[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.

                          ____________________