[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF DEREK SHEARER, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO FINLAND
The Senate continued with the consideration of the nomination.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President
Clinton's nominee to become Ambassador to Finland. I am confident that
Derek Shearer will serve the United States with honor and distinction.
Derek Shearer is a native of California--born and raised in Culver
City, CA--and currently is the director of the International and Public
Affairs Center and an associate professor of public policy at
Occidental College in Los Angeles.
His knowledge of, and experience in, foreign affairs is impressive.
He has won several prestigious awards including a Guggenheim
Fellowship, a German Marshall Fund grant and a United States-Japan
Leadership Fellowship. He has studied and taught international
economics and politics and has traveled extensively in Europe, Asia,
and Australia, as well as in Scandinavia and Russia.
While serving as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Affairs in 1993, Professor Shearer ably represented the administration
before such groups as the European Institutes' meeting of foreign
ambassadors, the Brookings Institute's seminar for visiting
parliamentarians, and the Washington International Business Council.
Despite his qualifications and experience in foreign affairs,
Professor Shearer is being judged by books and articles he authored or
cowrote during the early 1980's. My question is how, do economic views
once held by and now renounced by Professor Shearer affect his ability
to serve his country as Ambassador to Finland?
In response to a question regarding his past-held economic views,
Professor Shearer answered,
It is a quote from our book ``Economic Democracy''. It is
not a view that I particularly hold anymore. I think that * *
* in some areas we were clearly wrong.
The book ``Economic Democracy'' was written in 1980 and its authors
are both economists from California. They were working from a grant to
study European economic models and try to figure out ways in which they
could be used here. In this process they brainstormed a number of
ideas.
During his confirmation hearing, Professor Shearer testified that he
is, ``a strong proponent of corporations that have their bases in the
United States, and are leaders in their field.''
Further, Professor Shearer stated,
In fact, my experience in working in the Commerce
Department made me deeply skeptical of the ability of the
Government to do many of the things that I might have written
about when I was a Professor. I think that there is nothing
like working experience to give you a clearer view of what is
possible and what is not, and what is appropriate and what is
not.
Yes, Mr. President, we all do change our views and sometimes the
ivory tower and the streets collide in ideology.
These are not the words of someone who is planning to undermine the
fundamental understanding of the American way of life. Professor
Shearer has been nominated to be Ambassador to Finland. He has received
the endorsements of a wide variety of distinguished individuals: Arthur
Schlesinger, John Kenneth Galbraith, Charles W. Maynes, Morton
Abramowitz, and President Reagan's Ambassador to Finland, Rockwell
Schnabel have all endorsed Professor Shearer for the post.
In the post-cold-war era, Finland is at a critical juncture and will
play a vital role in the new world order. President Clinton and the
United States needs someone with his intellectual training and real-
world experience to represent us in Helsinki.
I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Derek Shearer.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Bennett].
(Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I want to commend my colleague from
California and thank her for sharing this information. I was unaware of
the fact that Professor Shearer had renounced his earlier position. I
think that is a very cogent fact that needs to be brought before the
Senate and may very well change some votes.
I am prepared to discuss what I consider to be the folly of his
earlier positions and I think I will do that nonetheless.
But I accept the explanation from the senior Senator from California
about Professor Shearer's repentance. I recognize that we are all in
need of repentance from time to time. I am grateful to her for calling
that to the Senate's attention. As it happens, I was living in
California at the time that the phrase ``economic democracy'' first
came to the public attention. It was brought to our attention as voters
by Tom Hayden and his then wife, Jane Fonda.
I debated that particular issue with a number of people as we talked
about it in that period, and that is why I was interested to see
Professor Shearer's book that used the phrase ``economic democracy''
that came out in that same timeframe. Actually, it came out a little
later, after the phrase was first adopted by Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda.
I note that Professor Shearer has gone to lengths to disassociate
himself from Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, but he nonetheless is the
author of the book that carries the phrase that they made famous, in
which he makes the comment that it is not appropriate to use the word
Socialist because--and I am quoting from his book--``socialism has a
bad name in America and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of
the left is going to change that in our lifetimes. The words `economic
democracy' are an adequate and effective replacement.''
