[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]

 
                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Derek Shearer, 
of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
the United States of America to Finland.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Sam W. Brown, 
Jr., of California, for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of 
service as Head of Delegation to the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell].


                      nomination of derek shearer

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, Derek Shearer's nomination to be Ambassador 
to Finland was submitted to the Senate on February 27, 1994. On March 
2, the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on Mr. Shearer's 
nomination which was chaired by Senator Biden, our distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs. In addition to the 
hearing, Mr. Shearer responded fully and completely to 89 written 
questions submitted by committee members. The committee has received 
many strong letters of support for Mr. Shearer's nomination and I ask 
unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks, together with Mr. Shearer's biographical statement and 
certificate of demonstrated competence.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on May 4, 1994, the Committee on Foreign 
Relations approved Mr. Shearer's nomination by a vote of 14 to 5, with 
a quorum present and a majority of those members physically present 
voting in the affirmative.
  Mr. President, I support Derek Shearer and urge the Senate to give 
its advice and consent to his nomination to be Ambassador to Finland at 
this important period in the relations between our two countries.
  Over the past several years, Finland has moved to balance its 
historically close ties to the East with stronger ties to the West. It 
has replaced the elements of its 1947 Friendship Treaty with the 
U.S.S.R. which had put Finland in a subsidiary role. In 1992, Finland 
became an observer in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, and in 
February of 1994, Finland completed European Union accession 
negotiations with the hope of becoming a member in 1995. Recently, the 
Finnish Government signed the Partnership for Peace Framework Document 
in Brussels. As leaders in international peacekeeping, the Finns have 
much to offer NATO in this area.

  As Finland moves toward closer association with Western European 
structures, there is a historic opportunity for the United States to 
strengthen its ties to Finland as well. In 1992, Finland selected 
United States-made F/A-18 aircraft to replace its aging fleet of Soviet 
MiGs and Swedish Drakens. Our departing Ambassador played a crucial 
role in this decision, and despite Finland's worst recession since the 
1930's, United States exports overall to Finland increased last year.
  In short, this is a critical moment in Finnish foreign policy. To 
take advantage of this opportunity to expand United States-Finnish 
bilateral cooperation, as well as to work together on other issues of 
mutual concern, it is essential that we carry on a high-level dialog 
with the Finnish leadership.
  There is no substitute for having the President's personal 
representative in Helsinki to carry on that dialog and manage our 
bilateral relations. I urge the Senate to confirm Derek Shearer's 
appointment as Ambassador to Finland without further delay.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   March 14, 1994.
     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to support the nomination 
     of Derek Shearer to be U.S. Ambassador to Finland, and to 
     provide what I believe is relevant information in considering 
     his suitability for that position.
       In the past year, Professor Shearer and I have served on 
     two bi-partisan groups. The first, for a period of 5 months, 
     dealt with the future of the U.S.-Japan relationship, and 
     issued, I believe, a very useful report. The second, which 
     has just been concluded after a similar period, examined the 
     concept of a Pacific Community and U.S. interests in it; the 
     report of the group will be issued in a few months. 
     Participants in these two groups were former and present 
     senior officials, former members of Congress, scholars, 
     journalists, business men, and a variety of others in foreign 
     policy related fields.
       Professor Shearer made important contributions to both 
     groups. He is deeply knowledgeable on the subject matter, was 
     quick with useful proposals, and generally added enormously 
     both to the deliberations and to the final conclusions of the 
     groups. He made one excellent lead presentation and greatly 
     helped in the drafting of the final report of the U.S.-Japan 
     Study Group. We were fortunate to have such an involved and 
     contributing member. I might add that I felt his 
     interventions showed real knowledge of the area and American 
     foreign policy, and a solid understanding of our economic and 
     security interests in Asia.
       Having become acquainted with Professor Shearer, and having 
     had a chance to talk numerous times to him and watch his 
     participation in the two study groups, I believe he will be a 
     first class representative of the United States. He brings 
     industry, skill and insight to the job of Ambassador. As a 
     former Career Ambassador in our Foreign Service, I think I 
     have a fair notion of what is needed for the job, including 
     the character traits. I believe Professor Shearer has all the 
     necessary personal and professional qualities in abundance.
           Sincerely,
                                                Morton Abramowitz.
                                  ____



                                           Occidental College,

                                  Los Angeles, CA, March 31, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to urge you, and the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee, to give favorable consideration 
     to the nomination of Dr. Derek Shearer as United States 
     Ambassador to Finland.
       I have worked professionally in the field of foreign policy 
     for over twenty-five years--as a Foreign Service Officer on 
     leave-without-pay during the Vietnam years, as the Director 
     of European Studies at the National War College in 1974-75, 
     and as a Scholar-in-Residence at CIA in 1981-83. I have a 
     strong interest in the success of American foreign policy, 
     and have worked with, and have a high regard for the 
     professionals of the State Department, the Defense Department 
     and CIA.
       I believe that President Clinton's nominee for the post in 
     Helsinki is highly qualified to represent this country in a 
     diplomatic position that has frequently been a sensitive one, 
     serving as it does as a pivot for the larger issues of 
     Eastern Europe and Russia.
       I have known Dr. Shearer for over 15 years, and have served 
     with him as a colleague since my return from the CIA in 1983. 
     In those highly charged years during the mid-1980's, when 
     some colleagues treated my service in the Office of Soviet 
     Analysis as something like betrayal, Derek Shearer welcomed 
     me back to campus and was eager to engage in dialog about the 
     critical issues of US foreign and defense policy. During the 
     following years, while I was doing research at the Jet 
     Propulsion Laboratory and The RAND Corporation on Soviet 
     foreign and defense policy, Derek continued to follow these 
     issues with interest and to demonstrate a highly professional 
     attitude toward them.
       Indeed, all of his conduct on campus during our years of 
     joint service has been professional, intellectually engaged, 
     morally upright and effective. During the months when he was 
     actively engaged in the election campaign of President 
     Clinton, I was very impressed by these same qualities as well 
     as by his ability to avoid the self-inflation that attends 
     high politics and by his careful loyalty and disciplined 
     ability to remain tight-lipped, even under considerable 
     provocation from the media.
       So, I urge you to approve his nomination. He will serve 
     this country well. He has a longstanding interest in European 
     and Russian affairs. He is knowledgeable about foreign and 
     economic policy. He is disciplined, professional and 
     effective. He has demonstrated his loyalty to the President, 
     and has served his country well in the process.
           Sincerely yours,
                                             Lawrence T. Caldwell,
                           Chair and Gamble Professor of Politics.
                                  ____



                                           Harvard University,

                                    Cambridge, MA, March 30, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I'm writing this letter on behalf of an 
     old and admired friend of mine, Derek Shearer, who has been 
     nominated Ambassador to Finland and who, I believe, has made 
     a favorable impression on the Committee in his appearance 
     there. I would like strongly to endorse this nomination, in 
     the best of nonpartisan spirit.
       I have known Derek Shearer for many years, as indeed I know 
     his father. He is an extraordinarily good choice for this 
     interesting and important post. Derek Shearer is a man of 
     first-rate intelligence, great probity, a good knowledge of 
     economics and a wonderful capacity for expressing ideas. He 
     will be well, indeed enthusiastically received in Finland. It 
     is an excellent design of the Administration to have someone 
     in Helsinki who will be of immediate interest to the Finnish 
     people and the many who come to this city on international 
     concerns of one sort or another. Being a man of diverse 
     intelligence, Derek Shearer has well-expressed views on many 
     subjects. It is good to have somebody of this sort in Finland 
     rather than a more silent and acquiescent official who would 
     be without attention. It is in this spirit that I would urge 
     the widest support from the Committee.
       My warm regards.
           Yours faithfully,
                                           John Kenneth Galbraith.
                                  ____

         Center for International Studies, University of Southern 
           California,
                                   Los Angeles, CA, April 1, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I understand that Professor Derek 
     Shearer, Director of Occidental College's International and 
     Public affairs Center (IPAC) has been nominated to serve as 
     Ambassador to Finland.
       I have known Professor Shearer for several years, since I 
     moved here from the Woodrow Wilson Center at the Smithsonian. 
     From our first conversations, I have always been favorably 
     impressed by the range and depth of Professor Shearer's 
     informed interests and views on a broad range of issues of 
     public policy, domestic and international. He has a restless 
     curiosity about how communities work, about how business and 
     politics are conducted, and about how to insert well-
     considered ideas effectively into the political and policy-
     making processors. He has drawn on these interests very well 
     in founding IPAC and making it an active and respected center 
     for research, teaching and community outreach. He has also 
     generously contributed ideas and suggestions to me as we are 
     building the Pacific Council on International Policy. He 
     participated very helpfully in a brainstorming retreat with 
     other top foreign policy experts, newspaper editors, and 
     business leaders.
       I am sure your Committee has full information on Professor 
     Shearer's publications, awards, administrative record, and 
     political affiliations. What I would add to your 
     information--as someone who has lived abroad for several 
     years and travelled extensively in Latin America, Europe, and 
     Asia--is that I believe Derek Shearer has just the right 
     qualities and traits to be a very effective and successful 
     ambassador: intelligence, energy, political savvy, broad 
     knowledge both of our own country and of international 
     affairs, good judgment, discerning understanding of people, 
     an exceptional ability to build good professional and 
     personal relationships and the confidence of the President. 
     He would be a very good Ambassador.
       Please feel free to call on me for any further advice.
           Yours,
                                             Abraham F. Lowenthal,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____



                                               Foreign Policy,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in support of the 
     President's nomination of Derek Shearer as United States 
     Ambassador to Finland. I think that he will be an outstanding 
     representative of the United States and I strongly urge his 
     confirmation by the Senate.
       I have known Professor Shearer since the mid-1980s. I have 
     appeared on his campus as a speaker a number of times and 
     have participated in conferences with him in other parts of 
     the country. We have met regularly when he has visited 
     Washington or I was in Los Angeles and he has published for 
     my journal. From this experience I know him as an outstanding 
     scholar, a careful student of international affairs, and an 
     individual with a deep commitment to the American experiment, 
     its government, and its people.
       His piece for Foreign Policy demonstrated a wide reading 
     about and a sensitive understanding of the changes that are 
     taking place in the nature of international trade and 
     commerce. I know personally that he has plunged into the task 
     of preparing himself for his new assignment by reading deeply 
     into the history, culture and politics of Finland.
       As someone who served for 9 years as a Foreign Service 
     Officer and in the position of Assistant Secretary of State 
     from 1977 to 1980, I believe I understand the character 
     traits and skills that are essential for an Ambassador to 
     carry out his duties. Professor Shearer has the intelligence 
     and solid judgment needed to serve our country ably.
       I believe Professor Shearer will be a fine Ambassador and I 
     hope that the Senate will confirm him at its earliest 
     opportunity.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles W. Maynes,
                                                           Editor.
                                  ____



                                  Economic Strategy Institute,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 1994.
     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I would like to express my strong 
     support for Professor Derek N. Shearer, the ambassador-
     nominee to Finland, who is currently before your committee.
       I have known Derek Shearer for some time--and we have 
     worked together on several common projects, including U.S. 
     trade policy towards Japan.
       When Derek served as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce, I 
     invited him to speak at ESI's annual trade conference, and 
     his presentation was one of the most stimulating and well 
     received at the conference. After Derek left government 
     service, he became an associate fellow at ESI. He has 
     participated in institute activities, and provided valuable 
     advice on ESI's research agenda on trade and competitiveness. 
     He is an original thinker, with a deep understanding of the 
     challenges facing the United States in the new post-Cold War 
     era.
       In his work with ESI, Derek has always deomonstrated 
     intellectual integrity, combined with a pragmatic approach to 
     constructing a new government-business partnership in the 
     U.S. As someone who has served in high office in past 
     administrations, I can say that Derek Shearer has my whole-
     hearted support. I know that he will ably represent the 
     interests of the U.S. in this post. I recommend him to you 
     and to the entire Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                         Clyde V. Prestowitz, Jr.,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                           The Graduate School and


                                            University Center,

                                     New York, NY, March 31, 1994.
     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       To The Senate Foreign Relations Committee: I write to 
     express my cordial support for the nomination of Derek 
     Shearer as Ambassador to Finland.
       I have known Professor Shearer and his work for a number of 
     years, and I have spent time with him when I have lectured at 
     Occidental College, where he has taught since 1981 and enjoys 
     the high esteem of his colleagues. He is an able and 
     productive economist with a special interest in international 
     economic affairs. He has done a first-class job in organizing 
     the International and Public Affairs Center at Occidental.
       I need not remind the members of this eminent committee 
     that some of our most distinguished and effective ambassadors 
     have been economics professors--Arthur Burns, John Kenneth 
     Galbraith, Gardner Ackley, for example--not to mention such 
     other successful professor-diplomats as Edwin Reischauer, 
     Robert Goheen, John Badeau, Robert Neumann. In view of the 
     way geopolitics is giving way to geoeconomics in the post-
     Cold War world, it is all the more important to have a high 
     degree of economic literacy in our diplomats.
       I know Finland too and have no doubt that an envoy of 
     Professor Shearer's academic standing and reputation would be 
     a welcome appointment. And, as a White House special 
     assistant in 1961-63, I am familiar with the qualifications 
     required for ambassadorships. Professor Shearer has the 
     intelligence, the integrity, the tact and the sense of 
     responsibility to do an outstanding job. I take much pleasure 
     in commending him to you.
           Sincerely yours,
                                           Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
                                  ____



                                        Trident Capital, L.P.,

                                    Los Angeles, CA, May 13, 1994.
     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: As the former Ambassador to Finland 
     during the Reagan Administration and the former Deputy 
     Secretary of Commerce during the Bush Administration, I am 
     writing to support the nomination of fellow Californian, 
     Professor Derek Shearer, as the Administration's nominee to 
     the post of Ambassador to the Republic of Finland. He has a 
     broad background in European and economic affairs. I know 
     Professor Shearer as a man of integrity and believe he is 
     eminently qualified for this important position.
           With best regards,
                                             Rockwell A. Schnabel.
                                  ____



                                           Occidental College,

                                  Los Angeles, CA, March 15, 1994.
     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to support strongly the 
     nomination of Professor Derek N. Shearer of Occidental 
     College to be Ambassador to Finland.
       As the President of Occidental College, I know Professor 
     Shearer well, and I have the greatest confidence in his 
     abilities and his character.
       Professor Shearer is held in very high esteem on the 
     Occidental campus. As a member of the faculty since 1981, he 
     has been a first-class professor, teaching courses in public 
     policy, economics, urban planning, and business. He 
     established the College's highly regarded interdisciplinary 
     major in Public Policy--and his public policy students have 
     gone on to study business and law at Harvard, Columbia, 
     Georgetown and other top schools.
       Professor Shearer also founded Occidental's International 
     and Public Affairs Center (IPAC) and has served as its 
     director. He has brought a number of nationally known 
     speakers onto campus, enriching the intellectual life of the 
     College. Each year his Public Policy students organize the 
     Occidental Public Affairs Conference which addresses major 
     issues of our time. Students in Professor Shearer's business 
     course created the outdoor campus cafe and wrote feasibility 
     studies for improving other campus facilities such as the 
     bookstore.
       Professor Shearer has served on numerous trustee committees 
     and has frequently addressed the Occidental Board of Trustees 
     annual retreat. I've personally observed him at these 
     meetings, and I can attest to his intelligence, common sense 
     and diplomatic skills.
       As a former government official--I served as Director of 
     the National Science Foundation and recall a number of 
     occasions in which I interacted with you--I know what it 
     takes to succeed in government service. I am confident that 
     Professor Shearer will be an outstanding Ambassador and a 
     credit to the country.
           Sincerely,
                                            John Brooks Slaughter,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                    Los Angeles, CA, May 17, 1994.
     Re: Letter of recommendation for Professor Derek Shearer.

