[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.
____________________