I want to talk about the words ``economic democracy'' and what it is
I think they really mean. I will not engage in bashing socialism or
accusing these people of supporting socialism. Instead, I think their
choice of the words demonstrates a very basic ignorance of economics,
an ignorance, frankly, that I find somewhat surprising in one who is an
economics professor.
I have said before from this desk that if I had the power to
determine what should be engraved in the walls around us that
constantly remind us of our duties, there is one phrase I would
recommend be carved in marble. Every government should remember this.
It is a great truth. It is, ``you cannot repeal the law of supply and
demand.''
This stands as the basis of all understanding of economics, and yet
those who talk about economic democracy do not seem to understand it.
So I concocted the following little demonstration of what I mean, for
the benefit of Miss Fonda, who was then touting economic democracy.
As I understand their approach to economic democracy, it is that we
should put the emphasis on treating everybody alike. That we should,
indeed, try to repeal the law of supply and demand that says the market
sets prices, the market sets wages.
No, that is not fair because the market will reward one over another
in an improper way and everybody should be treated alike. That is what
democracy means.
I went to Miss Fonda's profession, the making of movies, and
constructed the following example to show how the law of supply and
demand really works. If you are a producer and you want to make a movie
that has a lot of people in it, you go out and hire a bunch of extras.
There is a great supply of people who want to be in movies, who are
willing to accept the indignities and problems connected with being an
extra. They are available relatively cheaply because they are in great
supply. So you can have your movie filled with extras at a relatively
low price.
However, if you want an extra who can act a little bit, who can say a
few words on camera and not get completely tongue tied, those are in
slightly smaller supply than people who are just willing to show up and
get photographed. So they get paid a little more because the supply is
smaller and the demand is there for someone who has that talent.
If you want an actress who can go through the whole movie and carry a
role, not just say a few words on camera as a speaking extra, now you
have a much smaller supply from which to draw. And in order to get what
you want, you are going to have to pay a higher price.
If you want a marquee name on your movie that will cause people to
come see it because they are familiar with it, the supply is much, much
smaller still. There are only a handful of actresses who are, in the
Hollywood term, ``bankable,'' who will show up and put their name on
your movie and cause people to come. To hire one of those bankable
stars, you have to pay far more than you do the actress who can just go
through the movie, who happens to be anonymous.
But if you want an actress who has won an Oscar and has that kind of
visibility, the supply gets smaller still.
Ultimately, if you want Jane Fonda, you are dealing with a monopoly
and she can charge monopoly rates. I am not sure Ms. Fonda, in the name
of economic democracy, would be prepared to accept the wages of an
extra on the grounds that since everybody was on the set at the same
time, everybody should be paid the same wage.
Madam President, I see the distinguished majority leader has come on
the floor, and I will be happy to defer any further remarks until we
have heard what he has for us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. If I might
direct a question to the distinguished Senator from Utah through the
Chair, I am about to propound a unanimous-consent agreement that would
provide for a vote on the pending nomination at a time certain. We are
prepared to vote now, but if the Senator would like further time, I
would be pleased to set the time to accommodate whatever his request is
in that regard.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I think I have made my point about the
absurdity of economic democracy as outlined by Professor Shearer, and I
would have no objection whatsoever to the recommendation of the
majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
unanimous-consent agreement
Mr. MITCHELL. Accordingly, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent
that a vote occur on the confirmation of Derek Shearer at 4:20 p.m.
today, without intervening action; that upon confirmation, the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further that,
without intervening action, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on the nomination of Sam W. Brown, with the mandatory live
quorum waived; that if cloture is invoked, without intervening action,
the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination of Sam W. Brown; that
if cloture is not invoked, the Senate resume consideration of the Brown
nomination at 9 a.m., Wednesday, May 25, with the time until 1 p.m.,
equally divided and controlled between Chairman Pell and Senator Brown
or their designees; that at 1 p.m., without intervening action, the
Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Sam W.
Brown, with the mandatory live quorum waived, that if cloture is
invoked, the Senate immediately without intervening action vote on
confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the President
be immediately notified and the Senate return to Legislative Session; I
further ask unanimous consent that upon confirmation of the nominations
of Derek Shearer and Sam Brown, or in the case of a cloture vote on the
Brown nomination, if cloture is not invoked, that the Senate then
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 220, S. 729, the lead
reduction bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, then Senators should be aware that a
vote will occur within just a few minutes on the Shearer nomination,
and it will be followed immediately by a vote on the motion to invoke
cloture and terminate debate on the Brown nomination.