     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to support the nomination 
     of Professor Derek Shearer as United States Ambassador to 
     Finland.
       As a Board Member of Occidental College I have worked 
     closely with Professor Shearer on many outreach programs for 
     young people. He encourages our youth to get involved in 
     community affairs, and has given unselfishly of his time and 
     energy. His enthusiasm in the service of youth is most 
     commendable, and he is an inspirational role model to them.
       Professor Shearer also founded and directed the 
     International and Public Affairs Center at Occidental, which 
     has become a vital center for faculty research, public 
     conferences, and policy seminars.
       I am confident of Professor Shearer's leadership and his 
     abilities, and I know he is eminently qualified for this 
     important position.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard J. Riordan,
                                                            Mayor.
                                  ____


                     Biographic Summary--Highlights

       Name: Derek Shearer.
       Position for which considered: Ambassador to the Republic 
     of Finland.
       Present position: Director, International and Public 
     Affairs Center and Associate Professor of Public Policy, 
     Occidental College, Los Angeles, California.
       Legal residence: California.
       Office address: International and Public Affairs Center, 
     Occidental College, Los Angeles, California 90041.
       Date/place of birth: December 5, 1946, Los Angeles, 
     California.
       Home address: Santa Monica, California.
       Marital status: Married.
       Name of spouse: Ruth Y. Goldway.
       Names of children: Casey Shearer, Anthony Yannatta (step-
     son), Julie Yannatta (step-daughter).
       Education: Ph.D., the Union Graduate School, Yellow 
     Springs, Ohio, 1977; B.A., Yale University, New Haven, 
     Connecticut, 1968; University of Michigan summer Russian 
     language program, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1965.
       Language ability: Russian (passive comprehension; fair 
     reading knowledge, rusty spoken); French (fair comprehension, 
     fair reading, minimal spoken); Spanish (some reading and 
     comprehension, traveler's spoken only).
       Military experience: None.
       Work experience--1981-present: Director, International and 
     Public Affairs Center, and Associate Professor of Public 
     Policy, Occidental College, Los Angeles, California.
       February-May 1993--Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     Economic Affairs, Washington, D.C. (unpaid leave from 
     Occidental College).
       May-November 1993--Associate Fellow, Economic Strategy 
     Institute, Washington, D.C.
       1993--Member, Carnegie Endowment Study Groups on U.S.-Japan 
     Relations and the Pacific Community, Washington, D.C.
       1991--United States Information Service sponsored lecture 
     tour of Japan.
       1979-1981--Member, Board of Directors, National Consumer 
     Cooperative Bank, Washington, D.C.
       1981-1986--Member, Planning Commission, City of Santa 
     Monica, California.
       1985-1988--Member, Academic Advisory Board of the United 
     States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 
     Washington, D.C.
       1979-1981--Lecturer, School of Architecture and Urban 
     Planning, University of California, Los Angeles.
       1968-1980--Journalist/Consultant/Lecturer in Washington, 
     D.C., Boston, Massachusetts, and Los Angeles, California.
       Organizational affiliations: Member, Yale Club of New York, 
     1990-present and member, International House of Japan, 1991-
     present.
       Honors/fellowships: U.S.-Japan Leadership Fellow of Japan 
     Society, 1991, for study in Japan, 1991; Swedish Bicentennial 
     grant for travel to study urban planning in Sweden, 1985; 
     Guggenheim Fellowship to study urban planning in American 
     cities, 1984-85; German Marshall Fund of the United States 
     travel grant to attend international economics conference in 
     London, United Kingdom.


                      publications: (partial list)

     Monographs
       ``A New Social Contract,'' co-author with Martin Carnoy 
     Russell Rumberger, Harper and Row, 1983.
       ``Economic Democracy,'' co-author with Martin Carnoy, M.E. 
     Sharpe/Pantheon, 1980.
     Journal articles and book chapters
       ``Why No American MITI,'' in Japanese Foresight magazine, 
     Shinchosha, Tokyo, December, 1993.
       ``Transpacific Vision,'' Foreign Policy, Number 92, Fall 
     1993.
       ``U.S. Japan Relations After the Cold War,'' in Japanese, 
     in A Perspective Insight into the Future of the Japan-U.S. 
     Relationship, The Asian Affairs Research council, Tokyo, 
     1991.
       ``The National Trade Data Bank--The U.S. Exporters 
     Indispensable Tool,'' Business America, Vol. 114, No. 9, 
     Spring 1993, U.S. Department of Commerce.
       ``In Search of Equal Partnerships: The Prospects for 
     Progressive Urban Policy in the 1990s,'' in Unequal 
     Partnerships, edited by Gregory Squires, Temple University 
     Press, 1989.
       ``A Community-Based Housing Strategy,'' Peter Dreier and 
     John Atlas, in Transition '89, a publication of the Democracy 
     Project, Dec. 1988.
       ``La Nueva Politica Municipal,'' in Estados Unidos: Luces Y 
     Sombras, Editorial Pablo Iglesias, Madrid, 1987.
       ``Towards a Democratic Alternative,'' with Martin Carnoy, 
     in American Economic Policy, editors: Alperovitz and Skurski 
     Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1985.
     Op-ed/Journalism
       ``The `German Model' Loses Its Punch,'' Los Angeles Times, 
     June 28, 1993.
       ``Build a Decent, Prosperous Society,'' Los Angeles Times, 
     September 23, 1992.
       ``At Summit, Japan Grassroots Are Shallow,'' The Asian Wall 
     Street Journal, December 30, 1991.
       Numerous Op-ed articles and journalism on domestic and 
     foreign policy issues, 1968-1990.
                                  ____


       Report for the Committee on Foreign Relations--U.S. Senate

     Subject: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of 
         Demonstrated Competence--Foreign Service Act, Section 
         304(a)(4).
     Post: Republic of Finland.
     Candidate: Derek Shearer.
       Derek Shearer is the founding Director of IPAC, the 
     International and Public Affairs Center, at Occidental 
     College in Los Angeles. IPAC supports faculty research and 
     organizes seminars and institutes on international and 
     domestic issues. He is also Professor of Public Policy at 
     Occidental, where he teaches courses on domestic and 
     international economics and policy.
       Mr. shearer has worked in government at the local, state, 
     and national levels. He served as economic advisor to 
     Governor Jerry Brown of California in the 1970's. He was a 
     founding member of the Cooperative Bank, an appointment made 
     by President Jimmy Carter in 1978. In the 1980's, Mr. Shearer 
     was a city planning commissioner in Santa Monica, California.
       Mr. Shearer is the author of numerous books and articles on 
     economic policy and politics. His opinion pieces have 
     appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and 
     the Wall Street Journal. He has delivered lectures at leading 
     universities and institutes in the United States, Canada, 
     Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, and Japan.
       Mr. Shearer has been awarded many grants and awards, 
     including a Guggenheim Fellowship, a Swedish Bicentennial 
     grant, and a German Marshall fund grant. In 1991, he was 
     named a U.S.-Japan Leadership Fellow of the Japan Society, 
     and spent three months in Japan studying the future of U.S.-
     Japan economic and political relations.
       Mr. Shearer received his B.A. from Yale University, where 
     he studied the language, history, and politics of Russian, 
     China, and the Far East. He received his Ph.D. in Public 
     Policy from Union Graduate School. He has travelled and 
     studied in Russia, and has worked in Southeast Asia and 
     Washington, D.C.
       Mr. Shearer was born in Los Angeles, California, on 
     December 5, 1946; he is married and has three children.
       Mr. Shearer's knowledge of national and international 
     policy and economics and his experience in government and 
     politics make him an excellent candidate for the position of 
     Ambassador to the Republic of Finland.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided to both sides.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the 
nomination of Sam Brown.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. How much time does the Senator yield to 
himself?
  Mr. BROWN. I yield to myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.


                Statement on the Nomination of Sam Brown

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the 
nomination of Sam Brown to be our ambassador to the CSCE. It is an 
important post, with an importance far beyond the measures that were 
incorporated just in the Helsinki accords. The Helsinki accords, as I 
know the President knows and Members of this Chamber are aware, came 
about in the seventies, focused on human rights, and played an 
important role in developing our relations in Europe and, hopefully, 
with regard to new innovations in the old Soviet Union.
  That role was expanded dramatically, though, in both 1990 and 1992. 
It was expanded to include a significant role in military affairs. 
Focusing on national security, the CSCE will monitor and focus on the 
Open Skies Treaty as well as focusing on the Conventional Arms 
Limitation Treaty. Those are vital treaties and ones that bear enormous 
impact on our national security. They are also hot spots because they 
have a significant say-so on the European Continent, with regard to 
military affairs.
  Right now there are a number of requests waiting. One is a Russian 
request to waive provisions of the treaty that would allow them to 
deploy more troops into the westerly area of the CSCE. It is an 
important military post as well as a human rights post. One of the 
questions, I think, that is raised is the nominee's qualifications to 
handle military matters, as well as to handle management matters.

  This body--our Congress--has experienced Sam Brown as a manager. He 
had important responsibilities under the Carter administration. As head 
of ACTION, he supervised a number of agencies. In addition to that, the 
Peace Corps was under his direction. We have experience with Sam Brown 
as a manager, and it would be remiss for this body to not look at his 
period of management of that agency as we offer much more significant 
responsibilities, at least in terms of military and national security 
terms.
  That management practice was outlined in a significant report done by 
the House Appropriations subcommittee staff. Former Congressman Natcher 
had directed that subcommittee and his staff put together and put out a 
report on Sam Brown's management practices.
  Last week, I had that report submitted and included in the Record, so 
it is available to Members, but I will simply summarize.
  It outlined serious management practices as identified by the House 
Appropriations Committee staff. Let me mention at this point, this is 
not a partisan document. This was put together by the staff of a 
Democratic subcommittee. I believe it has validity, not from a partisan 
point of view, but from a simple, objective, appropriations 
subcommittee review process.
  The staff identified the following areas of mismanagement: Improper 
procurement practices, page 88 of the report; financial mismanagement 
practices on page 105; grants awarded without competition, page 35 of 
the report; attacking Government agencies, politicians, utilities as 
enemies, at page 40; involvement in restricted activities; that is, 
restricted by Federal law or regulations, that is page 43; improper use 
of experts and consultants, page 22; ignore legal requirements in 
setting pay for personnel, page 16; abolition of independent inspector 
general, page 112.
  Mr. President, it was an attempt to do away with the independent 
inspector general and perhaps this the most disconcerting of all. 
Everyone recognizes in a significant agency there can be problems, but 
one would hope a manager would end up disclosing those problems and 
dealing with them rather than trying to do away with the position of 
the Inspector General who is involved in trying to bring those problems 
to light and correct them. The efforts to do away with that independent 
inspector general at the time the independent inspector general was 
doing his job, I think raises serious questions about the candidate.
  Mr. President, these management practices were commented on in the 
Washington Post. We have a copy of that article for the Members to see, 
who are watching. Let me simply share it with the Members. It is by 
Jack Anderson. The headline is: ``ACTION Chief Labeled Inept 
Martinet.''

       Sam Brown, the tousle-haired antiwar activist-turned-
     bureaucrat, comes across as an easygoing, charismatic, 
     refreshing new face on the Washington political scene. But 
     his leadership of ACTION, which oversees such do-good 
     programs as the Peace Corps and VISTA, has drawn increasing 
     criticism from both inside and outside the organization.
       The recent forced resignation of the Peace Corps Director, 
     Carolyn Payton, was a monumentally mishandled affair. 
     Regardless of the means of her firing, the circumstances 
     surrounding it were so messy as to give credence to charges 
     that Brown is simply not up to the job President Carter gave 
     him.
       Insiders told our associate Jack Mitchell that the Payton 
     firing was only the tip of the iceberg. They say Brown's 
     direction of ACTION's domestic and international programs has 
     been all thumbs from the very start. Mismanagement, 
     favoritism, and plain incompetence characterized Brown's 
     regime.
       Brown's professional goal of an egalitarian ``workplace 
     democracy,'' which would have been unique in Washington 
     bureaucracy, could account for the slapdash, uncoordinated 
     administration of ACTION and the crumbling image of a once-
     respected Government agency.
       But Brown is accused of more than just inept bungling in a 
     job that's too big for him. ACTION aides say he has become an 
     authoritarian martinet who brooks no interference from his 
     subordinates. He is, they say, a bureaucratic dictator.
       Morale at ACTION is rock-bottom low. Bad publicity has 
     negated positive achievements of the agency's programs. 
     Brown's response has been not to clean up his own act but to 
     look for a press aide that can give him a brighter image.
       The dismissal of Payton, one of the Carter administration's 
     few influential black officials, brought some of the agency's 
     dirty laundry out in the open.
       The conflict between the gregarious Brown and the more 
     reserved Payton appears to have been basically a personality 
     clash. At any rate, Brown was so eager to pressure Payton to 
     quit that her resignation was leaked to the press before she 
     had agreed to it.
       Caught by surprise and embarrassed by the report of her 
     firing, Payton denied it. She had to go to the Presidential 
     counsel, Robert Lipshutz, to confirm that her resignation had 
     actually been requested by the President.
       Brown's growing band of detractors claim that he and his 
     cronies have been trying to apply the anti-Establishment 
     idealism of their New Left days to the complicated task of 
     administering multimillion dollar social programs. The result 
     has been chaos, critics say.
       And starry-eyed idealism has not prevented ACTION brass 
     from squandering the taxpayers' money with an abandon that 
     would be envied by any entrenched bureaucracy in Washington.
       A case in point was ACTION's hare-brained scheme to select 
     unemployed inner-city black youths to Jamaica to work. ACTION 
     officials jetted off to the Caribbean resort to set up the 
     project.
       But Jamaican officials, faced with massive unemployment and 
     an inflation rate of up to 50 percent a year, put the kibosh 
     on the dizzy plan. They were appalled at the idea of America 
     ghetto youths being thrown in with resentful, out-of-work 
     Jamaicans on their politically troubled island.
       Cost-conscious watchdogs at the budget office have warned 
     ACTION spendthrift poohbahs that the agency's travel 
     expenditures had to be reduced. ACTION staffers, for example, 
     have been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 
     past few months attending meetings all over the world. At the 
     same time, workers in the field have been told there's not 
     enough money to fly them back to Washington for briefings.
       Taxpayers recently footed the bill for conferences in 
     Casablanca and Nairobi, attended by no less than 31 ACTION 
     paper-shufflers. Each junket cost about $80,000. The 
     highlight of both meetings, sources told us, was the obvious 
     friction between Brown and Payton.
       Footnote: Brown was not available to talk to us at press 
     time, but his supporters at ACTION insist that reports of his 
     incompetence and tyranny are either untrue or exaggerated. 
     ``Sam's not that way at all,'' they say.
       An ACTION spokeswoman told us that Payton's resignation was 
     announced ``in response to media calls'' after she had 
     indicated she was quitting.
       The Jamaican project, she said, was an ``experimental 
     idea'' designed to improve minority participation but was 
     dropped early this year after a negative response from 
     Jamaican officials.

