADOR 
 EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO 
                              SWITZERLAND

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Under the previous order, the 
hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive 
session to vote on the nomination of M. Larry Lawrence, of California, 
to become Ambassador to Switzerland. The clerk will report the 
nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of M. Larry Lawrence, of 
California, to be Ambassador to Switzerland.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I have known Larry Lawrence for many 
years as a committed and involved member of the community. Larry 
Lawrence is a highly successful businessman who has been an active 
donor, sponsor, and fundraiser for a range of good causes. Some have 
been political, but many have not.
  Larry Lawrence's nomination has generated some controversy. I believe 
that this controversy reflects honest debate about the nature of the 
job of our bilateral ambassadors. It is true that Larry Lawrence is not 
an expert on European affairs, and is not fluent in either of 
Switzerland's two major languages. In my view, however, Larry Lawrence 
has the character and necessary background--as a successful businessman 
with some significant international experience--to perform well as 
United States Ambassador to Switzerland.
  Further, I would note that the post of Untied States Ambassador to 
Switzerland has been vacant for more than a year. It is time to fill 
the job and put the controversy behind us.
  I will vote in favor of Larry Lawrence's confirmation, and I urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, it is the prerogative of the President 
to choose his nominees and the responsibility of the Senate to consent 
to these nominations. I wish to indicate my strong support for the 
President's nomination of M. Larry Lawrence to be United States 
Ambassador to Switzerland.
  The President's confidence in Mr. Lawrence is well-placed. He has a 
long history of public service and philanthropy in addition to a 
successful private sector career. He has been actively interested and 
involved in foreign affairs matters and served with distinction on the 
Nobel Prize nominating commission.
  Tradition has held that our ambassadorial corps be chosen from both 
the career Foreign Service and from the Nation at large. It is my 
belief that Mr. Lawrence will bring a unique and important perspective 
to this post and I look forward to working with him after confirmation.
  Mr. MATHEWS. Madam President, late last year President Clinton 
nominated Mr. Larry Lawrence to serve as Ambassador to Switzerland. 
Tonight, the Senate overcame the discreditable impulses that stalled 
the confirmation process. As a result, the United States will have the 
services of a superbly qualified ambassadorial appointment.
  Larry Lawrence is a man of modest origins whose hard work built a 
fortune and whose good works earned him wide admiration. He is a living 
example of boot-strap accomplishment. Character an competence have 
distinguished him all his life. During World War II he was a merchant 
marine volunteer who received the Medal of Honor from our Russian 
allies for his heroic rescue of drowning fellow crewmen after their 
ship was torpedoed off Murmansk.
  He has founded and managed more than 50 businesses in a proud career. 
His enterprises have encompassed banking, commercial development, 
travel, and tourism. These industries are central to the Swiss economy. 
They are industries in which the Swiss have eminent expertise.
  Mr. Lawrence's background is perfect preparation for the prime task 
of the United States Ambassador to Switzerland: nurturing commercial, 
trade, investment, and business relationships with Switzerland and 
Swiss companies.
  Mr. Lawrence's commitment to public service is as striking as his 
success in business. His biography is virtually a phone book of 
committees, organizations, councils, colleges, and advisory boards.
  His civic contributions over the past 45 years are inspiring and 
humbling to those of us who believe we are committed to public service.
  They include service to the State of California as vice chairman of 
tourism development. President Carter appointed him to the Federal Home 
Loan Bank Board. President Clinton asked Mr. Lawrence to attend his 
economic summit before taking office and to brief him on the eve of his 
recent visit to Geneva. He was cochairman of California's finance 
subcommittee on cost control in State government, chairman of the 
economic advisory board of San Diego, founding member of the World 
Affairs Council, and vice chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize nominating 
committee. The list goes on and on.
  Yet, despite his obvious credentials as a businessman and civic 
servant, Mr. Lawrence was subjected to rebuke and vilification, mainly 
by the bureaucracy in the State Department who thought one of their own 
should have been nominated in his place. Testimony at his Senate 
Foreign Relations hearing set a new low in acrimony. In the weeks 
afterward, he was criticized publicly by figures in the Foreign Service 
Association and in FSA publications as ``one of the last relics of the 
19th century spoils system.''
  Yes, Mr. Lawrence has been and is active in supporting his chosen 
political party. I wish every American followed his example and became 
more active in the American political process. Two Presidents have 
called on his counsel, as have Governors, Congressmen and women, and 
State and local officials of both parties. And he always answered when 
called. If that was a reason to criticize him, I say his critics had a 
warped regard for the obligations of citizenship.
  There are, indeed, career professionals in the Foreign Service who 
merit consideration as ambassador. In fact, I received an illuminating 
letter from one regarding Mr. Lawrence.
  He said he was, in his words, ``taking the unusual step of writing to 
you because I believe that Mr. Lawrence is well qualified to serve as 
U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland.''
  He cited not only Mr. Lawrence's apt and extensive background in 
business as perfect qualifications, but also Mr. Lawrence's 
contemplative and reflective personal disposition, which is so highly 
valued in the Swiss approach to relationships.
  He concluded with a comment about Mr. Lawrence's adversaries: ``* * * 
those in AFSA who have attacked Mr. Lawrence have done the State 
Department, and the United States, a major disservice.''
  I add that they also made an unconscionable attempt to intrude on the 
powers and responsibilities of the President, whose duty it is to 
select the ambassadors who represent us. The Constitution gives to the 
President and the Senate the sole and exclusive responsibility of 
passing judgment on persons who will be our ambassadors to other 
countries.
  I find it ludicrous that an entrenched bureaucracy would attempt to 
interject its judgment over that of the President of the United States, 