At this point, Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Shearer nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
order of procedure
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, if cloture is invoked on the Brown
nomination, there will then be a vote immediately thereafter on the
Brown nomination itself. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will
then proceed to consideration of the lead reduction bill, S. 729, to
which I referred in the consent request.
In that event, that is to say the event that cloture is not invoked
on the Brown nomination today and the Senate proceeds to the lead
reduction bill, the Senate will return to the motion to invoke cloture
on the Brown nomination tomorrow at 9 a.m. There will be 4 hours of
debate equally divided, controlled by Chairman Pell and Senator Brown.
And the second vote on the motion to invoke cloture and terminate
debate on the Brown nomination will then occur at 1 p.m. tomorrow.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of
Derek Shearer to be Ambassador to Finland. While Finland may not figure
in the world's hot spots right now, it may unfortunately again become
more central to United States policymaking--given worrisome trends and
policies in Russia. Moreover, Mr. President, Dr. Shearer's less than
truthful answers to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee speak to a
larger, more ominous problem with the Clinton team. Finally, Dr.
Shearer has a long record of advocacy of radical leftwing economic and
political causes--raising serious questions about his past judgments,
if not his present attitudes and policies.
Dr. Shearer's embrace of central planning in the economic sphere is
well-documented in his two books, ``Economic Democracy: The Challenge
of the 1980's'' and ``A New Social Contract: The Economy and Government
After Reagan.'' The former is characterized as ``a discussion of an
argument for alternatives to the present structure of production in the
United States; alternatives that would change the control of capital
and how it is used.'' In this book he argues that ``the way the economy
is governed and the way things are produced will have to be changed as
well.'' He even goes so far as to assert that ``any alternative
economic and social strategy must start by dismantling, or at least
restricting, the power of corporations.''
In response to written questions by the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Brown] about his extreme views, Dr. Shearer replied that ``I have not
advocated socialism * * * I have never described myself that way, nor
viewed myself as such.'' He went on to say that ``I did not then (in
1980) nor do I now advocated `Radical Change.''' Mr. president this man
must be delusional. Last time I checked, the U.S. economy was a market
economy. To speak of ``alternative to the present structure of
production'' or changing ``the control of capital'' can only mean one
thing: removing these processes from market control. Unfortunately for
Dr. Shearer, once you remove market incentives, there is no third way.
Once you remove market incentives, you thrust Government into a central
planning mode.
Equally serious are Dr. Shearer's circumspect descriptions of his
association with the hard left Institute for Policy Studies [IPS]. Even
though at least two of the IPS annual reports list Shearer as one of
the organization's associate fellows, Shearer claims that he was
``never an associate fellow at IPS.'' As recently as their 1993 report,
Dr. Shearer is placed under a listing called ``former associate
fellows, visiting scholars, and current transnational institute
fellows.'' Given his associations with IPS were documented over a 10-
year period, it really strains credibility for Dr. Shearer to suggest
that he was unaware that he was so listed by the IPS.
I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, both the chairman and
Senator Brown, and all of those who have been interested in these
matters and participated in the discussions culminating in this
agreement. I thank the Senator from Utah for his courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Derek Shearer, of California, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Finland.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent
because of illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Ex.]
YEAS--67
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Conrad
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--31
Bond
Brown
Burns
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Faircloth
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Kempthorne
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Pryor
Shelby
So the nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will
be notified of the Senate's action.
cloture motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination
of Sam W. Brown, Jr., for the rank of Ambassador during his
tenure of service as Head of the Delegation to the Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Claiborne Pell, Paul Wellstone, Dennis DeConcini, John F.
Kerry, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, John Glenn, Jeff
Bingaman, Byron L. Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Daniel K. Akaka, Charles S. Robb, Pat
Leahy, Tom Daschle, Harlan Mathews.
call of the roll
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been
waived.
vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that the debate on the nomination of Sam W. Brown, Jr., of California,
for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as Head of the
Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are automatic under the rule, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent
because of illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thee any other Senators in the Chamber who
desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 131 Ex.]
YEAS--54
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--44
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Ford
Gorton
Gramm
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Pryor
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
____________________