  Mr. President, I appreciate a press report is not a conclusive 
indication of someone's management ability. That is why I think the 
independent staff report of the House Appropriations subcommittee under 
Congressman Natcher is so significant. It is why I think it bears 
reading by all Members.
  Frankly, in our committee deliberations and in the committee report, 
there were suggestions that this report dealt with matters that had 
affected the ACTION Agency prior to Sam Brown's leadership of the 
agency. I commend the reading of this report to every Member. That is 
simply not the case. While it is true some problems the agency had to 
deal with had been in existence quite awhile, many of them--a 
significant number of them--and many of perhaps the most significant 
occurred while Sam Brown was the leader of that agency.
  I suggest it is not because someone cannot improve or learn or 
improve their activities, I suggest a review of this because I think it 
is a very significant document that the Members have to consider in 
deciding whether or not Sam Brown is an appropriate leader for the 
CSCE.
  One of the considerations I hope Members will take into account when 
they look at the CSC is to ask themselves what kind of qualifications 
previous members of the CSC have had, and what kind of qualifications 
other Ambassadors that other countries send have. I believe it is fair 
to say--and we will submit for the Record the background of the 
members, but I believe it is fair to point out that the members from 
other countries and the past ones from America have had significant 
diplomatic experience.
  The committee report reports that Sam Brown has had some diplomatic 
experience as leader of ACTION and, indeed, in that position he 
supervised the Peace Corps. But I would submit that is a different kind 
of experience perhaps than straight diplomatic experience, and it is 
quite dramatically different than national security experience. That is 
the part that concerns me most.
  I think by the records it is quite clear that Sam Brown does not have 
national security experience, neither service in the military nor 
service in diplomatic posts where he would deal with military matters 
or disarmament matters. As a matter of fact, this area, perhaps the 
most significant area of CSC now, one that is so important I think for 
the future, is one where the nominee is the shortest.
  I have suggested to the administration that they might want to have 
him spend 6 months on the job. They have the ability to appoint him and 
send him there and put him on the team. Let him learn his job first. 
But to put someone with no national security experience in that 
position I think raises serious doubts about our ability, one, to 
properly monitor the armament agreements that they supervise and 
monitor, but, two, it raises serious questions about our ability to 
negotiate a new Arms Limitation Treaty.
  One of the most important discussions that will take place with 
Russia and the countries on the European continent in the coming years 
will be a followup of the Conventional Arms Limitation Treaty. Indeed, 
that is one of the functions of the CSCE, not only to monitor the 
existing treaty but to help lead the negotiations on the new treaty.
  It is this Senator's belief that whoever leads that team needs to 
know something about armaments, needs to know something about national 
security. To suggest that we are going to be able to negotiate a top 
flight security treaty with someone who has no experience in that area, 
I think is a grave mistake.
  Mr. President, I would like to read now an editorial from the Pueblo 
Chieftan. This is an editorial written by one of the papers in the 
State that Sam Brown had served as State treasurer, and it addresses 
the question of qualifications. The headline of the Pueblo Chieftan 
editorial is ``Nyet, Mr. Brown.'' It reads as follows.

       The U.S. Senate is expected this week to take up the 
     confirmation of former Colorado state treasurer Sam Brown as 
     ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe. It would be a dark day for American foreign policy 
     interests if he wins that confirmation.
       The Commission's job is to implement the Treaty on the 
     Conventional Armed Forces in Europe completed with the Soviet 
     Union in 1990. Now, however, the Russian Government has 
     requested that certain treaty limits be relaxed.
       The treaty restricts Russia from massing troops in the so-
     called flank regions of Europe, thereby preventing it from 
     injecting forces into border conflicts in places like the 
     Caucasus and elsewhere. The United States and its Western 
     allies should be responding that that's precisely the point 
     of the treaty.
       The Russian defense minister and others have signaled their 
     intention to remain engaged in what they emphatically call 
     ``the near abroad.'' The Russian bear stills wants hegemony.
       Until recently, the U.S. delegation was headed by the able 
     Ambassador John Kornblum. He had a wide-ranging diplomatic 
     career which gave him the experience that made it unlikely he 
     would yield anything meaningful to the Russians.
       What of Mr. Brown's qualifications?
       He was a prominent anti-Vietnam war activist in the 1960's. 
     In 1976, he led the effort to have the Democratic Party 
     endorse unconditional amnesty to Vietnam war draft resisters, 
     a piece of legislation that was killed by a Democratically 
     controlled congressional committee.
       So much for Mr. Brown's military record.
       He has been touted by the Clinton administration as a good 
     administrator. The record suggests otherwise.
       During the Carter administration, Mr. Brown was the head of 
     ACTION. In 1978, the agency was the subject of an 
     investigation by the House Appropriations Committee. Its 
     findings, in part:
       ``ACTION procurement practices often conflicted with 
     regulatory and statutory requirements. * * * (The) staff 
     found an accounting system in need of further refinement * * 
     * travel irregularities * * * improper expense vouchers for 
     official travel.''
       The Appropriations Committee staff offered some 18 
     recommendations to correct what it called ``the apparent 
     weaknesses in ACTION's overall management of its personnel, 
     procurement and budget and finance programs'' during Mr. 
     Brown's ``administration'' of the Agency.
       But this might be most telling.
       Committee investigators learned that Volunteers in Service 
     to America, the domestic Peace Corps arm of ACTION, was using 
     volunteers in its Community Research Action Project for 
     political purposes ``in the Arkansas primary election'' which 
     vaulted then Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton to his 
     first term as Governor.
       Is this the person who should be empowered to look after 
     U.S. military interests in negotiations with the Russians? 
     The Cold War may be over, but the Russian desire for empire 
     still lurks.
       The Senate should vote nyet on Mr. Brown's appointment.

  Mr. President, this sentiment is echoed in a similar editorial by the 
Rocky Mountain News, the largest newspaper in circulation in Colorado. 
The headline reads as follows: ``Sam Brown's credentials.'' They 
capsulized by saying:

       The issue: Nomination of Sam Brown to overseas security 
     post.
       Our view: A grave mismatch of man and job.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include this editorial in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Rocky Mountain News, May 20, 1994]

                        Sam Brown's Credentials

       President Clinton has saved one of the U.S.'s most 
     sensitive diplomatic plums for Sam Brown, Colorado's former 
     treasurer and prominent Vietnam war protester. Meanwhile, 
     congressional opposition has been portrayed as just old-guard 
     anxiety that a '60s enemy of ``American imperialism'' could 
     romp at will through the corridors of Western military 
     diplomacy.
       The real stakes are much higher, and have little directly 
     to do with Brown's radical past. If the Senate confirms Brown 
     next week as ambassador to the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), it will place a man with no 
     experience in arms control, military and strategic studies, 
     conciliar posts or international diplomacy in charge of vital 
     negotiations involving U.S. security in Europe.
       One might as well have turned over D-Day operations to the 
     head of the Work Projects Administration. The crown of 
     Brown's career was a dubious run as Jimmy Carter's director 
     of ACTION/Peace Corps, which was censured during his tenure 
     by the House Appropriations Committee for wide-ranging 
     financial mismanagement, waste and improprieties.
       That's hardly preparation for a post to which the other 
     nations of the free world send leading foreign-policy lights. 
     For that matter, the last three U.S. ambassadors include an 
     experienced NATO official, a Soviet policy analyst and a 
     senior U.N. attache. As Colorado Sen. Hank Brown, leading 
     opponent of the nomination, pointed out in the Foreign 
     Relations Committee (which sent the nomination to the Senate 
     floor on a 10-9 vote), the appointment of Sam Brown means no 
     less than ``someone with no military training or experience 
     supervis(ing) future discussions of the conventional forces 
     treaties in Europe.''
       Working under a gray title and far from headlines, CSCE has 
     nevertheless been a powerful instrument of order in a 
     reordered Europe. Among other things, it oversees the 1990 
     treaty that trussed the ambitions of the old Soviet empire by 
     denying it the ability to mass troops on Europe's flanks.
       But Russia, now complaining of cramps, is back at the table 
     for a better deal. Clinton's representative will comfort 
     Russia's insistence that it be allowed to widen that military 
     sphere to bring it well within meddling range of the volatile 
     Balkans. He or she will also have to monitor military 
     maneuvers and arms buildups. Any sign of indecision or 
     confusion on the U.S.'s part not only would erode a hard-won 
     stability in Europe but encourage the region's weirder 
     players, such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who on any given day 
     may threaten to bomb NATO bases and/or knock off Western 
     detractors with ``atomic pistols.''
       What in his experience prepares Sam Brown for such a 
     mission? Surely not as antiwar activist, a Democratic party 
     wheeler-dealer, head of a domestic service agency, or state 
     government official.
       At the end of World War II a cynic noted that while 
     diplomats should have iron ore in the veins, they too often 
     operate on enough oil to float a whale . . . ``regular Moby 
     Dicks,'' he jeered.
       Well, there are diplomats, and there are diplomats. The 
     Senate, which could take up Brown's nomination as early as 
     today, must distinguish between the critical experience 
     needed at the CSCE and other posts less crucial to U.S. 
     interests. Among the 17 still-vacant ambassadorships, surely 
     there's something else that fits the energetic and well-
     defined credentials of Sam Brown.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I see the very able and distinguished 
chairman of our committee, as well as the very highly respected senior 
Senator from Illinois, and I know both of them have concerns on this 
matter which they wish to share.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL. I yield as much time as he desires to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] is 
recognized for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator.
  While I differ with my colleague from Colorado on this issue, I have 
great respect for him. He has been a constructive, positive Member of 
this body, and it has been my pleasure to work with him on a number of 
issues.
  First of all, let us just keep in mind what we are doing. What we are 
doing is not determining whether Sam Brown is going to be our 
representative at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 
The question is, believe it or not, are we going to give him the title 
of Ambassador.
  That is the only question we have. We are straining at gnats.
  The two points that my friend and colleague from Colorado makes I do 
not think are valid. The No. 1 question is can a person without 
military background be in charge as our delegate. The reality is I 
served 2 years overseas in the army, proud to have done so, but that 
would not make me any more qualified than Sam Brown to take charge of 
this. When you get to having security agreements, you work with the 
military. You bring in the Pentagon. I served on the advisory committee 
for several years that we have on the CSCE. I remember Senator Pell 
serving as cochair along with Dante Fascell of that committee. I think 
he will advise you, rarely did we get into any kind of technical 
military matters.
  The American people made a decision that we would have a Commander in 
Chief with no military background.
  Whether that decision was right or wrong, I happen to think it was 
the right decision. Obviously, my friend from Colorado voted 
differently than I did, for Bill Clinton. He voted for George Bush, I 
assume. But we made that decision. I do not think if Bill Clinton had 
my 2 years in the Army that would make him a better Commander in Chief. 
I think this is really not an issue.
  Then the second issue is what kind of a job he did at ACTION. There 
was an investigation by the House Appropriations Committee staff. As a 
result, there was a hearing. In fact, we had lengthy hearings. I 
happened to chair the subcommittee of jurisdiction and Congressman John 
Ashbrook, the late Congressman from Ohio, asked that we hold hearings. 
I said, ``We will hold hearings as long as you want, and you bring in 
as many witnesses as you want.''
  We held 34 hours of hearings, 6 days of hearings, and one hearing 
lasted 14 hours. It was very interesting. I wish John Ashbrook were 
alive here today to tell you how much John Ashbrook would be a Sam 
Brown fan, or he would vote with us. But the evidence of abuse just 
dissipated. We brought in all kinds of people. Everyone was put under 
oath, somewhat unusual at our hearings. I remember bringing in the 
auditors and the inspector general, and asked if they found any abuse 
in terms of the operation of ACTION. They said yes; they had found two 
instances of abuse. I asked when they had taken place. They had taken 
place before Jimmy Carter was President and before Sam Brown was 
responsible.
  A very interesting thing happened after our hearings. The House 
Appropriations Committee increased the appropriations for ACTION by 20 
percent. I see the Presiding Officer, who chairs the Appropriations 
Committee in the Senate. You do not increase appropriations 20 percent 
for any agency like that. That was clearly confidence on the part of 
the House Appropriations Committee in what Sam Brown was doing.
  Did Sam Brown make some mistakes? No question about it. Does Paul 
Simon make mistakes? Yes. Does Claiborne Pell make mistakes? He is 
nodding his head yes. Does Robert Byrd make mistakes? Yes. We all make 
mistakes. But in terms of running that operation, I do not think there 
is any question that Sam Brown did an effective job. Again, there is no 
reason to not give him the title of Ambassador.
  That is all we are talking about. The President has the authority to 
designate this person. The President has designated him. There is no 
confirmation of the Senate on that. The question is, do we give him the 
title of Ambassador? And I suppose we could weaken his ability to 
perform a little maybe by not give giving him that title. I do not see 
any purpose in doing that. I think we ought to go ahead and give him 
the title. That is what the debate is about; nothing more, nothing 
less.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell].
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Illinois for 
his position and his refinement of what the question is all about, and 
that is not the designation of the function of the job but the title of 
the job. That is it.
  The nomination of Sam W. Brown, Jr., for the rank of Ambassador 
during his tenure of service as Head of Delegation to the Conference on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE] was submitted to the Senate 
by President Clinton and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
on November 18, 1993. Pending before the Senate for advice and consent 
is solely Mr. Brown's nomination for the rank of Ambassador just as the 
Senator from Illinois pointed out.
  Mr. Brown's appointment as Head of Delegation to the CSCE is an 
appointment which is not subject to the advice and consent of the 
Senate.
  The committee held a hearing the same day the nomination was received 
with the hope that it could be acted on by the Senate before the end of 
the first session. Unfortunately, the committee was unable to act on 
the nomination prior to adjournment on November 24, 6 days later.
  The committee scheduled Mr. Brown's nomination at its first business 
session this year, February 9, 1994. At that meeting, it was announced 
for the first time since the November hearing that members of the 
committee had additional questions they wished to submit to Mr. Brown 
prior to the committee action on the nomination. Subsequently, the 
nominee provided the Committee responses to approximately 81 questions 
submitted by members of the committee. These questions and answers are 
included in the committee's report (Exec. Rept. 103-27, p. 22).
  The committee held its second business meeting of this year on March 
22, at which time Sam Brown's nomination was approved by a vote of 11 
to 9, and reported to the Senate. Although all members of the committee 
voted on Mr. Brown's nomination, due to objections in the Senate that a 
majority of those Members present at the time the vote was taken did 
not vote in favor of the nomination, as required by committee rule 
4(c), the nomination was returned to the committee on April 13, 1994. 
Although the objections raised were proper under the rules, no such 
objections were raised at the committee meeting on March 22 when all 
members of the committee, with a quorum present, voted in person or by 
proxy on the nomination.
  After Mr. Brown's nomination was returned to the committee, 27 
additional questions were submitted to the nominee. Mr. Brown has 
responded fully and completely to all 108 questions submitted to him 
after his nomination.
  At its business meeting of May 4, 1994, the committee voted by a vote 
of 11 to 9, with a quorum present and a majority of those members 
physically present voting in the affirmative, to report the nomination 
and recommend that the nomination be confirmed.
  The committee has carefully considered the nomination of Mr. Brown 
and has recognized his expertise and experience, as well as his 
professional responses to questions posed both during his hearing and 
in response to written inquiries from committee members. Although 
objections to Mr. Brown's qualifications were raised by some committee 
members, a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations determined that Mr. Brown is well qualified to discharge the 
responsibilities of this important position. Mr. Brown's own statement 
to the committee, his biographic summary and a statement of the 
position's functions and responsibilities are all included in the 
committee's report (Exec. Rept. 103-27, pp. 12-15).
  I would emphasize that all the Senate has before it for advice and 
consent is Mr. Brown's nomination to hold the rank of Ambassador during 
his tenure as Head of Delegation to the CSCE. The appointment of Mr. 
Brown as Head of Delegation to the CSCE. The appointment of Mr. Brown 
as Head of Delegation is not subject to the advice and consent of the 
Senate. Nevertheless, the Committee on Foreign Relations clearly 
concluded that Mr. Brown is well qualified to serve as Head of 
Delegation to the CSCE, as well as hold the rank of Ambassador during 
his tenure in that position. Failure of the Senate to give its advice 
and consent to this nomination would deny the United States of America 
the status of ambassadorial representation at the CSCE. It would not be 
a denial of Mr. Brown's ability to serve as Head of Delegation. 
Consequently, the U.S. Government would be relegated to the status of a 
second class citizen in the international community represented at 
CSCE.
  The committee received strong letters of support for Mr. Brown's 
nomination from Ambassadors Warren Zimmerman and Max Kampelman, both of 
whom served with high distinction in this important position. In 
addition, Mr. Brown also received strong support from Robert S. 
McNamara, former Secretary of Defense, the Commission on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, and others, all of whom attested to Mr. Brown's 
qualifications for this position. These letters of support are included 
in the Committee's report (Exec. Rept. 103-27, pp. 6-11).
  The requirements of the position put a strong emphasis on human 
rights and democracy building, an area of experience where Mr. Brown's 
credentials are very strong. Mr. Brown has a clear commitment to human 
rights standards, the energy and intelligence to understand and react 
quickly to changing circumstances and a proven ability to be an 
effective advocate for the U.S. position. Mr. Brown's commitment to 
human rights and skills as an advocate have never been questioned.