particularly when it is well known that these same people coveted these 
appointments.
  A former Republican-appointed ambassador to both France and Ireland 
made a telling case about that in his own letter of endorsement. He 
argued that the tradition of Presidential appointments is older than 
the Foreign Service itself. He disparaged the age-old objections from 
Foreign Service officers as ``stale'' and ``blinkered to the reality.''
  He emphasized that Presidential appointees have infinitely greater 
access to the White House and the State Department than careerists in 
the Foreign Service. Foreign government officials whom our ambassadors 
deal with appreciate this access.
  The issue driving the scurrilous and petulant censure of Mr. Lawrence 
was not his qualifications. His political adversaries were bothered by 
his advisory relationship with President Clinton--which an ambassador 
should have with his President, by the way.
  What we heard from his foreign service critics was pettier than 
politics. It was an outburst of insecurity. Mr. Lawrence was simply the 
highest profile nominee they could find over whom to make their ill-
taken point. They've got sour grape stains all over their self-
importance.
  I thank and commend my colleagues who supported Mr. Lawrence--and 
they are many in number. They did the right thing for Swiss-American 
relations and did the right thing by a distinguished American.
  At this moment, Mr. Lawrence is working with the State Department, 
continuing to prepare himself for his post in Bern. He never stayed in 
this fight to win a bitter but pointless Washington-style confrontation 
by people who criticized him without knowing him. He put his good name 
on the line because he wants to be of further service to his country--
as he's done all his life.
  His is the highest impulse in public service. That's why I stood with 
Mr. Lawrence and President Clinton. I want to commend the President for 
nominating this worthy American. And again, I commend my colleagues in 
the Senate for allowing Mr. Lawrence to assume his duties as an 
effective advocate for American interests in Switzerland.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, in just a few minutes, the Senate will be 
voting on President Clinton's nominee to be ambassador to Switzerland. 
As some of my colleagues may take note, it is not very often that the 
entire Senate is assembled to vote on an ambassadorial nomination. 
Well, it is not very often that the Senate is asked to vote on a 
nominee that is so obviously qualified only by the amount he has 
donated to political campaigns.
  That, however, is not why I am here today. Before the Senate votes on 
Mr. Larry Lawrence's nomination, his relationship with the Foreign 
Relations Committee and with the Internal Revenue Service should be 
made a matter of public record.
  Since Mr. Lawrence submitted his original papers to the committee 
last fall, he has amended his financial statement portion numerous 
times in response to allegations.
  Mr. Lawrence corresponded with Chairman Pell 3 times in 3 days after 
it was brought to light in testimony during his confirmation hearing 
that Mr. Lawrence had not completed, to the fullest extent possible or 
to the extent required by law, his records of campaign contributions, 
or his current status of claims with the IRS.
  It should be noted that the committee reported Mr. Lawrence's 
nomination on a 10-10 vote with Senators Sarbanes, Moynihan, Feingold, 
Helms, Lugar, Kassebaum, Pressler, Murkowski, Jeffords, and Gregg 
voting in the negative. It should also be noted that Mr. Lawrence made 
donations to at least six of the Senators who signed the cloture 
petition, not to mention at least ten other sitting members of the 
Senate.
  Most importantly--just last Thursday, the committee received, and 
then distributed a detailed document regarding a tax case in which 
allegations of tax fraud were raised against Mr. Lawrence. 
Incidentally, Mr. Lawrence's attorneys did not choose to note this case 
or the allegation of fraud in his papers because they deemed him to be 
innocent.
  I remind my colleagues that in carrying out its duty to advise and 
give its consent to a nomination, the Senate is obligated and expected 
to investigate fully the ethical, financial, moral and professional 
background of every nominee. The committee has only just compiled what 
is believed to be all the information Mr. Lawrence can supply; but 
there has obviously not been enough time to wade through the enormous 
amount of paperwork submitted.
  The distinguished majority leader has rejected suggestions that a 
vote on this nomination be delayed pending a review of all documents 
relating to Mr. Lawrence and his various activities. I regret Senator 
Mitchell's decision.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
nomination of M. Larry Lawrence to be U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland. I 
have known Larry Lawrence for over a decade. I know him to be an 
individual of personal integrity and I respect him for his considerable 
business development and management skills. I also know that Larry has 
had a life-long interest in foreign policy, as evidenced by his 25 year 
association with the San Diego World Affairs Council, of which he is a 
founding member. In addition, these days business experience such as 
Larry's will be a considerable asset, as U.S. posts abroad are taking a 
more active role in promoting U.S. commercial interests.
  But most importantly, because of his long association with President 
Clinton, he enjoys the full and complete confidence of the President, a 
very important plus for any high level appointee. In the absence of any 
disqualifying factors, I believe the President should have his choice. 
And given my long acquaintance with Larry Lawrence, I am confident 
there are no such factors. With every expectation that Larry Lawrence 
will bring all of his considerable talents and energy to representing 
our country's interest in Switzerland, I recommend Larry Lawrence's 
confirmation without reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Mr. Larry Lawrence, of California, to be 
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America to Switzerland?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnson], and the Senator from Illinois 
[Mrs. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and 
the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 16, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Ex.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--16

     Byrd
     Craig
     Dole
     Feingold
     Helms
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lugar
     Metzenbaum
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Specter
     Wallop
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Breaux
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
  So the nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. MATHEWS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.

                          ____________________