  Endorsements from past CSCE heads of delegation, both career and 
noncareer, from the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations all 
testify to these qualities.
  Ambassador Max Kampelman says, in part,

       Mr. Brown has persuaded me that he understands the CSCE and 
     its potential for serving our national interest. He 
     understands the challenge and is prepared to help our country 
     provide the necessary leadership. He has the skills and 
     abilities to do that.

  Ambassador Warren Zimmermann says,

       He has impressed me with his quick mastery of the 
     complexity of the issues; his commitment to human rights, to 
     military security and the other basic elements of the CSCE 
     process; and his creativity in seeking new ways for CSCE to 
     be effective in the post-Cold War world. I might add that 
     CSCE experts on the NSC staff and in the State Department 
     have told me that they share my high opinion of Mr. Brown.

  Mr. Brown's experience with high level foreign officials, his ability 
to motivate and lead the delegation, and a good ability to work with 
the many non-Government organizations which have an interest in CSCE 
issues are skills he will bring to this position.
  CSCE also has the stated goal of encouraging the development of free 
markets and of protecting the environment. Mr. Brown's experience in 
business the last 12 years, coupled with his long-standing commitment 
to the environment, will serve him and the country well in this 
position.
  Although concerns has been expressed with respect to Mr. Brown's lack 
of military experience, I would note that the distinguished departing 
career Ambassador John Kornblum, his predecessor Ambassador Warrren 
Zimmermann, a distinguished career officer, and their predecessor the 
distinguished Ambassador Max Kampelman, who was appointed by both 
Presidents Carter and Reagan, all had no prior military service. Lack 
of military experience was clearly not a disqualification for the 
position in the past three administrations.
  Concerns have been raised that Mr. Brown was responsible, in some 
manner, for mismanagement of ACTION when he served as the head of that 
agency during the Carter administration. The committee believed that 
there was no basis for these concerns. Although there were serious 
deficiencies found in some ACTION administrative systems, most of these 
were long-standing problems which were corrected during Mr. Brown's 
tenure. A House appropriations subcommittee chaired by Senator Paul 
Simon, currently a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, held 7 
days of hearings during which there was no finding of mismanagement by 
Mr. Brown.
  The CSCE, located in Vienna, is the principal forum for promoting 
respect for human rights and democracy-building efforts throughout 
Europe. It also has a continuing arms control function. It is time to 
fill this important position as CSCE moves to take on a greater role in 
the post-cold-war era. The U.S. delegation to the CSCE is playing a 
leading role in resolving a number of critical European conflicts, and 
in the process, helping to define a new European order. Through 
mediation efforts in Moldova, Latvia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Georgia the 
CSCE, heavily influenced by the United States delegation, is working to 
ensure that newly independent states are not torn apart by ethnic 
conflict or threatened by larger neighbors. Poised on the cutting edge 
of preventive diplomacy, the CSCE has a role of tremendous importance 
to play. The United States has been the leading voice in the CSCE since 
its inception in 1975. Strong leadership of the U.S. delegation to CSCE 
is vital to U.S. interests, to the optimal functioning of the CSCE, and 
ultimately to European security. Sam Brown will provide that strong 
leadership.
  Ambassador John Kornblum, the last head of the U.S. delegation, 
recently finished his assignment with distinction in Vienna. The U.S. 
delegation is consequently without an Ambassador at a crucial moment. 
Important progress is being made in Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations under 
CSCE auspices, the Russian troop withdrawals from the Baltics, 
developments in Georgia, Moldova, and Macedonia portend increased CSCE 
involvement, the CSCE is making progress on overseeing Russian 
peackeeing forces in the former Soviet Union, and this month the CSCE 
is defining its human rights oversight role in Bosnia, as provided for 
in the Bosnian-Croat agreements. To leave the U.S. delegation to handle 
such an imposing basket of issues without a head of delegation is 
unwise and unfair, to ourselves, to the CSCE, and to all of Europe.
  The Committee found Sam Brown to be well qualified to discharge the 
responsibilities of Ambassador during his tenure of service as Head of 
Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and 
I urge the Senate to give its advice and consent to Mr. Brown's 
nomination so as to remove the handcuffs from our delegation there so 
we can be represented by an Ambassador and encourage his status of 
representing the Chief of State in permitting our delegation to 
function as it should.

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise out of concern of the nomination of 
Sam Brown. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is recognized 
for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. BROWN. First of all, let me express my thanks to the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The 
distinguished chairman has done, I think, an outstanding job in 
ensuring a fair, full, and complete hearing. I think it has been very 
helpful to Members on both sides. I, as a member of that committee, 
deeply appreciate his leadership and efforts in that regard.
  The chairman has also commented that Sam Brown has answered a number 
of questions, and I want to agree with the chairman. He did indeed 
respond to the questions, and I thought the responses were by and large 
helpful, that they provided a good record, and in contrast to some 
other responses of other nominees, I thought they were most responsive 
to the questions. Obviously, one may disagree or agree with the focus 
Sam Brown has, but I thought his willingness to respond to questions 
was most helpful to the committee in moving forward.
  Several points have been made here this morning that I want to 
comment on. The first dealt with experience. I have not suggested that 
someone who would lead the negotiations on an armaments treaty would 
have to be a veteran. I think there is an advantage for military 
experience, but I do not think it is by any means the only 
qualification, nor have I suggested that. Would Sam Brown have 
benefited by that? Well, that perhaps is perhaps more a question for 
him.
  I do know one thing: Whether or not that person is a veteran, serving 
in the Army as Senator Simon has, or other services, some knowledge of 
national security is essential. It is helpful to be a veteran, but it 
is essential to have some background or understanding of national 
security issues. And it is quite true that some of the other 
Ambassadors we have sent to Europe and to the CSCE have not had 
military experience, but all of them have had diplomatic experience, 
and all of them have had national security experience.
  That is the difference. No one is suggesting that the military 
experience is a prerequisite. But this nominee not only does not have 
military experience, this nominee does not have national security 
experience. That I think should weigh heavily in a decision as to who 
we send to monitor these important treaties and to negotiate a new one.
  An additional point was made that many of the mismanagement practices 
identified by the Democratic House Appropriations Subcommittee staff 
occurred before Sam Brown was head of ACTION.
  (Mr. DORGAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, that is simply not true. Let me share with 
the Members the cites from that Democratic staff report that proved the 
point. I hope all Members will take the time to read that report and 
review it, at least, if they have a chance. But the following abuses in 
management practices as identified by that staff took place after Sam 
Brown became head of ACTION.
  Advance procurement practices: The Office of Grants and Contract 
Management is not insistent on using program adherence to order 2620.1. 
That occurs on page 90, and that occurred after Sam Brown took over. 
Violation, 41 U.S.C. 252(c) use of negotiated method in contract 
procurement. That is on page 90, and those cites took place after Sam 
Brown took over as the head of ACTION.
  Sole source procurement problems: That action took place after Sam 
Brown took over as head of ACTION. The requirements cited there 
specifically took place a year and a half after Mr. Brown's tenure 
started.
  Violation of truth in negotiation law, and that is page 91 and 92. 
That took place after Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION. Violation 
of Federal procurement regulations. That is on page 92. That occurred 
after Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION.
  Under the category of financial mismanagement, we have the following 
actions that took place after Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION. 
Violation of requirements for congressional approval for obligation of 
authority. That is found on page 105 of the report. That took place 
after Sam Brown took over ACTION.
  Unreported overall obligation unreported to OMB. That is again on 
page 105. That took place after Sam Brown took over ACTION.
  Three contracts executed with improper cite violating antideficiency 
statute. That is found on page 108. That took place after Sam Brown 
took over as head of ACTION. Violation of the antideficiency statute, 
unreported through OMB to the President, page 108. That took place 
after Sam Brown became director of ACTION.
  ACTION officials claimed full per diem when not authorized. That is 
documented on page 109. That occurred after Sam Brown took over as head 
of ACTION.
  ACTION officials traveled to Cuba and PRC when actually listed in 
their duty station in the United States. That is on page 110. That took 
place after Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION.
  Then under the category of grants awarded without competition: 
National grants awarded without competition, page 35. That happened 
after Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION. National grants awarded to 
organizations attending roundtable with ACTION director, again on page 
35. That took place after Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION. 
Training materials describing Government agencies, politicians, 
utilities and real enemies. What does this involve? Objection with 
training materials developed as part of $500,000 grant to train 
volunteers. That is found on page 40. That happened after Sam Brown 
took over as head of ACTION.
  Involvement in restricted activities. First, volunteers engaged in 
staff-related activities, a violation of ACTION policy, not documented 
under other administrations. That is on page 43. That occurred after 
Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION.
  Violation of Domestic Volunteer Service Act, grantees under the 
National Grants Program engaged in labor organizing and political 
activity. That is found on page 43. That took place after Sam Brown 
took over as head of ACTION.
  Improper use of experts and consultants, specifically violation of 
President Carter's policy citing excessive volume of experts and 
consultants. That is found on page 22. That took place after Sam Brown 
took over as head of ACTION.
  Ignored legal requirements to use past earnings in determining pay, 
specifically violation of regulation of requiring use of past earnings. 
That took place after Sam Brown took over as head of ACTION.
  Abolition of independent inspector general or attempt to, and it is 
defined as a creation of conflict of interest, and thwarting the will 
of Congress, cited on page 112. That took place after Sam Brown took 
over as head of ACTION.
  So, Mr. President, the two points that have been made, one that these 
events of mismanagement occurred before Sam took over simply is not 
accurate. That is not Hank Brown saying that. That is the Democratic 
staff committee report of the House of Representatives Appropriations 
Committee.
  It is clear. It is documented. It is specific. It is available in the 
Congressional Record. And it is quite clear that the multitude of 
violations cited did occur under his directorship.
  The second item that has been cited is with regard to military 
service. I simply would repeat what we talked about before. It is quite 
clear that military service, while attractive for negotiating a defense 
treaty is not essential nor have we insisted on it. But what has been a 
key ingredient in everyone that has represented our country at these 
negotiations is that they have a significant background in national 
security matters. To send someone who has no background in national 
security to represent a vital and important treaty negotiation process 
that represents us in a treaty negotiation process is ludicrous. It is 
something like saying we are going to train you as a horse trader even 
when you do not know anything about horses.
  Now, Sam Brown is bright. But I prefer to have someone who knows 
something about horses before you go trade. That is what we are talking 
about.
  Mr. President, I want to put in the Record an article from the New 
York Times. This one covers Dr. Payton's firing as head of the Peace 
Corps. I will quote briefly from that article under the headline 
``Conflicts Began to Emerge'' in the article of the New York Times.

       Conflicts began to emerge between Mr. Brown and Dr. Payton 
     shortly after she was confirmed by the Senate and took office 
     a year ago.
       Dr. Payton was primarily interested in reorganizing the 
     Peace Corps, improving training procedures and opening its 
     ranks to more blacks and Hispanic volunteers. In an interview 
     at the time of her appointment, she said the Peace Corps had 
     been ``a white, middle-class adventure'' for most of the 
     volunteers who joined it in its first 16 years. She was 
     determined, she said, to recruit more members of minority 
     groups and to ``tap the great reservoir of interest in Africa 
     among black Americans.''
       Mr. Brown had other ideas for the agency. He was eager to 
     use the Peace Corps to reopen contacts with such nations as 
     Vietnam, Mozambique, and Angola in an effort to improve 
     American relations with the more radical nations of the third 
     world. He also spoke of a ``reverse Peace Corps'' in which 
     third-world nations would send volunteers to the United 
     States to work in the cities. Dr. Payton reportedly was not 
     enthusiastic about either idea.
       Mr. Brown's aides report that he found Dr. Payton to be a 
     poor administrator who was frequently behind in budget 
     preparation and other bureaucratic requirements of her 
     office.
       The differences between Mr. Brown and Dr. Payton broke into 
     the open at a recent regional meeting of Peace Corps 
     directors in Casablanca, Morocco, and a subsequent session in 
     Nairobi, Kenya. Dr. Payton reportedly threatened to resign 
     after a shouting match with Mr. Brown in front of Peace Corps 
     officials.

  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 25, 1978]

     Dr. Payton, Under Pressure, Resigns as Director of Peace Corps

                           (By Terence Smith)

       Washington, Nov. 24.--Citing ``unresolvable 
     differences of policy'' between Carolyn R. Payton, the 
     director of the Peace Corps, and her immediate supervisor, 
     President Carter tonight accepted Dr. Payton's resignation.
       In a statement issued by the White House this evening, Mr. 
     Carter, who is spending the weekend at Camp David, said he 
     was taking the step to ``resolve the serious impasse'' that 
     had developed between Dr. Payton and Sam Brown, the head of 
     Action, the umbrella agency that includes the Peace Corps and 
     other volunteer programs.
       Dr. Payton, a 53-year-old psychologist who was the first 
     woman and the first black to head the Peace Corps, was 
     appointed a year ago. In recent months, she has been in a 
     bitter dispute with Mr. Brown concerning the direction and 
     management of the agency, which currently has some 6,000 
     volunteers in 65 countries.
       After agreeing to resign on Wednesday, Mrs. Payton changed 
     her mind and issued a statement yesterday that strongly 
     implied she would not step down unless asked to by President 
     Carter. The post of Peace Corps director is a Presidential 
     appointment.
       She relented late today, however, after a meeting at the 
     White House with Robert J. Lipshutz, the counsel to the 
     President.
       In her letter to the President, released here this evening, 
     Dr. Payton said she had been unable to carry out her duties 
     ``in part because of conditions which had arisen before you 
     or I took office and in part because there have been deep 
     differences between the Action administrator and the Peace 
     Corps over the interpretation'' of the Peace Corps' mission.


                        ``I Could Not Continue''

       ``Unfortunately, these differences could not be reconciled 
     and I could not continue as director,'' the letter continued. 
     ``The issue between the director of Action and me is an issue 
     of substance, about the Peace Corps, not one of my sex, color 
     or age.''
       Neither Dr. Payton nor Mr. Brown elaborated on their 
     differences tonight, but Peace Corps sources said the two 
     officials had sharply conflicting views on how the 17-year-
     old agency should focus its efforts.
       Earlier in the day, Representative Don L. Bonker, Democrat 
     of Washington, took strongly objected to the dismissal of Dr. 
     Payton.
       ``This was a personality conflict, plain and simple,'' he 
     said in a telephone interview. ``I think it is a hasty and 
     irresponsible way to treat a capable and committed public 
     servant.''
       There was no official word about a successor, but 
     Representative Bonker and others said they had heard reports 
     the job would be offered to Senator Dick Clark, Democrat of 
     Iowa, who was defeated in a bid for re-election on Nov. 7.
       ``I've heard Clark's name mentioned,'' Mr. Bonker said. 
     ``But I can't believe he would take it with the Peace Corps 
     in the condition it is today.''
       Dr. Payton was appointed a year ago after an exhaustive, 
     eight-month search in which Mr. Brown conceded he was looking 
     for a ``star--someone with a name whose high visibility can 
     pull the Peace Corps out of the doldrums.''
       With that goal in mind, he offered the job of director to a 
     succession of well-known, politically prominent blacks and 
     women, including Rafer Johnson, the former Olympic champion; 
     Representative Ronald V. Dellums, Democrat of California; 
     Jane Hart, the widow of Senator Philip A. Hart, Democrat of 
     Michigan, and LaDonna Harris, the wife of former Senator Fred 
     R. Harris, Democrat of Oklahoma.
       They all turned it down, however, which was a comment on 
     the low state to which the Peace Corps had fallen as a 
     governmental appointment.
       Finally, Mr. Brown decided that the job called for someone 
     with Peace Corps experience. On this ground and, he said at 
     the time, ``to help fulfill the affirmative action goals of 
     the Carter Administration,'' he selected Dr. Payton. The 
     Howard University psychologist had been a Peace Corps country 
     director in the eastern Caribbean from 1966 to 1969.


                       conflicts began to emerge

       But conflicts began to emerge between Mr. Brown and Dr. 
     Payton shortly after she was confirmed by the Senate and took 
     office a year ago.
       Dr. Payton was primarily interested in reorganizing the 
     Peace Corps, improving its training procedures and opening 
     its ranks to more black and Hispanic volunteers. In an 
     interview at the time of her appointment, she said the Peace 
     Corps had been ``a white, middle-class adventure'' for most 
     of the volunteers who joined it in its first 16 years. She 
     was determined, she said, to recruit more members of minority 
     groups and to ``tap the great reservoir of interest in Africa 
     among black Americans.''
       Mr. Brown had other ideas for the agency. He was eager to 
     use the Peace Corps to reopen contacts with such nations as 
     Vietnam, Mozambique and Angola in an effort to improve 
     American relations with the more radical nations of the third 
     world. He also spoke of a ``reverse Peace Corps'' in which 
     third-world nations would send volunteers to the United 
     States to work in the cities. Dr. Payton reportedly was not 
     enthusiastic about either idea.
       Mr. Brown's aides report that he found Dr. Payton to be a 
     poor administrator who was frequently behind in budget 
     preparation and the other bureaucratic requirements of her 
     office.
       The differences between Mr. Brown and Dr. Payton broke into 
     the open at a recent regional meeting of Peace Corps 
     directors in Casablanca, Morocco, and a subsequent session in 
     Nairobi, Kenya.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in thinking about management style and 
policy I simply would suggest that the description of a shouting match 
between Mr. Brown and his subordinates is not the kind of management 
style that I think this country wants in a diplomat who is head of a 
negotiating team.
  Mr. President, I think at this point it would be appropriate that I 
read it for those Members who are listening.
  The letter is addressed to the Honorable Claiborne Pell, chairman of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It reads as follows:

       Dear Chairman Pell: Article II, Section 2 of the 
     Constitution of The American Legion states that The American 
     legion shall be absolutely nonpolitical and shall not be used 
     for the promotion of the candidacy of any person seeking 
     public office or preferment. We, of course, have closely 
     adhered to this key principle throughout the history of our 
     organization. However, we believe it is appropriate and 
     consistent with this provision to delineate--in a general 
     manner--what we believe are the essential criteria for 
     selecting the Ambassador to the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and, by extension, to similar 
     ambassadorial positions dealing with the national security of 
     Europe and the United States.
       Although CSCE never captured the news headlines during the 
     Cold War, it played a key role in helping bring about the 
     liberation of Eastern Europe and the downfall of the Soviet 
     Union and Warsaw Pact. Through its periodic review meetings, 
     CSCE provided an invaluable forum for focusing attention on 
     the human rights situation in member states, particularly 
     those in the Soviet Bloc. It also provided a rallying point 
     for those seeking democracy and freedom.
       With that background in mind, in 1992 the CSCE assumed 
     greater operational duties, including establishment of a 
     Security Forum and provisions were made for crisis 
     management, conflict prevention and peacekeeping functions 
     using units of nations belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) and the Western European Union (WEU). 
     With the broadened responsibilities and increased prestige of 
     the CSCE, it behooves the U.S. Government to select an 
     ambassador who possesses a wide variety of skills along the 
     following lines;
       Diplomatic experience at a senior level and specific 
     experience in working with European foreign ministries and 
     diplomats.
       Understanding of national security requirements of Europe 
     and the United States and experience in working with European 
     ministries of defense. Total commitment to the placing the 
     national security of the United States above all other 
     considerations is absolutely essential.
       An international diplomatic reputation on a par with that 
     possessed by CSCE ambassadors from European states as their 
     representatives are almost uniformly of the highest caliber 
     and experience.
       Experience in international crisis management and 
     peacekeeping operations and intimate knowledge of, and 
     experience with, NATO and the WEU.
       A broad educational background in history, politics, 
     economics, military affairs, and philosophy as a basis for 
     effectively dealing with the complex and interrelated 
     problems certain to confront the CSCE.
       Practical knowledge of functional issues such as human 
     rights and arms control.
       We believe the position of Ambassador to the Conference on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe must be filled by an 
     individual with broad political and military skills and 
     experience who can work effectively for the emergence of a 
     Europe that is peaceful, democratic and mindful of the human 
     rights of all citizens. At this key turning point in the 
     history of Europe--as past totalitarianism in the East gives 
     way to the possibility of a new and better life for all 
     Europeans and Americans--the U.S. Government must put the 
     right person in this critical job.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Thiesen,
                                               National Commander.

  I simply add this comment. If you look at those requirements, several 
things become apparent.
  First, it is, I think, a very excellent list, an outline of the kind 
of qualities you would want for the Ambassador who fills this important 
post.
  Second, I think you would observe that most of the Americans who have 
occupied this position have had those qualities.
  Third, I think you would find that most of the European countries 
have this kind of background--excellent, skilled, and experienced.
  And, lastly, I believe you will find, by an objective review of these 
factors, that these are experiences that Sam Brown simply does not 
have.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Texas here, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Who yields to the Senator?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator such time as he may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


              Statement on the Nomination of Derek Shearer

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I want to talk about the nomination 
of Prof. Derek Shearer to be the American Ambassador to Finland, but 
before I start talking about that nomination, and why I question it and 
why I am going to oppose it, I want to talk a bit about elections and 
the consequences they have and the parameters that I believe the 
Founding Fathers set when they gave the Senate the power of advising 
and consenting, and I want to relate this nomination to those powers.
  I then want to talk about Professor Shearer's writings and his views 
as they relate to the American tradition of free enterprise and private 
property and individual economic and political liberty. And then I 
simply want to state for Members of the Senate and for the record why I 
oppose this nomination and why I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  First of all, Mr. President, I am committed to the principle that 
elections have consequences. When the American people elected Bill 
Clinton President, they knew, or they should have known, that, when he 
was elected, he was going to nominate political liberals for appointive 
positions. They knew, or they should have known, that, when he was 
elected, he was going to appoint people to the Federal bench who 
believed in expanded Government, who believed in a Constitution that 
could constantly be reinterpreted, who believed in an expansive role 
for the judiciary, and who believed that the courts should, in areas 
where the Constitution was silent, seek meaning.
  Those are not beliefs that I agree with. They are concepts that I 
reject. They are concepts that I think are alien to the American 
Constitution. But elections do have consequences.
  Since Bill Clinton has become President, I have, either directly by 
votes cast on the floor of the Senate or by my willingness to allow 
nominees to be confirmed by unanimous consent, some 4,000 times 
consented to Clinton nominees.
  Virtually none of those nominees were people that I would have 
picked. Virtually none of those nominees reflected values that I held. 
But I felt that, by and large, those nominees fit the parameters that 
the American people who voted for Bill Clinton either expected or 
should have expected.
  Where I draw the line, Mr. President, is where people are nominated 
who have views that are far outside the parameters of the views that 
the President expressed during the election campaign.
  During the campaign, and in the tradition of the Democratic Party, 
the President and his party set the parameters that people might expect 
from his government. And I believe that, while I would not cast a vote 
against a nominee simply because they were liberal and I am 
conservative, I have a right and an obligation to cast votes against 
nominees whose views are far outside the parameters of views expressed 
by the President and his party during the campaign and, in fact, are 
far outside the mainstream of American thinking, and in this case 
seeming to reject fundamental constitutional rights to private 
property.
  In short, Mr. President, I believe that elections have consequences 
and that, when people cast votes for President, fundamental decisions 
are made.
  I said on many occasions during the Bush administration and the 
Reagan administration that I felt some of our colleagues were trying to 
win on the floor of the Senate what they could not win at the ballot 
box when they opposed people like Judge Bork and others because they 
disagreed with them philosophically, not because the views of the 
nominees were alien to the fundamental principles of America.
  Today, I am opposing the nomination for Ambassador to Finland, the 
nomination of Prof. Derek Shearer. Let me make it clear that I do not 
know Professor Shearer. I assume that he is a fine, honest, 
straightforward person. I assume that he is in every way qualified in 
terms of his academic qualifications. I assume that he is a good, 
straightforward individual, though I would have to say I am going to 
raise at least a doubt about that as it relates to statements he made 
before the Foreign Relations Committee, at least raise a question of 
where else that the new views that he espoused to the committee may 
have appeared.
  But my point is this is not a personal matter. I have not met 
Professor Shearer. It simply has to do with what I think the Founding 
Fathers had in mind when they gave the Senate advise and consent 
powers.
  I am going to be referring today to lots of material, and I am going 
to try not to overburden the Senate, but I am principally going to be 
referring to a series of books written by Professor Shearer between 
1980 and 1989 as an expression of ideas. And the basic thrust of this 
writing is that Professor Shearer is a Socialist, that Professor 
Shearer does not believe in private property, that Professor Shearer 
believes that economic rights are not part of the fabric of the 
Constitution, and that in fact he believes that dramatic changes should 
be made in American society to take away people's right to control 
their own property and to exercise the full benefits of the fruits of 
their labor.
  I do not attack socialism simply as an unacceptable philosophy. This 
is a great, free country, and I think it is enriched by the fact that 
our fellow citizens have greatly different views. Nor do I demean 
socialism as an intellectual exercise. In fact, I am sure that 
Professor Shearer has taught it with great diligence at Occidental 
College, and, quite frankly, I think it is good for young people in 
America to be exposed to diverse ideas. Having been an old college 
professor once myself, I realize that most teachers are not any more 
effective at indoctrinating than they are at teaching, and exposure to 
different ideas and alien ideas is part of the education process.
  I have two sons who are now in college, and I cautioned both of them, 
on going off to college, to challenge their old man's ideas, to listen 
to alternatives, to not believe that we had somehow achieved perfection 
in our ideas within our own household. I am hopeful that at the end of 
the whole process, maybe with some age and experience and paying of 
taxes and making of decisions in the real world my children will come 
to the conclusion that their old man was right. But in any case, 
challenging and debating is fundamentally important to America, and I 
have high regard for many people who disagree with me philosophically.
  But the question here is not whether socialism is a philosophy that 
should be taught in America, or that should be debated in America. The 
point is when someone puts his or her hand on the Bible in taking a 
high public office and swears to uphold the Constitution, when someone 
represents America abroad and his or her views represent this Nation 
and what it stands for, should not that person's views in general 
reflect what the Nation stands for? And, if their views are far outside 
what would be normally expected of a Democrat, a political liberal, 
does that constitute a reason for rejecting their appointment? Those 
are the issues I want to deal with today.
  The first book I want to talk about is ``Economic Democracy.'' This 
is a book written in 1980. It is a book that was coauthored by 
Professor Shearer. And it is important, I think, to begin with, to look 
at where the term comes from. So let me quote Professor Shearer from 
Barron's magazine, in the following quote. He is talking about 
socialism and he is making a point that the American people have 
rejected socialism, and that to go around calling yourself a socialist 
or to go around espousing socialism, calling it by that name, is 
counterproductive, and that, therefore, it is necessary to change the 
name.
  One of the things I discovered in reading this material is a 
similarity to what I see in our own President's rhetoric: An incessant 
activity in making up new terms because the old ones convey too much 
meaning. The desire to change the words we use in an effort to make the 
same old, rejected things more acceptable. Here is what Professor 
Shearer says.

       While we cannot use the S word, ``socialism,'' too 
     effectively in American politics, [he says, as quoted in 
     Barron's] we have found that in the greatest tradition of 
     American advertising that the words ``economic democracy'' 
     sells. You can take it door to door like Fuller brushes and 
     the door will not be slammed in your face.

  So, where the title of this book comes from, ``Economic Democracy,'' 
is that this is Professor Shearer's new term for socialism, which he 
says the public has rejected and, therefore, to use that name taints 
what you are saying because people understand it. But if you call it 
``economic democracy,'' the public is more receptive.
  I want to read a series of quotes from this book and from other 
sources. I want to then talk about them. I want to run through about 
four or five, more to set the tone than to go through the whole book. 
Because the point here is to identify the themes contained in this body 
of work. I know my colleagues, in the past, as I have, have heard 
people get up on the floor during a nomination debate and read a quote 
that the nominee had in Playboy magazine or someplace like that, and I 
have always felt uncomfortable, judging a person's ideas based solely 
on a quote in a magazine like that.
  What I am trying to do here is to not numb the mind with repetition, 
but to make the point that these are not isolated statements by 
Professor Shearer, that these are statements of a strongly held 
conviction and they are present in writings that go back into the 
1970's, they are heavily present in 1980, and basically, in general, 
they are still present in 1989 in a book titled, ``Unequal 
Partnerships.''
  Let me just start with a couple of them. I want to read the quote and 
then talk about what the quote means in the frame of reference of the 
book. I want to make the point that while these are ideas, as any ideas 
are, that are subject to debate, in the long history of intellectual 
debate these are old, time-worn ideas. The ideas contained in these 
works are alien to the American tradition. They do not represent the 
ideas of the Founders and they do not represent the embodiment of the 
Constitution.
  The first thing I want to talk about is Professor Shearer's idea that 
we have to dismantle and restrict private enterprise. Let me just read 
a short quote here rather than go through two or three pages, and then 
talk about its implications. Professor Shearer writes in the book 
``Democracy, The Challenge Of The Eighties'':

       Investment decisions in the United States are made almost 
     entirely by private companies * * * Any alternative economic 
     and social strategy must start by dismantling, or at least 
     restricting, the power of these corporations. They are the 
     antithesis of democracy.
  Mr. President, how many Americans believe that corporations are the 
antithesis of democracy? How many Americans believe that we should 
dismantle corporate America? How many Americans believe that we ought 
to have the Government setting investment strategy? Does not the 
Constitution say property shall not be taken without compensation? Does 
not the Constitution guarantee economic liberty, as well as political 
liberty? Would the Founding Fathers have agreed with any part of a 
philosophy that says we should dismantle corporate America and bring 
Government into decisions about running business in America?
  The next quote I want to talk about builds on this by making the 
point that we ought to have the Government basically take over and 
control one firm in each of the major industries where there is a 
relatively small number of firms. The basic point here being that this 
would be a good alternative to nationalizing industry. By having the 
Government become a major investor in a company and require that 
consumer advocates and labor officials be appointed to the board of 
directors, the result would be that this company, with its competitive 
power, could, basically, control the marketplace in this particular 
industry. Professor Shearer writes:

       A strategy of selective and competitive public enterprise 
     involves creation of a new Government holding company. The 
     company would purchase the requisite number of shares in at 
     least one major firm in each major industry dominated by a 
     few companies. These would include the automobile, the drug, 
     the chemical, and computer industries, as well as a few 
     others.

  Mr. President, how many Americans believe that the Government ought 
to become a partial owner or owner of a major firm in every major 
industry in America that has a market structure similar to the 
automobile industry or the drug industry or the chemical industry or 
the computer industry?
  Let me go on particularly about the energy industry. Professor 
Shearer writes about the energy industry:

       We advocate the establishment of a publicly owned energy 
     corporation separate from the Government holding company. The 
     energy corporation would be a completely integrated firm with 
     producing wells, pipelines, and gas station outlets. In 
     addition, it would be active in other nonfossil fuel areas of 
     energy development.

  Again, Mr. President, would Americans, from listening to Bill 
Clinton's rhetoric in the 1992 campaign, have concluded that he would 
be appointing people who propose such ideas?
  Let me go on. The next subject area has to do with the need to 
centralize control of the capital stock; in other words, as Professor 
Shearer argues, the Government or the people, as he calls it, should 
control the flow of capital. They should make investment decisions. Let 
me just read you one line of a long section of this book:

       A strategy of reform must transfer capital from the 
     corporations to the public * * *

  Let me read that again:

       A strategy of reform must transfer capital from 
     corporations to the public so that the people who work and 
     consume can collectively and democratically decide what to do 
     with it. The logical vehicle for that should be the 
     Government.

  Mr. President, how many Americans believe that anybody owns the 
investment value of a business except the people who own the business? 
How many Americans believe that we ought to, through Government, go in 
and take the assets of General Motors, for example, and decide how they 
are going to be invested? After all, General Motors has hundreds of 
thousands of stockholders who bought the stock, who invested their 
money, who generated the capital, who generated the jobs; millions of 
people, really, if you count the retirement funds, who are owners of 
General Motors. What would give anyone the right to come in and steal 
that property? What would give anyone the right, in a free society, to 
come in and seize the value of the equity of a General Motors, or a 
General Electric, or an IBM?
  The point is: Is this the essence of American democracy? Professor 
Shearer, obviously, believes it is. In fact, he believes that freedom 
embodies the power to collectively seize other people's money and to 
distribute it as the majority determines it should be distributed. In 
fact, Professor Shearer here is advocating, in essence, that we, 
through a process of collective decisionmaking or through a planning 
board seize the assets of American companies. I do not know where he 
would cut it off in terms of the size of the company. I do not know if 
it would include Flatt Stationery, my somewhat famous printer in Mexia, 
TX, whether it would include that little company. But it clearly would 
include General Motors and General Electric. What Professor Shearer is 
saying is that we should seize the value of their capital and that the 
public--not the shareholders of these companies, but the public--should 
decide what that capital is used for.
  I submit, Mr. President, that that is a concept that is totally alien 
to American democracy; it is totally alien to the fundamental tenets of 
America. And when Bill Clinton was running for President, no person 
should have been expected to believe that he would appoint a person to 
high public office to represent the United States of America abroad who 
believes that we should, with the use of Government, steal people's 
money and decide collectively how to consume it. That, I submit, is a 
view that was never mentioned during the campaign, nor could any 
reasonable person expect that Bill Clinton held that view or that he 
would appoint someone to high public office who, in fact, held that 
view.
  Another section of this book has to do with learning through the 
experiences of others. Interestingly enough, Professor Shearer picks 
out three countries that he thinks we could learn from in terms of the 
possibility of worker control. He looks at the whole world in 1980, and 
he concludes that there are three countries we could learn something 
from in terms of what worker control would be like.
  And what three countries do you think our nominee as Ambassador to 
Finland picks as countries where the United States could learn 
something about the potential of worker control? Well, he picks 
Yugoslavia, China, and Cuba. Professor Shearer says that in studying 
Yugoslavia--this is 1980, I remind people--China, and Cuba, these are 
cases that ``can teach us about the possibilities and the problems of 
worker control.''
  Then he goes on to say that basically the problem these countries 
have are that they are underdeveloped socialist countries. I do not 
want to go too far here, but I think the implication of this is that we 
could make it work here because we are developed and that the problems 
they had in Cuba and China and Yugoslavia in 1980 were because they 
were underdeveloped.
  Let me read two more quotes, and then I will try to sum up. The next 
area has to do with Professor Shearer's belief that Government should 
centralize control of the economy:

       The only genuine alternative--

  And here he is talking about Reaganomics--

     that is consistent with our Nation's democratic heritage is 
     to democratize the economy. America's ostensible political 
     democracy must become an economic democracy. To accomplish 
     this will require positive Government actions at all levels.

  Now, what is Professor Shearer saying here about economic democracy?
  Well, as he has said throughout the book in quotes that I have cited, 
he is saying here, in essence, that we ought to use the process of 
elections and of the appointment power of Government to have the 
Government act as the instrument of workers and allow the people to 
decide collectively how wealth is going to be allocated. Not the people 
who created the wealth, not the people who invested the money that 
created businesses in America, not the people who sacrificed by not 
consuming so they could start their small business, not the people who 
had a brilliant idea about how to use computer technology and who 
created ultimately dozens or hundreds or thousands of jobs in America, 
but to have the Government make decisions about how their capital would 
be allocated.
  It is interesting to me, Mr. President, that we had an experiment 
with this idea all over the world; for over 70 years these ideas were 
tried, and they failed. If these ideas had worked, we would have seen 
the Berlin Wall torn down by people who were trying to get into Eastern 
Europe. But those ideas did not work, and as a result, the people in 
Eastern Europe tore down the Berlin Wall to get out.
  But yet these views are here espoused by a person we are asked today 
to send abroad to represent America in the country of Finland. Later, I 
am going to say a little bit about Finland and how inappropriate this 
nomination is.
  But let me go on with one final quote. I am taking this from a 1983 
book entitled ``A New Social Contract.'' Let me just piece it together 
as it was pieced together by the Wall Street Journal, again to save 
time.
  In fact, let me just read the whole paragraph from the Wall Street 
Journal, which is probably easier than trying to find the pages in the 
book.

       Mr. Shearer's views don't seem to have shifted much since 
     the publication of ``Economic Democracy'', if an industry 
     ``refuses'' to bargain with the Government by, say, objecting 
     to the imposition of price controls, ``real sanctions'' must 
     be levied. These would include denial of tax advantages and 
     other services, denial of export licenses, and the threat of 
     antitrust suits, and so on.

  That is this book in 1980.

       A 1983 book entitled ``A New Social Contract'' calls for 
     ``control of investments.'' Dozens of newly created 
     Government enterprises are the ``cornerstone'' of our new 
     social contract under which private businesses ``will be 
     guided by new rules of behavior.'' And these rules would be 
     enforced by regional and local government agencies. Other 
     ideas include ``well-planned expansion of the public sector'' 
     and the creation of ``national planning agency''.

  Now, Mr. President, I could go on for hours talking about books 
written, actually articles written in the 1970's, and books written 
from 1980 to 1989, but I think the point I am making is very, very 
clear. The point is that Derek Shearer holds views, or at least wrote 
views that are alien to the American tradition of free enterprise and 
private property. His views are hostile to the fundamental tenets of 
life, liberty, and property. His views are alien to the most sacred 
views of the rights of citizens to own property, to benefit from the 
fruits of their labor, and to be secure in their property.
  If there is any principle that the Founding Fathers understood, it 
was that without private property, without the right to sell the use of 
your God-given talents, to contract for your labor, without the right 
to benefit from that labor, without the right to accumulate, without 
the right to invest and control your own property, political rights are 
meaningless, because if you are not secure in your property, you cannot 
be secure in your liberty. Derek Shearer in writings over a decade 
rejects that principle.
  Now, the interesting thing is that the country to which we would send 
Professor Shearer is Finland, and Finland is a country which is 
dedicated to reforming its economy. In fact, I asked the Embassy of 
Finland here to send me some material on their privatization effort, 
and the first quote I have from them is, ``It is no longer necessary to 
keep the State shareholdings in State-owned manufacturing and energy 
companies at its present level.''
  Now, we are about to send someone to represent America, the great 
bastion of capitalism and free enterprise, who holds views that Finland 
is rejecting. Finland is trying to get government out of the 
manufacturing industry and the energy industry and reduce government 
control, whereas Professor Shearer in his writings is espousing getting 
Government into exactly those industries in the United States of 
America.
  I would say, Mr. President, that we will produce an anomaly if we 
send Professor Shearer to a country that has been noted for its 
socialistic economy, and which now is desperately trying to adopt our 
economy in light of the world's experience with failed socialism. If we 
today confirm Professor Shearer, we are sending to them an Ambassador 
who has spent his academic career arguing that Finland was right and 
that we were wrong, and yet he is going to be there as the embodiment 
of America and the American system, holding views that Finland has 
rejected because they did not work. It is going to be interesting to 
see the kind of advice he is going to give them.
  Now, what is the point of this entire exercise? Well, the point of 
this entire exercise is this: This nomination is very important, just 
as the nomination that the Senator from Colorado is debating today is 
very important, not because of what it tells us about Professor 
Shearer, not what it tells us about Mr. Sam Brown, but for what it 
tells us about President Clinton. These nominations are important 
because they give us an insight into the President's views.
  A very famous political theorist once said that in no way do we get a 
better insight into the true nature of a leader than in looking at the 
people with whom he surrounds himself.
  I decided to raise questions today about Mr. Shearer because his 
views are so alien to the American system that I must question the 
views of a President who nominated him. Mr. Brown, who would oversee a 
substantial part of our arms control negotiations and make decisions 
concerning the security of the United States is a person who has 
expressed repeatedly contempt for America's role in those activities 
and a total rejection of the very system that helped us win the cold 
war. I ask my colleagues, why has the President nominated these people?
  That is the question the President is going to have to answer.
  But I ask my colleagues to simply look at Professor Shearer's record, 
and ask themselves are these the views that we want to have represented 
abroad as America's views? And I think the answer to that is no.
  A final point, and I am not going to belabor it. But in the hearing 
before the Foreign Relations Committee--I might ask the Senator from 
Colorado who is here and who posed these questions to comment very 
briefly because I am just reading the transcript and was not at the 
hearing. But what happened in that hearing is that Senator Brown went 
over a few of the quotes that I have cited today, and in about a dozen 
answers Professor Shearer in essence said that he no longer holds these 
views.
  In fact, when he was asked about some of the quotes in ``Economic 
Democracy,'' he says, yes, he wrote them, but that ``I do not now 
advocate such a process.'' And then he is asked about another quote. He 
says, ``As I stated above, I do not now advocate such a process.'' And 
the process goes on where he says over and over again, ``I no longer 
advocate such a strategy.'' ``I no longer advocate such a strategy.'' 
``I no longer advocate such a strategy.'' ``I no longer advocate such a 
strategy.'' ``I no longer advocate such a strategy.'' These are all 
answers in response to questions posed at the hearing and in writing by 
Senator Brown.
  I would like to yield to the Senator to basically be certain that I 
am outlining exactly what happened and the answers that were provided, 
and then I want to get the floor back and comment further.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for his 
inquiry. Many of the quotes from the books are quite out of the 
mainstream of American political thought. Many of the quotes from the 
other articles are quite out of the mainstream, and I think would shock 
the Members of this Senate. I had asked if indeed those were accurate 
quotes, as I know the Senator knows at times people can be misquoted. 
Dr. Shearer responded that they indeed were accurate, they were 
correct.
  He also responded that he no longer believed in those statements. The 
concern I had as I went through that was that he was not willing to 
relate what he now believes. That combined with his previous statements 
where he had indicated that the country would not accept the word 
``socialism'' and thus you must invent different words to convey the 
same meaning, raised concern.
  It seemed to me his other statements about using other words to have 
the same meaning as socialism seemed to suggest that he would disguise 
what he felt by not using the word ``socialism'' directly but making 
new words. So economic nationalism was about all we could get out of 
him in terms of the description of his policy.
  But I left that exchange concerned partly because of the flip-flop 
but partly because of his unwillingness to articulate what he did now 
believe.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, here is my point. Consistently in the 
1980's, Professor Shearer wrote these things. I do not see any evidence 
in writing anywhere else of what he says throughout this transcript of 
the hearing and in response to written questions. While he says in the 
hearing a dozen times that he no longer advocates these positions, 
nowhere do I see him in writing saying ``I changed my mind.'' Nowhere 
do I see him quoted prior to this hearing as saying ``I no longer 
advocate the collectivization of property. I no longer advocate seizing 
wealth that people have created in a free society and having the 
Government spend it. I no longer advocate having government 
collectivization of a large firm in most major industries in America.''
  Nowhere do I see it in writing. I only see these repetitive 
statements over and over again: ``I no longer advocate these views.'' 
``I do not now advocate such a process.'' ``As I stated, I do not now 
advocate such a process.''
  Well, we are all familiar with St. Paul. And St. Paul, who was on the 
road to Damascus, had a vision and he got a message. He changed his 
mind. And for the rest of his life he never opened his mouth, he never 
put pen to paper that he did not write about his new views.
  I ask the following question. If Professor Shearer has had the 
transformation that he tells us in his testimony before the Foreign 
Relations Committee that he has had, where is the evidence? Where does 
he write that ``I have for a quarter of a century advocated the 
collectivization of property, the stealing of wealth from working 
people, and I was wrong? Here is now what I believe.''
  I would have to believe, Mr. President, as strongly as I believe in 
economic and political liberty, that if I suddenly became a Socialist, 
not only do I think I might need mental help, but I think that I would 
feel compelled to start talking about it. I think I would feel 
compelled, having written all of my adult life about individual 
freedom, and free enterprise and private property, that if I suddenly 
decided I was wrong, I think I would have the unbearable urge to tell 
somebody about it. I hope that the administration, if I am wrong, will 
send us material that Professor Shearer has written since 1989 that 
would in some way reinforce what he said in these hearings when he 
seemed to repudiate his earlier views.
  My point is this: If in fact he does not now hold these earlier 
views, it seems to me logical that a person who has written for 25 
years as a most passionate exponent of socialism and of seizing private 
property and denying people their economic freedom, it seems to me that 
somewhere he would have written something saying that he was wrong.
  Nowhere have I been able to find these repudiations. Maybe they 
exist. But I have not been able to find them.
  Do we in exercising our constitutional prerogatives of advise and 
consent have an obligation to vote against a person who espouses views 
that are alien to the Constitution, and that are at variance with 
everything that the candidate who became President, who made the 
appointment, said during the campaign? I believe, Mr. President, the 
answer is yes.
  If Professor Shearer were a run-of-the-mill liberal government 
activist college professor, I would never have come to the floor to 
have spoken, and I would have, as I have done on 4,000 other occasions 
since Bill Clinton became President, either voted for the nominee or 
allowed the nomination to pass on a voice vote because I believe 
elections have consequences.
  The American people may not want to accept the fact, but, when they 
voted for Bill Clinton, they voted for more Government spending, more 
Government taxes, more Government activism, and they voted for the 
appointment of liberal Government activists to positions in the Federal 
Government. And they either knew or they should have known those things 
were going to happen, just as when people voted for Ronald Reagan they 
voted for exactly the opposite. Many of my colleagues here on the floor 
of the Senate opposed people appointed by President Reagan because they 
disagreed with them philosophically.

  If Mr. Shearer's views reflected Bill Clinton's stated views, I would 
have no objections, because elections have consequences, and the 
President won the election. But the views that I have outlined in these 
books and articles are not the views that the President ever had 
courage enough to tell the American people that he believed in. These 
are not views that could get you elected dogcatcher in the United 
States of America. These are views that are alien to private property, 
alien to individual freedom. They are views that advocate the stealing 
of property from the working men and women of America, to let 
Government spend their hard-earned money. There is a no more 
fundamental tenet of democracy than that which says: I have a right to 
my property, which I earned with the sweat of my brow. If there is any 
principle in America that is sacred, it is that principle.
  Professor Shearer rejects that principle. I believe, for that 
reason--not because he is a liberal, because we have a liberal 
President, who was elected; the American people voted for him, and they 
had a right to expect that he would appoint people who thought as he 
did. But they had no right to expect, nor was there anything the 
President said that could have led Americans to conclude, that he was 
going to appoint to high public office a person who proposes having the 
Government collectivize the wealth of the Nation and have it 
distributed by political decisions. Nowhere were people told that that 
was the President's view.
  Yet, the President has nominated as Ambassador to a country which is 
struggling to reject these ideas, a person who clearly held these ideas 
throughout the 1980's, and who, when asked about these views before the 
Foreign Relations Committee, in a dozen responses said he no longer 
holds these views. Yet, as far as I can determine, nowhere else--
nowhere else--has he repudiated these views or told us exactly what he 
believes.
  I believe in redemption, Mr. President. I believe that people can be 
wrong and people can change their minds. I think changing your mind 
every once in a while because of new facts is a positive thing. But I 
am a little bit skeptical of conversions that occur before Senate 
committees at confirmation time, conversions that are not backed up 
anywhere in the writings of a person who, for a quarter of a century, 
has written with great passion and ability in favor of socialism in 
America, in favor of collectivizing American industry, in favor of 
seizing assets and having the Government redistribute it.
  Those are concepts that have been debated and applied in the world. 
That is the old concept. Capitalism and democracy are the new and 
revolutionary concepts. Professor Shearer does not understand it or 
believe it, but in these books he is espousing ideas that are 500 years 
old. The new and revolutionary ideas are embodied in this great 
democracy and in our revolutionary document--the Constitution of the 
United States.
  So I ask my colleagues to reject this nomination, not because of 
Professor Shearer as a person; I do not know him, but I assume that he 
is a fine person, and I assume that he is otherwise qualified. But I 
know his views from what he has written, and these views are alien to 
the American system; they are alien to the founding principles of our 
democracy. And this is a person who has every right to be teaching in 
our universities, if a school wants to hire him and give him tenure. He 
has every right to espouse these views, and I respect that right. But I 
do not believe that he ought to represent the United States of America 
abroad, and I do not think he ought to represent us in a country which 
is desperately trying to break the shackles of the very system which 
Professor Shearer has advocated: To seize our economic liberty and our 
property and to let the Government redistribute it.
  Those are views that are outside the American mainstream, but in a 
free society, you certainly have a right to hold those views, and you 
have a right to espouse them. But I do not believe that we should 
confirm as Ambassador a person who would be espousing them as the 
spokesman for a nation which, in its great wisdom and through great 
fortune, has rejected these ideas and, hopefully, rejected them 
forever.
  So I appreciate my colleagues' long sufferance. I think I have 
covered this subject. I do not really suffer under any delusion that we 
are going to defeat this nomination. But I thought it was important 
that people know what the facts are and to judge not just this nominee 
but the nominator.
  President Clinton nominated Professor Shearer, and President Clinton 
nominated Mr. Brown. What do these nominations tell us about the 
President's own views? That, I think, is the relevant question. I 
intend to oppose these two nominees because their views are outside the 
American mainstream. I believe the President can find many liberal 
college professors who will represent his views as expressed in the 
campaign. I do not believe we should confirm someone who has spent an 
adult lifetime trying to induce our country to reject our heritage and 
to reject our economic freedom.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from North Dakota 
[Mr. Dorgan], is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, whenever I listen to the Senator from 
Texas--especially when I have those occasions to listen to him at great 
length--I always admire how hard he works and what a rigorous, 
stressing exercise it is to reach his point. I figure he is going to 
end up out of breath, and he never does. I guess that tells us how 
durable he is. He has every right, of course, to make these points on 
the floor of the Senate. However, I think he is absolutely wrong, and I 
want to try to describe why Derek Shearer should be confirmed as our 
next Ambassador to Finland.
  I think one of the last points the Senator from Texas made really 
says much about this debate. He said that the real purpose here is to 
describe the President's mindset about appointing people. In other 
words, this is sort of a ricocheted debate, apparently attempting to be 
critical of President Clinton. But it is useful, I think, that the 
Senator from Texas has decided to discuss this on the floor, because it 
gives us a chance to talk about the nominees.
  The Senator from Texas labors under one disadvantage. He said at the 
start of his presentation that he does not know Prof. Derek Shearer and 
has never met the nominee. I do know him and have known him for nearly 
20 years. As I listened to the Senator's presentation today, it 
certainly does not describe anyone that I know or anyone with whom I 
have worked over the years.
  Let me respond by reading two letters, because if someone tuned in 
and listened to part of this discussion, they would think, well, here 
is a Republican opposing a Democrat and painting this person in the 
worst possible terms. Let me read to you a recommendation from an 
appointee of President Reagan and President Bush.
  Mr. Rockwell Schnabel, who was the Ambassador to Finland, wrote the 
following in a letter to Chairman Pell:

       As the former Ambassador to Finland during the Reagan 
     administration and the former Deputy Secretary of Commerce 
     during the Bush administration, I am writing to support the 
     nomination of fellow Californian, Prof. Derek Shearer, as the 
     administration's nominee to the post of Ambassador to the 
     Republic of Finland. He has a broad background in European 
     and economic affairs. I know Professor Shearer as a man of 
     integrity and believe he is eminently qualified for this 
     important position.

  That is a Republican, the former Ambassador to Finland, saying Prof. 
Derek Shearer is the right person for this job.
  Let me give you another recommendation from one of the most respected 
former Ambassadors who ever served this country, Prof. John Kenneth 
Galbraith. He said:

       I have known Derek Shearer for many years, as indeed I know 
     his father. He is an extraordinarily good choice for this 
     interesting and important post. Derek Shearer is a man of 
     first-rate intelligence, great probity, a good knowledge of 
     economics and a wonderful capacity for expressing ideas. He 
     will be well, indeed enthusiastically received in Finland. It 
     is an excellent design of the administration to have someone 
     in Helsinki who will be of immediate interest to the Finnish 
     people and the many who come to this city on international 
     concerns of one sort or another.

  These recommendations are persuasive. These are very well respected 
people, one a Republican, one a Democrat. There are many, many more, a 
broad array of people, many Republicans and many Democrats, who have 
taken a look at the background of Prof. Derek Shearer and said: We 
think this is the right choice.
  But let me just for a moment talk about some of the issues that have 
been raised without going into the quotes at great length. It is 
interesting. One can go back and look at things one has written or said 
years ago. Since I have been in politics a long, long time, running in 
statewide elections on 10 different occasions--10 statewide races--I 
understand the technique of going back and finding some outdated 
statement and using it now as representative of one's current views. 
Most of the quotes that were used, certainly those that were used 
first, and those that were expressed, were quotes I assume from the 
late 1970's, published in a book in 1980. Incidentally, this is a book 
which Prof. Derek Shearer coauthored. I will go through at least one of 
them to demonstrate the technique.
  But the point is, I guess you can go to virtually anything any one of 
us said in years past and hold it up in today's light of inspection and 
say this seems funny today--especially by leaving out a few words or 
taking them out of context.
  That does not describe the candidate, Prof. Derek Shearer. Professor 
Shearer is a Socialist, we are told; he does not believe in private 
property rights, it is charged here on the floor of the Senate. He is 
one who would steal the wealth of working people, it is charged.
  What utter nonsense is this. What sheer hyperbole--steal the wealth 
of working people. Where does that come from? I assume it comes from 
the 1980 book that talks about dismantling or restricting the power of 
certain corporations which had become the antithesis of democracy. I 
guess you could interpret that in a pretty negative way.
  But I will tell you this: it is not out of the mainstream of this 
country to be discussing what concentration of economic power does to 
freedom in this country. It is in the Jeffersonian tradition of 
democracy to be discussing the need for economic freedom as it relates 
to the retention of political freedom. The Jeffersonian idea of this 
party, which I belong to, and the Jeffersonian idea which I subscribe 
to is broad-based economic ownership in this country. Broad-based 
economic ownership means economic opportunity for all. You lose 
economic opportunity and you lose broad-based economic ownership. Such 
a loss inevitably threatens our political freedoms as well.
  When you have something that diminishes economic opportunity, and 
that threatens broad-based opportunity, and you have instead 
concentration of economic opportunity in the hands of a few, then it 
seems to me it is something we ought to talk about. Unfortunately, we 
no longer do so.
  The days of trust busting are largely over. We have 1,000 lawyers in 
the Federal Government paid to look at antitrust issues. A thousand 
lawyers paid to look at antitrust issues. I threatened time and time 
again to put their pictures on the sides of milk cartons. I think they 
have vanished. They have disappeared somewhere. They have not had 
effective antitrust activity for well over a decade because some people 
say it does not matter. But I say that concentration of economic 
power--what that means, that is relevant.
  I remember the discussions we had on the floor of the Senate and the 
House about plant closings. Some of us said the large economic 
interests have obligations to local communities and workers. If a plant 
decides it is going to close its doors and move to Mexico, we think it 
owes the community and the workers some notice.
  Socialism, people stood up and cried, when we suggested that 
corporations have some responsibilities.
  Safety in the workplace--socialism, they cried. How dare you 
interrupt the private sector.
  The 1980's was a decade of greed and decadence for some, one in which 
we got stuck papering American hallways with junk bonds, and the 
American taxpayers ended up paying the bill.
  That is the thing that was worse, because we had some people with 
regulatory responsibility who said to the private sector: ``Do not 
worry; we will not look. We will not listen. Do what you want.'' They 
took us to the cleaners.
  When there is concentration of economic power, we have some 
responsibility to deal with that. It is not socialism. It represents 
the ideals of democracy to try to make sure this system works so that 
you have broad-based opportunity. This is not out of step with 
anything. It is completely in step with the kind of debates we have had 
in this country for decades.
  Let me talk about Derek Shearer, nominee to be United States 
Ambassador to Finland. Let me give you, if I might, some of his 
credentials, because I would say it is refreshing this morning to be 
debating a nominee whose background and experience prepares him 
perfectly to perform this work.
  How often have we had nominees in recent years to become Ambassadors 
somewhere, the main credential for which is they gave enormous amounts 
of money to some political campaign, somewhere?
  This Shearer nomination is refreshing. Permit me to say why this is 
so.
  Professor Shearer has a detailed and sophisticated knowledge of 
Finnish economics and politics and of the key issues in the United 
States-Finland bilateral relationship. He has a wide background and 
Breadth of experience in foreign affairs. He has won several 
prestigious awards including a Guggenheim Fellowship, a German Marshall 
Fund grant, and a United States-Japan Leadership Fellowship. He was a 
Swedish Bicentennial Fellow, traveling and studying in Sweden. He has 
also lectured at the universities of Oslo and Stockholm, and conducted 
studies of Scandinavian economic policies. He studied international 
economics and politics, and the Russian language at Yale University--
and he has traveled widely in Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as 
in Scandinavia and Russia.
  In Washington, DC, Professor Shearer most recently served on two 
bipartisan foreign policy study groups for the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace, and Carnegie's Director, Morton Abramowitz has 
praised the quality of Professor Shearer's contributions to these 
groups. Shearer also served as a fellow at the Economic Strategy 
Institute where he contributed to the debate on U.S. trade policy, 
including a presentation at the Institute's highly regarded annual 
trade conference. Professor Shearer has written on European and Asian 
affairs for Foreign Policy magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and other 
publications.
  While serving as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic 
Affairs, Professor Shearer represented the administration before such 
groups as the European Institute's meeting of foreign ambassadors, the 
Brookings Institution's seminar for visiting parliamentarians, the 
Washington International Business Council, and the University of 
Tulsa's American Agenda.
  I could go on, but I do not need to go on. This represents a set of 
credentials for a person nominated to be Ambassador to Finland, who is 
uniquely and eminently well qualified to represent this country. There 
ought not be a debate about Professor Shearer's qualifications. He has 
a wide breadth of experience in economics and foreign affairs.
  As I have said before, I have known Derek Shearer since the mid-
1970's. This gives me confidence this nomination will be accepted 
overwhelmingly by the Senate today.
  The Senator from Texas is a person who regularly engages in spirited 
debate on the floor of the Senate, and I accept that and understand 
that. But the disadvantage he has today is he does not know Professor 
Shearer. He has taken various pieces of writing and he has stretched 
them, stretched them to the point where they almost broke. This issue 
of restricting the power of corporations is not new; it is far-fetched 
to call that socialism.
  But it has never been socialism. It has been in the mainstream of 
political debate for those of us who care about opportunity, broadbased 
economic opportunity in this country, to worry about concentration of 
economic power that snuffs out that opportunity. And every time we have 
engaged in that discussion, we are accused by somebody, someplace, 
somewhere, of being socialists. What a bunch of utter nonsense.
  This is a good candidate. He is a wonderful person and he will make a 
great Ambassador to the country of Finland. And I am convinced that a 
couple of years from now, if we talk in the cloakroom or on the floor, 
those of us who are interested in these issues, we will all conclude 
that the nomination that we confirmed for Prof. Derek Shearer to go to 
Finland to represent this country was a good decision for the United 
States Senate and a good decision for the country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have been asked by the senior Senator 
from Colorado, who manages time on this side, to manage the time.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm].
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I plead guilty to not knowing Professor 
Shearer, and I might like him if I knew him. But in no way have I 
stretched or bent or in any way changed the meaning of what Professor 
Shearer has written over a quarter of a century.
  Our dear colleague criticizes me for suggesting that Professor 
Shearer is talking about stealing property. But let me read to you 
Professor Shearer's own words, talking about his strategy for changing 
America in his 1980 book, ``Economic Democracy.'' On page 5, he writes:

       A strategy of reform must transfer capital from the 
     corporations to the public so that the people who work and 
     consume can collectively and democratically decide what to do 
     with it.

  Now, Mr. President, this is not trustbusting. This is stealing 
people's property.
  People have invested in companies like General Motors by the hundreds 
of thousands. They worked, they sacrificed, they made investments. 
Millions of Americans have their retirement funds invested in these 
enterprises. If seizing the wealth of a General Motors or a General 
Electric or Flatt Printing and Stationery Co. in Mexia is not a threat, 
what is it?
  We are not talking about trustbusting here. We are not talking about 
regulation here. We are talking about fundamentally destroying American 
private property and capitalism.
  So it is not a question that this is not a good person or a nice 
person or a likable person or a trustworthy person. The point is that 
Professor Shearer holds views that are alien to American democracy.
  If there is a fundamental tenet in the American Constitution, it is 
that you own your property. The idea of having the Government 
collectivize property so that the Government can decide what to do with 
it--who has a right to decide what to do with your savings and your 
paycheck except you? If freedom means anything, it means the right to 
control your property.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not prolong this.
  I guess the Senator from Texas made the point I was trying to make 
most recently. There is nowhere in the passage the Senator from Texas 
read in which you will find the words ``seizing private property.'' He 
invented the word ``seize.''
  As I listened to him, he would probably describe an ESOP as some 
Socialist conspiracy. An ESOP program is one in which, of course, there 
is the opportunity for workers to own part of the company in which they 
are employed. I would guess most Members here in the Senate, in one way 
or another, have voted for the ESOP approach in various bills in recent 
years.
  But my point is not to talk about ESOP's. It is to say that the 
Senator has taken the word ``seize'' and used it to describe a policy 
in which that word does not exist, and the Senator knows that.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes, please?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the statement made by Dr. Shearer could not 
be clearer, or the English language has no meaning, when he writes, ``A 
strategy of reform must transfer capital from the corporations to the 
public so that the people who work and consume can collectively and 
democratically decide what to do with it.''
  Mr. President, if taking the capital of General Motors and giving it 
to people to decide what to do with it who did not invest in General 
Motors is not a threat, what is it?
  Well, Dr. Shearer would say it is democratizing American business. 
This is political doublespeak which the Clinton administration 
consistently uses, but the meaning could not be clearer.
  And in terms of ESOP's, the important element is people buy the 
stocks in their company through a payroll deduction. And I strongly 
support that. But there is a difference between buying equity and 
buying capital and earning capital, and owning a home and owning a 
piece of land and owning investments which you earn by the sweat of 
your brow, and having the Government take it away from somebody else to 
decide what should be done with it. That is a fundamental distinction, 
and it goes to the very heart of what is America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, just 30 seconds will be enough.
  Again, I emphasize that the Senator himself makes my point. He did 
not use the word ``seize'' this time, because it is inappropriate; it 
does not apply to the professor's views.
  It is reflective, I think, of the wide range of choices one makes 
about how to interpret someone's views, that we have such stretching 
exercises here to take views that are written and can be read in 
different ways and stretch them as far as they can be stretched in 
order to portray someone believing something they do not.
  Professor Shearer has a realm of wide-ranging support from 
Republicans and Democrats who know him, who respect his views, who have 
worked with him for a long, long period of time. He is in the 
mainstream of political thought in this country and will make an 
excellent Ambassador to the country of Finland. The quicker we can 
confirm him, the better off this country will be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton].
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may utilize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with respect to this last exchange, this 
Senator finds himself substantially in agreement with the Senator from 
Texas on the subject of the views of Derek Shearer.
  He finds himself in agreement with the Senator from North Dakota, 
however, with respect to whether or not President Clinton has the right 
to have this individual as his Ambassador to Finland.
  My interpretation of Derek Shearer's views are that they are extreme, 
that they are, perhaps, in an academic sense, Marxist, and certainly 
Socialist, and that he is an advocate for very radical economic ideas 
with which this Senator profoundly disagrees. But this Senator does not 
regard it as his function, in debates over an individual who will serve 
at the pleasure of the President of the United States, to substitute 
his views for those of the President.
  And so, with some reluctance, with the feeling that the appointment 
is inappropriate but, nevertheless, within the broadest context of 
debate over economic principles in the United States, this Senator, at 
least, is going to vote in favor of the nomination of Dr. Shearer to be 
Ambassador to Finland.


                Statement on the Nomination of Sam Brown

  Mr. GORTON. The nomination of Sam Brown, however, I feel is 
profoundly different.
  I believe that the views expressed by Mr. Brown were beyond the 
broadest parameters of reasonable discussion of the position of the 
United States. The celebration of the defeat and humiliation of his own 
country while an officer, while an official of the U.S. Government, the 
celebration of the victory of totalitarianism, is something which I do 
not think is appropriate for any person appointed to a position of 
trust and honor under the United States.

  In the autumn of 1977, Sam Brown attended a pro-North Vietnamese 
rally to celebrate the admission of North Vietnam--then entire 
Vietnam--to the United Nations. Of that rally, Eric Sevareid wrote and 
spoke a day or so later. I quote the relevant portions.
  ``Several thousand other Americans joyfully welcomed the Hanoi 
delegation,'' yesterday in a New York City theater.

       This group never had the slightest objection to the 
     murderous civil war in Vietnam, which was started by the 
     Hanoi Communists, who invaded the South, where the war was 
     entirely fought save for the American bombing of the North.
       There's a great difference between those Americans who 
     wanted the United States out of the war because they thought 
     it was none of our business, unwinnable, morally and 
     politically destructive of our own principles and our own 
     society--between them and the Americans who wanted Hanoi to 
     win. It was the latter, for the most part, who met in the 
     theater and they had the effrontery to welcome the Hanoi 
     officials in the name of the American people.

                           *   *   *   *   *

        Most of those in the New York theater were not celebrating 
     peace. They were celebrating the triumph of Communist 
     totalitarianism, which is what they had always been working 
     for in the guise of a peace movement.

  That is the end of a quote from Eric Sevareid.
  Mr. Brown attended that rally and said, when asked to comment on it, 
and I quote him, ``I am deeply moved. It is difficult to describe my 
feelings. What can you say when the kinds of things that 15 years of 
your life were wrapped up in are suddenly before you?''
  And the 15-year quote was certainly correct. A few years earlier, in 
August 1970, Mr. Brown said, and I quote him again, ``On the night of 
the Cambodian invasion, part of me wanted to blow up buildings and I 
decided that those who have waged this war really should be treated as 
war criminals.''
  Now, it is those people whom he felt should have been treated as war 
criminals, or their successors, whom he is to supervise in this 
ambassadorial position; 19 out of 34 of the nonadministrative personnel 
of the office he is to head are members of the military and another 12 
are part of intelligence agencies of the United States. They are the 
very people who, in their individual capacities or in those of their 
successors, he will supervise in this particular position.
  Moreover, Sam Brown engaged in this rally and made the quote that I 
have read to you, the earlier quote I have read to you, while he was 
the head of the ACTION agency in the administration of President 
Carter, an official of the Government of the United States. In my view, 
that disqualifies him from any position of trust or honor under the 
Government of the United States.
  I, too, as has been mentioned earlier in the course of this debate, 
do believe in repentance. Mr. President, had Mr. Brown at any time, 
even during the course of his hearings, simply repudiated those 
previous positions, said that while he held them at the time he had 
reflected on them and that they were erroneous and that he should not 
have engaged in any such activity, this Senator, I suspect, would have 
been willing to forgive him.
  He has not done so. He has deprecated them. He said he really was not 
at the meeting very long and was not sure exactly what he meant. But he 
has not, as most do not, simply said I have looked back at the earlier 
part of my life and I was wrong to treat Americans in that fashion. Had 
he done that, I would not be here engaged in reading this quotation or 
in this opposition. But the kind of activities in which he engaged as 
an official of the United States are not just beyond the mainstream. 
They were beyond reasonable debate, to celebrate the defeat of the 
United States by a totalitarian power; to say this is what he had 
worked for and dreamt of for 15 years. That is not the kind of person 
who should be appointed as an Ambassador.
  The President has the right to appoint him to positions which do not 
require the consent of the Senate. The Senate should not ratify those 
views or his positions by giving him the title of Ambassador.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell].
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, regarding the nomination of Sam Brown, I 
would remind my colleague that Senator Simon stated just a short time 
ago that he chaired 14 hours of hearings on the staff report from which 
the Senator from Colorado quoted earlier. Senator Simon said that the 
subcommittee--this is in the House of Representatives--this 
subcommittee found nothing to substantiate the charge in the staff 
report. The only problems that arose were over those that Sam Brown 
inherited from his predecessors.
  I think it is important to bear in mind we have in our own body 
Members speaking for Sam Brown--the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], 
who conducted the hearing when he was a Member of the House of 
Representatives.
  I would also like to read into the Record a couple of letters here. 
First, a letter from Celeste & Sabety.

       I understand several Senators have raised questions 
     regarding Sam Brown's management style and skills in 
     connection with his leadership at ACTION in the late 1970s. 
     Since I had the opportunity to work directly with Sam Brown, 
     as Director of the Peace Corps from early 1979 to early 1981, 
     I would like to share with you and your colleagues my 
     personal observations.
       First, Brown understood the importance of direct 
     interaction with Peace Corps leadership in the field. The 
     meetings referred to in Casablanca and Nairobi were regional 
     meetings which brought Country Directors and key managers in 
     each region together with Headquarters staff to discuss 
     critical issues of program design, recruitment, training, and 
     support.
       From my perspective, at no time did Brown try to impose, or 
     even advocate, the initiation of relationships with countries 
     such as Vietnam, Mozambique or Angola. On my own initiative, 
     we did begin discussions aimed at re-entry into Nicaragua and 
     entry into China. Both of those conversations were halted in 
     1981.
       Second, Brown was ready, willing and able to delegate very 
     substantial responsibility to senior managers. I was able to 
     negotiate a significant autonomous relationship for the Peace 
     Corps within ACTION. Brown was open to discussing substantial 
     changes in organization structure, he was clear and direct in 
     identifying his concerns; and he was attentive to the 
     implementation of each of the changes we agreed upon.
       Brown, from my standpoint, was a thoughtful, involved and 
     programmatic manager. He recruited talented people (including 
     now Congressman John Lewis). He delegated responsibility 
     effectively. And he supported his key people in carrying out 
     the overall vision.
       Frankly, Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, the ACTION 
     agency experienced steady improvement under the leadership of 
     Sam Brown and his team. I am confident that Brown will 
     provide responsible and thoughtful leadership for the US 
     Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation, and 
     will engage and support the members of our delegation in a 
     manner which will serve our Nation's interests and principles 
     in the highest fashion.
       I hope these observations are helpful to you and your 
     colleagues in your deliberations.
           With best regards,
                                               Richard F. Celeste.

  Then, another letter from Congressman John Lewis, whom he just 
mentioned. He writes,

       During the Carter Administration, it was my pleasure and 
     delight to work with Sam Brown for more than three years when 
     I was Associate Director of the ACTION Agency.
       He was one of the most dedicated, committed, open-minded, 
     reasonable and supportive individuals with whom I have ever 
     had the opportunity to work. While he was director of ACTION, 
     he brought about considerable improvement in an agency which 
     had been programmed to be abolished by the previous 
     administration. During his and my tenure at ACTION, there was 
     continued improvement and growth in the Vista volunteers, the 
     Peace Corps, and the Older American programs.
       Senator, I have known Sam Brown not only in a working 
     relationship but close-up. I knew him long before we worked 
     together, and I have stayed in touch with him through the 
     years. He is a builder of bridges of understanding and 
     communications that transcends racial, ethnic, ideological 
     and national boundaries.
       I am convinced that he will serve our nation well as the 
     head of the delegation on the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). I think he is able and well-
     qualified for this position.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Lewis,
                                               Member of Congress.

  I have read these two letters into the Record--both had been 
addressed to me--because I felt they gave another facet to Mr. Brown's 
character which deserves to be given.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________